There were no airplanes at the time when the Quran was put together. ;)

[quote=August]
Sounds-self-contradciting to me, but anyhow. In case you meant me with the above, please note that for the most I approach Islam on it's basis as an ideology, and what this ideology does with and to people. i think I said that often enough over times. However, that does not mean that I save the people holding this ideology alive, no matter in what individual way of theirs, from being confronted over certain critical points. that islam today is like it was over a thousand years ago, is because it has been saved from confrontation and thus: the need to critically ask questions about itself, for way too long.

There are no two Qurans. Not even an old and a new testament in one Quran. The Quran-as-is needs to be known and interpreted in historical sequence, which is difficult without help, because the Suras are not sorted in the sequence of their historic creation, but are wildly mixed in timeline, because it was decided to sort them by length. Both Sunni and Shia traditions have concensus in all their dominant major lines since the 9th or 10th century, that contradicting passages need to be sorted out by the socalled abrogation principle, that is if you have to contradicting passages, the one that came last is the one to go with. By this, many of the internal contradictions of the Quran get sorted out, and the often assumed "freedom of interpreation" already is massively reduced.

Unfortunately even many ordinary Muslim people do not know this - but it is historic fact that is accepted in the six major schools of law since almost a thousand years

If you refer to Islam in search of how to regulate your life, you first look at the Quran, and next at the hadith or prophet tradition. Also, the Shariah is a source to consult, but we in the West ofteh have a queer understanding of it. It is not a book of laws and rules. Let's adress all this one by one to see if there is any real foundation in the islamic theology that would allow different versions of Islam (Islam as defined and understood by the Quran, the Shariah and the life and living exmaple of muhammad - this and only this is what could be claimed to be "Islam")

There is only one Quran. They have an eons-long civil war, which is caused by and is about nothing but political power and claimed leadership, it is not founded on controversy over the Quran and how to "interpret" it. The existence of sunni and shia camps does not compare to the separation of protestants and catholics. The churchlings, to call them precisely, did not seperate just over political powers, but over different views of the teaching itself, and it's meaning. The Islamic shism was about who becomes boss of the board of directors. Theologic dispute played little role in the early caliphs' fight over the validity of their claims to be seen as the successor of muhammad, leading all muslims. Muhammad did not leave orders that regulated his succession after his death, the only hint there is, is questionable: there is a snippet of an old document where he should have said that his cousin Ali should become his successor, but the translation from the Arabic is not possible to be done linear, and already it arabic it is daid to be very ambigous (but that probably still was before introduction of the linguatsic riot when over three centuries they introeduced the idiosyncratic punctuation which has chnaged the meaning of arbaic according to estimations to at least 25 and maybe even up to 70% (of the word'S meanings. academic research has not one gneral agreement on the issue, it is difficult to examine.) . Also, the claim of Ali's power resulting from this, already represents the Shia interpretation of the story - after the shism. So it all is questionable and not without doubt. Ali became the fourth caliph after Uthman was assassinated (that was the Uthman who had major influence as third caliph that various local manipulations and different versions of the Quran were molten back into just one book, the one Quran that we know today), but Ali's claim was not accepted by several rivalling leaders, that is why short after Muhammad's death there already was the first clash in battle, the so called battle of the camel. Short time later, a series of more battles, known as the battles of Siffin, took place over several months, and after some military and diplomatic manouvers that are not of interest here, it ended with the assassination of Ali, who then became known as the missing Imam for whose return his followers - the Shia - are waiting. when he comes, he will unleash the holy war all over the world. So: if you ever hear of somebody gaining wide acceptance by shia to be the missing imam they have waited for, then you know that they are going into carzy mode soon and that we are in trouble. It would be like an imposter who is believed to be Jesus, and then is able to manipulate the crowds in all world. Ali'S predecessor btw was an Ummayadh, and Ali'S enemy at Siffin again represented and fought for the Ummayadh. That are the Ummayadhs who later rose a terror reign of Islam in Spain that was one of the most excessice periods of brutalitiy and violent excesses in islam's history and stood in contrast the islamic rule in Spain before their arrival, which was at least not as brutal as that of the Ummayadhs.

Tis explains why there are shia and Sunni. Two Qurans or two Sharias have nothing to do with it. Ah, and onsharia, I just refer to myself:

On the grounds of real Islam, August, that means: on the basis of Quran and Sharia, there can be only one Islam. And quite some Muslim spokesman and politicians tells you that right into your face. You may have noted that I quoted Turkey's premier Erdoghan repeatedly on his outburst on the offendind habit of the west to always differe between moderate and radical islam. I refer to him only becasue he is the latest and currently most known - but he is just one in a long line of names. He angrily insisted that this differentiation is offensive, and that there is only one Islam. He has the support of several hundred million muslims in his region now. Who are you to tell him, or them, that he/them understands Islam wrong? ;)

I recommend to follow Occam's razor. It served us so damn well in western sciences. So: why do you not simply take Islam by its words?

