An Inconvenient Question(s)

[Violet]

And to an extent should be.

Wah? huh? ke?

Turns out there are some fairly significant differences between human males and human females (assuming no medical intervention ie: hormonal changers).

Or weren't you aware?

[Darth]

And to an extent should be.

Wah? huh? ke?

Turns out there are some fairly significant differences between human males and human females (assuming no medical intervention ie: hormonal changers).

Or weren't you aware?

To what extent should it remain?

err...errr of course I was

[Violet]

To what extent should it remain?

err...errr of course I was

The extent that recognizes the differences.

Same as racism and all sorts of other isms... they are categories: know what they mean.

[Darth]

To what extent should it remain?

err...errr of course I was

The extent that recognizes the differences.

Same as racism and all sorts of other isms... they are categories: know what they mean.

Don't racism, ageism, sexism, audism (hearing v deaf)... imply discrimination/sense of superiority beyond reason/logic?

[Violet]

Don't racism, ageism, sexism, audism (hearing v deaf)... imply discrimination/sense of superiority beyond reason/logic?

No.

I don't call egoism by any other name than itself.

[Rayaan]

---

Okay, my dear friend let me refute your amusing answers.
1. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
2. You have no evidence. I have the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything"
3. I never said it was in the Quran, did I?
4. What evidence do you have to support this? And that is just your interpretation.
5. What evidence do you have to support your belief?
6. Newsflash: If you translate almost any poetic piece that may or may not rhyme(do tell me if the Quran does), your result is obviously less than the original, but not by much.
7. No, he wouldn't, because the book was made after his death, and some other people may have put it into the Quran, as demonstrated by the cited fact that over half the material was rejected.
8. Circumcising children fits the textbook definition of mutilation, so yes, it is.
9. No, it is not, since it was made after the illiterate person's death, out of assorted things.
10. Some people?! Those were CROWDS!

---

(1) You were the one who said that the Quran was plagiarized from the Torah and Bible. I don't have any evidence to disprove that either. However, I do have rational arguments to support my opinion, which is that Muhammad was illiterate, so he wouldn't be able to read the Bible or Torah. Secondly, there are no known Arabic translations of the Bible which existed during that time. So, you'll have to counter those arguments to support your own opinion that the Quran was plagiarized. (2) Again, you were the one who said that half of the original Quran is missing today, so I'm not required to give any evidence. I have discussed this topic in greater details in a thread titled "Quran and Hadiths," which I have linked below. (3) Yes, you didn't say that those exist in the Quran. I apologize for the mistake. And yes, I agree that sexism and intolerance do exist in Muslim countries, but like Saerules said, they exist almost everywhere. (4) That is not only my interpretation, but also the interpretation of Islamic scholars and I believe more than 90% of Muslims, which is that Jihad is only allowed for self-defense, when you are driven out of your home and being physically harmed because of your religion. I cited evidence for this in this post and this post. Read them please. (5) There is no "actual" evidence that Muhammad was a prophet, but the evidence is subjective here, because I have read biographies about him and I feel that he was an honest and a truthful person. Also, see this and this and this. (6) The Quran obviously rhymes, but I don't understand what you mean by "less than the original," because the Quran is always original. (7) The book already existed in the hearts and minds of believers, because many of them had memorized the Quran, along with the existence of manuscripts of the Quran held by the companions of the Prophet right after the completion of the revelation. See this article. (8) To "circumcise" means to "remove the foreskin," while "mutilation" is "destroy or injure severely." So there is no injury or damage done to a child when he gets circumcised. He can do everything normally. Therefore, by definition, it is incorrect to equate the two words as being the same thing. (9) What assorted things? Even though the Quran was compiled into a book after his death, it was already preserved in memory and writing, which I mentioned in # 7. Again, there are more reasons to believe that the original Quran is preserved, and I posted them in the "Quran and Hadiths" thread. (10) Maybe "some people" was an underestimation, but still, I think that the number of Muslims around the world who riot over such mockery of the Prophet are significantly smaller than those who don't.

The answer to #s 2, 7, and 9 are discussed in more details in this thread (on page 3): Quran and Hadiths

It's not all of you of course....but until I see moderate muslims protesting the cult of death that the radicals espouse you are all under suspicion. "Silence means consent" as the old legal maxim goes.

I don't think that silence always equals to consent. I can be quiet about something and still not like it.

But yes, you can still have all the Muslims under suspicion if you want to. I won't argue with that because that's your own feeling. However, keep in mind that the radical Muslims are a very small number compared to the moderate ones. There are more than 1.4 billion Muslims around the world. Also, as I said in a different post, there are Muslims who do protest against the radicals and their violent ways (although not many). Furthermore, the terrorists and extremists are only giving the Muslims a worse impression to others and they are a misrepresentation of Islam. So, what reason is there to think that the moderate ones consent their violent actions done in the name of Islam?

[Violet]

(8) To "circumcise" means to "remove the foreskin," while "mutilation" is "destroy or injure severely." So there is no injury or damage done to a child when he gets circumcised. He can do everything normally. Therefore, by definition, it is incorrect to equate the two words as being the same thing.

Removal of the foreskin is to destroy this. And I don't see how one can remove skin from female genitals without at least slightly damaging their capacity for pleasure.

Doing everything 'normally' is not akin to doing some things more excellently

[Rayaan]

Removal of the foreskin is to destroy this. And I don't see how one can remove skin from female genitals without at least slightly damaging their capacity for pleasure.

