[quote]The Mage wrote:
Can’t trust anything by Fox News.
They actually reported that there was an auction, those bastards. How dare they?
Now they are reporting there was snow in the Mid-West, those whores. [/quote]
That’s very constructive! Thanks for your valuable input.
Since you missed is, here the point in plain English: Don’t trust anything unless it’s verifiable.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Can’t trust anything by Fox News.
They actually reported that there was an auction, those bastards. How dare they?
Now they are reporting there was snow in the Mid-West, those whores.
You can trust Fox all you want, just don’t claim what they say is proof of something.
Don’t say any news story by any major news corp is absolute proof.[/quote]
Absolutely. But I see no reason to single out Fox. It has become an excuse not to accept a news piece. And this news piece by Fox did not have any reason to be political. (Hence my sarcasm.)
And the bad part is the same people will point out some wacky website without any credentials, or has an obvious bias or political agenda.
Fox has its problems, but they are a legitimate news organization. All the other ones have swung far to the left, and there is not one iota (my new favorite word) of complaint from anyone, yet one single news organization allows conservative thought, and suddenly all hell breaks loose.
If the complaints were legitimate, or made equally against the liberally biased news organizations, then I wouldn’t have a problem.
It is as if only liberal thought is allowed, and anything even slightly conservative should be banned.
If we are unable to accept Fox because of a bias, then I cannot think of any news organization that we can accept because every single one of them is biased in some way or another.
[quote]lixy wrote:
That’s very constructive! Thanks for your valuable input.
Since you missed is, here the point in plain English: Don’t trust anything unless it’s verifiable.[/quote]
And my point again went over your head, but your screaming hypocrisy is duly noted.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Islam watchers blogged all weekend about news that a secret archive of ancient Islamic texts had surfaced after 60 years of suppression.[/quote]
I have to ask; what’s an “Islam watcher”?
It is always interesting watching people quibble about religion. Because they are all made-up nonsense. Except for Scientology. It is real. I find the whole alien souls dropped into volcanoes so much more believable than angels. Actually Mormonism sounds believable too. Those gold tablets which no-one ever gets to see prove it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The worlds oldest Koran is incomplete and damaged.
Gee…you think?
The point is that the modern Koran differs from early Korans which differed from each other.
I would be more than happy to discuss these so-called differences between early Qurans, provided you do your homework. I welcome academic debates, and quoting a Fox News is as far from that as you can get.
Show me where the modern Quran differs from earlier “versions” (besides the harakat), and pray tell how in 15 centuries and over the vast geographic space that makes up the Islamic world, only one version managed to survive (knowing rifts over succession powers predate the compilation of the book).
This leads an impartial observer to question why Gabriel would dictate multiple versions or even wonder if he dictated it at all.
No you idiot! A rational observer questions a superbeing with wings really exists, period. Anything else is just beating a dead horse.
You can never prove that the Quran was dictated by Gabriel. Any idiot knows that. But you can show that the [/quote]
I provided multiple links, multiple sources that reference multiple scholars in the area.
You single out Fox News reporting about an auction, the most benign article of them all. The rest of them indicate that Islam is a compilation of previous monotheistic religions and that study of old Korans indicate this is so because of the evolution of the writings.
You pretend to be some kind of scholar on the subject when it is apparent that you don’t know jack shit. People have spent their lifetimes studying the Koran and they say 20% of the book makes no sense and it is filled with words that have no meaning.
Worship whatever gods you want. You can fool yourself all you want that yours is legitimate but you cannot fool me.
Today is Freya-day. Perhaps I will plant my seed in a Valkyrie tonight in worship of her fertility.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I provided multiple links, multiple sources that reference multiple scholars in the area. [/quote]
I asked you nicely to break it down. I could flood you with “multiple links, multiple sources that reference multiple scholars in the area”, but I chose to debate your point on its merit (or lack thereof) and not on what others have done.
If you prefer to skip the debate and cramp on some conclusion because it fits your preconceptions, fair enough. But at least have guts to recognize your intellectual laziness.
I didn’t read the article at all. I didn’t bash it, but pointed out that an article destined to the general public is proof of nothing.
Duh! Do you even know what Islam is about?
You lost me here. What “evolution” are you speaking of?
