| Joelcool7 said: Honestly SuperChunk your not winning your debate. Even if you can argue that the Qur'an is 100% peaceful you still say that theHadiths are not. You also say that the Hadiths dictate Islamic policies in all major Muslim countries as well as influence western Islam. Fact is these Hadiths are horrible texts in many cases and in modern Islam are accepted as Holy and even in some cases being added to the Qur'an. Now what I would love to see, because I believe you are very passionate about your faith and the Qur'an as apparently peaceful. I would like to see you go on some Al-Qaida forum or other extremist forum and spread the light. I hate to use the term missionary as you'd be talking to fellow Muslim's but you claim to be so enlightened. Infact even here you don't seem to have the support of the muslims of this board. I have not seen to many here backing you up and I do know your not the only one on VGChartz. I noticed something big, at the beginning of my question as to how Muslims could believe the Bible is a Holy text but not follow its teachings. You said it was a Holy text and that the teachings of Jesus applied, however you said Jesus did not rise again after three days nor was he the son of God and their is no such thing as the trinity. Then I posted a few verses which you managed to explain using different interpretations. However when I qouted more verses you claimed that the Bible had been tainted by men. Now if the Bible indeed has been tainted by men, how could it still be a Holy book? And if the Bible was tainted how about the Qur'an? You claim the Roman's influenced the translations of the Bible and made up the Trinity etc...etc... However I know that the origional Manuscripts still exist and know people who recently examined and helped translate them. Are you saying the romans took the origional manuscripts and altered them? I'm not about to debate Christianity verses Islam and say your evil for believing different then me. Just pointing out your thinking is flawed. I personally know that the origional manuscripts still exist today. Does the origional Qur'an exist today? Is it still being studied and re-translated from time to time to ensure it remains accurate? From a quick google search it doesn't appear the origional manuscripts in which the Quran were based on exist today. Am I wrong? I could be as I just googled it quickly. Anyways you didn't call us ignorant if we believe Islam is violent. But the Hadiths which you claim are core to modern Islam is very much so. So its not us being ignorant, even if the Qur'an itself is peaceful (Which is very debatable) the Hadiths certainly are not. Many of them I would consider evil, same with the Sharia as seen in Afghanistan and most of the other muslim countries. Things like women must be covered at all times, a Muslim cannot convert to Christianity or any other faith or he needs to be executed. Islam in its modern day context is very violent and I would say border line evil. The small minority like yourself do not represent Islam as a whole and neither does the Qur'an. I notice your quick to say the Christian's were the same way. You mention the Crusades, but guess what your right Christianity was violent but it had nothing to do with the Bible. In the same way Islam is very violent and evil in its current form. Regardless of whether the Qur'an promotes that view or not. I myself would be stoned to death or imprisoned for proselytizing if I went to almost any Muslim majority country. Any Muslim who converted would face similiar persecution. At the hands of who? Muslims! |
I completely agree with you on Hadiths. However, my arguement is that they are actually anti-Islamic and are the root cause of Islam's current state. I have many times considered starting some kind of online discussion/blog or whatever to directly confront the extreamist element. However, I ligitimately fear the backlash as well as I am simply not interested in the days of research and editing it would take to make a real argument. Whereas my rants and postings on this site are mostly from memory of studies from over 15 years ago. Granted, I've hit google a lot in the last few days, but I would never write a legitimate argument using Wikipedia as my source. This site is not formal, thus I do with quick and easy.
Bible is still holy in that it contains elements of God's words. Not that is 100% pristine.
A quick summary on wikipedia shows the difference in the history of the Qur'an and the NT books.
NT is regarded to have books as old as 20 or so after Jesus left. It is argued to have some books actually written by the named authored and quite a few that are argued to be written by others, probably the named author's students. However, none of these copies exist in any form. The earliest fragments date to 2nd century and the earliest full texts from 3/4 centuries. This is where certain verses, like those detailing Trinity in the NT are complicated as oldest texts are not the same, thus hinting at manipulation at some point. Additionally, some of the early Bibles contain books not cannonized as well.
The Qur'an was initially written on anything at hand and memorized by a very large number of the population. It was first compiled into a complete book during the Caliphate of Uthman, 19 years after Muhammad died. 5 of these exact copies were compiled and sent throughout the new empire. He wanted this as after a inter-arab war it was feared those that had the text memorized could die off. Additionally, it became apparent that others were making texts that were not Qur'anic in origin. So he gathered a great number of people who were with Muhammad and were his personal scribes and memorizers. They created these first 5 Qur'ans. There are two of these left in existence and they are in Museums (one complete, in Turkey, other missing 2/3rds roughly, in Tashkent). Beyond the addition of the marks in arabic that create vowel sounds, they are identical to Qur'ans printed today. There are also copies of newer Qur'ans all throughout the museums and mosques in the region. All whole and all the same, but with or without vowel marks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_Qur'an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Also, as I mentioned just above in another reply. I did not say Christianity is the same as present Islam. I said that Christianity has gone through a similar phase and that example was used only to illustrate that extremist Islam is to real Islam just as medieval Christianity is to real Christianity.
