Christianity has its nutbags too

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Tell that to the people that have been killed by "pro life" activists.

Oh that's easy. Christians will tell you they're not real Christians just like Muslims will tell you the 19 asswipes who flew into the WTC weren't real Muslims and just like Hindus will tell you that the thugs who killed a thousand Muslims or more in one week weren't really Hindu.

It really is a great way to absolve religion of all responsibility. When we do good, it's because of religion. When we do bad, it isn't.

[incanada1234 0]

I never understand why people make this argument, because WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. And those manuscripts say For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Don't go there. If you do, then you'll have to learn Arabic & become Muslim. You are aware Muslims believe that the Koran is God's actual words, and the Prophet Mohammed was merely passing them along, right? Well, by your argument that "WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS", then you'll have to agree that Islam has the final, updated manuscripts. By your own logic, you must become Muslim!

Now, repeat after me (in Arabic): "There is only one God and Mohammed is His messenger..."

um you might wanna check that. the koran was "rewritten" along the way by a caliph and he burned other copies that conflicted with his version.

YEAH!

Actually, I don't know. I've just recently started really studying up on Islam, but I would like to know the origin of the koran. I like to know the backgrounds and beliefs of different religions.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

um you might wanna check that. the koran was "rewritten" along the way by a caliph and he burned other copies that conflicted with his version.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I have no idea. But I've never heard that. And besides, Islam spread pretty darn quickly (geographically speaking), I don't see how any caliph could have possibly burnt every existing copy from northern Africa to South/Southeast Asia.

I've just recently started really studying up on Islam...

I predict you will be a convert soon.

[Ban Hammer 14,283]

um you might wanna check that. the koran was "rewritten" along the way by a caliph and he burned other copies that conflicted with his version.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I have no idea. But I've never heard that. And besides, Islam spread pretty darn quickly (geographically speaking), I don't see how any caliph could have possibly burnt every existing copy from northern Africa to South/Southeast Asia.

link

After the death of Muhammad no one knew the entire Koran by heart. Many Arabs revolted against Abu Bakr and had to be forcibly put down. The greatest opposition came from Maslama (a.k.a. Musailima) who claimed to be a prophet but was executed by Abu Bakr. Then 'Umar asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collate the Koran. The suras were arranged from longest to shortest, as even then the chronological order was imperfectly known. That codex was given to Hafsa. Other scholars also compiled their own codices. These became sources of contention because they different from one another. So, 'Uthman asked Zaid to write another codex and all the others were destroyed despite a fair amount of grumbling by their compilers. The variations between the codices could not be variations of dialect, as at this point the Arabic script could not express such variations, being both unvowelled and unpointed. The distinctives of the destroyed codices have survived somewhat in oral tradition. Ibn K'ab's codex contains two extra suras (similar to al-fatiha) and Ibn Masu'd has a different order and omits suras 1, 113, and 114. Ibn Mas'ud seriously opposed the use of Zaid's codex over his own, arguing that he [ibn Mas'ud] had been a disciple of Muhammad for longer and knew the Koran better than Zaid. Even after the production of Zaid's codex a great variety of different readings (extending to meaning and not just pronunciation) were possible through different means of pointing and vowelling. Eventually seven systems of pointing [each with two systems of vowelling] were considered valid.

Edited July 26, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[incanada1234 0]

I predict you will be a convert soon.

I predict you will be a convict soon.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I predict you will be a convert soon.

I predict you will be a convict soon.

[incanada1234 0]

I predict you will be a convert soon.

I predict you will be a convict soon.

Oops, too late?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

um you might wanna check that. the koran was "rewritten" along the way by a caliph and he burned other copies that conflicted with his version.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I have no idea. But I've never heard that. And besides, Islam spread pretty darn quickly (geographically speaking), I don't see how any caliph could have possibly burnt every existing copy from northern Africa to South/Southeast Asia.

link

After the death of Muhammad no one knew the entire Koran by heart. Many Arabs revolted against Abu Bakr and had to be forcibly put down. The greatest opposition came from Maslama (a.k.a. Musailima) who claimed to be a prophet but was executed by Abu Bakr. Then 'Umar asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collate the Koran. The suras were arranged from longest to shortest, as even then the chronological order was imperfectly known. That codex was given to Hafsa. Other scholars also compiled their own codices. These became sources of contention because they different from one another. So, 'Uthman asked Zaid to write another codex and all the others were destroyed despite a fair amount of grumbling by their compilers. The variations between the codices could not be variations of dialect, as at this point the Arabic script could not express such variations, being both unvowelled and unpointed. The distinctives of the destroyed codices have survived somewhat in oral tradition. Ibn K'ab's codex contains two extra suras (similar to al-fatiha) and Ibn Masu'd has a different order and omits suras 1, 113, and 114. Ibn Mas'ud seriously opposed the use of Zaid's codex over his own, arguing that he [ibn Mas'ud] had been a disciple of Muhammad for longer and knew the Koran better than Zaid. Even after the production of Zaid's codex a great variety of different readings (extending to meaning and not just pronunciation) were possible through different means of pointing and vowelling. Eventually seven systems of pointing [each with two systems of vowelling] were considered valid.

