Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 05, 2008, 09:32:32 PM
-
:o
Report: Schoolboys Get Detention for Refusing to Pray to Allah
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Two boys were punished this week for refusing to kneel on prayer mats and worship Allah during a class demonstration on Islam, the Daily Mail reported.
Irate parents said a religious education teacher at the Alsager High School in England told students to wear Muslim headgear during a lesson on Tuesday. "But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion, there would be war," the grandfather of one of the students said.
The two boys belong to a class that includes 11- to 12-year-olds, and after their refusal to participate they were given detention, the story says.
Another parent, Karen Williams, told the Mail: "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."
Deputy Headmaster Keith Plant said the teacher has given her version of the incident but he declined to elaborate.
According to a statement from the Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school: "Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.
"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."
Click here to read more on this story in the Daily Mail.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376746,00.html
-
Should be taken to the highest court in the EU.
The school/teacher do not have any chance.
-
oh boy, doesn't get any funnier than this ;D
"Two boys were punished this week for refusing to kneel on prayer mats and worship Allah during a class demonstration on Islam"
I'm not sure why the bolded part is necessary, as if "Allah" is another God or something. Atleast fox really likes to make the distinction ;D
Anyway, too lazy to dig up the details, but what was the punishment and what was the exact prayer they were supposed to do?
-
oh boy, doesn't get any funnier than this ;D
"Two boys were punished this week for refusing to kneel on prayer mats and worship Allah during a class demonstration on Islam"
I'm not sure why the bolded part is necessary, as if "Allah" is another God or something. Atleast fox really likes to make the distinction ;D
Anyway, too lazy to dig up the details, but what was the punishment and what was the exact prayer they were supposed to do?
How funny would it be if they asked "haiter" to go to church on Sunday and take Communion?
-
How funny would it be if they asked "haiter" to go to church on Sunday and take Communion?
I'm not sure what they were required to do, fox news doesn't seem like the most objective source anyways.
I don't see why anyone would be required to do a ritual, especially in a language one doesn't even understand. So I would disagree with that as a teaching method, and i can see why some one would be uncomfortable doing it.
In the Islam class i was in with a friend of mine (infidel), no one was required to go to the mosque but we did make a class trip to the mosque and talk to people there... no one was required to pray, or even stand by the side to watch us pray. Although the women who accompanied us were advised to cover their heads as that is proper etiquette in a mosque- whether u agree with it or not ;D
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html
Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.
Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.
Alsager School, near Stoke, has received furious complaints from parents after two Year 7 boys were punished for refusing to kneel to Allah during a religious studies class
One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far.
"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer.
"Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.
"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."
Another parent Karen Williams said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.
"I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm.
"But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'.
"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.
"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.
"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."
"My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson." The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it.
"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention.
"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.
"But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."
Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.
"At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.
"The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.
"I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."
A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: "The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.
"Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.
"Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.
"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."
sounds more like a jackass instructor trying to assert their control rather than a religious nut, unless the teacher was islamic.
-
oh boy, doesn't get any funnier than this ;D
"Two boys were punished this week for refusing to kneel on prayer mats and worship Allah during a class demonstration on Islam"
I'm not sure why the bolded part is necessary, as if "Allah" is another God or something. Atleast fox really likes to make the distinction ;D
Anyway, too lazy to dig up the details, but what was the punishment and what was the exact prayer they were supposed to do?
How is it the same god considering there are two exclusive sources of divinity? (bible, koran).
How can it be the same god if the 2 profess they are gods religion? Still assuming they're the same god because they are monotheist?
-
If there is a God, there can only be one. That's very simple logic, since the attribute of plural is form-related while God is the formless. If exclusiveness is claimed in a religion, it is either not a valid religion, or the claim has a different meaning, misinterpreted by bigots.
Regarding the Fox News 'report', quite obviously blown out-of-proportion. Probably just a wacky teacher.
-
If there is a God, there can only be one. That's very simple logic, since the attribute of plural is form-related while God is the formless. If exclusiveness is claimed in a religion, it is either not a valid religion, or the claim has a different meaning, misinterpreted by bigots.
Regarding the Fox News 'report', quite obviously blown out-of-proportion. Probably just a wacky teacher.
Sure, obviously in monotheism there is a single god. But does this god have split personalities? He must have for there to be 3 or more valid sources of divinity.
Having split personalities is quite a human, fallible trait also.
-
:o
Report: Schoolboys Get Detention for Refusing to Pray to Allah
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Two boys were punished this week for refusing to kneel on prayer mats and worship Allah during a class demonstration on Islam, the Daily Mail reported.
Irate parents said a religious education teacher at the Alsager High School in England told students to wear Muslim headgear during a lesson on Tuesday. "But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion, there would be war," the grandfather of one of the students said.
The two boys belong to a class that includes 11- to 12-year-olds, and after their refusal to participate they were given detention, the story says.
Another parent, Karen Williams, told the Mail: "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right. They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."
Deputy Headmaster Keith Plant said the teacher has given her version of the incident but he declined to elaborate.
According to a statement from the Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school: "Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.
"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."
Click here to read more on this story in the Daily Mail.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376746,00.html
How about looking at it like this. If the lesson for that day was learning about other cultures and or religions and they failed to obey the teacher, they reprimanded for not following instruction. Just as here if the teacher told you to sit down and or stop interrupting class or take notes, one can be reprimanded for that. They were reprimanded for failing to obey a teacher's command.
-
How about looking at it like this. If the lesson for that day was learning about other cultures and or religions and they failed to obey the teacher, they reprimanded for not following instruction. Just as here if the teacher told you to sit down and or stop interrupting class or take notes, one can be reprimanded for that. They were reprimanded for failing to obey a teacher's command.
Are you high?
You think anyone should be forced to pray to a God they clearly don't believe in? Totally against their human rights.
You're so left you're going to fall off Mount Delusional.
-
Sure, obviously in monotheism there is a single god. But does this god have split personalities? He must have for there to be 3 or more valid sources of divinity.
Having split personalities is quite a human, fallible trait also.
