>>23527299
>god has revealed his true book of wisdom
>how does he want the chapters arranged
>ah, yes. By length of course!
How fucking retarded. Why not just alphabetically by first letter of the chapter? Or just get rid of chapters and list each sentence in order of how many letters it has? Or how about by the age of Muhammad's concubines mentioned in the chapter, starting with aisha

>>23527299
I remember once I was taking an English class with some Iranian kid and the topic of non-canonical gospels came up. I said that in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which describes various fanciful tales from the childhood of Jesus, there's a scene where Jesus makes birds out of clay and brings them to life. I then offhandedly mentioned that this story made it into the Quran. I remember the Iranian kid looking like I had just slapped him in the face. he didn't say anything but I could tell he was somewhat shaken and he never spoke to me again.

It's insane to me how seriously they take a book that is literally just a collection of stories Muhammad heard around the campfire, most of them from the Bible and others from various fictional sources like the Syriac Alexander Legend and the tale of the Seven Sleepers. Then again, I suppose it never actually had to persuade anyone but the group of illiterate bandits that followed Muhammad and they went and forced it onto the minds of the entire Middle East. There's no other way anyone could think this is the perfect book.

>>23527352
Muhammad discovered the religious hack of extreme violence. You don't really need your religion to make sense when you just go and off everyone that tells you you're full of shit

File: avatars-X23RlijAWukQQ1JX-(...).jpg (15 KB, 240x240)

15 KB JPG

>>23527299
>which new research has proven to be false
let's see this new research

>talking babies
miracles in a religious text? what?? i don't believe it

>>23527352
this post is filled with assumptions portrayed as facts

>>23527314
the order of the suwar isn't revealed, but it was done by length for reference purposes

>>23527358
>the religious hack of extreme violence.
It's more of a race thing than to do with Islam. They lack self-control and the ability to put oneself in the other's shoes. No wonder they run the West for handouts to abuse children and turn the cities into shitholes.

Islam as a religion is good (for them), the problem is they are inbred retard peasants who can only think of taking stuff for themselves. I don't even think these people realize they are doing it, it's in the nature. Like Jews but less intelligent.

>>23527352
You're a Jew trying to increase anti-Iranian sentiment. Most younger Iranians are not religious.
Anyways, Kourosh/Cyrus made a mistake freeing such vile "people" from Babylonian captivity. If the they were eradicated there and then, Pisslam, Christcuckery, and Jewdaism all wouldn't exist.
It was the biggest mistake in all of history.

I'm not defending Islam necessarily, but this shit isn't any more or less retarded than the Gospels, or the Torah. Each group has an ethnic and dogmatic fondness for their own heritage and history that makes them step in and ruthlessly defend their Word. As a book yeah I think the Gospels are better written, but it's all mostly stories that people take as divine creed and use to justify atrocities. And to avoid thinking. But your average fundamentalist Christian or Jew is just as retarded there are just fewer of them

>>23527591
It's only North Africans, Pakistanis, and Afghans that engage in such savagery.
You're a FED or Jew trying to further increase tensions for whatever goal you have.

>>23527640
The issue is with Messianic or salvation based traditions. Notions like Tikkun Olam, Judgment Day, and Frashokereti lead to more destruction. There was no such thing as sin or non-introduced impurity in the natural world -- in other words.
Experiential-based traditions that prioritize "enlightenment" or "self-realization" are better.

>>23527299
Yeah I dunno maybe it has really pretty meter or alliteration or something in Arabic, I don't see how Muslims can say it's so beautiful and this and that without lying through their teeth. It's an ugly and stupid indoctrination tool, the magnus opus of the fake religious tradition called monotheism which was only conceived as a political and social engineering tool.

>>23527654
Wtf I want to read the Quran now

>>23527299
yeah it's disappointing really. complete lack of beauty or wisdom. only the sura of iron I found to be alright
now watch as brown immigrants in benelux tell you that allah has purposedly made you beyond saving and you are supposed to hear it recited because those ugly sounding expectorations are actually magic and are supposed to hypnotize you into thinking this is actually worthwile

File: 1719009953574992.jpg (499 KB, 1114x646)

499 KB JPG

Allah is an angry, jealous, and merciless god, and I put superior idols before him. Muhammad and Ali were idiots.

The Holy Spirit is a demonical force of pure destruction. Jesus was an idiot.

Moses and the Torah are shit, and I curse YHVH/Elohim/Jehova.

>>23527654
Religions are pretty clearly downstream from historical grievances which is why westerners sound so clueless to me when they dissect other people's religious zeal. A ton of Muslims have such zeal because England destroyed their last remaining competent empires and then the US/Euro postwar complex kept them under the thumb of colonial vassal states until recently when they just began bombing the fuck out of them openly lol calling them the axis of evil and shit.
But again I'm not defending I just try to look at things as they are. The reason they insist its "the most beautiful book" and all that stuff they do, it's because this is the one thing that's kept them defined and united as a people ALONGSIDE their common bond as colonial subjugates of western influence. Same as Jews in historical Europe, the desire to avoid conversion had less to do with dogmatic disputes and more to do with not wanting to let the oppressor win by assimilating you

When I take over Iran and revive the Kushan empire and turn it Buddhist, I will destroy every single last Abrahamic monument, scripture, holy site, and more. Every single last one of you will be force converted into the Buddhadharma and/or animist deep ecological paganism (your choice). Your future descendants will not even remember such things as Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. No mercy will be shown to icchantika.

>>23527640
>but this shit isn't any more or less retarded than the Gospels
It is though. It's not the 'woo' that makes it retarded, every religion has that. Its everything else. The sheer schizophrenia is mind blowing if you are expecting any of the other holy boos, it reads more like a school shooter manifesto than a holy book.
The main issue is how utterly low IQ it is. You can tell there wasnt a triple digit IQ anywhere in Islam until the Persians got involved and started organising shit.

>>23527641
>You're a FED or Jew trying to further increase tensions for whatever goal you have.
You just broke the schizometer

>>23527677
I disagree but don't want to take the time to lay it out more than I have

>>23527654
If there is even one document that ought to turn anyone atheist, this is the koran.
The utter retardation of those who wrote it is beyond description.
If retardation was fuel, we would use the koran to travel to the edges of the known universe.

>>23527679
You're a moron if you think the far right isn't being manipulated by glowies or FEDs either. Pseudoscientific trash by Jew Robert Sepehr is becoming immensely popular, and I see tons of FEDs shilling such garbage. It's telling that Amazon has banned so many books but not that one.

FEDs are trying to radicalize the Far Right even more by making them go down an Esoteric Nazism hole. Some of the biggest supporters for Esoteric Nazism were the Ashkenazi themselves. It is just quasi kabbalism.

>>23527685
Anything that claims the natural world, in its original pristine state, exists in a state of sin or impurity is erosive to the world and soul.
Most of the bad elements in both Islam and Christianity are also traceable to Zoroastrianism. There is an internal logic to delusions of "progress", especially those that involves ending in "renovating the world", that culminates in mechanization.

>>23527677
Pretty much all the orientalists who laid praise upon the Hindoo and Buddhist texts shat on the Koran as being garbage, so it's not just you.

Honestly, people should worship me instead of All*h, Jewsus, YHVH, or whatever. I've written better religious texts than the Koran, Bible, and Torah.

>>23527352
Most of Jesus Miracles are evocative of the earlier prophets like Moses and Elijah.

This creating of the birds was likely a true event as something had to replicate Moses "creating" the serpent and lice.

>>23527352
And the "Alexander Legend" has earlier precedents in historical figures like Sesostris and the Epics of Babylon, likely Dhul Qarnain is about real events.

IYO, I am a Hegel reader, do you know what this might look like?
I don't mean to steal quiz guy's thing

>>23527747
I love you

>>23527299
The Quran already explains that much of it is to explain what the "Israelites argue about". There seems to be a theological conference with the Hebrew Bible, which would be lost on those who hadn't read it

Jews used to believe strange things before Islam constrained them, such as Metatron or whatever.

File: islam6.jpg (2.28 MB, 1000x10000)

2.28 MB JPG

>>23527299
koran only good for burning

>>23527747
post an excerpt

>>23527877
>injustice
>intolerance
>cruelty
>women
Wow the Quran sure is based. Why are we against muslims again?

So yeah if you make that much science at once, some crazy shit went down and that's bad
t.Korkguard

>>23527299
>O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation.
33:11

File: GBZqfQiXcAA2JdR.jpg (66 KB, 900x490)

66 KB JPG

>>23527299
>which new research has proven to be false
still waiting for the "new research" which has apparently proven the Qur'an to not be perfectly preserced

>>23527899
Here is an excerpt:

Unity and Duality: The Cosmic Multiplicity of Zurvan

2. The Supreme or Great Zurvan is the uncreated and first principle, vast and immeasurable, and all-embracing. This Great Zurvan is Infinite Time, and that very same infinitude is synonymous with the “Motion of the All.” It is the communal energy that nurtures, maintains, and annihilates that which comes into existence. Zurvan creates and destroys itself in appearance, in Lesser Zurvan, but in the sense of Greater Zurvan, nothing is gained or lost. Lesser Zurvan, falsely understood through its two polarities or manifestations which will be discussed further, can lead mortals and all thinking beings to great calamity and distress if they are not properly channeled through the means of the poet-priest.

3. Do not mistake the Greater Zurvan for the body of the Universe that has motion applied to it, for those who separate motion from Zurvan are unskillful in swallowing this teaching; they miss the mark. The great Zurvan breathes in fractal complexity, but it is simultaneously one with the same breathing and yet transforms in an instant. This ceaseless and instantaneous transformation is what we call “Infinite Time”and the Universe that has motion applied to it is only a trace, which may be referred to as delusion, Lesser Zurvan. For this reason, it is best speak of reality in terms of “processes," “change," “impermanence," or “moments” rather than as “discrete objects," “substances," “things,” or “underlying essences."

4. Zurvan is the unbroken flow of all real, actual, unreal, and imaginative processes. It excludes nothing. Do not assume your imagination to be divorced from Zurvan. There is no non-existence separate from it. It is "without circumference nor center," as is written in the parallel Dharmic Tibetan Book of the Dead. All processes are extensions of Infinite Time that simultaneously reflect itself, and thus even the nature of one's mind is Zurvan. Since Zurvan is everything, it must also be what it is not. How can it be what it is not? What it is not manifests as a denial of what it is. Zurvan does not exclude non-Zurvan.

5. Zurvan has two subtle aspects: undifferentiated and differentiated, Greater and Lesser. Zurvan-Undifferentiated can be understood as “Time without Beginning”, “Infinite Time”, and “Simultaneous Time”. Zurvan-Differentiated, from here on to be designated as Lesser Zurvan can likewise, be understood as “Time of Long Dominion," “Extended Time," and “Finite Time.” Zurvan-Undifferentiated, or Greater Zurvan is the unity of all polarities; these include existence-nonexistence, birth-death, mind-body, subject-object, profane-sacred, pure-impure, up-down, past-future, and much more. They are all within an eternal, ever-renewing present through Greater Zurvan.

>>23528025
What does something being perfectly preserved prove?

>>23527944
>33:11
Actually 33.53
And it is indeed utterly retarded

O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave. But Allah is never shy of the truth. And when you ˹believers˺ ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and theirs. And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.

>>23528167
It's one of the claims of the Qur'an, that God will perfectly preserve it until the Day of Judgement. It is also important for a religious text to be perfectly preserved so that we practice it to the utmost accuracy as it was, because the truth cannot change.

OP claimed that there exists "new research" which proves the Qur'an wasn't perflectly preserved, and I am waiting for OP to show said research

File: good luck Katze.png (169 KB, 400x259)

169 KB PNG

>the promise of pure clean monotheism centered around a holy book and a love of cats
>the book is, by most accounts, simply not very good
>Muslim countries are near-uniformly dirty, backward, violent and gay
Islam is such a shame; if it had emerged in a slightly different way it might have been something actually magnificent.

>>23528167
It could be seen as a necessary condition for believing in it, even if it might not be sufficient.

>>23527687
USA has been bombing the middle west since decades. Muslim hate is not something new.

>>23528076
Wow. It's worse than the Koran.

>>23527299
The quran in Arabic, especially the last chapters, are MARVELOUSLY written and this is collectively agreed even among non-muslin factions. Just lost in translation really.

>>23527352
You give me the energy of a 13 y/o atheist redditor writing fictional stories to own le theists.
This is not a damning fact really; from a theological viewpoint the Qur'an tells stories found in other sources because they did actually happen and were documented; most of them prophets of Allah. For example, story of hud and Saleh for example were well-known by the Arabs even before Muhammad; The Qur'an doesn't claim to originate these stories.
Furthermore; The study of Qur'anic stories and comparing them with same stories found in other sources is actually a common field of study among Muslim theologians; The comparison part is especially important as they emphasize the differences and try to explain or find out, under what motivations, did these stories get corrupted.

