Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Shocking Koran Quotes

Options
12357…14

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    dead one wrote: »
    That sun isn't stationery...

    http://rlv.zcache.com/paisley_sun_stationery-p229797172302222188z8jbl_400.jpg


  • Options
    #123
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    bluewolf wrote: »
    http://rlv.zcache.com/paisley_sun_stationery-p229797172302222188z8jbl_400.jpg
    Animation_Sun_Summer_Funny_Smile-1sm.gif


  • Options
    #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dead one wrote: »
    That sun isn't stationery.
    190700.png


  • Options
    #125
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,112 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dead one wrote: »
    see, Arab tribes themselves had different accents and pronunciation. Hence the variations in the recitation of the Qur’an... Quran has different accent before uthman... So correct yourself, there was only one version of quran before but with different accents.... See... i don't know what accent you understand ... Irish speak English differently... American and Britisher different in their voice when it comes to uttering English... The result was that the Qur’an, too, began to be written according to varying pronunciations. Uthman subsequently ordered that all other copies of the Qur’an, which people had written on their own, should be handed over to the government. These were all then burnt by his order. i hope it would clear your doubts..
    Including his own cousin and son in laws "accent"? One would think his would be the same as Muhammad.

    Secondly a question arises, why if Muhammad was talking to God(via an angel) did Allah not warn him that he was going to die relatively young so he could collate the Quran in his lifetime?
    See, you are comparing Prophets and words of God with ordinary human's work...The prophets come as guides to show the path toward God.... The plato's or shakepear couldn't blow the doors off the quran in philosophy..
    You're clearly not familiar with either.
    The reason for this is, how many, in this world, are aware of plato's or shakepear philosophy.... Isn't it contradiction... But you will see follower of muhammad at every corner.....
    So? Hardly an argument. Many more people have read Superman comics than Plato or Shakespeare, does this mean a Superman comic is of higher quality than Hamlet? Eh no.
    Arab authors have never accompolished in creating anything equal in strandard to the Qur'an itself is not surprising..... at first, they have acknowledged before-hand that it is unaccessable, and they have accepted its design as the perfect standard...
    Actually in the early days of Islam quite a few reckoned they could do better. Even further back at the start, it might explain why Muhammad seemed to hate poets and had a couple killed on his order. Didn't want the competition.
    : That is what exactly uthman did, He made one accent of Quran by burning all other accent... To what extent you would deny reality...
    So who made the decision on which "accent" to use? Uthman? Not Allah then? So Allah couldn't protect the actual original without Uthman? Then there are the diacritical dots that came after Uthman. They change the "accent", more even the meanings of words and who added them in the version we have today? Muhammad? Nope. Allah? nope. People, a couple of 100 years after Muhammad was noted to have died.
    Where you got this idea that Alexander is mentioned in quran...
    Here But if you don't like Alex, what about inaccuracies about crucifixion, geography, names turned Greek not the original. Ysa a perfect example.
    What science, the science which claimed "sun is stationery 50 years ago and It is mentioned in quran 1400 years ago.. That sun isn't stationery...
    Really? You want to have a debate about the "science" of the Quran? A mixture of cobbled together Greek beliefs and local superstition. No worries you start that thread.
    Islam wasn't a new law / religion..... The prophets, before muhammd, used Jersalem as direction so did the muhammad but later he changed it as per God order...
    You're missing the point. They were praying to Jerusalem after Muhammad died. So he couldn't have told them. This proves the Quran was changed after his death to suit changing circumstances.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #126
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ I beg to disagree.
    I have that thread on ignore so it doesn't count.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Selectively ignoring evidence to fit your predetermined answers! :eek:


  • Options
    #128
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Dades wrote: »
    I have that thread on ignore so it doesn't count.

    You can put threads on ignore?! How?!


  • Options
    #129
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    You can put threads on ignore?! How?!
    Willpower. :)


  • Options
    #130
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Best tbing about the koran is the sura that states "there shall be no compulsion in religion" so they basically walk around like tramps and blow themselves up for the crack...


