......best we stick to the facts

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 24, 2008 at 03:14

the easily upset Mr. Bayezid writes:

"you presented a hadith about burning the copies of the quran. "
It's hard to find the point much of it makes - but, yes, I thought I had.

"...it is a sahih hadith. sahih meaning pure. "
Good - but as compared to what?

"but im araid you havent quoted correctly. in fact you havent even named a source. "
So there are many translations of the ungarbled Koran? Why so? Why not just one?

"....whats to keep people from thinking you devised it yourself? "
The same principle that keeps most sane people from thinking the Koran was directly created by the supreme consciousness behid the universe - common sense.

"anyways as a muslim, we have a habit of presenting info like this with sources. dont worry, youll learn.",
but then I'd have to know which 'translation' of the Koran the particular Muslim who was reading would be happy with wouldn't II? Obviously by your response it was clear enough for you to remember which particular paragraph it was in your particular version.

Imam al-Bukhari narrates in his Sahih (6:183-184) from Anas ibn Malik (RA) that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time the people of Sham were battling for the conquest of Armenia and Azerbaijan [~year 25H] with the people of Iraq. Their divergences in Qur'anic reading had alarmed Hudhayfa, so he said to `Uthman: "O Commander of the Believers! Rescue (adrik) this Umma before they differ over the Book the way the Jews and Christians differed." Whereupon `Uthman wrote to Hafsah: "Send us the folios (suhuf) so that we copy them then we shall return them to you." Hafsa then sent them to `Uthman who ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, `Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa`id ibn al-`As, and `Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham who copied those folios into the volumes (masahif). `Uthman said to the group - the three Qurayshis: "If you find yourselves differing, [the three of] you and Zayd ibn Thabit in anything of the Qur'an, write it in the tongue of the Quraysh. For it was not revealed but in their tongue." They did [as instructed] and when they finished copying the folios into the volumes, `Uthman returned the folios to Hafsa, sent one mushaf to each region from those they had copied, then ordered that all other [copies] of the Qur'an in each and every folio or volume be burnt.

OK, so he burnt the other copies of the Koran - which is what the passage I referred to had said.

"the quran is revealed in arabic. ancient arabic had 7 seperate dialects. you do know what dialects mean dont you?

How could I possibly know what 'dialects' mean? Only someone with your great rhetorical and oratorical skills would know what such big words mean I should think.

"......different syles in speaking. but meaning is same. absolutely the same. its not like there were 7 versions of the quran. maybe you did not know this but other islamophobics "

If you're using the made-up word 'Islamophobics' as some kind of slur - then there you go again - you intention is character assasination. 'Phobos' as you might know is from the Greek root for the word 'fear'. I am certainly not afraid of Islam - so choose some other word. It's impossible for Muslims to appreciate how they are seen by others. It's something like the analogy of kindergarten kids saying the game they are playingis the best game in the school - and all people in all levels at the school should be playing their game.

"..know about the futility of using this argument since weall know the truth. maybe you are new in this?"

You are being very vague. We don't all know what you think is truth.

"so diferent tribes strted reading the same quran with diffrent sounds. this would cretae dissenssion among the people. so the best of the dialect among the 7 was chosen. and it was the qurayishi dialect. the quraysh was the tribe of the prophet and its dialect had sounds and phonetics much similar to the quran in arabic. you can verify by checking out the original copies in turkey in saudi arabia today.oh yeah we still have it."

I had the impression that the copy in Turkey was only partial. As a matter of interest - where is the very first , origonal Koran?

"but in no way i it this that quran had different versions. you can be a skeptic all you want but it is a historical fact."

Just like there is one original Lord of the Rings manuscript. What is your point?

"....the quran is not the eiffel tower.you just noticed that? i was simply using a metaphorical example."

Really? I thought the Koran might have been Eiffel Tower and that's why so many Muslims go to live in France. I'm glad you've clarified that for us.

"the quran is an intricate message that no man can come up with."

more like 'no sane man...."

"in any way you lok at it. the structure. the sound. the numerical value and frequencies of words in the chapters. the addressing of the message. impeccable."

you sound like a critic at an art gallery - extolling the virtues of and reading meaning into something that has only very limited meaning.

