QUOTE (Beckys_Mom @ Apr 11 2008, 03:26 PM)
My partner Gary went to college with a muslim that lived down the road from him..........long story short, the muslim was dating a girl from his class in school..they claimed to be in love.........but his parents forbid him to see her as they told him how they have arranged for a muslim girl to come over and marry him........this left him devastated and sad..he pleaded but they wouldnt give in
What did he do??.........the poor muslim guy ( I cant remember his name)...went to the nearest railway traks and placed his head on the track..and was killed instantly....he took his own life, all because his parents didnt care for his happiness..they only cared for tradition
this happened several years ago, it was in all the local news papers..and the pupils from his college were horrified of this
and to top it all of, this muslim was in fact a straight A student..he was going on to become a lawyer!
Thats tragic and should never had happened. I would arrest parents and take them court for causing this. But I Also take such stories with a pinch a salt.
QUOTE (Doug1o29 @ Apr 11 2008, 03:34 PM)
I'm an agnostic. That's only because I can't decide if the lack of evidence warrants the conclusion that there is no god.
What happens or doesn't happen in some life-after-death seems even more speculative than whether there is a god. What little research I have done on the Koran, suggests that it has even more errors and mistakes than the Bible. Stacking speculation on top of speculation is a good way to guarantee you get the wrong result.
I don't think religion is going to save the world: it's one of the things the world needs to be saved from. All this talk about whether it's OK to murder somebody or rape somebody because Jehovah or Allah said to do it only illustrates the point. I hear mullahs calling for jihad and I hear preachers talking hatred of gays and atheists. And people actually think they're men of god!
So, keep up the arguments. You're making atheism sound pretty good.
Doug
LOL. its has more errors than the bible etc. Yu jokin mate, the bible has 50,000 errors according to its own experts, not even orientalists, but their own biblical experts. There is not one error in the quran, bring one if you can, or bring them all, so i can straighten your misconception, which is no doubt based on verses out of context and translations.
QUOTE (seanph @ Apr 11 2008, 03:39 PM)
f
You have debated IW? Can you please provide his email
(I cannot find it) and the content of that debate, Ozi? I would love to ask him a question or two myself. It would be much appreciated.
He keeps changing his email, when he cannot take the heat no more, he disappears and changes it. As for who is, please tell me, why Sudo name, what is his real name, his hisotry, etc, everything we know about him is in a book written by him about himself, and not verifiable. He is not even an expert or credible scholar, does not know arabic and has based his entire works on Tisdall.Here, for those interested, is a detailed excerpt from IW's
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary edited with translations by Ibn Warraq. Very interesting. The second book is entitled
Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry. Both deal with texttual integrity et al of the Koran--the two most important books dealing with Qur'anic Criticism (not a negative term). I do not see Tisdall mentioned in either--save for an essay in Part three of
The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. If missed, please let me know and point me to the page number. I will happily make corrections. I take no stance--pro or con--as of yet on his work.
Point one here, translations by Warraq, the guy does not even know arabic, how did he translate it, by using material from christian missionary, Tisdall who was based himself in Pakistan. Your a joker Sean, and you know this guy is full of it. He is not the academic source you normally harp on about, you only love him cause he claims he is an apostate, non of which is verifiable.Excerpt from
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentaryhttp://www.prometheusbooks.com/site/chapte...atKoranSays.pdfJust interesting ...
AMAZON REVIEWS: What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary
Editorial Reviews
Fortean Times, April 2003
"Excellent book on a sensitive and under-explored subject."
Fortean times, is now a peer reveiw, lol. This is a magazine that talks about fantasy in the main, its appropriate commented by them, as Warraw work is fantasy.
About.com
"Scholars, students, and those with a keen interest in Islam...are sure to get a lot out of this collection."
LOL, as if. When the author is no shcolar himself and uses source and material rejected by the leading and credible orientalists. LOL. Joker.
Times Literary Supplement, September 12, 2003
"For anyone interested in the Koran, it will be a boon to understanding Islam. ...robustly critical scholarship..."
Robustyl critical scholarship, you mean a load of bull, the guy is not even a scholar and he get that type recognition, only cause he talks against islam, is credential dont even matter.
Book Description
This collection of classical essays, some translated here for the first time, provide an objective, critical commentary on the traditions and language of the Koran, discussing its grammatical and logical discontinuities, its Syriac and Hebrew foreign vocabulary, and its possible Christian, Coptic, and Qumranic sources. Included among these essays are a comprehensive commentary on the discussion of the expression 'an yadin in Sura II; a discussion of the possible meanings of Sura IX.29, the longest sura in the Koran; and selections from the late Koranic scholar Richard Gell's INTRODUCTION TO THE QUR'AN and A COMMENTARY ON THE QUR'AN.