>>23527358
You can't force someone to convert to islam, it is said in quran. You can't insult muhammed, but in christendom, if you insult jesus, you're going to hell anyway, as you need to accept him as your savior, so there's no big difference

>>23527901
the glowies did 9/11

File: file.png (615 KB, 612x407)

615 KB PNG

>>23528208
enlightenment niggas will see this and say tis not magnificent. my protestant church near a wendy's is magnificent though!!

>>23527299
Why do Westoids think every book has to be measured by the standards of an English novel? Are they really this retarded? Wait till Anon reads the I Ching or the Analects "there's no narrative, no character" blah blah blah I could literally take verses from Emmerson and tell Westoids its from the Quran and those illiterate subhumans will scream about how bad it is.

>>23527677
>it reads more like a school shooter manifesto than a holy book.
r/atheism is down the hall and to left.

>>23528643
Real Enlightenment niggers like brutalist rational architecture. Nothing's more magnificent than a werehouse parking lot.

>>23528615
>most of them prophets of Allah
kekw, as if that changes the fact that some prophet ripped off the bible.

>>23528905
>Why do Westoids think every book has to be measured by the standards of an English novel?
Well nigger, for a book that claims to hold the truth to life — it barely passes the mark for a pre-school storybook.
> If you do this, and a ghost will pop out of nowhere.
> If you do this, Allah shall torture you.

To think such a book is revered by a billion really goes to show how humanity is pulled back by sandniggers.

>>23527299
>which new research has proven to be false
still waiting for this revolutionary "new research"

>>23527665
so what is there to believe in then bozo

>>23529012
If anything it demonstrates your lack of ability to read, interpret, and critique. If you think the Quran is preschooler level you need your head checked. The literary value of a text is not measured by the quality of its normative truth claims.

>>23529144
Ignore the agents of the demiurge.

>>23528615
I don't even know what part of that story is unbelievable to you. That a Muslim would be upset by someone implying their holy book is a collection of different apocryphal sources? You seem to be offended enough.

The "corruption" of Christian and Jewish scriptures has always been the go-to cope for Muslims. Muhammad said to revere the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalms, but he never actually read them because he likely couldn't read. So when Muslims realised that the stories Muhammad told did not align with what was in the Bible, they coped by saying that those texts had been corrupted by the Jews and Christians. There is zero evidence of this of course and it beggars belief that the gospels could have been systematically altered when they were written only a few decades before they appear in the archeological record. Muslims know there's no evidence for this of course, which is why they had to forge the Gospel of Barnabas in the medieval period to make a gospel that aligned with the Quran's claims that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad, denied being God and tricked everyone into thinking he was crucified. How hard is it to accept that maybe Mo just didn't know what he was talking about?

>>23529270
The Muslim belief that Christian and Jewish texts were corrupt was already there in Muhammad's time. Saying the Quran is simply a clusterfuck composed of bits and pieces of apocryphal sources is foolish. These stories and narratives circulated around the ancient Near East so finding a single definitive source for them is usually difficult. It doesn't necessarily pose a challenge to Muslim claims either since the Islamic tradition has always denied its newness, insisting its merely reasserting what previous religious traditions brought but which were gradually lost. So pointing to Syriac Alexander narratives can actually be used to strengthen Islamic narratives rather than undermine them. You've also made the assumption that Muhammad wrote the Quran or was an authority on Islamic doctrine, which you have no reason to believe.

>There is zero evidence of this of course
There are huge textual variations in Jewish and Christian scripture. This is well known already.

>which is why they had to forge the Gospel of Barnabas in the medieval period
The Gospel of Barnabas was forged by Moriscos. These were Muslims and Jews who converted to Christianity under Spanish rule or lived as Crypto-Muslims trying to justify their distinct customs and religious culture by syncretizing it with Catholicism.

Question to all Muslims ITT:

Did Mohammed rape a 9 year old?

If yes, why do you follow him?
If no, why do you think 9 year old kids can consent?

Answer my questions directly or renounce your faith if you're so ashamed of your beliefs.

>>23527666
Yeah muhammad was pissed at the EU so he made islam, you fucking buffoon

>>23528617
What does any of that have to do with anything I said? Why are you replying to me with a nonsequitur instead of making a standalone post?

>>23527299
>>23527352
Islam is Protestantism taken to its logical extreme. If prots could rewrite the Bible it would sound exactly like the Quran.

>>23529529
He was mad about Jewish and Christian superimposition on to Arabic traditions

>>23529529
But it's moot either way because I wasn't talking about the formation of Islam, I was talking about the current way Islam manifests and expresses itself through its adherents. Pretty obvious from what I wrote.

>>23527299
Islam sometimes can be beautiful, but its a bit silly. I read a book about it, ment to be a inrroduction to Islam as a worldview. It stated that Allah causes bad things, so people can see that he is good. Not very convincing answer to problem of evil.
>>23527352
>It's insane to me how seriously they take a book that is literally just a collection of stories Muhammad heard around the campfire
Had a chat with a muslim a while ago. Nice lad, but at certain point he began to talk about how its a miracle that Muhammad knew all these stories that were in Christian and Jewish myths. Since Muhammad didn't know hiw to read or write. He never seemed to think that Muhammad might have heard the stories told. Storytelling is a fun way to do with other groups.

>>23529550
My only problem with Islam is that it's expansionist. There are some nice elements of Islam. But it's tiring that every time I talk to a Muslim, I know their inborn modus operandi is to "revert" me, and they're taking anything I say with a grain of salt, as I am not of their kind

>>23529543
Those traditions being... marrying 6 year olds?

>>23529567
That's reductive and not worth responding to

>>23529546
Then you would understand that the dominance of Europe over the Muslim scum is an historical reaction to Muslim scum invading Europe. If given freedom Muslims chimp put on everyone they can. They need to be quarantined for the good of everyone

>>23529572
You're retarded and not worth responding to, yet here we are

>>23529440
>Saying the Quran is simply a clusterfuck composed of bits and pieces of apocryphal sources is foolish.
Except that is exactly what the available evidence points to it being. The presence of (often badly garbled) biblical stories alongside apocryphal stories, works of fiction and Arabic pagan legends are all indicative of it being a collection of tales that were floating around in Muhammad's time. Nothing in the Quran suggests any knowledge beyond what Muhammad could have gathered from various storytellers and it further shows that he couldn't really distinguish these stories from one another, hence why he confuses Mary for Moses' sister Miriam. I fail to see how the fact that he took the story of the Horned one building an iron wall to keep out Gog and Magog from the Alexander Legend (which contrary to Muslim apologists cannot in fact be found in any story before it) can possibly be used as evidence in support of the Quran being of divine origin.

>You've also made the assumption that Muhammad wrote the Quran
My reasoning for thinking, along with most scholars, that Muhammad wrote the Quran is that it repeatedly says things that relate to him personally and only make sense if he wrote it. The Quran makes no sense as an uncreated divine text but makes a lot of sense if you read it as the personal demands and dictates of a particularly cantankerous and lecherous cult leader.

>There are huge textual variations in Jewish and Christian scripture
And? Not a single one corroborates anything in the Quran. Not that Muzzies give a single shit about what biblical scholarship has actually been able to reconstruct about the original texts beyond it making it imaginable that the original texts agreeing with the Quran (which once again, there is zero evidence for and a mountain of evidence against).

>The Gospel of Barnabas was forged by Moriscos
It was likely forged in the late medieval period in Al-Andalus and preserved by Moriscos. It is, in any case, an effort to make a gospel that aligns with Islamic doctrine for apologetic purposes.

>>23529019
which of the thirty+ qurans is the real version?

>>23528025
The Sana'a palimpsest (if you insist on denying that the Birmingham manuscript is pre-Uthmanic) and many other early manuscripts contain a great deal of variation from the standard Quranic text. Just because these early variant versions were censored doesn't prove they were any less accurate to the orignal than the version currently in circulation.

File: 9162473.png (98 KB, 1150x913)

98 KB PNG

>>23527427
>let's see this new research
Not him but see pic. There are multiple different versions of the Quran itself.

This is before even considering all of the secondary stuff which some of them use.

>>23528595
What the fuck are you talking about you stupid fucking liar? The last chapters are the shortest (short verses and fewest verses) and in the arab world are used to teach Arabic to kids in elementary. Kill yourself as soon as possible.

>>23529604
>I fail to see how the fact that he took the story of the Horned one building an iron wall to keep out Gog and Magog from the Alexander Legend (which contrary to Muslim apologists cannot in fact be found in any story before it) can possibly be used as evidence in support of the Quran being of divine origin.
oldest manuscript of the alexander legend is a 17th century one. Are you going to apply your standards to this?

>>23527352
Wow this post really pissed some kara bogas off. Nice work anon, I hope it's true
t. noncanonical religious works enjoyer

>>23529496
Shia argue she was 16.

>>23528594
Kys, icchantika.
I was just synthesizing Zen with Zurvanism.
It's somewhat similar to Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy too.

>>23530326
When did they begin arguing this? When they started getting pressed on the issue by Westerners or before? Show me sources for the first known time a widely followed shia leader has claimed this otherwise i will correctly assume you are making it up

>>23527299
Islam is a J*suit invention used to destroy righteous God fearing Christians.

>>23530411
>J*suit invention
your timeline is a bit wonky

>>23527352
And the book of Enoch was quoted in the Bible. So what?

>>23530388
Check archives and Wiki. Wiki sucks but is good as intro if you use sources.
I am not Muslim and am just conveying what I've read elsewhere:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

"Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[151][223][224] with the marriage not being consummated until after she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.[151][223][225][226][227][228][229] While the majority of traditional sources indicate Aisha was 9 (and therefore a virgin) at the time of marriage, a small number of more recent Shia writers have variously estimated her age at 12 to 24.[230][231][232]"

File: SANAA-VARIANTS-3-1024x576.png (85 KB, 1024x576)

85 KB PNG

>>23529612
>which of the thirty+ qurans is the real version?
Not new research. Qur'anic textual variants inside and outside of the Uthmanic rasm has always been known by Islamic scholars and is explained in any basic book about Ulum al-Qur'an. The Qur'an is revealed in seven modes which were mixed by the companions, when 'Uthman standardized the Qur'an, he left out diacritics, so that reciters can still recite the Qur'an in accordance to the multiple ahruf, while abandoning the ones that didn't fit the rasm.

>Sana'a palimpsest
Not new research. The Sana'a palimpsest variants have long been understood to be mostly scribal errors. Even if they weren't, it could be a companion codex that didn't fit the 'Uthmanic rasm

The thing about the ahruf is that the core meaning shouldn't be different. Variants shouls not conflict with another, but support one another. The known existence of variants and their "rediscovery" by orientalists only further proves the classical narrative. There are NO Qur'anic variants that change the meaning of any verse, which supports the classical narrative

Just compare these variants to Biblical variants, which are inexcusable

>>23529612
>>23529665
Since both of you are probably not OP and haven't actually shown any new research, I'd to remind OP once again to show us this "new research" that has disproven the Qur'anic claim of a perfectly preserved Qur'an >>23527299

>>23529270
The proof is Al-Qur'an itself.

The quran is organized by chapter length, not by chronological order.
When they gathered up the old qurans to burn them mohammad's son protested so they killed him.
Women were not required to cover up until after mohammad died, starting with his wives.
mohammad claimed every other holy book mentions him but every copy was edited so he isn't in it.

>>23530452
So you have no sources, you just picked 16
Why don't you do us all a favor and stop posting so the adults can continue the conversation without your trash clogging up the thread?

>>23530497
>When they gathered up the old qurans to burn them mohammad's son protested so they killed him.
>Women were not required to cover up until after mohammad died, starting with his wives.
Both these are not true according to the classical narrative. If you object to it, then cite your sources.

>mohammad claimed every other holy book mentions him but every copy was edited so he isn't in it.
This is also not true. The Qur'an itself says, "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and Gospel". Meaning the Prophet is still mentioned in there, particularly in Daniel, Isaiah, Matthew and John among others

>>23527641
>>23527687
>if you don't love muslims, you're jewish!
Is this the current state of the right wing?

>>23530538
Its the current state of Muslims larping as white right wingers

>>23530538
Nah, the stuff going down in Israel has people panicking because a lot of people don't like jews now, so they are attempting to paint everyone who doesn't as liking the muslims.
You can not like both and think it isn't the problem of a christian nation.
The jews killed christ and his blood is upon them and their children.
Jesus is the son of God and rose from the dead, he is not just a prophet.

>>23527640
>I'm not defending Islam necessarily, but this shit isn't any more or less retarded than the Gospels, or the Torah.
You didn't even read a single sentence out of any of those, did you?

>>23530538
You can hate Islam without hating the people, retarded cunt.
Not all Muslims are radical Salafists, dumb faggot.
Also, Islam is dying out in places of Iran.
However, I do not want Christcuckery to spread either and support executing their missionaries.
I support Buddhism's spread.
Also, you Christcucks are massive sanctimonious hypocrites no better than Mudslimes. I hate all of Abrahamism.