When it comes to religious matters, nobody knows more than “jack shit”. History on the other hand, is verifiable to a certain extent. Not to brag but I know as shit load more Islam than you.
I concur.
Are you on dope? Who said anything about legitimacy of gods?
I simply challenged the idea that there are any major differences between the Quran from Mohamed’s period and the one we know today. The idiot that you are turned it into my-god-can-kick-your-god’s-butt.
And I should care because…?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I provided multiple links, multiple sources that reference multiple scholars in the area.
I asked you nicely to break it down. I could flood you with “multiple links, multiple sources that reference multiple scholars in the area”, but I chose to debate your point on its merit (or lack thereof) and not on what others have done.
If you prefer to skip the debate and cramp on some conclusion because it fits your preconceptions, fair enough. But at least have guts to recognize your intellectual laziness.
You single out Fox News reporting about an auction, the most benign article of them all.
I didn’t read the article at all. I didn’t bash it, but pointed out that an article destined to the general public is proof of nothing.
The rest of them indicate that Islam is a compilation of previous monotheistic religions
Duh! Do you even know what Islam is about?
and that study of old Korans indicate this is so because of the evolution of the writings.
You lost me here. What “evolution” are you speaking of?
You pretend to be some kind of scholar on the subject when it is apparent that you don’t know jack shit.
When it comes to religious matters, nobody knows more than “jack shit”. History on the other hand, is verifiable to a certain extent. Not to brag but I know as shit load more Islam than you.
People have spent their lifetimes studying the Koran and they say 20% of the book makes no sense and it is filled with words that have no meaning.
I concur.
Worship whatever gods you want. You can fool yourself all you want that yours is legitimate but you cannot fool me.
Are you on dope? Who said anything about legitimacy of gods?
I simply challenged the idea that there are any major differences between the Quran from Mohamed’s period and the one we know today. The idiot that you are turned it into my-god-can-kick-your-god’s-butt.
Today is Freya-day. Perhaps I will plant my seed in a Valkyrie tonight in worship of her fertility.
And I should care because…?[/quote]
Read the fucking articles if you want to have a discussion.
I concur with Zap, as you come across migthy clueless here (do you know what islam is about? What evolution?..)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Read the fucking articles if you want to have a discussion.
[/quote]
How’s reading the articles a form of discussion?
Present the arguments which make you believe Mohamed’s Quran is substantially different from the one you can pick up at any store or quote relevant passages. Else, I could just post the hundreds of pages where scholars try to debunk your articles. What would we (the T-community) learn from that?
Figure out what your arguments are and present them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Read the fucking articles if you want to have a discussion.
How’s reading the articles a form of discussion?
Present the arguments which make you believe Mohamed’s Quran is substantially different from the one you can pick up at any store or quote relevant passages. Else, I could just post the hundreds of pages where scholars try to debunk your articles. What would we (the T-community) learn from that?
Figure out what your arguments are and present them.[/quote]
You started off by calling the whole concept “idiocy” if I recall the word you used correctly.
I did some quick googling and posted multiple sources with multiple excerpts showing that the concept is not idiocy, in fact it looks to be a respected theory among scholars that the evolution of the Koran from it’s earliest forms to what it is today indicates that as Islam expanded it incorporated aspects of Christianity and Judaism that were not present in the earliest Korans.
You have not shown anything that remotely refutes that. Now you post this tripe. Are you drunk? Isn’t that prohibited?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You started off by calling the whole concept “idiocy” if I recall the word you used correctly. [/quote]
Hell yeah! Look at the original post: What if scholars can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Koran was not dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad during the 7th century
You can’t prove that what I am writing isn’t dictated to me by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, let alone something written 15 centuries ago.
I figured that was the case when you didn’t want to go into a detailed argument.
Interesting theory. I just don’t see how you can back that up though.
Try me.
Refutes what? You’ve yet to present an argument.
Nah. Just bored as usual.
I hear it hurts gains anyway…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You started off by calling the whole concept “idiocy” if I recall the word you used correctly.
Hell yeah! Look at the original post: What if scholars can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Koran was not dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad during the 7th century
You can’t prove that what I am writing isn’t dictated to me by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, let alone something written 15 centuries ago.