As I said, that would be misinterpretation of scripture. All the human claims of exclusiveness such as in 'I'm a beliver, your a non-believer', are made up by the ego. IMO, they are the complete opposite of what spirituality is about.
-
As I said, that would be misinterpretation of scripture. All the human claims of exclusiveness such as in 'I'm a beliver, your a non-believer', are made up by the ego. IMO, they are the complete opposite of what spirituality is about.
So you believe the obvious contradictions between the 3 Abrahamic religions are just a misinterpretation of scripture?
I was discussing Abrahamic religions not the general spirituality.
-
So you believe the obvious contradictions between the 3 Abrahamic religions are just a misinterpretation of scripture?
I was discussing Abrahamic religions not the general spirituality.
It's OK to have differences between what I would rather call spiritual traditions than religions. But as soon as you find the spiritual truth in your religion (if there is one, that is), all essential contradictions must dissolve, there's just no way around that. So basically the answer is yes.
-
It's OK to have differences between what I would rather call spiritual traditions than religions. But as soon as you find the spiritual truth in your religion (if there is one, that is), all essential contradictions must dissolve, there's just no way around that. So basically the answer is yes.
So a religion that sells itself as the infallible word of God, existing since eternity (koran) is not in contradiction to the Bible?
Even though Mary is a virgin, son of God (Jesus) and in the koran Jesus isn't God / Son of God? You see no contradictions here?
-
So a religion that sells itself as the infallible word of God, existing since eternity (koran) is not in contradiction to the Bible?
I can't say too much about the Koran, since I have never read it. But the claims of infallibility and direct descent from God apparent in many religious scriptures can only relate to the truth behind the words, not the words themselves (the way the truth is pointed to). That's the only possible interpretation which makes any sense.
Even though Mary is a virgin, son of God (Jesus) and in the koran Jesus isn't God / Son of God? You see no contradictions here?
The question of exclusiveness of the prophet of a certain religion is a similar topic. The concept of slavation 'only through the blood of Jesus', e.g. can only relate to the spiritual truth mediated by resp. trough Jesus, not him as a historical person.
-
I can't say too much about the Koran, since I have never read it. But the claims of infallibility and direct descent from God apparent in many religious scriptures can only relate to the truth behind the words, not the words themselves (the way the truth is pointed to). That's the only possible interpretation which makes any sense.
The koran is a copy of the mother of all books (which has existed by Gods side for eternity). The koran in its current form is a perfect infallible copy of the mother of books, passed to muhammad via the angel gabriel.
The words themselves (some would argue that only the original archaic arabic) are perfection.
The laws of the koran are literal in most cases (sharia - infallible law of god) i.e. homosexuality is punishable via death, 4 muslim witnesses are required in court to substantiate your defence, etc. etc.
How this doesn't contradict other Abramic religions I don't know, no matter how ambiguous YOU want to be, the koran is not, it's definitive.
-
The koran is a copy of the mother of all books (which has existed by Gods side for eternity). The koran in its current form is a perfect infallible copy of the mother of books, passed to muhammad via the angel gabriel.
The words themselves (some would argue that only the original archaic arabic) are perfection.
The laws of the koran are literal in most cases (sharia - infallible law of god) i.e. homosexuality is punishable via death, 4 muslim witnesses are required in court to substantiate your defence, etc. etc.
How this doesn't contradict other Abramic religions I don't know, no matter how ambiguous YOU want to be, the koran is not, it's definitive.
That's why I always say 'if there is truth in it'. In case of the Koran, I honestly don't know, but would assume that there are essential and unessential parts to it, just like with every other religious scripture. Unfortunally, the bigots often turn to the unessential parts, misinterpret and base their ideology upon them.
AFAIK just like in christianity, there are different interpretations of the Koran. The problem with ancient scripture is always the same: thousands of years of misinterpretations, false translations, change of historic meaning etc.
-
That's why I always say 'if there is truth in it'. In case of the Koran, I honestly don't know, but would assume that there are essential and unessential parts to it, just like with every other religious scripture. Unfortunally, the bigots often turn to the unessential parts, misinterpret and base their ideology upon them.
AFAIK just like in christianity, there are different interpretations of the Koran. The problem with ancient scripture is always the same: thousands of years of misinterpretations, false translations, change of historic meaning etc.
You assumptions on the koran are incorrect on most accounts.
The koran ITSELF states that is the infallible word of god. It also states that it must be accepted in its entirety.
Islam is an ideology that transcends everything, daily activities, education, laws in general.
The interpretation thing; the are schools of jurisdiction in islam, most agree on a common interpretation that includes death for apostacy, homosexuality and the requirement of 4 MUSLIM witnesses in court to substantiate claims. These have existed since practically the time of muhammad himself.
Chose to look at religions as being not responsible for their messages if you would like, but I think it is a huge error on your part.
Here is a good online copy of the koran: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ (contains numerous ACCEPTED interpretations in English)
-
You assumptions on the koran are incorrect on most accounts.
The koran ITSELF states that is the infallible word of god. It also states that it must be accepted in its entirety.
Islam is an ideology that transcends everything, daily activities, education, laws in general.
The interpretation thing; the are schools of jurisdiction in islam, most agree on a common interpretation that includes death for apostacy, homosexuality and the requirement of 4 MUSLIM witnesses in court to substantiate claims. These have existed since practically the time of muhammad himself.
Chose to luck at religions as being not responsible for their messages if you would like, but I think it is a huge error on your part.
Here is a good online copy of the koran: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ (contains numerous ACCEPTED interpretations in English)
I'm not here to defend the Koran, as I said, I know little about it. One thing is sure: everything that is ideology rather than spirituallity about it, does not contain any truth.
-
How is it the same god considering there are two exclusive sources of divinity? (bible, koran).
How can it be the same god if the 2 profess they are gods religion? Still assuming they're the same god because they are monotheist?
It is not believed that Islam comes from a seperate divine source, and this can be seen in the vast similarities between Islam and Christianity if you are to simply look on the surface.
