Freethought & Rationalism Archive

River · 06-29-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Hmm, I thought we overthrew the Taliban. And I'd say Osama Bin Laden is more dangerous - never even heard of M-Omar.

River, do you accept the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists mission to destroy the "enemy" as commanded in the Quran? You seem to be proud of the Taliban and the people it supports ( like Bin Laden). The Taliban isn't stronger than ever, it doesn't even exist anymore - unless we are talking about a different one.

The taliban are not muslims. They are part of the "System of Dajjal " ( AntiChrist World Order ).

River · 06-29-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick
Wow, there are a few AntiChrist's out there, aren't there?
Mullah Omar, King Juan Carlos of Spain, George W. Bush...and I'm sure there are many more.

Also, why is it always "AntiChrist" and not AntiMohammed or AntiZarathushtra, etc?

You are referring to the concept of political antichrists (as mentioned by Nostradamus)

I am mentioning the concept of The AntiChrist from Sheol.

EstherRose · 06-29-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EstherRose
If the Koran is what you claim it is, then why did Caliph Uthman produce anauthorized version of the Koran if it had been perfectly preserved from the beginning?

If the Koran is truly eternal the uncreated word of God, why the need for changes (the doctrine of abrogation)? Why the contradiction between the 2 suras (2:106 and 10:64)? These suras state:1) affirmation of doctrine of abrogation; 2) �There can be no change in the words of God�.

Hi River,

Thank you for your response.

I think you missed a couple of my questions. I am especially interested in the doctrine of abrogation and any explanation you have for why those two suras contradict each other. One clearly states that there are no changes in the words of God, and the other states that there will be changes.

River · 06-29-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EstherRose
Hi River,

Thank you for your response.

I think you missed a couple of my questions. I am especially interested in the doctrine of abrogation and any explanation you have for why those two suras contradict each other. One clearly states that there are no changes in the words of God, and the other states that there will be changes.

Abrogation is a complex topic to explain in one post. If you read the Biography of Prophet Muhammad : From the Earliest Sources by Martin Lings , it will help clear the concept for you, to some degree.

NonHomogenized · 06-29-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick
Wow, there are a few AntiChrist's out there, aren't there?
Mullah Omar, King Juan Carlos of Spain, George W. Bush...and I'm sure there are many more.

Also, why is it always "AntiChrist" and not AntiMohammed or AntiZarathushtra, etc?

Less syllables?

lpetrich · 06-29-2003, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by River
No, those were not variants. They were diacritacal marks that does not really alter the words. Early Qur'an might have had a different order but angel Gabriel told the Prophet the exact arrangement of the Suras. The text is essentially the same. No added letters , no missing letters.

However, without those diacritical marks, the text becomes ambiguous. So why didn't Mohammed write down the Koran as he received it, complete with the appropriate diacritical marks? Or why didn't Gabriel place an original copy in the Kaaba in Mecca? A copy that everybody could read and refer to, but that nobody could alter or destroy, no matter how hard they tried.

One vowel change can be enough to cause a serious ambiguity. From here at the Secular-Islam site,

Quote:

For example, the last two verses of sura LXXXV, Al Buraj, read: (21) hawa qur�anun majidun; (22) fi lawhin mahfuzun/in. The last syllable is in doubt. If it is in the genitive -in, it gives the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet"�a reference to the Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. If it is the nominative ending -un, we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." There are other passages with similar difficulties dealing with social legislation.

The two versions lined up:

It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet.
It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet.

lpetrich · 06-29-2003, 10:54 PM

Thanx for doing the searching for me, livius drusus; searching had been disabled here.

And it looks like I may have to write a full-scale article detailing this revisionist scenario.

Consequent Infidel · 06-30-2003, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by River
questioned only by you.

no , guy...the fact that the info revealed about your prophet's existence was only recorded after like 200 years of his claimed death and everything about him was known from ORAL stories about him makes it highly unreliable...the quran itself was recorded after his death by several years after ALOT of Mo's companions Died in the apostace wars.....and no kid its not 'only me who question it...go read this article:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/333.

the arabic sources and its type of history recording is unreliable.

Consequent Infidel · 06-30-2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by River
The taliban are not muslims. They are part of the "System of Dajjal " ( AntiChrist World Order ).

if that's suppsed to be a joke...<del - liv>

contracycle · 06-30-2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
River, do you accept the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists mission to destroy the "enemy" as commanded in the Quran? You seem to be proud of the Taliban and the people it supports ( like Bin Laden). The Taliban isn't stronger than ever, it doesn't even exist anymore - unless we are talking about a different one. [/B]

My emphasis. I'm sorry but.... bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

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

06-29-2003, 10:54 PM	#27
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Thanx for doing the searching for me, livius drusus; searching had been disabled here. And it looks like I may have to write a full-scale article detailing this revisionist scenario.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.