Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by tater

If their doctrine supports flying airplanes into buildings, then it does, though. They have to live with it, change their doctrine, or dump the religion.

Can you be specific to which doctrine you are referring to that instructs Muslims to fly planes into buildings?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Can you be specific to which doctrine you are referring to that instructs Muslims to fly planes into buildings?

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

[quote=August]

Originally Posted by August

Eh, anyone that describes such a wide ranging and varied group as "Muslims" in the singular is stereotyping.

Except nazis that is. There are no nazis worth saving.

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:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=63

Sharia is not so much a closed canon of Islamic scriptures in itself. It includes descriptions and understandings of deeds and thoughts that are desirable, deeds and thoughts that are not desirable, and deeds that must be punished. In the West, usually only the latter is meant by us infidels when reference is made to Sharia, the other four "categories" usually are left unknown. But that is wrong, and misleading. For example, Sharia does not include the penalties for punishable deeds, only the description of punishable deeds. For the penalties, it instead directly refers to the Quran which desribes them and from which the adequate penalty for a punishable crime is taken. for any penalty ever given, not Sharia, or Hadith is the fundament, but the Quran - and only the Quran.

[ Back then you implied that there are different versions of Sharia itself, and different traditions of interpreting it, which described in these words also is wrong again.] Sharia is Sharia, and there is only one Sharia like there is only one Quran. Sharia gets "handled" and "used" by the scholars of islamic law, of which there are maybe around half a dozen major schools that indeed have influence. There are more lineages or schools of law, but we talk about those acutally having any noticable influence in the islamic world, and that are not many. On many questions of interpretation, these schools agree, however, on others not, which is misleading anyway, since the Quran does not leave much room for "interpretation", the legal schools' differences only vary in the degree to which they quote references from the Quran in completeness, or opportunistically only that stuff that serves their wanted purpose.
(...)
All of them [these schools] handle one and the same Sharia, and one and the same Quran. There are not different forms of Sharia, therefore. there are no different traditions of sharia, as you implied back then. there are only different legal traditions that have different habits of quoting relevant references in more or less completeness. Sharia itself - is left uneffected from that, as is the Quran.

Even more, Sharia serves as a system of interlinking various parts of Islamic scripture (Quran, Hadith, Sira -> Sunnah) and the people's code of behavior rules, which are very total and complete and cover every aspect of life an individual could stumble into, this is to maximise control of the islamic dogma over the individual, the family, and every level of social collectives. This is what makes Islam a totalitarian ideology, and more so than that of fascism, Nazism or Stalinism, because none of these great evils went as far in their demand to control every aspect of life, behavior, thinking. compared to Islam, they all were relatively shallow and superficial, caring only for the functioning of the individual inside the collective. Islam's intended regulation reaches much deeper.

Sharia is a system of interlinking all these aspects and parts of scripture, and puts them into relation to each other. It also is understood to be the tool that helps the faithful to stay on the right path (by telling him what to do and letting him know the sanctions he has to suffer when he strays off). for a muslim, Sharia is guidance and assistance. For a psychologist, it is classical conditioning. For Christains, the focus is on beloieving in the right things - in Islam, the focus is on the correct way or process of believing. The first is about the object of belief, the latter prioritizes the process of believing. Without Sharia, the rules of Quran, so it is understood, cannot correctly be followed, which would mean failure in the understanding and following of Allah's will. and that truly is a worst case scenario. So, Sharia is inevitable.

Sharia is like the mortar in the wall that keeps the stones of islamic scripture, rules and dogma together. Take Sharia away, and the wall collapses. That'S why it is said that you cannot imagine an Islam without Sharia, or a "modernised" Sharia. Imagining that you can have a tame Islam by altering Sharia (that is heresy!) is nonsense from minds not knowing what they are talking about. You could as well try to imagine a christian meaning without the content of the sermon on the mount. Some things are so vital to an idea that you cannot take them away or alter them without rendering that idea meaningless and pointless.

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!

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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?

Again I ask what are the specifics of this ideology that instruct Muslims to commit such an act as this?

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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'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.

He's also too intellectually honest to,

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

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[Skybird]

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.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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.

Again going to your claim that the Quran is sorted by length of chapters (starting with longest to ending with shortest) as I earlier stated this is not true. Indeed I used a link from the rather questionable website that you mentioned ReligionofPeace to a online Quran at the University of Southern California (USC). Chapter 1 has 7 verses, chapter 2 has 286, chapter 3 has 200, chapter 8 has 75, chapter 13 have 43 verses, chapter 16 has 128, chapter 24 has 64, chapter 26 has 227 verses, chapter 60 has 13, chapter 68 has 52, chapter 103 has 3, and the final chapter 114 has 6 verses. It's pretty obvious that the Quran is not strictly structured from longest to shortest as you claim. Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Who are you to tell him, or them, that he/them understands Islam wrong?

