|
Auggie
|
Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 10:10pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 10:06pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 10:03pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:45pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:43pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:39pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:35pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:33pm: freediver wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:31pm: Auggie wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:26pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:22pm: freediver wrote on Feb 26 th, 2017 at 9:09pm: I'm surprised this is seen as novel. Muslims have always had to study the chronology in order to sort out the contradictions. The more recent verses (typically the more violent and oppressive ones) are seen as over-riding the earlier ones. Muslims will say there are no contradictions in the Quran- quran.com/4/82This verse allows alcohol so why do muslims avoid it? quran.com/16/67The verse of the sword abrogates all the peaceful verses just like the later verse that outlaws alcohol. quran.com/9/5 The other issue is that the later verses are of a completely different structure. This indicates to me that there was some editing done, and that the Medinan verses reflect more of a hadith than a 'recitation.' That did kind of stick with me. No idea whether it is true. Gandalf? I don't think you need "editing" to explain it. Muhammed started out preaching peace and tolerance, then turned into an angry, bitter old man preaching money and bitches. According to Islam, though, what is written in the Quran is the literal 'word of God.' Following this logic, why would God speak in a poetic manner, preaching peace, tolerance, etc. and then change to a 'talking voice' in which he preaches violence, etc. Surely, someone as 'omnipotent' as God would talk with one voice in the same way? If the Quran is the literal words from God why does Allah creator of the universe have the mentality of a tribal warlord from the Arabian desert? Because that's my point: the later verses aren't verses revealed by God. They were texts written by human beings for their own ends. It was the Caliph Uthman who made the Quran into a book about 23 years after Muhammad died, up till then it was passed down in the memory of humans. Those who memorised the Quran are given the title of Hafiz. Many Hafiz were getting killed in battles that is why Uthman made it into a book. The earlier verses were composed in a structure that made it easier to pass down orally and to memorize. Which could've easily led it to corruption during such time. Uthman collected the texts years after Muhammad. There was reason why he or the community redacted the texts for their ends. If you only read one book it would be very easy to memorise. Muslims claim the Quran has never been corrupted because Allah said he protected it from being corrupted. We know muslims believe stoning to death is the punishment for adultery yet that verse is not in the Quran. What happened to the stoning verse and WTF is breastfeeding an adult all about,perhaps you should google breastfeeding fatwa for answers with that Sunnah.com/urn/1262630 So, how did God protect it from being corrupted? Did he intervene to protect its corruption? Did he place a divine shield around the texts of the Quran that zapped anyone who tried to redact it? The other issue you raise is the second problem with the Islamic scripture: that they use Hadith as an authoritative source. Frankily, I don't even understand why the Hadith even constitute as an authoritative source. The Quran is supposed to be the 'word of God' not a narrative on what Muhammad said or did. The latter is all historical. It's pretty clear you don't understand much about Islam. The hadith gives you the context for the verses in the Quran This verse Sunnah.com/nasai/36/21 explains the context of this verse in the quran quran.com/66/1Keep going one day you will understand Islam, sex slaves are halal for muslim men. I understand it. My point is that if I were a Muslim, I wouldn't subscribe to these standard beliefs. I would form my own interpretation based on reason, and not based on scripture. No text is infallible. The belief that scripture is inerrant is a belief that is designed to control and manipulate people. If you were a muslim and capable of reasoning you would realise Islam is just bullshit barfed up by a 7th century desert bandit. Except for the verses where it says: "and those who do good and give charity...." The Meccan verses are loaded with these sorts of verses. The poetic verses of the Quran are actually quite sophisticated in structure and lexicon.
|
Forum
Pages: 
