Christianity and Judaism and Islam, Oh My!

[Kadark]

I said "legitimate" because anybody can take a crayon and add words to the Qur'an. As for the rest of your diatribe ... ugh.


Kadark

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Kadark, could you please look at post #15? I have some questions.

 

[(Q)]

Are you implying that variations of the Qur'an exist simply because not all Muslims see eye to eye on every single religious issue imaginable? That is not a logical proposition, Michael. It is entirely possible for two people to disagree on a book, even if the book in question has no variations. It's simply a matter of how you choose to interpret the text, and how generously you incorporate secondary sources into your studies (in the case of Islam, the hadiths).

Therefore, due to the fact that anyone and everyone cannot agree on a book makes it utterly useless than that which the user decides to use, based on his own interpretations.

If the Quran is to be taken seriously, it must be taken literally by everyone. Without it, Islam is pointless.

 

[Michael]

I said "legitimate" because anybody can take a crayon and add words to the Qur'an.

No Kadark, that's not what you are saying, what you are saying is I Kadark believe that an angel spoke to Mohammad and then he told some people and then some of them wrote some of this on pieces of bark and pieces of cloth and memorized some and this and that and then they told some people and some other people and someone wrote down all of this and all the pieces fit together just perfectly and *poof* the magical Qur'an was born. Oh and along the way Mohammad rode on a magical winged fairy creature up to heaven and around the ME and split the moon into two pieces.

There is nothing anyone can post that is going to change your mind. If I post old manuscripts you'll just say: Those aren't "legitimate" and so it's just a waste of time and we've been over this 1 millions times.



So, I'll continue to know that variants of the Qur'an exist and you can continue to believe in magical flying horses and carpets.

Michael

PS: Not that is matters one way or another. The Qur'an could have magically dropped out of Mohammad's asshole for all it matters. It still offers nothing BOTH novel and insightful. As we have already agreed to.

 

[Kadark]

Mr. Hamtastic,

1. Sunni vs Shiite what's the difference?

It's a long story, although I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of differences between the two denominations are politically derived. The origins of the historical conflict between the two sects is rather simple to summarize: following the Prophet Muhammad's death, certain Muslims (Sunnis) thought a vote should be cast in order to crown the new caliph - that is, the spiritual leader of the Muslim world. However, other Muslims (Shi'ites) believed that Hazrat Ali, son-in-law of Muhammad, was the rightful heir to the throne. Essentially, the method preferred by Sunnis was chosen, which caused bitterness and resentment to develop within the Shi'ites. This is simply the origin of the conflict; there is much more detail, in case you were wondering. The Sunnis and Shi'ites, although once serving as two sides of a unified religious empire, split into their own independent empires - Sunnis with the Ottomans, Shi'ites with the Safavids.

2. Does the Qu'ran actually say that anyone who doesn't become a muslim is an infidel and should be put to death?

Not even close. Disbelievers are free to disbelieve.

"To you be your way, and to me mine."

3. What is the idle talk I hear that the Islamic God is not the Abrahamic God, but is actually based on the worship of a "moon god" by idolators?

It's utter hogwash, usually found on evangelist websites whose only purpose is to demean and demonize Islam. Allah is the God worshipped by all People of the Book; in everyday language, Allah is the "Abrahamic" God. Abraham first preached the idea of monotheism four-thousand years ago. His message was simple: there is only one God. Today, the most monotheistic religion in existence is Islam: there are no partners or human characteristics associated with Allah. Therefore, Allah is properly the "Abrahamic" God.

4. What is the Islamic view on idolatry?

The gravest of sins. Those who believe in idols will be commanded to breath live unto them during the Day of Judgment. You can imagine the punishment for failing to do so.

5. Why do American muslims I meet tell me that they are "nothing" like the middle eastern muslims?

Because they aren't? Culture shapes individuals more distinctly than religion; usually, American Muslims differ noticeably from their Middle Eastern counterparts, mainly due to their Western upbringing. In addition, many American Muslims blindly condemn the actions of war-torn Middle Eastern Muslims, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming polarized from their fellow countrymen.

(Q),

Therefore, due to the fact that anyone and everyone cannot agree on a book makes it utterly useless than that which the user decides to use, based on his own interpretations.

Everything can be based on one's own interpretations, (Q) - not just the Qur'an. Why not apply this miserable argument to those cases, too?

