Report: Schoolboys Get Detention for Refusing to Pray to Allah

[Deicide]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[haider]

hahahahahaha, it never gets old... the old "yeah, that's exactly what i thought a muzzie would say"

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.

[Nordic Superman]

hahahahahaha, it never gets old... the old "yeah, that's exactly what i thought a muzzie would say"

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?

[haider]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[haider]

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.

It doesn't seem like you're listening to me... making this personal makes me even less inclined to talk.

[Nordic Superman]

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?



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.

[haider]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

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.

[haider]

Here:

I'm bored of beating around the bush with you. Same old shit every time.

ok.

[Deicide]

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.

[haider]

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?

[haider]

I really wanna know why the explanation is wrong, I really do.

[haider]

hello?

[Deicide]

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.

[haider]

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 

[Deicide]

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.

[Nordic Superman]

lol nice

[haider]

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.

[Deicide]

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.

[haider]

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.

[haider]

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.

[haider]

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]

[haider]

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]