LOL, from syriac and hebrew and even Coptic and Qumranic sources, mate sean if you had a single bone of honesty and decency in you, you would know these alegation have been long dealt with since. I mean arabic is a semetic language, sister language of the hebrew, ofcourse you would find similarities, its a joke. And to say that arabic has words coming from other languages, is no big deal, look at english, how many words have been borrowed from other languages, most of it is built on that. Arabic has similarities with its sister languages, but this does not question its textual integrity.
From the Inside Flap
Islam has worldwide influence, and even in the United States is experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. Islam and its sacred book, the Koran, have been the subject of voluminous commentary and, recently, great popular interest; yet it has rarely received the kind of ojective critical scrutiny that has been applied to the texts of the Bible for more than a century.
That is only true in the sense that, since the crusades, the missionaries have projected a certain stereo type of muslims and islam, and any critical study of the quran that was carried out by non muslims, was always bias, and based on missionary material, as many dint know arabic, like Warraq for instance. Muslims how ever have studied and been critical of the quran for centuries, but people like you ignore that fact and that material and only stick to that which is from bias sources like Tisdall and Warraq.
Though some scholars of note have raised crucial questions about the authenticity and reliability of the Koran and Muslim tradition, Koranic studies by and large have failed to take advantage of critical skeptical methodologies. Today the majority of interpreters of Islam's sacred text appear content to lie in the Procrustean bed prepared by Muslim tradition more than a thousand years ago.
LOL, absolutely false, muslims have had centuries of works on the quran, but none are looked at or used by people like warraq, only now have got academic organisations that have looked at both sides, and remember from the last thread, all the universities you posted, non questioned the textual integrity of the quran, and all flambasted Tisdall and anyone who uses his material.
To correct this neglect of objective historical scholarship, Ibn Warraq has assembled this excellent collection of critical commentaries on the Koran published by noted scholars from the beginning of the twentieth century to recent times. These important studies, as well as his own lengthy introduction, show that little about the text of the Koran can be taken at face value. Among the fascinating topics discussed is evidence that early Muslims did not understand Muhammad's original revelation, that the ninth-century explosion of literary activity was designed to organize and make sense of an often incoherent text, and that many of the traditions surrounding Muhammad's life were fabricated long after his death in an attempt to give meaning to the Koran. Also of interest are suggestions that Coptic and other Christian sources heavily influenced much of the text and that some passages even reflect an Essenian background reaching back to the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not single piece of evidence for the above statement. Usig material from early twentieth century and recernt times, meaning Tisdall and the likes, not a single commentary or critical analyses by early islamic scholars from centuries ago, people who at least know the language and dont base their alleged scholarly work on translations. Like Warraq, how can you even respect someone who does not know the language of the book he is studying and is dependant on Tisdall, and the likes, EVen Luxembourg, who you have used several times, who came up with the idea of Syriac script, but evenhis work is ancient now in comparison to the archeological finds and inscription found in arabic, which show the textual integirty to be fine, even according to Puin, in his letter to Atlantic Monthly remember.
Complete with a glossary of Arabic terms and appendices on Semitic languages and scripts, this outstanding volume is a welcome resource for interested lay readers and scholars alike. Yeh right..........
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentaryhttp://www.amazon.com/What-Koran-Really-Sa...4751&sr=1-3AND:
Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry http://www.amazon.com/Which-Koran-Manuscri...6722&sr=1-9For those interested on IW and his works/beliefs et al...
UNOFFICIAL SITE OF Ibn Warraqhttp://www.freewebs.com/unoffibnwarraq/index.htmInstitute for the Secularisation of Islamic Societyhttp://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.phpThis has been addressed ad nauseum ... and is completely false. UMF members can read our discussion and evaluate our sources starting here (post #206) and decide for themselves ...
ASK A MUSLIMhttp://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2200201MK,
Sean
Well we finished to agree to disagree, but if people read that thread and see where you accusation came from on the quran based on article from Puin in 1972, i then provide a much later letter to the same publisher Atlantic monthly, where by Puin writes since the Yemeni script and further studies and finds, it shows that the quran has no problem with Textual integrity, I have spoke face to face with many orientalists and scholars, the things you are going by are now outdated mate, the credible academics and scholars dont question the textual integrity no more, only fools like Warraq do, indenty unkown, no credentials, futile material used, and sponge like audience like yourself get sucked in.mistake by Warrq.