If the Quran is to be taken seriously, it must be taken literally by everyone. Without it, Islam is pointless.

You call Islam pointless; I, on the other hand, call it a magnificent spiritual empire, well-sustained over the duration of fourteen centuries, and with nearly two-billion adherents. If Islam is pointless, what hope is there for anything else?

Michael,

No Kadark, that's not what you are saying, what you are saying is I Kadark believe that an angel spoke to Mohammad and then he told some people and then some of them wrote some of this on pieces of bark and pieces of cloth and memorized some and this and that and then they told some people and some other people and someone wrote down all of this and all the pieces fit together just perfectly and *poof* the magical Qur'an was born. Oh and along the way Mohammad rode on a magical winged fairy creature up to heaven and around the ME and split the moon into two pieces.

No, Michael. I am arguing the actual history of the written Qur'an, providing various dates, sources, archaeological findings, etc., to support my position on the Qur'an's preservation since its inception. You, on the other hand, are weaseling out of this debate, simply because you do not have adequate historical knowledge to compete with me on this subject. As an escape route, you insult and ridicule the theological aspects of Islam, despite the fact that I am only here to argue about the well-documented history of the written Qur'an.

So, I'll continue to know that variants of the Qur'an exist and you can continue to believe in magical flying horses and carpets.

You'll simply have to show me those variants, Michael. There's nothing else I can do for you.


Kadark

 

[Michael]

No, Michael. I am arguing the actual history of the written Qur'an, providing various dates, sources, archaeological findings, etc.,

:bugeye: you provided one date with the word approximately and zero citation.

You'll simply have to show me those variants, Michael. There's nothing else I can do for you.

Here are two qur'an, one obviously old, the second modern. Notice anything different between the two?

Islamic-Awareness has an interesting page with some nice texts. When you read them, they must sound like music in your mind huh? Are they Perfect?

Tell me Kadark, how did the Qur'an come to be? When was it written? By whom?

The ME was prosperous well before Mohammad was even a twinkle on the end of his fathers nose. If Islam promoted such prosperity in the ME, then why was it that as soon as they lost control of the Silk and Spice routes their economies utterly and completely collapse? It's pretty obvious to me.

We will never know but maybe if people hadn't wasted so much energy and time and resources worrying about superstition, it could have been middle easterners that harnessed electricity, built sky scrapers, telephones, cars, trains, satellites, rockets, planes...

Not even close. Disbelievers are free to disbelieve.

Watch Closely Ham.

So, Kadark, do you think Muslims in KSA should be able to renounce their faith and openly worship multiple Gods and build temples in Mecca? You know, each to their own. Disbelievers are free to disbelieve. Well? Temples to Xenu next to the Great Mosque?

 

[Michael]

Basically this is the main difference. Given there is no magical Allah or Xenu, Mohammad and Ron Hubbard some how came up with their ideas. I think it's safe bet to say some of it they copied, some of it they made up, some of it other people made up. But what didn't happen was an invisible being from Xenu or Allah whispered in their ears.


That's the difference really,
Michael

 

[(Q)]

Everything can be based on one's own interpretations, (Q) - not just the Qur'an. Why not apply this miserable argument to those cases, too?

Uh, yours would the a miserable and very weak argument. I can't apply that argument to the speed of light, for example.

You call Islam pointless; I, on the other hand, call it a magnificent spiritual empire, well-sustained over the duration of fourteen centuries, and with nearly two-billion adherents. If Islam is pointless, what hope is there for anything else?

Another very miserable and weak argument. And you've shot yourself in the foot on this one. YOU consider Islam a "magnificent spiritual empire" because YOU have placed YOUR own interpretation on it, hence YOU are doing little more than patting yourself on the back for a job (interpretation) well done.

The only hope mankind does have is the eradication of a pointless religion, one that cannot be taken literally and has relevance only to those who decide to give power to such doctrines, hence making it utterly pointless and useless. Instead, it is dangerous to everyone else.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here are two qur'an, one obviously old, the second modern. Notice anything different between the two?

Do tell. Whats the difference? Ever read a MODERN Arabic newspaper? Or an Urdu one?

Notice anything?

Now if I wanted to make it easier to read for non-native speakers, what would be the best way to do it?

I find it weird how complete ignoramuses have an opinion based on... nothing.

The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point.

