(June 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote:
(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
(June 14, 2011 at 7:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 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?
