Yep, can't get it to show next page....

Well got next page, but my list still shows phantom reply. :(

Did I disagree with you? No, I do know your ideology though and that I know very well. I've said it before, I've argued with much more eloquent fanatics than yourself.

I have a saying that nihilism requires a level of fanaticism and hardly does the fanatic notice a trend.

Impersonal is the word to best describe my argument with your ideology so believe if you must what you want about my agreeing or disagreeing with you and any emotion therein. The worst you could do is show how feeble your ability to acquire and condense information is, which if not already apparent only seems more overt by your inept evaluation of 'what I am saying.'which as far as I am concerned you don't need to tell me what I am saying only because I know it very well I said it after all, in fact doing so draws suspicion to your line on how 'scholarly' my post was. To the point though:

So you've decided to take a road in your satire where you retreat and retreat looking for some moralhigh ground, it's quite pathetic and if you must then I'll kick the sand from under your feet for a second.

The idea of God King and Country and other theocratic ideologies are exactly that, it is a design by men to convince men that they through an unknown have an answer to everything except of course the unknown which in turn cannot be known (oh the convenience). As paradoxical as that may seem the bow tie of it all happens to be faith. In all this wouldn't be a problem until the messenger makes injunctions in the name of said unknown.

Your hypocrisy was within the petition of this Hadith vs Qur'an issue then when I put it plainly how I define a believeryou say that that isn't what you believe which coincidentally was exactly what you were saying Muslims should be doing with less practiced words. If only because you already know that what is in the Qur'an and invariably all holy texts that does not appeal to your personalized desire to survive, my hat's off to you, you can put yourself in another person's shoes and at the least that's one small step for man.

Your entire jostle on Medieval Christianity and Modern Islam is contrasting or comparing apples to oranges to lettuce to carrots. Unless now your saying that theological devices are also political devices, leading to why Islam; Hadith's or Qur'an's importance in politics would not make or has not made much of a difference and in turn making your point moot and thus the self destructive trend of all relativistic arguments by the whim of pragmatics.

I think I finally figured out what you remind me of. You know that scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon's character first meets his girlfriend in that bar and makes a snobby pretentious kid who simply enjoyed out talking other people with as much "educated philosophy" as possible based solely on his lated readings? That seems like all you've been trying to do with your last few posts to me.

I don't characterize labels such as CHristian or Muslim soley on the definition of a person's habits. In that argument I gave an actual literal definition of the word Muslim and an example of those other Muslims define as "Muslim" yet your definition would not as they did not follow the rules/practices laid out in the Qur'an, principally, because it didn't exist.

Additionally, I don't label people as Christian/Muslim unless they do, regardless of their practices because I do not follow the entire set or rules set out in the Qur'an. I don't pray in the same manner 5 times a day, I do eat pork, etc. This is my own personal take on religion where I see organized religion and the specific path with stringent rules in the Qur'an as intended for those weak and unable to simply be good people. I relate this idea back to both the Bible and specific verses in the Qur'an. In the Bible where the question is asked about what are the most important parts of the 10 commandments and the Qur'an's verse I quoted earlier in this thread that speaks of everyone getting to heaven so long as they believe and do good works. Both share the same philosophy that simply believing in God as well as being a good human being is all that God really wants. The rest is only there to help those who need these "blinders" to stay straight.

This is not fanatical or hypocritical. Its just my personal relationship with God. Since I do believe Muhammad was a prophet and in the Qur'ans message and I do submit myself to God, then I do fit the literal definition of Muslim, however, I'm sure many others would not label me as such.

Finally, you can word smash it all you want, but the Dark Ages of Christianity is exactly like the present in Islam. Hopefully it won't take the hundreds of years it took Christianity for the Muslim world to reform. Of course to agree on that point you have to agree that Islam and the Qur'an are not inherently violent/evil. That crucial point is where we disagree.

To cut a long story short: both those Qur'an are not Uthmans Qur'an or copy of that Qur'an (if it ever existed). None of them was ever scientifically examined (wonder why). However the one in Turkey is at least from the 8th century ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html ), the same goes for the one in Tashkent ( http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html ).

The oldest Qur'an known is the one (very incomplete) in Sana'a, which is from ~710/720 CE.

I see and you’re supposedly my Matt Daemon? That's a question by the way.

I'm sorry but your personal belief in god isn't enough of a reason to argue that that belief or the source of that belief should be imposed on others. (By others I am talking about the Hadith following Muslims Mr. Pork eating Muslim.)

You don't understand either how much of a hypocrite you are by saying you’re a Pork eating Qur'an practicing Muslim, unless you change that and say you don't actually practice the Qur'an, to which you have descended from reaching to Allah and the big mountain goat in heaven to reaching to Satan and hell fire. I will say though that that is not a bad thing and actually really cool. In the end the only issue I'm left with is your condescending line of argument, which isn't worth debating about.

Lastly Muslims have been killing each other over Islam for over 1370 years, the Shi'a and the Sunni have been at each other’s throats over who takes Mohammad’s place hence the Hadiths. In every way this is only because of Allah's mortality because his word died with his prophet.

Back on to your first paragraph though, I can't resist this one; by gum your evolving right in front of my eyes. You've moved to saying that I essentially read information from a biased perspective, nullifying its veracity all because of my mortal ego. It's like what I'm typing goes in one eye and out the other with you. Impersonal is the best word to describe my position.