IMO the major differences are on the level of dogma, like the trinity, origniall sin, etc. but these are beleived by muslims to be corruptions in the original teachings of the christ. Ofcourse, there are other differences, but this is to be expected because the religions existed in a different place, and at a different time.
I find it hilarious that people claiming to be monotheistic would argue over which God is the true God ;D
-
It is not believed that Islam comes from a seperate divine source, and this can be seen in the vast similarities between Islam and Christianity if you are to simply look on the surface.
IMO the major differences are on the level of dogma, like the trinity, origniall sin, etc. but these are beleived by muslims to be corruptions in the original teachings of the christ. Ofcourse, there are other differences, but this is to be expected because the religions existed in a different place, and at a different time.
I find it hilarious that people claiming to be monotheistic would argue over which God is the true God ;D
Both are plagiarised from Judaism, hence the vast similarity.
-
Both are plagiarised from Judaism, hence the vast similarity.
OK, without pointing to the similarities between the two, do you have any evidence for how Muhammed plagiaraised all of this? :P
-
OK, without pointing to the similarities between the two, do you have any evidence for how Muhammed plagiaraised all of this? :P
Deicide is bang on: muhammad plagiarised much of his work from Judaism.
Also, Haider, what's your opinion on this:
In the koran 2 verses may contradict each other. The koran states the latter verse overrides the original verse. Some muslims argue that the koran is infallible (as per the koran itself) so the two contradicting verses must BOTH be correct.
Why is God so fallible? Remember, this is a book that has been beside god since eternity, replicated in the koran PERFECTLY via the angel gabriel.
I speak of this because muslims believe the bible to contain the corruptions of the teachings of Christ.
-
Deicide is bang on: muhammad plagiarised much of his work from Judaism.
Also, Haider, what's your opinion on this:
In the koran 2 verses may contradict each other. The koran states the latter verse overrides the original verse. Some muslims argue that the koran is infallible (as per the koran itself) so the two contradicting verses must BOTH be correct.
Why is God so fallible? Remember, this is a book that has been beside god since eternity, replicated in the koran PERFECTLY via the angel gabriel.
I speak of this because muslims believe the bible to contain the corruptions of the teachings of Christ.
Show me an example of this, and I will try to answer your query.
-
Show me an example of this, and I will try to answer your query.
An example of plagarism or abrogation?
Plagarism:
Abrogation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir))
-
Are you high?
You think anyone should be forced to pray to a God they clearly don't believe in? Totally against their human rights.
You're so left you're going to fall off Mount Delusional.
Actually when I wrote that i just got off work around 3am...and I didn't read the full article, now I see diff...
-
An example of plagarism or abrogation?
Plagarism:
Abrogation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir))
I dont have time to read all that shit right now, atleast not for another week :P
Maybe I'll check it out when I'm back home again.
I do know about abrogation a little bit, forgive me for forgetting much of my theological knowledge though ;D One case I can think of off the top my head is the case with prohibition of alcohol- at first it wasnt completely prohibited; only before prayers (I think). This later turned into full prohibition. Explanation: This was done so it would be easier for the believers to give up alcohol, rather than having to give up alcohol cold-turkey, so to speak. So it makes practical sense atleast.
-
I dont have time to read all that shit right now, atleast not for another week :P
Maybe I'll check it out when I'm back home again.
I do know about abrogation a little bit, forgive me for forgetting much of my theological knowledge though ;D One case I can think of off the top my head is the case with prohibition of alcohol- at first it wasnt completely prohibited; only before prayers (I think). This later turned into full prohibition. Explanation: This was done so it would be easier for the believers to give up alcohol, rather than having to give up alcohol cold-turkey, so to speak. So it makes practical sense atleast.
Jeez, keep telling yourself that, are you that delusional? ???
A week to read the equivalent of 2 pages of A4 and a video 8 minutes long?
P.S. you explanation of the alcohol example shows your infallible gods fallibility. Remember: the koran is the copy of the mother of books, which has been beside god since eternity. It transcends time.
-
Jeez, keep telling yourself that, are you that delusional? ???
A week to read the equivalent of 2 pages of A4 and a video 8 minutes long?
P.S. you explanation of the alcohol example shows your infallible gods fallibility. Remember: the koran is the copy of the mother of books, which has been beside god since eternity. It transcends time.
It doesn't make sense to you? ???
I guess if not, i can't really convince you other wise. But religion has to be practical, otherwise it would have no use... duh, but i guess it has to be said.
About the wiki page, it seemed to be loaded with information... I'd like to see u put aside time to understand that... much less when you're vacationing :P
I wouldn't want to watch the video around other muslims, they miht get offended and kill me.... u know how they are.
-
Not only is Islam a rank plagiarism, it is also historically inaccurate.
The Heights: 7:124 Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one.
Ta Ha: 20:71 (Pharaoh) said: Ye put faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he is your chief who taught you magic. Now surely I shall cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and ye shall know for certain which of us hath sterner and more lasting punishment.
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment and was not practised by the Egyptians, yet it is referred to multiple times. Allah isn't much of a historian apparently.
-
It doesn't make sense to you? ???
I guess if not, i can't really convince you other wise. But religion has to be practical, otherwise it would have no use... duh, but i guess it has to be said.
About the wiki page, it seemed to be loaded with information... I'd like to see u put aside time to understand that... much less when you're vacationing :P
I wouldn't want to watch the video around other muslims, they miht get offended and kill me.... u know how they are.
No, it sounds like an excuse not reasoning.
-
Not only is Islam a rank plagiarism, it is also historically inaccurate.
The Heights: 7:124 Surely I shall have your hands and feet cut off upon alternate sides. Then I shall crucify you every one.
Ta Ha: 20:71 (Pharaoh) said: Ye put faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he is your chief who taught you magic. Now surely I shall cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and ye shall know for certain which of us hath sterner and more lasting punishment.
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment and was not practised by the Egyptians, yet it is referred to multiple times. Allah isn't much of a historian apparently.