"and you can stop complaining about it and just try to write your verion of a quran. ALLAH challenges men and jinn to it. so give it your best shot."

Allah tells me to criticise BS when I hear it.

BTW, there's been no response from you on Stonehenge and Newgrange - which I gave as examples to prove your assertion that only Islam./arabs knew the Sun followed a path.

Do you resile from your statement? No?

That would tally with a trait I have found very common amongst Muslims. It is their inability to admit error when it is staring at them (and everyone else) in the face. Very rarely do you see such admissions , let alone apologies for being wrong and adamantly maintaining their beliefs when proved they are incorrect.

Specifically adressing yourself here - Plato on this forum comes up with logical arguments you are either incapable of or refuse to refute. Not that you must reply - but your inaction tells volumes. You have no valid answers other than hyperbolic statements about the wonderfulness of your Koran. For example - you say Mohammed tells his followers to 'know thyself' - precisely where is this statement made? If it was made at all - had he heard it from Socrates writings? Why is that statement not stressed at all in Islam? As it is in every other religion?

You come up with very poor rationalisations about the poor quality of Mohammed's insights into the nature of the solar system

previous posting from Islamic scriptures:

".....this seven-layered, huge earth on the horn of a cow. This cow has four thousand such horns, and the distance from one horn to another is a journey of five hundred years. This gigantic cow is standing on the back of a giant fish. This fish is floating on glutinous water; the depth of this water is the distance of a journey of forty years. The glutinous water is resting on floating air. This air or atmosphere is resting on darkness. The darkness rests upon the Hell and that Hell is placed on a massive stone."

defending the indefensible, Mr. bayezid continues:

"Muhammad peace be upon him was simply using similes and metaphors to explain the earths position and the forces acting on it to a 7th century ignorant arab. an arab who would not understand the centripetal and centrifugal forcces on the earth. gravity. electromagnetism. what he prophet did was simply explain things in 7th century laymans terms."

Why didn't he just say 'the earth was a globe spinning in blackness - held in place by unknown forces? That would have been simple to follow - and quite acceptable to simple arab desert dwellers. Why make up a whole heap of crap about cow horns etc?

" so the u n existed in the 7th century? the declaration of human rights? good you re learning to be humurous.but im afraid with the wrong kind of info. back then , people had no conventions."

Did I say the UN existed in the 7th century? I'm very sorry if you don't have the ability to understand the point made - I think there's a chance you might have misunderstood me.

"let alone human rights. let me tell you about your rights back then, in any place in the 7th century, you had none. and the ones that had it were the nobility. dont even get me started on rome. or greece."

Rome was well finished as a major power , so was Greece by the 7th century. Prior to the 3rd Century AD, Roman citizens DID have rights, these were in existence prior to year 1 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

"ever wonder why people had problems with islamic values then? "

a guess - the same reasons why they have problems with Islamic values now?

"it was because ALLAH directly tells everyone that men and women were the same. but none of your ancestors would have that oh no. it was just one of the reasons."

Are you going of on a ethno-cultural tangent now? Your statement is false. Apart from the more patriarchal Rome, Ancient Germanic, Norse and Celtic tribes all treated men and women equally. There was the innate understanding of the worth of each.

http://www.bigrags.com/Stories/celticinvasion.htm

Now that you've brought up that ' ALLAH directly tells everyone that men and women were the same' - why do we see that in the 21s century - Britain jrecently passed laws in the House of Commons specifically banning forced marriages for UK citizens - because of cases of women being held against their will and forced into unions not of their choosing .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7747267.stm

Note this in almost all cases involves people in Islamic countries (the case just last week reported on the BBC recently was in either Mr. Bayezid's own country.. The woman involved was drugged and held captive by her own parents.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5340058.ece

How can Islamic cultures have created such a social climate where these sorts of crimes against individuals - who happen to be women - can be allowed to happen ???

Wouldn't you call this primitive - and if not - why not?

Why does it occur nearly in all cases in Islamic countries?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".