I'm fine with Advaita Hinduism too.*

Honestly I wonder how people would view Islam if not for the hijab and the age of Aisha at marriage. Those 2 things comprise like 90% of objections to it, not even the theology. It's purely the social aspects.

>>23530898
People don't hate islam, they hate muslims.
The shitty acts of muslims make people look for what could have caused it, and ending up to their one religious book is only logical.

Had it not been for Aisha' s age and Hijab, people would still find 10 other things to hate on Islam (rightly so) if the Muslims kept doing what they day (be vermins in every society, kill people in the name of God)

>>23530924
What do you think of people of MENA who denounce Islam?
I agree with your criticism of Islam, but I do not like Nicene Christianity one bit. I admit that some Gnostic schools of Christianity and British Unitarianism are better.
I think it would be better for Muslims to just convert into Unitarianism if they wish to remain theistic in the West.

>>23527641
Wrong, the gulf is not and will never be innocent

>>23530898
>I wonder how people would view Islam if not for the fact that its founder was a pedophile
Most people aren't really interested in an ethical or spiritual system devised by such a creep.
The only reason it reached critical mass is because its adherents were bloodthirsty incels that slaughtered anyone who told them they were dumb.

>>23528176
>final revelation to all of mankind
>mo being autistic
what did they mean by this?

>>23528643
soulless

>>23527299
100 replies later and still no actual "new research" which has disproven the Qur'an to be perfectly preserved.

Is this enough to say OP is a liar or at least he doesn't know what he's talking about?

>>23530326
They only did so recently.
>The Prophet entered upon (had sexual intercourse with) `Aa’ishah when she was 10 years old, and that one doesn’t enter (upon) a jaariyah (girl) until she became a woman."
Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol.7, pg. 388, hadeeth # 12, Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 6, ch. 91, pg. 251, hadeeth # 493 & Al-Aamilee, Wasaa’il Al-Sheeah, vol. 1, ch. 4, pg. 44, hadeeth # 75
>She [Aisha] was married a year after the migration, and she was nine years at that time
Aayan al-Shia, Vol. 1, p. 313
>Ayatullah Ali Dawani said Fatima Zahra (a.s) was only nine at the time of marriage. It must be remembered here that Hijaz is one of the warm climatic zones where girls gain puberty rather early. But it is said that principally, Zahra’s development was rather extraordinary and she looked eighteen when she was nine.
Azwaj al-Nabi wa-Banatuh, p. 40

>>23530497
>mohammad's son
Really???

>>23531410
All of you are acting like the same situations and maturity was the same for centuries. If you were able to track down your ancestors, I guarantee you would find multiple instances of adults marrying "minors". Presentism at its finest, just look at some European kings and see how old their brides where

>>23531466
I like how you've suddenly turned into a moral relativist

>>23531468
not him, but people back then realized they could not stop teenage pregnancies (before abortion) and so just allowed young marriages

>>23531466
I have no problem criticizing my ancestors. If anything, we should go through their bad values and destroy in very much the same way a certain man went into a building and smashed a bunch of idols.

>>23530924
Wow it's almost like this cuts both ways and Muslims hate Christians and Jews because they keep bombing the shit out of them. Almost like humans are fucking retarded.

>>23527641
Ya, can't be just a normal White person seeing his formerly nice city devolving into a filthy, crime-ridden 3rd word hellhole as a direct result of masse immigration from these places, seeing that the people coming over are fundamentally not the same as his people, despite the endless propaganda efforts gaslighting the population. Dipshit.

>>23530452
>Wiki sucks but is good as intro if you use sources.
You really think the biased editors of Wikipedia are going to use reliable sources to promote their propaganda and talking points?

>>23531686
Why aren't Japanese immigrants going around raping and murdering children and decapitating people? Or Germans, Vietnamese, even Native Americans (although they are more violent than the other two), etc. etc.

Idiotic argument, you are ill-informed and making excuses for the constant abuse that Europeans have to put up with on account of browns/blacks being generally unfit for higher standards of civilization. The races are fundamentally not the same. Take a look at crime stats from Europe, you simpleton. Probably more than half of the countries these people come from never even had Zionist wars take place in them.

Either way, you're just making the case for why we desperately need the vast majority of these people deported.

>>23531727
>promote their propaganda and talking points
>muh islamophobia
For all the le ebic and based masculinity Muslims like to posture with, they sure love to hide behind secular liberal talking points. Amazing how they vote for the parties that promote the trannyism and faggotry that they're supposedly against, simply for more gibs and to bring in more of their dysgenic kin. Can't wait until all of you are deported

>>23531466
They didn't consummate marriages with 9 year olds.

>>23531760
They're either intentionally two-faced or just dumb. Who cares? There's way too many of them here and we have enough problems as it is without them groping 12 year olds on their way home from school or chimping out on a stabbing spree every other day. These people have no sense of responsibility either. See how they try to make it sound like it's our fault that people in their community are savage animals. That said, I don't think it's Islam that's the problem, since these monkeys going around raping people would do it with or without Islam. Islam really holds them back, if anything.

>>23531771
>These people have no sense of responsibility either
They'll always run the "a few bad apples" argument. Duplicitous slime.
>Islam really holds them back, if anything
It exacerbates it. Arab Christians don't chimp out like Muslims

>>23531745
Agreed. These fuckers need to be deported from every European country. The case for doing so is less strong for the Americas, unfortunately.

>>23527299
another day , another westoid English only speaking mutt ; denouncing and criticizing quran using the same orientalist curriculum unfit bull shit

>>23527299
where's the "new research" op? did you think i forgot?

>>23531717
>>23531745
>>23532060
You morons do not see my point. What is the ancestral component causing this? Have you played with G25 calculators?

Not all Middle Easterners are racially the same.

Is it Natufian, Levant Neolithic, or etc. correlating to it? Or is it simply following Islam? Plenty of people of MENA descent do abandon Islam after being more educated. Islam cannot survive things like learning about evolution, astronomy, and so on. It seems you can't make up your minds whether it's purely a racial or religious thing.

I don't think it's possible to be racial because Chechens are some of the most violent of all Muslims, and they do not cluster near Arabs at all. Chechens are very frightening people who also give problems to Russia.

If you're going to make it racial, then you should speak with more specificity. What racial component(s) are to blame? Or is it due to inbreeding? You can determine inbreeding with GEDMatch alone fyi.

>>23527299
>reading a text meant to be chanted in Arabic
retard

>>23534002
>making a religion out of a kara boga chant
retard

>>23533837
>Not all Middle Easterners are racially the same.
So? it doesn't have to be necessarily racial, if you filter out blacks and browns (of any race) the issue would go away overnight. There's a crisis of non-White violence and welfare tourism from the 3rd world. Combing through genes to determine which ones are less likely to gangrape a child or brick an old person for fun is not our problem.
>I don't think it's possible to be racial because Chechens are some of the most violent of all Muslims
They're mongrel bastards basically from the 3rd world as well, who gives a shit? These people don't belong in Europe, we tried it and the results were catastrophic. End of.

>>23534085
You're most likely a FED trying to incite violence. No one sincere can truly lack this much self-awareness.
>Combing through genes to determine which ones are less likely to gangrape a child or brick an old person for fun is not our problem.
It's not hard. We have a lot of genetic and historical data now.
>They're mongrel bastards basically from the 3rd world as well, who gives a shit?
They're "mongrel bastards" with a high frequency of blue eyes and blonde hair and little to no MENA ancestry.
>These people don't belong in Europe, we tried it and the results were catastrophic.
Things were not *this bad* before the Migrant Crisis. Before the Migrant Crisis, there seemed to be some degree of filtering and screening.
Obviously, opening your borders, to any country, especially during a time of war where radicals openly admit to intermingling with the people, is not a wise idea.

If you're not going to think meticulously, then you're not better than them, really. You're just inviting violence with no nuance involved. You also ignore the reality of class. You're a massive hypocrite.

Genetically, there are differences between a Spaniard and Anglos. I'm not going to blame Spaniards for what Anglos did.

For example, if any country opened their borders to white criminals in jails, then they would experience similar problems.

One can be anti mass migration without pushing for a retarded race war whilst being more nuanced in proposing solutions.

>>23534187
>For example, if any country opened their borders to white criminals in jails, then they would experience similar problems.
True, but certain non-Europeans have repeatedly been shown to have rates of violent and sexual offending well beyond what would be expected from their share of the population. Moreover, if we have our own problems, why import others for so little benefit?

>>23530466
>and haven't actually shown any new research

Are you special?

>>23534536
where's the NEW research? The Sana'a palinpsest was discovered in 1981 and the lower text was analyzed in 2012 and Quranic variants outside the Uthmanic rasm have been known for 1400 years by Islamic scholars. None of this is new and none of this proves that the Qur'an isn't "perfectly preserved". So where's this "new research" that OP has apparently reD?

>>23534555
>reD
read

>>23527299
>I've been doing a reading of the religious texts of each religion as of lately and I can say 100% This is the worst shit I've ever read
On the other hand what is the best one you've read?

>>23527299
True or not, the fact that Mohammad's family and followers were murdering each other over who was to the rightful heir of Islam after his death, not to mention the later (Fateh Al Islam) where they killed everything that wasn't ready to call Mohammad daddy is why their book and faith will always be a stack of toilet paper. The retarded savagery of crusades and Inquisition pale in comparison to the Islamic conquest and later work. Arabesques are based though.

>>23534187
>Writing all this to cope with the fact that you're part of an immigrant group full of violent psychopaths
Kek. Absolutely delusional and retarded. Even before the migrant crisis you dumbfucks were still massively over-represented in crime, you schizophrenic fucking halfwit. Write all you want, you're getting sent back, White people are sick of garbage like you ruining their cities and abusing them while you play the victim or try to rationalize it so you can get more welfare for your dirty shitlets.
>Spaniards and Anglos
You are an idiot. That has nothing to do with the point. Spaniards are more violent on account of their mongrelization of course, but nowhere near the level of 3rd world foreign trash you're defending.

File: GBq2nAhW0AAbfOO.jpg (300 KB, 1850x2048)

300 KB JPG

>>23534187
>want to masse deport foreign simians to protect your nation
>OY VEY ITS A VIOLENT RACE WAR
Shut your stupid fat mouth. There's only one side committing violence, and it's not the White hosts. You are defending criminals and murderers, slandering the people sticking up for their victims. You are garbage.

File: IMG_20240302_204337_231.jpg (129 KB, 959x960)

129 KB JPG

>>23527299
>>23534536
30 hours have ellapsed since OP made this thread, and he has yet to provide this revolutionary "new research" that apparently disproves the Qur'an as perfectly preserved. Did OP step on an IED on Gaza?

>>23534747
Correction: 54 hours

>>23534747
a turd can be preserved
are you saying the koran is a turd?

>>23534760
where's the "new research" op?

>>23534739
To preface, I do not condone any of that anons points. But I have to ask, did history begin in the 1980s? Every race has a history of frankly absurd violence. It's just that right now, only certain races are displaying this tendency.

Are we seriously just going to pretend white europeans are going to remain this docile forever?

>>23534636
The talmud

>>23534775
Whites historically used violence to resolve conflict. Whites are by nature more compassionate, trusting, altruistic, empathetic, etc.. The inferior darker races take advantage of them for it, but most Whites can't even imagine that this would be so.

The idea that the "races" are equal is nothing short of farcical, and we can see how dangerous it is for normal people who believe these lies of equality, just look at the epidemic of black and brown violence in Western nations.

>>23534788
I did not say the races are equal. What I will say is that you're intentionally downplaying white beligerance.

>blacks are worse than whites
sure
>whites are saints who dindu nuffin wrong
unironically kill yourself nigger

File: bear_terri_shaddick.jpg (25 KB, 544x420)

25 KB JPG

>race war itt before op substantializing his bs claim

>>23527666
Arabs, Afghans, etc were violent and zealous long before colonialism.

>>23534788
Go back and fester on /pol/. Dunce

>>23527299
rate the religious books you have read anon

>>23529496

>Answer my questions directly or renounce your faith if you're so ashamed of your beliefs.

yeah sure thing brah.

>Did Mohammed rape a 9 year old?

I believe he may or may not have have married Aisha daughter of abu bakr at a young age, perhaps 9, perhaps older. The important part of this narration is to highlight that she had begun menstruation within typical parameters when there was intimacy. not numerical age.

I believe they had a loving marriage and I believe after her husband died she fiercely defended his tradition, and then even erroneously raised an army and went to war to defend his tradition.

I contest your use of the word "rape". it may be what's called statutory rape in this day and age, but to apply today's laws to desert people in 600ad is anachonristic and shows a lack of mental ability on your part. it's like calling your great grandfather a bigot because he would oppose the sex change operation you've definitely had, tranny.

I also contest you referring to Aisha as "a 9 year old", like she;s some random 9 year old. She has done more for her husband and his legacy than any roastie you may or may not end up marrying and getting divorce raped by.

> If yes, why do you follow him?