References:#
* William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam, p.32
* Richard Bell, William Montgomery Watt, Introduction to the Qur’an, p.51
* F. E. Peters (1991), pp.3–5: "Few have failed to be convinced that … the Qur’an is … the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation."
* Sahih Bukhari 6:60:201

 

[Kadark]

Michael,

:bugeye: you provided one date with the word approximately and zero citation.

I suggest you reread my posts, Michael. Twas you who mentioned the Sana'a Manuscripts, was it not? I promplty dealt with your unscholarly analysis, using your own source (Gerd Puin) to discredit your errant proposition. As a last resort, you sarcastically described theological aspects of Islam, shying away from the historical perspective of the Qur'an's written form.

Here are two qur'an, one obviously old, the second modern. Notice anything different between the two?

First of all, your source (website) is entitled "Answering Islam" dot com, so I am automatically very suspicious as to the authenticity of the information it is presenting. Secondly, I cannot read Arabic, so what those two arbitrary images are saying, I haven't the slightest clue. Ostensibly, the writing style is different between the two images, although that does not necessitate a difference in the message they are attempting to convey. Regardless, you simply posted two images of Arabic writing in succession, which only hinders are frail debate.

If you're curious as to what those two images say, I suggest you ask Sam (she can read Arabic). The only comment I care to make is, old Arabic is drastically different from new Arabic in terms of writing style and technique. In addition, the two images you presented could easily have been written in different dialects of Arabic, which is not an uncommon occurrence. There are many crucial factors to consider, which is why your hasty conclusion is, for the time being, awry.

Islamic-Awareness has an interesting page with some nice texts. When you read them, they must sound like music in your mind huh? Are they Perfect?

"Islamic Awareness"? Again, we have a neutrality problem, Michael. Regardless, the images show up as boxes with little red "X"'s in them on my computer. Sorry!

Tell me Kadark, how did the Qur'an come to be? When was it written? By whom?

You already asked this question, remember? Hehe, I suppose not. Let me refresh your distracted mind:

Day and year? Why stop there? You might as well ask us if the Qur'an's compilation occurred during a leap year, or better yet, what hour of the day it was. The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad in fragments, which he subsequently recited to his companions, all of whom instantly memorized the verses (I think it's safe to say that every major companion to the Prophet was a hafiz). The Qur'an was written under the command of Caliph Uthman, who wanted all Muslims to have a written copy of the Divine text in order to avoid religious confusion and controversy. Since the committee finished compiling the written version of the Qur'an late in Uthman's reign, which lasted from 644-656, it's safe to say the date you're looking for can be pinned down to ~653, give or take a year.

If you're interested, you can search "Uthman Qur'an" or "Tashkent Qur'an" via search engine. The Uthman Qur'an is the oldest Qur'an in existence today; legend has it, Uthman's very blood is scattered across the pages as a result of his assassination. The Uthman Qur'an has a fascinating history to it: from Uthman to Ali, Timur to Vladimir Lenin, finally to Central Asia.

The ME was prosperous well before Mohammad was even a twinkle on the end of his fathers nose.

Two issues here:

1) "Twinkle on the end of his father's nose"? I've heard a handful of obnoxiously bad idioms throughout my lifetime, but this monstrosity takes the cake. Perhaps you meant, "twinkle in his father's eye"?

2) Sure, the Middle East was prosperous for extended periods of time prior to the Prophet Muhammad's birth, although I truly do not see the importance in this misleading fact. For centuries, Arabia had been a hotbed of polytheism and idolatry. Most of the Arab inhabitants were poor, weak, superstitious, and ruled by competing clans and warring tribes. There was no organized state; merely, there were wandering Bedouins and small, aggressive factions. Egypt, conventionally part of the "Middle East", was in a miserable state as well, succumbing to various Byzantine and Persian attacks. The Sassanid Empire, north of Arabia (yet still in the Middle East), was a highly centralized state which participated in various wars (significantly weakened by its futile attempt to defeat the Byzantines at Constantinople). So, as you can see, the Middle East was in a fairly miserable and powerless position for centuries prior to Muhammad's birth. Lo and behold, the final of Prophets is born, and the Middle East is an unparalleled superpower two decades later. In fact, there is a very impressive quote I would like to mention, which can be found in a book written by Thomas Carlyle, an English author:

"How one man single handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades."

Amazing, isn't it?