1 -Islam, like anything in human experience, comes out of a very specific historical and cultural milieu. Thus, the word "Allah" was known and used before the Qur'anic revelation. Rituals and pilgrimages to the Ka'ba were practiced before the onset of the Qur'anic revelation and were then adapted for Muslim use. Muhammad (saws) knew of and interacted with the Jews and Christians and hanifs of the times-- he was aware of their theologies. Arabic, like all languages, incorporated words from other languages which are then in the Qur'an. This is all accepted in Islam, and causes no problems. It seems strange to me that it would. Be that as it may, it is common in anti-Muslim writings to use the above points as some kind of a negative proof against our claim that the Qur'an is a revelation from God and Muhammad is a messenger from God. Warraq is no exception, though the logic of such a position escapes me. Indeed, it seems absurd and in denial of simple reality. He also, like others hostile to (or just grossly ignorant of) Islam portrays Muhammad as a power-hungry hedonist-- perhaps not realizing that he is only repeating wartime propaganda from the Crusades?
In addition, Warraq, and similar writers, will list atrocities done by Muslims, or done in the name of Islam, as if this somehow necessarily reflects upon the actual teachings of the Qur'an in light of the sunnah. The illogic of such a move is obvious to any thinking person and can be easily dismissed.
These books, though ostensibly about Islam per se, are in actuality about the poor state of contemporary Muslim practice and religious education. At the same time, this lack of theological sophistication that helps fuel anti-Muslim polemic also leaves the vast majority of Muslims without the intellectual tools needed to respond appropriately to anti-Muslim polemic such as Warraq's.
As Ibn Warraq goes about his rather vicious attack on Islam he does not attack actual Muslim writers, scholars or thinkers, but utilizes only a certain type of non-Muslim writing about Islam. Indeed, it appears that Ibn Warraq never did learn to truly read the Arabic Qur'an as it appears he has had to rely upon translations of the Qur'an. In addition, with all the various Qur'anic commentaries written over a millennium and a half, he relies on the only one that is generally and easily available to English speakers: Yusuf Ali's. This is kind of strange. He does not substantively refer to one Muslim biography of Muhammad, nor to any of our literature on seerah. Names of classic Muslim writers-- Ghazzali, Hanbali, Malik, Bukhari, Muslim, Rumi, Tabari, etc.-- do not appear, or if they do it is without substantial analysis or a balanced presentation of the views of these prolific writers. Nor does Warraq refer to any contemporary Muslim writers such as Keller, Qaradawi, Rahman, Faruqi, Asad, Akbar, etc. Nor does he refer to balanced non-Muslim writing such as that by Karen Armstrong. How can such a work be taken seriously? It can't. But it does look impressive.
Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D.
alimhaq@city-net.com
There is an email address if you wanna question him instead, since Warraq keeps changing his colours.
LinkLets see what the peers have to say about Tisdall.
François de Blois says:
The "classic essays" are of unequal value. The worst is St. Clair Tisdall's decidedly shoddy piece of missionary propaganda. The two by Mingana are not much better. It is surprising that the editor, who in his Why I Am Not A Muslim took a very high posture as a critical rationalist and opponent of all forms of obscurantism, now relies so heavily on writings by Christian polemicists from the nineteenth century.
A similar review by Herbert Berg informs us that:
The essay by St. Clair Tisdall with a forward by Muir seems to have been included for the 'Christian' perspective..... It is not particularly scholarly essay or even a polemical one; it is simply a polemic. It uses the salvation history of Christianity to refute that of Muslims. The author is altogether too fond of using words such as 'foolish', 'fanciful', 'childish' and 'ignorant' when describing quranic (and for that matter talmudic and midrashic) stories that disgree with his Christian reading of the Old Testament.
What About Geiger's Book?
There is no doubt that Geiger's work was "original" but modern research has shown that it has a lot of inaccuracies. Commenting on Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? Stillman says:
... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'ân. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbinic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.
Finally, Stillman says in his conclusion:
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'ân.
It is unclear whether, today, one should accept Obermann's statement that the Qur'ân "as a rule" is dependent upon the earlier Jewish and Christian sources. A more wide-ranging and discerning study, with particular attention to the dates of the so-called "sources," is needed before concluding that all Jewish or Christian sources, especially those posterior to the Islamic sources they are supposed to have informed, are prior to and therefore influence, but are not influenced, by Islam.
I take is all these non muslim academics and peers are apologetics hey!
Do you what, i am pretty sick of going around in circles you post a alot of link on alsorts of rubbish, but nothing concrete, nothing that confirms that the textual integrity is still in question, you made the point first with the article from 1972, the person the author of that, no longer questions it, but you still do, and are also waiting to find out what the academic at universities find, although, non of them question it too, its show me clearly the bias within you and your stuborness.
Cheers
OZi
QUOTE (seanph @ Apr 11 2008, 03:47 PM)
As for the gay thing, i have no idea about it, and where it is happening. I take such things with a pinch of salt, it also often depends onthe source and the poeple posting it and their agendas.
And yes, I've heard this too. It's probably just a bribe to get people to live their lives well so they can fool around all they want in the afterlife. I can't see any God promising that to anyone.
Nice explanation with key points..