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.

One thing you really should not do: compare it to history in the West. The doogma of the church and islam do not compare.

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.

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

Can you run through the numerous major sectarian branches and then place the 4 from the piece?

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.

No it says that there is disageement and there is nothing in the koran itself to support the view given by the 4.

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

just 4 views out of many many schools do not equal "mainstream".

Would you now accept that your statement is incorrect?

Don't be silly. It is his long held view and he is always right as he is an expert
though isn't it funny that he always says there is only one version and one interpretation yet now says you have a different version, plus of course as he says the writing of the texts becomes increasingly vague and careless as it progresses where does that leave his claim about the clear meaning and only interpretation of the text?

What is the betting there will follow a wall of text which is a cut and paste of a wall of text insisting that he is an expert on your religion so you are wrong as he read a book and you havn't read a book ?

[Aramike]

In some papers I've written on this subject, I've recommended that people attempt to look at the situation through a lens I like to call the "Alien Effect". Despite the fact that it clearly sounds hokey, it certainly helps me at least find perspective on such unclear issues.

The Alien Effect essentially means attempting to consider the same arguments with the same circumstances except as one would apply them to unknown aliens from outerspace. The reason this works for me is that sometimes I believe its necessary to remove oneself's intuitive reactions from the discussion and that's quite difficult to do when considering one human to the next - we tend to think in terms of "how would I feel?" while dismissing that there are cultural differences which preclude such an elemantary comparison.

For example, let's say we discovered an inhabited island in the Pacific where the humans there tortured and killed their children for such transgressions as, say, slow educational development. This would universally be considered an outrage. However, say we discovered an alien species from another planet doing the same thing - this would be a mere curiousity.

So in the case of Islam, let's consider the Alien Effect. If we discovered aliens who's constitution required for the elimination of our way of life, would we allow them to construct icons to that constitution in our cities?

Absolutely not.

See, Steve is correct via the letter of the law, and he has a valid concern - if we take action against Islam, what's to stop any majority from taking action against any other group on the grounds that they believe it's dangerous? He is quite justified in having that concern.

On the other hand, the letter of the law can only take you so far, than the law's spirit must take over, ultimately giving way to common sense. In the end, giving in to the slippery slope argument is a cop-out. It allows us to not make difficult stands on things that we really should. If the alternative is to allow the subversion of freedom in support of freedom we approach a dangerous paradox which does not allow freedom to exist at all, thereby precluding the original concept of freedom rendering it irrelevant to the context.

So what's the solution? Do we allow aliens to build their icons of our destruction? Is there an absolute right or wrong answer?

Does freedom even matter when freedom allows for itself to be destroyed?

Personally, I believe that freedom needs reasonable limits, one of which is that the preservation of its primary functions is imperative. Islam IS a threat to that - just like the aliens would be.

However, pragmatism demands we coexist. Hence the difficulty of the discussion.

Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right.

So very short, long longest 2nd longest shorter longer longer shorter longer is sorting by length and sky is right

So, by "length", I - and obviously also at least a big majority of authors in the field -

But what about popper, surely he has some comment to make?

refer to length of text.

Length of text? So one with more words with more letters might be longer than one with the same amount of words but less letters.
Oh dear Sky is really digging himself a hole instead of just saying ...."OK I was full of crap"

Anyhow. Small little escapades like this help nobody anything.

Getting caught again making stuff up and still insisting its true doesn't help you at all. Its the repeated escapades like this that destroy what very little credibility sky retains.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Although I should have known better, I checked my copy and checked again with two academic books of secondary literature. I am right.

And your copy of the Quran is what exactly? Can you please provide bibliography of your ‘two academic books of secondary literature? Are you sure you are right? It might be you who has a dodgy copy of the Quran. But please see further below.

Originally Posted by Skybird

where you count the number of Suras, I count the number of pages, this is what I mean with "length".

I think you are confusing surahs (chapters) with ayaats (verses). Yes I counted the number of ayaats (verses) as a quick and simple visible demonstration that there are surahs that are longer in length than earlier ones. This directly contradicts your assertion that the Quran goes from longest to shortest even when you then later changed your mind and said with the exception of the first chapter surah Al-Fatihah. But more detail on this below.

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the opened book, the copy I have has german left and arabic right on the pages. It does not matter if I focus on the one or the other when counting. I counted the first ten suras, then took a few samples in the middle, and looked at the end of it, where the Suras are just a third or a fourth of one page in length.

