The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk40dR8UpaU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk40dR8UpaU[/ame]

 

the Oldest Quranic Manuscripts (Yemen)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNdvsLh128Q"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNdvsLh128Q[/ame]

 

Biblical exegesis has existed for some time. Whether or not it has in any real way changed the beliefs of the devoutly religious is arguable. Why would/should it be an different for the Qur’ān?


NOTE:
You seem to have a fascination with all things Muslim... as your recent track record here at MAP has shown. Hopefully this thread remain open... the second it descends down the path of racism or xenophobia it's gone. No further warnings will be given.

 

An Educational Debate--The Motion: "Islam is Dominated by Radicals"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mv4F79xa4U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mv4F79xa4U[/ame]

Moderator: Robert Siegel

Speaking for the motion: Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Paul Marshall and Asra Q. Nomani

Speaking against the motion: Reza Aslan, Richard W. Bulliet and Edina Lekovic

###​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pQGoaxs_Vg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pQGoaxs_Vg[/ame]

 

The first ones never did "descend" to racism, you blocked them for "dubious" statistics--which by the way were from the Office of Statistics.

 

http://fora.tv/2008/07/01/Irshad_Manji_and_Dalia_Mogahed_-_Who_Speaks_for_Islam

 

Watch the videos.

 

I did watch them and the point still stands. Unless you can manage to come up with some sort of credible refutation of what I've posted.
Just posting 'watch the vids' to me indicates that you are far more interested in digging for some sort of sensationalism or something to rant about rather than actually having a conversation about the subject matter at hand. You certainly didn't seem to be able to come up with much in response other than 'watch the vids' which is to say... nothing of any substance in terms of a response or a refutation.

 

I just posted them like a minute ago.

So what's the Syriac interpretation of the Houris in the Qur'an?

Has there anyone else able to study the oldest found Qur'an in Yemen? Why?

 

People are free to believe what they want to believe. If it makes them better persons then great. If it doesn't then it becomes a problem.

The 1st video discussed the work of a German scholar who had to use a pseudonym, since he was worried for his safety.

The 2nd video, another German scholar was banned from studying further. No one has touched the oldest Quran since.

You have to ask, do Biblical or Talmudic scholars go through the same none sense? Why not?

What's the reason for this? Censorship, divorce and death threats, the list goes on, to the point where anything critical we say about Islam is considered "bigotry" or "racist".

Why can't non-Muslims study the Quran and subject this book to the same academic scrutiny as scholars have done with other works?

That question is actually partly answered in the 2 videos that followed.

 

Yep, they did. Even translating the Bible was viewed as a crime worthy of the death penalty at one point.

Nope, I have plenty of criticisms of Islam, and of every other nonsense religion (for clarification, that's all of them, including FSM). I just don't see the need to push my agenda with sensationalist news from tabloids and videos taken off youtube on a Martial Arts forum, unless it's somehow relevant to a discussion where it can be brought up and discussed in a sensible way.

You're not bringing any debate or discussion to any of your threads, just throwing around a random subset of statistics yanked from some of the worst newspapers you can find without any apparent ability to consider the context of the statistics.

I have a copy of the Quran at home. I'm allowed to read it, study it, analyse it in any way I feel like. There are some morons out there who might object if I criticize it, but don't forget there are also moronic Christians out there who'll bomb abortion clinics or attack homosexuals. Idiots aren't limited to just one religion.

Also something to keep in mind when you feel like being reactionary:

Number of people killed by terrorism worldwide in 2008 - 15 765

Number of people killed in war - 500 000

That's all terrorism, not the small minority which is fundamentalist terrorism (I believe that's around 1% of the total at most, maybe less).

Number of people killed in road traffic accidents worldwide - 1 900 000

And from the most common killer:

Number of deaths due to cardio or respiratory disease/disorders worldwide- 570 200 000

So any fear mongering about terrorism is completely and utterly pointless. At worst, if you view it on a global scale, it's a minor inconvenient which causes a few unfortunate deaths. You are slightly more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than an act of terrorism.

The world has bigger problems to deal with, lets get over the hysteria and start dealing with those.

 

Now, we're talking about now, Bunny.

British Office of Statistics, Bunny.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/babynames/babyname.html

Are you a scholar, Bunny? Can you retrieve the oldest Quran in Yemen and study it further? Nope. If you came up with a Syriac translation of the Quran, would you be able to identify yourself and show your address, remember Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie? I think not.

 

Why?

Yes, I'm aware of that, but you still refuse to accept the context or situational data which in this case is hugely important.

Can I retrieve the Dead Sea Scrolls and study them further?

No? Then from my point of view it may as well be exactly the same thing.

 

Nations don't rise and fall because of traffic accidents and lung cancer. Terrorism, insurgency are more theatrical, they involve more people, affect people.

A dog gets run over by a car, big wow. A grandpa dies of emphezima, so long. There's no theatrics, so more people tend not to care outside of family.

 

Only because morons allow them to. Seriously, it's people sensationalising and panicking about this tiny, insignificant little problem that encourages it in the first place.

And no - they don't involve more people at all, they involve less, but the media are bigger fans of them because it gives them a chance to talk about how 'they' are out of get us.

Nations don't rise and fall because of terrorism. Insurgency is a different matter, but then again insurgency is not the same as terrorism by any means.

Let's start the theatrics then, at least it'd be about something that actually matters and where a difference could really be made.

 

We both know of Jewish and Christian history, but do these religions still practice stoning or killing apostates? No. It has to be modern day. Now.

What context/situation? It's a list of names and their numbers. It's not really a poll.

Yes you can, if you're a scholar. You can go to Israel and other parts of the world where they have them. Not only that you can write the most critical books about Christians or Jews and you won't have any death threats to worry about.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism - they still practice terrorism.

The limited variety of names chosen in that culture, compared to the massive number of names available to those of an Anglo-Saxon background. The articles are quite obviously designed to make people believe that the Islamic portion of the population is expanding massively, while the rest isn't. This is patently untrue and a moment's actual thought reveals this.

People do receive death threats and attacks for being critical of Christians, Jews, and most other religions. I'm sure Richard Dawkin has had more than a few, just as an example.

 

They affect more people, not necessarily involved. Psychological.

Insurgents use terrorism via guerilla warfare, along with sabotage. Terrorism is a tactic, it's not the phenomena.

 

Which is purely down to the coverage that they're given - coverage which makes no one safer and prevents nothing.

Nope, active insurgency is a completely different thing to terrorism. You could similarly argue that our own forces practice terrorism when they attack infrastructure in order to achieve aims.

Insurgency has an aim of deposing the governing authority of a country, and this cannot be represented as always being a bad aim.

 

With the exception of Luke 19:27, you can't really find a violent verse in the New Testament. And that's a parable.

The Quran, has various kill the Jews, slaughter the Christian verses, yes that specific, but you have the Quran. Suras 8 and 9.

Limited! there's 99 names for God's qualities, these are used as names, ie Jabar, Aziz, etc. Then you have pre-Islamic names like Qais, then names like lighting Barak, thunder Ra'ad. I would say their choice of names is richer.

As for population, there's been countless articles on this, if you choose to ignore it, I can't force you to read the papers.

Hollywood stars get death threats, but I'm speaking of the consistency, number and actual carrying out of these threats, and whether or not that can be justified via their holy book.