Muslims would NEVER burn the Bible

[Sunni Man]

ALL muslims accept ONLY the Quran in arabic as authentic.

Because the Quran was given to Muhammad in arabic.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And every word is in Arabic right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

It's a bullshit book from a bullshit religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, Allah gave the Qur'an in Hebrew and you guys never recovered.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

ALL muslims accept ONLY the Quran in arabic as authentic.

Because the Quran was given to Muhammad in arabic.

And every word is in Arabic right?

And poof... He was gone.

 

[ABikerSailor]

ALL muslims accept ONLY the Quran in arabic as authentic.

Because the Quran was given to Muhammad in arabic.

That's because he was illiterate and the only language he understood was arabic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, only because the Arabs say so? Who cares? Not God.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hello shitweasel, you want the last post on this thread?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm glad to hear that Muslims would never burn the bible. Now if they would learn to be kinder to women and gays that would be a big improvement.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm glad to hear that Muslims would never burn the bible. Now if they would learn to be kinder to women and gays that would be a big improvement.

and non-muslims

 

[ConHog]

I'm glad to hear that Muslims would never burn the bible. Now if they would learn to be kinder to women and gays that would be a big improvement.

and non-muslims

and Muslims who don't believe EXACTLY as they believe, or ones who accidentally get in the way.

 

[lizzie]

Please show us what the Qur'an looked like before it was "changed."

It's impossible to know.

So you assert that the Qur'an was changed and edited, but you can't point to concrete evidence of an "alternative Qur'an" which differed in substance from that with which we're familiar?

Some ancient manuscripts were discovered in an archeological dig in which original text from the Koran was discovered, and they were noted to have pages on which the ink had been "washed" and written over, some 300-400 years after the lifetime of Mohammed. I can't remember the exact site, but if I can find it, I'll post the information. What it amounts to, not just with your religion, but all religions, is that holy texts have been altered and edited through the ages, by men who sought power, and religious institutions who wanted control- if you believe the current text you have to be true, then that's fine. Practice what you believe and live your life, but not a single human or religious institution can claim in honesty that they have the only truth. They may believe it, but belief doesn't make anything so.

 

[lizzie]

Please show us what the Qur'an looked like before it was "changed."

It's impossible to know.

So you assert that the Qur'an was changed and edited, but you can't point to concrete evidence of an "alternative Qur'an" which differed in substance from that with which we're familiar?

Found this by doing a google search on the man's name who studied the old manuscripts:

Gerd Puin was the head of a restoration project, commissioned by the Yemeni government, which spent a significant amount of time examining the ancient Qur'anic manuscripts discovered in Sana'a, Yemen, in 1972, in order to find criteria for cataloging them scientifically. According to writer Toby Lester, his examination revealed "unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment."[1] The scriptures were written in the early Hijazi Arabic script, matching the pieces of the earliest Qur'ans known to exist. Some of the papyrus on which the text appears shows clear signs of earlier use, being that previous, washed-off writings are also visible on it, which in some cases clearly demonstrates modifications to the over-all text of the Qur'an.[citation needed]. In 2008 and 2009 Dr Elisabeth Puin published detailed results of the analysis of Sanaa manuscript DAM (dar al-makhtutat) 01.27-1 proving that the text was still in flux in the time span between the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior of the palimpsest (Ein Frueher Koranpalimpsest aus San'a', part 1 in Schlaglichter 2008, part 2 in Vom Koran zum Islam 2009, both ed. Markus Gross and Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Verlag Hans Schiler Berlin).
More than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Qur'ans have painstakingly been cleaned, treated, sorted, cataloged and photographed and 35,000 microfilmed photos have been made of the manuscripts. Some of Puin's initial remarks on his findings are found in his essay titled the "Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a" which has been republished in the book What the Koran Really Says by Ibn Warraq.

 

[deserter]

ALL muslims accept ONLY the Quran in arabic as authentic.

Because the Quran was given to Muhammad in arabic.

And every word is in Arabic right?

And poof... He was gone.

u meant your mind???

 

[Sunni Man]

The Quran in arabic is the authentic, unaltered, and authoritative word of Allah (swt)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good for you, Sunni Man. But you are wrong, and this is a testimony against you.

 

[Kalam]

"unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment."

Verses in a different order and a few missing diacritics?

There's a reason that I asked about a Qur'an that differed in substance from the actual Qur'an. We believe that 'Ali compiled a Qur'an in which chapters were ordered chronologically, for example. Inconsequential differences like these are not compelling evidence that the Qur'an was altered from its original form. If the Qur'an was altered substantially, I'm interested in seeing more convincing proof than a book written by apostates and jealous kuffar who make careers out of grasping at straws.

 

[lizzie]

There's a reason that I asked about a Qur'an that differed in substance from the actual Qur'an. We believe that 'Ali compiled a Qur'an in which chapters were ordered chronologically, for example. Inconsequential differences like these are not compelling evidence that the Qur'an was altered from its original form. If the Qur'an was altered substantially, I'm interested in seeing more convincing proof than a book written by apostates and jealous kuffar who make careers out of grasping at straws.

My point is that you don't know if it differs in substance. Parts of the manuscript were scraped and written over.

Although these pieces are from the earliest Qur'an known to exist, they are also palimpsests -- versions written over even earlier, scraped-off versions.[2]
A substantial amount of material has been retrieved from the site, as the work continues. From 1983 to 1996, around 15,000 of 40,000 pages were restored, including 12,000 parchment fragments some dating to the 8th century.[6]
In 1999, Toby Lester, the executive editor of the website of The Atlantic Monthly reported on Puin's discoveries: "Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries—they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God." http://www.usmessageboard.com/ cite_note-lester1999-1
More than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Qur'ans have been flattened, cleaned, treated, sorted, and assembled. They await further examination in Yemen's House of Manuscripts. Yet that is something Islamic authorities seem unwilling to allow. Puin suggests, "They want to keep this thing low-profile, as we do, although for different reasons."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscripts

As I said, you, as everyone else, are entitled to your own belief, but refusal to allow futher studies denotes one thing: fear that one's beliefs may be in error. It's nothing new in the history of mankind, but if one is unwilling to fully examine the validity of belief, then that is fear-based and not based on reason.

 

[Sunni Man]

As I said, you, as everyone else, are entitled to your own belief, but refusal to allow futher studies denotes one thing: fear that one's beliefs may be in error. It's nothing new in the history of mankind, but if one is unwilling to fully examine the validity of belief, then that is fear-based and not based on reason.

LOL are you not the same person who jumped all over me for saying that the historical evidence of the Holocaust should be re-examined?

And told me the the Holocaust is an closed case and needs NO further examination??

 

[lizzie]

As I said, you, as everyone else, are entitled to your own belief, but refusal to allow futher studies denotes one thing: fear that one's beliefs may be in error. It's nothing new in the history of mankind, but if one is unwilling to fully examine the validity of belief, then that is fear-based and not based on reason.

LOL are you not the same person who jumped all over me for saying that the historical evidence of the Holocaust should be re-examined?

And told me the the Holocaust is an closed case and needs NO further examination??

Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? I don't recall saying that, but I have no doubts the Holocaust happened, and if someone wants to re-examine it, it's no skin off my nose.