6 ms·

It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of r

by waps 11y ago

It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament. In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.

selimthegrim 11y ago
Mind control is mind control is mind control, by any other name...mind control made up by "educated people" is probably harder to fight
azth 11y ago
> The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon. Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.
- waps 11y ago
  There are 5 different versions of the quran, with differences in wording and meaning, in wide use today. The number of different versions known to be in print is 20. As an example, buy one in Morocco and one in Egypt ... and they don't match. So while you're reciting one of the paedophiles' prophet articles of faith, muslims have actually not yet resolved to have a single version of the quran TODAY. Whatever date a single version of the quran gets, the year will be 2015 or larger. "During the time of the prophet ?" ... it isn't even cleared up after the THIRD time the line of caliphs died out, and islam as a state was destroyed by the Turks. But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ? As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ... > "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201] This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn_Affan_and_the_canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn... Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences. (note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible) Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this. Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?
  - azth 11y ago
    There are multiple Qira'aat (recitations) of the Quran, all of which have sound chains of narrations back to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. The variations among certain Ayat (verses) do not change the overall meaning of them. For instance, in one recitation, you would find the word "Malik" (ملك), meaning King or Lord; and in another, you would find "Maalik" (مالك), meaning Master, Possessor, or Only Owner. Both are authentic recitations which the Prophet Peace be upon him recited during his lifetime. If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam. People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many. Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would. Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa? [1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at
    - waps 11y ago
      You failed to explain why the Sana'a manuscripts are different. You see you keep spewing these articles of faith ... but fail to explain known facts. As you know very well, the letters are different in these versions of the quran, and in one case there's a verse missing, and "somehow" your example has the exact same letters. You utterly failed to explain your faith in early muslims' perfect 120-year long memory. As far as I can tell, you haven't even attempted. This is just rhetoric. Saying anything, anything at all to try to defend your pathetic paedophilic religion's viewpoint : raping minors is wrong ... except when the prophet did it "because it was common". Needless to say, it is wrong, and the central idea of islam is that your paedophilic prophet is a moral role model for all time. Raping 6 year olds was wrong when the first human walked the earth and will be wrong long after the last human dies. Look at a picture of a girl in a cradle and tell me if raping her is wrong or not. You do not need religion to know the answer to that question, and any religion that even suggests otherwise is immoral and an abomination. Your defense of it makes you a monster. Massacring is wrong ... except when the prophet "was at war" (not that he ever was at peace), because then it was "self-defence". Self-defence somehow lead to the massacring entire cities on a dozen occasions. Self-defence. Needless to say, self-defence cannot ever take the form of a massacre for a moral person. To Christians, even just killing, even just hurting someone in self-defence is a crime. THAT is moral (and very hard in some cases). Your way only leads to war, misery and death. Breaking peace treaties is wrong ... except when the prophet did it ... because "self-defence" (I have read the texts, it was not self-defence). In all cases of course the paedophilic prophet had the chance to walk away ... Don't you find yourself immoral for defending all these despicable crimes that your paedophilic prophet committed ? Don't you feel dirty, even evil ? > So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet, And here you are defending religious murder. Even attempting to point out to me that I should murder people. Fuckwit. Here's a basic fact : Christians, believe it or not, follow Christ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_ad... > The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’ As you explained, bringing the woman before Christ was a threat. The Torah was the law of the land, and if he knowingly violated it that would be punishable by expulsion minimum, execution at worst. The purpose was not to punish the woman, but to attack and maybe even kill Christ. He was truly moral, so obviously no stoning happened. Not a finger was lifted against anyone. Absolutely zero violence. Absolutely zero violation of the law. Let me tell you that again : they surrounded and tried to threaten him into killing someone. And he resolves the situation by drawing in the sand. This guy was good, in more than one sense of the word. This is just one of the many occasions where Jesus refuses to so much as threaten anyone to protect himself. He scolds one of the apostles for trying to defend him with violence later in the story. Do you understand now why Christianity will win ? I may be an atheist(technically agnost), but I fully realize that as long as people like you exist, Christianity is the only answer. But every point you have made you claw back the paragraph below it. When reading the age-old fatwa that muslims aren't allowed to live outside of the caliph's state you say > But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion. and then, to explain the validity one of the early muslim wars (the apostasy wars, which ended in massacre) ... > Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy. Note that you've claimed just before that that all wars were self-defence. And this you do 2 paragraphs below where you claim that denying fatwas ... is perfectly A-okay in islam. Fatwas are religious judgements, they are an extremely central part of sharia, the very core of how islamic law works. Most of the verses of the quran technically ARE fatwas, in the sense that they are religious judgements. And note that, yes, any fatwa endorsed by any of the caliphs, is as much part of sharia as the verses in the quran. Muslims don't, and can't, follow sharia. Here's what any sane person knows happened when Abu Bakr decided to kill the "apostates", the way you claim never happens because of denying fatwas ... When the old commander (the paedophile propet) died, his commanders attempted to massacre eachother. Not just 2 of them, but 5 different groups. What you call islam is the opinion of the winner of that fight, that massacre that occured there. In the years after that there would be more massacres for the same reason. If another commander had won, you would have believed completely different things about your paedophile religion. This war, and the massacres following it was the "election" of Abu Bakr. Can we just agree that you're a monster ? Not because you're a muslim, but because you agree with death penalty (and even massacres) for "apostasy" and for adultery, because you agree with paedophilic rape. Because you think massacres are justified. Because you defend religiously motivated murder. You have justified almost every single kind of despicable crime I even know about to yourself, right down to the rape of babies, which you clearly feel "was criticized", and that's enough. To any moral person reading this you have made the case that islam needs to die far stronger than I ever would be able to. That is the problem with islam : it makes otherwise sane people like you defend paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse. Do you understand now that the effect it has on hormone-filled 17 year olds is to make them COMMIT paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse ?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. I'll point out that you just claimed that those four named sources were three people. > In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. That's not that much shorter than the generally accepted time between the time of the events recounted in the gospels and the time that the canonical gospels were written.

