Answering Islam
infidel
~Šîr Míkë Hùnt Hërtz 111 ESQ©®™~
"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
<YAWN> NIGHTY NIGHT <YAWN> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZXYZZZZZZZZZ"
:?)
Monist__
>A Christain-Muslim dialog, September 2005
>http://answering-islam.org.uk/index.html
>
Is the following fair comment?
=========================
The Qur'an Becomes a Book
Shortly after Mohammed’s death, his verses remained written on stones,
bones, leather, and hidden in the memories of his followers. Years
passed and most of those, who claimed to remember all of the Qur'an by
heart, were killed in battle. Some of the items on which verses were
written were damaged or lost. So with great urgency experts shared
what they remembered and gathered the verses recorded by others to
produce the first Qur'ans. They were copied and distributed throughout
the Islamic communities.
Muslims today are committed to the idea that there was one original
Qur'an which was compiled without any mistakes, omissions or
additions. Yet, Islamic history shows that perhaps four to seven
different versions of the Qur'an emerged. One of Mohammed’s
successors, Caliph Uthman, was shocked by this fact. He assigned a
committee of three people to construct a standardized version of the
Qur'an. Then Muslim leaders tried to burn all other versions of the
Qur'an (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479).
The most respected Hadith records that even Uthman’s standardized copy
had to be corrected. One of the committee members, Zaid, related how
they realized that a verse was missing. They searched and found it
with a man named Khuzaima-bin-Thabit al Ansari. Tradition says that
the passage which was added to the standardized version is found in
chapter thirty-three, verse twenty-three of the modern Qur'an (Sahih
Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). Even with the addition of that passage,
there are less reliable Islamic traditions which report that verses
were left out of the Uthman standardized Qur'an. It was reported that
Mohammed recited verses for the Qur'an that commanded stoning of
adulterers (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684). This teaching is not
found in the Qur'an today.
The possibility of missing verses, which command stoning of
adulterers, is supported by Islamic practice. From the very foundation
of Islam, adulterers have always been stoned, yet Uthman’s
standardized Qur'an demands that adulterers be whipped with one
hundred lashes (24:2).
The vast majority of Muslims are strongly offended by scholars who
suggest that the Qur'an was edited, changed or was in any way
different from the original pronouncements of Allah through Mohammed.
They believe that the burned Qur'ans had only minor differences and
that the standard copy, blessed by Caliph Uthman, was made by devout
followers of Mohammed who had memorized the verses with unerring
perfection. They would reject the traditions that imply any
deficiencies in the Qur'an as unreliable Islamic history. They revere
the Qur'an as the perfect word of Allah and resist critical scholarly
inquiry into imperfections in the text.
============================
artie morty
wrote:
If what you have posted is correct - then the credibility of the
Qur'an must be at an all time low.
Isn't it amazing how people will follow a written verse (often
re-interpreting it to meet current needs) rather than follow plain old
ordinary human decency.
What a fucking world we live in.
Cheers
Artie
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
stupid and mad ?
This is the question of importance, and all the Zemite sects' religious
hogwash is just a smoke screen, to hide the genetic modification imposed
by the 3 JIC (Judeo-Islamo-Christian) sects upon their children indeed
The key understanding which has never been expressed before is,
1) Tempering with the Endocrinal system has immediate repercussion onto the
Nervous & Genetic system.
2) The atrophy of one of the endocrinal gland, upset immediately the
functioning of the others, which compensate the lost function by
hyperdevelopment of all the functioning glands
3) The seat of intelligence; memory, aggressively, sexual impulse, logical &
synthetic reasoning, inspiration / invention & spiritual awakening, IS NOT
in the nervous system. It is in the Endocrinal system in fact with specific
function related to all the Endocrines
4) The whole Quacks's system and especially at that, the Psy system of that
Dr Fraud drug addict & sexual deviant of Vienna and his debased parasites
followers, falls by the side indeed, since all the vicious interpretation
that fraud gave to children's behaviour does not apply. Indeed sexual
differentiation & awareness is not complete before the 7th year.
5) Racial traits are the result, not of alleged genetic heredity, but of
the growth into the mother's womb. Heredity is for more than 90% made
during pregnancy.
Teratology abounds in cases of children born looking like frogs, dogs or
elephants .
Dow Syndrome & Myxodémateux children are born from Hyperthyroidian mothers
... born then with an atrophied Thyroid and the mere complementation of
those children by Thyroid extract bring them back to normality for the end
of the 3rd puberty at 16 or 17. If an endocrinal gland is too much prompted
it goes in sleep or atrophy, if of course the Quacks 's & Disease Industry
ignore such fact which are not generative of profits. Dow Syndrome &
Myxodémateux is not due to anomaly of the 21st gene ( trisomic 21) but to a
definitive atrophy of the Thyroid producing as a result the trisomic 21
genetic consequence.
In photos I have in my extensive scientific library, a white man of
Caucasian type at 20, is shown with all the precise characteristics of a
negro at 60 . In between there is a Disease according to the Quacks known as
Acromegalie, but which is fact a Hyperfunction of the Hypophyse
6) There are not specific races on Earth, but only ethnies whose specific
traits are modulated by the Endocrinal system. All Chinese by ex. have a
Hypo function of the Thyroid due to stung interference with the liver
function by their specific diet.
In India there is a whole village population who exactly the same : men,
women, children, young, middle age and old people alike. The water feeding
that community has a very content in Cobalt.
Unborn children exposed to their mother 's internal fluids pollution are at
risk. Mercury pollution in the teeth of the mother with the pile /
electrolytic effect coupled with lead & silver is the real cause of Autism
( unknown by the Quacks of course)
Pollution by organo-phosphorus pesticides used on cattle is the cause of
Mad Cow Disease and Shaking Disease in sheep, and produces as a result
Alzheimer disease in Humans ( unknown by the Quacks of course)
NB Another intelligence of Man' real working along that superior approach,
makes it possible to cure Cancer, Brain Tumour, AIDS in less than 5 days,
Arthritis, Thrombosis, Arteriosclerosis, heart diseases in very much the
same time scale of 5 days up to a few weeks. Such fatal diseases become to
the superior mind aware of the Laws of Nature, ridiculous hurdles into
which are rightly plunged Humanity, because of its disregard & contempt
for said Divine Laws.
These above are just a few example and an introduction for what will follow.
All are aware indeed of the Intrinsic hate the 3 Zemite JIC (
Judeo-Islamo-Christian) sects have for each others .
The Zews, the Slamits and the Xians have typical traits and the literature
on that subject abounds indeed, the contribution of "infidel", to whom I am
replying, illustrates what I am saying.
It will go to the end of time, and each one of the Sects '
Zews 's mutilation of their children on the 1st day of the 1st puberty ( 8th
day after birth) by destroying the Interstitial, or Genital intern with the
consequences of the hyperfunetion of al other endocrines, created then the
famous chosen race ! Conducting to the typical physical & mental traits of
the Zews.
