A Muslim Da Vinci Code?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Gentlemen, please, discussing such vital questions like, “how do you know we aren’t stuck in the matrix?”, can rest for a while, let’s return to the thread’s original intent, ja?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Ok, I see now. He is saying that the macro-language that is Arabic today is not the same as the Quran’s, but is closer to Aramaic. Did I get that right? Then I need to ask the following:

When a word in the Quran seems to have both Hebrew and Aramaic roots, and assuming both are different, how does one decide which meaning is the correct one? Did Mr. Luxemberg devise some automagical pattern recognition program that processes that? Or is he a one man army who claims to know better than the profusion of scholar to have studied the topic? Do you not think somebody with the meticulousness, independence of judgment, and era of people like Ibn Jarir are bound to be closer to the original meaning than what an invisible German dude says in the 21th century?

Honestly, this guy’s entire theory rests upon the idea that nobody ever bothered to study what is undoubtedly the most important and influential “literary” work to come out of Arabia.
[/quote]

OK, so you I see you repeatedly try to discredit him en passant because you don’t recognize the necessity to take a pseudonym.

Fact is, there is so little scientific work concerning the linguistic roots of the quran. And the islamic world doesn’t care.

You are just unknowing if you think that your little favorite book is a direct copy of god’s word. The eldest manuscripts lack many times diacritical or vocal marks. German scientists of the Corpus Coranicum project are busy working on that (estimated working time: 20 years) and the first results will be published 2009.

Comparing Ibn Jarir to them is like saying Hieronymus knew better then today’s archeologists if King David existed.

The Quran is -like the bible- not a book of hard facts and it shouldn’t claim that role.
The sooner you learn that ancient (and to an extent, middle age) “history” was often a try to interpret and deal with reality through recreating it, much like creating gods, the better you will understand the early history of your religion.

[quote]lixy wrote:
For the sake of argument, how much does Mr. L. consider to be rubbish in the way the Quran is understood today? More than half? A quarter? Less than 5%? 1%? In other words, how much of what we think is Arabic today is Aramaic?
[/quote]
Ask him, it’s meaningless to me. It is not god’s direct word, that is the point. While it’s not shocking news for me, the truth (which will become more apparent in 10, 20 years as many promising long term projects are taking their sweet time right now) will force more (reasonable) people to see it this way.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Also, whoever came up with the idea to hide that the Quran is not from Mohamed’s time? Was it a concerted effort? Or just something that snuck upon the Islamic collective memory?
[/quote]
Do you have a clue how collective memory works? How few people could read? How natural it is for a culture to merge the ow self-evident “truths” and myths with a borrowed gospel? How many times this happened in all cultures across the globe?
This is not fraud, not an evil conspiracy, this is how religion works.

[quote]lixy wrote:
How does he explain the blatant inconsistencies of his theory with the Hadith and Mohamed’s references to the Quran? Were the many people who compiled the Hadith independently part of that secret cabal? Or were they (along with their prolific legacy) just a figment of the Ummah’s imagination?
[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand. Surely the early Hadith(s?) had a profound impact on the quran. While today millions of people are separated through some basic differences in exegesis, in an early time of a religion, everything goes. Look to the christian belief, when the bible is etched in stone (latin), people will be divided through different interpretations (protestant upheaval) but in the early time (3rd century) you have quite a difference even in the holy texts that are 1) culturally inspired and 2)empowered because there is an abundance of genuine holy texts and creeds (for example, arianism).

At this early point, one voice will be stronger and condemn the others, say that god has always spoken clearly, and , when necessary, alter the books -which in their opinion was the most natural and reasonable thing to do, as ancient people had no historical sense as we do today.

You can also take the other monotheists, your favorite semites, the jews. Their clerics recreated a historical unity while in slavery (egypt). Did they lie when they made up all these heroes, kings and drama out of thin air? Why didn’t the people cry out in disgust (“hey, it wasn’t like this! Salomon was a poor tyrant, not a great king, I know, my great uncle served under him!”)

[quote]lixy wrote:
I think I am beginning to understand the title of the thread now.
[/quote]
I hope so.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The idea behind Islam - if I might be so arrogant as to speak for Him - is to give humanity one last chance of redemption, because, supposedly, all the other messages were corrupted.
[/quote]
How many last chances do we get?
And if I may be so arrogant as to speak badly of him, why does he always fuck up so hard, Lixy? He creates us, knowing that religion somehow never unites but divides us. That we do not grasp his riddles and take his murderous rules too literally and his moral commandments too figuratively
And why didn’t he speak at all to vast numbers of his sheep. Why didn’t he appear to the people of native America? Why… ah it’s probably pointless anyway.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Like Sam Harris pointed out, the non radicals just don’t see how pointless their “moderate” faith is.

