Skeptics Annotated Quran

[Forward Union]

For those of you wishing to learn about Islam;

Skeptics Annotated Quran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/)

For some of you, it will probably trigger uncontrollable spouts of Deje Vous, but only if you have already, previously browsed; The Sceptics Annotated Bible. Still, it's an interesting breakdown of the texts.

Some of the best bits;
"For those who deny (the coming of) the Hour We have prepared a flame. It will be a hard day for disbelievers. On the day when the wrong-doer gnaweth his hands, he will say: Ah, would that I had chosen a way together with the messenger (of Allah)!"-- The Criterion 25:26-27

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?
Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk"
The Heights 7:80-7:81

"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women." Women 4:1

(emphasis added)
and the classic;

"to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half." Women 4:11

"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them" 4:15

[RHIZOMES]

"to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half." Women 4:11

I have read an explanation for that from several scholars and some radical Muslim feminists. Back in that time (7th century Arabia, very conservative), the man was expected to be the person who cared for the women and maintained the household that they lived in, etc. The woman at that time did not need any more.

This is obviously different now and when I read the Qur'an I usually take in the historical context.


"As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them" 4:15

Yeah, the four witnesses where all supposed to have simultaneously seen the woman be penetrated and if they were lying then they'd be the ones punished severely instead.

All this stoning of women nonsense came afterwards. What basically happened was that they invented some stupid shit about just swearing by Allah four times. This was a convenient way for misogynistic Arabs to subjugate women which is complete contradiction with the fact Muhammad gave women rights that Europe didn't give women until I believe the 17th century or something.

And even if someone did get confined til death, there's another verse saying you'll be rewarded if you just forgive the person who did the crime.


The recompense for an injury
is an injury equal thereto (in degree),
but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation,
his reward is due from God,
for God loves not those who do wrong.
But indeed, if any do help and defend themselves
after a wrong done to them,
against such there is no cause of blame.
The blame is only against those who oppress men
with wrongdoing and insolently transgress
beyond bounds through the land,
defying right and justice.
For such there will be a penalty grievous (in the Hereafter).
But indeed, if any show patience and forgive,
that would truly be an affair of great resolution.
Qur'an 42:40-43

[Forward Union]

To be honest my battleground was always with Christianity, when I was at school I often had formal debates with members of the Christian union. But most of the debates followed a similar line to the ones we have here over Islam. They after all, both Abrihamic religions.


The man was expected to be the person who cared for the women and maintained the household that they lived in, etc. The woman at that time did not need any more.

Of course we was expected to be the person who cared for the woman and maintained the household, that was the divine order of god. The same things are cited in the bible, and excused by "historical context" but you would think that the divine, eternal word of god would transend the historical context.

I mean, it's not like theres the odd sexist remark in the Koran or the bible, it's a fairly strong trend.


And even if someone did get confined til death, there's another verse saying you'll be rewarded if you just forgive the person who did the crime.

So it contradicts itself. Or they decided the divine word of god was a bit harsh so they revised it? :lol:

[Dean]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 31, 2007 10:17 am
Of course we was expected to be the person who cared for the woman and maintained the household, that was the divine order of god. The same things are cited in the bible, and excused by "historical context" but you would think that the divine, eternal word of god would transend the historical context.

I mean, it's not like theres the odd sexist remark in the Koran or the bible, it's a fairly strong trend.
I don't think there are many people trying to claim the whole bible as their idol.

That said, the sexism should be understood in historical context, especially considering that (Jews and Chritians at least) admit that God was not the author of the bible, and that people were. It has been well known and understood among theological circles for centuries that the bible was not the direct word of God (and for some of us that it had nothing to do with a god), it is only the recent purist fundamentalism that promotes the idea that it is the end-all word of God.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:07 pm
I don't think there are many people trying to claim the whole bible as their idol.

No, and do you know why? Because Christian nations are also the most developed in terms of scientific understanding and have the best education systems. Christianity has taken such a battering over the past few hundred years that it's not socially acceptable to claim the entire bible as truth. It is obviously absurd to most people, because we have access to greater scientific education and literature than those in Muslim nations.

Instead we get wishy-washy liberals who accept "bits" and write off the rest because it doesn't fit with everyday reality.


That said, the sexism should be understood in historical context, especially considering that (Jews and Chritians at least) admit that God was not the author of the bible, and that people were. It has been well known and understood among theological circles for centuries that the bible was not the direct word of God (and for some of us that it had nothing to do with a god), it is only the recent purist fundamentalism that promotes the idea that it is the end-all word of God.

Unlike the Bible, the Quran doesn't have the get out clause of "It was fucked up by Constantine" in fact, the Quran was intended to put right the revisions of the Bible and the Torah.

If parts of the Koran are subject to "historical context" and human error. Then How do I know which bits are the direct word of God, which bits are just interpretations of the word of God, and which bits are total shit?