As a note, the complete population of the Causase, the Khazars, was
transformed in Zews in the 9th century following the conversion of the Kazan
( or King of such). From the immediate mutilation of new-born Khazar
children following was established another chosen race in Caucase then which
is known now as the Ashkenazi. It has all the characters of the Sepharades
Zews who are rightly of zemite descent, but the Ashkenazy converts are in
fact more religious as the others indeed ! What can be noted in the Zews as
the result of the mutilation, are their popping eyes indicating a Thyroid
disfunction ( hyperfunction) with the immediate consequences on the nervous
system. etc
Slamists 's mutilation of their children on the 2nd puberty (from 7th year )
with the consequences of atrophy of the Pineal, by discovering at a later
age the reflex zone of the glan. Creating further a permanent erection
syndrome in the male, with permanent prompting of the Genital extern, and
consequent weakening of the Thyroid ! ... all this giving the Slamists
typical physical and moral traits, particularly at that their crass
ignorance of their conditions and the reason for it. Furthermore, the
Slamists have a particularity of shuning alcohol and wine , while being in
fact permanent alcoholics. Indeed their weakened pancreatic funtion produced
as well from the mutilation results in a bad management of sugar & insulin
then. Hence the propensity of Slamists for non-leven pasta and enormous
quantity of chemical sugar in their diet. The clear result is to upset the
normal intestinal lactic fermentation, and to lead to most potent Alcoholic
fermentation. So the Slamists do not drink alcohol, they make it !!! ... and
through their very diet, with cirrhosis galore in such population, puffed
up body, bad breath, white tongue and of course abominable intestinal gases
resulting from their own Mobile Alcohol Still ...Although further Slamists
do not eat Hogs, they do eat like the Xians, like Hogs indeed
Xians 's mutilation of their children although more subtle is somehow as
well very insidious. It goes through the Hogs s like feeding specific of
that degenerated sect of blood drinkers. Well in the blood of animals are
contained the Hormones specific of such cow, sheep, hogs, snails etc
which the Christians feed on. Anything is good as long a palatable, research
of food pleasure is typical of Xians society !
Unfortunately the Xians children bear the awful consequences of such debased
and ignorant way of living... with the typical Coward trait of Christian
society. Their propensity to lay low, to crawl in front of authority, to
accept as gospel truth anything spoken sufficiently loud & strong !!
(to be continued)
...indeed each of the JIC sects has two pillars, and we have considered
only the 1st ! The religious hogwash discourse, being as said before, just
a smokescreen to maintain the believers in step.
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Shadow Ambassador of Australia in France
(Commissioned to prevent French migration to Australia)
--
Australia Mining Pioneer
Exploration Geologist
Discoverer and Legal Owner of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre Mines
The Great Sandy Desert of Australia
Founder of the True Geology
* The "Golden Rule" or true story of the Discovery of the Telfer Mine
Author Bob Sheppard President of the APLA (Australian Prospectors' Union)
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html ,
* As well as Dr Don Findlay's Geological Site
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
~~ Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"infidel" <summerov...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1125680919.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How true!
>
> http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimintolerance.htm
>
I Love Edsels
tin foil hat.
infidel
"artie morty" <artie...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:p1shh1d7sp82p8ri1...@4ax.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%27ran#Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur.27an
---
FA
I.
Sunny
"Jean-Paul Turd" < Raving_...@Kooksville.net.fr >
> The key understanding which has never been expressed before is,
Take your pills and make a dozen of these :
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
fasgnadh
B^D
You mean it would have been ok with you hate mongers
if it was written down by the illiterate rug merchant
it was revealed to?
Then you would have believed it? B^D
>>Isn't it amazing how people will follow a written verse
Not for long.
Millions of words have been written, few stand the test of time.
Christian scriptures, with an even more dubious provenance than
the Koran, have lasted 2,000 years. The Torah even longer.
None of the Gospels were written at the time of Jesus.
What was selected as the Catholic Canon was chosen centuries
later, including some books, excluding others.
Do the Dead Sea Scrolls belong? B^D
The Gospels contain differing accounts, from various authors,
recorded long after the crucifiction.
You have absolutely no comprehension of what Truth
means in the context of scripture, especially those
from an ORAL tradition.
As Jesus said, you obsess over the Letter and ignore
the Spirit.
Read Genesis, there are TWO stories of the creation,
which one is 'right'?
The history of the Jews, for example was written down
while they were in bondage, after they had LOST everything
central to their religion, including the Land and the Temple.
Read Bishop Shelby Spong for a thorough and learned account
of the internal contradictions of the Bible.
So what?
It destroys the LITERALIST interpretation of the Bible
entirely, but only the fundies hold such ignorant views
anyway. Serious bible scholars are well aware of the
interwoven textual fragments overlayed in what we now know
as a collected work, the Bible.
"Some Hindus bought an elephant, which they exhibited
in a dark shed. As seeing it was impossible, everyone
felt it with the palm of his hand.
The hand of one fell on its trunk: he said
"This animal is like a water pipe".
Another touched its ear: to him the creature seemed
like a fan.
Another handled its leg and described the elephant as
having the shape of a pillar.
Another stroked its back. "Truly", said he,
"this elephant resembles a throne".
Had each of them held a lighted candle
there would have been no contradiction in their words."
- JALALU'DIN - RUMI
The sustaining truths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have
proved useful to civilization building for centuries.
"The lamps are different but the Light is the same:
it comes from Beyond.
If thou keep looking at the lamp, thou art lost:
for there arises the appearance of number and plurality.
Fix thy gaze upon the Light,
and thou art delivered from the dualism inherent
in the finite body.
O thou who art the Kernel of Existence,
the disagreement between Moslem, Zoroastrian and Jew
depends upon the standpoint."
This was understood in the 11th Century, do try and catch up!
What other set of ideas can claim as much?
Atheism?
The most successful society which explicitly claimed to
reject all concept of God, and to be based on purely
rational valuies, not revealed spiritual ones,
was the Soviet Union.. it lasted a mere 7 decades.
When you have a rational, scientific explanation,for
how those societies based on the revealed word of
God are the ones which last, come back and we will talk,
God Willing. ;-)
artie morty
Interesting read - thanks for the link.
Still takes you back to the questions:
1. The Qur'an is either true or false
2. You either believe in it or you don't.
Written text is changed too much when passed on from person to person.
It's human nature to embelish and exagerate stories simply to get a
point across.
Seems to me that anything written centuries ago (and I'm not only
talking about the Qur'an) has had to have been embelished through the
years simply to keep up with the expectations of those reading it.
Makes you wonder how much fact is contained in any religious readings.
Cheers
Artie
artie morty
wrote:
Quite a lecture Two Dogs - were you sitting in your pulpit when you
wrote it?
