Vesica

Not really my fight to get involved in but my two cents:

I like seeing all available sides....Maybe I have just been a pyschologist too long but I see bias everywhere...even on "skeptical" pages. It is nice to know the overarching view of a site but I enjoy exploring the shades of meaning and varying intreptations depending on viewpoint.

So....Thanks for the web addresses!

RyanS2

I have quite a bit of information on Islam at my website. The first article is mainly about ancient Islamic history, or pre-history rather, the stuff no one is really disputing. I make three claims:

1.) Islamic pre-history showed a need for a nationalistic unifying force, which I believe Islam provided the religious dedication behind it.

2.) Arabia was left to a family/feudal arrangement which was dangerous to a unification, thus was simultaneously exalted and destroyed by going against tradition

3.) Islam subjugates women.

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islamhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islamhistory.html</a>

The more interesting article I have is at:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islam2.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islam2.html</a>

It states that:

The name of Allah was originally a generic God chosen because it was least offensive.

In order to give something to help the people receive a level of veneration, Muhammad was exalted. In one story, Muhammad is so exalted that Allah will not let him take off his shoes in heaven for it would be unworthy of heaven to have his his feet touch.

Allah was originally a Sun-God, not a moon God.

The Kaaba is an old pagan shrine to a Sun God.

Islamic rituals are nothing but updates of old pagan rituals.

Those are only my preliminary articles, I still haven't published most of my better stuff because I'm still going through the references of Ibn Warraq.

Sauron

Actually, you failed to connect the dots on this at all. And you also failed to understand my point. The fact that the story appears in both texts is not proof that the Koran took its version from the Gospel of Thomas. Coincidence is not causality.

There are several traditions that were "common knowledge" at the time; indeed, common knowledge stories, sayings, etc. often find their way into holy writings. This, in fact, may be how the story of Noah (Gilgamesh) made it into several different texts. No copying of one text from another; but a body of shared stories that were so common as to universally be held as true.

As far as you know, both the Koran and the G of T independently reported this story as part of their text.


Why does the age of the author or the text matter? Hint: it doesn't. There has been anti-Islamic bias by Jewish and Christian authors for centuries.

The fact that a modern day website reaches back a century or more to borrow biased material from a previous age - well, the antiquity of the information or the author are both irrelevant.

If the material is biased, I care not for how old the author of said material is, nor how old the text is. The fact that you seem to think that age should matter here tells me a lot about your scholarship (or lack of it).

There's very little crap in the SecWeb library. But if you think there is, you're free to point it out and deconstruct it for us.

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Are you really that dense?

All you've listed are a handful of blatantly agenda driven christian homepages, followed by a bunch of homemade websites on Geocities.com.

Do you not understand what "research and credible sources" means?


I dismiss it because

1. the website is clearly biased. Given that fact, I"ll search out a more balanced source of information; and

2. because on the points I have seen so far, it's flatly incorrect.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

Just an FYI for anyone else who hasn't seen the source that Arthur is using, here's some text from their default homepage and introduction:

"This website was designed with 1 objective in mind: to expose one of the greatest evils on our planet - ISLAM"

As if that wasn't flagrantly biased enough, we find that the website is owned and hosted by
(drumroll, please....)

The Illuminati Order.

And King Arthur *wonders* why I reject the site as being too biased to present an objective view.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

King Arthur

The problem, Sour-on, is that you apparently couldn't connect the dots.

It is plainly obvious for all to see that the story in the Koran among others was borrowed from the other literature. Hmm... Let's see... Roaming idiots presented the moronic apocryphall gospels to the Arabs. The Arabs bought the stories hook, line, and sinker, and then incorporated the stories into their holy book.

What are you that you can't see this? A muslim?

I presented that information (and got a little thanks for it from more discerning people) because I thought that more intelligent people would get something from it. I don't give a crap if you believe me, but I had actually read the IGoT and then the Koran and I spotted it right away. Later I found this article online. Go ahead tell me I'm lying. I did though.

Good luck to you if you can't find the good information within the bad. If you throw away information from religious sources and at the same time buy into all the SecWeb's articles, then I feel sorry really sorry for you. Perhaps you'll develop your skills over time.

King Arthur

As I said, I suppose it takes time to develop the finer senses that you are obviously missing which allows one to read materials with any bias and come away more enlightened.

Sauron

No, I just know when I see someone like yourself trying to cheat and create an invalid connection.

Evidently this disturbs you. Oh, well.

No, it isn't obvious, actually. Common stories (urban legends, if you will) can find their way into the texts without any need for one text to be copying from another.

I notice that you failed to address my counter-example, either. Not surprising, since the claim you made of borrowing the story is simply unsupportable.

"Roaming idiots", huh? I guess these would be the christian sects that you disagree with.

And your fantasy tale about the Arabs incorporating those stories wholeheartedly makes no sense either. Those "roaming idiots" of the christian sects would have had a much different view of Christ and his mission, compared to the Islamic view.

I am not a Muslim. I do, however, have formal training in Arabic and Islam.




I don't care how many misinformed people thanked you for providing links to christian websites - that isn't a measure of how accurate their claims are. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I don't dispute that you may have read both texts. (It doesn't really matter, actually - not sure why you think it does). The bottom line is that just because you "spotted it right away", that does not mean that your conclusion of borrowing is valid.

Many people see a parallel (or a "borrowing", if you will) between the Osiris myth and the crucifixion story. It's more likely that both stories point backwards to a common shared story about a killed and resurrected champion.


You continue to dodge my previous points. Here are they are again:

With all the high quality inbformation sites out there, I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would bother with a low-grade source such as this one.

Why spend your time trying to sift through each and every claim, in an attempt to separate the bias and verify the radical claims, when you could spend that same amount of time dealing with a real source?


If the information is solid, then it won't be totally contained inside of biased, religious sources that have axes to grind. On the other hand, if that's the *only* place that such information can be found, then that fact alone calls into question the reliability of the data.

My skills are already significantly farther along than yours are. That's not saying much, since the average skeptic's skills are also way ahead of yours. You might learn something, by the principles I've laid down here.

But then again, I doubt your agenda will allow you to change your approach, so it's probably moot.....:rolleyes;

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

Still haven't answered my question, have you? One has to wonder why. A scholar is known by the sources he keeps - what does that say about you?

With all the high quality inbformation sites out there, I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would bother with a low-grade source such as this one.

Why spend your time trying to sift through each and every claim, in an attempt to separate the bias and verify the radical claims, when you could spend that same amount of time dealing with a real source?

wildernesse

RyanS2:

I have some suggestions for your two articles:

1) A shorter, to the point style. They’re so extremely long that I don’t know many people who have the patience to read them all the way through. A better approach might be to have several, more concise, essays about your views on Islam.

2) More documentation. Footnotes might be a good place to start, or maybe a references list—unless the ideas are your own, of course, and then you need to show how you reached those conclusions.

3) Clearer sentences and more focus on grammar and spelling. I know this might seem like nit-picking, but sometimes it’s difficult to catch your meaning.

Are these articles supposed to be persuasive or objective? I’m not really persuaded by your argument—and I’m not Muslim.

Just my thoughts—you can take them or leave them.

--tiba

King Arthur

You must've read my posts on the other thread, Sour! Awesome, dude!

By the way, Marhaban! Ana mashghoul, et tu?

A little Greek or Hebrew? How about Syrian?

Touche!
Yeah, you're heads and shoulders above me. You just keep on thinkin' that!