What sort of a foundation is it for a philosophical, Ethical and even scientific world view? ( I say scientific because it makes scientific claims, for example how the earth was formed, 12,000 years ago) I Simply don't buy this "we can ignore bits" because religion is meant to be an absolute moral code. If the purpose of the holy book is to provide an understanding of the divine, to give humanity an instruction manual and reference to live by God, then how did God allow them to fuck it up?

I am of course assuming God exists. In reality, I agree, the sexism in the Koran is down to historical context, we now have the scientific understanding to prove beyond any doubt that Homosexuals, Women, and all the other groups discriminated against in the Koran are just as intelligent and capable as anyone else. We also have the scientific understanding now to appreciate that the belief in God is equally absurd and baseless. So I would take your argument to it's logical conclusion and proclaim that the constant assumption that God exists in the Koran is due to the Historical context. People believed in God because they didn't know how to explain natural phenomena, and the Koran is a testament to that.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+August 31, 2007 03:03 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ August 31, 2007 03:03 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 12:07 pm
I don't think there are many people trying to claim the whole bible as their idol.

No, and do you know why? Because Christian nations are also the most developed in terms of scientific understanding and have the best education systems. Christianity has taken such a battering over the past few hundred years that it's not socially acceptable to claim the entire bible as truth. It is obviously absurd to most people, because we have access to greater scientific education and literature than those in Muslim nations.

Instead we get wishy-washy liberals who accept "bits" and write off the rest because it doesn't fit with everyday reality. [/b]
Actually there are plenty of revisions given to the Quran due to the obvious scientific fact presented, usually by the middle classes in nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And I don't see how you can say scientific understanding is nonexistant in Muslim countries; there are many poor places lacking the capability for such education, but that doesn't represent the radical islamists or most major islamic groups anyways. I don't think most here think the biblical statements are absurd; apparently, 60% of people in the U.S. believe in angels. Science has failed to teach us that that's bullshit.


If parts of the Koran are subject to "historical context" and human error. Then How do I know which bits are the direct word of God, which bits are just interpretations of the word of God, and which bits are total shit?
It is all subject to historical context. Just like any piece of literature. It was written by people, none of it is certain, even to those who adhere to the bible, Quran, whatever.

You're trying to say, "such and such person of group X said Y. You are of group Y so you must believe X" ("you" being religious people). That's really absurd. Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc., are all basically philosophical trends. They have holy books, but not just the Quran, Bible, Torah, etc., and those books are seen as pieces to study, not follow with certainty. Even fundamentalists don't follow their books fully; each of these major texts contradict themselves.


What sort of a foundation is it for a philosophical, Ethical and even scientific world view? ( I say scientific because it makes scientific claims, for example how the earth was formed, 12,000 years ago) I Simply don't buy this "we can ignore bits" because religion is meant to be an absolute moral code. If the purpose of the holy book is to provide an understanding of the divine, to give humanity an instruction manual and reference to live by God, then how did God allow them to fuck it up?
Religion is not absolute; no philosophy is. And it's not a good basis for scientific or philosophical fact except where little other data exists (concerning certain historical events).

The concept for Christians (so preached to me and as exemplified in the new testament) is that God gives us free will, and we have to find our own way, without leaders, to reach heaven. Submission to man is made to be a vice. The bible was merely a guide; it became an authoritative vice of the church, but the various books were written by various people, each with the intent of creating a guide.


So I would take your argument to it's logical conclusion and proclaim that the constant assumption that God exists in the Koran is due to the Historical context. People believed in God because they didn't know how to explain natural phenomena, and the Koran is a testament to that.
I would agree. People write what they believe, or at least what they think; that is affected by our environment.

[RHIZOMES]

we now have the scientific understanding to prove beyond any doubt that Homosexuals, Women, and all the other groups discriminated against in the Koran are just as intelligent and capable as anyone else.

While homosexuals are discriminated in the Qur'an, I'd have to take issue with women. Before the Qur'an, women didn't get any of the inheritance. Those commands are specific for people in that society. Because men were the ones that took care of the women in that time, they got more to pay for the house and everything. It was being fair, because basically that meant if women and men got equal shares at that time, the women would have all this money to spend on anything while the men would be required to spend a significant proportion of housing and the like.

That's what I mean with historical context, not just ignoring the backwards bits.

[LSD]

I don't think anyone denies that in many ways, the Quran and Islam in general were progressive forces. The same, however, can be said for slavery and feudalism.

The question today is whether Islam still has a progressive role to play, and the answer to that one seems to be a definitive no. 'Cause while you can come up with all sorts of excuses for why Quranic gender roles were "acceptable" in seventh century Arabia, I doubt that even you would defend their application today.

Which, of course, raises the question of why anyone should take seriously a moral code that even its defenders admit is thirteen hundred years out of date!

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:24 am
I don't think anyone denies that in many ways, the Quran and Islam in general were progressive forces. The same, however, can be said for slavery and feudalism.

The question today is whether Islam still has a progressive role to play, and the answer to that one seems to be a definitive no. 'Cause while you can come up with all sorts of excuses for why Quranic gender roles were "acceptable" in seventh century Arabia, I doubt that even you would defend their application today.