If Islam promoted such prosperity in the ME, then why was it that as soon as they lost control of the Silk and Spice routes their economies utterly and completely collapse? It's pretty obvious to me.

It's not so obvious to me, unfortunately. I was not aware of the theory that the Caliphate's economy "utterly and completely collapsed" due to the loss of several silk and spice routes. Care to elaborate? I could understand minor damage done to such an economy, but to go as far as saying it "utterly and completely collapsed" due to that one peculiar event? Well, let's not go there. At this point, I will ask for you to substantiate your claim.

We will never know but maybe if people hadn't wasted so much energy and time and resources worrying about superstition, it could have been middle easterners that harnessed electricity, built sky scrapers, telephones, cars, trains, satellites, rockets, planes...

Rome was not built in a day, grasshopper. Are you so arrogant as to believe these inventions were simply the result of overnight manufacturing endeavours? A long line of advanced knowledge in the departments of science and mathematics is required for such inventions and discoveries to materialize. Have you forgotten the renowned accomplishments of the Islamic empire, or are you trying your best to ignore them? The modern day methods of science which sarcastic atheists such as yourself cling so tightly to was discovered by Muslims.

So, Kadark, do you think Muslims in KSA should be able to renounce their faith and openly worship multiple Gods and build temples in Mecca? You know, each to their own. Disbelievers are free to disbelieve. Well? Temples to Xenu next to the Great Mosque?

Yes, disbelievers are certainly free to disbelieve. Nobody can force their beliefs unto another; attempting to do so is insincere. However, disbelievers should not be permitted to build temples on land administered by Muslims; in return, the same treatment is to be accepted and tolerated when done so by the disbelievers. Besides, why would a disbeliever wish to build a religious shrine or temple, anyway? Your rationale is very confusing.

(Q),

Uh, yours would the a miserable and very weak argument. I can't apply that argument to the speed of light, for example.

Sure you can. Who is to say everybody accepts the speed of light as it conventionally is? Who is to say everybody accepts your definition of “light”? The beauty of Islam is that it’s open for interpretation, and that its revelations are, in a way, continuing as we amass more knowledge about the physical world and the universe around us.

Another very miserable and weak argument. And you've shot yourself in the foot on this one. YOU consider Islam a "magnificent spiritual empire" because YOU have placed YOUR own interpretation on it, hence YOU are doing little more than patting yourself on the back for a job (interpretation) well done.

Yes, technically it is my interpretation. On a larger scale, though, I’d say practically every person on Earth well-educated in the subject of history would admit to the marvels and accomplishments of the Caliphate. If Islam is pointless, you are implying that the Middle East without Islam would have been better off, or as equally prosperous as, the Middle East with Islam. Which, of course, is either a fraudulent lie, or the ramblings of an idiot (in your case, I’d estimate that it’s a bit of both. Okay, so it’s a lot of both …).

The only hope mankind does have is the eradication of a pointless religion, one that cannot be taken literally and has relevance only to those who decide to give power to such doctrines, hence making it utterly pointless and useless. Instead, it is dangerous to everyone else.

So, you are saying that Islam is pointless because not everybody takes it literally, and it’s only true to an individual if they accept it as such. Fine. My question to you is, is there anything in existence which meets the criteria of "having a point"? It seems as if everything is pointless to you, (Q), because there is arguably nothing that is taken literally and believed wholeheartedly by everybody. Islam’s goal is not to be taken literally by every single person; rather, its purpose is to serve as a guideline for how individuals should conduct themselves and treat others. The scriptures of Islam are open to all: you are free to accept, free to reject, and free to do a combination of both. Simply because it isn’t the religion practiced by all of mankind, doesn’t mean it’s pointless. If you’d like, we can offer our opinions as to what the Middle East - and more importantly, the world as a whole - would look like today without Islam.


Kadark

 

[spidergoat]

There have been several different versions of the Quran since it's conception.

 

[S.A.M.]

There have been several different versions of the Quran since it's conception.

Do show me two side by side comparisons of different verses with the same location.

The ME was prosperous well before Mohammad was even a twinkle on the end of his fathers nose.

They did not even have a justice system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilf_al-Fudul

In the years preceding the pact, the Quraysh were involved in intermittent conflict. The war, as usual, was a result of an unsettled murder. The effect was growing discontent with the form of justice that required sacrilegious war. Many Quraysh leaders had travelled to Syria, where they found relative justice prevailed. Similar conditions also existed in Abyssinia. No such system, however, existed in Arabia.