  • Options
    #131
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Haven't read the article, so apologises if it is mentioned, but I believe the general consensus now is that a lot of the guys they exectuted were probably suffering from PTSD or some other kind of mental breakdown so were probably innocent in a legal and moral sense.

    MrP

    Very tragic indeed. Another sinister element is that if you were Irish in the British army during WWI you were far more likely than anyone else to be executed by the British army.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Just a quick Google for quotes from that 'holy' old book shows it to be a book inciting anger, hatred, discrimination and bloodshed.

    Is it rated over 18's?

    "Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

    "Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

    tactical reasons?

    As Robin would say, "Holy Islamic Warmongers Batman".

    Joseph,

    I am still quite keen to hear your source for the false Surah's above. I can only assume based on your reluctance to share that your source is an anti-Islamic hate site.

    Are you aware that Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher used to take quotes from the Talmud out of context and publish them in Der Sturmer?

    He was convicted of Crimes against Humanity in Nuremberg and this was a large part of the evidence against him. He was an accessory to genocide and was punished by execution.


  • Options
    #133
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    bluewolf wrote: »
    http://rlv.zcache.com/paisley_sun_stationery-p229797172302222188z8jbl_400.jpg
    robindch wrote: »
    190700.png
    hiya
    Dades,Robin,Koth, Doc Dino, The mad hatter and bluewolf,
    It's a spelling mistake. You all know i am not good with english.. It's stationary... So spare your propaganda.... You've done a great job to expose yourself... see below image which fits on reality..
    79_To-err-is-Human-To-rawr-is-Dinosaur.jpg


  • Options
    #134
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Including his own cousin and son in laws "accent"? One would think his would be the same as Muhammad.
    again you're not trying to understand...
    Uthman’s empire was separated into 12 provinces. These were:
    1.Medina 2.Mecca 3.Yemen 4.Kufa 5.Basra 6.Jazira 7.Faris 8.Azerbaijan 9.Khorasan 10.Syria 11.Egypt 12.Efriqya (lit. "Africa", signifying N. Africa)
    If you see these empires in the world map, you will find the distance, between these empires, is huge... They were different in pronunciations and in accent.....The conclusion was that the people began to write quran according their varying pronunciations and accent... Uthman made one accent of Quran... For example suppose, take case of shakespear philosophy...William Shakespeare was an English poet. His work was in old British English, if you translate his work using American English, you will have to use American pronunciations ... which might change the original text. That's how Uthman did a great job by compiling quran in accent in which it was revealed. i hope it would clear your confusion.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Secondly a question arises, why if Muhammad was talking to God(via an angel) did Allah not warn him that he was going to die relatively young so he could collate the Quran in his lifetime?
    The reason was simple, Muhammad wasn't authority upon quran...He was just a messager of God, like Jesus and Moses...His duty was to give clear message to public... The preservation of Quran wasn't Muhammad's responsibility... It was God's responsibility and he used uthman for this task...
    Wibbs wrote: »
    You're clearly not familiar with either. So? Hardly an argument. Many more people have read Superman comics than Plato or Shakespeare, does this mean a Superman comic is of higher quality than Hamlet? Eh no. Actually in the early days of Islam quite a few reckoned they could do better. Even further back at the start, it might explain why Muhammad seemed to hate poets and had a couple killed on his order. Didn't want the competition.
    You think fantasy is high quality than reality... Even a lot of common folks don't know about superman... Shakespeare, who knows, what on earth he was talking about... Common people don't have enough brain to understand his handy work... What is purpose of a thing which common folks don't... Would you force his philosophy into common brains..... i ain't against his work but it is irrevelant to mention his work against the greatest of philosophy on earth i.e Quran... You will find quranic philosophy, in the heart of an ignorant person who even doesn't know how to read and write.. Shakespear philolosphy is like a drop if you compare it with quran... if isn't, then tell, how many in the world accurately understand what Shakespeare has written... i am sure you yourself don't understand what shakespear had written... Bring your proof comrade....
    Wibbs wrote: »
    So who made the decision on which "accent" to use? Uthman? Not Allah then? So Allah couldn't protect the actual original without Uthman? Then there are the diacritical dots that came after Uthman. They change the "accent", more even the meanings of words and who added them in the version we have today? Muhammad? Nope. Allah? nope. People, a couple of 100 years after Muhammad was noted to have died.
    It was God decision and he used Uthman as a mean... See
    http://quran.com/15/9
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Here But if you don't like Alex, what about inaccuracies about crucifixion, geography, names turned Greek not the original. Ysa a perfect example.
    This show authenticity of article on wiki, these articles were written and perserved by people, who don't know what they hell they are preserving... How you can compare Alexander with Zulquranain... I mean, Zulqurnainan was believer of one God according to quran and Alexendaer was a polythiest, His god like Many Greek people were: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Dionysus, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Demeter, Hestia and Hera...
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Really? You want to have a debate about the "science" of the Quran? A mixture of cobbled together Greek beliefs and local superstition. No worries you start that thread.
    So do you think Muhammad write it?
    Wibbs wrote: »
    You're missing the point. They were praying to Jerusalem after Muhammad died. So he couldn't have told them. This proves the Quran was changed after his death to suit changing circumstances.
    No you don't understand, the order of changing of qibla or kabba came with in the life of muhammad....