Interesting.

If God is so powerful, why o why couldn't he give his messengers/prophets MS Word?

[Sister Fracas 5]

Tell that to the people that have been killed by "pro life" activists.

Oh that's easy. Christians will tell you they're not real Christians just like Muslims will tell you the 19 asswipes who flew into the WTC weren't real Muslims and just like Hindus will tell you that the thugs who killed a thousand Muslims or more in one week weren't really Hindu.

It really is a great way to absolve religion of all responsibility. When we do good, it's because of religion. When we do bad, it isn't.

Am I too naive to believe that people who do good and also believe in XYZ religion are really doing good because they feel it is the right thing to do within themself, not because someone told them too...either in a place of worship or in a book. How does that account for people who don't believe in XYZ still being able to do good?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Am I too naive to believe that people who do good and also believe in XYZ religion are really doing good because they feel it is the right thing to do within themself, not because someone told them too...either in a place of worship or in a book. How does that account for people who don't believe in XYZ still being able to do good?

Religion is based on the premise that man is barbaric and uncivilized and wouldn't know what the 'right thing' is, if it were not for someone with charisma claiming to be the messenger/prophet of God telling them.

You prove them wrong, more power to you.

[Dina 0]

Tell that to the people that have been killed by "pro life" activists.

Oh that's easy. Christians will tell you they're not real Christians just like Muslims will tell you the 19 asswipes who flew into the WTC weren't real Muslims and just like Hindus will tell you that the thugs who killed a thousand Muslims or more in one week weren't really Hindu.

It really is a great way to absolve religion of all responsibility. When we do good, it's because of religion. When we do bad, it isn't.

That wasn't my point. Every religious group has extremists, some of whom are willing to commit acts of violence with varying degrees of atrocity. We all live in glass houses. We all need to stop throwing stones. This kind of bickering back and forth about who's religion, or lack there of for the atheists out there, is "better" is a waste of time.

Here are the facts. The vast majority of Muslims (I am not, incidentally) are peace loving people who wish to live in harmony with others. Some Muslims interpret passages of the Quran as instructions to make Islam the only religion and they believe they are holy warriors in a Jihad to make that happen. Just as some Christians interpret passages of the Bible as signs of a coming apocalypse or rapture, and they believe it is their mission to convert everyone to their faith so they too can be saved.

We should be outraged by the violence on both sides and working together to stop it instead of arguing over who started it and who is "right". No one is right when innocent lives are taken.

[incanada1234 0]

Am I too naive to believe that people who do good and also believe in XYZ religion are really doing good because they feel it is the right thing to do within themself, not because someone told them too...either in a place of worship or in a book. How does that account for people who don't believe in XYZ still being able to do good?

I know many a person who does good even though they don't follow any one religion.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

um you might wanna check that. the koran was "rewritten" along the way by a caliph and he burned other copies that conflicted with his version.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I have no idea. But I've never heard that. And besides, Islam spread pretty darn quickly (geographically speaking), I don't see how any caliph could have possibly burnt every existing copy from northern Africa to South/Southeast Asia.

link

While we're linking things, here's another perspective on the compliation of the quran.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Am I too naive to believe that people who do good and also believe in XYZ religion are really doing good because they feel it is the right thing to do within themself, not because someone told them too...either in a place of worship or in a book. How does that account for people who don't believe in XYZ still being able to do good?

Religion is based on the premise that man is barbaric and uncivilized and wouldn't know what the 'right thing' is, if it were not for someone with charisma claiming to be the messenger/prophet of God telling them.

You prove them wrong, more power to you.

that's why I like Buddhist philosophy... *sigh*

[*Robert* 2]

He made this post in response to so many posts here that make broad assumptions about the Islamic faith and its followers. There are some nonmuslims who believe that the Q'uran encourages terrorism which is grossly inaccurate.

Spot on Steven!!!

And good post OP!

that's why I like Buddhist philosophy... *sigh*

I'm with you there Frances!!!