One thing you really should not do: compare it to history in the West. The doogma of the church and islam do not compare. the histories of both cultural sophere do not compare. To think of islam in terms of equivalents for western examples, is a heavily misled attempt. and without wanting to start a fight here, I would say that especially Americans are extremely vulnerable to attempt right this, more than any other western people - maybe due to their american missonary spirit. Don't! ;)

Well I have to admit that through all my readings of the Quran and the Hadiths I too have never come across airplanes. Double wink.

But seriously take out the mechanical method of the airplane and replace it with any other tool or mechanism to achieve the same result on that terrible day. Again I ask what are the specifics of this ideology that instruct Muslims to commit such an act as this?

I said if.

Its the secret bit that only Sky and al-Qaida know about and its taken from Sky wahibi interpretation which is without doubt the only real interpretation.

And of course tribesman is in to defend medieval, misogynist, literalist religion against the reason. Gotcha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

So you have reading problems ?
Did you even read what you liinked?
your posted line is contradicted straight away and repeatedly throughout the article:rotfl2:

And I argue that we do. So we both make a claim without backing it up. Where does that leave us?

How kind of you. Dismissal is not proof.

And I disagree. Neither one of you has shown my why I shouldn't be araid of his agenda.

Has he? His agenda seems to me to lead directly down that road.

Again, show me why I should not be afraid. I'm not debating here. He scares me as much as they do. You say he shouldn't, but you don't tell my why.

As am I. I agree with him on the danger of Islam. What I disgree on is the danger of German absolutism. I firmly believe he will destroy everything I believe in to prove his point. That though terrifies me, as I've seen it done before. Show me that I'm wrong.

No, he only calls me idiotic and suicidal. Not a one-liner, just flat-out condemnation, coupled with fire-and-brimstone preaching. I don't find him intellectually honest at all, as long as he keeps ignoring the parts where I agree with him, steering the conversation back to his one-sided condemnation of everything I say, and dismissing me as his inferior. And if you deny that he has done that repeatedly you haven't been reading his every word.

:rotfl2:

Sorry. I've said more than once that my 'belief', while couched as an absolute, is for me just a starting point. And when I've done so he has ignored it and gone straight back to calling me a absolutist, and started right in again shouting about all the things I don't understand. I'm not playing any games. In fact, I've only had one point through all of this, and that is that there is no reason they should legally not be allowed to erect this building. That's the only answer I've ever really asked for.

He can't improve substantiation of the Islamic threat by much, since I've already said I agree that it's real. But so, to me, is the Germanic threat of absolute control in the name of protecting us. And if he can't guarantee that then I have to keep considering him just as dangerous an enemy as those he would protect me from.

Prove it. He sounds to me like the very person who would establish a dictatorship in the name of destroying another one. I'm not debating or intellectualizing when I say he scares me. He really does, and if he wishes to convince me otherwise he will have to come up with not only a definitive answer to that charge, but proof that it's true.

I am relaxed.

Very cute and clever from an intellectual standpoint, but this all started from my questioning why they should not be allowed to erect a building. Will you answer that? Will he? This is a simple question.

Also your analogy doesn't hold up for the simple reason that I'm not holding my troops back and hoping for a "silver platter". I'm keeping them solidly in place and saying "You have my permission to say anything you like, but that's as far as it goes. Mess with me in any real way and face the consequences."

This has never been a debate. This has been me pointing out a simple legality and him spending twenty-two pages telling me how ignorant I am.

Very true, and I've never disagreed with that. In fact, if it can be blocked legally I'm all for it. But I'm being told that that's not good enough, and if I disagree I'm a blind fool, because I once said something in regard to an ideal starting point and he wants to prove me wrong even when I agree with him.

Unfortunated his starting point seems to be that he can monkey around with our liberties all he wants, and it's okay because he says he's doing it for the "right reasons".

As far as freedom goes, whether of speech or anything else, I've already agreed that there have to be limits. The big difference for me is that for me the limits are codified and fairly explicit, whereas for him (from my point of view) they are subject to any interpretation he cares to give them. Which for me means that Muslims are the target today, but I might be next.

And neither of you has done anything to assuage my fears.

I've been to Rome and back several times now, so understand that I shortcut it this time, even at the price of lacking details. I am aware of context-sensitivity of quotes, but question the ratio behind the contexts that are usually given to excuse said quotes. Becasue there is one basic problem with Islam: it talks of defence against persecution, and reacting if being challenged or attacked. However, in islam a case of aggression or persecutuon is given whenever somebody dares not to give islam its demanded ways and resists to it, by that offending it in it's divine self-understanding. there cannot be peace as long as there is something that is still not islamic, because the other, by itS' mere existence, already is a challenge, an offence, that must be overcome in order to establish peace - Islam'S unchallenged dominance that is.

that is both a theologic implication, and a historic observation. terms like tolerance, peace, coexistence, persecution , mean totally different things in islam, and non-Islam.

Anyhow, as said, I cut it short with links only:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...3-violence.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pa...slam.htm#jihad

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pa...10-Reasons.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...tians-jews.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...government.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...3-violence.htm

etc etc etc etc etc. The site is long.

