[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m no Ph.D. in linguistics but the discipline happens to be a hobby of mine. The root of the word would be “hur” which unequivocally translates as “pure”. Whoever told you it means white is seriously misinformed.[/quote]
See Rainjack? The nipples aren’t white, they’re pure.
Who wouldn’t like pure nipples on heavenly, spherical tits?
It sure beats strumming a silly harp while sitting on a cloud.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t see why would anyone try to stir a controversy about this. There is a mountain of evidence (which I merely scratched) to support the conclusion that Houris are beautiful dames.[/quote]
Well duh. Who in Hell would try to sell Heaven by populating it with ugly, fat nagging hags?
Other than Puritans, I mean?
Lixy, engaging in a debate about your “gawd” would be pointless, because, well, how to put this, you truly believe that because you were popped out of a vagina in a certain land or to specific parents who then raised you the way you’re supposed to raise kids in that country/community and who crippled your foreskin assures you some extra entertainment in some strange afterlife that looks just as ridiculous as the one jehova’s witnesses try to sell you in their flyers-except yours got more porn.
or to quote Mr. Al-Suyuty from the, 16th Century, a rather stern Muslim theologician:
“Each time we sleep with a houri we find her as a virgin. Also, the penis of the elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.”
I don’t know if I would had the strength to refrain from believing in Santa and Mickey Mouse if Disney would promise me stuff like that!
But honestly, We are both unarmed for a serious debate for that. Your arabic is better then mine, but both our aramaeic sucks equally. And your arabic isn’t used in the book. And like I said, the ancient characters leave much to guess.
25% of the koran is practically incomprehensible. How much christian mythology was sucked up and distorted in these pages will be totally invisible to you.
I can find dozens of interpretation who show me how laughable the bible as a historical text is, how the content was manipulated, from where it derived etc. What about the koran? Practically zero. Liberal scientists who try to interpret these texts are threatened by death-I wonder why?
And please don’t say that your arabic is little different from the one used in the koran. The koran unified the arabic dialects. So if you believe the word “hur” means pure, you do so exactly because the first interpretations meant you to believe this. How much christo-syrian influence had it’s impact on the text is totally shielded from your eyes. Same goes for the following words.
Perhaps there are some english translations you could seek out?
P.S. I like your paradise very much, but please stop believing this nonsense-or find a way to include Germans!
check out also this one
or better, screw all these montheistic- abrahamic gods and create the “Mesopotamian Vixen Thread” and let’s all rejoice like brothers there!
Ideology is not very applicable to the realist school of policy making.
In economic terms, ideology is a “cheap” resource. That is to say, anyone can believe whatever they want - whether that includes believing that Allah wants them to fight the US or some such is not nearly as important as their fundamental capacity for carrying out these acts.
And the latter is subject to economic constraints because these individuals must deal with limited resources if they are to turn their beliefs into action.
Not every person who would like to attack this country has the resources to do so. The overwhelming majority of them don’t. We are left to chase after the few grains of sand that slip through the net.
Ideology should never be taken seriously when it isn’t backed by anything of economic worth.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’m no Ph.D. in linguistics but the discipline happens to be a hobby of mine. The root of the word would be “hur” which unequivocally translates as “pure”. Whoever told you it means white is seriously misinformed.
See Rainjack? The nipples aren’t white, they’re pure.
Who wouldn’t like pure nipples on heavenly, spherical tits?
It sure beats strumming a silly harp while sitting on a cloud.
[/quote]
maybe I am reading the kuran/q’ran/whatever the fuck it’s called wrong, but that would make your translation mean that the tit would be pure nipple.
Maybe that’s your cup of tea. But a pure, white nipple-tit for all of eternity would just be weird. Two nipples on one tit would be kinda cool, though.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Lixy, engaging in a debate about your “gawd” would be pointless, because, well, how to put this, you truly believe that because you were popped out of a vagina in a certain land or to specific parents who then raised you the way you’re supposed to raise kids in that country/community and who crippled your foreskin assures you some extra entertainment in some strange afterlife that looks just as ridiculous as the one jehova’s witnesses try to sell you in their flyers-except yours got more porn.[/quote]
Let’s make one thing very clear, I was never raised in the Islamic tradition. In fact, most of my family knows as much about Islam as you do, that is, zilch. Until a few years back, I was a professed atheist and proud of it at that.
Anyway, at one point (some might argue that chronologically it was after my 10-days coma experience) I suddenly realized that there had to be something behind the curtains to explain the near-perfection in the creation, to compensate for all the unfairness in the world, and a higher purpose than eating, shitting, snoozing, and (pro)creating. I went on to study the alternatives.
The idea of a single omnipotent and omniscient being appealed to me for various reasons. I won’t list them because that would get us into a metaphysical discussion (and I don’t wanna go there as long as Pookie is around the corner!). Anyway, I then had a few picks and naturally settled on Islam because it was apparently the updated version (and no, Xenu and his pals don’t count) and I could study the original text by myself without having to read a translation.
I really don’t understand why you keep bringing Aramaic. I have never seen much evidence to support that the Quran wasn’t originally in Arabic. I’m guessing that you are basing your conclusions on Luxenberg’s work. I have read his early publications, and was appalled by how little he knew about Arabic. The guy claims something which defies common sense, namely that the Quran predates the Arabic language. But he never explains how the Arabic texts predating Islam by at least a century have come to us. I mean, surely the “Mu’alaqat” should have tipped him off.
That said, he may have unearthed something in the meantime. Feel free to throw in whatever evidence prompts you to believe that the Quran was in whatever language you think it was (please specify which one). I’m keeping a very open mind about all this, but a minimum of evidence should be put forth to engage in an intelligent debate. Throwing “blind follower” and “bigot” labels don’t help much in that regard.
