Daily Fail

[A Homosexual]

TrolleyDave: I am A Homosexual.

Look how easy it is to piss a homosexual off. Look at this troll. *points to above quote* Doesn't understand that his IP is recorded. Thinks that he can pull a fast one on everyone. I can do it too.

Show me proof, physical, hard, bold, juicy proof, that Islamist book "The Koran" has been changed at all, since when it was originally compiled. Show me with that proof, that it has been "constantly reworked" since it's original, Arabic inception.

Don't come back to this topic, nay, the Internet as a whole, until then.

I like how you automatically assume I'm a homosexual =).

I'm merely pointing out Christian inaccuracies towards the issue . But hey, I find it amusing how you ignore most of my post and focus on the one bit about Islam.

True, while the Christian bible has been constantly reworked physically, the Qur'an as a physical book has been to (my knowledge) preserved as close to its original writing as possible.

Now, re-read that line, and notice that I don't specifically mention the Qur'an, Bible, or Torah


I'm trying to point out that the GENERAL interpretations of those religions have been constantly reworked since their inception.

Example:
The Qur'an specifically doesn't mention that women need to be veiled from head to toe. So why are many muslim women veiled?
Because that's the general EVOLVED interpretation of the passages that directly relate to this issue, much like how christians view hell as being a fiery place of pain.

Really, a catholic priest damning homosexuals is a nice parallel to a muslim man calling a white woman in England a whore. Neither has their viewpoint correctly justified in their respective books of faith, their society just interpreted it that way.


You seem to be quite asspained though. Sorry.

Ugh you're right. My bad, i'm fucking retarded, I apologize as well.

The thing is, you started talking about contradictions in the Bible, and then said that they were reworked. FORGIVE ME FATHER FOR I HAVE SINNED.

Yes I agree with you. But there are people in each respective religion that are trying to bring the original teachings back, by adhering to certain aspects of only their holy scriptures, and are trying to teach the right way.

 

[TrolleyDave]

I blame it on translation yes. But there are no changes in the general Quranic text that is studied in countless institutes in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, (Al Azhar Universities, and the like). Since the beginning of it's inception. Just because some other scriptures from a completely different country from the origin of inception were found, doesn't mean that it's a significant change of over-all studied, and read Quran. I don't see how you make that link. That's like saying the "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie is an actual omitted verse of the Quran.

The book Satanic Verses by Rushdie was never meant to be an extension of the Qu'ran. It was a story about the difficulties of a Muslim arriving in the UK if I remember right. There are verses that were removed by Mohammed, pre-scribing, because he believed he'd been fooled by Satan. Correct?

Yes a minor change is significant, and will be found, when it comes down to translational errors...again...I don't see how you make that link, nor understand my point. That's EXACTLY the reason why there are so many (minor) differences.

I understand fully the difficulty of translating the Qu'ran from it's Arabic form. Arabic, like Chinese, have words that can mean many different things based on context. As such a tight hold was kept on the Qu'ran and the spread of Islam during the first Caliph then surely the scholars would have made sure that every translation during it's spread were as accurate as possible?

I only looked for reasons why OTHERS (such as yourself and that Zuhri guy) THINK IT IS NOT INFALLIBLE. You can decide objectively, subjectively, whatever. That's all up to you. My intention was not to change your belief, but to enlighten you as to watch what you source when debating.

And I appreciate that enlightenment. I did more than 10 seconds research on the Suna'a Qu'ran though. I sourced as many reports on it as possible. Since it was decided that the Suna'a Qu'ran was not for public consumption though it's hard to source any more information. There's no mention of how significant these changes are, there's no mention of why it's that way down to mis-translation. The information has been supressed, even to the dismay of some Scholars who say they would like an open debate on it.



Posts merged

I don't care if you are Anti-Islam or not, or whether you think that Sharia laws are barbaric or not. That is more off-topic than this mini-debate inside this blog post. =)

I wasn't trying to move the discussion off-topic, I was merely explaining that I don't source this information to attack Islamic beliefs.