Crucifixion was not uniquely a roman punishment, i don't think.
-
Crucifixion was not uniquely a roman punishment, i don't think.
What? Evidence? Or are you basing that on a personal whim? ???
-
What? Evidence? Or are you basing that on a personal whim? ???
Not that evidence was provided for the first statement..
I'm the shittiest historian you'll find, so I'm the kinda guy that looks up something on wikipedia to look for historical information... according to wiki, crucifixion was " in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD"
On Pre-roman crucifioxion:
"[edit] Pre-Roman States
Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used by Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Romans. Death was often hastened. "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[23]
Some Christian theologians, beginning with Paul of Tarsus writing in Galatians 3:13, have interpreted an allusion to crucifixion in Deuteronomy 21:22-23. This reference is to being hanged from a tree, and may be associated with lynching or traditional hanging. However, ancient Jewish law allowed only 4 methods of execution: stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation. Crucifixion was thus forbidden by ancient Jewish law.[24]
Alexander the Great is reputed to have executed 2000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre, as well as the doctor who unsuccessfully treated Alexander's friend Hephaestion. Some historians have also conjectured that Alexander crucified Callisthenes, his official historian and biographer, for objecting to Alexander's adoption of the Persian ceremony of royal adoration.
In Carthage, crucifixion was an established mode of execution, which could even be imposed on a general for suffering a major defeat."
-
Where's the evidence of Egyptian crucifixion in that body of text?
-
Where's the evidence of Egyptian crucifixion in that body of text?
The point is (my point) that crucifixion wouldn't be an unfamiliar concept before the Romans..
-
The point is (my point) that crucifixion wouldn't be an unfamiliar concept before the Romans..
Well, the koran specifically says Egyptians, of which there is no evidence provided by you.
You as a muslim must accept what the koran has to say 100%, we do not, we're in the position to be impartial and say confidently "crucifixion was mostly likely not used by Egyptians" we're are not bound by scripture in our search for truth.
I wait upon your responses to abrogation and evidence that Egyptians used crucifixion as an method of execution.
-
Well, the koran specifically says Egyptians, of which there is no evidence provided by you.
what does the quote say again, what is it you're exactly arguing? No where does it imply in the verse that this was a common practice by the egyptians, or that it was used at all!
You guys should atleast read the verses before you make an objection, lol!
-
Pharaoh, palm trees, mention of being Egyptian?
Still come up with anything regarding abrogation squire?
-
Pharaoh, palm trees, mention of being Egyptian?
whatever..
look it up if u want to, i didn't make any assertions regarding crucifixion by egyptians, only said that such punishments did exist prior to the Romans. If you want to positively say that this is not the case, then maybe you should provide evidence for this?
I did manage to get this muslim reply to this supposed contradiction pointed out by christians here, i skimmed through it a little bit... like i said before i don;t really care to read through long pages right now. If you want to debate this in a detailed manner we can do that later, until then you can read this:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html)
-
whatever..
look it up if u want to, i didn't make any assertions regarding crucifixion by egyptians, only said that such punishments did exist prior to the Romans. If you want to positively say that this is not the case, then maybe you should provide evidence for this?
I did manage to get this muslim reply to this supposed contradiction pointed out by christians here, i skimmed through it a little bit... like i said before i don;t really care to read through long pages right now. If you want to debate this in a detailed manner we can do that later, until then you can read this:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html)
Right I made the assertion that you provided no evidence for Egyptians doing it.
P.S. the article you gave just tells me that the author wants to reader to think impaling people in the genitals somehow is crucifixion. Hate to break it to you, man has been prodding each other with sharp sticks since day one - crucifixion is very specific.
-
Right I made the assertion that you provided no evidence for Egyptians doing it.
P.S. the article you gave just tells me that the author wants to reader to think impaling people in the genitals somehow is crucifixion. Hate to break it to you, man has been prodding each other with sharp sticks since day one - crucifixion is very specific.
The original assertion was that Egyptians did NOT use it, even though the punishment WAS indeed used before the Romans did. Where is the evidence for that?
-
My other argument: The idea of crucifixion might have been familiar to the Egyptians. So even though they may not have practiced it, surely one could make references to it- which is what the pharoh is doing in the verses.
-
My other argument: The idea of crucifixion might have been familiar to the Egyptians. So even though they may not have practiced it, surely one could make references to it- which is what the pharoh is doing in the verses.
Egyptian history is fairly well documented. It does not mention crucifixion.
-
Egyptian history is fairly well documented. It does not mention crucifixion.
are you a 100% sure?
-
are you a 100% sure?
No; I will try and do some extra research on it.
-
No; I will try and do some extra research on it.
I do appreciatte your honesty. I'm currently reading the link i posted for nordick.
-
I do appreciatte your honesty. I'm currently reading the link i posted for nordick.
Anyway...off to work now.
-
From what i bothered to understand in the link; it is hard to have a restrictive definition of crucifxion archaelogically due to the diverse ways in which this punishment was used- this would include impalement, which was a punishment used by the egyptians (evidence in the link).
My personal note: crucifxion is the english translation from Qur'anic arabic, so i don't even know if that translation is 100% appropriatte.
-
From what i bothered to understand in the link; it is hard to have a restrictive definition of crucifxion archaelogically due to the diverse ways in which this punishment was used- this would include impalement, which was a punishment used by the egyptians (evidence in the link).
My personal note: crucifxion is the english translation from Qur'anic arabic, so i don't even know if that translation is 100% appropriatte.
I had a feeling you would use the 'old mistranslation' bit. Oldest trick in the book.
-
From what i bothered to understand in the link; it is hard to have a restrictive definition of crucifxion archaelogically due to the diverse ways in which this punishment was used- this would include impalement, which was a punishment used by the egyptians (evidence in the link).
My personal note: crucifxion is the english translation from Qur'anic arabic, so i don't even know if that translation is 100% appropriatte.
Sorry mate, translation just isn't an excuse for you muslims anymore.
Modern linguistics is very, very, very good.