  • Options
    #135
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    dead one wrote: »
    Dades,Robin,Koth, Doc Dino, The mad hatter and bluewolf,
    It's a spelling mistake. You all know i am not good with english.. It's stationary... So spare your propaganda.... You've done a great job to expose yourself...
    Jeez, it was a joke. Lighten up. :)


  • Options
    #136
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    my colleague gets the same treatment when he asks about the "stationary order"


  • Options
    #137
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,112 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I am still quite keen to hear your source for the false Surah's above. I can only assume based on your reluctance to share that your source is an anti-Islamic hate site.
    Both are actual quotes from a surah( the latter from Al Anfal). However in this case it is in a wider context. Namely how to prosecute a war and divide the spoils of same. Then again that brings us to the morality aspect. Talk of death, killing and war is strong in the Islamic texts. Buddhism it ain't.
    Are you aware that Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher used to take quotes from the Talmud out of context and publish them in Der Sturmer?

    He was convicted of Crimes against Humanity in Nuremberg and this was a large part of the evidence against him. He was an accessory to genocide and was punished by execution.
    Holy hyperbole Batman.
    dead one wrote:
    That's how Uthman did a great job by compiling quran in accent in which it was revealed. i hope it would clear your confusion.
    Yes and no. This would make sense if they left Muhammad's cousin and son in laws version alone. Like I said he was very close to Muhammad in family and distance. He actually lived and talked with the claimed source of the texts. Are you saying his accent was different?
    The reason was simple, Muhammad wasn't authority upon quran...He was just a messager of God, like Jesus and Moses...His duty was to give clear message to public... The preservation of Quran wasn't Muhammad's responsibility... It was God's responsibility and he used uthman for this task...
    Doesn't seem so well planned out. Muslims are quick to point out to other religions that their texts are corrupted by men, yet when Uthman and others do it with the Quran then it's god's work?
    Common people don't have enough brain to understand his handy work... What is purpose of a thing which common folks don't... Would you force his philosophy into common brains.....
    Personally I have more faith in "common folks". In any event if the Qurans message was so perfect and simple for the same common people, how come it requires years and years of scholarly work to interpret it and those same scholars can vary widely in that interpretation? Plus it's only truly accurate in ancient Arabic. We're constantly told it doesn't translate well. Socrates translates well and he deals with philosophical concepts that are highly complex, arguably of a much higher complexity than anything in the Quran. Actually many Muslim philosophers who came later are more nuanced and complex than the Quran and they're writing in the same language.
    It was God decision and he used Uthman as a mean... See
    http://quran.com/15/9
    The diacritical marks come after Uthman. Nothing to do with him. So there's more human hands at work.
    So do you think Muhammad write it?
    Yes. Or more to the point he or someone like him(I'm not convinced of the existence of the historical Muhammad as he is written*) collected existing Judeochristian texts and formed it into a new religion. Along the way destroying any evidence of this. Uthman being the most obvious example. It happened in Christianity. The church was pretty good at seeking out and destroying other texts and they had a lot less control over a much more literate set of cultures.