[/quote]
Poor analogy. If you find multiple iterations of something it kind of proves it wasn’t created out of thin air. Multiple versions of the Koran that incorporate different things would prove that it was not dictated unless the angel that dictated it did so to multiple people throughout the years until it took its final form.
Well shit, I don’t speak Arabic which makes discussion of individual aspects a little tough. I have to rely on the experts here. I tried to read the book in English years ago and thought it was a waste of time.
Refutes the scholars claims that the Koran evolved as it incorporated aspects of other religions. If it evolved as claimed then that is pretty good proof that the religion you are practicing today is not the same religion Muhammed claims was told to him by Gabriel.
Try drinking.
[quote]
Isn’t that prohibited?
I hear it hurts gains anyway…[/quote]
Didn’t hurt Arnold.
To be fair Zap, lixy doesn’t even read the posts or links lixy posts.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…
[/quote]
I tried reading the articles, but I couldn’t find the arguments. First, none of them were written by scholars. They are journalistic accounts. Secondly, they describe the changes as “small” which nobody challenges. I own Qurans that spell things differently without changing the overall meaning. Whoever wrote that thing doesn’t know squat about Islam, or else they wouldn’t have started at the premise that a 80000 book collected at a time when over 90% of Arabia were analphabet would be absolutely pristine. Lastly, (and as you would expect from mere journalists), they don’t go into specifics. Take that Atlantic Monthly article from 1999 you have that talks about the much-hyped Sana’a manuscripts; From what I have been following of the story, that German researcher refuses to disclose snapshots he took of the manuscripts. It may give him a bit more credibility to make those public-domain. What’s he afraid of? That people will realize his claim was a scam? That he’ll lose funding? Who knows?
To make the discussion fair (since you don’t know Arabic), let’s focus on more general issues. You have to understand a few things. In Ancient Arabia, and thanks to a profusion of poetry, there were professionals whose job was to learn text by heart. That is indisputable. Heck, in the late 80s there was a 10 years old in my school that knew the whole thing word for word. I, a Muslim since 2001, managed to cram a third of it in my mind. Anyway, in the years the ummah grew, a lot of people memorized the book (or at least parts of it). Under Othman, the thing was compiled - publicly and transparently. I don’t know who you think was behind the “evolution” of the Quran, but I would love to hear your theory on how they managed to sneak the changes past a community of millions who pride themselves in memorizing the book.
And how come the Shi’ites and the Sunnis end up with the same book knowing the rift occured hours after Mohamed’s death? You can’t weasel out of this argument, since all you need to engage in it is common sense. Also, how can you speak of incorporating “aspects of Christianity and Judaism that were not present in the earliest Korans” when the Sunnah is there to attest Mohamed prayed for Jesus and every other prophet? Do you know how it was collected? Do you think Al-Boukhari, Muslim and the others were scam artists?
This is one conspiracy theory that doesn’t add up.
Lo there do I see my Mother and my sisters and my brothers…
There were actually multiple versions of the Koran. Reportedly there were 14 versions, but calif Uthman decided to make one official, and he attempted to destroy all other copies.
in the year 901 in the same vein, Ibn Mujahid canonized one version, as there were still multiple versions.
To say there was no change because people memorized it is a joke. Anyone think this has not occurred in any other religion? I know plenty of people who can quote the bible verbatim.
This was considered more important before people really learned to read, hence why it is still so common in the Mid-East.
And as far as changes occurring, there are specific rules about copying the Torah. If a scribe missed one letter, they had to destroy the faulty copy.
Any mention of changes (which have been found) are immediately attacked by the fundamentalists. Often with violent threats.
Nobody knows why the scholar who had all the German microfilm lied, and hid them. But it was after his death that they surfaced.
I would assume he knew how he would be seen in the Muslim world. A million times worse then Salman Rushdie ever was.
It is not too much of a leap to think that the people willing to actually kill the children of their prophet would have much of a problem changing words in a book.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
There were actually multiple versions of the Koran. Reportedly there were 14 versions, [/quote]
The question is, did the differences matter, or were they simply misplaced dots and harakat?
I somehow doubt any of message was altered from the Quran of Mohamed’s time to ours. If you disagree, do share any evidence that suggest point otherwise.
No. There were no Qurans prior to Othman’s. Compilation projects were indeed started around the same time all around the Islamic Empire, but Othman’s was the most thorough and came to fruition first.