You have to explain to me why sex-having makes someone unworthy of telling the truth or being "right". it seems very arbitrary- much like the 18 years necessary for everyone throughout time and place to have lived before having sex (or otherwise have it falsely claimed that you were raped.)

> If no, why do you think 9 year old kids can consent?

Again, you're applying our understanding of a 9 year old in our modern industrialised capitalist society to a 9 year old id medievil arabia. Not the same thing.

it's why I believe a 9 year old can't consent to getting a tattoo in the western world, but I don't really think it's morally wrong for some village girl in the ass end of libya to get a tribal tattoo on her face. it's just very different cultures, settings and societies.

with that said, I don't believe girls in modern industrial society's should get married at 9 because there are many opportunities available to them which could bring them material and social benefits/security, such as a modest education, craft and artistic skills etc. likewise, in a pre-modern nomadic or agrarian society- early marriage could and would provide social benefits and security- especially if there's no option for schooling, educations etc.

>>23535222
>I believe he may or may not have have married Aisha daughter of abu bakr at a young age, perhaps 9, perhaps older.
He married her when she was 6.
>I believe they had a loving marriage
He was a bigamist, that's not love.
>I contest your use of the word "rape".
>I also contest you referring to Aisha as "a 9 year old"
She was 9 when he raped her.

File: 1704041170253.jpg (68 KB, 659x637)

68 KB JPG

>>23529496
Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him did marry and have sex with Aisha when she was nine.
What's there to be ashamed of?
Why would i be ashamed of what Allah swt says is moral?
It's your civilisation that is currently pretending that men can be women and vice versa.
Your worthless evershifting moral standards mean nothing to me.

>>23535235
>y-you're society is full of degenerates therefore it's okay to rape kids
Classic Muslim pedophile arguments.

>>23535234

>He was a bigamist, that's not love.

you do realise that it is possible for a man to authentically love more than one woman, right? or wait, lket me get this right...only gay man sex is "love". please inform me, i can't keep up with your pozzed culture these days and it's definitions (or lack thereof).

the difference between Islam and your liberal slave morality is that islam acknowledges man's nature and allow it flourish through polygamy and also restricts it (as to stop it destroying society) through limiting the amount of marriages a man can have. You, on the other hand, would prefer to pretend that bigamy, extramarital relations etc. are devoid of love - which is the most inhuman and unrealistic take on the situation.

nietzche was right about you untermensche's.


>He married her when she was 6.

Yeah but the same sources that say this claimed they had a great marriage with lots of playing, teasing, intimacy and romance. The modern western man seethes at this because he can only fuck entitled whores who would accuse him of rape anytime it was to her benefit to do so.

compare that to Aisha, who raised an army against someone whom she believed betrayed her husband's tradition.

you can claim that they weren't in love and that she was raped all you want, but it would be better for you to engage with my argument regarding your anachronism and lack of consistency with engagement of the sources you draw from.

>>23535289
Why do you type like a retard?

>>23535294

because he's talking to one

>>23534514
>non-European
Again with lumping all non-Europeans together.
>>23534722
>you're part of an immigrant group full of violent psychopaths
I am not, you disgusting Jew.
If you're not even going to do basic research, then everything you're saying can be dismissed.
>Spaniards are more violent on account of their mongrelization of course
Spaniards are not Mongrelized. They're literally the closest descendants of Ancient Romans as new studies show.
>>23534739
I've already agreed there's a problem with Afghans, but you could break it up when more.
Are the Afghans Pashtuns or Tajiks? Pashtuns are, indeed, very violent. Most Tajiks I encounter are decent people.
Also, Hazara are literal Mongols fyi and closer to East Asians.

Removing everything from context means you can justify anything.

>>23534788
>inferior darker races
Again, if it had anything to do with being dark, then the Chechens and other would not be savage.
You are not helping your cause by being a belligerent moron.
Also, if you are who I think you are, you have been caught sharing fake stats multiple times.

Also, what about Armenians? They are genetically nearly identical to their neighboring races, yet they do not give much problems outside of Russia. They don't give problems to Western Europe or USA.

You are most likely a Jew trying to make the West fall into Civil War.

>>23534775
>only certain races are displaying this tendency
And what are those races is what I'm asking? I'm asking for a LIST of those races.
You're as low IQ as all Arabs who see all European ethnicities as the same. Even among Europeans one can argue there are like 2-4 races.

>>23534794
He's most likely a FED, glowie, or Jew. If you think there isn't a push to radicalize the Far Right even further, then you're foolish. It's not just the dumb pro open borders leftists they prop up but the boorish far right. They want to cause even *more* civil unrest by encouraging a lack of nuance and meticulousness that leads to bloody civil war. They want this so society is restructured during the Great Reset. Society will be restructured for greater automation and Industry 4.0 where "you will own nothing and be happy."

The problem is people are panicking, becoming ideologues, and not taking a step back to meticulously analyze the causes and conditions that led to this mess.

In my view, modernity and industrialization were failures as a whole and scapegoating entire swathes of races is ill-advisable. Moreover, lumping up these disparate races is not good either. Judging an entire race based on deliberately accepting their criminals is the most hypocritical thing anyone can engage in.

Imagine if a country were to deliberately open its borders to Europe's criminals, and statistically, there were more crimes from x and z criminals but y (who came from upper class background before) is lumped in with them too. Anyways, all of European cultural legacy is demonized and vilified then with no attention given to context, the ethnic differences, and so on. Y is completely dismissed or little care is given to potentially sacrificing them. Do you know who else is obsessed with scapegoating and sacrificing? Jews.
Do you realize how disingenuous and evil this is? In fact, you're most likely either a Jew/CIA/FED asset or a low class skinhead faggot.
4chan, itself, is not organic (just like Reddit). People tend to engage in "group think". They do not care about truth, they do not care about being meticulous in analysis and so on. It was a mistake you ever learned to read or write. Reading and writing should have remained a privilege to the upper classes. The world was more stable when the vast majority of mankind was illiterate.
If you're not going to analyze the full complexity and then give a thorough outline of a plan forward, then you're a part of the problem.
In fact, it becomes more insidious than even what I'm saying: the whole thing can be deemed as social engineering, including the manufacturing of the problems. Even most of the people arguing in this thread, excluding me, could be seen as agents who are engaging in theatrics in order to polarize and radicalize people further.
The "devil is in the details" and none of you sycophants ever look into the details with any thoroughness or sincerity.
You test my patience and drive me on the edge especially because you are shitting up the WHOLE Internet. The Internet was a mistake as a whole, but it is destroying all forms of genuine interpersonal relations.
You savages are no better than the low IQ trannies and far left open border faggots on TikTok, Reddit, and other places. Both of you are engineered and manipulated. You don't care about being puppeteered so long as you can gloat about superiority.
None of you sound human, organic, or anything either. You all sound completely mechanized and could be bots even.

You faggots are no different than savage Jihadis seeking to impose Sharia wherever they go. Just like them you do not invite "OPEN COURTEOUS DIALOGUE". Just like Jews, you're more concerned with scapegoating and sacrificing rather than honest and truthful analysis of the multitudinous causes and conditions that have led to such a disastrous state of affairs on multiple levels. It's just endless vitriol with you people.

You are just as dumb as trannies screaming, "I am a woman," and shutting down all dialogue. You just scream, "Shitskin, shitskin!" shutting down all dialogue and open discussion. Just like the commies you want to censor and push your views and shut down any viable criticism.

Why are you even here if that's what you want to do? Go to Stormfront or any other forum devoted to idpol. Why shit up practically all social media with your one-sided idpol assessments?

Moreover, if you're actually real people, which I doubt, you most likely have no political clout. You are also completely disconnected from the economic reality and whatever WEF or those people have planned. Actually *do* something besides shifting up all online discourse.

You act like you're "underdogs", that the mainstream is completely against you. It's not. The mainstream supports *both* the far left and far right but never any nuanced impartial evaluation (especially if it's anti-modernist).

I know what you faggots will do. You'll call me a leftist, which I am not. For example, I agree human beings were meant to live in small-scale homogenous societies in connection with the land. What Aarvoll is doing with his commune makes sense. He bought land and then selected for people of Euro descent to live there. That is fine and not destabilizing -- it does not lead to civil unrest. Aarvoll also does not vilify entire races while preferring the company of his own, which is completely fine.

None of you "people" give a shit about arriving at the truth in a level-headed honest manner. It also paradoxically works against your long-term ethnic self-interests since it will increase schadenfreude in others over time.

Stop shitting up every thread with your race baiting bs. Also, I dislike Islam too for philosophical reasons. Doesn't mean I'm going to join you in race bashing pretty much all non-Euro Caucasoids. Jesus was a "shitskin" too after all and your ancestors followed him for over 1000 years.

tl;dr version:

The left creates the problems and the right exacerbates them.

Yep, I think that's a wrap for this tread.

>>23536071
Correct. The best summary is that the "the left creates the problems and the right exacerbates them, and Islam and all of Abrahamism are false traditions."

That wasn't my takeaway, personally. But yeah, skimming this entire thread was like watching a headless cockfight; no concessions were made. I understand the sentiment.

I think I'm gonna go consummate my 9 year old wife now. see you niggas later

File: b06922608ca04a4dfbbab38db(...).jpg (131 KB, 600x853)

131 KB JPG

>marmaduke translation

>>23535289
>compare that to Aisha, who raised an army against someone whom she believed betrayed her husband's tradition.
I thought going against Ali was bad?

>>23535993
ok, cool

islam is still lame though, and that is legitimately all that matters

>>23535960
>You test my patience
oh no, you might get *mad* at us

please anon, i beg your forgiveness

>>23536332
I'm not Muslim.

Civilization does not always develop the way we like. I would have preferred Greco-Bactrian-Buddhism to spread instead of Islam, Mazdaeism, Christianity, or Judaism.

>>23529717
do research before your post tards, the different versions are either due to accent or dialect for readers = same content in all of them in ARABIC, the others are different interpolations for when translating from arabic to a different language the arabic version of quran is one in the whole world

>>23527352
Why is this an ownage of any sort? The Quran having stories of Jesus or Isa (AS) isn't the damning statement you think it is.

>>23527299
Yeah its worse than TKAM and Anne Franks Diary. Embarrassing desu

File: IMG_20231109_083947_526.jpg (128 KB, 1039x720)

128 KB JPG

>>23527299
>(which new research has proven to be false)
Where's the new research, OP? It's been four days. Don't tell me you were just lying. I thought "without lies, Islam dies"...

>>23535878
Nafris, nogs (West African and Zoomalian), Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Balochis, Punjabis, Bengalis, Pakhtuns, Roma, Lithuanians, Romanians, Chechens.

>>23536917
The existence of variant readings of the Koran, some changing the meaning quite notably, has been well known for ages. Any argument that they are dialectical or for some reason Allah would allow these versions is a cope.

>>23530461
>Just compare these variants to Biblical variants, which are inexcusable
Nice bluff, stupid slime monkey. Who exactly do you think you're going to fool? Ridiculous.

>>23530450
>And the book of Enoch was quoted in the Bible. So what?
You fucking buffoon. The difference is that the book of Enoch is not a ridiculous text of obvious apocrypha. A ridiculous text, of obvious apocrypha, made it into the Quran. Along with many many other kinds sloppiness, like inheritance not adding up to 100%, and mistaking Virgin Mary for Mose's sister. RIDICULOUS.
Oh and there's that verse that tells people not to bother the poor shy prophet (because Le Allah is not shy of the truth! oh nononono! how beautiful, how poetic!)
Just how credulous are you people? Go back to the desert, and stop using the (Western made) internet.

File: 1719632888102777.png (13 KB, 988x1096)

13 KB PNG

>>23535289
it doesnt matter the least what the supposed errors of the west are so far. doesnt take away the fact that mhmd fucked a nine year old. thats just mental illness and perversion from healthy life force, which is what nietzsche would condemn - as much as an amoralist that nietzsche was, which he would condemn the modern world now, lets face it he wouldnt see any ascending healthy life affirming essence in the act of fucking a nine year old. theres just no sense in it.

the hadiths are mostly bunk, and i mean that with the 'sahih' too. the spoiler is that pedo thing was a test, a psyop, made up by anonymous people to see how far you can go into being depraved. if u accept mhmd fucked a year old then u fail the test - u forfeit your right in being a proper human because u accept an insane, unhealthy perversion. its a test to see in loving abraham's god just how much would u fall in depravity, how much would u lose your humanity and higher consciousness.

if u accept that fucking a 9 year old is okay u fail it simple as that. and yes it doesnt matter that aisha had playful moments, the whole hadith tradition had this aspect of totalitarian control, full of psyops and societal engineering. its more logical to see the hundred years of hadith tradition as being controlled by upper echelon people in governments (which change through the centuries of course) than seeing it as 'bukhari was a lone guy that heard these stuffs from various people and he collected it'.

