lao tzu

There are times when I see how these books are misused and wonder whether this judgment isn't fair. But no, I can't check you on this, jackrabbit, the books themselves contain a great deal of cultural information and timeless wisdom intermixed with some fairly savage practices applied far out of context by modern-day adherents. Kind of like sharp knives, they shouldn't be left around loose for the children to cut themselves on them.

lao tzu

Well, he'd likely vote against those supporting the ports deal. Bush himself is already lame duck. I haven't seen any information yet that would show the deal itself is bad, though, aside from some knee-jerk reactions.

__________

Back to criticism of the qur'an, though ... the most ironic thing about inconsistencies in the qur'an isn't the fact they're there, but the fact that they're created out of whole cloth by muslims. Join in a discussion sometime about "science and the qur'an" and just watch what nonsense gets cited using obscure twists in interpretation. Not here, obviously, but on an islamic board. There's a Maurice Bucaille who's done extensive apologetics on it.

As ever, Jesse

countjulian

To Roger and the other guy who complained about atheists not taking on Muslims, see my ongoing debates with them here http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79165 (the original title was "Dhu'l-Qarneyn, Alexander Romances, and Quranic Nonsense", but the Muslims found that a bit too offensive ; I also started several other threads about current day Islamic hypocrisy and freedom of religion in Muslim lands). I'll be able to get back to it as soon as someone gives me some info on the Arabic Josephus manuscript(s).

You should check it out Roger, I think you would get a real kick out of it; they wouldn't stop jumping up and down calling me a kaafir, so I had to call them names in Latin . That shut them up.

lao tzu

I'm surprised you haven't been banned already, kaffir! I'm almost tempted to jump in on that one, but more distractions I don't need just now.

Clivedurdle

From umaah link above p4

Is this type of argument a good enough reason to have a separate Islamic area? Maybe we are too focussed on the wrong battle!

ynquirer

Is that high school education or your personal produce?

In 622 CE (= 1 AH) one Muhammad allegedly left Mecca for Medina, in central Arabia. The population of Medina converted into a religion preached by the said Muhammad – the so-called Islam. In the following years, a war between Muslim Medina and pagan Mecca ensued. Muhammad several times led the Muslim army in razzias to attack the wealthy Meccan caravans. In 627, a powerful Meccan-led confederacy, 10,000 strong, besieged Medina, and Muhammad personally led a successful resistance. In 630, it was Muhammad’s turn to lead an army, 10,000 strong, against Mecca, which fell to the Muslims. The same year, Muhammad led a 30,000-strong army against the Syrian border. Though the name of Muhammad is not specifically mentioned but in Muslim sources, this campaign is attested by Byzantine sources. Muhammad died in 632.

Now, he was succeeded by one Abu Bakr, the first caliph. He deployed a powerful Muslim army to conquer Syria. A contemporary Monophysite source, in Syriac language, mentions Abu Bakr by name and quotes him as saying to his generals (my emphasis):

Establish a covenant with every city and people who receives you, give them your assurances and let them live according to their laws… Those that do not receive you, you are to fight, conducting yourselves carefully in accordance with the ordinances and upright laws transmitted to you from God, at the hands of our Prophet.

Abu Bakr died in 634. Therefore, by that time, an independent source attests both the historicity of the first caliph and his claim to be a disciple of a Prophet. Furthermore, Muslim sources say that Abu Bakr was Muhammad’s father-in-law. The second caliph, Umar, is also reported to have been Muhammad’s father-in-law (the Prophet having been polygamous); Umar died in 644. Still, the fourth caliph, Ali, is reported to have been Muhammad’s son-in-law. No one has ever belied any of those claims.

Thus, from 632 to 661 – when the Umayyad dynasty took over the caliphate – four people claimed to have been relatives to a mythical man, who allegedly had lived, not hundreds of years but only a few before. Is that your position, alex?

The notion that the Koran was written “over a period of several centuries” is more of an absurdity, still. In 680, an Umayyad army smashed the followers of the late Ali. Since then, the latter, who took the name of Shiites, have kept apart, all relationship severed from the Muslim mainstream, or Sunnites. If the Koran would have been written over a period of several centuries, as you claim, alex, the book worshipped by the Sunnites and the one worshipped by the Shiites would hardly have been the same. It, however, is exactly the same.

The question is: If, as common sense contends, the Koran was written before 680, who wrote it? Abu Bakr? Umar? Uthman? Ali? The women purported to be Muhammad’s wives and daughter? All of them together in one of the most striking conspiracies in history?

The least bizarre assumption is that Muhammad was a historical person and that he wrote the Koran.

Clivedurdle

Funny how that sounds like it is straight from the Hebrew Bible - wonder why that might be!

Clivedurdle

originally posted by me

ynquirer

Clivedurdle

What's the name of the game? Just citing books? Here you have a well-reputed one among serious scholars: Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, which supports the theory of a historical Muhammad. Surely it is not serious enough for the new revisionist school of history?

History is not natural science, and it may not be based solely upon hard evidence - since hard evidence scarcely appears in history. Most of the time, we have only indirect evidence. We have no evidence of Alexander the Great's existence, for instance, other than Ptolomy I 's account, which might be fake, and - this is the really important evidence - the existence of a Hellenistic culture throughout the Middle East whose existence might not be explained but assuming the career of a great Greek conqueror. Of it, however, it might be said, paraphrasing your quotation, that “Hellenism is a complex phenomenon; and that culture does not spring out of the swords of conquerors just like that.”

The schism between Sunni and Shia is such indirect evidence. It could not be feigned, could it? It can be traced back to 680 CE, according to both, conflicting sources. Both rival branches of Islam reverence the same Koran. Could either you or your much honored Hoyland explain it away otherwise?

Didymus

Right on both counts. Militancy, dogmatism, prickliness and barbaric behavior don't necessarily equate with strength. Leadership in the Muslim world is fragmented, ineffective and un-pragmatic, not a good thing when public passions can be set aflame by nothing more than a few cartoons. Unlike all other major religions, Islam does not permit the unbundling of religion and politics. The resulting "interlocking directorate" has failed to produce a successful polity since the fall of the Ottomans, and it has never produced anything resembling an equitable civil society.

Of course, even if you can't build a decent, progressive society of your own, you can still achieve the illusion of greatness by terrifying others.

Who are you referring to? To their credit, the formerly Christian nations of Europe have long since become secular societies.

This is no golden age for the United States. The blind arrogance and hubris of the Bush administration has brought American power and moral authority to its lowest ebb since the American Civil War.

Any society which makes a clear separation between religion and state is a secular society. If you're speaking of China, it doesn't really qualify as "secular" in that sense. I'd call it "non-religious" or "anti-religious." Government approval is required for religious meetings and proselytization is illegal. As is the Falun Gong.

Perhaps a "Christianity and Islam" section should be established on IIDB to discuss that and similar issues. But is IIDB willing to risk the wrath of the mullahs? If the unwillingness of the American press to re-print those cartoons is any indication, they seem to be in charge already.

Didymus