Which, of course, raises the question of why anyone should take seriously a moral code that even its defenders admit is thirteen hundred years out of date!
Yes I agree. Islam today does generally not play a progressive role.

Islam needs to be majorly reformed imho if it's going to survive in the 21st century. A good book about this is Reza Aslan's No god But God and how he believes that the Middle East is undergoing a kind of clash between more modernist, secular Muslims and the pro-fuedal, pro-Sharia fundie nuts.

[Forward Union]

:rolleyes:


Islam needs to be majorly reformed

Can you reform the word of God to fit with changing times? Or does that not contradict the idea of a universal, unmoved mover, that your religion is based on?


A good book about this is Reza Aslan's No god But God and how he believes that the Middle East is undergoing a kind of clash between more modernist, secular Muslims and the pro-fuedal, pro-Sharia fundie nuts.

They may be nuts, but they are following the religion to the letter. Whereas the liberal softy muslims, who can't quite outgrow the superstition, but neither can they hold themselves to it properly, invent some dodgy compromise of faith and reason that doesn't quite logically work. Christians have been doing it for centuries, and they're all idiots.

[Forward Union]

Bump

[samsonite]

Too bad Muhammad considered women of having an inferior intellect.


All this stoning of women nonsense came afterwards.

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim no. 4206)

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person (Bukhari 8:6814; see also 8:6825; 8:6829)

idiot

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:12 pm
Too bad Muhammad considered women of having an inferior intellect.
I'm sure that was / is too bad, but where's your proof?





All this stoning of women nonsense came afterwards.

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim no. 4206)

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person (Bukhari 8:6814; see also 8:6825; 8:6829)

idiot

Perhaps you're an 'idiot' for not giving the context of the quote? This doesn't say anything about misogeny, just a stoning and adultery (which, while being a stupid concern, is not explicitly misogenisitc). The quote is meaningless in reference to sexism if no context is given.

[synthesis]

I will admit I do not understand the point of these discussions among leftists. If you think there is something wrong with Islamic societies, go to one and start changing it. Assuming you don't live in, say, Qatar, Indonesia, or Niger, your focus should be on Christianity, as modern anti-Islamic sentiments only further fuel Western imperialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 31, 2007 10:17 am
you would think that the divine, eternal word of god would transend the historical context.
Yeah, but one would also think that the divine, eternal god would not want his not-divine, not-eternal creatures to transcend it too. Otherwise, he would have inserted in his book practical instructions on how to make gunpowder and personal computers.

Luís Henrique

[hajduk]

Kur¨an (Quran) is more scientific and political boock then religious,but becouse of revisionism there been lot of fabricated items in it which been maked for political reason in some times and by that moust people understand him on a wrong way like fundamentalist boock or something else

example
one haddis in Quran say
"if you attack people who belong other religion in a matter only becouse they belong other religion you will finished in hell"

revisionism of Quran used for making fundamentalism beetwen muslims by changing his point,telling muslims that christians whant to kill muslims becouse are muslims so in that manner fundamentalist use this haddis which say
"you have licence from god to defend islam and kill those who not believe in Allah" but this haddis mean only in the matter of defending islam, not attacking other religion becouse that religion dont believe in Allah
but capitalists and imperialist find the asshole Samuel P. Hantington to make a project, which been install in human society, to provide wars beetwen religions,called THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS,and this sucker for whom you probably heard, made a theory in same named boock that religions will attack each other in the manner to take better postions in a human society and this bollocks in this fascist boock religion leaders take for granted,but not becouse they dont no the real point,but becouse they whant keep religion busines beetwen each other

i have the web site of one bosnian hafiz (hafiz is the man who got all Quran in head)called Sulejman Bugari (sorry but site is on bosnian language) and this man really good explain the point of Quran,for example for muslim fundamentalists Sulejman says that they are not objective and by that they make bad imidge for other muslims

here you have his date when he will visit America where he will going to meet bosnians who live in America,so if you have a friend who knows bosnian you can go to hear what this guy speaking
- 12.10. Atlanta, GA
- 13.10. Atlanta, GA, bajramsko sijelo (bairam talk)
- 14.10. Chattanooga, TN, bajramsko sijelo (bairam talk)

and this is website
http://www.sulejmanbugari.com/

[RedStarOverChina]

This site's been there for ever and it's really a useful site.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kur¨an (Quran) is more scientific and political boock then religious,

You have got to be fucking kidding. Seriously, you are a fucking idiot.


example
one haddis in Quran say
"if you attack people who belong other religion in a matter only becouse they belong other religion you will finished in hell"

Why no chapter and verse number? could it be because you're a lying piece of shit?


i have the web site of one bosnian hafiz (hafiz is the man who got all Quran in head)called Sulejman Bugari (sorry but site is on bosnian language) and this man really good explain the point of Quran,for example for muslim fundamentalists Sulejman says that they are not objective and by that they make bad imidge for other muslims