How is aspiring to a balance between the Earthly and the Heavenly pointless?
[/quote]
What is the heavenly, then? Will you tell me? I see only bloodshed.

[quote]lixy wrote:
There’s a Hadith that goes: “When you like someone, you should like him moderately because he might become someone whom you dislike one day, and when you dislike someone dislike him moderately because he might become someone you like one day.”

If everybody was to abide by that piece of wisdom, the world would be a far better place. Replace “someone” with “something”, and you have yourself a recipe for a perfect life. It’s weird saying that to a crowd who’s allegedly hardcore, but it is a point which can’t be stressed enough. Be it money, food, women, deadlifts or even God, loving (or hating) any of these to the extreme can only lead to catastrophes. Case in point: war, obesity, anorexia, crimes of passion, terrorism, herniae…[/quote]

There is a chinese saying I like very much, which I will spare you, because wise words are easy to produce, it’s the realization that is the hard part (there, another chinese saying). What I will share with you though is the fact that you should be wary of the wisdom of hadith. I came across countless very wise catholic psalms and sayings in my life, some of them indeed wise (like: god give me the strength to change things, the composure to endure things I cannot change and the wisdom to differentiate bewwen the two) but there is a catch:

These proverbs are most often not biblical/christian (the example was from Marc Aurel, but people always attribute it to some saint or whatnot), they were kinda stolen. Again, nobody thought anything about that, it is the way you associate all you find just, good and how things are supposed to be with your religion.

Good night , Lixy

64

I once read in a science magazine that there is a part of the brain that makes it think it is only one consciousness.

I personally believe in a psychology/philosophy that believes we are all kind of split personalities of a sort. And at any time you can actually talk to your other “parts”. (After which you are supposed to reintegrate yourself back together.)

Trying this is actually almost freaky. You actually can have a conversation with yourself.

Along the same lines, you can imagine anyone you chose, and have a conversation with them. The whole thing is a very powerful form of imagination, or maybe better described as a form of hypnosis.

Anyone not familiar with this, especially in ancient times, would naturally think they are having a mystical experience.

Keep asking yourself questions, and if you listen you will get a response. It is simply that your mind is talking to itself.
Even today if you experience this in a church, it is a religious experience. They have you do it at a business seminar, its psychological motivation, and keys to success. Experience it in some new age group, and you are talking to your guardian angel, or connecting with the cosmic consciousness. And yet others think the devil is talking to them. Or aliens. Or that 15 year old bran muffin on the corner of the coffee table.

And yes I know how strange this sounds to everyone.

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think that God spoke to Muhammed and he was very happy and told everyone how cool it was. Someone got the idea to use his experience as a way to power — anyone not believing was blaspheming, evil, and so on. So, Mohammed’s wonderful experience (which I have had similar) was used for nefarious purposes. [/quote]

Earlier you said that Mohamed didn’t even exist. It is not disputed that the Prophet himself rose to a prominent position of power in his lifetime: King of Arabia. Unifying the Arab tribes was something proviously unheard of. This is history as we know it, both from Islamic tradition and non-Islamic texts. Do you agree with that part? Or do you think Mohamed never left Mecca, never migrated to Medina, didn’t raise an army, etc.?

In any case, you say that “someone got the idea to use his experience as a way to power”. Who? Abu Bakr? Omar? Ali? We know that the Sunni-Shi’a rift occurred instants after the prophet’s death. How come the overlap between both is so important?

I don’t know about that. I mean, if torturing puppies is what makes you happy, should you still make it your goal. What about pedophiles? Serial killers? Junkies?

Before the advent of Islam, infanticide was a common practice in Arabia. So yeah, if someone comes along abolishing that, condemning theft, usury, slavery, it is safe to assume that he has the best intentions for the welfare of society over there. If he adds that men shouldn’t poke each other in the butt, that people shouldn’t dress too provocatively in public, that alcohol and other toxins are to be avoided, that one should often meditate, give to the poor, and not be abusive, I’m willing to buy that.

It may sound weird to an American, but the world does not revolve around you. What you do to make yourself happy, can negatively affect your surroundings (you know, SUVs and other hot cars!). The trick is to find a balance.

