Shakeel
Well-Known Member
Considering that God dominates all His creation - so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do muslims think Bible is corrupted and Islamic texts are well preserved?
- Thread starter Lars
- Start date
Lars
Member
Well just to be fair. Christianity does do its little share of that too. But i would put it on little 1st place of dominance, but weighing mainly on "melevolent dictator" part, because thats how it feels like what the author wants the reader to feel and think.
But islamic texts is mainly about that almost all the time, whether its quran, sunni hadiths or sunni tafsirs. For example. If islamic texts say one thing, but then the author assumes you have questions... so it backfires like. And if you dont think like this, then you are like this, and they are like this, and they deserve this etc etc. You get what i mean. I just find it interesting interms of the psychology of the texts in a sense
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's more a case of when already having the intellectual high ground, it's more likely to become atheist.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't think the content of the book matters. The fact that a death warrant is place on his head for writing a book, says all we need to know.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
Sure. It's the true religion - not philosophy filled with uncertainties. But I don't see how that relates to your OP.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
It doesn't say whether it was any good.
Lars
Member
See thats what you have to think if you cant question it. Aka it relies on dominance to not be questioned in a sense
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
But it does tell us a thing or two about the culture / worldview of those that issued that "fatwa" and those that support it.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
Just because something is accepted doesn't mean it can't be questioned, but I'm still waiting to hear how that relates to the OP. This aspect doesn't interest me.
Shakeel
Well-Known Member
Does it? I've got nothing.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Yes, it suggests a medieval mind-set, reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Death to heretics!
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Irrelevant.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I think it's more a case of when already having the intellectual high ground, it's more likely to become atheist.
The intellectual high ground is unecessary when you have faith.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
So you're going to dismiss any criticism as "anti Islamic bias"? Hmmm.
What about the Taliban's approach to "justice" in Afghanistan for example? Do you approve of chopping off thieves' hands, and stoning adulterers?
Or are you going to say these are not "proper" Muslims?
Last edited:
Lars
Member
Fair enough. I updated my question on the first page. Because it may be not what it is afterall. But both can be talked about. But fun to discuss with everyone here!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nope. Thats a false accusation. Of course people are generally used to that kind of thing.
Whats the relevance to the topic?
Well, you are wrong. Just saying "its all the same to me" is not evidence to what you are claiming. Study the topic a bit.
The Qur'an was written down in the 7th century and manuscripts alone can cover the Quran within the 1st century Hijri. So this "couple of centuries later" is a statement repeated by many just based on hearsay based on hearsay.
So can you provide evidence to the satanic verses other than just saying "Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Saad, atthabari? Attabari repeats Ibn Ishaqs narration, and through the history of islamic conservative scholarship people have rejected Ibn Ishaq as dubious. I think non-muslims like you are more dogmatically in love with some of the dubious sources in literature than the muslims themselves.
well I’m not shocked that you say I’m wrong,it was not even a criticism but an observation but one should ask oneself why would devout followers of Muhammad write such a story?.
Like Christianity Islam has its conflicting texts,hadiths for example are seen by some as authentic and by some as not and by some as a contradiction to the Quran yet they are still important for many and IMO that is why uthman had to standardise the Quran but unfortunately it didn’t work and the infighting continues to this day.
IMO proselytising releigions like Islam and Christianity are like peas in a pod,very human in the way they work and the way they are written,the carrot and the stick to move the masses,of course just my opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
General statements. One just cannot engage properly with just general statements. Most of your post above is just general comments.
I said you are wrong because you were wrong. I would suggest you dont make statements you dont understand. If you want, just ask.
Also, I didnt stop saying you are wrong. I said certain things which of course you have not addressed. Maybe I will cut and paste so that you can read again rather than making things up. Below.
he Qur'an was written down in the 7th century and manuscripts alone can cover the Quran within the 1st century Hijri. So this "couple of centuries later" is a statement repeated by many just based on hearsay based on hearsay.
So can you provide evidence to the satanic verses other than just saying "Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Saad, atthabari? Attabari repeats Ibn Ishaqs narration, and through the history of islamic conservative scholarship people have rejected Ibn Ishaq as dubious. I think non-muslims like you are more dogmatically in love with some of the dubious sources in literature than the muslims themselves.
General statements. One just cannot engage properly with just general statements. Most of your post above is just general comments.
I said you are wrong because you were wrong. I would suggest you dont make statements you dont understand. If you want, just ask.
Also, I didnt stop saying you are wrong. I said certain things which of course you have not addressed. Maybe I will cut and paste so that you can read again rather than making things up. Below.
he Qur'an was written down in the 7th century and manuscripts alone can cover the Quran within the 1st century Hijri. So this "couple of centuries later" is a statement repeated by many just based on hearsay based on hearsay.
So can you provide evidence to the satanic verses other than just saying "Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Saad, atthabari? Attabari repeats Ibn Ishaqs narration, and through the history of islamic conservative scholarship people have rejected Ibn Ishaq as dubious. I think non-muslims like you are more dogmatically in love with some of the dubious sources in literature than the muslims themselves.
let’s start with who ibn ishaq,born in Medina during the Islamic golden age,medina being conquered by Muhammad collected oral traditions of the life of Muhammad,ok so Far?,he was a Muslim and I put it to you again,why would he as a follower of Islam write such a story.
Now we been to rewind a bit in history,the Arabs old gods were al Nat al uzza and manat,I’ve probably made a mess of the spelling on those but you get my drift but this makes ibn Ishaqs bIography of Muhammad more compelling,let’s face it,Muhammad was desperate to bring the people to him hence these verses:Ta'rīkh (Vol. VI)(circa 915 CE.