    If your answer to this is that Muhammad was illiterate, it's not much of an answer. The aforementioned Socrates was likely also an illiterate. As was Homer. An oral or illiterate culture is not always a primitive one. Not by a long shot. So a wide ranging businessman like Muhammad is described would be exposed to the religions of the time, Christians, Jews and off shoots of both. He would be exposed to a lot of Greek thoughts in science and philosophy. Add in a clearly clever mind and the great memories common in complex oral societies and the creation of a text like the Quran is very impressive, yes, a miracle no. The Quran itself shows quite clearly it's oral origins. As you have said before thousands of people memorised the texts at the time before they were collected and written down.
    No you don't understand, the order of changing of qibla or kabba came with in the life of muhammad....
    No with respect dead one, you don't understand my point. The earliest mosques that are built AFTER Muhammad's death point towards Jerusalem. The Umayyad mosques in Iraq, the oldest mosques which still survive do not point towards Mecca. They were corrected later. The the mosque of Amr in Egypt also pointed away from Mecca and was again corrected later. So if this change occurred during the life of the prophet how come these earliest mosques built after he died not show this change?


    * the very early (7th century)Jordanian Arabic rock inscriptions while clearly talking about a new faith of the Arabs, don't mention Muhammad once. Not once. The first inscription that mentions anything about him and that he was a prophet of god comes right at the very end of the 7th century. The Arab writings of the rest of the century make no reference to him at all. Which is a bit strange. Like discovering all the early texts on Christianity or Buddhism mentions neither Jesus or the Buddha.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #138
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Dades wrote: »
    Jeez, it was a joke. Lighten up. :)
    great joke, i like it, mind if i ask, my lyrics are too jokes... would you allow me to post?...keeping jokes in mind, read those lyric... Deal :)
    They call me the dead dealer
    frank_frazetta_deathdealerIII.jpg


  • Options
    #139
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I don't get it.


  • Options
    #140
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    He is dead, and a dealer.
    I know it doesn't make sense but neither does having horns like that on a helmet. They'd just be in the way in battle.
    And what's with the glowing eyes like?


  • Options
    #141
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    Mercurius wrote: »
    There is the possibility of multiple translations from the classical arabic, some moderate (Laleh Bakhtiar, for example), some not.

    I suppose it very much depends on whose doing the reading.

    To take the first example...

    "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

    ...multiple translations can be found here.

    Given the plethora of possibilities, it seems narrow minded to take any one translation as literal, and to base criticisms on same.

    (unless the moderates are apologists, of course)

    I read a load of those multiple translations before I got bored. Discounting the ones that dont make any sense like:

    "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for guardians and confidants (in their Judaism and Christianity). Some among them are guardians and confidants to some others. Whoever among you takes them for guardians and confidants will eventually become one of them (and be counted among them in the Hereafter). Surely God does not guide such wrongdoers."

    And even that one pretty much says the same thing, they all say:

