Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

page: 34
113
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

dragonridr




Though it is possible does it diminish the research he has done into Islam. His personal beliefs really have nothing to do with the information he has presented. Ill be honest i am skeptical too having lived in Saudi arabia for 2 yrs and met several Sunni.As a general rule apostasy is very rare reason being is all the side effects involved. You are shunned by your family and friends also the possibility of being life threatening. Thats why most who pull away just become moderate arabs and talk the talk.

However back to the thread Islam does indeed claim that the Koran is the direct word of god and as he points out a lot of people altered it over time. So look at what he has put together see if you disagree and present why i would really be interested in such a debate. So far ive seen nothing but trolls coming in to defend a faith that it appears the op knows more about then they do. Let the debate begin!!!




The comparison of Qur'ans from different times periods, dialects and regions doesn't bear the veracity of the poster's claim that there is significant contextual corruption. I converted from the priesthood to Islam in 2004, and while studying Arabic, used an English Qur'an from Saudi Arabia. After Friday prayers in the mosque, would gather with some educated brothers who could compare English and Arabic verses. They were impressed that the context was there, with proper references and historical notations in the English version. How many ways can one pronounce the word "tomato?"

Having been a priest for 26 years prior to my conversion, I can honestly say that the Qur'an is much closer to what Muhammad recited than what the bible says about the nature of Christ. Especially when we look at the fact that before Constantine had united the churches, the concept of the trinity was considered a cult teaching.


edit on 11-9-2013 by g2v12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 


Just thought id point out your dis proving islamic scholars claims that the Koran is different because of different dialects. Since as you pointed out even the English version is the same. so as you said context can indeed be maintained in other dialects and have no errors in translation. So i guess that means that the different versions of the Koran are just that errors. See islam tried to avoid this by destroying everything once they standardized the Koran but when dealing with religion people had a hard time destroying what they believed to be holly and some survived and thats how we know there was differences.

I might actually suggest you read this thread you might learn something since i can tell by your post you have not done so.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



The existence of other books, corrupted, doesn't mean that the accepted version is corrupt. I read the WHOLE thread. What I learned is that someone has an axe to grind and wasted his entire thread obsessing over unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. We can do tit for tat and allow the semantics over claims of historical truth to play out. The faiths of the Jews, Christians and Muslims are of the Abrahamic teachings.

I would simply ask, what do you have to gain by critiquing the accuracy of any sacred text of the prophets, when indeed they all fall short in some inaccuracy?





edit on 12-9-2013 by g2v12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 



wasted his entire thread obsessing over unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence.


1. The overwhelming bulk of the evidence provided are from the most trustworthy and accepted sources of Islam, i.e., Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The other source evidence that was provided has not been categorized as fictitious by Islamic academia.

2. It is not "unsubstantiated" that every single 7th and 8th century Qur'an is different than today's Qur'an,... contains additions, omissions, and discrepancies,... and are incomplete.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sahabi
 


Your opinion is a matter of faith, I would respond by saying that the same rules apply to your Bible.
edit on 12-9-2013 by g2v12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 


First you said;


I read the WHOLE thread.



And then you say;


Your opinion is a matter of faith, I would respond by saying that the same rules apply to your Bible.



 


You did not read, because I have been accused of being an Israeli Zionist Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, and an Atheist several times in this thread, and I have refuted such claims each time.

Also, you are deflecting the thread topic of debate with a failed character attack against me.

May Peace be upon you.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

g2v12
reply to post by dragonridr
 



The existence of other books, corrupted, doesn't mean that the accepted version is corrupt. I read the WHOLE thread. What I learned is that someone has an axe to grind and wasted his entire thread obsessing over unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. We can do tit for tat and allow the semantics over claims of historical truth to play out. The faiths of the Jews, Christians and Muslims are of the Abrahamic teachings.