I have not expressed a doubt that God or Allah etc exists, only that
those who follow him (or her) may have embellished the written word
over the years, to the point that it may have been corrupted so much
from its original meaning that it is now useless.
It's human nature to embellish - for example:
How many time have you told your mates you have been laid over the
years, Two Dogs?
Now, how many times has it really been?
As to why do religious societies seem to exist longer than non
religious ones - perhaps humanity needs a binding agent to keep them
together, and religion gives the mutual hope that people need to
survive.
What ever the reason, I'm sure you'll let me know.
Cheers
Artie
fasgnadh
> those who follow him (or her) may have embellished the written word
> over the years, to the point that it may have been corrupted so much
> from its original meaning that it is now useless.
>
Then lead on, ..tell us one example of where the Koran text
has been embellished.
Sura and verse, what the text was and what it is now.
If it has been so 'corrupted' by changes as to be 'useless'
then you should have numerous examples to choose from..
one or two should suffice.
If I don't hear from you on this I will assume that, as usual,
you are full of shit and not worth listening to.
artie morty
wrote:
How the fuck am I supposed to know what was originally written by
Muhummads followers in the Qur'an.
It was 1400 years ago, fool.
And by the way - do you?
And seeing he couldn't read or write, Muhummad probably didn't know
what was written in it either - he just assumed that his spoken word
was written correctly.
And also the belief is there that the Qur'an was only written after
Muhammads death, so I'm sure he didn't proof read the thing anyway.
What I said was that it was human nature to embellish, and that maybee
all religious text has been compromised overthe years.
Typical of you to take the comment as a detriment to Islam.
Do I detect some sort of religious inferiority complex creeping in?
Did you know that there are 2 versions (possibly 3) of the Qur'an for
sale today, both have differences in their text.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html
Sort of proves a point, don't you think?
Here's an interesting line from the following site:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it
was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories
of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the
text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the
additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text
during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad
were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by
Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so
many had memorized.
Sounds like embellishment to me!
http://www.iad.org/Quran/recording.html
Hello - this site says the Qur'an was put into text through Muhammads
life (a pretty lame example at that), yet the previous one said it
wasn't.
That's called a contradiction.
Face it Two Dogs - there is no scientific proof to your theory - only
faith that the Qur'an is in its original form.
Similar to the Shroud of Turin - you either believe it or you don't.
I suggest you do a little more research before you put your foot in
your mouth in future.
Cheers
Artie
Zappy
"Monist__" <no_...@filter.net> wrote in message
news:j2qhh1lgnu5o4h9do...@4ax.com...
The parallel with the Holy Bible is obvious. Even after the Councils of
Nicaea and Tent, The Bible was revised and interpreted in line with
prevailing orthodoxy. Why we should be surpirsed the same the happened with
the Koarn is a mystery to me.
Hunter1
> artie morty wrote:
>>
>> I have not expressed a doubt that God or Allah etc exists, only that
>> those who follow him (or her) may have embellished the written word
>> over the years, to the point that it may have been corrupted so much
>> from its original meaning that it is now useless.
>
> Then lead on, ..tell us one example of where the Koran text
> has been embellished.
>
> Sura and verse, what the text was and what it is now.
>
> If it has been so 'corrupted' by changes as to be 'useless'
> then you should have numerous examples to choose from..
>
> one or two should suffice.
>
> If I don't hear from you on this I will assume that, as usual,
> you are full of shit and not worth listening to.
Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
identical to the original works.
People should all convert to the religion of the Drunken Jedi, that's
one religion that does not have verses about slaughtering other people
because they are different (luckily both the Christians and Muslims for
the most part ignore those particular verses in their holy books). In
fact Drunken Jedi doesn't have verses at all, it merely requires that
everyone get along despite differences and have a beer together
(although the alcohol ain't an absolute requirement, just the attitude
of joviality that comes from a good pissup).
Of course there is a "dark side" that must be fought against, the
far-left and far-right loons that just want to hate for no reason, the
religious extremists that just want to hate for no reason, in fact any
no-lifer that just wants to hate people for no reason, and the road to
the darkside is paved with paranoia. And although there is no belief of
life after death or afterlife (we just turn into maggot food and
"cease"), there is belief of hell, and that is what exists in the minds
of those who follow the dark side, and through their actions what they
inflict upon the Earth.
1MAN4ALL
> Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
> and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
> much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
> centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
> they want.
Not possible with Quran, as it has always been 'miraculously' memorized
from the very beginning by a small minority among Muslims (even by
those who don't know Arabic), and by people living in so many different
countries.
Islamic Awareness web site has done a pretty good job of answering
critics:
Here is a link:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Sunny
"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125797486.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hunter1 wrote:
>
>> Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
>> and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
>> much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
>> centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
>> they want.
>
> Not possible with Quran, as it has always been 'miraculously' memorized
> from the very beginning by a small minority among Muslims (even by
> those who don't know Arabic), and by people living in so many different
> countries.
"miraculously memorized" ?
Glad to see that the Tooth Fairy is alive and well also.
(Do you really fail to realise what it's like to live a lie?)
Hunter1
> Hunter1 wrote:
>
>>Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
>>and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
>>much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
>>centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
>>they want.
>
> Not possible with Quran,
Yes it is, quite likely in fact, just as it is with the bible.
> as it has always been 'miraculously' memorized
> from the very beginning by a small minority among Muslims (even by
> those who don't know Arabic), and by people living in so many different
> countries.
I don't believe in miracles. I believe in human nature, both good and bad.
> Islamic Awareness web site has done a pretty good job of answering
> critics:
> Here is a link:
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
I see a section accusing the Christians of having distortions over time
in their Bible, and I see a section arguing that the Korans around today
are the same despite language differences, but I don't see any proof
(nor can there be) that the words that were "remembered" were remembered
correctly and not modified to suit the needs of the people using them at
the time, and human nature dictates that this is more than likely what
would've happened.
I have no problem with anyone following any religion they like, but
people that wish to discuss religion should be open to everyone else's
point of view as well, and mine happens to be that it is very unlikely
that there is any religious writing that has existed for a substantial
amount of time that has not been modified in the years close to the
inception of these religions to suit their needs. Quite obviously after
the religion becomes widespread this is no longer possible without
distinctly different "strains" of the religion to occur, as one group
can not control what other groups "remember" or write, but I'd strongly
suggest that in the early days of ALL religions things would have been
wacked around to suit the needs of the power-merchants of the time.
And further to that, even when the actual "words" do become stable,
interpretation of those words then becomes the tool instead, and that is
seen in a very large way in both the Christian and Muslim faiths. What
is "evil" to one group following a religion, is perfectly alright to
another group following the very same religious tomes. It's all about
what suits the people in power. That is why I don't trust the leaders of
ANY religion that commands power and "followers", they ALL have been and
in many cases are being used by unscrupulous people to get what they want.