“Multiple versions” is the worst possible way to qualify it. It carries a negative connotation. I would call them editions.
I looked up the changes and they are exclusively orthographic. It’s like calling Christie’s American editions different versions because they spell colour differently.
Well, you tell me what other religion have compiled their book publicly. Not to bash, but you can hardly find an institution more secretive than the Catholic church.
I don’t have figures to back this up, but I don’t think it is any more common in the Middle East than in the rest of the world. The tradition requires Muslims to memorize a chunk of the Quran for the prayer.
Madrassas and Quranic recitation are part of the Islamic tradition, and are widespread far beyond the Middle East.
So I heard. And if you allow me the tangent, I believe that is the reason Judaism and Islam have so much in common.
Surfaced you say? Did you consult them? If so, please point me to where I can have a look at those.
Salman is still alive and kicking, isn’t he? He was even made knight as far as I know.
But in any case, the threats on Rushdie’s life is not an argument. Salman, despite being excellent with words, is not a scholar.
When humans are involved, nothing is too much of a leap.
But you are forgetting that Islam had reached far far beyond Arabia before the book was even compiled. Before Othman, there was no physical book, yet people prayed and recited the Quran. How did those “people” you speak of manage to erase it from the collective memory on such a grand scale? Did they have giant versions of those Men-In-Black gadgets? Were they hypnotists?
I am serious here. I welcome challenges to mainstream accounts, but give me something to work with for God’s sake! How did “they” (whoever you think was behind the deed) sneak the changes past the Ummah? What words do you suspect were altered? And what motives did they have?
The theories you and Zap are presenting are, to put it mildly, not widely accepted in scholarly circles.
What scholarly circles? Anyone who has anything to say about the Koran that does not exactly match up is condemned to death.
Just like Salman Rushdie was condemned to death. Yes he is still alive, partly by luck, partly be being protected. There was a failed attempt on his life. But 2 translators have been killed, and one publisher was nearly killed.
As far as debating you, why? You will not read any posts, including the ones you post.
You make claims without backing them up, and then demand absolute proof, and when presented, dismiss it.
Here is an example of your debating style. While I only mentioned Salman Rushdie and the fatwa condemning him to death, you respond by saying he is not a scholar. What does that have to do with anything?
Obvious you didn’t even get what I was saying, or just didn’t want to.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
What scholarly circles? Anyone who has anything to say about the Koran that does not exactly match up is condemned to death. [/quote]
It is a logical fallacy to conclude that, because Salman Rushdie was threatened, the current version of the Quran is different than the one in Mohamed’s time.
And that’s relevant how?
[quote]As far as debating you, why? You will not read any posts, including the ones you post.
You make claims without backing them up, and then demand absolute proof, and when presented, dismiss it. [/quote]
Huh? You (and Zap) are the ones who made claims. And didn’t present anything new at all?
There is consensus among scholars that the Quran has essentially remained unchanged over the course of the last 15 centuries. A tiny minority attempted to disagree, but failed to provide any proof. There is no such thing as an absolute proof. What we are doing here is try to figure out what scenario is more plausible.
You ask “why” you should debate me? What kind of question is that? I am certainly not going to try and convince you to debate me. I couldn’t care less. However, I reserve the right to point out to the flaws in your theory.
So, to all those who ascribe to this minority believing the Quran suffered substantial change in the hands of some cabal, I reiterate my questions: How did “they” (whoever you think was behind the deed) sneak the changes past the Ummah? What words do you suspect were altered? And what motives did they have?
[quote]Here is an example of your debating style. While I only mentioned Salman Rushdie and the fatwa condemning him to death, you respond by saying he is not a scholar. What does that have to do with anything?
Obvious you didn’t even get what I was saying, or just didn’t want to.[/quote]
Could it be that you deliberately wrapped up whatever point you have in ambiguity because you know it has no merit?
Here’s your chance to explain then: How do criminal threats on the life of a novelist advance your point that the Quranic text was surreptitiously changed over the years?
If your point is that more research needs to done, then I concur. Research never hurt anybody and challenging accepted theories is what makes us move forward. I encourage you to become active in the field. Surely, a T-men cannot be intimidated. In the meantime, spare us the jumping to conclusions based on thin air.