-
hahahahahaha, it never gets old... the old "yeah, that's exactly what i thought a muzzie would say" ;D
Do you guys not find that ridiculous? I never used it as an argument, funny to see you guys completely ignore the main point of my post and instead completely focusing on what I myself labaled as a "personal note".... translations are hardly ever a 100% correct, so i thought there MIGHT be a possibility that it was a case of mistranslation... that the translator couldn't think of a better word for it in the ENGLISH language. Even more the possibility with this case given the words relateively loose definition. Wankers. A linguist like Deicide would perhaps know this.
Meltdown.
-
hahahahahaha, it never gets old... the old "yeah, that's exactly what i thought a muzzie would say" ;D
Do you guys not find that ridiculous? I never used it as an argument, funny to see you guys completely ignore the main point of my post and instead completely focusing on what I myself labaled as a "personal note".... translations are hardly ever a 100% correct, so i thought there MIGHT be a possibility that it was a case of mistranslation... that the translator couldn't think of a better word for it in the ENGLISH language. Even more the possibility with this case given the words relateively loose definition. Wankers. A linguist like Deicide would perhaps know this.
Meltdown.
Sorry squire, the translation angle holds no weight. English translation from Arabic is very, very accurate. The English translations of the koran have been support as accurate by the highest authorities in islam. Let's not forget this is a process of increased accuracy over hundreds of years.
So... onto abrogation, any opinions yet? ::)
-
Sorry squire, the translation angle holds no weight. English translation from Arabic is very, very accurate. The English translations of the koran have been support as accurate by the highest authorities in islam. Let's not forget this is a process of increased accuracy over hundreds of years.
If that is the case, then fine... I never did use it as an argument, it was simply something to ponder about. It is true that there ARE problem encountered when translating from one language to the other. The best possible translation is still not the most accurate depiction of what is being said in the original message.
What I'm saying is that the original word doesnt necessarily have an exact equivalent in the english language, so we pick the best possible word for translation... this would be a "shortcoming" on the part of the english language.And it appears from the evidence provided that crucifixion indeed would be an appropriatte translation... so there is nothing really to argue about.
I would like your comments on this before we move on to anything else.
-
If that is the case, then fine... I never did use it as an argument, it was simply something to ponder about. It is true that there ARE problem encountered when translating from one language to the other. The best possible translation is still not the most accurate depiction of what is being said in the original message.
What I'm saying is that the original word doesnt necessarily have an exact equivalent in the english language, so we pick the best possible word for translation... this would be a "shortcoming" on the part of the english language.And it appears from the evidence provided that crucifixion indeed would be an appropriatte translation... so there is nothing really to argue about.
The English language is the most descriptive language on Earth (most words), it's way beyond even the second language, which I believe is Russian.
But of course there are some discrepancies, in which case further explanation is used (see bolded), e.g.:
4.147: What concern hath Allah for your punishment if ye are thankful (for His mercies) and believe (in Him)? Allah was ever Responsive, Aware.
4.149: Whether ye publish a good deed or conceal it or cover evil with pardon, verily Allah doth blot out (sins) and hath power (in the judgment of values).
I would like your comments on this before we move on to anything else.
Pure cowardice.
-
The English language is the most descriptive language on Earth (most words), it's way beyond even the second language, which I believe is Russian.
But of course there are some discrepancies, in which case further explanation is used (see bolded), e.g.:
4.147: What concern hath Allah for your punishment if ye are thankful (for His mercies) and believe (in Him)? Allah was ever Responsive, Aware.
4.149: Whether ye publish a good deed or conceal it or cover evil with pardon, verily Allah doth blot out (sins) and hath power (in the judgment of values).
I think you took my description "shortcoming" a little too literally...
Most words means = more decriptive? I'd like Deicide's word on that.. not to start a language war here or anything?
Pure cowardice.
;D
It doesn't seem like you're listening to me... making this personal makes me even less inclined to talk.
-
I think you took my description "shortcoming" a little too literally...
Most words means = more decriptive? I'd like Deicide's word on that.. not to start a language war here or anything?
;D
It doesn't seem like you're listening to me... making this personal makes me even less inclined to talk.
de·scrip·tion (dĭ-skrĭp'shən)
n.
1. The act, process, or technique of describing.
2. A statement or an account describing something: published a description of the journey; gave a vivid description of the game.
3. A pictorial representation: Monet's ethereal descriptions of haystacks and water lilies.
4. A kind or sort: cars of every size and description.
Because English has by far the most word, it is therefore more descriptive as per the above definitions.
Play the personal card if you want, it's clear you have apologetic islamist tendencies and I no longer care for your opinion. Just another muslim with no answers, just the shame shitty rhetoric.
-
de·scrip·tion (dĭ-skrĭp'shən)
n.
1. The act, process, or technique of describing.
2. A statement or an account describing something: published a description of the journey; gave a vivid description of the game.
3. A pictorial representation: Monet's ethereal descriptions of haystacks and water lilies.
4. A kind or sort: cars of every size and description.
Because English has by far the most word, it is therefore more descriptive as per the above definitions.
Play the personal card if you want, it's clear you have apologetic islamist tendencies and I no longer care for your opinion. Just another muslim with no answers, just the shame shitty rhetoric.
Honestly I don't even see where the hostility is coming from.. oh well.
-
Honestly I don't even see where the hostility is coming from.. oh well.
Here:
It doesn't seem like you're listening to me... making this personal makes me even less inclined to talk.
I'm bored of beating around the bush with you. Same old shit every time.
-
Here:
I'm bored of beating around the bush with you. Same old shit every time.
ok.
-
Here:
I'm bored of beating around the bush with you. Same old shit every time.
I would agree; particularly after reading Muslim apologetics regarding the issue of crucifixion.
-
I would agree; particularly after reading Muslim apologetics regarding the issue of crucifixion.
did u read the link? what was it about the explanation that wasn't satisfying?
-
I really wanna know why the explanation is wrong, I really do.
-
hello?
-
hello?
I am waiting for answers from two friends of mine with advanced degrees in Ancient History/Egypt. I will get back to this when I have received more information.