Fundamentalist Muslims are actually better Muslims than moderates - later parts of the Quran take precedence over earlier parts, and all the lovy-dovy bullshit designed to attract converts was earlier than the "kill all the infidels rar" crap.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:20 pm

Kur¨an (Quran) is more scientific and political boock then religious,

You have got to be fucking kidding. Seriously, you are a fucking idiot.


example
one haddis in Quran say
"if you attack people who belong other religion in a matter only becouse they belong other religion you will finished in hell"

Why no chapter and verse number? could it be because you're a lying piece of shit?


i have the web site of one bosnian hafiz (hafiz is the man who got all Quran in head)called Sulejman Bugari (sorry but site is on bosnian language) and this man really good explain the point of Quran,for example for muslim fundamentalists Sulejman says that they are not objective and by that they make bad imidge for other muslims

Fundamentalist Muslims are actually better Muslims than moderates - later parts of the Quran take precedence over earlier parts, and all the lovy-dovy bullshit designed to attract converts was earlier than the "kill all the infidels rar" crap.
first you should read Quran then you will understand me

about chapter i say again read the Quran

so for you terrorism is the solution?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I have often observed both atheists and religious fundamentalists using the same non-sequitur, which goes as follows:

"God is eternal and unchanging, therefore his commands to us must also be eternal and unchanging."

This argument is fallacious. There is absolutely no reason why an eternal and unchanging God should necessarily wish to give humanity a set of eternal and unchanging rules. Yes, an eternal and unchanging God would have an unchanging purpose, but this purpose might be served best by changing the rules every now and then.

Of all people, Marxists should find it easy to understand the concept of a final purpose that requires you to follow different rules at different times. A few centuries ago, the bourgeoisie was a progressive force; today it is not. The rules have changed.

Christians are pretty much obligated to believe that God did, in fact, change the rules at least once. Jews and Muslims are under no such obligation. But as far as I am aware, they are not under the opposite obligation either. Does the Quran ever deny that God can change the rules? (this is not a rhetorical question; I wish to know)

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 15, 2007 07:55 am
I have often observed both atheists and religious fundamentalists using the same non-sequitur, which goes as follows:

"God is eternal and unchanging, therefore his commands to us must also be eternal and unchanging."

This argument is fallacious. There is absolutely no reason why an eternal and unchanging God should necessarily wish to give humanity a set of eternal and unchanging rules. Yes, an eternal and unchanging God would have an unchanging purpose, but this purpose might be served best by changing the rules every now and then.

Of all people, Marxists should find it easy to understand the concept of a final purpose that requires you to follow different rules at different times. A few centuries ago, the bourgeoisie was a progressive force; today it is not. The rules have changed.

Christians are pretty much obligated to believe that God did, in fact, change the rules at least once. Jews and Muslims are under no such obligation. But as far as I am aware, they are not under the opposite obligation either. Does the Quran ever deny that God can change the rules? (this is not a rhetorical question; I wish to know)
you should read the Quran

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:00 pm
Kur¨an (Quran) is more scientific and political boock then religious
Doesn't it claim that all humans were made by a sky wizard that can never be proven?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 11:20 am--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 11:20 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 03:00 pm
Kur¨an (Quran) is more scientific and political boock then religious
Doesn't it claim that all humans were amde by a sky wizard that can never be proven? [/b]
no, its claim for example that salt and drinking water cant never mixed up
or its claim that in universe has more solar systems like ours
or its claim that rich people should once every year give to the poorest 3% of own profit
that is my point

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 am
no,
So it doesn't claim that humans were made by a sky wizard? Where did we come from then?

Actually don't worry mate, I just checked, we definetly came from a sky wizard "4:1 O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women."

The fact that the writers guessed some things correctly, shouldn't suprise anyone. I think the fact that you cant drink salt water was probably an established truth long before language, let alone the Koran. So I am not impressed.

I know that there are numerous rediculous sceintific claims in the Koran, they're listed in the SAQ, so I won't bother repeating them.

The 'scientific' claim that a magical Sky Wizard exists is enough to dismiss the entire books scientific worth.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 am
or its claim that in universe has more solar systems like ours

It also claims there are 11 planets and that the sun rises and sets in a muddy spring

"18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring"

This quote is not out of context, it's not a dream or a metaphor, it supposedly happened. Here is the full text (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/18/index.htm#86)

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 11:33 am--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 11:33 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 am
no,
So it doesn't claim that humans were made by a sky wizard? [/b]
look how i understand the Quran,like i told you its more scientific and political boock for those who dont believe in sky wizzard,for others its religious boock which gave them the answers,but my point is that in Quran you can find scientific explanation which science pronounce just few centurys a go,when church claim that earth is flat and burned Giordano Bruno becouse he claim there is many planets like ours,in Quran you can read it about that where sky wizzard claim that there is many planets in our universe and that earth is not flat

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:41 am
look how i understand the Quran, like i told you its more scientific and political boock for those who dont believe in sky wizzard,
That's not what the Koran is, it's the third installment in a poorly written and repetative trillogy from the fantasy genre, with out of date prose and one dimensional characters.