>>23537536
It's poetic that when you hear a Qur'an recitation it sounds like crude parody of Byzantine chant

>>23537536
>The difference is that the book of Enoch is not a ridiculous text of obvious apocrypha
The other thing to note is that the Book of Enoch is deeply messianic which is why it's worth citing and as you say, is not apocrypha. The New Testament seeks to actually demonstrate continuity with the Old. The Qur'an just cites random stories for no deeper theological reasons and still manages to mess them up

>>23527358
Every religion is about material conditions.

>>23537856
>The Qur'an just cites random stories for no deeper theological reasons and still manages to mess them up
No, some of them have are changed with very specific reasons in mind. If you can’t see what benefit changing prophets from flawed men struggling through life to sunless perfect role models would have for Mohammad himself, the. You’re not thinking about it enough.

>>23527634
>You're a Jew trying to increase anti-Iranian sentiment. Most younger Iranians are not religious.
He didnt even imply that you fucking negroid. Why are low iq antisemites even here

>>23527299
You're supposed to read this in original Arabic. People loving it appreciate the beauty of the Hadsch, not the content.

>>23527352
With all the Muslim seething this post gets, I have to assume it's accurate.

>>23527299
>this garbage has a fucking talking baby in it, what difference does it make if this book has been perfectely perseved and when you open it up it has talking babies?
lmao OP too retarded to identify, let alone understand metaphors. This board is just lmao

>>23537975
Is it just OP? Looks to me like another Muslim in this thread takes it literally as well:
>>23527427

>>23527299
Was shitting on Islam normal pre 9/11? How much of this is just geopolitical resentment of having the slave-castes of the Arab world freely imported into the West and allowed to run amuck?

>>23538119
Islam was more contained to the Middle East and parts of Africa back then. Now it's a virus spreading it's pedo-murder ideology to Europe and America and the civilized world but acting like SJW victims when you point out their pedo religion literally commands killing infidels and committing Jihad (atrocities in the name of Allah, car bombings, suicide bombings, killing a bunch of people at a cafe for not wearing burkas, etc) as the greatest way to earn a reward in heaven, or that their followers are child rapists and murderers. Even in Afgayistan, they rape little boys and even claim it's not gay because it's not love. It's the most ass-backwards hedonist bullshit "religion" in the world.

>>23538119
Depends on how far back you go. Before the 18th century, it was pretty common. Once they stopped being a threat to Europe, that by and large went away until that changed. Things can change quickly with things like this. In the 80s Americans had a lot of sympathy for Muslims, and that obviously changed over the next few decades.

File: IMG_20231210_172442_387.jpg (84 KB, 597x589)

84 KB JPG

>>23537510
>The existence of variant readings of the Koran
multimodal nature of the Qur'an has been known since the time of the companions

>changing the meaning quite notably
Not really, we can take a look at specific examples. all of them are identical or at least reconcilable. This is not the case with the gospel narrative viarants for example

>>23537536
>Nice bluff, stupid slime monkey. Who exactly do you think you're going to fool? Ridiculous
Low iq non-response

>the book of Enoch is not a ridiculous text
have you even read the book of Enoch?

>obvious apocrypha
why is it obvious apochrypha? what makes it so? because there's a "talking baby"? canonical gospels have jesus walking on water and a virgin birth for god's sake. Do Christians not believe in miracles any more.

John 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

According to John, it is well within plausibility, even in the Christian understanding, that the contents of the infancy gospel contain authentic stories of Jesus.

So again, since these are just recycled arguments, where is the "new research?"

>>23538027
That was to be expected, but I did not read any other replies.

>>23538206
Okay, so how am I supposed to interpret it?

File: Screenshot_2024-06-30-01-(...).jpg (261 KB, 999x856)

261 KB JPG

>>23538205
>>23537536
>>23537510

On the topic of textual variants, one look at the wikipedia page for "Textual variants in the New Testament" proves my point. But also, within the New Testament, each gospel narrative contradict each other in specific events.

Comparing this with the Qur'an, we know that there were many textual variants among the companions and that they received it all from the Prophet who said "The Qur'an was revealed in seven modes". What 'Uthman did was form a committee to create a critical and definitive edition of the Qur'an that would be able to accomodate a good sum of these different recitations through its bare bones rasm, and would form the known qiraat today.

It is worth pointing out that the composition and standardization of the Qur'an is well documented and the NT's composition is highly ambiguous and up to interpretation

cont.

>>23538484
Gordon Fee's thesis, The significance of P66 and P75 for methodology in NT textual criticism, has a great case study of the nature of the ommissions NT scribes partook in with P66 in particular. That the scribe would often change the text to make it "easier" to read.

And on the topic of "new research", in 2014(still not new enough), Daniel Brubaker attempted to do something similar to various early Qur'an manuscripts in his thesis, Intentional Changes in Qur'an Manuscripts. The reason this is forgotten today is because his findings have mostly been found to be insignificant and not true to the title of his thesis.

A group of non-scholars even made a refutation of Brubaker titled The Insignificance of "Corrections in Early Qur`ān Manuscripts" that goes over many examples of these "additions" to be merely corrections of scribal error by comparing them with numerous earlier manuscripts

>>23538501
Further comparing the Qur'an and Gospels. The Qur'an does not fit with any literary genre of its time and exists as a written anomaly. The Gospels, on the other hand, have long been understood to be from the genre of Greek novels or biography, in other words, fiction, which lends credence to mythicists.

But comparing Matthew and Luke, there seems to be a common source used for many sayings of Jesus within them. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas and P.Oxy.5575(which has material common to all three of them), further indicates the existence of earlier Christian literature called "sayings gospels" which were similar to hadith.

In Eusebius' history, he quotes Papias saying "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not in order, of all the things said and done by the Lord" and "Matthew collected the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could". Most scholars don't believe these refer to the gospels we know today.

File: quran 75_17.jpg (418 KB, 1860x900)

418 KB JPG

>>23538484
>>23538501
Why are these "seven modes" NOT mentioned in the quran?
verse 75:17
states that it is upon allah to COLLECT and EXPLAIN the koran.
>does not fit with any literary genre of its time
it is literally a collection of plagiarized stories, and it is absolutely a product of 7th century illiterate people with extremely limited knowledge of the previous scriptures.
It's essentially "grandpa's wisdom".

>>23538484
>What 'Uthman did was form a committee to create a critical and definitive edition of the Qur'an
I forgot to mention that 'Uthman also burned all other written copies that didn't fit his critical edition. This annoyed some of the companions, for example Ibn Mas'ud, if I'm not mistaken, because he now had to learn the Qur'an through another person(Zayd ibn Thabit) when he had learned his recitation directly from the Prophet before.

There was no recorded instance where any companion objected to the critical text itself

>>23538532
>a product of 7th century illiterate people
You're probably not a scholar of 7th century Arab literature. The Qur'an's author is very clearly not illiterate if you actually read the text. It contains multi lingual puns, palindromes that only make sense if they were writren, references to Talmudic literature, Biblical and apochryphal literature, and regularly portrays itself as correcting them

>It's essentially "grandpa's wisdom".
Not an accurate or well read assessment

>Why are these "seven modes" NOT mentioned in the quran?
They're mentioned in the hadith

>>23538533
why aren't all of these shenanigans mentioned in the koran?
by whose authority was Ubbay ibn Kaab and Abdullah ibn Masud excluded from the committee that compiled this "critical edition" [LOL!] of the koran? Uthman appointed in their place three of his relatives that were toddlers when muhammad started preaching his BS. He then placed Zaid as a chief "editor" to oversee the project.
This is all a bunch of shit.
>>23538540
>It contains multi lingual puns, palindromes that only make sense if they were writren, references to Talmudic literature, Biblical and apochryphal literature,

That's what I said. The koran plagiarizes other texts, and does a very bad job at it.
Every story the koran plagiarizes is INFERIOR to the original. The wording is childish, the details and information are kept to a minimum, and the writers of the koran often resort to adding irrelevant information that serve no purpose other than to confuse the reader, and at the same time give the muslim apologist the ability to build strawman arguments.
The story of the SEVEN SLEEPERS is probably the most characteristic, as it combines ALL these TROPES.

>>23538540
>They're mentioned in the hadith
The koran has over 50 verses where its own language and clarity is mentioned - yet there is no mention that it was revealed in seven modes/letters of recitation.
Explain this if you can.
[Hint: You can't]

>>23528025
nta
Your languages have not been preserved in the same way, therefore your interpretations will be incorrect. I suspect maybe a few Imams have gone through enough past research to glean close to the truth of the original Quran.
I brought this possibility to a Muslim friend and he told me he had never considered it.

>>23538558
>This is all a bunch of shit
Why?

Uthman was the Caliph and as far as we know, there wasn't any dissent to the standardization of the Qur'an besides what I mentioned. If these people who lived during the 7th century were okay with it and had the most stake in the religion, why aren't you?

>The koran plagiarizes other texts
assumption

>INFERIOR
>childish
subjective claim

>details and information are kept to a minimum
Obivously the purpose of the Qur'an isn't to give factual information about Prophets or Biblical stories. Whenever the Qur'an mentions a story, it is making a point. Like I said, this is clear for anyone who sincerely reads the Qur'an

>irrelevant information that serve no purpose other than to confuse the reader
sounds like you were just filtered

>>23538563
>Your languages have not been preserved in the same way
what do you mean?

>>23538572
>assumption
That's a fact. You just admitted it a few posts earlier. Explain the story of the "Sleepers" in the koran - after you have compared it to the original story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus as it was told in the Orthodox Tradition.

>>23538560
>Explain this if you can
Probably because the ahruf and thus the Qiraat don't actually matter that much

>>23538581
>That's a fact
It's not really. My claim is that the Qur'an is responding to prevalent tales and myths of the time, confirming and denying their details and providing a spiritual lesson through them, as well as probably indicating towards future events through prophecy. This is much more complicated than just "plagiarizing" which is an over simplification

>>23538572
> Obivously the purpose of the Qur'an isn't to give factual information about Prophets or Biblical stories.
Muslims do claim that the Quran exists to correct false information about prophets that had previously been spread, so it seem that it is at least part one of its purposes.

>>23538226
By studying the Qur'aan you will find the appropriate interpretation. Enlightenment doesn't work by someone just telling you
>this part means this, that part means that
This is why all priests/imams/rabbis are all frauds if they make you believe only their interpretation is correct. You will have to go all the way and do it yourself.

>>23538593
It corrects details that are important to the message of Islam(ex. Ishmael not actually being deserted by God and Jesus being saved) and to indicate God's knowledge.

The basic assumption of Muslim scholars was that if it wasn't mentioned or elaborated in the Qur'an, it probably wasn't the point of the Qur'an. For example, the Qur'an leaves ambiguous the son which was to be sacrificed by Abraham as a sort of lesson that a Father(hint) wouldn't discriminate between his sons on account of just the circumstance of their birth

>>23538592
>the Qur'an is responding to prevalent tales and myths of the time
You are obviously a LARPfag that knows nothing about the koran. The koran clearly states several times that there are no old stories or myths within it [ex.
Verse (6:25)]. This contradicts the idea that the koran "responds" to these stories by incorporating heavily redacted versions of them.
Once more: Address the story of the "Sleepers". Why is this story in the koran?

>>23538606
>It corrects details that are important to the message of Islam

Explain in detail HOW EXACTLY the koran corrects the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.

>>23538615
>it says it doesn't respond to ... so it must be correct
Fallacy. NTA btw

>>23538622
What fallacy? Are you a muslim?

>>23538626
Are you dumb?

This post does not reply to your post.

>>23538615
>there are no old stories or myths within it
This isn't what the verse says. 6:25 reads, "those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples." " which is exactly what you said, that the Qur'an is just "a collection of plagiarized stories"(>>23538532) when it clearly isn't just that

>Address the story of the "Sleepers". Why is this story in the koran?
Only God knows why it is in the Qur'an, but one can speculate. It confirms a story that many muslims would assume is a fake Christian talr if it weren't in the Qur'an. It offers a moral lesson. It contains an instance of relativistic time, indicating the knowledge of God. It offers guidance to Muslims in the future who would be oppressed. I'm not a scholar, so maybe there are better answers elsewhere

>>23538618
NTA. It used to be 8 sleepers; the 7 plus the proconsul's son. Both the Bible and the Qur'aan corrected that to 7.

>>23538636
>talr
tale

>>23538639
Regarding the "Sleepers" story in the koran:
The koran does not provide the number of the sleepers
The koran does not mention the names of the sleepers
The koran does not mention the location/city the event occured
The koran does not mention the time/year the event occured
The koran adds a dog in the story. This was probably added via zoroastrian/Greek myths - since both of them mention guardian dogs in their mythologies.
These are the facts. Explain how the koran CORRECTS the story via the OMMISSION of all the above details. How can you correct something by knowing/mentioning LESS?

>>23538606
To put more clearly, the editors of the Bible made the binding of Isaac about ethnic Jews and their importance, and Paul co-opted the story to be about the abolition of the Law through Jesus' sacrifice, apparently.