Once again, I am not debating, I am merely stating that your source was incorrect. I'm glad I have enlightened you with information as to why your source was incorrect. I hope in the future you research (not Google search something for 10 seconds, or just accept anything your friend tells you to read) information and figure things out yourself before you source it, as that is usually what brings down a really good, solid debate.

As I said, I spent a little more than 10 seconds researching this. I sourced as much information as possible and read what various scholars had said about, and then came to the conclusion myself. I still see no hard evidence that proves that these differences are merely translational errors. I've seen the claims, but not the documentation to go with it. If you can show me the Scholars who use the pages comparatively than I'd be more than happy to read. I can not source that information myself though.

Yes information was requested, but you didn't provide any (and I quote A Homosexual) "physical, hard, bold, juicy proof", really. All that was quoted were questionable sources.

As far as I'm concerned the differences in text, as eyewitnessed by Scholars, is physical proof that there are changes in the Qu'ran. Blaming it on translation is fine, but where is the documentation showing that this is the case. If it was easily explained away as mis-translation then where are the reports from the Scholars detailing these mistranslations? I've seen it for other stuff. If you have links to this information I'd be more than happy to read the information.

QUOTE

You also contradicted yourself. You said that you would like to debate on this matter, yet you will only listen to me if I have "physical, hard evidence" (the Quran from the first caliphate). And even if I do have it, what reason would I have to show you it in the first place? What do I have to prove to you? Where is your proof that the Quran had changed since it's inception? Do you have a PhD in Archeology? In Religious studies?

Now did I say that I would only listen to you if you could show me "physical, hard evidence"? No, what I asked was if you could show me a copy of the Qu'ran from the first Caliph. To me this would quash any rumours or debate on whether or not the Qu'ranic texts had been changed. You don't have to prove anything to me, I'm just asking for information. I see no physical proof that the Qu'ran of today is exactly as was compiled by the first Caliph. Yet I see the Suna'a Qu'ran which shows that there are differences in the text. As far as I'm aware the Caliph kept a told hold on the spread of the Qu'ran. Even going so far as to destroy copies in Arabia that were in the possession of various tribes because they differed. The Suna'a Qu'ran dates back to that time does it not? And nope, I don't have a Phd in either of those things. I source as much information that I can get my hands on and decide my opinion on that. Is there information that I'm missing? Of course there will be, which is why I appreciate when people point me in the direction of the missing information.



Posts merged

QUOTE

You assume I'm being biased, because I am a Muslim, and obviously my belief will not falter. But I too am open to any questionable areas of the subject of the Quran's corruption, yet you haven't shown me any.

I don't expect your belief to falter. I actually admire the fact that your faith is strong, most people these days lack the courage of their convictions. You say the Suna'a Qu'ran isn't proof of the corruption of the original teachings of Mohammed, I see it as proof that there have been corruptions. I see no evidence that it's merely mistranslation, simply assurances.

QUOTE

And I like how you totally ignored the fact that you were wrong about sourcing that site as well.

Sorry about that. I didn't just get the information I know about the Sana'a Qu'ran from that site. I read various things that I could find. The problem with studying more information about is that the information is now not available. The trail ends at the seizure of the texts. I can find no information about the Scholars details showing that the differences are merely translational errors. If you have copies of that material I'd love to read it.

As for the other information about the collection of the Qu'ran. As I said, a Muslim friend of mine gave me details on how the Qu'ran was compiled originally. I can find information that shows this. The information you gave me showing it to be false and not a canon narrative is interesting and I'll research more information on it based on what you've given me. When I've read that information I can come back with my view on it, until I've read the information I can't really give you my opinion.

(Sorry, bollocky quote limit!)

 

[Jamstruth]

On people saying that the religious texts have been reworked constantly. They have since the stories' original creation.
You see in the olden days people didn't buy or write books, they told stories and things spread through word of mouth. As a result stories are adapted and told. When they're finally written down the story can have changed drastically since its original creation.