66

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Fact is, there is so little scientific work concerning the linguistic roots of the quran. And the islamic world doesn’t care. [/quote]

I always encourage more research. But what do you care if the Islamic world cares or not?

Hold on! That is NOT what I challenged; I am arguing that the Quran can be traced back to Mohamed. I never said anything about God’s word, now did I?

Zap and Mage claimed that the Quran originated centuries after the prophet’s death. That is the theory I (and historians) have a problem with.

Sure.

But did you ever read Arabic literature? An Arabic newspaper? Vocal marks are seldom used. The last time I read something with vocal marks was in 4th grade.

Brilliant! That oughta put an end to speculations and other conspiracy theories.

Surely, the ones working under the Islamic empire had more means and insight than your “corpus”.

[quote]The Quran is -like the bible- not a book of hard facts and it shouldn’t claim that role.
The sooner you learn that ancient (and to an extent, middle age) “history” was often a try to interpret and deal with reality through recreating it, much like creating gods, the better you will understand the early history of your religion. [/quote]

Again, you are building a strawman. I never claimed that the Quran is a book of hard facts. Very very few Muslims would make that claim, let alone try to convince you that it is.

For ALL practical purposes, it doesn’t change a thing whether the stories occured or are symbolic.

[quote]For the sake of argument, how much does Mr. L. consider to be rubbish in the way the Quran is understood today? More than half? A quarter? Less than 5%? 1%? In other words, how much of what we think is Arabic today is Aramaic?

Ask him, it’s meaningless to me. [/quote]

Kinda hard to do, isn’t it? I’m assuming he’s not listed in the book.

Mmmmkay…that’s your opinion. But I’m pretty sure nobody here gives a flying duck about that, or will attempt to change your mind.

Ok. I’ll stay tuned.

[quote]Do you have a clue how collective memory works? How few people could read? How natural it is for a culture to merge the ow self-evident “truths” and myths with a borrowed gospel? How many times this happened in all cultures across the globe?
This is not fraud, not an evil conspiracy, this is how religion works. [/quote]

That’s not exactly what I’ll call solid evidence.

How about the hadiths that reference the Quran?

[quote]While today millions of people are separated through some basic differences in exegesis, in an early time of a religion, everything goes. Look to the christian belief, when the bible is etched in stone (latin), people will be divided through different interpretations (protestant upheaval) but in the early time (3rd century) you have quite a difference even in the holy texts that are 1) culturally inspired and 2)empowered because there is an abundance of genuine holy texts and creeds (for example, arianism).

At this early point, one voice will be stronger and condemn the others, say that god has always spoken clearly, and , when necessary, alter the books -which in their opinion was the most natural and reasonable thing to do, as ancient people had no historical sense as we do today.

You can also take the other monotheists, your favorite semites, the jews. Their clerics recreated a historical unity while in slavery (egypt). Did they lie when they made up all these heroes, kings and drama out of thin air? Why didn’t the people cry out in disgust (“hey, it wasn’t like this! Salomon was a poor tyrant, not a great king, I know, my great uncle served under him!”) [/quote]

And how does that refute the widely accepted theory that the Quran originated in Mohamed’s times?

[quote]The idea behind Islam - if I might be so arrogant as to speak for Him - is to give humanity one last chance of redemption, because, supposedly, all the other messages were corrupted.

How many last chances do we get? And if I may be so arrogant as to speak badly of him, why does he always fuck up so hard, Lixy? He creates us, knowing that religion somehow never unites but divides us. That we do not grasp his riddles and take his murderous rules too literally and his moral commandments too figuratively
And why didn’t he speak at all to vast numbers of his sheep. Why didn’t he appear to the people of native America? Why… ah it’s probably pointless anyway. [/quote]

Why did He allow Adam and Eve to get kicked out of Heaven? Why did He create Satan? Why do babies get nasty diseases?

[quote]Like Sam Harris pointed out, the non radicals just don’t see how pointless their “moderate” faith is.

How is aspiring to a balance between the Earthly and the Heavenly pointless?

What is the heavenly, then? Will you tell me? I see only bloodshed. [/quote]

The Heavenly cannot, by definition, be seen on Earth. And yes, down here, it’s mainly suffering. Hence the need to grab onto something bigger where the bad guys get punished and the good guys rewarded.

[quote]lixy wrote:
There’s a Hadith that goes: “When you like someone, you should like him moderately because he might become someone whom you dislike one day, and when you dislike someone dislike him moderately because he might become someone you like one day.”