    No Jews or Christians lads, or they'll turn you into one and you'll go to hell.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Yes and no. This would make sense if they left Muhammad's cousin and son in laws version alone. Like I said he was very close to Muhammad in family and distance. He actually lived and talked with the claimed source of the texts. Are you saying his accent was different?
    See,wibbs, Quran is preserved in accent in which it is revealed to muhammad... tell me how it isn't original / changed.... Are you saying Quran's true accent wasn't as of the muhammad ... or uthman complied quran in some other accent, I ain't getting your point.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Doesn't seem so well planned out. Muslims are quick to point out to other religions that their texts are corrupted by men, yet when Uthman and others do it with the Quran then it's god's work?
    So you're saying christian's bible and jews's book aren't corrupted... Isn't that reality... Do you think OT is in its true state... See, muslims point out other religious text because quran says and what quran is saying it true. Are you saying Bible is word of God... If that is case then you're not honest to yourself.. Let's for sake of argument, Uthman made error in compiling the quran but uthman didn't introduced his own thought in quran... Bible has a lot of story written by human hands. You won't find such stories in quran...
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Personally I have more faith in "common folks". In any event if the Qurans message was so perfect and simple for the same common people, how come it requires years and years of scholarly work to interpret it and those same scholars can vary widely in that interpretation? Plus it's only truly accurate in ancient Arabic. We're constantly told it doesn't translate well. Socrates translates well and he deals with philosophical concepts that are highly complex, arguably of a much higher complexity than anything in the Quran. Actually many Muslim philosophers who came later are more nuanced and complex than the Quran and they're writing in the same language.
    See, Quran is revealed upon muhammad and muhammad's life is interpretation of Quran... Shakespeare actions didn't demonstrate his philosophy. Muhammad's action demonstrate quran... His life, his way of living, is what quran is saying... When Quran prefer truth... Muhammad and Muhammad didn't lie through his whole life.. on the other hand,shakespear spent his whole in creating fantasies. The actions of Muhammad which demonstrate quran are preserved in hadith. Hadith tells how to deal with new issues... So scholar interpret according their understanding...
    Wibbs wrote: »
    The diacritical marks come after Uthman. Nothing to do with him. So there's more human hands at work.
    The diacritical marks come after uthman, what is purpose those diacritical marks.... See for example.. "often" what is its correct pronunciation... Asian don't use its correct pronunciation and they utter "OF - TEN". "The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq."
    Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.gathering all the companions..""
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Yes. Or more to the point he or someone like him(I'm not convinced of the existence of the historical Muhammad as he is written*) collected existing Judeochristian texts and formed it into a new religion. Along the way destroying any evidence of this. Uthman being the most obvious example. It happened in Christianity. The church was pretty good at seeking out and destroying other texts and they had a lot less control over a much more literate set of cultures.
    You say you're not convinced andyou're not convincing me either.. You've failed to point how quran didn't preserve. The story comes on the same point.. You believe quran is corrupted because you want it to... and your reasoning isn't based upon logic but wishful thinking.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    If your answer to this is that Muhammad was illiterate, it's not much of an answer. The aforementioned Socrates was likely also an illiterate. As was Homer. An oral or illiterate culture is not always a primitive one. Not by a long shot. So a wide ranging businessman like Muhammad is described would be exposed to the religions of the time, Christians, Jews and off shoots of both. He would be exposed to a lot of Greek thoughts in science and philosophy. Add in a clearly clever mind and the great memories common in complex oral societies and the creation of a text like the Quran is very impressive, yes, a miracle no. The Quran itself shows quite clearly it's oral origins. As you have said before thousands of people memorised the texts at the time before they were collected and written down.
    what do mean by illiterate.. Muhammad didn't know how to write his name, How could he write quran... Science/logic has no answer for that... Try it, you don't know how to write your own name, and someone say that you've stolen ideas from Greek... It makes no sense... that's what exactly you're saying.. You have used Socrates but you forget, scorate was a pupil of Plato... Socrates didn't agree with plato's theory... Are you saying Socrate didn't know how to write a name.... You are comparing 0 vs 100.. Muhammad wasn't pupil of any master like plato, if i am wrong then bring your proof comrade.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    No with respect dead one, you don't understand my point. The earliest mosques that are built AFTER Muhammad's death point towards Jerusalem. The Umayyad mosques in Iraq, the oldest mosques which still survive do not point towards Mecca. They were corrected later. The the mosque of Amr in Egypt also pointed away from Mecca and was again corrected later. So if this change occurred during the life of the prophet how come these earliest mosques built after he died not show this change?
    How do you know they were corrected, On what history... or you worked as labor in correction of those mosques..