And Shiro: You're right I shouldn't have called you a homophobe but "disorder" by the very definition you laid down means "a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction: a mild stomach disorder." I.e. SOMETHING WRONG IN THE HEAD!!! As I said most homosexuals have pretty perfect mental health and its not really a neural dysfunction but rather a genetic blip.
Also the Penguins were the first that came to mind but your argument makes no sense. Why/how would you breed 2 Penguins to become gay? You get the fame so that covers the "Why" but the "How"? That would take a LOT!!

 

[UltraMagnus]

Whaoh six pages in a blog...

Anyways...Whats the big deal with this anyways? Wow so some bum on the street hates homosexuals, big woop, so does the bible...But yea he does deserve to get arrested

I

ed too.

Preaching hate, no matter what myth you use as an excuse, should never be acceptable.

 

[Law]

0/10

 

[Pliskron]

0/10

You're a sinner. A black hearted evil doer. Who's dancing to the devils pan flute. You're running satanic interference covering your own sins by casting aspersions of innocent homosexuals. You're tongue wags like the devils tail my friend and soon you'll have your due shoveling coal for the dark lord.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I find that most people who say that homosexuality is a sin makes them gay (or at least question whether or not they are in fact straight)

Yeah, that makes sense...

Alrighty gents, let's get a few things out of the way here:

The bible itself, is nothing more than mere edited and closely selected ancient writings put together by the Catholic church.
True, many churches (including the Catholic Church) edit a lot of the Bible to try and hide some of the messages that are really there, or to alter them to fit what they want people to think.

I doubt any of you actually read the bible anyway. Paradise Lost doesn't count as bible knowledge.
I read it every day.

NEXT: PROTOKUN7 (not 07)

Why? The Bible has also said about how the Earth wasn't flat and that it is "hanging upon nothing".

ABOVE TROLL QUOTE IS TROLL

Why?

I don't understand. Are you questioning the reliability of the source?

So, stop nitpicking arguments...if you have a problem with religion, then just say you're an athiest, or you don't believe in an organized religion and you don't think that religion applies or should influence the legality of homosexuality in the modern day. Don't get me wrong: I don't care that you don't care, just showing everyone that you are just a troll.

I'm not an Atheist, I just have issues with religions that censor the Bible's true message.

QUOTE(A Homosexual @ Mar 28 2010, 07:37 AM)

Did you make an account just to join this discussion?

 

[Sonicslasher]

0/10
You're a sinner. A black hearted evil doer. Who's dancing to the devils pan flute. You're running satanic interference covering your own sins by casting aspersions of innocent homosexuals. You're tongue wags like the devils tail my friend and soon you'll have your due shoveling coal for the dark lord.

My life for the Lich King.

 

[ProtoKun7]

(not 07)
...like it really matters?
ProtoKun07 and ProtoKun7

As you mis-interpreted my post, I mis-interpreted yours.

You thought that I said, that, when science and religion agree and adhere that homosexuality is wrong, you asked why? And I misinterpreted that as you thinking that the Bible was wrong.
Oh, right. Yeah, I thought you meant the fact that the Bible and science agreed meant that something was messed up, which isn't the case.
QUOTE(Shiro786 @ Mar 28 2010, 06:11 PM) QUOTE(ProtoKun7 @ Mar 27 2010, 11:25 AM)

I'm not an Atheist, I just have issues with religions that censor the Bible's true message.

Fair enough...

Thank you.

EDIT: A bit I said ended up in a quote by mistake.

 

[Pliskron]

I have an interesting philosophical question. In the Catholic church is it not considered homosexuality if a priest rapes a little boy. Is that a technicality where it's considered pedophilia and therefore not explicitly singled out as a sin in the bible? Because if that is the case it seems that if the church lifted the prohibition on homosexuality new cases of pedophilia would necessarily plummet.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I have an interesting philosophical question. In the Catholic church is it not considered homosexuality if a priest rapes a little boy. Is that a technicality where it's considered pedophilia and therefore not explicitly singled out as a sin in the bible? Because if that is the case it seems that if the church lifted the prohibition on homosexuality new cases of pedophilia would necessarily plummet.