If everybody was to abide by that piece of wisdom, the world would be a far better place. Replace “someone” with “something”, and you have yourself a recipe for a perfect life. It’s weird saying that to a crowd who’s allegedly hardcore, but it is a point which can’t be stressed enough. Be it money, food, women, deadlifts or even God, loving (or hating) any of these to the extreme can only lead to catastrophes. Case in point: war, obesity, anorexia, crimes of passion, terrorism, herniae…

There is a chinese saying I like very much, which I will spare you, because wise words are easy to produce, it’s the realization that is the hard part (there, another chinese saying). What I will share with you though is the fact that you should be wary of the wisdom of hadith. I came across countless very wise catholic psalms and sayings in my life, some of them indeed wise (like: god give me the strength to change things, the composure to endure things I cannot change and the wisdom to differentiate bewwen the two) but there is a catch:

These proverbs are most often not biblical/christian (the example was from Marc Aurel, but people always attribute it to some saint or whatnot), they were kinda stolen. Again, nobody thought anything about that, it is the way you associate all you find just, good and how things are supposed to be with your religion. [/quote]

You are saying that that, because some people misattributed proverbs, the Hadith must therefore be a bunch of hooey?

If that’s you catch, color me unimpressed.

67

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

Since you missed is, here the point in plain English: Don’t trust anything unless it’s verifiable.

Lixy,

I find this an astounding statement from one who is a devout believer in a religion.

Apologies if it’s too personal a question, but how do you reconcile this with your belief in God?[/quote]

Here’s what I take to be a self-evident truth: That there is no god but God (He is ONE), and that Mohamed’s one of His prophets.

Everything else is up to debate.

On a side note, ever heard of those folks?

69

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I think that God spoke to Muhammed and he was very happy and told everyone how cool it was. Someone got the idea to use his experience as a way to power — anyone not believing was blaspheming, evil, and so on. So, Mohammed’s wonderful experience (which I have had similar) was used for nefarious purposes.

Earlier you said that Mohamed didn’t even exist. It is not disputed that the Prophet himself rose to a prominent position of power in his lifetime: King of Arabia. Unifying the Arab tribes was something proviously unheard of. This is history as we know it, both from Islamic tradition and non-Islamic texts. Do you agree with that part? Or do you think Mohamed never left Mecca, never migrated to Medina, didn’t raise an army, etc.?

In any case, you say that “someone got the idea to use his experience as a way to power”. Who? Abu Bakr? Omar? Ali? We know that the Sunni-Shi’a rift occurred instants after the prophet’s death. How come the overlap between both is so important?

This is why I like anyone who says: “Use your own judgment. Your goal is to make yourself happy.” That person isn’t trying to control you

I don’t know about that. I mean, if torturing puppies is what makes you happy, should you still make it your goal. What about pedophiles? Serial killers? Junkies?

Before the advent of Islam, infanticide was a common practice in Arabia. So yeah, if someone comes along abolishing that, condemning theft, usury, slavery, it is safe to assume that he has the best intentions for the welfare of society over there. If he adds that men shouldn’t poke each other in the butt, that people shouldn’t dress too provocatively in public, that alcohol and other toxins are to be avoided, that one should often meditate, give to the poor, and not be abusive, I’m willing to buy that.

It may sound weird to an American, but the world does not revolve around you. What you do to make yourself happy, can negatively affect your surroundings (you know, SUVs and other hot cars!). The trick is to find a balance.[/quote]

If it is okay for someone else to make rules for me, then why is it wrong for me to make rules for them? Because they had a mystical experience? Why does that qualify someone to rule the lives of others?

You are making a deep error when you assume that selfishness is without context. Is it truly selfish to hurt puppies or children? No. Aristotle defined what a human is — true selfishness is acting in the interests of yourself as a RATIONAL BEING. Selfishness is NOT arbitrary. Selfishness by its very definition can’t involve victims — you then need other selves (the victims) to attain your quasi-happiness.

I do not know if Mohammed existed at all. I doubt it, but its irrelevent. When someone trumps up all this stuff and tells others what to do, and wants to make everyone else in the world follow these rules, then THAT is pure horseshit.

Your life belongs to YOU and the GOOD is to live it.
— Ayn Rand

(And Ayn Rand would crush Muhammed in a debate! ;D)

70

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Thanks for your response, but, if I may pursue a bit further, how do you see this as “a self-evident truth?” It is hardly “verifiable,” and therefore not to be trusted (your words, paraphrased), no? [/quote]

There’s no short answer for this. So, let’s just consider it a detour into the realm of faith.