 

[Michael]

They did not even have a justice system.

And they didn't have much of one following Islam either. Nothing compared to the Roman and Greeks with jurys. Mohammad ordered that the head be chopped off a poor little singing slave girl for f*cks sake.

The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point.

And there we have SAM's own quote. Yes, small changes have occurred since canonization of the Qu'ran.

So, SAM has answered the question: Are Qur'an now identical with old Qur'an? No, some small changes such as the addition of the word Allah.

RE: Gerd R. Puin

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.

"Answering Islam"

The older Qu'ran is missing the word Allah.

This only shows exactly what SAM posted, some small variations exist in Qur'an since it was canonized. Which is true of the Bible, Torah - the Egyptian supposed Book of the Dead (which is actually 3000 years older than the Qur'an) was cut in strone and so it hasn't been changed. Soemthing that could have been done with the Qru'an but wasn't.

So, what we find are some small changes have happened since the book was canonized.



RE: How did the Qur'an come about.

The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad

OK here's the problem. No Kadark, magical invisible people DO NOT EXIST! This is why I say it's silly to discuss this. You start your argument with the premise that invisible angels float around talking to mohammad! After this assertion there's really no point in continuing. If we were to think rationallt then we will agree that your religous book contains a significant amount of Christian of Jewish myth stories. Agreed?

OK, yes, we agree, good.

Now, either you can believe in magical winged horses OR think about thinks more sensibly and understand that this means these stories were copied. Done and Done.

There's no argument there.

"Islamic Awareness"? Again, we have a neutrality problem,

This is an Islamic website. The images were old manuscripts. You can see where new Qur'anic verses were revised and written overtop of older versus.

"Twinkle on the end of his father's nose"? I've heard a handful of obnoxiously bad idioms throughout my lifetime, but this monstrosity takes the cake. Perhaps you meant, "twinkle in his father's eye"?

Haaa! I by nose I mean penis and meant as much as a joke

disbelievers should not be permitted to build temples on land administered by Muslims; i

And there we go. This is why monotheistic theocratic societies are so intolerant and backwards.

Michael


European civilization is founded on Greeco Roman civilization. That's obvious. Not "Islamic". To say otherwise is silly. To suggest Airplanes and Computers and electricity etc... (basically all modern inventions) is based on Islamic science is the silly thing I have heard today. FUNNY Muslims never invented any of those things then huh? Haaahahahahaaa.... Yea, Islamic Math. pffff How ignorant. What's next Polytheistic geometry, Christian calculus, Hindu numerals....

 

[S.A.M.]

it's not "Sam's" own quote. It's an example of ascholar who after 20 years is forced to admit that her knowledge of the language is insufficient to render a judgement on the Quran but that it is what was dictated by Mohammed.

 

[iceaura]

The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point.

"it's not "Sam's" own quote. It's an example of ascholar who after 20 years is forced to admit that her knowledge of the language is insufficient to render a judgement on the Quran but that it is what was dictated by Mohammed. "

So on the one hand the scholar admits insufficient expertise, on the other her assertion that the thing was dictated by Mohammed is quoted as if significant.

I looked around the net once , a year or so ago, and found no actual and thorough textual analysis of the Quran that supports the hypothesis of one original author. The kinds of analysis involved appear to be actively discouraged (to the point that one expounder of some questions regarding the original text was thrown out of a second floor window by his audience, and most of the few others are careful to remain anonymous), and the assertions of origin appear to be based on the precedent of other assertions of the past.

 

[Michael]

it's not "Sam's" own quote. It's an example of ascholar who after 20 years is forced to admit that her knowledge of the language is insufficient to render a judgement on the Quran but that it is what was dictated by Mohammed.

Hahahaaaaa.... the same Mohammad for which little to no evidence exists, well, there's as much evidence for Mohammad as there is for Jesus, Abraham, Moses and Hercules.

Tell me SAM, how did Mohammad learn of the Jewish and Christian myths? Who told him? Was Mohammad a gerneral, a Priest or a Rabbi? Doesn't it make MUCH more sense that the people who told Mohammad these stories would of course be the people who wrote the stories? What makes more sense to you, an invisible mythical fairy creature took some notes from this magical God creature then floated around down to earth, found Mohammad and magically stuffed the information in his brain, he then told people who scribbled the info onto bark and this or that and a few decades later it all magically *poofed* into a book OR.. watch this now.. (are you watching?) OR some religious people who knew a bit about Christian and Jewish stories wrote these down in a book and used this as the bases of their new religion and also justified their rule.