LOL, maybe.

It's still homosexual, but it probably wouldn't surprise me if people were using that as a rather faulty loophole.

 

[TrolleyDave]

No it was not meant to be an extension of the Qu'ran. But there's a huge controversy involving what Salman Rushdie believed the Satanic Verses to actually be (translating the word verses to the Urdu word "ayat", which is reserved strictly for the Qu'ranic chapters) omitted verses removed by the quran. And no, I'd like to see the source for the information you've stated at the end.

The verses themselves are the same ones that Salman Rushdie refers to (Star 53:19@), but as originally mentioned by Ibn Ishaq in his biography of Mohammed. So it would depend on whether or not you consider the information of Ibn Ishaq to be a valid account. I know that some of what he has said has been discredited as unauthentic by the scholars and the surviving works are now in an edited form. Also an apology as I probably put that a bit wrong originally. When I say removed, I don't mean they are removed completely, I mean the original text was removed an replaced. If you accept Ibn Ishaq to be a valid source then I can link you to it. I've read both the for and againsts and my own opinion is that it's valid, but it depends on yours as to whether they're acceptable.

As far as I know, translations of the Qu'ran are only used for teaching non-Muslims, or if a person has a reading and learning disability of the Qu'ran in Arabic. I was taught to Arabic, learned it, and read the Qu'ran in the language of its original inception. Again, I don't have proof, but it should be noted that the scholars of the first Caliph would not have encouraged translating the book into different languages at the time, but rather, inscribe it from their previous generation in the same language. Once again, if you had watched that video, there are some words in Arabic that cannot be translated directly into a different language, (i.e English). As well, a simple diagonal line at the top of a concatenated word (zehr) could change the entire meaning of the word. Translating the book is a deadly process, and translating to the English language is pretty much why there are so many controversies involving modern day Islam.

While I accept that the task of translating the Qu'ran may be a difficult task, I don't accept the fact that it parts of it are untranslatable. One of the things that is claimed to show the divinity of the Qu'ran is that it's still in exactly the same form as it was when first recited. The classic Arabic is still spoken in exactly the same form as it was then, hence the claims of non-corruption. You will agree that the Qu'ran has been updated to make it easier for those learning classic Arabic to understand, the inclusion of vowel dots etc. (the most recent update being 1923 or 1927 I believe)? I find it very difficult to believe that with all the Scholars, Sheiks and Ayatollahs claiming to understand the divine meaning of the Arabic
text that it would be impossible to translate correctly. Specially after over 1000 years of study from so many people. After all, we have translations of books from Chinese which suffer a similar problem. While they many not capture the poetic prose of the original language they are still translated with the meaning intact. So while I'll agree that the poetic, almost song long recital of the Arabic version may be difficult to capture the text and context itself would be translatable.

OK. If the entire Muslim population acknowledge the Sana'a manuscripts as an original, oldest existing version of the Qu'ran, why is it not widely circulated? I quote the same article:



Posts merged

Jones admits there have been 'trifling' changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. 'I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view,' he says.
[Jones] believes that the Sa'na Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. 'It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.'

On top of this, there has yet to be any scholarly debate regarding the legality and information of these manuscripts. Yes, this is an example of the Qu'ran being altered, but it isn't even widely in circulation. Yes it is a corruption, but it hasn't corrupted the general populace of Muslims. I don't see any argument into this anymore, like it doesn't make sense to me. When you can show me that every Muslim that owns an arabic copy of the Sana'a Manuscripts instead of the very same Qu'ran from its inception, then, and only then, will I believe it is a corruption of the Qu'ran.