  • Options
    #143
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Sarky wrote: »
    I don't get it.
    see, it's philosophy and common folks don't get it. in simple words i am trying to say... don't make joke of other's weakness... It's cruel as hunger of hyenas... Is Society at it's lowest in morality...
    biko wrote: »
    He is dead, and a dealer.
    And what's with the glowing eyes like?
    pit of hell to fight


  • Options
    #144
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Both are actual quotes from a surah( the latter from Al Anfal). However in this case it is in a wider context. Namely how to prosecute a war and divide the spoils of same. Then again that brings us to the morality aspect. Talk of death, killing and war is strong in the Islamic texts. Buddhism it ain't.
    Right, but they are falsely attributed. This makes it highly unlikely these falsely attributed sections came from a legitimate or neutral source. Furthermore, they have been uniquely edited through use of ellipsis at some point and these specific and falsely attributed quotes can be seen reproduced all over the internet on youtube comments and various hate sites.

    So Joseph, I ask again: Could you please share your source?
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Holy hyperbole Batman.
    Hardly hyperbole to be fair, it's historical fact. I just don't see much of a difference in the end result between a Nazi quoting the Talmud out of context and an apparently civilised atheist (or religious) quoting the Quran out of context.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLvD0AzBCc


  • Options
    #145
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Hardly hyperbole to be fair, it's historical fact. I just don't see much of a difference in the end result between a Nazi quoting the Talmud out of context and an apparently civilised atheist (or religious) quoting the Quran out of context.

    I really find it hard to believe that you can't see a difference in motivation for quoting the Talmud.

    The nazis would be using to promote a racist agenda. Are you saying that is what people on this thread are doing?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #146
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    koth wrote: »
    I really find it hard to believe that you can't see a difference in motivation for quoting the Talmud.

    The nazis would be using to promote a racist agenda. Are you saying that is what people on this thread are doing?

    No. Not at all. I should have been more clear, though I did attempt to be explicit that the "result" is the same.

    Can you say that it is honest behaviour to google something like "Islam, violence, Quran" click on islamisevil.com copy falsely attributed and edited (out of context) quotes from the Quran spread this false information with the conclusion that the Quran is intolerant, violent, etc`?

    This is without getting any kind of balance before your proclamation, not even cross-referencing with any authorised Islamic sources.


  • Options
    #147
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. Not at all. I should have been more clear, though I did attempt to be explicit that the "result" is the same.

    Can you say that it is honest behaviour to google something like "Islam, violence, Quran" click on islamisevil.com copy falsely attributed and edited (out of context) quotes from the Quran spread this false information with the conclusion that the Quran is intolerant, violent, etc`?

    This is without getting any kind of balance before your proclamation, not even cross-referencing with any authorised Islamic sources.

    I think the point about cross-referencing the text is a fair one. I've done some googling on "Surah 8:12" and found the following:
    I am with you: give the believers firmness; I shall put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Strike above their necks and strike their fingertips.