You only have to look at the links page on Skys site to see what a bunch of crazy bigots are on there, no better than the fundy nuts.

If sky was intellectually honest he wouldn't repeatedly and blatantly lie in his favourite topic in an attempt to support his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1482867) The Quran-as-is needs to be known and interpreted in historical sequence, which is difficult without help, because the Suras are not sorted in the sequence of their historic creation, but are wildly mixed in timeline, because it was decided to sort them by length.

The Surahs (chapters) within the Quran are not sorted by length as you claim. I don’t know where this claim popped up from that the verses are sorted on length from longest to shortest chapters. For a start the very first surah within the Quran Surah Al-Fatiha (The Opening) contains only seven ayaat (verses). At the other end the last Surah of the Quran Al-Nas contains 6 verses. And finally for the record the shortest chapter within the Quran is Surah Al-Kawthar being at 3 verses long. So I'm afraid that this very simple statement of yours is quite simply false. Why do I know this. I've read it more times than I can count. Speaking of which must go now to read before catching a few hours of zzzzz's. :)

Perhaps when I have time I may get a chance to look at that site (links) mentioned by Skybird and provide some form of rebuttal. Not easy however as time is limited with 16 hours of fasting during the day while also trying to run a business from 8am to 6pm. But let's see. Goodnight.

Then you have different Qurans over there than we have here. You are right, the first sura is the exception fromt he rule (as I said earlier I cut this short and leave out details), but from the second on until the end, the longest are at the beginning, and shortest at the ending, and from beginning to end they become shorter. In the last qurater of the Quran you even have verses that give the impression to be incomplete, unfinished, and scribbled down carelessly as if in a hurry.

More insightful analysts also would line out that the langauge chnages from the beginning to the end, the suras whose origin lies in muhammad's later years in Medina,are said to be written in a different, briefer, shorter, more craelss style, than the early Suras from the time in Mekka. Well, I cannot judge that. I only see that it is as if there are more and more "holes" in the later Suras.

I own one Quran, and saw several others. Also, my claim is not only supported by these, but in secondary literature as well. If your Quran is diffrent, than you have a manipulated version. These versions exist, they differ in translation by using euphemisms that in orginal quran sound more harsh and brutal, and even have whole passages and paragraphs deleted. Usually these are being distributed at missionary desks in the pedestrian zone. They have a deceptive, lulling function. Even in Islam their distribution sometimes is being disputed. Some say it is okay since it helps to make islam accepted and spread it, others say it is a sacrileg. I say it is an act of deception.

It's been a long while since I saw one of these missionary stands. Good.

Classic, when caught out in his lies again he digs himself even deeper:har::har::har::har:

Mate, I have a dozen plus different copies of the Quran be they in Arabic along with also English translations. I recite both Arabic and also in English. They are all exactly the same and consistent in this respect that I pointed out in my earlier post with regards to the false claim that the chapters start longest and end shortest.

What is chapter 108 in your copy and how many verses does it contain? Then tell me what the next chapter is (chapter 109) and again tell me how many verses it contains? Finally what copy of the Quran are you referring to?

And did you ever get around to reading it front to back or back to front? I ask as I remember that you dismissed the idea claiming you didn't need to read it to pass critique on it. And as I asked earlier what "version" of the Quran do you own? Finally what literature that you allude to can you provide that supports your claim?

As I said I have over a dozen different copies of the Quran in both English translation and Arabic. I must be terribly unucky to strike out with all my copies of the Quran as being 'manipulated' versions. Never picked up a copy from a misionary desk in a pedestrian zone.

You seem to have been flooding the forums with missionizing of your own here for quite some time as you would define it. So what do I do? Keep my mouth shut or offer an alternative view? Discuss and debate and offer an alternative viewpoint I say.

No it's not. That is the traditional view. It then cites individuals who differ. Not major sectarian branches.

Throughout the entire article it says the same. The traditional view is that death is it for men, but this guy, or that guy disagrees.

That's putting lipstick on a pig.

It then breaks down the thoughts of the others---who as it said right above, are outside the mainstream of thought on the issue.

But i'm not telling them that.

Who are you to tell me that you understand all of Islam right?

Maybe it comes from living in a uni-ethnic society but you have this wierd belief, call it "German Absolutism" (props to Steve) if you will, that every group, no matter how far flung and diverse, shares a completely unified way of thinking. As if they are controlled by a single (evil) master mind and ready willing and able to march once the orders are given.

Well if you want to think that almost 2 billion people living around the world are actively plotting the overthrow of western society then that's your business, but I know that you can't get that many people to agree on much of anything, let alone some detailed plan to take over the world.

I also know that at least half of those Turks that you say support that Turkish potentate would happily slit his throat if they had a chance to take his place.

Yeah right, which church? Here in the states we have thousands of churches, some radical, most not. Like I said earlier, the Protestants alone have 5 major sects and each one of those can be divided into sub-sects who more often than not are barely on speaking terms with each other let along able to agree on a specific dogma.

This is what i'm talking about. I just don't see the world the same way you do.