I found it here,, so it should be accurate.Clearly. Its also extremely short to be 5 sentences.
Your new version of the Koran is too bland.
I prefer the old one.
Rules of War in the Quran
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Your new version of the Koran is too bland.
I prefer the old one.
He may well be using one of the Korans produced in Saudi Arabia.
They disseminate a huge amount of literature explaining "True Islam".
Doesn't matter where the Qurans are produced [although that cover looks like the Saudi productions]. I'm more interested in who is doing the translations.
The Saudi translations add things that are not in the original text.
The Wahhabi Koran is notable in that, while Muslims believe that their sacred text was dictated by God and cannot be altered, the Saudi English version adds to the original so as to change its sense in a radical direction. For example, the opening chapter, or surah, is known as Fatiha, and is recited in Muslim daily prayer and (among non-Wahhabis) as a memorial to the dead. The four final lines of Fatiha read, in a normal rendition of the Arabic original (such as this translation by N.J. Dawood, published by Penguin Books): Guide us to the straight path, / The path of those whom You have favored, / Not of those who have incurred Your wrath, / Nor of those who have gone astray.
The Wahhabi Koran renders these lines: Guide us to the Straight Way. / The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians). The Wahhabi Koran prints this translation alongside the Arabic text, which contains no reference to either Jews or Christians.
from http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000\000\004\653wwewi.asp?pg=1
Yes, and not just translations.
I believe that a lot of the Christian New Testament is doctored, so as to conform with Old Testament prophesies.
I believe that a lot of the Christian New Testament is doctored, so as to conform with Old Testament prophesies.
But thats more obvious innit? They actually have two councils of Nicea several hundred years apart where they adopt specific doctrines and declare others as unacceptable. Aren't there Gospels out there that do not form a part of the Testament? I know that there are several Christians who look upon Paul's doctrine with suspicion. Where are the Gospels of Jesus?
Paul's writings are about doctrine.
He widens the scope of the religion from a sub-sect of Judaism to one that sought converts from other religions.
He talks about Christ rather than Jesus.
Considering that he was in contact with some of the disciples who knew Jesus personally, it is odd that he never provides any new information about the life of Jesus.
:shrug:
He widens the scope of the religion from a sub-sect of Judaism to one that sought converts from other religions.
He talks about Christ rather than Jesus.
Considering that he was in contact with some of the disciples who knew Jesus personally, it is odd that he never provides any new information about the life of Jesus.
:shrug:
I've never heard that before, whats the difference?
The Christ.
Is Jesus as the Messiah, as the fulfilment of Hebrew prophesy, rather than Jesus walking, talking, doing miracles etc.
Someone can correct me on this, but I think that Paul never mentions any actual event of the life of Jesus in the whole of his writings.
Paul was a Jewish theologian, and was probably more interested in the theology rather than the life story.
Is Jesus as the Messiah, as the fulfilment of Hebrew prophesy, rather than Jesus walking, talking, doing miracles etc.
Someone can correct me on this, but I think that Paul never mentions any actual event of the life of Jesus in the whole of his writings.
Paul was a Jewish theologian, and was probably more interested in the theology rather than the life story.
Last edited:
I don't know, when I think of religions that claim to be of peace, its hard to take them seriously when their bible contains the rules of war.
The printing of war rules is not a peaceful act. It is inciteful and is either a form, or an act, of aggression. They would have to make war amongst themselves to satisfy their own regulations.
The printing of war rules is not a peaceful act. It is inciteful and is either a form, or an act, of aggression. They would have to make war amongst themselves to satisfy their own regulations.
Doesn't eliminate it. If you look at it from an outsider's perspective then all the quran has done is no different than an 'Uncle Sam Wants You' poster. Propaganda at best, lessening the fear and giving the right to go ahead and kill for God and country. Oh, glory too.
Last edited:
In order to make such a judgement, you should at least read it.
Why would you want to eliminate the right to self defense or the right to fight oppression?