by waps 11y ago

selimthegrim 11y ago

Mind control is mind control is mind control, by any other name...mind control made up by "educated people" is probably harder to fight

azth 11y ago

> The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon. Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.

waps 11y ago
There are 5 different versions of the quran, with differences in wording and meaning, in wide use today. The number of different versions known to be in print is 20. As an example, buy one in Morocco and one in Egypt ... and they don't match. So while you're reciting one of the paedophiles' prophet articles of faith, muslims have actually not yet resolved to have a single version of the quran TODAY. Whatever date a single version of the quran gets, the year will be 2015 or larger. "During the time of the prophet ?" ... it isn't even cleared up after the THIRD time the line of caliphs died out, and islam as a state was destroyed by the Turks. But islam clearly states there's only one version. Who is lying ? Reality or your paedophilic religion ? As for the islamic history's version of the quran's collection, read it and you will realize just how absurd it is that it would be even remotely accurate ... > "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men.[Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:201] This statement obviously means that there were no more than fragments written down 2 years after your prophet died. Supposedly, the first version was written down 25 years later. That's the version of history in the hadith, and very few historians believe it to be accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn_Affan_and_the_canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn... Note that while there is a "canonical" version of the quran in existence (Ottomans robbed it from Baghdad and it's still in Turkey), "for some reason" nobody's allowed to see it. Fragments of one of the others was found in graves in Yemen (the famous Sana'a manuscripts) and ... surprise ! They don't match. Nobody was surprised of course, but you're still going to deny it, aren't you ? Usually muslim lunatics claim this is a conspiracy against islam, just so you'll have some inspiration ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscript Do note that this is a script from after the canonicalization. So this should have been copied from a written quran, and thus presumably much more accurate than the copies made orally. And yet ... hundreds of differences. (note that there are internal inconsistencies in the Sana'a manuscripts too. The multiple copies found don't even fully match eachother. Sorry to state the obvious, but clearly early muslims weren't very concerned with exact copies of the quran, in the way that, for instance, Christian monks were for the bible) Muslims responded with violence and attacks. At the time, people were actually surprised at this. Also note that, in order to "guarantee nothing got lost", the hadith actually contain alternative versions of ~40% of all verses in the quran. And that number goes above 50% if you take all hadith accepted by any sect of islam (instead of just sunnis). Another conspiracy perhaps ?
- azth 11y ago
  There are multiple Qira'aat (recitations) of the Quran, all of which have sound chains of narrations back to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. The variations among certain Ayat (verses) do not change the overall meaning of them. For instance, in one recitation, you would find the word "Malik" (ملك), meaning King or Lord; and in another, you would find "Maalik" (مالك), meaning Master, Possessor, or Only Owner. Both are authentic recitations which the Prophet Peace be upon him recited during his lifetime. If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam. People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many. Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would. Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa? [1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at
  - waps 11y ago
    You failed to explain why the Sana'a manuscripts are different. You see you keep spewing these articles of faith ... but fail to explain known facts. As you know very well, the letters are different in these versions of the quran, and in one case there's a verse missing, and "somehow" your example has the exact same letters. You utterly failed to explain your faith in early muslims' perfect 120-year long memory. As far as I can tell, you haven't even attempted. This is just rhetoric. Saying anything, anything at all to try to defend your pathetic paedophilic religion's viewpoint : raping minors is wrong ... except when the prophet did it "because it was common". Needless to say, it is wrong, and the central idea of islam is that your paedophilic prophet is a moral role model for all time. Raping 6 year olds was wrong when the first human walked the earth and will be wrong long after the last human dies. Look at a picture of a girl in a cradle and tell me if raping her is wrong or not. You do not need religion to know the answer to that question, and any religion that even suggests otherwise is immoral and an