But if you want to read about Science, you're better off reading New Scientist, it's an up to date and easier digest publication than the Koran (being thousands of years old). Ok, it doesn't have the same epic prose and stories like the Koran, but it's certainly easier to read, and they deliver it to your door.


for others its religious boock which gave them the answers,but my point is that in Quran you can find scientific explanation which science pronounce just few centurys a go,when church claim that earth is flat and burned Giordano Bruno becouse he claim there is many planets like ours,in Quran you can read it about that where sky wizzard claim that there is many planets in our universe and that earth is not flat

The book as I just said, claimed that the sun rose and set in MUD

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 11:50 am--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 11:50 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:41 am
look how i understand the Quran, like i told you its more scientific and political boock for those who dont believe in sky wizzard,
That's not what the Koran is, it's the third installment in a poorly written and repetative trillogy from the fantasy genre, with out of date prose and one dimensional characters.

But if you want to read about Science, you're better off reading New Scientist, it's an up to date and easier digest publication than the Koran (being thousands of years old). Ok, it doesn't have the same epic prose and stories like the Koran, but it's certainly easier to read, and they deliver it to your door.


for others its religious boock which gave them the answers,but my point is that in Quran you can find scientific explanation which science pronounce just few centurys a go,when church claim that earth is flat and burned Giordano Bruno becouse he claim there is many planets like ours,in Quran you can read it about that where sky wizzard claim that there is many planets in our universe and that earth is not flat

The book as I just said, claimed that the sun rose and set in MUD [/b]
well of course that in Quran have fairy tales which use for spreading islam but in the other hand if sky wizzard didnt tell the muslims that earth is not flat and that salt and drinking water cant never mixed up and there is more solar systems in universe like ours,then who told them and how they knowing that?

[Forward Union]

Oh, Allah also forgot (or didn't know) that the Earth actually rotated the sun.

27:61 "Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode"

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 15, 2007 11:57 am
Oh, the Allah also forgot (or didn't know) that the Earth actually rotated the sun.

27:61 "Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode"
yes, but who told them other staff which science is proved few centurys a go?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:57 am
well of course that in Quran have fairy tales
Ah, so, when they get things wrong they are dismissed as fairy tales. And when they get things right (which is based on an individuals interpretation anyway) it's a remarkable feat. There's an inconsitancy here...


sky wizzard didnt tell the muslims that earth is not flat and that salt and drinking water cant never mixed up and there is more solar systems in universe like ours,then who told them and how they knowing that?

Well, no one would have to tell people that you can't drink salt water. Humans had been around thousands of years by the time the Koran was written. They would have noticed in that time, that people who drank sea water got sick and/or died. One would logically conclude from these strange occorances that continuing to drink it may not be a good idea.

Firstly I despute whether or not the Koran does claim there are more solar systems, but if you tell me when that particular claim was supposedly written, I'll let you know how far science had got. Even back then Pythagoras; mathematical writings were in existance, and ancient Greek mathematicians had proposed that the earth was indeed not flat long before the Koran.

But in absense of this infomation. I assume it was probably revealed to the clever fucker in a dream, hell, maybe it was in the same week he had the dream about how there are 11 planets...

12:4 When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 12:04 pm--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 12:04 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:57 am
well of course that in Quran have fairy tales
Ah, so, when they get things wrong they are dismissed as fairy tales. And when they get things right (which is based on an individuals interpretation anyway) it's a remarkable feat. There's an inconsitancy here...


sky wizzard didnt tell the muslims that earth is not flat and that salt and drinking water cant never mixed up and there is more solar systems in universe like ours,then who told them and how they knowing that?

Well, no one would have to tell people that you can't drink salt water. Humans had been around thousands of years by the time the Koran was written. They would have noticed in that time, that people who drank sea water got sick and/or died. One would logically conclude from these strange occorances that continuing to drink it may not be a good idea.

Firstly I despute that the Koran does claim there are more solar systems, but if you tell me when that particular claim was supposedly written, I'll let you know how far science had got. Even back then Pythagoras; mathematical writings were in existance, and ancient Greek mathematicians had proposed that the earth was indeed not flat long before the Koran.

But in absense of this infomation. I assume it was probably revealed to the clever fucker in a dream, hell, maybe it was in the same week he had the dream about how there are 11 planets...

12:4 When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me. [/b]
you didnt understand me about water (sorry for my bad english)
Quran says that in world of nature salt and sweet water never mixed up,that is mean they are separated from each other when they together on same place,and proof for that you can find only with sofisticated equipment,for example i think the Jacues Cousteau find out that in Gibraltar pass,about earth fixed abode i think that the point was about fixed orbiting the earth around sun,not about that sun orbiting around earth,
i forgot the chapter but in many haddis you can read that Muhamed call Allah the master of the worlds,not world but worlds,also you can read in manny haddis this
Allah is made the manny worlds for ruling like ours.....

so if Allah didnt tell them then who is?
i mean no matter how you dreamed about that, you cant be shore if you dont have good scientific proof,right?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 15, 2007 11:50 am
That's not what the Koran is, it's the third installment in a poorly written and repetative trillogy from the fantasy genre, with out of date prose and one dimensional characters.

