Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 02-06-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

How can a credible deity do a corrected version of his own testaments at least 600 years after he issued the previous tranche? It's much too amusing a notion. Let's not be so bemused as to suppose that a single word of it is intended as result of honest endeavour.

Perhaps somebody could say the same about the "previous tranche" (the NT, if I understood correctly).

You mean the previous tranche (yes, the NT) could say it about the previous tranche. But it didn't. In fact, it cited 'the Scriptures', from Genesis to Malachi, as its foundation, and quoted from those writings freely. It claimed to be the consummation and completion of those earlier writings, and altered not a jot or a tittle of them.

The Qur'an, otoh, while claiming to be of the very same tradition of the OT and NT, blithely snipped out probably more than it retained, and re-wrote and contradicted much of the rest! Some deity that is!

Quote:

And what about the Mormon tranche ?

Huon · 02-06-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

You mean the previous tranche (yes, the NT) could say it about the previous tranche. But it didn't. In fact, it cited 'the Scriptures', from Genesis to Malachi, as its foundation, and quoted from those writings freely. It claimed to be the consummation and completion of those earlier writings, and altered not a jot or a tittle of them.

Except that some new sayings of the second tranche explained that some changes had to happen.
And that the "completion of those earlier writings" brought some time later the crusades. And the anti-jewish actions during 1000 years.

sotto voce · 02-06-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

You mean the previous tranche (yes, the NT) could say it about the previous tranche. But it didn't. In fact, it cited 'the Scriptures', from Genesis to Malachi, as its foundation, and quoted from those writings freely. It claimed to be the consummation and completion of those earlier writings, and altered not a jot or a tittle of them.

Except that some new sayings of the second tranche explained that some changes had to happen.

Not changes that would contradict the previous lore.

Quote:

And that the "completion of those earlier writings" brought some time later the crusades. And the anti-jewish actions during 1000 years.

Duvduv · 02-06-2012, 07:00 PM

As it turns out there really is no identifiable or documented history of Shiism in a survey of Islamic history until the Safavids beyond mention of the imams and supposed uprisings in very general terms.
Now I can see how Sunnis describe Shia emergence from the beginning of the caliphate to be a myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What is the likelihood that the split between Sunni and Shia had its roots in EARLIER theological or other disputes from the onset of Islam and the issue of succession of the caliphs was merely a secondary argument?

Huon · 02-07-2012, 05:53 AM

The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

Duvduv · 02-07-2012, 06:03 AM

That's what I thought, but it is merely a claim without any evidence.
Sunnis say it is a complete myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

sotto voce · 02-07-2012, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

No messing around with "You are all brothers," then.

Duvduv · 02-07-2012, 06:37 AM

Who are all brothers?
Traditional Sunnis don't consider Shia to be brothers of the same religion at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

No messing around with "You are all brothers," then.

sotto voce · 02-07-2012, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Who are all brothers?
Traditional Sunnis don't consider Shia to be brothers of the same religion at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

No messing around with "You are all brothers," then.

Disregard this nugatory Islamic difference. Return to the topic.

Huon · 02-07-2012, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Disregard this nugatory Islamic difference. Return to the topic.

Sotto Voce, you are free to bring some new elements to the discussion. And if you are not interested, well, well, well...

02-07-2012, 05:53 AM	#155
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The Fatimid Caliphate The Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt and North Africa was governed around 900-1100 CE by a Shiite dynasty.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.