Muslims would NEVER burn the Bible

[Kalam]

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

Neither do you. One of us is being illogical by assuming it does without sufficient evidence. For example, do we know if the written-over manuscripts were even Qur'anic before they were recycled?

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.

I'm "refusing to allow further studies"? To the contrary; "further studies" have been conducted for centuries and have yet to turn up anything more fascinating than missing or altered diacritical markings in spite of the best efforts of the apostates and the kuffar.

This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and everything to do with common sense. Do you really believe that there was some flawlessly planned and executed conspiracy among Muslim scholars -- across multiple continents and centuries -- to fabricate a "new" Qur'an and a plethora of ostensibly well-researched scholarship confirming its authenticity? That they somehow managed to suppress all manuscripts of the true Qur'an "until now!"? The science of researching, confirming, and peer-reviewing ahadith (many of which confirm the authenticity of the Qur'an attributed to Uthman - RA) was extremely rigorous and deserves a nod from those who went on to develop the modern scientific method of experimentation.

 

[lizzie]

I'm "refusing to allow further studies"?

That is not what I quoted, and you are either ignoring it, or trying to change the discussion. It's not about you, and it's not about me.

This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and everything to do with common sense. Do you really believe that there was some flawlessly planned and executed conspiracy among Muslim scholars -- across multiple continents and centuries -- to fabricate a "new" Qur'an and a plethora of ostensibly well-researched scholarship confirming its authenticity?

Not at all. No conspiracy, just the normal dishonesty of men and institutions.

 

[Kalam]

That is not what I quoted, and you are either ignoring it, or trying to change the discussion. It's not about you, and it's not about me.

If you say so.

Not at all. No conspiracy, just the normal dishonesty of men and institutions.

Normal dishonesty is not enough to suppress a holy document and perpetuate the absolutely singular dominance of a fraudulent text. You're wildy overestimating the extent to which the Muslim world was unified. This would require extensive cooperation between members of sects that were mutually antagonistic to the point of violence. Please explain in detail how they managed to pull off history's greatest heist.

 

[lizzie]

Normal dishonesty is not enough to suppress a holy document and perpetuate the absolutely singular dominance of a fraudulent text.

Sure it is. Normal dishonesty is all it takes to change any written document. It's happened throughout the history of mankind's ability to write. It's nothing to do with "suppression", it's a matter of differences in viewpoint and desire.

You're wildy overestimating the extent to which the Muslim world was unified. This would require extensive cooperation between members of sects that were mutually antagonistic to the point of violence. Please explain in detail how they managed to pull off history's greatest heist.

Again- there is no conspiracy, and there is no heist. There's the history of quite normal humans writing accounts as they saw them and wished them to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No demonstrable, objective proof exists that the Qur'an was spoken in Arabic to Mohammed. We don't know if Mohammed wrote it. We don't know if he dictated it.

No research, confirmation, or peer review mechanicsms have ever objectively proved that the Qur'an is anything more than a writing, period.

 

[Kalam]

Normal dishonesty is not enough to suppress a holy document and perpetuate the absolutely singular dominance of a fraudulent text.

Sure it is. Normal dishonesty is all it takes to change any written document. It's happened throughout the history of mankind's ability to write. It's nothing to do with "suppression", it's a matter of differences in viewpoint and desire.

You're wildy overestimating the extent to which the Muslim world was unified. This would require extensive cooperation between members of sects that were mutually antagonistic to the point of violence. Please explain in detail how they managed to pull off history's greatest heist.

Again- there is no conspiracy, and there is no heist. There's the history of quite normal humans writing accounts as they saw them and wished them to be.

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. In order to "replace" the actual Qur'an with a fraudulent text, all existing copies of the original text and every document that mentions this replacement would have needed to be destroyed. By about 70-100 years after the death of Muhammad (SAWS), Muslims stretched from Makkah across North Africa and Spain to the West, across the Caucasus to the north, and across most of Central Asia and past the Indus to the East. Please explain how every "real" Qur'an in existence was purged from the approximately 5 million square miles of territory under Umayyad control. Please explain how no account of this switch was documented by any of the 62 million people who lived in this area.