Actually, the language is superb, and poetic.
Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
Quran says that in world of nature salt and sweet water never mixed up,that is mean they are separated from each other when they together on same place
Well, I have no idea what "sweet" water is.

However, if a scientific claim is made in a period, and we have no idea how exactly those people came to those conclusions without sophisticated scientific equiptment. Then we must concede that we don't know how they knew (which is the truth) than assume it was the work magical sky wizard.

I mean, in absense of real understanding we must attempt to find out the truth. Not assume (as you do) that we already know the truth, and that that truth has no qualification by which to be disproved.


Muhamed call Allah the master of the worlds,not world but worlds,also you can read in manny haddis this. Allah is made the manny worlds for ruling like ours.....

In old language "worlds" would often refers to different places on earth. The most obvious example being the coining of the Americas as "The new world"

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 12:45 pm--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 12:45 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
Quran says that in world of nature salt and sweet water never mixed up,that is mean they are separated from each other when they together on same place
Well, I have no idea what "sweet" water is.
[/b]
Arabic, Turkish, and other languages use the adjective 'sweet' to describe water in the same way that English uses 'fresh'.
Devrim

[hajduk]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 15, 2007 12:52 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 15, 2007 12:52 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 15, 2007 12:45 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
Quran says that in world of nature salt and sweet water never mixed up,that is mean they are separated from each other when they together on same place
Well, I have no idea what "sweet" water is.

Arabic, Turkish, and other languages use the adjective 'sweet' to describe water in the same way that English uses 'fresh'.
Devrim [/b]
yes,thank you devrimankara

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 15, 2007 12:45 pm--> (William Everard @ October 15, 2007 12:45 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:32 pm
Quran says that in world of nature salt and sweet water never mixed up,that is mean they are separated from each other when they together on same place
Well, I have no idea what "sweet" water is.

However, if a scientific claim is made in a period, and we have no idea how exactly those people came to those conclusions without sophisticated scientific equiptment. Then we must concede that we don't know how they knew (which is the truth) than assume it was the work magical sky wizard.

I mean, in absense of real understanding we must attempt to find out the truth. Not assume (as you do) that we already know the truth, and that that truth has no qualification by which to be disproved.


Muhamed call Allah the master of the worlds,not world but worlds,also you can read in manny haddis this. Allah is made the manny worlds for ruling like ours.....

In old language "worlds" would often refers to different places on earth. The most obvious example being the coining of the Americas as "The new world" [/b]
i am not assuming nothing i just would like to know how muslims know this staff i mentioned

about the worlds Muhamed says (many times) Allah created the worlds in universe for rull with them,Muhamed never mentioned the worlds on earth like in the menaing of other lands,other lands Muhamed call kingdoms
also Muhamed call the Allah the master of the universe and the worlds in it,so definitly this doesnt mean that Muhamed think on lands.....

[hajduk]

for example the great science man Nikola Tesla found that one sort of force, which he studying, and which is the cause of creating the universe is connected to higher force which Tesla could not explain,
in Quran you can read about those force which are conneted with those smaller forces which by own system created the universe,
so if we exclude the fairy tail about sky wizzard and read with today science knowledge we have,then we can realise that Quran speak about Newton laws which been found just few centurys ago,so who told muslims about that?
Newton definitly not....

[al8]

Come on, this is just strenuous re-interpretation after the fact.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:55 pm
Come on, this is just strenuous re-interpretation after the fact.
some staff is,
but definitly those science staff in Quran cant be explained like some dream fairy tail,Quran speak poeticly about science laws,so its wery interesting for me to find out how muslims figured out some scientific facts long time ago before science as we know today been created.
we can speak about aliens like Erich won Daniken wrote in his boocks but....... :D

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:13 pm
its wery interesting for me to find out how muslims figured out some scientific facts long time ago before science
before science?

Science and maths were around thousands of years before Islam.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 18, 2007 11:36 am--> (William Everard @ October 18, 2007 11:36 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:13 pm
its wery interesting for me to find out how muslims figured out some scientific facts long time ago before science
before science?

Science and maths were around thousands of years before Islam. [/b]
yes but i speak about Newton laws

[al8]

Your saying that the Koran poetically hints at Newtons law. Where exactly, and how?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:46 pm
Your saying that the Koran poetically hints at Newtons law. Where exactly, and how?
you should read the Quran and find by yourself,becouse i dont whant to be acused that i am clerc, becouse that will definitly happened if i continue to explain my point :D

also in Quran you will read it about that in space there is no oxigen,and that the space contend vacume,who told them that? :huh:
just read Quran and avoid poetical and religious descriptions and you will see by yourself :)

[al8]

I've already read the first few chapters and it's shit. I feel no need to wallow in it any further. I recomend that you stop wasting your time reading the Koran.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:39 pm
I've already read the first few chapters and it's shit. I feel no need to wallow in it any further. I recomend that you stop wasting your time reading the Koran.
The Koran in English is not a particularly interesting book in itself. In classical Arabic it is however deeply beautiful. It doesn't mean that it is true, or anything like that, but it is a work of art.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:43 pm
The Koran in English is not a particularly interesting book in itself. In classical Arabic it is however deeply beautiful. It doesn't mean that it is true, or anything like that, but it is a work of art.