Fair enough, I understand and accept your point of view. I see it a little differently. Could the Sana'a Qu'ran not be a translation of one of the previous inscriptions of the Qu'ran? The Ulthmanic text was after all a unifying of the original recitals. If I remember right it was to stop the disputes amongst those who claimed that their particular recital of the Qu'ran was correct one. Anyway, back to the subject matter at hand! Would you consider a narrative by Mohammeds wife to Sahih? Would her words be acceptable as proof of corruption in the text that we know today? I should probably also make my viewpoint on the corruption a little clearer. When I talk about corruption in the verses of the Qu'ran I'm not just talking about corruption from the Ulthmaic texts to now, I include from when Mohammed first revealed the verse. So while I accept that theirs a very high possibility that the Qu'ran we see today is an exact replica/recitation of the Ulthmaic texts I believe corruption happened before the Ulthmaic texts were even scribed. Is this an acceptable standpoint, or are we simply talking about the fact that it hasn't changed since the Ulthmaic texts?

And I didn't say you sourced this information for malignant purposes.

My apologies again then. The reason I assumed this is because the site you linked me referred to my questions as "attacks" on the Qu'ran. Whoever wrote the article doesn't refer to them as questions, every single question is referred to as "an attack on the Qu'ran".

QUOTEI don't actually understand this statement. What do you mean?

What I meant was could you link me to articles or discussions on the Sana'a Qu'ran from Scholars showing the translational errors. It's neither here nor there now as the reasons you gave above for it not being acceptable as proof of corruption override this. Although if you do have the information I'd be interested in reading it.

QUOTE

I direct yourself to the video listed above, by Nouman Ali Khan, an indo-pak scholar and head of the Bayyinah Institute of Islam, dedicated to "offering the highest quality of Arabic education to well over a hundred communities across the United States". Also an excerpt from the About page regarding the institute:
QUOTE

...We believe that Muslims from all walks of life regardless of gender or age have the right to a high quality, affordable, effective, and enjoyable Arabic education. We have taken upon ourselves to become a small part of delivering that noble right to the community spread across the United States and welcome our non-Muslim neighbors to take part in our programs as well. We live in times where a direct understanding of Islam’s intellectual legacy without losing any part of it to mistranslation or misinterpretation is both desirable and critical...

I find that hard to accept for the same reason that I find it hard to accept that the context and meaning of the Qu'ran can not be translated properly from the Arabic form. The words themselves, the ideology behind it, and any lessons learnt are translatable. There are enough scholars in existence that would make this possible. I could even use the words from the Qu'ran itself which state that God and the Angels will guard the words from corruption. Therefore, according to divinity, would they not also guard it from corruption when being translated? If the words and message are protected from corruption then the words and message are protected from corruption regardless of the language.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Fair enough. But you said you would listen to me. Why even make that point then, you are listening to me now, (or reading, if you want to be technical

) are you not? I guess that [the compiled Qu'ran from the first caliph] would end this entire thing...but that's also the be-all to end-all.

Sorry, I put that a little badly. I didn't mean to imply that I would only listen to you if you could produce the original compilation from the first Caliph. I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say. Backing it up with physical evidence would be preferable obviously, but any iformation you have to show me is fine. A copy of the Qu'ran as compiled immediately after the death of Mohammed would indeed end the argument. As anyone who knows the story of the Ulthmaic text knows though all previous copies were destroyed in order to unify it.

Regarding the legality of the Yemenic Sana'a Manuscripts, which are indeed Uthmanic script:
QUOTEUthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. The Qur'an is always written in the Uthmanic Rasm (Rasm al Uthman). In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE. The Qur'an text most widely used today is based on the Rasm Uthmani(Uthmanic way of writing the Qur'an) and in the Hafs tradition of recitation, as approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1922.

Source: Wikipedia.

I have a small problem with that logic, hopefully you'll be able to correct my way of thinking. While I can understand that a textual version of the information may need to be corrected as it doesn't match up with the oral recitations, why would the oral recitations need to be corrected to match the Ulthmaic texts. I thought the whole point of the memorisation of the Qu'ran was to ensure a kind of checks and balance system? Isn't it written that those spreading the Qu'ran could recite it word for word exact, which stopped any corruption that could be possible during it's inscription?

(Sorry for the mess of the above posts, messed it up trying to get round the quote limit!)