It would depend on what your standards are and what you mean by “25% of the Koran”. If it’s terminology you have in mind, then 25% is a gross overestimation. If you’re referring to the amount of text which is certain to be understood correctly, then I’ll have to say that one quarter is way too little a number. But the latter may be biased by the humility I keep with regard to the Holy Book.
I’ll overlook the “mythology” bit to keep the debate constructive.
How much is evident to anyone who took the time to browse the ancient and new testament, which I most certainly have.
That’s not much of an argument now is it? Why some criminals are threatening a scientist - whoever he may be - doesn’t have much relevance to our discussion. It’s like how the global warming skeptics like to refer to the the alleged “persecution” they are victim of to give their arguments authority. Or how Brian Flemming used the threats he received from Christian fundamentalists to market his work. Threats of violence doesn’t strengthen nor weaken an argument.
Regarding your claim that “practically zero” scholar work was done on the Quran, I’ll have to question your basic knowledge of the history of the Islamic civilization. For 14 centuries people from various nationalities and walks-of-life have been studying the Quran. Tons of volumes have been produced by believers and skeptics. The language of the Quran and its meaning was dealt with using logic and scientific methods by a great deal of deal throughout the ages (I like to consider myself member of the movement) ranging from the Muatazilites,
to al-Tabary or a certain Imam Zamakhshari. Saying that there are none - when I have studied their work myself - is preposterous.
Again, I’ll have to question how much research you have done on the subject. I welcome skepticism. It’s healthy, and beats the crap out of cramped dogmatic positions. But a bare minimum of evidence is usually required to make it interesting and challenging.
Arabic from the 7th century is quite different from the one we’re using today. A lot of words were lost, and a few were introduced. Arabic was exceedingly rich in synonyms, but it makes little sense to keep a language cluttered by such redundancy. Natural evolution took care of that. An Arabic speaker today couldn’t do very well at communicating eloquently if taken back 1400 years back, as anyone who’s read pre-Islamic Arabian literature can attest. Yet, the essence of the language didn’t evolve much, and the reader can still catch the general meaning of said 15th centuries old literature.
Once you get the context, the meaning of unknown words can be painlessly understood - albeit with some intellectual effort.
What on earth are you talking about? The word occurs in pre-Islamic texts and means “pure”. The hot Houri ladies are by no mean the only derivative of this root to appear in the Quran. It recurs throughout the text to describe other things from “crystal-clear” fluids to 100% silk fabric.
You sir, have evidently never as much as read the Quran in its entirety nor any other Arabic book for that matter.
[quote]Perhaps there are some english translations you could seek out?
The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran - Wikipedia [/quote]
Yeah, I while I’m at it, I’ll pick up translations of the works of Jean Paul Sartre, Astrid Lindgren, and Naguib Mahfouz.
You may wanna join me and start reading Heinrich Böll and Goethe in English.
What do you mean include Germans? There a few million Muslims in Germany if we’re to believe your latest census.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
The US is a secular state. Islam is a religion. Pretty basic stuff.
What kind of crack are you on? I never even as much as alluded to the US.
What’s the matter with you? I included a parentheses to say that “I DON’T MEAN IRAQ” which obviously refers to the war.
Yours is the weak comparison. You can’t compare a state sanctioned massive war of aggression (and I don’t mean Iraq) to a handful of kooks hijacking planes. Muslims never gave Al-Qaeda any authority, neither do they condone their actions.
You should seriously consider learning some grammar.
What makes the argument disingenuous is the fact that Christianity reformed and the Pope no longer fights for land and converts and hasn’t for 500 years. Islam still fights for grievances that are hundreds of years old. Time for reform.
What would be these fights that “Islam” is allegedly fighting for “grievances that are hundreds of years old”? And who exactly is this “Islam” you speak of?
Really, put some thoughts into your posts. You’re starting to sound like a teenager in crisis.[/quote]
If you are just going to maintain your position as a lying propagandist this isn’t going to be any fun.
Learn some facts. Your debating style is juvenile at best. Is this a reflection fo education in the Arab world these days or are you just a poor example?
Keep trying though. A meltdown is fun to watch when you dislike someone. Carry on.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Maybe you don’t get women at all. Who says the virgins are women?
Allah Himself through the Quran.
But it was written by men.
Maybe it was a bunch of homophobic, latent homosexual men…what with all that time out there on the camels and all. [/quote]
Hard to fuck a camel.
[quote]orion wrote:
Hard to fuck a camel. [/quote]
Easy to smoke it. Or is it…?
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Maybe you don’t get women at all. Who says the virgins are women?
Allah Himself through the Quran.
But it was written by men.
Maybe it was a bunch of homophobic, latent homosexual men…what with all that time out there on the camels and all.
Hard to fuck a camel.
[/quote]
I take your word for it. You seem to know what you are talking about, here.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Maybe you don’t get women at all. Who says the virgins are women?
Allah Himself through the Quran.
But it was written by men.
Maybe it was a bunch of homophobic, latent homosexual men…what with all that time out there on the camels and all.
Hard to fuck a camel.
[/quote]
Every time i visit this board I learn something new.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, guys, you have to realize that things like the crusades, witch burnings and other ridiculous religious events were “supported” by Christianity.
When people in authority indoctrinate you using a religion, you are under their power. All they have to do is shape your sight and make you think you are acting in God’s will.
This is possible whenever there are documents that are claimed to be the word of God. Thankfully, if you view that they were written by men, then you can use the sense that God gives us to make your own decisions.[/quote]
Amen to that…I still wonder how that played out in people’s heads during slavery and the total “raping” of Native Americans.