1MAN4ALL
Hunter1 wrote:
> > Islamic Awareness web site has done a pretty good job of answering
> > critics:
> > Here is a link:
> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
> I see a section accusing the Christians of having distortions over time
> in their Bible, and I see a section arguing that the Korans around today
> are the same despite language differences, but I don't see any proof
> (nor can there be) that the words that were "remembered" were remembered
> correctly and not modified to suit the needs of the people using them at
> the time, and human nature dictates that this is more than likely what
> would've happened.
The web sites has many, many sections and if you do take the time to
explore it you would find out that it does answer your comments. If you
are in a hurry to 'shoot' your comments at me, without even trying to
understand, then there is nobody who will ever have the 'right' answer
but you:-)
One thing that I always encourage people to do is to ignore all other
people who would be reading your post. You and me are not in a contest.
We are not even debating. We are only discussing. So if you truly want
a meaningful dialogue, you need to open your heart, your mind, and your
door to a stranger like who has to step in to reassure you that I am no
threat to anything that you cherish.... [I am speaking symbolically
here and I have no intention of visiting you at your house:-)]
I could have been you and you could have been me.
> I have no problem with anyone following any religion they like, but
> people that wish to discuss religion should be open to everyone else's
> point of view as well, and mine happens to be that it is very unlikely
> that there is any religious writing that has existed for a substantial
> amount of time that has not been modified in the years close to the
> inception of these religions to suit their needs. Quite obviously after
> the religion becomes widespread this is no longer possible without
> distinctly different "strains" of the religion to occur, as one group
> can not control what other groups "remember" or write, but I'd strongly
> suggest that in the early days of ALL religions things would have been
> wacked around to suit the needs of the power-merchants of the time.
Well, Muslims take a lot of pride in claiming that unlike other
scriptures, theirs hasn't changed in more than 1400 years. If you do
take the time to read and study, especially from the Islamic Awareness
web site, you will find out that except for minor diacritical
marks--which have been meticulously noted in many exegesis, Quran
hasn't changed at all. [I do no always agree with everything that
Islamic Awareness web site has to offer, but as far as establishing the
authenticity of Quran they have done a yeoman's job.
> And further to that, even when the actual "words" do become stable,
> interpretation of those words then becomes the tool instead, and that is
> seen in a very large way in both the Christian and Muslim faiths. What
> is "evil" to one group following a religion, is perfectly alright to
> another group following the very same religious tomes. It's all about
> what suits the people in power. That is why I don't trust the leaders of
> ANY religion that commands power and "followers", they ALL have been and
> in many cases are being used by unscrupulous people to get what they want.
One of the problems that most Americans and Europeans have is that they
have unrealistically high expectations from religious people. For them,
an evil act committed by a religious person automatically discredits
his or her religion, whereas a crime committed by a non-religious
person does not implicates his social or political philosophy. And
because of this strong bias or hypocrisy, many people do not even
approach religion with an open mind.
One of the problems is that Christianity evolved over many centuries;
what the Church thought and did became part of the religion. Hence,
people like you could easily point out the obvious conundrum--how can
any Church decide for God?
Islam, fortunately, never had that problem, for it was stated that
"Truth stands clear from error;" God speaks for Himself in the Quran.
Muslims do not represent Islam; it represents itself. Although there
are many scholars and teachers of Islam, none can claim to speak for
it, and that is why many Muslims are bemused when Christians and Jews
suggest that Islam has been "hijacked by extremists". If for many
Westerners Islam looks like a telephone that anybody can pick up to
dial 911 (no pun intended), the problem is their ignorance of what
Islam is and not what they are hearing from others.
So my suggestion to you is that you should do a proper study of Islam
yourself and consult knowledgeable Muslims when you have a question.
If you are going to have an alias like Hunter, you better start hunting
for truth, not start shooting from the hip:- )
Rifty
> Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
> and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
> much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
> centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
> they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
> identical to the original works.
It's somewhat less naive in the case of the Qur'an. It received its
final recension and was written down in the time of the third Caliph,
when, as was noted by others here, all contradictory accounts were
destroyed. That version still exists, so to that extent, what is the
Qur'an hasn't changed since that time. It's on display and not able to
be changed.
What *HAS* changed over time is the interpretation of those verses.
What also creates different schools of thought in Islam are the
different forms of hadith and how they are to be intepreted.
In the end, it's quite true - either you are a Muslim, and believe
absolutely in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, or you don't.
To me, to depend on the written word and have absolute faith that you
understand it is what really is naive!
Rifty
--
Academic and Computing Help
http://rifty.net
1MAN4ALL
> Hunter1 <hun...@arach.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
> > and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
> > much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
> > centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
> > they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
> > identical to the original works.
>
> It's somewhat less naive in the case of the Qur'an. It received its
> final recension and was written down in the time of the third Caliph,
> when, as was noted by others here, all contradictory accounts were
> destroyed. That version still exists, so to that extent, what is the
> Qur'an hasn't changed since that time. It's on display and not able to
> be changed.
I suggest that you too should visit the Islamic Awareness web site.
> What *HAS* changed over time is the interpretation of those verses.
> What also creates different schools of thought in Islam are the
> different forms of hadith and how they are to be intepreted.
Quran is an extremely condensed book with a very rich vocabulary, so
various interpretations are always possible, but the major
disagreements among Muslims have to do with how closely one has to
follow the Sunnah (the practice) of Prophet Muhammad and his
companions, or who should have succeeded the Prophet, not what's in the
Quran, as that is mostly straight forward.
> In the end, it's quite true - either you are a Muslim, and believe
> absolutely in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, or you don't.
> To me, to depend on the written word and have absolute faith that you
> understand it is what really is naive!
Quran is a very general guideline and things that are actually
prohibited are very few: alcohol, adultery, pork, and some other things
that are already illegal or considered bad in Western societies. As
far as "absolute faith" is concerned, it comes with trust, consistency
and experience. If you work with that criteria, you can find the truth;
otherwise, you can't.
Jafar As-Sadiq Calley
> Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
> and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
> much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
> centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
> they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
> identical to the original works.
The Qur'aan (in Arabic) has not been changed, added to or adjusted in
any way apart from the addition of diacritical marks to the Arabic
language to assist non-native speakers to read it correctly. Even
English translations are pretty similar with no added or subtracted verses.
We have however, many different versions of the Bible with additions,
subtractions, rewrites etc...
Today's Qur'aan is the same as the Qur'aan from 10, 100 or 1000 years ago.
--
Jafar Calley
€€R.L.Measures
Calley <ja...@home.org> wrote:
>Hunter1 wrote:
>
>> Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
>> and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
>> much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
>> centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
>> they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
>> identical to the original works.