71

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Thanks for your response, but, if I may pursue a bit further, how do you see this as “a self-evident truth?” It is hardly “verifiable,” and therefore not to be trusted (your words, paraphrased), no?

There’s no short answer for this. So, let’s just consider it a detour into the realm of faith.[/quote]

“Faith is a shortcircuit destroying the mind.”
— Ayn Rand

“Anyone who asks you to suspend your reason and have faith wants to get away with something that your reason would not accept.”
— Ayn Rand

72

[quote]lixy wrote:
Fact is, there is so little scientific work concerning the linguistic roots of the quran. And the islamic world doesn’t care.
I always encourage more research. But what do you care if the Islamic world cares or not?
[/quote]
You do perhaps, your brothers in faith do not.
I care in so far, that the islamic world is using ignorance as a wall to shield themselves against modern age. You can’t (and don’t) deny that science -save for nuclear engineering as you know- has a very low priority in islamic countries, BECAUSE of the damn book that makes idiots out of people.

[quote]lixy wrote:
You are just unknowing if you think that your little favorite book is a direct copy of god’s word.
Hold on! That is NOT what I challenged; I am arguing that the Quran can be traced back to Mohamed. I never said anything about God’s word, now did I?
Zap and Mage claimed that the Quran originated centuries after the prophet’s death. That is the theory I (and historians) have a problem with.
[/quote]
That is nonsense. The key issue is if the book was altered with time so to fit better to general social opinion, which it did.
So did the original quran was different in Muhamed’s time? It probably was and this is what so many historians argue with.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The eldest manuscripts lack many times diacritical or vocal marks.
Sure.
But did you ever read Arabic literature? An Arabic newspaper? Vocal marks are seldom used. The last time I read something with vocal marks was in 4th grade.
[/quote]
For the umpteenth time: Now count in the factor that these texts lay the foundation of your language and could be read various ways in the beginning

[quote]lixy wrote:
German scientists of the Corpus Coranicum project are busy working on that (estimated working time: 20 years) and the first results will be published 2009.
Brilliant! That oughta put an end to speculations and other conspiracy theories.
[/quote]
The Irony. That is something that has never been done before but should’ve been. The TRUE irony is that this is done by pagans- namely us Germans.
Jewish archeologists, for example, have no problem debunking their tora as they dig deep into the soil and history of their land. Muslims have quite a problem with that.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Comparing Ibn Jarir to them is like saying Hieronymus knew better then today’s archeologists if King David existed.
Surely, the ones working under the Islamic empire had more means and insight than your “corpus”.[/quote]
You’re joking.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Quran is -like the bible- not a book of hard facts and it shouldn’t claim that role.
The sooner you learn that ancient (and to an extent, middle age) “history” was often a try to interpret and deal with reality through recreating it, much like creating gods, the better you will understand the early history of your religion.
Again, you are building a strawman. I never claimed that the Quran is a book of hard facts. Very very few Muslims would make that claim, let alone try to convince you that it is.
[/quote]
Ahm. You’re not serious again- Most do precisely that. That is the reason you so staunchly attack the notion, the quran could be a historical document, altered and influenced over the years- and not god’s word. Therfore, you assume it is the bestest book and islam the bestest religion.

That is rubbish: It IS THE main point with all abrahemic religions: is it gawd’s word or not? Is it just a tradition or THE truest truth?
It’s the reason why catholisicm and Islam have their hands up their armpits dripping with blood, you cutup -ask ZEB about it or Stellar Horizon or look at polls how many alone in the US think the bible is god’s direct word. it is THE main issue.

Because it’s natural for followers to alter the texts. And the theory is not widely accepted among serious scholars.

Punishment and reward are earthly concepts, that have been refined countless times. Even apes have them. Did they , too , had prophets for that?

The Hadith you presented was a proverb.
The Hadiths , generally, are a bunch of crap every major religion has to suffer through: what is exactly the right exegesis, which tradition, which is the prophet’s rightful heir and who is a fraud.
You don’t buy this crap, do you?
It’s worth as much as ancient dynasties and their efferent divine claim to leadership.

73

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You can’t (and don’t) deny that science -save for nuclear engineering as you know- has a very low priority in islamic countries, BECAUSE of the damn book that makes idiots out of people. [/quote]

Not following. If what you’re saying has any substance, how do you explain the scientific achievements of Muslims in the ol’ days?