But the Qur'an is saying that which son it was doesn't matter. The point of the story of the Binding of Isaac is the faith of Abraham in his Lord and his and his son's willingness to fulfill God's command

>>23538656
As I have said here (>>23538606), when the Qur'an leaves out details, it probably doesn't matter to the message that the Qur'an is trying to portray through the story

>>23538636
>Only God knows why it is in the Qur'an
Seriously, go get fucked. This is the lamest muslim cope.
bila kayf
alahu alam
Eat shit.
>>23538660
A story taking place beyond time and space cannot have a useful message. A story needs to be grounded via a historical context to allow people to ascribe meaning to it.
If told you that a Vogon vollori living in planet Belteges ate a raw trapani and was then punished by five Amantis of the Umounta brigade - WTF can you infer or learn from this event? Who is the good person in the story? Did anyone commit a crime? Who? How many men or women were involved in the story? What's the moral of the story?
This is exactly what the quran does ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!! It's a stupid book for retards.

File: abrahamandhisson.png (69 KB, 860x688)

69 KB PNG

>>23538657
>>23538606
Here's a helpful infographic I made. Just imagine the appropriate wojaks yourself

>>23538685
>A story needs to be grounded via a historical context to allow people to ascribe meaning to it.
Not really. It's sometimes useful to have historical context, but the Qur'an is special in that way, that it intentionally hides details for specific reasons, and it specially annoys people like you for some reason.

Most collection of legends would put in many details and slip up and prove its human defectiveness, the Qur'an is not like that and so skeptics have to grasp at straws

>>23538702
>the Qur'an is special in that way
That's what I said. The koran is a book for "special" people aka retards. Stop drinking camel urine.

>>23527299
>which new research has proven to be false
I'm still waiting for you to show this "new research", OP. I even brought up this fairly recent attempt for you >>23538501

File: FUCKED.jpg (211 KB, 1090x640)

211 KB JPG

>>23538660
>>23538702
Ad Hoc replies.

>>23538903
I've actually long thought about the purpose of the story in Al-Kahf, I have a very esoteric take on it but I'm doubtful of whether it's true or not

>>23529496
>Did Mohammed rape a 9 year old?
>If no, why do you think 9 year old kids can consent?
9 year olds aren't that innocent.

>>23538656
>Jacob of Sarug - as well as Dionysius Telmaharensis after him - still clearly reports eight young men: the son of the proconsul and his seven companions. The book Theodosius de situ terrae sanctae from the early 6th century, like the Islamic version in the Koran, tells of seven men and a dog. In the Christian tradition, the version with seven young men without a dog, as handed down by Gregory of Tours, for example, finally prevailed
Sounds like the Quran does mention 7 sleepers.

>>23527299
You want to read more religious texts that's more messed up than Islam? Go read Thelema texts by Crowley such as the Book of the Law, got a fucking headache reading that shit, wonder if it was cursed for real.

File: Hezbollah.jpg (617 KB, 1458x2048)

617 KB JPG

>>23527299
Talking babies? Really?

>>23539081
The quran throws around several numbers since the people who wrote it where obviously drunk and couldn't remember the correct number - or they couldn't agree among themselves.

" (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth,- doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say thou: "My Lord knoweth best their number; It is but few that know their (real case)." Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers. "
Quran 18:22

>>23539007
you and your cunt prophet muhammad can both eat shit

>>23538915
Ad Hoc reply.

>>23538484
>one look at the wikipedia page for "Textual variants in the New Testament" proves my point
Continuing with the bluff, are we, you stupid fucking mongrel? You are human excrement. You make me hate all muslims. I hope you spend an eternity in hell for this.
The "textual variants" you presented us with are utterly insignificant.
>the only-begotten son
>the only-begotten God
>God [the] only-begotten
Fucking really? Small variants in the text that don't affect doctrine whatsoever? WOW man you are blowing my mind. Doesn't this remind you of the Quran's variants in qira'at? Isn't it EXACTLY the same thing? But you are unable to see that due to your special little ideology. It turns your brains into mush.
In any case the Bible is not the Quran. It's doesn't need to be perfect, or "perfectly preserved". Jesus is the final Revelation, God's Word made Flesh. The word didn't become a fucking book. It became flesh, i.e. a man. Kys.
>It is worth pointing out that the composition and standardization of the Qur'an is well documented
No it is not. They just picked 10 canonical ones because of "consensus". Wow! This is so good! Wow! This proves that the book was perfect all along! Wow!

>>23538205
Your bluff does not merit a response, shitstain.
>have you even read the book of Enoch?
Indeed I have.
>because there's a "talking baby"?
No, it's because, for example, in it, Jesus kills two children who bully him. Clearly you haven't read it, which is why you should promptly kill yourself.
>since these are just recycled arguments,
What? Are you a bot? Is this Islamic Internet Apologetics Version 1.0.0? You are filth.
>where is the "new research?"
I'm not OP, retard.

File: vlad.png (944 KB, 1200x690)

944 KB PNG

>>23539265
muslims love two things above everything else:
camel piss and dishonesty

>>23537902
Are you being sarcastic? The stories of Elijah and David have far more resonance than the wooden caricatures of prophets in the Qur'an. The prophets in the Qur'an just repeat the same things over and over and have no depths. There are no distinguishing features. Even the miracles attributed to them have no deeper theological import beyond being an indication of their office. The Old Testament presents these prophets with flaws, yes, but also with vibrancy and humanity. They speak to the heart far more than anything in Qur'an.
>But [Elijah] himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.
And David says
> For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies.
These prophets also all contribute something unique to the messianic mosaic that the Old Testament paints. Moses' staff budding in the wilderness is a symbol of the Crucifixion, and Daniel's vision of the Son of Man riding on the clouds is a prophecy of the Messiah's Resurrection and everlasting glory.

In any case, Muslims consider Adam a prophet but also say he sinned, so figure that one out.

>>23539467
You misinterpreted what I was saying. What I meant was that Mohammad altered the nature of prophethood in order to make it harder to challenge him. I think it was a very cynical move.

Honestly, Kourosh should have just exterminated (((them))) all so Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all would not exist. Three birds with one seed. If I could travel in time, there the number one event I'd change.

>>23539900
My bad, you’re right. It’s also interesting to note that the Quran emphasises the reception of books as part of the prophetic office. It also makes it out that the only thing prophets spoke about was “monotheism”. Both is these things is what Muhammad wanted to reframe prophethood as, which you observe. Israelite prophethood was far more dynamic and contextual.

>>23539265
>The "textual variants" you presented us with are utterly insignificant
refer to >>23538501. NT scribes edited their own copies to make it easier to read.

Anyone can really just open a critical edition of the Bible like Nestle-Aland or even the Wikipedia page for "Textual Variants in the New Testament" as I've said (>>23538484) and see the textual variants for themselves.

Keep in mind these are the ones we are aware of, from the very few incomplete early manuscripts we have. Entire passages are omitted, chapters are missing, words changed to fit theology, some of the earliest manuscripts have no title like "Kata Matthaion"

Seethe all you like, this doesn't change the fact that Christians for centuries(and even now) didn't care which variant was more authentic, they just picked and choose based on their theology. The very fact that this is the case shows that these variants are significant

>>23539265
>>the only-begotten son
>>the only-begotten God
>>God [the] only-begotten
>Fucking really? Small variants in the text that don't affect doctrine whatsoever?
This is actually significant. Christians to day think "God" and "Son" are equivalent because of their developed Christology, but Christology was not as developed back then. Back then, in the 2nd century, the word "God" and "Son" being equivalent was not given.

The question of which variant us authentic can determine the theological view of the original author

>the only begotten son
This could plausibly be seen as a claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God among many others in the OT for example. This doesn't necessarily imply divinity

>the only-begotten God
This implies that Jesus is the only begotten god(small 'g') among others. If he is "only begotten", this imples the existence of unbegotten gods. This fits with statements of Early Church Fathers and how they viewed Jesus as a lesser god, or as Justin Martyr put it, "another god"

>God [the] only-begotten
This is a more strong wording and would more strongly imply their possibly belief of Jesus as equivalent to capital 'G' God

>>23540260
Of course, the most significant is the inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae. The story is very anti-Law or Pauline in that sense. The fact that the earliest manuscripts we have don't include the story implies that either early Christians included the story into their manuscripts or that early Christian removed the story from their manuscripts as Augustine(I think) thought so that their wives wouldn't use the verse to justify their adultery. Both of these situations are deplorable.

The Pericope Adulterae is significany because it indicates the author of John's belief on the position of the Law, a topic he is otherwise not outspoken about unlike Paul or "Matthew". It is also one of the most frequently narrated stories about Jesus by Christians who use it to prosletyze. Since the near complete manuscripts of John only date to most early the 3rd century, there could very well possibly have been additions or omissions to the original, which is not known.

Some candidates would be the epilogue and the repeating dialogue about the Paraclete

>>23540283
The Qur'an also elludes to the Gospel of John, confirming Jesus' miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. It corrects "I am gong to my Father and your Father, my God and your God" to "Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him". It also corrects the verses about the Paraclete to be about a Prophet named "Ahmad"(the greek rendition could possibly be very close to "Paraclete" or this could judt be another multi-lingual pun) who would come after Jesus. Some early Christians did actually believe that another Jesus-like figure would come

I believe that the Qur'an mentions these things because the text of John is very doubtful, and like the Apochrypha and the story of the Cave, it seeks to confirm these things that many historians/textual critics would dismiss

>>23540295
>gong
going

and of course, the Qur'an also portrays a Jesus who only appeared to be crucified. This could mean many things. My favourite interpretation is that the Jews were confused as to who Jesus was, Christ or Barabbas(Jesus Barabbas in some manuscripts) and so Jesus was not crucified, but Barabbas. And this was believed by Jews, among others, Paul who went with the story and taught a very helenistic theology.

There is indication that some early Christians did not believe in a crucifixion. Paul says, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Did I not portray Jesus Christ as crucified before your very eyes" and Paul talks about "enemies of the cross"

>>23540304
Ignatius also says in his epistle to the Magnesians, "and by His death — whom some deny,"

These could be refering to docetists, but Paul's enemies in Galatians were very clearly not Gnostics, but probably Jewish Christians. It is also worth to point out that the epistle of James has no mention of the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peace be upon him

Islam is a disease created for brutal savages by mentally ill retards that wanted to conquer a desert.

>>23527299
I remember that Quaran was arguably wiser and with better prose than the Bible when I read it more than ten years ago. And yet, both are really shitty jewish fairy tales.

>>23538578
I mean that all languages change over time and sometimes through deliberate influence.

>>23540500
>I mean that all languages change over time and sometimes through deliberate influence
Muslim scholars are very aware of this. Which is why we rely on classical exegesis of the Qur'an. I believe it was Ibn Taymiyya who said that all understanding of the Qur'an or hadith must be based on older definitions of words, because even in his time they changed.

What unread illiterates like >>23540460 don't know about is the amount of intellectual effort that was put in by Muslim scholars to preserve not only text but the understanding of Qur'anic Arabic. Orientalists and laymen like to pretend that they rediscovered the Qur'an and have to reconstruct its understanding, but the Muslim scholarship toward the Qur'an, its meanings and origins is a living tradition and arguably of a better quality than whatever the West has to say about the Qur'an

File: quran 3 7 Pickthall.jpg (127 KB, 1140x160)

127 KB JPG

>>23540531
verse 3.7 [Usmani]:
<< He is the One who has revealed to you the Book (the Qur’ān). Out of it there are verses that are MuHkamāt (of established meaning), which are the principal verses of the Book, and some others are Mutashābihāt (whose definite meanings are unknown). Now those who have perversity in their hearts go after such part of it as is mutashābih, seeking (to create) discord, and searching for its interpretation (that meets their desires), while no one knows its interpretation except Allah; and those well-grounded in knowledge say: “We believe therein; all is from our Lord.” Only the men of understanding observe the advice. >>

>>>>> no one knows its interpretation except Allah

>>>>> no one knows its interpretation except Allah

>>>>> no one knows its interpretation except Allah

In other words, the quran is absolutely useless, since humans can neither understand nor interpret it.

>>23540630
>humans can neither understand nor interpret it.
How did you logically reach from this verse to that conclusion? they can understand and apply the clear verses.

It is our understanding that whatever is in the Qur'an is important enough for Allah to include, what Allah excludes is likely not important to the core message of what Allah is trying to communicate to us. Even the things that many would consider "unnecessary" like the infamous verse about the people overstaying their welcome in the Prophet's house.

Not understanding the message or not even realising there is a message being told stems from the person reading and not from the Book itself.

A suspicious mind would make up an understanding that confirms his suspicion and thus delude himself. While we who believe in Allah and His Messenger, believe it to have purpose, even if we are unaware of it

>>23540657
Thus the Prophet said, "All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly."