Removal does destroy the foreskin, but I don't think this is harmful, so that's why I don't think of it as an example of "mutilation." Mutilation seems to have a more negative impact on the body than a simple removal of the foreskin. Also, I think the rest of the organ works just as fine as before. I've been circumcised and I don't have any problems. But again, I'm not a doctor or medical expert on this topic. And I don't know about reducing the capacity for pleasure nor what it's like for a female. So maybe you're right.

Doing everything 'normally' is not akin to doing some things more excellently

I concur, but, I don't know what are those things which an un-circumcised person can do more excellently than a circumcised person. I don't know if that's true in the first place.

[Atheist Jew]

1. My "opinion" is backed by sources. Do us a favor and please, please, please ,with 72 "white raisins" on top, show us yours. I never said that Muhhamad wrote the Quran, I said that (alleged) sayings from him were included in it. That destroys that particular argument(i.e. Muhhamad is illiterate so he couldn't have written the Quran. The Arabs were in the area where the Torah and Bible were alleged to have been written, not to mention where quite a few Christians and Jews were living. So it is logical to assume that PARTS of both books got translated into Arabic, and found their way into the Quran. How else can you account for passages from the Torah and Bible being in the Quran. Besides, you are dodging the main question: Was the Quran cobbled together?

---

And Napoleon? Would you mind going on the thread and explaining your decision?

---

2. Have any of these "memorized copies" been written down, my derar friend? And I never said the ORIGINAL Quran, hmmm... you really are good at taking people out of context and interpreting their words past the brink of distortion, aren't you? I said that half of the (alleged) sayings of Muhhamad that were put forward to be in the Quran were rejected by the person in charge of determining what went into the Quran. And actually make a case on this thread instead of posting links to decadent replacements. Not to mention I was asking the questions so the burden of proof rests on you, not me.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHA
Those threads you posted were utter rubbish. Once again, and listen carefully this time. I-ne-ver-sai-d-Muhh-am-ad-wr-o-te-the-Qur-an. See, that was easy, wasn't it? I can think of half a dozen reasons your argument is the sort of drivel I would accept from the usual delusional religious person. I will list three of them.
1. Your "opinion" does not matter unless you can find compelling reasons from the biographies and put them into a post on this thread instead of sending me several links to assorted sites.
2. Who judges the "Make A Literary Piece That Is Better Than The Quran" contest. I am sure that no famous authors bothered comparing their works to the Quran because it would get the Muslims angry and the fact that the contest is rigged.
3. You just said there was no evidence he was a prophet. Say, isn't the "Faith Time" show starting in a few minutes?

5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHA
Those threads you posted were utter rubbish. Once again, and listen carefully this time. I-ne-ver-sai-d-Muhh-am-ad-wr-o-te-the-Qur-an. See, that was easy, wasn't it? I can think of half a dozen reasons your argument is the sort of drivel I would accept from the usual delusional religious person. I will list three of them.
1. Your "opinion" does not matter unless you can find compelling reasons from the biographies and put them into a post on this thread instead of sending me several links to assorted sites.
2. Who judges the "Make A Literary Piece That Is Better Than The Quran" contest. I am sure that no famous authors bothered comparing their works to the Quran because it would get the Muslims angry and the fact that the contest is rigged.
3. You just said there was no evidence he was a prophet. Say, isn't the "Faith Time" show starting in a few minutes?

3. In Muslim countries there are far larger amounts of sexism and intolerance then other countries, as demonstrated by Minimalist's pictures. Of course there aren't any stonings for adultery and other crimes, intolerance for "brimstone spewing" blasphemists, and mutilation of people in Muslim countries(look at the Islamic fundamentalist group "Taliban", or Iran or Iraq, they are just "not interpreting the Quran correctly"). Let us just pretend all those people are extremists, and that the 9/11 bombers had many reasons for flying those people-filled planes into those people-filled towers.

---

4. Do any non-Muslim scholars, who do not have the underlying motive of making Islam look like a perfectly peaceful religion, and who have read the Quran in its entirety support this position? The terrorists still interpreted the Quran properly since you can make the case that the evil "Western Civilization" attacked the poor defenseless Muslims by invading their culture with pop/rock and roll/ metal/ emo/ rap music(I hate each and every genre I have mentioned) and other things. And also Iraq War, which was very beneficial for that swine, George W. Bush, not to mention his masters(Corporations, religious people, e.t.c). In fact, you could still carry out jihad/holy war 500 years later after an incident has occured, and still cite it as a valid motive. Just one of those great things about Islam I suppose.

[Atheist Jew]

5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​ Those threads you posted were utter rubbish. Once again, and listen carefully this time. I-ne-ver-sai-d-Muhh-am-ad-wr-o-te-the-Qur-an. See, that was easy, wasn't it? I can think of half a dozen reasons your argument is the sort of drivel I would accept from the usual delusional religious person. I will list three of them.
1. Your "opinion" does not matter unless you can find compelling reasons from the biographies and put them into a post on this thread instead of sending me several links to assorted sites.
2. Who judges the "Make A Literary Piece That Is Better Than The Quran" contest? I am sure that no famous authors bothered comparing their works to the Quran because it would get the Muslims angry and the fact that the contest is rigged.
3. You just said there was no evidence he was a prophet. Say, isn't the "Faith Time" show starting in a few minutes?

---

6. "Original" refers to the Quran before it was translated. If you translate a rhyming piece then it will not rhyme in more then one part due to the fact that translation=new words that don't sound like the ones they are replacing. Anybody who cites this as proof that the Quran is truthful is, at best, an ignoramus.