    Is that the correct text for the verse? Or does the reference Surah 8:12 mean more than one piece of text in the book(s)?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #148
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,112 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dead one wrote: »
    See,wibbs, Quran is preserved in accent in which it is revealed to muhammad... tell me how it isn't original / changed.... Are you saying Quran's true accent wasn't as of the muhammad ... or uthman complied quran in some other accent, I ain't getting your point.
    Muhammad's brother in law and cousin would have spoken the same accent. A man who knew Muhammad in life and was close enough to him to be his son in law, yet his version of the Quran was also destroyed by Uthman. That's my point.
    So you're saying christian's bible and jews's book aren't corrupted... Isn't that reality... Do you think OT is in its true state... See, muslims point out other religious text because quran says and what quran is saying it true. Are you saying Bible is word of God... If that is case then you're not honest to yourself.. Let's for sake of argument, Uthman made error in compiling the quran but uthman didn't introduced his own thought in quran... Bible has a lot of story written by human hands. You won't find such stories in quran...
    In your opinion. Clearly there were different texts originally. Enough different texts for Uthman to decide to "correct" and destroy them, including texts that were collected by people who knew your prophet in life.
    See, Quran is revealed upon muhammad and muhammad's life is interpretation of Quran... Shakespeare actions didn't demonstrate his philosophy.
    Actually they did and more.
    Muhammad's action demonstrate quran... His life, his way of living, is what quran is saying... When Quran prefer truth... Muhammad and Muhammad didn't lie through his whole life..
    Riiight.
    on the other hand,shakespear spent his whole in creating fantasies.
    Well many would suggest that's exactly what he did. At least Shakespeare's were better and more internally consistent fantasies.
    The actions of Muhammad which demonstrate quran are preserved in hadith. Hadith tells how to deal with new issues... So scholar interpret according their understanding...
    And in the hadith(written at the earliest 200 years after he was supposed to have died) he comes across as a political and military leader not averse to stealing, rape and mass killing.
    The diacritical marks come after uthman, what is purpose those diacritical marks.... See for example.. "often" what is its correct pronunciation... Asian don't use its correct pronunciation and they utter "OF - TEN". "The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq."
    Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.gathering all the companions..""
    Yet that same recitation was so unreliable that Uthman had to destroy many copies because they were "incorrect", including Muhammad's own cousins copy.
    You say you're not convinced andyou're not convincing me either.. You've failed to point how quran didn't preserve. The story comes on the same point.. You believe quran is corrupted because you want it to... and your reasoning isn't based upon logic but wishful thinking.
    It's internally inconsistent, repetitive, historically and theologically and scientificly inaccurate. That's enough for me TBH.
    what do mean by illiterate.. Muhammad didn't know how to write his name, How could he write quran... Science/logic has no answer for that... Try it, you don't know how to write your own name, and someone say that you've stolen ideas from Greek... It makes no sense...
    It's called an oral tradition. How do you explain those illiterates that memorised the Quran?
    that's what exactly you're saying.. You have used Socrates but you forget, scorate was a pupil of Plato... Socrates didn't agree with plato's theory... Are you saying Socrate didn't know how to write a name....
    Yep he was illiterate. Oh BTW Plato was Socrates student, not the other way around.
    You are comparing 0 vs 100.. Muhammad wasn't pupil of any master like plato, if i am wrong then bring your proof comrade.
    He was a clever student of his area, it's various religions and philosophy. Being illiterate does not make one unlearned, nor stupid. Many great societies and thinkers had no written word.
    How do you know they were corrected, On what history... or you worked as labor in correction of those mosques..
    Archaeological fact.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #149
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    koth wrote: »
    I think the point about cross-referencing the text is a fair one. I've done some googling on "Surah 8:12" and found the following:



    Is that the correct text for the verse? Or does the reference Surah 8:12 mean more than one piece of text in the book(s)?

    Yes. Well it's an accepted translated version at least. Surah 8:12 means exclusively Surah 8:12. Here it is http://quran.com/8/12
    Sahih International
    [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."


  • Options
    #150
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    thanks BB. I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that finding a verse in the quran was the same as the bible, so had to ask the question.

    Surah 8 is called the "Spoils of War" on any of the sites I found the translation. It's a document, at least to me, that instructs believers what happens in the aftermath of war.

    And believers are defined as people "who feel fear in their hearts at the mention of Allah". That sounds like the hallmarks of a tyrant.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,112 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    koth wrote: »
    And believers are defined as people "who feel fear in their hearts at the mention of Allah". That sounds like the hallmarks of a tyrant.
    and a blueprint to build a tyranny. The rest of the religious stuff just makes it more subtle. Though only just. Even compared to the bloodbath that can be found often in the old Testament, the Quran steps that up a gear. The Hadith really crank up the war/killing stuff. Rape, slavery, killing of prisoners of war, stealing/war booty and general mayhem is all over the place in defence of their Allah.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



Advertisement