Devrim
Which is more than we can say for the Bible :lol:

[al8]

I was talking of the content. It dosn't matter if it rhymes. That has no bearing on the issue.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 18, 2007 05:50 pm--> (William Everard @ October 18, 2007 05:50 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 05:43 pm
The Koran in English is not a particularly interesting book in itself. In classical Arabic it is however deeply beautiful. It doesn't mean that it is true, or anything like that, but it is a work of art.

Devrim
Which is more than we can say for the Bible :lol: [/b]
Contrary to popular belief the Bible wasn't originally written in English.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:54 pm
Contrary to popular belief the Bible wasn't originally written in English.

Devrim
It was written in Hebrew and latin. I know, the translation of the Bible into english was incredibly controversial. It meant anyone could read it! The point is even in it's original form it was crap.

[Devrim]

Actually, a lot of the New Testament was written in Greek, and much of the Old Testament in Aramaic. I would doubt any of it was in Latin at all.

Have you read it in the original, which I think is somewhat necessary before commentating on its artistic merit?

I struggle with Classical Arabic, but reading it, or hearing it recited, one is struck by the beauty of its form.

That isn't to say that it isn't a load of reactionary religious nonsense. However, it is not necessary to deny its beauty to say that it is reactionary religious nonsense either.

Devrim

[al8]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 18, 2007 05:43 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 18, 2007 05:43 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 05:39 pm
I've already read the first few chapters and it's shit. I feel no need to wallow in it any further. I recomend that you stop wasting your time reading the Koran.
The Koran in English is not a particularly interesting book in itself. In classical Arabic it is however deeply beautiful. It doesn't mean that it is true, or anything like that, but it is a work of art.

Devrim [/b]
Between Allah's regular self-congratulations and demands of obedience and adoration through threats of violence, there isn't much else than perhaps the constant villification and calling out of non-believers. I find that sickening to read, since I am one. I will never find the Koran beautiful or worth anything more than a warm puddle of piss, no matter how poetically, rythmically, consicely or gramatically well its content is worded. It's the most descusting and overrated book I've come across.

When a book talks about killing you, and giving all sorts of detailed advice at how best to kill you. And when a book talks about how to snach you into slavery, rob you, and force you into submission, and how its noble to spout lies to achive this objective - One gets rightfully suspisious and scornful. Obviously many self-proclaimed muslims don't follow what the book advises. So I can only conclude that either muslims are confused hypocrites or dangerous fools that should be nullified, before they do you.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:28 am
It's the most descusting and overrated book I've come across.

I will presume that you haven't come across a book called the Bible then.
Devrim

[Bilan]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 19, 2007 04:49 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 19, 2007 04:49 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:28 am
It's the most descusting and overrated book I've come across.

I will presume that you haven't come across a book called the Bible then.
Devrim [/b]
Or "Mein Kampfe"
:lol:

[hajduk]

my point is that Quran is more scientific and political boock then religious,so my question is who told muslims scientific staff before science explained them?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:00 pm
my point is that Quran is more scientific and political boock then religious,so my question is who told muslims scientific staff before science explained them?
Before we had modern scientific instruments to discover things, much had to be observed carefully, consistantly, and estimated to learn certain facts of life.

I am not going to pretend that in ancient texts there are not often very penetrating, insightful and factual observations of our natural world. However, I don't think anything more than philosophy, studies, or just plain lucky guesses are at play here.

Many historical Eastern religions can be accredited for their penetrating philosophical and ultimately scientific understanding of nature. And I think such observations were well-thought out and believed, but I don't think that it was anything more than basic human knowledge translated into a realistic theory of our natural world.

Don't forget how much nonsense which could be considered more credible if you consider how different cultures came to similar conclusions - for instance the concept of deities. But it is still based on unreasonable ideas, even if they are driven by forces within all of our minds.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:28 pm
Between Allah's regular self-congratulations and demands of obedience and adoration through threats of violence, there isn't much else than perhaps the constant villification and calling out of non-believers. I find that sickening to read, since I am one. I will never find the Koran beautiful or worth anything more than a warm puddle of piss, no matter how poetically, rythmically, consicely or gramatically well its content is worded. It's the most descusting and overrated book I've come across.

When a book talks about killing you, and giving all sorts of detailed advice at how best to kill you. And when a book talks about how to snach you into slavery, rob you, and force you into submission, and how its noble to spout lies to achive this objective - One gets rightfully suspisious and scornful. Obviously many self-proclaimed muslims don't follow what the book advises.
This post is oozing of hysterical and uneducated paranoia.