That doesn’t seem a very precise or mathematical way of drawing your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Still, I have not counted the pages of every sura now. My major basis thus remains to be founded in academic secondary literature where it also is claimed that the suras in the Quran are sorted by length (of text), with the exception of the introductory first sura, which is even not one full page.

Again I ask that you provide details of this ‘academic secondary literature’ that you keep referring to? And yes I am in agreement with you that the best and accurate method of measuring length is by the amount of text. And by that I mean the number of words, not the number of pages. After all academic thesis are measured by word count and not page count for obvious reasons. As is what constitutes a novel or short story is dictated by word count and not page count. So let’s look at word count within the Quran.

Again for this exercise I will use the online translation of the Quran that is linked to from the very un-academic website TheReligionofPeace that you referenced with a multitude of links in one of your earlier posts. The actual link itself to the University of Southern California looks credible as all three translations offered online (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthall, and MH Shakir) all match the hard copies that I own at home. As Skybird and various unknown academic secondary literature claim, the Quran is written from longest chapter (excluding chapter 1 as now admitted by Skybird) to shortest chapter. This is a patently false claim as demonstrated many times within the Quran.

Let’s look at surah 32 (chapter 32) titled As-Sajdah. It contains 30 ayaat (30 verses). And here it is below in full from the Yusaf Ali translation:

1. A. L. M.
2. (This is) the Revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt,- from the Lord of the Worlds.
3. Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.
4. It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six Days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): ye have none, besides Him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?
5. He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.
6. Such is He, the Knower of all things, hidden and open, the Exalted (in power), the Merciful;-
7. He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay,
8. And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
9. But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!
10. And they say: "What! when we lie, hidden and lost, in the earth, shall we indeed be in a Creation renewed? Nay, they deny the Meeting with their Lord.
11. Say: "The Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls: then shall ye be brought back to your Lord."
12. If only thou couldst see when the guilty ones will bend low their heads before their Lord, (saying "Our Lord! We have seen and we have heard: Now then send us back (to the world): we will work righteousness: for we do indeed (now) believe."
13. If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, "I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together."
14. "Taste ye then - for ye forgot the Meeting of this Day of yours, and We too will forget you - taste ye the Penalty of Eternity for your (evil) deeds!"
15. Only those believe in Our Signs, who, when they are recited to them, fall down in prostration, and celebrate the praises of their Lord, nor are they (ever) puffed up with pride.
16. Their limbs do forsake their beds of sleep, the while they call on their Lord, in Fear and Hope: and they spend (in charity) out of the sustenance which We have bestowed on them.
17. Now no person knows what delights of the eye are kept hidden (in reserve) for them - as a reward for their (good) deeds.
18. Is then the man who believes no better than the man who is rebellious and wicked? Not equal are they.
19. For those who believe and do righteous deeds are Gardens as hospitable homes, for their (good) deeds.
20. As to those who are rebellious and wicked, their abode will be the Fire: every time they wish to get away therefrom, they will be forced thereinto, and it will be said to them: "Taste ye the Penalty of the Fire, the which ye were wont to reject as false."
21. And indeed We will make them taste of the Penalty of this (life) prior to the supreme Penalty, in order that they may (repent and) return.
22. And who does more wrong than one to whom are recited the Signs of his Lord, and who then turns away therefrom? Verily from those who transgress We shall exact (due) Retribution.
23. We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the Children of Israel.
24. And We appointed, from among them, leaders, giving guidance under Our command, so long as they persevered with patience and continued to have faith in Our Signs.
25. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment, in the matters wherein they differ (among themselves)
26. Does it not teach them a lesson, how many generations We destroyed before them, in whose dwellings they (now) go to and fro? Verily in that are Signs: Do they not then listen?
27. And do they not see that We do drive rain to parched soil (bare of herbage), and produce therewith crops, providing food for their cattle and themselves? Have they not the vision?
28. They say: "When will this decision be, if ye are telling the truth?"
29. Say: "On the Day of Decision, no profit will it be to Unbelievers if they (then) believe! nor will they be granted a respite."
30. So turn away from them, and wait: they too are waiting.

Now I determined the word count on this to be 841 or 809 if you deduct the ayaat (verse) numbers. Hence you would expect that the next chapter will be shorter based on the claims of Skybird and undisclosed academic sources.

Continued on next post below.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you run through the numerous major sectarian branches and then place the 4 from the piece?


No it says that there is disageement and there is nothing in the koran itself to support the view given by the 4.

No, it says the traditional view, that is "unanimous" is that death is it. It then lists specific people who disagree, and at every turn says they are outside the mainstream of islamic thought.

Below, it list countries. Saudi—death, Iran, death (there are sunni and shia right there--the vast majority of muslims).