Also, please try to avoid using such terms as the “damn book” when referring to the Quran. It serves no purpose, but may stir the debate into something not particularly constructive.

[quote]lixy wrote:
You are just unknowing if you think that your little favorite book is a direct copy of god’s word.
Hold on! That is NOT what I challenged; I am arguing that the Quran can be traced back to Mohamed. I never said anything about God’s word, now did I?
Zap and Mage claimed that the Quran originated centuries after the prophet’s death. That is the theory I (and historians) have a problem with.

That is nonsense. The key issue is if the book was altered with time so to fit better to general social opinion, which it did.
So did the original quran was different in Mu to mehamed’s time? It probably was and this is what so many historians argue with. [/quote]

Many historians? Not really. A small faction at best.

So far, you have made no real effort to demonstrate that the book was substantially altered. And when you say “was altered with time so to fit better to general social opinion”, what passages do you have in mind?

[quote]lixy wrote:
The eldest manuscripts lack many times diacritical or vocal marks.
Sure.
But did you ever read Arabic literature? An Arabic newspaper? Vocal marks are seldom used. The last time I read something with vocal marks was in 4th grade.

For the umpteenth time: Now count in the factor that these texts lay the foundation of your language and could be read various ways in the beginning [/quote]

So…?

Explain to me - clearly if you can - how the fact that “these texts lay the foundation of” the Arabic language demonstrate alterations of the Quran occurred.

[quote]lixy wrote:
German scientists of the Corpus Coranicum project are busy working on that (estimated working time: 20 years) and the first results will be published 2009.
Brilliant! That oughta put an end to speculations and other conspiracy theories.

The Irony. That is something that has never been done before but should’ve been. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? The Quran can easily make the top 5 of books that drained most ink and saliva - EVER!

It’s been done so many times that an exhaustive list would take years to compile.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Comparing Ibn Jarir to them is like saying Hieronymus knew better then today’s archeologists if King David existed.
Surely, the ones working under the Islamic empire had more means and insight than your “corpus”.

You’re joking. [/quote]

No, I’m not. I’m totally serious. You have to be really arrogant to think that your “corpus” has means anywhere close to that of the crews working under the (mighty) Islamic empire, for centuries.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Quran is -like the bible- not a book of hard facts and it shouldn’t claim that role.
The sooner you learn that ancient (and to an extent, middle age) “history” was often a try to interpret and deal with reality through recreating it, much like creating gods, the better you will understand the early history of your religion.
Again, you are building a strawman. I never claimed that the Quran is a book of hard facts. Very very few Muslims would make that claim, let alone try to convince you that it is.

Ahm. You’re not serious again- Most do precisely that. That is the reason you so staunchly attack the notion, the quran could be a historical document, altered and influenced over the years- and not god’s word. [/quote]

You’re confused. The notion I “staunchly” attacked was the OP’s claim that the Quran is posterior to Mohamed. Tell that to a historian, and he/she will laugh at your face.

To debate whether the Quran is a “book of hard facts” is an invitation to conjecture. Whether Mohamed really get on a winged horse that flew at the speed of sound, or was it a dream does not matter the least bit to me. You can’t demonstrate any of it either way. Did Moses really split the sea with his magic wand or is it just figurative? Again, don’t know, don’t care.

I will have to agree that the Quran is the “bestest book”. It surpasses anything ever written in Arabic in style and eloquence. As far as Islam being the “bestest religion”, I do not want to get into that debate for fear of offending others on this board. But let’s just say that it beats the crap out of Scientology.

[quote]It is not god’s direct word, that is the point.
Mmmmkay…that’s your opinion. But I’m pretty sure nobody here gives a flying duck about that, or will attempt to change your mind.

That is rubbish: It IS THE main point with all abrahemic religions: is it gawd’s word or not? Is it just a tradition or THE truest truth?
It’s the reason why catholisicm and Islam have their hands up their armpits dripping with blood, you cutup -ask ZEB about it or Stellar Horizon or look at polls how many alone in the US think the bible is god’s direct word. it is THE main issue. [/quote]

Rubbish? Which part? That it’s “your opinion”? Or that nobody here gives a flying duck nor will attempt to change your mind?

[quote]While today millions of people are separated through some basic differences in exegesis, in an early time of a religion, everything goes. Look to the christian belief, when the bible is etched in stone (latin), people will be divided through different interpretations (protestant upheaval) but in the early time (3rd century) you have quite a difference even in the holy texts that are 1) culturally inspired and 2)empowered because there is an abundance of genuine holy texts and creeds (for example, arianism).