-
I am waiting for answers from two friends of mine with advanced degrees in Ancient History/Egypt. I will get back to this when I have received more information.
cool. I wish I had friends like that :P
-
From an expert:
Well, we find the Egyptian custom of hanging an individual on a tree for the birds to eat in Gen 40:19, where in Joseph is interpreting the Baker and Butler’s dreams. However, unless you consider hanging the headless corpse of a criminal on a tree to be a form of crucifixion, this cannot be considered proof of Egyptian crucifixion, since Joseph specifically says, “Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.” There is a better case for early crucifixion found in Deut 21:23. Deuteronomy is set at the end of the wandering – or around 40-50 years after leaving Egypt. To quote the passage, “"his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.” Again there is a problem, the preceding passage seems to indicate that the criminal is killed prior to being hung on the tree, but the two passages are not specific enough to say one way or another.
I could find nothing in various publications and articles that I can access to indicate that crucifixion was a common Egyptian form of capital punishment. The earliest that we can actually date crucifixion is to the act of Darius the Persian, conqueror of Babylon in 519 BCE, when he had 3000 Babylonian prisoners crucified. We also know that crucifixion was practiced by such diverse cultures as the Indians, Assyrians, Scythians, Taurians, Celts, Greeks, Seleucids, Romans, Britanni, Numidians, and Carthagians . I did find a statement in “Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch” that avers the Egyptians did indeed practice crucifixion, but I found no valid supporting evidence in that rather bulky tome (I will admit that I only skimmed it). In conclusion, due to lack of verifiable evidence (actually near lack of evidence) I would say that the koran is in error and much like the bible is not the inerrant word of Allah…LOL
Depends on how the crucifixion was done. Since, for often that not, the crucifixion victim was tied to the cross and since asphyxiation leaves no marks on skeletal remains, it would be hard to tell if a victim was crucified. In the case of the type of crucifixion supposed suffered by Jesus of Nazareth, wherein the victim was attached to the cross by nails, it might be possible to find where the nail scraped or punctured the wrist bones and ankles (contrary to most paintings the feet were usually nailed by the ankles or heels to the side of the cross). As for impalement, since it involves placing a blunt post or pole in a slit between the scrotum and anus and allowing the victims body weight and struggles to push the pole ever deeper into the victims body until it usually emerged between the upper chest and lower neck, it is highly unlikely that there would be sufficient skeletal trauma to prove conclusively that the victim was impaled…so short of a victim nailed to the cross, I doubt we could find any evidence archeologically of crucifixion or impalement…we have to rely on the recordings of ancient historians such as Herodotus.
-
lol nice :D
-
so it appears your friend is actually differentiating between impalement and crucifxion as different forms of punishment? I thought after reading the link that impalement was but one other form of crucifixion- the other forms being tying the person to the cross or nailing him.
I also came across the refrence to Darius in the link I found, where the author shows that the English translation of that account uses the word "impalement" instead of "crucifixion"... so it appears that the words are being used interchangeably.
-
so it appears your friend is actually differentiating between impalement and crucifxion as different forms of punishment? I thought after reading the link that impalement was but one other form of crucifixion- the other forms being tying the person to the cross or nailing him.
I also came across the refrence to Darius in the link I found, where the author shows that the English translation of that account uses the word "impalement" instead of "crucifixion"... so it appears that the words are being used interchangeably.
I think his point was that crucifixion was a unique punishment, practised by several different cultures, but that the Egyptian culture was not one of them.
My old ancient history professor is an egyptologist. I could send him a mail.
-
I think is point was that crucifixion was a unique punishment, practised by several different cultures, but that the Egyptian culture was not one of them.
My old ancient history professor is an egyptologist. I could send him a mail.
Basically, from what I gather, the muslims are trying to say that implalement onto a stake is a form of crucifixion, which was later modified into the other forms (however, there was still no fixed form of "crucifixion" as there were many ways in which this was done). They further try to strengthen their argument by providing examples of English translators using the two words interchangeably- which includes the account of Darius that your friend mentioned. (There is another argument concerning a hebrew word and its actual meaning within context, but i wont get into that).
Having 'established' the above, they then provide evidence of impalement in the ancient and new egyptian era's. You can check out the link to verify that.
They also make note of the point that only the king had the right to impose such grave punishments, so the Qur'anic refrence to the pharaoh as "Lord of the Stakes" is appropriatte since he would be the one in charge to give such punishements.
-
I dunno why I got myself into this, as it really is beyond my scope. I'm basically regurgitating information, lol, when u guys could be reading the arguments yourself and making up your mind that way.
-
The New Catholic Encyclopaedia defines "Crucifixion" as:
Crucifixion developed from a method of execution by which the victim was fastened to an upright stake either by impaling him on it or by tying him to it with thongs... From this form of execution developed crucifixion in the strict sense, whereby the outstretched arms of the victim were tied or nailed to a crossbeam (patibulum), which was then laid in a groove across the top or suspended by means of a notch in the side of an upright stake that was always left in position at the site of execution.[3]
-
Martin Hengel, Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism studies at Tübingen University, Germany, stresses that all attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are in vain as there were just too many different possibilities. He says:
All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain; there were too many different possibilities for the executioner. Seneca's testimony speaks for itself:
I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet.[18]
-
The Darius account-
Again note that the English translation uses the word "impaled" which is the translation of the Greek word anaskolopieisthai from the verb anaskolopizô meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale".
3.159. [1] Βαβυλὼν μέν νυν οὕτω τὸ δεύτερον αἱρέθη. Δαρει̂ος δὲ ἐπείτε ἐκράτησε τω̂ν Βαβυλωνίων, του̂το μὲν σφέων τὸ τει̂χος περιει̂λε καὶ τὰς πύλας πάσας ἀπέσπασε: τὸ γὰρ πρότερον ἑλὼν Κυ̂ρος τὴν Βαβυλω̂να ἐποίησε τούτων οὐδέτερον: του̂το δὲ ὁ Δαρει̂ος τω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν τοὺς κορυφαίους μάλιστα ἐς τρισχιλίους ἀνεσκολόπισε, τοι̂σι δὲ λοιποι̂σι Βαβυλωνίοισι ἀπέδωκε τὴν πόλιν οἰκέειν.