>
>The Qur'aan (in Arabic) has not been changed, added to or adjusted in
>any way apart from the addition of diacritical marks to the Arabic
>language to assist non-native speakers to read it correctly.
• That's also what Bible thumpers claim. Neither the NT or the Qur'an
was published within a century of the death of its respective founder. By
the 13th century, the Roman church had made so many changes in doctrine
that lay Catholics were forbidden to even read Bible. [Council of
Valencia.(1229)] -- and those that did were subject to toasting by the
Holy Office of the Inquisition.
>Even
>English translations are pretty similar with no added or subtracted verses.
>We have however, many different versions of the Bible with additions,
>subtractions, rewrites etc...
>Today's Qur'aan is the same as the Qur'aan from 10, 100 or 1000 years ago.
• Excellent point, and all promise an eternal reward of boy-bliss to the
faithful.
-- Qur'an: verse 52:24: " ... ... young boys of their own, as fair as
pearls."
--- Qur'an: verse 76:19: " They shall be attended by boys graced with
eternal youth, who to their beholder's eyes will seem like sprinkled
pearls. When you gaze upon that scene you will behold a kingdom
blissful and glorious."
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
Monist__
>
>In the end, it's quite true - either you are a Muslim, and believe
>absolutely in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, or you don't.
>
That would depend on how a Muslim defined him/herself. Also the
following suggests liberal interpretations of the Qu'ran are justified
even by the Qu'ran itself.
From:
http://www.liberalislam.net/law.html
Islam without Islamic Law
(c) 1994 by Zeeshan Hasan. First published in Bangladesh in the Dec.
24, 1994 issue of the weekly Holiday.
The so-called "fundamentalists" of the Muslim world have in common
their demands for an Islamic state governed by traditional Islamic
law. Anyone who holds such a view has already assumed that the proper
interpretation of Islam requires societal rather than individual
adherence to religion; that there is necessarily an "Islamic law"
which a good Muslim must accept and support. This is the view of
Islamic law that conservatives often proclaim. However, a study of the
primary Muslim scripture, the Qur'an, and of the coercive implications
of law will allow us to see Islam as a purely personal religion. Such
an interpretation of Islam will dictate an Islamic code of ethics
according to which pious Muslims must conduct themselves; but it will
not justify any kind of "Islamic law".
Let us look at the following verse of the Qur'an, whose anti-legal
consequences have been overlooked by traditional Muslim scholars. It
may be referred to hereafter as the "compulsion verse".
No compulsion is there in religion.
Rectitude has become clear from error.
{Surah 2 (al-Baqara), verse 256)
The above verse has traditionally been interpreted to be limited in
applicability to Jews and Christians. The reasoning was simple: since
these religious groups are held to be descended from God's revelations
through previous prophets, they must be respected as "People of the
Scripture" and not converted by force. It is important to note,
though, that the verse itself makes no indication of having such a
limited scope. It reads, quite simply, as a sweeping generalization.
The implication of the compulsion verse is thus that Islam, in its
ultimate form, must be free of coercion. The truest expression of the
religion must rather be voluntary religious belief.
Now, let us ask a simple question: what is law? For that matter, what
is the purpose of any institutionalized social regulation? The answer
is obvious: coercion. Social constraints such as law exist for the
purpose of suppressing the actions of individuals which are felt to be
intolerable. A purely non-coercive code of behavior would have to
consist not of law, but of a personal system of ethics which is not
enforced by society.
As law is coercive, and if Islam must not be coercive, then there can
be no "Islamic law". This possibility is ignored by both mediaeval
Muslim scholars and modern conservatives. Once we realize that we have
a choice between an "Islamic law" and an "Islamic ethic", a little
thought will show the latter to arise naturally.
Islamic law begins with the assumption that society should be
constrained to conform with a particular view of Islamic behavior. But
who is to decide what is "Islamic" and what is not? Conservatives
would insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Islam is that
developed by centuries of "scholarly consensus" (ijma'). But this is
unsatisfactory; Muslims are supposed to be faithful to the divine
revelation of the Qur'an, not to any tradition of man-made
scholarship. For a Muslim arguing from the Qur'an, every aspect of
such traditional scholarship is questionable.
Islam requires primarily that one be faithful to the divinely revealed
truth of the Qur'an. But the Qur'an may be interpreted in an infinite
variety of ways. At least one of these is completely non-legalist; but
from a human perspective all are equally valid. Only God can know
which of the potential interpretations is the correct one; and this
information is out of humanity's reach. So it is impossible to resolve
the differences between radically different interpretation of the
Qur'an. In particular, no amount of argument will suffice to overcome
the anti-legalism of the compulsion verse. But if a non-legalist Islam
is possible, then "Islamic Law" loses its claim to being a fundamental
part of the Musli m faith. To impose it would be to deprive Muslims of
their rights as believers to choose the interpretation of the Qur'an
which they believe in.
Conservatives may argue that Muslims must establish an "Islamic
society" to clear each others' paths of temptations and help guide one
another to moral lives. This objection is in error, as a person's
religion is not just an outward obedience to rules and regulations,
but also an inward, existential acceptance of them. People who are not
sufficiently dedicated to Islam to adhere to its ethical standards of
their own free will are not good Muslims, and forcing their adherence
in spite of themselves remedies nothing. The objective of Muslims
collectively must be to allow each to grow individually stronger in
faith, not to force a hollow compliance on a hypocritical society.
There are a number of objections which the conservative Muslim would
still raise to this argument. The first is that it encourages
immorality, as the elimination of Islamic law would render all of the
Qur'anic ethical requirements unenforceable. This is easily answered
by the distinction between law and voluntary personal ethics. Even if
there is no such thing as Islamic law, there is still the possibility
of a non-coercive Islamic morality. One does not need a law to be
moral; only the convictions of personal faith. In fact, the liberal
can easily argue that a Muslim who behaves morally in the absence of
"Islamic law" is superior in faith to one whose behavior is shaped by
social pressures. An Islam characterized by ethics rather than law is
of greater moral worth, not less.
Traditionally, Muslims have refused to accept non-legalist
interpretations of Islam because they require the abandonment of many
explicitly legal Qur'anic verses, as well as ignoring the practice of
Muhammad the Prophet of Islam as described in the Hadith literature.
Neither of these are insurmountable difficulties. The first can be
handled by treating the problematic legal verses as having been
overruled by the "compulsion" verse. The second can be solved through
reference to the particular needs of Muhammad's community and his
prophetic career.