I would simply ask, what do you have to gain by critiquing the accuracy of any sacred text of the prophets, when indeed they all fall short in some inaccuracy?





edit on 12-9-2013 by g2v12 because: (no reason given)


I agree all the religions are false but the Koran is the only one claims to be incorruptible when to any one but a devout Muslim can see its changed. But i think the worst part was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq burning all the copies of the Korans because he didnt approve,the Nazis tried to rewrite history as well by burning books this is just a form of control. Your trying to make sure only things you approve of is disseminated to the people. Once history is rewritten you never truly know if what your reading is true or false.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 






posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I agree all the religions are false but the Koran is the only one claims to be incorruptible when to any one but a devout Muslim can see its changed. But i think the worst part was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq burning all the copies of the Korans because he didnt approve,

Its not just muslims who know that Quran is unchanged



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 



The comparison of Qur'ans from different times periods, dialects and regions doesn't bear the veracity of the poster's claim that there is significant contextual corruption.


We are not discussing Qur'ans from merely "different time periods".

We are discussing the fact that today's Qur'an,... word for word,... letter for letter,... can not be found at all in the earlier periods. The Qur'an that we have today can not be found identically, until much further times. Not during the time of Muhammad, or Abu Bakr, or Umar, or Uthman. Even the manuscripts from the early Ummayd Caliphate differ from today's Qur'an.

Differences include, but are not limited to additions, omissions, different words, varying consonant spelling, varying verb and noun tense and gender usage. In addition to these differences, there is also noted difference of sentence and verse placement. By changing sentence arrangement, the context of the understanding is changed.

As illustrated in the op, the oldest known Qur'an that is completely and fully intact dates to 1203 AD/CE, which would be about 571 years after Muhammad's death. And I'm not even sure if this Qur'an is identical to today's, because I have not found a reproduced facsimile production of the manuscript for analysis. [1]

 




Adding more information would only reveal the parlay of semantics (i.e. tomatoe, tomotoe).


What is the point in this? Because in the Qur'an, Allah said that He would guard it from corruption, and also because Muslims continue to falsely believe and proclaim that the Qur'an that we have today is identical to Muhammad's original.

edit on 9/13/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
edit on 13-9-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
edit on 13-9-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 



Nothing worse than a convert prejudiced by bitter disillusionment.


This is not true. I am not prejudiced towards Islam, because I acknowledge that it contains some beautiful teachings and concepts. I accept that it had some wonderfully positive effects upon mankind. However, I understand and know that Islam tarnishes those treasures by mixing-in teachings of religious superiority complexes, religious separation and dominance, religious distrust, slavery, sexism, and homophobia. We have to come together in Love as a united mankind,... not be separated or cultivating suffering because of religion. We, mankind, are fragmented. We must remember that we are brethren, and have true compassion and love for one another through that realization alone.

I do not hate Muslims. Muslims are my brethren, just as all humans are also. This discussion is regarding the religion on its own.

Assalaamu alaikum



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I agree all the religions are false but the Koran is the only one claims to be incorruptible when to any one but a devout Muslim can see its changed. But i think the worst part was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq burning all the copies of the Korans because he didnt approve,

Its not just muslims who know that Quran is unchanged, any serious academic scholar has to agree on it
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Quran.html

Nevertheless, the military expansion of Islam led to two direct consequences concerning the integrity of the Quranic text. First, large numbers of the faithful were dying out in the various military expeditions. Each time someone died who had the Quranic text memorized, that meant that one copy of the Qur'an disappeared forever. Second, the expansion of Islam swelled the ranks of the faithful. Many of these new converts spoke other langagues and the original Arabic of the Qur'an began
to corrupt. Faced with these two threats to the integrity of the Qur'an , 'Uthman orderd a rescension of the text to be made and to serve as the definitive written version of the text. A rescension is a version of a text that is assembled from all the variant versions of that text. 'Uthman, however, relied on two sources: the written text that had been ordered by Abu Bakr and that still existed, and the
various oral texts of Muslims who memorized it during the lifetime of Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic "rescension" is largely a codifying of a single version of a text. This version, the 'Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Qur'an that has remained, unchanged, the central holy text of Islam.


also maybe you just mixed up somethings, it was Uthman r.a. who ordered that the unverified copies to be destroyed which was a very logical step to ensure existence of just one very meticulously compiled authentic text.