So I can only conclude that either muslims are confused hypocrites or dangerous fools that should be nullified, before they do you.
Hooray militant atheism. Atheists of the world, unite?

Great read, surely got me giggling a bit.

[gilhyle]

Of course fundamentalists may interpret the Quran incorrectly. Of course the Quran has false scientific claims and claims that are patently influenced by contemporary culture. Of course, there is an option to reform islam. Reform of islam has happened again and again....and it will happen again as Engels pointed out.

The problem for the believer is to give an account of how to read the Quaran which allows it to be authoritative while also changing its message to elimiminate the cultural references. A modern christian solution is just to say oh to hell with it, each era imposes its culture on the word of god, lets impose ours. But that misses the fundamental point of revealed religion FOR BELIEVERS, namely that it is revealed, namely that God supposedly intervened in the world to give us his word and thus end the dilemma of moral and faith indeterminacy.

If you dont believe in the authority of the word as received, authority is lost to you and you are on your own with the rest of us.....in which case, your morality is only a personal choice. It is not your relationship to 'God' that determines your fate, but your relationship to yourself.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:58 pm
This post is oozing of hysterical and uneducated paranoia.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't suit your whim. I'll just remember then to make my future posts ooze with calm and educated paranoia. Just for you, okey? :D

But seriously you can't exuse a book that calles for your own killing. That's just of the hook.

[al8]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 19, 2007 06:49 am--> (devrimankara @ October 19, 2007 06:49 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:28 am
It's the most descusting and overrated book I've come across.

I will presume that you haven't come across a book called the Bible then.
Devrim [/b]
I've read a large part of it. Much of it is just plain hysterical. But I lost interest when the book advised me to stone my mother to death for re-marrying.

But yes, it's definatly also an overrated book.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Dean+October 19, 2007 10:48 pm--> (Dean @ October 19, 2007 10:48 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:00 pm
my point is that Quran is more scientific and political boock then religious,so my question is who told muslims scientific staff before science explained them?
Before we had modern scientific instruments to discover things, much had to be observed carefully, consistantly, and estimated to learn certain facts of life.

I am not going to pretend that in ancient texts there are not often very penetrating, insightful and factual observations of our natural world. However, I don't think anything more than philosophy, studies, or just plain lucky guesses are at play here.

Many historical Eastern religions can be accredited for their penetrating philosophical and ultimately scientific understanding of nature. And I think such observations were well-thought out and believed, but I don't think that it was anything more than basic human knowledge translated into a realistic theory of our natural world.

Don't forget how much nonsense which could be considered more credible if you consider how different cultures came to similar conclusions - for instance the concept of deities. But it is still based on unreasonable ideas, even if they are driven by forces within all of our minds. [/b]
for me in Quran there is to much coincidences connected to modern science that we can say is just a lucky guesses

[synthesis]

What we have to remember is that although the fact that traditions have existed for hundreds or thousands of years does not make them "right" (or wrong) it does tend to indicate that they were the best for a particular place at a particular time.

To vilify everyone who ascribes to these beliefs is ignorant and arrogant, for it demonstrates one's utter lack of knowledge as to the material conditions that led to the creation and sustenance of these beliefs. At one point they were not merely a tool of those in power but would have appealed deeply to some part of the people that lived in those conditions.

For example, as a comedian once noted, it is easy for a modern audience to attack the philosophy of "an eye for an eye." Leaves the whole world blind and all that. But prior to Hammurabi's laws, it would have been normal to take a life for an eye. Therefore, at that point in history, it would have been mitigative, not punitive.

To reduce the origins of Islam to one certain explanation would be overly simplistic; however, it's important to remember that much of the Arab world at the time of Muhammad was tribal and polytheistic. At that point, Islam was an indigenous alternative to foreign Christianity that still provided a unitary monotheism that was then essential for social cohesion in the Arab world.

Again, it is easy to say that from our modern perspective Islam has many reactionary elements, and it's true, but it was what that society called for at the time. I can't stop people from saying otherwise, but I would urge people to remember that arrogance is a terrible way to try and convert people to your way of thinking. There are reasons people believe the things they do.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:27 pm
But seriously you can't exuse a book that calles for your own killing. That's just of the hook.
It's not calling for "my" own killing.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't suit your whim. I'll just remember then to make my future posts ooze with calm and educated paranoia. Just for you, okey? :D
That would be great, thanks. :P

for me in Quran there is to much coincidences connected to modern science that we can say is just a lucky guesses
No, the Qur'an is not scientific. Scientific advancements throughout the early Islamic world was due to Muslim scholars using science, not religion or the Qur'an.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:56 am


for me in Quran there is to much coincidences connected to modern science that we can say is just a lucky guesses
No, the Qur'an is not scientific. Scientific advancements throughout the early Islamic world was due to Muslim scholars using science, not religion or the Qur'an.
i didnt say that Quran is scientific boock i say that there is mutch explanations in Quran connected with the modern science today