With regards to the many legalist verses of the Qur'an, even
traditional Muslim scholars developed theories by which certain verses
could be modified or overruled by others. This was the religious
science of "abrogation" (naskh). Traditional scholars, of course,
never went to the extent of canceling all of the legal verses through
the "compulsion" verse. To do so would have been to undermine their
own authority. The Muslim legal scholar has always been powerful
precisely because of his ability to dictate law. In whatever form,
"abrogation" is an incredibly powerful tool; it implies that
individual legalist verses need not be accepted as ultimately
significant to the Qur'anic message. As the eminent Pakistani scholar
Fazlur Rahman was fond of pointing out, such individual verses can be
overruled by whatever general principles we may find in the Qur'an. In
the current case, we need only adopt non-legalism as our general
principle outlined in the compulsion verse.
The objection of the Hadith is a more complex one; conservatives will
always insist that Muhammad was the perfect Muslim and should be
imitated in every way. This supposedly should include the laws under
which he and his followers in Mecca and Medina were asked to live
under. But all we need to overcome this is to question some common
assumptions about the role of Muhammad as the leader of the early
Muslim community. The fact that Muhammad's community was required to
live under a religious law dictated by his personal decisions may
simply mean that such a law was necessary at the time for very
practical political reasons. The new Muslim community had to define
for itself an identity separate from that of the pre-Islamic tribal
order it was breaking away from; the obvious way to do this was with a
new set of laws, distinct from the old pagan ways. These new laws
would obviously emerge from the dictates of their leader. In that
case, adherence to the practices which Muhammad instituted as the
prophetic 'sunnah', and the consequent embodying of the Hadith texts
with almost as much legal weight as the Qur'an, simply misses the
point. Since Muhammad's role was to found and lead the Muslim
community, obviously his practices had to be considered normative at
that time. Any deviation would have constituted a challenge to his
leadership of the community. But this does not imply that later
generations of Muslims still have to follow the prophetic legal
practices, as with Muhammad's death the issue of challenging his
personal leadership ceases to exist. This interpretation of Muhammad's
role would make him the initiator of Islamic society, but not its
model. Thus, later Muslim communities need not imitate the legal
practices of their founder. The ritual and non-legal norms of Muslim
behavior (for example the five daily prayers) may still be viewed as
appropriate personal models nonetheless, since they are acts of
individual piety rather than community law.
The legalism of Muhammad's early Muslim community can be disregarded
totally in the light of the compulsion verse. It must be remembered
that the Qur'an is the divine revelation of Islam, while the Hadith
are the sayings and practices of Muhammad. Though even the latter may
be assigned some degree of revelatory status, the Qur'an should never
be allowed to be overruled by the Hadith. Although conservatives would
object to such a dismissive attitude towards the practices of the
Messenger of God, it is perfectly reasonable given the supremacy of
divine over human authority. Islam defines itself as the religion of
God, not as the religion of Muhammad. In the Qur'an, though the
compulsion verse, ultimately opposes legalism, then no contrary
argument from the Hadith can be valid.
One final objection to a non-legalist Islam is that in focusing on
ethics it ignores the fact that societies need laws for their
preservation and stability. This is true, but irrelevant. Law does not
need to have a basis in religion; only in usefulness. If society finds
it useful to punish murderers, laws will be developed to punish them.
There is no danger of lawlessness in secular society. Muslims are
quite capable of living under secular law. A truly secular law will
allow fro freedom of religion, and no more is required from the state.
A useful example can be made here from the Qur'anic position on theft.
And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both,
as a recompense for what they have earned, and a
punishment exemplary from God...
{Surah 5 (al-Maida), verse 38}
Above is one of many explicitly legalist verses of the Qur'an.
However, if we accept the non-legalist interpretation of the
compulsion verse, then the above must be viewed as defining an ethic
rather than a law. If there is no Islamic law, then the above
punishment cannot be enforced. However, theft will remain an
un-Islamic act, and those who commit it cannot be good Muslims. In
this framework, Islamic law ceases to be active, but the legalist
injunctions of the Qur'an continue to define the moral standards of
the Muslim community. Of course theft will still be punishable by law,
if society feels the need; but these laws can now be secular rather
than Islamic, and be based upon the needs of the community rather than
a particular verse of scripture.
Given the dismal realities of most of the developing world, it is no
surprise that religion becomes useful as a political rallying cry.
People disgusted with the situation around them can find a much needed
ideology for revolutionary change in radical Islamic parties and their
utopian promises. But it is only a particular and avoidable
interpretation of Islam which results in the "fundamentalist" idea of
Islamic law. This ideology is thus not "fundamental" to Islam at all,
and the term "fundamentalism" becomes something of a misnomer in its
suppression of the possibilities for liberal Qur'anic interpretation.
Rifty
> That would depend on how a Muslim defined him/herself. Also the
> following suggests liberal interpretations of the Qu'ran are justified
> even by the Qu'ran itself.
Very good answer and explanation. Thank you.
The real problem is that people take dogmatic stances on certain
interpretations of text. That is what causes all the problems. Words are
good servants but bad masters.
Hunter1
> Hunter1 wrote:
>
>>I see a section accusing the Christians of having distortions over time
>>in their Bible, and I see a section arguing that the Korans around today
>>are the same despite language differences, but I don't see any proof
>>(nor can there be) that the words that were "remembered" were remembered
>>correctly and not modified to suit the needs of the people using them at
>>the time, and human nature dictates that this is more than likely what
>>would've happened.
>
> The web sites has many, many sections and if you do take the time to
> explore it you would find out that it does answer your comments.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to explore the site in depth, in
fact I've spent too long playing in usenet tonight, I need to work
tomorrow but hey, the religion of the Drunken Jedi calls for drinking
and that is what's kept me going tonight, far be it from me to defy my
religion.
> If you
> are in a hurry to 'shoot' your comments at me, without even trying to
> understand, then there is nobody who will ever have the 'right' answer
> but you:-)
And if you are so polarised by your own opinion you are the only one who
will ever have the 'right' answers for yourself. I tend to play devil's
advocate (probly a bad choice of terms in a religious discussion, but
hey, shit happens), but I'm more than happy to be open-minded about
something if the loot is shown to me, I'm not going to read a bible
however to find a verse someone claims is in there, equally I'm not
going to prowl an entire in-depth website to find something you tell me
is there "somewhere". Feel free to point me to exactly what you're
talking about if you feel the inclination.
> One thing that I always encourage people to do is to ignore all other
> people who would be reading your post. You and me are not in a contest.
I agree entirely, there's too much in the way of pissing contests in
usenet, and I'm probably more guilty than most at perpetuating these,
but that's the way I am. If people hate one group, I shit on their group
using the same grounds they used to shit on afore-mentioned group. It
clears up hypocrisy to the open-minded, and spotlights hypocrites when
they aren't open-minded. But all of us have our own dose of hypocrisy,
none of us is free of that sin.
> We are not even debating. We are only discussing. So if you truly want
> a meaningful dialogue, you need to open your heart, your mind, and your
> door to a stranger like who has to step in to reassure you that I am no
> threat to anything that you cherish....