If you accuse him of changing text/history then you have to answer that if it was really true why didnt even his bloodthirsty enemies never accused him of it?
The man you are accusing prefered to get assasinated rather than crushing the enemies who were hurling personal accusations against him when he had the whole muslim armies under his control.

Also if he had something to hide and so ordered the destruction of unofficial copies, what did he do with the memorizers who knew the whole Qur'an? There is no history of him executing them to ensure success his alleged agenda.

Any reasonable and knowledgeable person can see through all the baseless claims, only the ones who have already made up their minds/opinions and are only seeking confirmations would continue to accept it and propogate it for the pleasure of like minded people.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
edit on 13-9-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Sahabi
reply to post by g2v12
 



Nothing worse than a convert prejudiced by bitter disillusionment.


This is not true. I am not prejudiced towards Islam, because I acknowledge that it contains some beautiful teachings and concepts. I accept that it had some wonderfully positive effects upon mankind. However, I understand and know that Islam tarnishes those treasures by mixing-in teachings of religious superiority complexes, religious separation and dominance, religious distrust, slavery, sexism, and homophobia. We have to come together in Love as a united mankind,... not be separated or cultivating suffering because of religion. We, mankind, are fragmented. We must remember that we are brethren, and have true compassion and love for one another through that realization alone.

I do not hate Muslims. Muslims are my brethren, just as all humans are also. This discussion is regarding the religion on its own.

Assalaamu alaikum

And you claim to have learned Islam and almost become a scholar while you still say/believe the underlined text?

Homophobia is not just islamic. It is unacceptable in all Abrahamic and even other faiths and only continuous desensitization and glorification of it has changed people's perception about it.

well in a world where Godlessness is glorified everything that is acceptable may not be really right.

You are obviously a westerner trying to look at Islam for tinted glasses of western worldview and then passing judgements over the differences.
Its not your fault actually, you would also find similar faults in other cultures be it chinese, indian etc, not your fault but its your responsibility to understand these differences from the point of view of the insiders and more importantly respect them.
You want to drink finest cognac and can't leave it? Great, if thats what you want, you did a big mistake in trying to accept Islam.
You like eating meat? Lovely! then don't try and become a veggie Hindu!

Its strange for me to wrap my head around the fact that you put efforts into studying Islam when you had never accepted that Qur'an is God's commands and that you would have to submit you desires and cravings to the commands of God.

On topic,
i am waiting for you to reply to my posts where i have asked a few questions and refuted some of your claims.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Your logic is faulty. Just because TODAY I am an apostate and oppose many things about Islam,... that does not mean that I was not a true and firm believer in the past. You and others keep using this same attack, which is not logical.

religious superiority complexes
religious separation and dominance
religious distrust
slavery
sexism
homophobia


Out of these points, you only refute homophobia?

Homosexual behavior between people who are of age, mental capacity, and free-will,.... what exactly are they doing to YOU? They are pursuing their happiness in a way that does not cause suffering to others. The only suffering is the intolerance and hate of those who disagree with the lifestyle.

It's ok. When I used to be a Muslim, I used to be extremely hateful towards homosexuals. Once I left Islam, I no longer hate them.

And you call me a "westerner" so presumptuously and as if it were an insult. I am an "Easterner" living in the West. But again, the real cause of concern is a man's character,... not where they are from.

I am getting tired of the ahruf and qira'at discussion, because I have already addressed the points you mention earlier in this thread. But if you will have patience, I will once again carry on the redundancy of this discussion later.

Peace.


edit on 9/13/13 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



You are obviously a westerner trying to look at Islam for tinted glasses of western worldview and then passing judgements over the differences.


You are obviously NOT a westerner, but an Asian (Indian), trying to look at Islam with Tinted Glasses of Indian worldview and then passing judgments over the differences.

Do you SERIOUSLY not see this? DUDE!

STOP accusing everyone else of 'trying to confirm their bias'.