>>23540657
>>23540662
>A suspicious mind would make up an understanding that confirms his suspicion and thus delude

What's the epistemic principle that separates the deluded from the non deluded? Once more, everything is Ad Hoc.
verse 3.7 CLEARLY states that
"no one knows its interpretation except Allah" [Usmani]
"none knows its explanation save allah" [Pickthall]
Aren't you one of the deluded since you deny this simple fact?

>>23527299
It really is the worst religious text I've ever read. I've read Buddhist, Christian, and other religious texts, and it really is the absolute worst. You can tell it's composed by an illiterate retard by how extremely repetitive and empty of symbolic depth it is
I gave up after like 30 pages. Not saying the Bible is perfect, but there are at least some interesting stories. I enjoy the Wisdom books of the Bible immensely.
Hard to say there is any redeeming value to the Quaran.

>>23527352
>It's insane to me how seriously they take a book that is literally just a collection of stories Muhammad heard around the campfire, most of them from the Bible
The front half of the bible was written by jews.
Just admit that there is no distinction between jewish bullshit, christian bullshit, and muslim bullshit

>>23540673
>no one knows its interpretation except Allah
this is refering to "mutashabihat", ambiguous verses. You will notice exegetes when dealing with Mutashabihat begin and end their exegesis with "Allah knows best" or "Allah knows better". This is what it means:

We cannot base a principle on an *interpretation* of an ambiguous verse, because only Allah knows its true interpretation, and this is not the case with clear verses like "Allah is wise", "Allah creates all things", "Allah determines all things"

From the ambiguous verse "Allah rose over the Throne", we cannot therefore create a principle "Allah has place", because this is only based on one interpretation, when the true interpretation is known only to Allah.

It must be noticed that this does not render the Qur'an "useless" as you said

>What's the epistemic principle that separates the deluded from the non deluded?
I don't deal with "epistemic principles", but a skeptic takes it for granted that the things he perceive in the Qur'an are necessarily errors, deficiencies and meaningless without properly establishing why. He takes it axiomatically that miracle is false and Muhammad is a false Prophet, while claiming to be objective, which is a delusion.

We, on the other hand, take the Shahada as an axiom, and are transparent of it axiomatic nature, as I have explained >>23540657

>>23540691
>axiom
Is the Shahada in the Qur'an?

>>23540694
>Is the Shahada in the Qur'an?
In principle and in many places yes, but not explicitly in its sunnah form "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger"

>>23529144
WE BELIEVE IN FREMEN

>>23540691
>this is refering to "mutashabihat", ambiguous verses.
No. You're just one of the deluded. Prove me wrong.
>>23540699
>In principle and in many places yes, but not explicitly
So is the Holy Trinity in the Old Testament, and the Divinity of Christ in the New Testament.

>>23540703
Muslims can't explain these passages except by saying "corrupt"
>Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven
>And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

>>23540703
>Prove me wrong
The verse says "As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they will follow that which is ambiguous(tashabah), seeking discord and its interpretation. And no one knows its interpretation except Allah" clearly refering to the ambiguous verses

On the topic of the Trinity, this is a very good example of the usage of ambiguous verses to create religious principles(>>23540691). When pressed about the Biblical proof for the godhead of the Holy Spirit, Christians often cite "And the Spirit of God was above the waters" which is a highly ambiguous verse(among many others they cite) that could be intepreted in any way.

It cannot be proven that the Trinitarian interpetation is the correct one, unless with an unambiguous verse stating, "The Holy Spirit is God", but no such verse exists.

The shahada on the other hand is based on clear verses(muhkamat), "He is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets" (33:40), "Say: Allah is One, Alone" (112)

>>23540719
Biblical exegetes have long interpreted these verses as angel representing the Lord, being called "Lord" just like in Bronze/Iron age texts where diplomats and messengers represented Kings, and were called Kings.

Again, these verse could be interpreted many ways, but there are no clear verses. This is what the Qur'an means when it calls itself clear, there is no room for doubt with the verses I've cited here >>23540723

>>23540732
>Biblical exegetes
Which ones?

>>23540734
>Which ones?
Mostly modern ones, but classical Jewish exegetes too if I'm not mistaken. The name "Israel"(he who wrestled with God) itself makes no sense, unless we interpret God here to mean the angel

>>23527352
And half of the bible is Jewish stone age fairy tales. Almost like it's all just bullshit cult crap, crazy.

>>23540723
Over 90% of verses in the quran are ambiguous. Once more, you prove the quran is useless.
Isn't verse 5.38 ambiguous?

>>23540759
>Over 90% of verses in the quran are ambiguous
90% of the Qur'an is in clear language. "God is most merciful" "If you do good, you go to heaven, do bad, go to hell" "If this happens, do this, if that happens, do that".

The other 10 percent like verses about God rising over the Throne, God's hand or Face, or the disjointed letters "Kaf Ha Ya Ayn Sad" for example, are what the Qur'an means by ambiguous verses.

The Qur'an is a very practical guide on what is wrong and right, it repeats ceaselessly what God wants you to remember, that he will forgive your sins if you ask forgiveness, that he will punish you if you don't, that He is alone without partners. These things are clear

>>23540774
>90% of the Qur'an is in clear language.
Can you prove it? How?
You write a lot of shit, but nothing makes sense. Are you a quran writer yourself?
Is verse 5.38 ambiguous?

>>23540790
>Is verse 5.38 ambiguous?
Do you know what ambiguous means? Verse 5:38:

>As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
This verse is very clear. A male or female thief's hand should be cut off as punishment.

>>23540792
>This verse is very clear.
let's see...
>thief's hand should be cut off
Nearer the wrist?
Nearer the elbow?
Nearer the shoulder?
Use ONLY verse 5.38 to answer. If the verse is VERY clear as you just said, you shouldn't have an issue clarifying.

>>23540803
Clear doesn't mean specific. The specifics lie within the explanation of the Prophet. Something being specific is not a condition for it being clear as opposed to ambiguous.

Clarity, particularly within the context of verse 3:7, refers to a verse containg one clear interpretation. It is clear that the hand is cut, which is one clear interpretation with specifications that aren't mentioned, like the conditions for the punishment etc. .

>>23540814
>Clear doesn't mean specific.
How can you live with yourself while peddling this shit? Absolutely unconscionable and deceptive behavior.

>>23540820
A clear verse according to you should be:
"A male or female thief of an item or property with a value more than that of a shield during the time of the Prophet equivalent to 20 carats of gold kept in a safe and proper place, who consciously commited the crime, is not mad or pre pubescent, nor in dire poverty, nor coerced into doing the crime nor unaware that theft is illegal, his or her right hand is to be amputated from the wrist, if there is a clear confession by the suspect, or evidence or two witnesses"

This is apparently clearer than and preferable to just "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power."?

Why is it always the clowns that respond to be and not the eminent scholars of /lit/?

>>23540848
>that respond to be
that respond to me

The inclusion of specifics and exceptions are not conditions for a verse being clear. Clarity has to do with what instead of how

>>23540848
>>23540850
Bitch, don't play these games with me.
Is cutting someone's hand from the wrist the same as cutting from the shoulder?
If it's not the same, then the verse is ambiguous - yet you called the verse VERY CLEAR.
The quran is verbal and written liquid shit. Nothing in it makes sense. In a matter of seconds I turned your VERY CLEAR verse into an ambiguous verse. If you have a problem with anything I have said, then you have a problem with the quran.

I was just reading Thoreau the other day and he mentions how little we know of antiquity. We have writings and ruins passed down to us, but that is all we have. There are likely many things that have either been lost to time, like an Alexandria fire, or just rote information that we do not have access to.

The Quran is a great example of how God may actually exist, yet society or factitious constructions, fast and hasty as they are (which the Quran states), gets in the way of receiving his word.

I find it likely that since the Quran mentions the Bible's Old Testament and New Testament again and again that God does exist, and he enjoys if you read the Holy Bible, The Quran, or any sort of holy book like The Republic or Tao te Ching.

I would find it to be the only God worthy of belief. In this way, even the modern Muslims, who eschew the Holy Bible or any other literature in favor of the Quran, do it wrong, and do it injustice, regardless of how corrupted the New Testament has been by Paul.

Just my two cents.

>>23540858
Of what use is the 443 character reply you just posted? You just repeated what you said before and now with more creative insults at the Qur'an.

This thread is about to reach the limit, and OP hasn't even shown himself yet. What a let down. OP is a fag as always

>>23527299
Obviously it's a stupid book if people use it as excuse for violence. You never see anyone raising a mathematical book stating tomorrow we invade the Walmart.

fun thread
>>23538521
its all marcion
>>23540848
>lit
>eminent scholars
lol

>>23540869
>The Republic
This books only becomes good once you reject Plato's superstitions.

>>23527640
Say what you will about the genealogies and the dry law books, for the most part the Bible tells a coherent story that goes from point A to point B. There’s also memorable lines that even non-Christians quote all the time and refer to in literature. The Quran doesn’t have that.

>>23540870
He repeated himself like that because you answered his question poorly. The what-how dichotomy you're proposing is a false one in this case.

>>23527944
>>23528176
A reminder in light of these verses that Muslims don’t believe that the Quran is the eternal word of God. It was not written in the 6th century, but rather has existed since eternity past. In the beginning, there was just Allah and the Quran, and he was just waiting to share it with us.

>>23541113
You have to, since there is only one God.

However, that being said, The Republic is truly amazing in that it almost predates Monotheism and accurately predicts it.

For a moment, just a moment, dispel all notions of anyone on here telling you Plato was a polytheist and read through The Republic again. You will notice and realize how monotheistic his view is. Many translations will just outright tell you he is talking of God instead of Zeus, right then and there.

It is the overall philosophy and religious clime of The Republic that particularly makes it a religious work, moreso than almost any other book compiled under the name "Plato", except perhaps Laws, which is a superior book, if only because foundational (I would read it simply if you were interested in Moral science, it is the only book I know of that reads like The Old Testament).

>>23541147
>However, that being said, The Republic is truly amazing in that it almost predates Monotheism and accurately predicts it.
It was written almost 1000 years after the first monotheist religion. Second, Plato's ideas are only interesting when abstracted from from their spiritual context. Dealing with the problem of universals is far better use of one's time than trying to deal with spiritual aspects of the forms.

>>23541175
>It was written almost 1000 years after the first monotheist religion
Technically at the time of Judaism, if that is what you're referring to, all of the Pagans and various '''''monotheists'''''' worshipped the Gods mentioned in the Old Testament.

If that God, Yahweh, is indeed the God that created us as many think (including I), then that must have been a particularly dark time, when demons and djinn ruled supreme.

I would rather believe God, like people, think of civilization as something continually being purified and perfected, the antediluvian times being a sort of 'Abel' of civilization, which the Nephilim and Demons, like Cain, killed.

We are left with the unrighteous, but like the Bible states, Cain's descendents are where we are from, so we must pick up the pieces and continue, because Good will always win.

>>23541190
>Gods

Idols, sorry.

>>23541190
I was counting Atenism as monotheism, but I suppose you could dispute that if you wanted to.

>>23541190
>If that God, Yahweh,
>I would rather believe God...
Zachariah is cited in the Qur'an as a prophet. You do know that the suffix -ah is in reference to Yahweh right? Zachariah's full name means "remember Yaweh". Same goes for Elijah - his name means "my God is Yahweh".

>>23541135
Same anon. That “don’t” is an error. Muslims believe that the Quran is the eternal word of God. It was not written in the 6th century, but rather has existed since eternity past. In the beginning, there was just Allah and the Quran, and he was just waiting to share it with us.

>>23527443
>the order of the suwar isn't revealed, but it was done by length for reference purposes
The you should have all your google results (or whatever search engine you use) ordered by length.

>>23541130
His prior response was literally just
>How can you live with yourself while peddling this shit? Absolutely unconscionable and deceptive behavior.
I understand that because I write with more dignity and appear to be more learned, more is expected of me as compared to a bumbling insult thrower who speaks about topic he has no knowledge on. But why should I give a proper response to a response that was already not proper and void of any actual argument?

>The what-how dichotomy you're proposing is a false one in this case.
When arguing, terms must be properly defined. I defined "clarity" in the context of 3:7 as "with only one clear interpretation" and proceded to explain the difference between an interpretation and a specification.

The absence of specification or detail does not make a statement unclear. This is my main point. Anon's response to this was just "hurr you're deceptive" and "cutting at the wrist and the arm is clearly different". Of course they are, what relevance does this have?

>>23541130
>>23541315
The Qur'an claims itself to contain clear verses, Anon claimed that the whole Qur'an is unclear, I gave several examples of clear verses of the Qur'an, Anon proceded to ignore all these and focus on the hand cutting verse saying it is unclear, I demonstrated how the verse is clear within the Qur'an's definition of "clear", Anon contests the Qur'an's definition for no expressed reason and calls me deceptive, insists that because the Qur'an doesn't give further details that this makes the verse unclear and this apparently proves the Qur'an to be unclear "useless garbage"

This whole line of conversation was a waste of time

>>23541282
A better comparison would be indices and bibliographies, which are ordered by letter. This wouldn't make sense for the Qur'an. The Suwar are actually thematically and stylistically similar if their lengths are similar. It wouldn't make sense arrange the Suwar in order, because within each Surah itself, each verse wasn't revealed one after another, but jumping here and there

>>23541213
I'm saying I believe that right there. Grammatically, you need to re-read my post. I'm not contrasting those ideas. They are not on opposite sides of a linear line.