I never had any thought that you were, in fact I thought your post was
pretty damn friendly considering bugger all else is in the current
anti-Muslim hysteria plaguing usenet, I was actually trying to do the
right thing in return, but I tend to be pretty blunt about my opinions,
but even after reading back over it I don't think I really said anything
offensive, just a statement on my view of things.
> [I am speaking symbolically
> here and I have no intention of visiting you at your house:-)]
You'd be welcome, got no problem with people that want to pop around and
yack and have a beer, the beer ain't obligatory if you don't drink, just
don't be offended when I have one.
> I could have been you and you could have been me.
And neither of us knows who's doing better out of that deal. :)
>>I have no problem with anyone following any religion they like, but
>>people that wish to discuss religion should be open to everyone else's
>>point of view as well, and mine happens to be that it is very unlikely
>>that there is any religious writing that has existed for a substantial
>>amount of time that has not been modified in the years close to the
>>inception of these religions to suit their needs. Quite obviously after
>>the religion becomes widespread this is no longer possible without
>>distinctly different "strains" of the religion to occur, as one group
>>can not control what other groups "remember" or write, but I'd strongly
>>suggest that in the early days of ALL religions things would have been
>>wacked around to suit the needs of the power-merchants of the time.
>
> Well, Muslims take a lot of pride in claiming that unlike other
> scriptures, theirs hasn't changed in more than 1400 years. If you do
> take the time to read and study, especially from the Islamic Awareness
> web site, you will find out that except for minor diacritical
> marks--which have been meticulously noted in many exegesis, Quran
> hasn't changed at all. [I do no always agree with everything that
> Islamic Awareness web site has to offer, but as far as establishing the
> authenticity of Quran they have done a yeoman's job.
I may have to re-evaluate my views on that one (after a bit more
reading, and not just of posts in usenet) as there are a number of other
replies that indicate the same, and at least one of them I trust as
probly knowing what he's talking about. Regardless though, my original
point still stands, before it went from the spoken to the written word
what happened to it??? Mohammed never wrote it all down himself, what
personal issues influenced what was written?? And at the end of the day,
it really doesn't matter what is written, it's more about how it is
interpreted and used (or mis-used). Religion is a powerful thing, that
can be used for both good and evil, and we see both from all religions
every day.
>>And further to that, even when the actual "words" do become stable,
>>interpretation of those words then becomes the tool instead, and that is
>>seen in a very large way in both the Christian and Muslim faiths. What
>>is "evil" to one group following a religion, is perfectly alright to
>>another group following the very same religious tomes. It's all about
>>what suits the people in power. That is why I don't trust the leaders of
>>ANY religion that commands power and "followers", they ALL have been and
>>in many cases are being used by unscrupulous people to get what they want.
>
> One of the problems that most Americans and Europeans have is that they
> have unrealistically high expectations from religious people.
Not me, all I expect is for them to treat everyone else with respect and
not force their beliefs upon others. I don't care if it's religion,
politics or whatever-the-fuck-else, every person is his own person, and
providing that person doesn't mess with other people why mess with that
person? And to say "most Americans and Europeans" are like that is
stereotyping, is it any different than saying "most people from the
Middle-East would rather blow people up in religious conflicts rather
than talk about it"? There is probably just as much basis for such a
comment. Note I don't say most Muslims, most Muslims are Asian, and they
don't seem to have that problem and hence don't have that image, except
in the naive minds of many Westerners who haven't got the brains to
distinguish the difference (oh shit, now I'm stereotyping, see what I
mean up the top about hypocrisy being in all of us?)
> For them,
> an evil act committed by a religious person automatically discredits
> his or her religion,
Now you're way off track if you're attributing that sort of thinking to
me, I spend most of my time in here trying to fuck up people that are
stupid enough to blame the acts of a few loons to all members of a
religion. I don't care what the religion is.
> whereas a crime committed by a non-religious
> person does not implicates his social or political philosophy.
Nor should it, any more than it should implicate their religion.
> And
> because of this strong bias or hypocrisy, many people do not even
> approach religion with an open mind.
Do you approach my religion of the Drunken Jedi with an open mind??? I
treat all religions (including my own) the same way.
> One of the problems is that Christianity evolved over many centuries;
> what the Church thought and did became part of the religion. Hence,
> people like you could easily point out the obvious conundrum--how can
> any Church decide for God?
Exactly. And regardless of how long it took, how can any man do that
either, including Jesus, Mohammed, etc.etc.??? Beer is god to me. Am I
any more right or wrong than any member of any other religion?
> Islam, fortunately, never had that problem, for it was stated that
> "Truth stands clear from error;" God speaks for Himself in the Quran.
Mohammed was not God, so no, God does not speak for himself.
> Muslims do not represent Islam; it represents itself. Although there
> are many scholars and teachers of Islam, none can claim to speak for
> it, and that is why many Muslims are bemused when Christians and Jews
> suggest that Islam has been "hijacked by extremists".
I don't know why, because in many cases it has. Are you saying the
Taliban are exactly the same as the people that follow for instance
Islam Hadhari? To me the Taliban is a prime example of religion hijacked
by extremists, and the people that are trying to progress Islam Hadhari
have a brain in their heads and will move with the times. The most
populous Muslim nation on this planet founded itself after independence
on the principle of Pancasila and despite a lot of localised religious
fighting in small pockets since then have actually managed it despite a
lot of political turmoil through the years, yet "stable" governments
like you see in many of the Middle-East states reject the rights of
others to practice their religions. Where went the tolerance?
Just like Christianity, Islam can well and truly be hijacked.
> If for many
> Westerners Islam looks like a telephone that anybody can pick up to
> dial 911 (no pun intended), the problem is their ignorance of what
> Islam is and not what they are hearing from others.
I think the bigger problem (just as in Christianity) is Muslims that
"think" they know what Islam is, but reject what other Muslims think
Islam is. There is no "guaranteed" truth, it's all how you take it.
> So my suggestion to you is that you should do a proper study of Islam
> yourself and consult knowledgeable Muslims when you have a question.
1> Proper study of Islam - sorry, don't have the time, got a job, but I
try to learn what I can outside of my work sphere in between.
2> Consulting knowledgeable Muslims is exactly what I do on this
particular issue, and by knowledgeable Muslims I don't mean those that
preach and coerce as Christian priests do, I mean the blood and bone
followers.
> If you are going to have an alias like Hunter, you better start hunting
> for truth, not start shooting from the hip:- )
Been hunting for the truth for years mate, and I don't think you, me or
anyone else will ever really find it. Merely trying to understand one
another is about as close as it gets, and to think anything else brings
the term "delusions of grandeur" to mind.
Hunter1
> Hunter1 <hun...@arach.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
>>and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
>>much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
>>centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
>>they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
>>identical to the original works.