So, one involves magical fairy floss and the other what has happened in all societies since the beginning of civilization across the globe from China to Easter Island to Mexico to England.

Oh, I forgot you're a Qur'an only Muslim :roflmao:

 

[(Q)]

Sure you can. Who is to say everybody accepts the speed of light as it conventionally is?

Crackpots and kooks, that's who. They "interpret" such things to mean whatever they want, that's why they're crackpots and kooks, and insane. You would therefore be placing yourself in that category.

Really Kadark, if you're going to pretend to present an argument beyond a kindergarten level to make a point, at least try to have it entertain somewhat.

Who is to say everybody accepts your definition of “light”?

Miraculous! You actually argue that I defined light, in order for you to make a point.

Sir, you are a bold faced liar or are completely brain washed.

The beauty of Islam is that it’s open for interpretation, and that its revelations are, in a way, continuing as we amass more knowledge about the physical world and the universe around us.

Or, just plain brain dead. Islam is the antithesis of knowledge of the physical universe, my short-peckered friend. It is tribal, and medieval, and wrought with ignorance.

Since, it is wide open for interpretation, then it is wide open for any and all interpretation, which is exactly what we observe today. And being medieval in construction, which is what one would expect from men of that time, it diminishes and deconstructs any progress towards civilization.

Clearly though, you only wish to toss out the most weakest of arguments to make your point here, not worthy of response any more than the acknowledgment of such.

Yes, technically it is my interpretation.

Hence, it is as useless as the millions and millions more of self-indulgent interpretations. I say self-indulgent, because it has been evident that each Muslim interprets Islam to suit their own purpose and agenda.

On a larger scale, though, I’d say practically every person on Earth well-educated in the subject of history would admit to the marvels and accomplishments of the Caliphate.

Pfffttt... fat chance.

If Islam is pointless, you are implying that the Middle East without Islam would have been better off, or as equally prosperous as, the Middle East with Islam. Which, of course, is either a fraudulent lie, or the ramblings of an idiot (in your case, I’d estimate that it’s a bit of both. Okay, so it’s a lot of both …).

You appear to have some delusion that the third-world, poverty-stricken ME, littered with patches of oil rich Arabs is considered "prosperous." I'm sure the millions who fell under the sword of Islam long ago would also disagree with you.

So, you are saying that Islam is pointless because not everybody takes it literally, and it’s only true to an individual if they accept it as such. Fine. My question to you is, is there anything in existence which meets the criteria of "having a point"? It seems as if everything is pointless to you, (Q), because there is arguably nothing that is taken literally and believed wholeheartedly by everybody.

So, not everyone takes literally or believes wholeheartedly in the sun, or anything else observed in nature?

If you allow for something to have endless interpretation, then it loses all meaning as it can be interpreted to mean anything at all, as is observed with Islam and the endless interpretations we see today.

Islam’s goal is not to be taken literally by every single person; rather, its purpose is to serve as a guideline for how individuals should conduct themselves and treat others.

The problem is that people are conducting themselves and treating others as they were in the medieval ages, when Islam was first contrived.

Then of course, you're completely ignoring all the other areas of Islam that deal with submission and worship to gods, which has nothing to do with guidelines on how to treat others.

The scriptures of Islam are open to all: you are free to accept, free to reject, and free to do a combination of both. Simply because it isn’t the religion practiced by all of mankind, doesn’t mean it’s pointless.

It's certainly one level above that pointless remark. Only a brainwashed fool would accept to submit and worship medieval gods. Only a bigot would accept to treat non-believers something to be feared and hated. Only a misogynist would accept to treat women as chattel. Only a believer with no thinking skills would accept endless interpretation of doctrines.

If you’d like, we can offer our opinions as to what the Middle East - and more importantly, the world as a whole - would look like today without Islam.

Are we to now to observe the boundless avenues of your vivid imagination? Spare me, please.

 

[Michael]

What does Christianity, Islam or Judaism offer the modern world today? Anything above and beyond what, say, Scientology offers? Or Mormonism? Or Baha'i faith? Is there anything that any one of these religions offers that stand above the others or are they all pretty much the same?