 

[bnwchbammer]

I find that most people who say that homosexuality is a sin makes them gay (or at least question whether or not they are in fact straight)

Yeah, that makes sense...

Come now, a lot of the time you see people hating gays, or saying it's a sin, it can be a cover up for them since they are gay.
I'm not saying every time someone calls it a sin they're gay, but it does seem to me that a good amount of time, they are.
If it's a forced belief, I can really understand where they're coming from too.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

It's both wrong and his choice at the same time.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it's his right to say anything he pleases as long as he's not harming anyone.

Now, whether or not it's morally okay, or socially acceptable is a completely different thing.

I, as a citizen of the United States of America will defend your right to the death, to call me a bi-sexual sinner who will burn in hell for all eternity.

 

[[M]artin]

Come now, a lot of the time you see people hating gays, or saying it's a sin, it can be a cover up for them since they are gay.
I'm not saying every time someone calls it a sin they're gay, but it does seem to me that a good amount of time, they are.
If it's a forced belief, I can really understand where they're coming from too.

Here, bammer, let me introduce you to a little guy who goes by the name of Religionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality. A lot of people tend to adhere closely to their religious beliefs, and if you take to time to go down that list... well... things don't look too bright for homosexuals among many of them.

Perhaps they exhibit what appears to be hatred and call it a sin because... their religious texts and leaders flat-out tell them it's a sin? It's part of their culture to shun your culture because it's full of everything they stand against... sin, etc (just a generalization).

 

[UltraMagnus]

artin]

Come now, a lot of the time you see people hating gays, or saying it's a sin, it can be a cover up for them since they are gay.
I'm not saying every time someone calls it a sin they're gay, but it does seem to me that a good amount of time, they are.
If it's a forced belief, I can really understand where they're coming from too.

Here, bammer, let me introduce you to a little guy who goes by the name of Religionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality. A lot of people tend to adhere closely to their religious beliefs, and if you take to time to go down that list... well... things don't look too bright for homosexuals among many of them.

Perhaps they exhibit what appears to be hatred and call it a sin because... their religious texts and leaders flat-out tell them it's a sin? It's part of their culture to shun your culture because it's full of everything they stand against... sin, etc (just a generalization).

And because their mythology tells them it is OK it is acceptable then? I am sure the KKK said the same thing.

 

[ProtoKun7]

I find that most people who say that homosexuality is a sin makes them gay (or at least question whether or not they are in fact straight)

Yeah, that makes sense...

Come now, a lot of the time you see people hating gays, or saying it's a sin, it can be a cover up for them since they are gay.
I'm not saying every time someone calls it a sin they're gay, but it does seem to me that a good amount of time, they are.
If it's a forced belief, I can really understand where they're coming from too.

Ah, I see. For the record, however, I'm not trying to cover anything up

(I'm heterosexual and always will be), and my beliefs weren't forced on me either.

 

[[M]artin]

artin]

Come now, a lot of the time you see people hating gays, or saying it's a sin, it can be a cover up for them since they are gay.
I'm not saying every time someone calls it a sin they're gay, but it does seem to me that a good amount of time, they are.
If it's a forced belief, I can really understand where they're coming from too.

Here, bammer, let me introduce you to a little guy who goes by the name of Religionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality. A lot of people tend to adhere closely to their religious beliefs, and if you take to time to go down that list... well... things don't look too bright for homosexuals among many of them.

Perhaps they exhibit what appears to be hatred and call it a sin because... their religious texts and leaders flat-out tell them it's a sin? It's part of their culture to shun your culture because it's full of everything they stand against... sin, etc (just a generalization).

And because their mythology tells them it is OK it is acceptable then? I am sure the KKK said the same thing.

Hey, I'm not saying that every single one of those religions is morally acceptable (hell, I don't agree with most of them myself), that's not my point. I'm pointing out that bammer's original concept that nearly everyone who calls out "Sin!" is usually gay themselves is ridiculous. The majority of them are simply adhering to their religions, not covering up their homosexuality...

 

[BlueStar]