reply to post by ollncasino
That link you posted (gentle something something?) has dozens of factual errors, and tonnes of "statistics" that are not referenced, and thus,
unfortunately, can in no way be proved.
And using percentages to prove a point is idiotic. According to that logic, since a greater percentage of the Quran talks about "hearing" than
"looking", all muslims should close their eyes, and only go about by the sounds they hear. Or that since the Bible talks more about "Fear" than about
"Peace", that must mean that fear is a better motivator. Or that since Christ is called "Son of Man" more often than "Son of God", that means he was
not from God.
The higher frequency occurrence of one thing does not nullify or reduce the importance of another thing.
Also picking up a point from the pdf you linked, I'm quite amazed how many people on ATS (usually using it as a "point against islam") go on and on
about "the Quran is a mess", "it can't be understood", "it makes no sense" etc.
No offence meant, but are these people illiterate? Are they idiots? Do they have have a problem with comprehension?
. They can start from the beginning and go on
from there. You can choose the Picktall translation if you wish (I certainly wouldn't call it the most accurate, but it is certainly one of the more
'poetical' english translations available). I seriously don't see why anyone wouldn't understand it.
Then they say "Oh, but that is because someone later reordered everything in the Quran. If you order the Quran chronologically, it starts to make
Sorry, but that is BS. The Quran had a specific order right from the start, and it wasn't chronological order. Every year during Ramadan, the Prophet
would recite the Quran in order throughout the month. If you attempted to read the Quran in the order the verses were revealed, however, it would be
completely confusing, with jumping from one topic, then talking about a completely different topic, then several dozen verses on, going back and
completing the original topic.
Then they say "Oh, but you need the sira of the Prophet in the background so as to be able to understand the Quran!"
Once again, sorry, but the Sira ARE NOT PART OF THE ISLAMIC SCRIPTURE. They may make for interesting academic study, and if you wish, you could
investigate the so-called "chronological" Quran with the background of the Sira, but again, that would be unnecessary- and could very likely give you
false information (seeing how the sira are unverified).
And as for claims that the English version is a "lite" or "less violent" version of the actual quran- again, nonsense. It's a very convenient excuse,
because most would think that there is no way to disprove this. Unfortunately for those who make such claims, there are several dozen translations
available online, there are concordances available online, there are arabic dictionaries available online- if any such "liteness" was put forward, it
would be instantly detected and called out. Interesting that so far this hasn't happened, ey? Well, except for vague claims.
I don't quite know why I keep responding to you, ollncasino. It is quite obvious that while you do not have complete or comprehensive knowledge on the
subject, you are unwilling to learn more, and you are completely entrenched in your interpretations, and are unwilling to hear the whole story, and
when a point you put forward is proven wrong, you ignore it, or focus on something else, or bury it in tonnes of repetitive, digressions.
Perhaps I hope that any who see your posts and assume they are accurate because you posted them, will then see my responses, where it shows that you
are not accurate.
Or maybe I'm just a hopeful optimist
PS: There is no word for "murder" in quranic arabic. If you asked someone to translate "murder" for you into arabic, they'd tell you the arabic word
edit on 6-1-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)