abomination. Your defense of it makes you a monster. Massacring is wrong ... except when the prophet "was at war" (not that he ever was at peace), because then it was "self-defence". Self-defence somehow lead to the massacring entire cities on a dozen occasions. Self-defence. Needless to say, self-defence cannot ever take the form of a massacre for a moral person. To Christians, even just killing, even just hurting someone in self-defence is a crime. THAT is moral (and very hard in some cases). Your way only leads to war, misery and death. Breaking peace treaties is wrong ... except when the prophet did it ... because "self-defence" (I have read the texts, it was not self-defence). In all cases of course the paedophilic prophet had the chance to walk away ... Don't you find yourself immoral for defending all these despicable crimes that your paedophilic prophet committed ? Don't you feel dirty, even evil ? > So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet, And here you are defending religious murder. Even attempting to point out to me that I should murder people. Fuckwit. Here's a basic fact : Christians, believe it or not, follow Christ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_ad... > The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’ As you explained, bringing the woman before Christ was a threat. The Torah was the law of the land, and if he knowingly violated it that would be punishable by expulsion minimum, execution at worst. The purpose was not to punish the woman, but to attack and maybe even kill Christ. He was truly moral, so obviously no stoning happened. Not a finger was lifted against anyone. Absolutely zero violence. Absolutely zero violation of the law. Let me tell you that again : they surrounded and tried to threaten him into killing someone. And he resolves the situation by drawing in the sand. This guy was good, in more than one sense of the word. This is just one of the many occasions where Jesus refuses to so much as threaten anyone to protect himself. He scolds one of the apostles for trying to defend him with violence later in the story. Do you understand now why Christianity will win ? I may be an atheist(technically agnost), but I fully realize that as long as people like you exist, Christianity is the only answer. But every point you have made you claw back the paragraph below it. When reading the age-old fatwa that muslims aren't allowed to live outside of the caliph's state you say > But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion. and then, to explain the validity one of the early muslim wars (the apostasy wars, which ended in massacre) ... > Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy. Note that you've claimed just before that that all wars were self-defence. And this you do 2 paragraphs below where you claim that denying fatwas ... is perfectly A-okay in islam. Fatwas are religious judgements, they are an extremely central part of sharia, the very core of how islamic law works. Most of the verses of the quran technically ARE fatwas, in the sense that they are religious judgements. And note that, yes, any fatwa endorsed by any of the caliphs, is as much part of sharia as the verses in the quran. Muslims don't, and can't, follow sharia. Here's what any sane person knows happened when Abu Bakr decided to kill the "apostates", the way you claim never happens because of denying fatwas ... When the old commander (the paedophile propet) died, his commanders attempted to massacre eachother. Not just 2 of them, but 5 different groups. What you call islam is the opinion of the winner of that fight, that massacre that occured there. In the years after that there would be more massacres for the same reason. If another commander had won, you would have believed completely different things about your paedophile religion. This war, and the massacres following it was the "election" of Abu Bakr. Can we just agree that you're a monster ? Not because you're a muslim, but because you agree with death penalty (and even massacres) for "apostasy" and for adultery, because you agree with paedophilic rape. Because you think massacres are justified. Because you defend religiously motivated murder. You have justified almost every single kind of despicable crime I even know about to yourself, right down to the rape of babies, which you clearly feel "was criticized", and that's enough. To any moral person reading this you have made the case that islam needs to die far stronger than I ever would be able to. That is the problem with islam : it makes otherwise sane people like you defend paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse. Do you understand now that the effect it has on hormone-filled 17 year olds is to make them COMMIT paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse ?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. I'll point out that you just claimed that those four named sources were three people. > In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. That's not that much shorter than the generally accepted time between the time of the events recounted in the gospels and the time that the canonical gospels were written.