At this early point, one voice will be stronger and condemn the others, say that god has always spoken clearly, and , when necessary, alter the books -which in their opinion was the most natural and reasonable thing to do, as ancient people had no historical sense as we do today.

You can also take the other monotheists, your favorite semites, the jews. Their clerics recreated a historical unity while in slavery (egypt). Did they lie when they made up all these heroes, kings and drama out of thin air? Why didn’t the people cry out in disgust (“hey, it wasn’t like this! Salomon was a poor tyrant, not a great king, I know, my great uncle served under him!”)

And how does that refute the widely accepted theory that the Quran originated in Mohamed’s times?

Because it’s natural for followers to alter the texts. And the theory is not widely accepted among serious scholars. [/quote]

You aren’t making much sense.

You are saying that followers of Mohamed altered the Quran because it is “natural”? Do you seriously expect to convince anyone with that?

As for your reply to the “widely accepted theory”, I’ll ask you to look up the verb originate. You don’t seem to know what that means. Finally, a scholar doesn’t necessarily have to agree with you to be “serious”.

[quote]What is the heavenly, then? Will you tell me? I see only bloodshed.
The Heavenly cannot, by definition, be seen on Earth. And yes, down here, it’s mainly suffering. Hence the need to grab onto something bigger where the bad guys get punished and the good guys rewarded

Punishment and reward are earthly concepts, that have been refined countless times. Even apes have them. Did they , too , had prophets for that? [/quote]

Hum? You’re trying to equate bananas and sex to the pursuit of the spiritual?

This discussion is getting seriously dull.

[quote]There is a chinese saying I like very much, which I will spare you, because wise words are easy to produce, it’s the realization that is the hard part (there, another chinese saying). What I will share with you though is the fact that you should be wary of the wisdom of hadith. I came across countless very wise catholic psalms and sayings in my life, some of them indeed wise (like: god give me the strength to change things, the composure to endure things I cannot change and the wisdom to differentiate bewwen the two) but there is a catch:

These proverbs are most often not biblical/christian (the example was from Marc Aurel, but people always attribute it to some saint or whatnot), they were kinda stolen. Again, nobody thought anything about that, it is the way you associate all you find just, good and how things are supposed to be with your religion.
You are saying that that, because some people misattributed proverbs, the Hadith must therefore be a bunch of hooey?
If that’s you catch, color me unimpressed.

The Hadith you presented was a proverb.
The Hadiths , generally, are a bunch of crap every major religion has to suffer through: what is exactly the right exegesis, which tradition, which is the prophet’s rightful heir and who is a fraud.
You don’t buy this crap, do you?
It’s worth as much as ancient dynasties and their efferent divine claim to leadership. [/quote]

I don’t give a rat’s ass who “the prophet’s rightful heir” is. But I do know that the history, acts, and saying of Mohamed have been more thoroughly gathered and recorded than any other “major religion”.

And what difference does it make that the Hadith was a proverb or not? That Mohamed adopted it is the only point I was trying to make.

So, when you say “you don’t buy this crap, do you?”, are you expressing a) a disagreement with the Hadith’s point, b) a suspicion that the prophet uttered those words, or c) the prophet’s lack of originality? If the latter, let me tell you that ship has sailed. Mohamed’s message never meant to be original.

God, I miss Pookie…

74

I wish there were more Eastern Orthodox churches were I live. My random contribution to this religious discussion is now complete.

75

[quote]lixy wrote:
Not following. If what you’re saying has any substance, how do you explain the scientific achievements of Muslims in the ol’ days?
[/quote]
Only a handful of universities in islamic countries actually bother to release scientific studies. Half of the countries who are the lowest contributers in this area are OIC countries. There are only two meager islamic nobel prize winners.
In Sweden, there are ten times as many scientists as in the average OIC state.
Science means not much in the land where the one book rules them all.

The muslims of old get too much credit for my taste. How about you cut the crap of lamenting about the golden age and look to the present?
Also, please answer my question I already asked you a few times in the forum; do you feel more as a muslim then a swede? Do you feel swedish at all?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Also, please try to avoid using such terms as the “damn book” when referring to the Quran. It serves no purpose, but may stir the debate into something not particularly constructive.
[/quote]
It serves a purpose; As it’s an object and not a person, I find it reasonable to explain my animosity towards raising it to a divine level, when all it does is promoting pain and spite.