YOU, my friend, are the one refusing to see the Western point of view. Just because YOU THINK it's a wrong way to live DOES NOT MEAN it is a wrong way to live.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Sahabi
reply to post by logical7
 


Your logic is faulty. Just because TODAY I am an apostate and oppose many things about Islam,... that does not mean that I was not a true and firm believer in the past. You and others keep using this same attack, which is not logical.


It being not logical is your opinion.
Let me ask you something, do you think Prophet Muhammad pbuh is a Prophet sent by God who recieved a revelation(Qur'an)?
This will clear many things and make it easy to debunk your op, so answer carefully..

religious superiority complexes
religious separation and dominance
religious distrust
slavery
sexism
homophobia


Out of these points, you only refute homophobia?


it does not mean that i agree with others as you want to imply. I just picked up the most controvertial one as an example.

Homosexual behavior between people who are of age, mental capacity, and free-will,.... what exactly are they doing to YOU? They are pursuing their happiness in a way that does not cause suffering to others. The only suffering is the intolerance and hate of those who disagree with the lifestyle.

It's ok. When I used to be a Muslim, I used to be extremely hateful towards homosexuals. Once I left Islam, I no longer hate them.


and do you assume that i hate them? I consider it wrong and each individual is free to decide for themselves but don't dare ask me to say its ok because i won't and i have full right to hold this opinion.

If you have really studied islamic principles then two consenting adults is not enough to make it ok. Islamic system is not individualistic to extreme degrees. It has a balance between individualism and whats good for society.
And even before that its basically a moral standard given by God. One can go and live in a nudist colony, have communal matings and raise all kids as a shared community responsibility but the bottom line is that it does not agree with the God given standards of morals, respect and civility. If you don't believe in God or don't believe in revelation and think that you will not be answerable for denying this standard then you are free to believe it and practice any deen(way of life)

And you call me a "westerner" so presumptuously and as if it were an insult. I am an "Easterner" living in the West. But again, the real cause of concern is a man's character,... not where they are from.


I called your mindset as western and its you who took it as an insult. It does not matter where you are, you could be an arab living in Saudi for all i care, its your mindset thats western and so your typical views.

I am getting tired of the ahruf and qira'at discussion, because I have already addressed the points you mention earlier in this thread. But if you will have patience, I will once again carry on the redundancy of this discussion later.

Peace.



you have never addressed my simple questions. You have however tried to avoid it by calling it redundant or by simply ignoring it or just posting a summary of op once again.

Let me try once again in a different way.

Just answer this,
did the Qur'an complied by Zaid r.a on request of Abu Bakr r.a had one of the harf out of the 7 acceptable ahruf before Uthman r.a became Caliph?
Answer it and then i'l continue..



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 



You are obviously a westerner trying to look at Islam for tinted glasses of western worldview and then passing judgements over the differences.


You are obviously NOT a westerner, but an Asian (Indian), trying to look at Islam with Tinted Glasses of Indian worldview and then passing judgments over the differences.

Actually NO. I see things through an Islamic perspective and i disagree with a lot of indian customs and traditions too. I wouldn't do the mistake of judging Islam by wearing glasses of any other worldview. Islam is itself a complete worldview and thats the reason it should be studied without any tinted glasses on. If you have pre-concieved notions and parameters then its an injustice to claim that you are open minded while studying other worldviews



Do you SERIOUSLY not see this? DUDE!

STOP accusing everyone else of 'trying to confirm their bias'.
are you speaking on behalf of every poster that has been on this thread or you have just taken it personally? There are posters who jumped to agree with the op just because the theme of the op was anti-islamic. I hope you will not deny it but i shouldn't have high expectations



YOU, my friend, are the one refusing to see the Western point of view. Just because YOU THINK it's a wrong way to live DOES NOT MEAN it is a wrong way to live.

Its wrong in some ways for me. Its does have many good things too and i would be the first to appreciate them. The general theme of western view is very anti-God and i know there is a God so obviously i will reject anything and everything that tries to push me to accept those anti-God parts.





new topics




 
113
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join