[3.159.1] Babulôn men nun houtô to deuteron hairethê. Dareios de epeite ekratêse tôn Babulôniôn, touto men spheôn to teichos perieile kai tas pulas pasas apespase: to gar proteron helôn Kuros tên Babulôna epoiêse toutôn oudeteron: touto de ho Dareios tôn andrôn tous koruphaious malista es trischilious aneskolopise, toisi de loipoisi Babulônioisi apedôke tên polin oikeein.
[3.159.1] Thus was Babylon the second time taken. Having mastered the Babylonians, Darius destroyed their walls and reft away all their gates, neither of which things Cyrus had done at the first taking of Babylon; moreover he impaled about three thousand men that were prominent among them; as for the rest, he gave them back their city to dwell in.[30]
-
Evidence of impalement in the old testament:
The first mention of impalement in the Bible occurs in Genesis 40:19. The Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Hebrew text of this verse reads:
In three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale you upon a pole; and the birds will pick off your flesh. [Genesis 40:19][36]
The Smith's Bible Dictionary refers to this as "Crucifixion":
The Smith's Bible Dictionary also observes that the hangings reported in Genesis 40:19 refer to crucifixion.
Crucifixion was in use among the Egyptians, (Genesis 40:19); the Carthaginians, the Persians, (Esther 7:10); the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death.[38]
-
Evidence of english translation of impalement as "crucifixion"
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100) reports many incidents of crucifixion in his Antiquities Of The Jews. Josephus uses only (ana)stauroun (the verb stauroun occurs frequently in the New Testament), even in his commentary on the verse Genesis 40:19.
[2.72] καὶ ὁ μὲν ὁμοίαν τὴν πρόρρησιν ἔσεσθαι τῃ̂ του̂ οἰνοχόου προσεδόκα: ὁ δὲ ̓Ιώσηπος συμβαλὼν τῳ̂ λογισμῳ̂ τὸ ὄναρ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών, ὡς ἐβούλετ' ἂν ἀγαθω̂ν ἑρμηνευτὴς αὐτῳ̂ γεγονέναι καὶ οὐχ οἵων τὸ ὄναρ αὐτῳ̂ δηλοι̂, λέγει δύο τὰς πάσας ἔτι του̂ ζη̂ν αὐτὸν ἔχειν ἡμέρας: τὰ γὰρ κανα̂ του̂το σημαίνειν: [2.73] τῃ̂ τρίτῃ δ' αὐτὸν ἀνασταυρωθέντα βορὰν ἔσεσθαι πετεινοι̂ς οὐδὲν ἀμύνειν αὑτῳ̂ δυνάμενον. καὶ δὴ ταυ̂τα τέλος ὅμοιον οἱ̂ς ὁ ̓Ιώσηπος εἰ̂πεν ἀμφοτέροις ἔλαβε: τῃ̂ γὰρ ἡμέρᾳ τῃ̂ προειρημένῃ γενέθλιον τεθυκὼς ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ τω̂ν σιτοποιω̂ν ἀνεσταύρωσε, τὸν δὲ οἰνοχόον τω̂ν δεσμω̂ν ἀπολύσας ἐπὶ τη̂ς αὐτη̂ς ὑπηρεσίας κατέστησεν.
[2.72] kai ho men homoian tên prorrêsin esesthai têi tou oinokhoou prosedoka: ho de Iôsêpos sumbalôn tôi logismôi to onar kai pros auton eipôn, hôs eboulet' an agathôn hermêneutês autôi gegonenai kai ouch hoiôn to onar autôi dêloi, legei duo tas pasas eti tou zên auton echein hêmeras: ta gar kana touto sêmainein: [2.73] têi tritêi d' auton anastaurôthenta boran esesthai peteinois ouden amunein hautôi dunamenon. kai dê tauta telos homoion hois ho Iôsêpos eipen amphoterois elabe: têi gar hêmerai têi proeirêmenêi genethlion tethukôs ho basileus ton men epi tôn sitopoiôn anestaurôse, ton de oinochoon tôn desmôn apolusas epi tês autês hupêresias katestêsen.
[2.72] And he expected a prediction like to that of the cupbearer. But Joseph, considering and reasoning about the dream, said to him, that he would willingly be an interpreter of good events to him, and not of such as his dream denounced to him; but he told him that he had only three days in all to live, for that the [three] baskets signify, that on the third day he should be crucified, and devoured by fowls, while he was not able to help himself. Now both these dreams had the same several events that Joseph foretold they should have, and this to both the parties; for on the third day before mentioned, when the king solemnized his birth-day, he crucified the chief baker, but set the butler free from his bonds, and restored him to his former ministration.[37]
Note that the English translation uses the word "crucified" which is the translation of the words anastaurôthenta and anestaurôse from the Greek anastauroô meaning "to impale".
-
I'm just posting crap from the link I posted, but that's all for now :P
There's evidence of egyptian impalement on their website as well, as i mentioned earlier.
-
It seems that the debate pretty much rests on whether you can consider the egyptian punishment of impalement as "crucifixon". The authors of the article provide evidence that these punishments were in use at the time of Joseph or Moses, and later than that.
If the above is accepted as true, then you can make a pretty good case for the "crucifixion" mentioned in the [ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the] Qur'an.
I'm curious to check for this in my copy of the Qur'an, not only for the english translation but also the Arabic word used.
:)
-
It seems that the debate pretty much rests on whether you can consider the egyptian punishment of impalement as "crucifixon". The authors of the article provide evidence that these punishments were in use at the time of Joseph or Moses, and later than that.
If the above is accepted as true, then you can make a pretty good case for the "crucifixion" mentioned in the [ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the] Qur'an.