I'm stating that I agree with it in the sentence right now.

Anyway, point being Judaism is NOT correct, because they believe they are still the chosen ones, while the New Testament and Quran both refute this, leaving them the odd people out in regards to their Abrahamic faith.

Interesting to note, however, Yahweh's name translated is 'I am that I am', which is indicative of God's philosophy towards mentalities and people in general. As you can see, it is clear that Yahweh is Allah (or Jesus, if you are a Christian), and they both understand that Creation is all, and we are all receiving of his blessings always.

>>23541315
>>23541337
>>23541130
>A clear sentence: Alice killed Bob
>An ambiguous sentence: Alice shed the blood of Bob

No one in their right mind would say the first sentence is unclear because "we don't know HOW Alice killed Bob, or when and where". There is only one clear interpretation, that Alice killed Bob.

The second sentence is ambiguous because one could interpret it in many ways as to WHAT Alice did to Bob, did Alice kill Bob, or injure him, or hurt his feelings, or is this some sort of metaphor?

This is the distinction between specifications and interpretations

>>23541337
>>23541315
>Anon proceded to ignore all these and focus on the hand cutting verse saying it is unclear
Because you here (>>23540774) provided this as one as your examples:
>"If this happens, do this, if that happens, do that".
Bringing up the hand--cutting verse is trying to dispute your claim that such verses are clear that rather than ignoring your example. So he just did not do what you're accusing him of. For all your talk of being scholarly, it's kind of sad that you couldn't parse a forum post.
> I demonstrated how the verse is clear within the Qur'an's definition of "clear", Anon contests the Qur'an's definition for no expressed reason and calls me deceptive, insists that because the Qur'an doesn't give further details that this makes the verse unclear and this apparently proves the Qur'an to be unclear "useless garbage"
And he did two things. One is to challenge definition itself as being an adequate one for the term. In this case, it's denying the what-how dichotomy you brought up earlier. He, and I for that matter, would agree on this. That for instruction of this nature, the how is the what. As instruction your, when it comes to your argument here (>>23540848), the first example is clearer and more preferable to the verse posted below it. If you have a different purpose for it, then you can prefer the verse, but I don't see how any reasonable person would see it as being clearer or more preferable as instruction.
The second challenge challenges its clarity within the definition given. In this post >>23540803, he demonstrates that there ways in which the command given in that verse can be intentionally followed in different ways, which as far as I'm concerned means there are different interpretations of it. If the Muslim concept of interpretation is does allow for those ways following it to be different interpretations, then as far as I'm concerned their definition is inadequate. Instead of actually trying to engage with this, you posted that absurd comment about how you're an idiot if you believe that clear and better instruction is less clear and less preferable to a relatively vaguer one. I can't blame him for insulting you when you respond to his argument in such a manner.
>>23541385
>No one in their right mind would say the first sentence is unclear because "we don't know HOW Alice killed Bob, or when and where". There is only one clear interpretation, that Alice killed Bob.
We're specifically talking about instruction. Trying to make this about any other type of utterance is changing the subject.

>>23541437
>We're specifically talking about instruction. Trying to make this about any other type of utterance is changing the subject.
There is no relevant difference between my example and the verse in question. The what is "kill" which is clear, while the how of "kill by what" does not make a statement unclear. The what in the verse is "cut off the hand" and how is "cut where". The difference between a statement and an instruction matters little. There is a clear distinction, for both, between what and how.

Ambiguity, the opposite of clarity, is the absence of "whatness", while the absence of "howness" is different from ambiguity, it might be called incompleteness.

If the verse was ambiguous, it would be unclear whether the hand should be cut or not, instead of there being doubt as to how it should be cut.

The importance of the "how" rests upon the concern of the reader instead of the text, which should speak for itself. so when the Qur'an says it is clear, then it is clear to the extent of the "what" instead of the "how", the acceptable extent of which is subjectively defined by the reader as I have elluded to in >>23540848

>>23541465
Well defined clarity is, therefore, not dependent upon the inclusion of details, the acceptable extent of which are subjectively defined by each reader, but by the directness of the speech in making one clear interpretation: "Alice killed Bob", "Cut the hand of the thief"

>>23541465
>There is no relevant difference between my example and the verse in question. The what is "kill" which is clear, while the how of "kill by what" does not make a statement unclear. The what in the verse is "cut off the hand" and how is "cut where". The difference between a statement and an instruction matters little. There is a clear distinction, for both, between what and how.
When it comes to the topic of clarity, there is very meaningful difference between a mere descriptive sentence and a command/instruction. The very nature and purpose of instruction makes the how of the sentence the what of the sentence.
>Ambiguity, the opposite of clarity, is the absence of "whatness", while the absence of "howness" is different from ambiguity, it might be called incompleteness.
And, again, this is a false dichotomy in this case.
>If the verse was ambiguous, it would be unclear whether the hand should be cut or not, instead of there being doubt as to how it should be cut.
Again, given the purpose and nature of instruction and commands, any form of it which allows for intentionally different manners of following it out means that it is lacking in clarity.
>The importance of the "how" rests upon the concern of the reader instead of the text, which should speak for itself.
No, it giver of any command or instruction is capable of providing the detail necessary to reduce the amount of intentionally different manners of fulfilling it. This is even more so if the giver of it is god.
>then it is clear to the extent of the "what" instead of the "how", the acceptable extent of which is subjectively defined by the reader as I have elluded to in
The giver of a command is capable of issuing it in a way which removes the extent to which it can be subjectively interpreted. It's why, if you actually bothered reading my post, I said that as instruction, the first is clearer and more preferable to the second.

>>23537579

>I write two entire posts about moral relativism in time and space and you respond to your own strawman about "supposed errors of the west".

look, i don't care about your tranny culture or fervency to give all your tax money to israel.

my posts are about how your modern day liberal interpretation of morality has abolustely no bearing or impact on someone else's morality- doubly so when they are from a different time and place with a different society, institutions and opportunities in that culture.

You're argument changed from pearl clutching ("how do you defend X action!!!") to some retarded conspiracy about psyops on a population.

tl;dr: you're a dumb faggot who got an answer, and instead of engaging with it decided to respond to your own strawman and then prattle on about retarded shit you just made up and has no foundation in any academic work.

>>23541853
>any form of it which allows for intentionally different manners of following it out means that it is lacking in clarity
I maintain that this is different from clarity. Clarity has not been well defined in your post, and you haven't given an alternative well-defined definition, which makes this whole argument pointless.

Your assertion that "what" and "how" are identical in the case of an instruction clearly shows that both of us have different definitions of "how". My posts make it clear that "how" includes the specifications of a "what", not a totally seperate thing.

"What" refers to the base understanding of the text, called an interpretation. The "how" is what is understood about an interpretation. These elements of thought apply to any coherent sentence, and thus the states of their absence apply to any coherent sentence.

>The giver of a command is capable of issuing it in a way which removes the extent to which it can be subjectively interpreted
Your definition of "interpret" is different to mine. Taking "interpret" to mean to fill in missing details about a statement is strange. "Interpretation" is the act of speculating on "what" when the "what" is ambiguous.

There is a clear distinction between the "cutting the hand or not" and "cutting where", and this distinction is intuitive

The extent of how much details are missing for a verse to be considered "unclear", in your definition, is subjective and so the attribute "unclear" means very little

>>23542052
There is a distinction between the clarity and completeness of an instruction.

An instruction is clear when it cannot be interpreted in any other way, regardless of how precise and complete its details are.

An instruction for a dress code "Wear black" is still considered clear regardless of whether it includes underpants or shoes as black too. While this instruction is incomplete because it didn't include these details.

An instruction like "Wear Black and Blue" is considered unclear because it is not known whether one should wear just black/blue or black and blue together. Notice this has not to do with the details

Thus, the clarity and completeness of instructions are two different things and shouldn't be confused. QED

>>23542085
Even the non-technical meaning of clear, "easy to perceive, understand or interpret" has nothing to do with the completeness of the details or "how" of any statement or command.

One can easily understand "Cut the hand of the thief", which makes it clear, regardless of how, when, where, why etc.

>>23542085
It is worth pointing out that absolute completeness, and thus absolute clarity according to the two anons, cannot be achieved as the successive expansion of details results in an infinite regress when taken to its limit.

File: alcoranus.png (409 KB, 720x1184)

409 KB PNG

the only correct way to read the Quran

File: 1712211516884581.jpg (47 KB, 700x662)

47 KB JPG

>>23537579
>if u accept that fucking a 9 year old is okay u fail it simple as that.
why, because you said so?
what about all your ancestors that fucked women that were underage by modern day standards? were they also wrong? are they also failures?


how crazy that there are thousands of people in your bloodline who have come before you with varying morality's and who have definitely commited the act you are chastising today and many others but...they were all wrong, and you are right!

what a strange and happy coincidence!!!! such master morality you dumb nigger.

>>23541437
>We're specifically talking about instruction. Trying to make this about any other type of utterance is changing the subject.

Very astutely put.

*I'm the anon who first made the point about the hand cutting verse being unclear

>>23541437
The notions of "clear and "not clear" are awfully slippery and allows someone to play ad hoc games. That's precisely what the Muslim is doing. I'd liken it to the Quran's challenge to non-believers to "produce something like it"

>>23542187
>simians
Why do you keep using simian as an insult? All human beings are simians.
>fall apart at the seems
It's "seams" and not "seems", low-class Evolatard.

>>23542826
>ad hoc games
What I wrote wasn't really ad hoc. I was describing something I've intuitively known about the Qur'an in technical and specific language.

To define clarity with regard to instructions so as to depend upon the amount of details and specifications given in said instruction is "fishy". One can easily move the goalpost regarding *how much* details are necessary for clarity as I have stated >>23542143.

So clarity, according to the two anons, amounts to adherence to an imaginary line, subjective to each reader, of how much details are needed for an instruction.

I, on the other hand, use the word "clarity" in a specific manner, basing the word on the content of the text itself rather than what the reader expects to be present.

It can be said, then, that clarity is the ability of a text to impart the information it gives with the intended amount of specification, regardless of what the reader thinks is missing

>>23543481
I will demonstrate my definition of "clear" and "complete" by showing their combinations

>clear and incomplete
"You should kill Bob"

>clear and "complete"
"You should kill Bob with your knife next week"

>unclear and incomplete
"You should shed Bob's blood"

>unclear and complete
"You should shed Bob's blood with that knife of yours next week"

Notice I used the example in >>23541385, but changed it into an instruction and the "dichotomy" still applies despite what >>23541437 says.

>>23543518
A great example from history of an unclear sentence was Henri II saying "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

The sentence was not unclear because it did not have so and so detail. It is unclear because the phrase "rid me of" had many interpretations, and it is not known whether the King was merely talking from anger, implying, or commanding his court to kill, abduct, or make the Archbishop disappear. The 'what' is unclear and not the arbitrary 'how'.

Henri II, should have instead said, "Kill this turbulent priest", which is a clear statement regardless of whatever detail about *how* you think is missing

>>23530277
Unbelievable cope. The oldest manuscript of Julius Caesar's On the Gallic War is from the tenth century, but we can be confident due to style and content that the text comes from a thousand years earlier. We can do the same with the Alexander Romance. You know this, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

>>23543537
Whoops, I went to bump limit. My bad

>>23527299
>new research has proven to be false
OP is a fag and a liar

>>23530461
The Sana'a manuscript is most certainly not only different because of scribal mistakes, at least on the older layer of it. The surahs are in a completely different order than in the standard Quran and are different lengths. It is proof that there was a time when the text of the Quran was not set in stone and that it has not been perfectly preserved from the beginning. But it's Muslim apologists' entire job to find elaborate copes for dealing with inconvenient facts like this.

>>23543574
>The Sana'a palimpsest variants have long been understood to be MOSTLY scribal errors. EVEN IF THEY WERE'NT, it could be a companion codex that didn't fit the 'Uthmanic rasm

>the text of the Quran was not set in stone
Yes, it's called the time before 'Uthman's standardization, when Muslim scholars KNEW there existed authentic variants outside the 'Uthmanic rasm

>>23543574
>The surahs are in a completely different order
Muslim scholars also long knew that 'Uthman standardized the arrangement of the surahs and that other companiosn who had codices before 'Uthman, wrote them in different orders

>>23527299
I have a friend who studied in a top 10 ranked university. She’s Christian and believes everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus will go to hell (myself included). It never ceases to amaze me how people can justify such lunatic statements

>>23543606
>'Uthman's standardization
This was without diacritical marks.
Today's quran has diacritical marks.
You don't have Uthman's quran, and this standardization you keep mentioning is completely irrelevant.