laying the groundwork for ...
~





laying the groundwork for ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 05-21-2005 at 06:23 PM.
But the Koran/Qur'an is different than other holy books...it only contains the real words of God as given to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel, right? Except the prophet himself was illiterate and edited out the "satanic versus" that satan made him put in. Also his 65 companions drafted as scribes often worked from memory and scribed on leaves, stones, bones, who knows what in various dialects over 23 years and nothing is in chronological order... it is simply a jumble of 114 chapters (sura) of 6000+ verses (ayat). Later a committee decided on a standard text and the originals were destroyed. One factor determining if a Qur'an version is cannonical is whether it has a chain of hearsay (isnad) leading back to the prophet. Belief in the Qur'an's direct, uncorrupted divine origin is fundamental to Islam; this of course entails believing that the Qur'an has neither errors nor inconsistencies. However, it is well-known that certain chronologically later verses supersede earlier ones...The traditions governing the translation and publication of the Qur'an state that when the book is published, it must never simply be entitled "The Qur'an." The title must always include a defining adjective which is why all available editions of the Qur'an are titled The Glorious Qur'an, The Noble Qur'an, and other similar titles. Respect for the written text of the Qur'an is an important element of religious faith in Islam. Intentionally insulting the Qur'an is regarded as a form of blasphemy and, according to the laws of some Muslim countries, is punishable by lengthy imprisonment or the death penalty.
Qur'an desecration means insulting the Qur'an by defiling or dismembering it. Most traditional schools of Islamic law dictate that a Muslim may not touch the Qur'an, which is regarded as the literal word of God in its untranslated Arabic form, unless he or she is in a state of ritual purity (wudu). Muslims must always treat the book with reverence, and are forbidden, for instance, to pulp, recycle, or simply discard worn-out copies of the text. (Such books must be respectfully burned or buried.)
The Qur'an has been translated into many languages, but translations of the Qur'an from Arabic to other languages are not considered by Muslims to be actual copies of the Qur'an, but rather are considered to be interpretive translations of the Qur'an; they are thus not given much weight in debates upon the Qur'an's meaning. In addition, as mere interpretive translations of the Qur'an, they are treated as ordinary books instead of being accorded the privileged status of Holy Books requiring special care.
Anyway, here's a link:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E7583,00.html
Myssi...is that really different from, say, the bible- supposedly the literal word of God, passed down orally for generations until several men (we know their names) wrote what they believe God told them) and a bureaucracy decided that some versions were credible (those we know) and some not (such as those pointing to Mary Magdeline as Jesus' lover).
We can point to sections of the book as well as other religious doctrine and explain how political issues of the time affected the written word...but yet those that dispute the contents are callled nonbelievers. things are not quite chronological, inconsistencies exist (statements in there contradict themselves, and many religions simply ignore passages, while caling themselves "fundamental" and "literal bible" chhurches)
Only certain translations (King James being one...odd that a political country like James' is trusted so well), Desecrating a bible is blasphemy...
My point? the politics of a RELIGION does not deminish the FAITH of its followers, or their value...especially when all major religions have mostly the same message.





Well, there certainly doesn't appear to be any question in regard to the degree of faith of some followers of Islam ... to the point of strapping explosives to themselves and committing suicide in the holy demonstration of that faith by attempting to kill as many 'infidels' as possible. This sort of faith goes way beyond anything the followers of other religions have demonstrated in the last 500 years ! A religion which engenders this level of faith would also appear to be sending a distinctly different message than that of other religions - with that message of course being that the innocent, non-combatant followers of other religions still deserve to die. No amount of eloquence can sugar coat this point.My point? the politics of a RELIGION does not deminish the FAITH of its followers, or their value...especially when all major religions have mostly the same message.
1. those crazies are NOT representative of the Muslim majority, no matter how easy it makes it to stereotype all Muslim believers into that boxOriginally Posted by Melonie
2.Ever hear of the Crusades, KKK attacks, both sides of Northern Ireland, lots more examples (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...tian-terrorism, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t22.html, or my favorite http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-terrorism listing self-avowed Chrisitan terrorist organizations).
No one religion has the corner market on terror...though sadly SOME muslim sects have not disavowed it as clearly as others. Not sure I understand their culture enough to know why...but most of what I read puts Mohammed and his followers in as much a "love God/Allah, Hate sin, treat others the way you want to be treated" as any other religion





Again, to avoid confusion, I certainly realize that only a tiny minority of Muslims are responsible for terrorist acts, just as a tiny minority of Catholics were responsible for IRA terrorist acts, and that a tiny minority of Southern Baptists or whatever were responsible for KKK terrorist acts. However, the differences are whether each religion itself did or did not condone/pardon those terrorist acts as a matter of dogma, and whether the other followers of each religion actively condemned the tiny minority. The '72 virgins' and 'infidels' and 'fatwa' dogmas, and the condemning of Islamic terrorist acts by HAMAS plus all of 50 people showing up for a Muslims against Terrorism rally, would tend to indicate that something distinctly different is taking place where Islam is concerned.
How many people at the Christians against KKK rally did you see? was there a rally?
What about the (back then) Catholics against the Crusades?
There will ALWAYS be fanatics, and they will ALWAYS be the most vocal and visible. To claim it's indicative of an entire group is absurd....and is why strippers are assumed to be drug abusing, homewrecking sluts. I fight that one everyday, don't you?
Real estate in the Middle East has usually been obtained by terrorism and/or armed conquest, including Israel and whatever might make up Palestine. (Notable exception - Egypt and Israel coming to agreement on the Sinai). The lesson gained for that unhappy region: Terrorism works.
As far as a "religion" endorsing violent acts, that'd be tough to tell. Crusades were specifically authorized by the Christian Church of the time - and yet followers nowadays would say that their prosecution would be distinctly un-Christian. Jewish settlers of the late 1940s were certainly willing to kill and displace inhabitants to start a fledgling country - is that specifically promoted by the laws of Yahweh?
I see these nasty and unforgivable guys with suicide bombs as the lunatic element of a religion that has also done a bit in years past to promote knowledge and tolerance. Actually, if I were to start on sneering at a religion officially promoting repression, it would be Hinduism and the caste system, but that's not the subject here.
The much more troubling thing, I'd say, is the clear trend in the U.S. (thanks to Born-Again Lapsed-Coke Addict Bush) to keep step with religous fundamentalism elsewhere. Look at the Sunday NY Times reports (Page 1) about the growing influence of Christian fundamentalism on formerly secular college campuses and Wall Street boardrooms, or the way the Bush admin is stepping in to help defend Darwin (they aren't; thereby helping the fake "science" of Intelligent Design get a foothold in Texas and elsewhere), the stem cell debate, the gay marriage debate, etc., etc.
What happened to America?
Uh...Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
Actually it's been a lot worse according to one of YHWH's mouthpieces, Moses. The Palestinians were damn lucky this guy wasn't around in the 1940's. There wouldn't BE any Palestinians today...
Check out Moses's orders concerning the returning isrealite troops after they sacked and burned Midian... He was, eh, upset that they brought the women and children home with them (They'd slaughtered all the men)...
Numbers 31:17-18 (KJV) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Lousy time to be a Midianite...
humans have used "terrorism" and armed conflict throughout the ages...back to the beginnigns of our species, through the killing off of all buffalo to "control" native americans, burning of cities to win wars, and through to today. Claiming it is connected with one belief, religion, people, race, etc is simply absurd. We're all part of one sad, violent family
and the terrorism of recent years have usually been equipped or supported by US technology and political intervention...so we aren't blameless
Bookmarks