Would it enlighten you a little to learn that I've had these same debates so many times that I have essentially copy pasted most of my responses to you from old e-mails? I made minor changes here and there but for the most part it's the same stuff, my honesty is the only thing you could be finding even mildly offensive (if that).

You by the way started this thread, don't start that "I'm the victim" jumbo now, you missed that boat in the OP with all the arrogance you exhumed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were just being provocative, okay fine, just get your facts straight before you talk about how others should think and live their lives as a matter of fact keep those thoughts to a blog or forum or some... oh snap!

^_^

I haven't trolled this hard in a while ;D

Very good post, the Sana'a is also not recognized as a version of the Qur'an and the person who made it popular (I honestly forgot his name) was not the best person to be once he translated it. From what I understand parts of it were missing and it is written in a very simple form of Arabic making it very hard to interpret.

This reply is actually to both of you...

I think I'm done in this thread as its getting no where and each party is simply reverberating the same general comments over and over.

I quoted the above as it best fits my final thoughts.

Everything I posted fits into one of two categories, imo.

1. My personal beliefs and interpretations of the great number of Holy Books in this world based on reading and studying them, personally and university level.

2. My studies, personally and university level, of history in the Middle East and the Western world.

Could I be entirely wrong in everything I've posted, including my synopsis of the two Qur'ans mentioned? of course. However, that would also mean that the many books, classes, teachers, and more recently websites are also all wrong. In fact, it means that sources from both west and east are essentially lying at some point. Obviously this only refers to #2 as #1 is entirely based on my perceptions of God and the way God has sent out message after message to the people of the world. However, part of that is based in #2 as well.

Alternatively, I could be at least largly accurate and that would mean that you two are either lying or reading false material in your own right. After all, any given religious topic will have tons of pro and con sources.

Based on the previous posts, it seems Booh! probably bases his knowledge on personal acquaintances and Google.  dib8rman seems to be based on a number of previous study, philosophy, general religious debates where he is atheist, and the web.

I kinda get the feeling that both of you only accept the writings of things that already fit your preconceived notions of Islam. You both think Islam is evil/violent by nature and that the current Islamic state is just doing what is ordained. With that, anything else that demonizes Islam and the Qur'an fits your logic and is good.

The Qur'an discussion quoted is a perfect example of this. While I have read sources that attack the credibility of these Qur'ans and others that are also ancient, I have read many more sources that agree with what I pulled from the Wikipedia article.

I still hold firm that present Islamic nations are to Islam as Medieval Europe was to Christianity and that by tossing out the Hadiths, Islam could reform to what is taught in the Qur'an and be the community it is supposed to be.

Either way, right or wrong.. see ya in the more pertinent gaming discussions.

Just to point out, those devilish sources that claim those Qur'ans are not the original (or a direct copy of) Uthman Qur'an are from an Islamic propaganda site.

Well you could say that about me, I also have five shelves of books some for research some for politics, some for entertainment as well as enough books under my bed that if I should remove the legs it could probably rest on them comfortably. Of course only three of these books have anything to do with Islam, one being the Qur'an another the book mentioned before "Why I am not a Muslim" and the third being the Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda manifesto which isn't a book but I've fashioned it to one. Most of my knowledge on Islam comes from forums I’ve attended on historicity and religiosity and meetings with like minds both on the web and face to face and also with Muslim moderate friends who I've met. I've spent time in Cordoba  at a friends families and visited many of the sites there, from the Roman bridge and Cordoba mosque Mezquita to the Al-Andalus museum. In fact I’m visiting Rome in the coming months as well as Avignon and if I can Naples and Cicero. Presently my close friend is in Turkey learning Turkish and even tries to get me into it all the while making Turkish pot shots at the UN again in Turkish. I don't really give much credit to people like yourself who are always so incredibly wrong and assume your so incredibly right.

(Edit since this is supposedly the closing)

For clarity sake I meant the last line only to attack your ultimatums as at the very least biased. Where you would say that myself and whoever else you were talking to (booh I believe) could be lying you instead said for yourself that your sources may be lying. Could it possibly be that maybe your lying to yourself? The evidence can be there, a Historian once told me on a talk about Jesus he said that Historically Jesus did exist as far as what the qualifications for existence historically demands.

This does tell me a man named Jesus or to be clearer with the title Messiah (self applied or not) did exist but not that he was in any way a person with a right to command men’s minds, morals or actions. Even if he was actually born of a virgin it doesn't mean he has any right over my free will. What history cannot say is historically accurate though is that he was resurrected as no one witnessed it. All his mother and other female followers actually saw was an empty grave. In fact none of the miracles of the bible can be found historically true. Even the book of Exodus and I believe even Leviticus has been proven as a plagiarism and in fact that they never happened.

As for the plagiary of the New Testament, I'm very sorry but the Qur'an is by far much more edited than dare I say even the Mormons’ Joseph Smith Edition of the bible. This is keeping strictly to the Arabic versions and only based on the explanations by prominent independent researchers like Iq. Even the Sana’a provides unneeded but invited evidence to prove that statement.

Oh and I'm not Atheist darn it!

Good bye. ^_^

Did you actually read the other material on that site? I think its more of a wolf in sheeps clothing.