I'm curious to check for this in my copy of the Qur'an, not only for the english translation but also the Arabic word used.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
Crucifixion (from Latin crucifixio, noun of process crucifixio, from perfect passive participle crucifixus, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do, variant form of facere, do or make )[1]is an ancient method of execution, whereby the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead.
The above sources you mentioned could be right, however they come from a single biased source.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
Crucifixion (from Latin crucifixio, noun of process crucifixio, from perfect passive participle crucifixus, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do, variant form of facere, do or make )[1]is an ancient method of execution, whereby the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead.
The above sources you mentioned could be right, however they come from a single biased source.
They argue that this definition only considers the type of Roman crucifixion that Christ endured, which is the more modern and limited definition.
If you are correct, then there are several english translations of greek texts (which include the old testament as well I guess?) that are incorrect because they use the word "crucifixion".
But the argument still doesn't end there, because you have to prove beyond any doubt that the word used in the Qur'an specifically is talking about the modern crucifxion, and not any form of impalement.
As far as I care... It's interesting, but it's trivial nonetheless. It doesn't take away from the Qur'anic message.
-
They argue that this definition only considers the type of Roman crucifixion that Christ endured, which is the more modern and limited definition.
If you are correct, then there are several english translations of greek texts (which include the old testament as well I guess?) that are incorrect because they use the word "crucifixion".
But the argument still doesn't end there, because you have to prove beyond any doubt that the word used in the Qur'an specifically is talking about the modern crucifxion, and not any form of impalement.
As far as I care... It's interesting, but it's trivial nonetheless. It doesn't take away from the Qur'anic message.
You're right, there are easier methods to destroy the koran.
For example, the koran states the sexual position, who orgasms first determine the sex of the child.
You as a muslim must accept this as 100% truth. It's not 100% truth, in fact it's 100% false, so I chose to dismantle the turthfulness of the koran through verses like this.
-
You're right, there are easier methods to destroy the koran.
For example, the koran states the sexual position, who orgasms first determine the sex of the child.
You as a muslim must accept this as 100% truth. It's not 100% truth, in fact it's 100% false, so I chose to dismantle the turthfulness of the koran through verses like this.
hahahahah, if thats the case then it is hilarious :D
You as a muslim must accept this as 100% truth. It's not 100% truth, in fact it's 100% false, so I chose to dismantle the turthfulness of the koran through verses like this.
The Qur'an isn't a book of science or history. But if you wish to point out contradictions, that's fine too. If they are true, then perhaps we need a new way to look at the Qur'an. I do ask you to keep it civil, however, because that's what dirty muzzies do, and not a fine english gentleman like yourself ;D
-
hahahahah, if thats the case then it is hilarious :D
The Qur'an isn't a book of science or history. But if you wish to point out contradictions, that's fine too. If they are true, then perhaps we need a new way to look at the Qur'an. I do ask you to keep it civil, however, because that's what dirty muzzies do, and not a fine english gentleman like yourself ;D
For a muslim the koran is an all encompassing rule book. It's nature is that it is 100% not fallible and has existed since the dawn of time of God. Any historical (which is strange considering it existed for eternity by gods side) or scientific statements must be fact.
-
For a muslim the koran is an all encompassing rule book. It's nature is that it is 100% not fallible and has existed since the dawn of time of God. Any historical (which is strange considering it existed for eternity by gods side) or scientific statements must be fact.
Perhaps people have thought about the Qur'an like this for hundreds of years, and perhaps that's not the only way? ;)
-
Perhaps people have thought about the Qur'an like this for hundreds of years, and perhaps that's not the only way? ;)
Afraid that's blasphemous :o.
Are you saying that muhammad was lying? Are you saying parts of the koran are incorrect?
-
Afraid that's blasphemous :o.
Are you saying that muhammad was lying? Are you saying parts of the koran are incorrect?
Ah, give the kid some credit; I would rather have a liberal Muslim than one who believes that the Quran is the perfest word of the Creator of the universe.
-
Afraid that's blasphemous :o.
Are you saying that muhammad was lying? Are you saying parts of the koran are incorrect?
All I said was that we view and interpret the Qur'an in a certain way, which is not necessarily the correct way. I would liken it to the way our views of the world have changed over the years, even though we've been living in the same world the whole time. That's all I'm going to say about that.
I should also remind you that I'm not really very educated in the Qur'an or Islam myself. What I grew up with and what I was indoctrianted with (to some extent) is what I know pretty much. This, even though I have the whole Qur'an commited to memory (parents forced me ;D)... its funny, us muzzies will very fluetnly and eloquently recite and memorise things they don't even understand, LOL!
Having come across some spiritual material of different sorts (but essentially all true spirituality is the same) there has been a shift in attitude in the way I view religion in general. So there's been an evolution in the way I view things, which would render the old ways as but lower levels of viewing spirituality. That's all.
-
All I said was that we view and interpret the Qur'an in a certain way, which is not necessarily the correct way. I would liken it to the way our views of the world have changed over the years, even though we've been living in the same world the whole time. That's all I'm going to say about that.
I should also remind you that I'm not really very educated in the Qur'an or Islam myself. What I grew up with and what I was indoctrianted with (to some extent) is what I know pretty much. This, even though I have the whole Qur'an commited to memory (parents forced me ;D)... its funny, us muzzies will very fluetnly and eloquently recite and memorise things they don't even understand, LOL!
Having come across some spiritual material of different sorts (but essentially all true spirituality is the same) there has been a shift in attitude in the way I view religion in general. So there's been an evolution in the way I view things, which would render the old ways as but lower levels of viewing spirituality. That's all.
OK, enjoy hell fire. Be sure to shake my hand when we meet down there!
-
Having said that, I'd like to see the scientific contradictions in it.
If they are indeed contraditions, then obviously muslims should change the way they interpret the Qur'an. Notice that I have not rejected the Qur'an in any way, so i should be fine as far as hell fire goes. you stay pretty comfy there by yourself bud :D
-
That doesn't go for all muslims ofcourse, I'm talking about the general case. I would like to add christians and jews to this lsit as well ;)