[quote]lixy wrote:
So far, you have made no real effort to demonstrate that the book was substantially altered. And when you say “was altered with time so to fit better to general social opinion”, what passages do you have in mind?
[/quote]
Must I remind you the whole time what we’re after here?
The huris…for one. Perfect example.
A convenient twisting of ancient gibberish to recruit warriors who won’t fear death. Worked wonders with the hashashin, didn’t it?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Explain to me - clearly if you can - how the fact that “these texts lay the foundation of” the Arabic language demonstrate alterations of the Quran occurred.
[/quote]
As I already said, if you have several options, you pick the one you like best, see, for instance the example with the huris.
Same like in my religion, the "virgin-birth "isn’t really waterproof, it could have also meant young woman, but the old patriarchs didn’t deem it appropriate.

[quote]lixy wrote:
No, I’m not. I’m totally serious. You have to be really arrogant to think that your “corpus” has means anywhere close to that of the crews working under the (mighty) Islamic empire, for centuries.
[/quote]
You’re comparing scientific work of today with middle age fuddling? Augustinus was one of the most influential and outstanding patriarchs and therefor his works shaped europe, our culture, our thinking.
But I’d never compare him to a scientist. His arguments and thoughts about science and nature were laughable compared to today. If he posted from his grave in this very forum he’d get owned by Balbos.
Taking scholars of the (mighty) islamic empire and transform then rethorically into something more then scribes is madness.

Don’t spin it. The quran has roots. You call them god and claim that he has simply chosen to grant humanity “another” chance for redemption, so everyone began with that one man.
Others here in this thread want to show you that the quran has a history and that he didn’t suddenly emerge out a cave but grew slowly, with Muhamed probably as it’s main contributer but refined in detail and haphazardly translated where language barriers wouldn’t do the job (warning: oversimplification! Is it grapes, imam, or virgins? Virgins of course!)[/quote]

Of course you know! There is no tooth fairie! Didn’t your parents tell you that?
My, I’d like to ride a winged horse for sure, but just wishing won’t make it so, Lixy.
And a egalitarian approach is harmful, because you give fanatics the moral legality to make up weird excuses for almost any behaviour.

As for style, maybe.
But so far scientology beats the bible, quran, tora and the other damn divine books by miles when it comes to bloodshed of epic proportions. (Save the damn red books of Mao and Stalin, which score very high on the frag list)

This is atheism 101. Whether it’s god’s word or not IS THE one brontozillion dollar question.

I’ll change my tactic here.
Can’t you think of any advantage a deliberate and “worked” early exegesis might have? Why so many branched sects of a monotheistic religion get massacred in the early stages?

Apes play, rape, lie, cheat, communicate intelligently,can learn new languages and pay for sex. So you try to understate that by playing the “we are god’s biggest creation-card”?
As long as you cannot define spiritual persuits let’s look at the net value of religion and not trifle with pathos. And the concrete market value of religions (as well as their driving forces- see especially the early history of Islam) was always political in nature, not the spiritual bliss.

fair enough, let’s no haggle over proverbs, but get to the point, ok?

76

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I wish there were more Eastern Orthodox churches were I live. My random contribution to this religious discussion is now complete.[/quote]

Thank you.

Care to explain why looking at your avatar may cause little kids to collapse and twitch on the ground, all the while drooling on the carpet?

77

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wish there were more Eastern Orthodox churches were I live. My random contribution to this religious discussion is now complete.

Schwarz wrote:
Thank you.
[/quote]
No problem. I view the Eastern Orhtodox church favorably, if that’s what you’re thanking me for. I would rather attend one than the Catholic church, personally.

[quote]
Schwarz wrote:
Care to explain why looking at your avatar may cause little kids to collapse and twitch on the ground, all the while drooling on the carpet?[/quote]

The full power of Dobbs should be viewed with extreme caution. Especially, children and the elderly should avert their gaze away from the visage of what we know to be…The Dobbs.

78

I mean: why do you change it so often? (>epileptic shock?)
What’s up with the Congressman? A damn fine avatar that was!

79

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I mean: why do you change it so often? (>epileptic shock?)
What’s up with the Congressman? A damn fine avatar that was![/quote]

Ah. Short avatar attention span, I suppose. Simply fool around with it, more than take my avatars seriously. Ron Paul? I still like and support many of his positions. But his personal character has come into question in away that I find troubling. Therefore, I’ll pass on supporting the candidate.