 

[Kalam]

No demonstrable, objective proof exists that the Qur'an was spoken in Arabic to Mohammed. We don't know if Mohammed wrote it. We don't know if he dictated it.

No research, confirmation, or peer review mechanicsms have ever objectively proved that the Qur'an is anything more than a writing, period.

That is not the question being discussed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But this is the answer to the questions: there is no demonstrable, objective, confirmed mechanism for determing that the Qur'an as it is written today is what Allah spoke to Mohammed.

 

[Kalam]

But this is the answer to the questions: there is no demonstrable, objective, confirmed mechanism for determing that the Qur'an as it is written today is what Allah spoke to Mohammed.

That is the logical assumption since that's the account that every historical account in existence confirms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Historical accounts report, Kalam, they don't confirm. Primary evidence confirms. That does not exist.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......last night on History Channel International they had a 2 hour program on the Quaran.

Interestingly enough, when they asked various Muslims about certain verses, many of them disagreed on what it meant.

How the fuck can you have a religion that is viable when people can't agree on what the book says? Incidentally, in that respect Christians are much like Muslims.

 

[Kalam]

You know.......last night on History Channel International they had a 2 hour program on the Quaran.

Interestingly enough, when they asked various Muslims about certain verses, many of them disagreed on what it meant.

How the fuck can you have a religion that is viable when people can't agree on what the book says? Incidentally, in that respect Christians are much like Muslims.

So you consider diversity of opinion to be a sign of weakness? As for how such a religion can be viable, look at the last 1400 years of history...

 

[Kalam]

Historical accounts report, Kalam, they don't confirm. Primary evidence confirms. That does not exist.

If you applied the same criterion to everything you're taught in history class, your textbooks would be less than half as thick and discuss few things that didn't occur in the last few centuries. The point being that when enough "reports" from diverse sources are accumulated -- as they have been in this case -- that which is reported is rightfully considered historical fact.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.......last night on History Channel International they had a 2 hour program on the Quaran.

Interestingly enough, when they asked various Muslims about certain verses, many of them disagreed on what it meant.

How the fuck can you have a religion that is viable when people can't agree on what the book says? Incidentally, in that respect Christians are much like Muslims.

So you consider diversity of opinion to be a sign of weakness? As for how such a religion can be viable, look at the last 1400 years of history...

Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.

Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.

 

[Kalam]

You know.......last night on History Channel International they had a 2 hour program on the Quaran.

Interestingly enough, when they asked various Muslims about certain verses, many of them disagreed on what it meant.

How the fuck can you have a religion that is viable when people can't agree on what the book says? Incidentally, in that respect Christians are much like Muslims.

So you consider diversity of opinion to be a sign of weakness? As for how such a religion can be viable, look at the last 1400 years of history...

Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.

Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[lizzie]

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. In order to "replace" the actual Qur'an with a fraudulent text, all existing copies of the original text and every document that mentions this replacement would have needed to be destroyed.

Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?

 

[lizzie]

You know.......last night on History Channel International they had a 2 hour program on the Quaran.

.

What was the name of the program? A couple of years ago, there was a program titled "Inside Islam" that was really interesting, but I think it was run on Discovery. If you ever see it advertised, try to catch it.

 

[Kalam]

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. In order to "replace" the actual Qur'an with a fraudulent text, all existing copies of the original text and every document that mentions this replacement would have needed to be destroyed.

Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?

What happened to the original that was "changed"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kalam, old boy, you can prove there was an original. That's the point.

 

[Kalam]

Kalam, old boy, you can prove there was an original. That's the point.

Please provide a historical account detailing who wrote the real "original." Thank you.