>
> It's somewhat less naive in the case of the Qur'an. It received its
> final recension and was written down in the time of the third Caliph,
> when, as was noted by others here, all contradictory accounts were
> destroyed. That version still exists, so to that extent, what is the
> Qur'an hasn't changed since that time. It's on display and not able to
> be changed.
Ok, I'll stand corrected on that one, I didn't look into it far enough
rather than making an assumption that turns out to be flawed. Regardless
though, who wrote it??? Did Mohammed himself??? And who knows what was
changed between word-of-mouth and the written version?
> What *HAS* changed over time is the interpretation of those verses.
> What also creates different schools of thought in Islam are the
> different forms of hadith and how they are to be intepreted.
And thus the various streams of "belief" that all religion seems to
denigrate into.....
> In the end, it's quite true - either you are a Muslim, and believe
> absolutely in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, or you don't.
Plenty of Christians that don't believe absolutely, just the same as
there are plenty of Muslims that don't believe absolutely, work with a
number of both. To believe absolutely (and literally) would see those
two groups trying to kill each other, as literally that is the crap (yes
I said crap, I don't care if that offends followers of either religion)
that appears in both religions. Good thing most followers of both
religions are sane and re-interpret or just downright ignore such crap.
> To me, to depend on the written word and have absolute faith that you
> understand it is what really is naive!
Agreed, and further on that, to have the remotest belief that anything
written by man could possibly be the word of any God is egotism taken to
the extreme. It's all a load of shite, I know, the religion of the
Drunken Jedi tells me so!
€€R.L.Measures
>1MAN4ALL wrote:
>> Hunter1 wrote:
>>
>>>I see a section accusing the Christians of having distortions over time
>>>in their Bible, and I see a section arguing that the Korans around today
>>>are the same despite language differences, but I don't see any proof
>>>(nor can there be) that the words that were "remembered" were remembered
>>>correctly and not modified to suit the needs of the people using them at
>>>the time, and human nature dictates that this is more than likely what
>>>would've happened.
>>
>> The web sites has many, many sections and if you do take the time to
>> explore it you would find out that it does answer your comments.
>
>
>Unfortunately I don't have the time to explore the site in depth, in
>fact I've spent too long playing in usenet tonight, I need to work
>tomorrow but hey, the religion of the Drunken Jedi calls for drinking
>and that is what's kept me going tonight, far be it from me to defy my
>religion.
>...
• Cheers
€€R.L.Measures
<hun...@arach.net.au> wrote:
>Rifty wrote:
>> Hunter1 <hun...@arach.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
>>>and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
>>>much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
>>>centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
>>>they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
>>>identical to the original works.
>>
>> It's somewhat less naive in the case of the Qur'an. It received its
>> final recension and was written down in the time of the third Caliph,
>> when, as was noted by others here, all contradictory accounts were
>> destroyed. That version still exists, so to that extent, what is the
>> Qur'an hasn't changed since that time. It's on display and not able to
>> be changed.
>
>
>Ok, I'll stand corrected on that one, I didn't look into it far enough
>rather than making an assumption that turns out to be flawed. Regardless
>though, who wrote it??? Did Mohammed himself???
• Assuredly not, he was illiterate. The Qur'an, like the NT, is based on
hearsay.
>And who knows what was
>changed between word-of-mouth and the written version?
>
• that's why there are 73 feuding sects within the one true religion.
>
>>...
Rifty
> Rifty wrote:
> > Hunter1 <hun...@arach.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >>Chances are it is almost certainly true that both the Bible and Koran,
> >>and any old work from that far back (especially ones which command so
> >>much power from the sheeple) have been modified and changed over the
> >>centuries to suit the power base of those using said works to get what
> >>they want. It'd be naive to assume that either work is even close to
> >>identical to the original works.
> >
> > It's somewhat less naive in the case of the Qur'an. It received its
> > final recension and was written down in the time of the third Caliph,
> > when, as was noted by others here, all contradictory accounts were
> > destroyed. That version still exists, so to that extent, what is the
> > Qur'an hasn't changed since that time. It's on display and not able to
> > be changed.
>
>
> Ok, I'll stand corrected on that one, I didn't look into it far enough
> rather than making an assumption that turns out to be flawed. Regardless
> though, who wrote it??? Did Mohammed himself??? And who knows what was
> changed between word-of-mouth and the written version?
You have to take either of two views on that - a Muslim or a non-Muslim
one. If you're a Muslim (and there are no half measures in this) then
Muhammad was God's mouthpiece and everything he said in the Qur'an came
from God, or you take the non-Muslim view that Muhammad composed it. If
you take the latter view, then there's no doubt that it is a remarkable
document for one man to produce. There will be some, of course, who
doubt that one man could have done so.
When Muhammad made pronouncements, they were recorded immediately after
by scribes or professional remembrancers (kinda human tape recorders
with the aural eqivalent of photographic memory), but as I said it
wasn't all written down in one book and rationalised until the time of
the 3rd Caliph (and that was in living memory of people who knew
Muhammad.) How accurately the words in the Qur'an reflect the words that
came from Muhammad's mouth is an article of faith. The Muslim believes
they are the true word of God through Muhammad. Non-Muslims will have
other ideas. In my view each is entitled to their own opinion on that
and no-one has the right to demand of either than they change their
mind. If either tries to ram one or other view down my throat and demand
that I accept it, they can bugger off.
> > What *HAS* changed over time is the interpretation of those verses.
> > What also creates different schools of thought in Islam are the
> > different forms of hadith and how they are to be intepreted.
> And thus the various streams of "belief" that all religion seems to
> denigrate into.....
Different interpretations have one virtue - flexibility. It allows for
different interpretations in different places. Islam does have that
flexibility, but some Muslims, like some others, refuse to accept that.
So in some schools of Islamic thought, abortion, for example, is
acceptable in some circumstances, whereas to others it isn't. (Just like
Christianity!)
> > In the end, it's quite true - either you are a Muslim, and believe
> > absolutely in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet, or you don't.
>
>
> Plenty of Christians that don't believe absolutely, just the same as
> there are plenty of Muslims that don't believe absolutely, work with a
> number of both. To believe absolutely (and literally) would see those
> two groups trying to kill each other, as literally that is the crap (yes
> I said crap, I don't care if that offends followers of either religion)
> that appears in both religions. Good thing most followers of both
> religions are sane and re-interpret or just downright ignore such crap.
No Muslim will say that the Qur'an is wrong - they will say that they
don't agree with an interpretation of it.
> > To me, to depend on the written word and have absolute faith that you
> > understand it is what really is naive!
> Agreed, and further on that, to have the remotest belief that anything
> written by man could possibly be the word of any God is egotism taken to
> the extreme. It's all a load of shite, I know, the religion of the
> Drunken Jedi tells me so!
Words are good servants but bad masters. Like statistics, they can be
turned around to mean just about anything. Trust neither words not
statistics. Trust no person who is dogmatic about what words mean.