An Inconvenient Question(s)

[Rayaan]

1. I never said it was altered after his death. Let us just pretend this question never existed because it is wasting my time. To replace it:

You did say that half of the Quran was rejected, and if half of the Quran is missing, then that logically follows that it was altered, right?

Here is your own statement:

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.

Now, you're saying that let's pretend as if you never said that, and you said that you're going to "replace it" with a different argument. And it's pretty obvious why you did that.

2. During this "short span of time" the Quran was compiled and distributed. Why do you think that the number of Christians went through the roof after the Bible was released?

You should make your point clearer to me. I don't understand what the number of Christians after the time of the Bible has to do with the distribution of the Quran. My argument was about the daily recitation of the Quran (which you ignored).

3. Lets not forget Saudia Arabia and Pakistan and Chechenya(yes I know it is not the correct spelling). Ummm...actually that is just your interpretation, and where are these verses you talk about? And, yes, an incident 500 years ago CAN be used to justify that since they did not leave you in peace the entire time.

Yes, those countries have some problems, too, but I don't want to go into details right now.

Also, if you didn't study the Quran, or the consensus on these interpretations, then you don't know if this is just "my" interpretation or not.

Here is the verse that I quoted earlier:
"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah does not allow you to harm them" (Surah 4:90).

4. More links, just what I asked for. Ermmm...I did also mention other things, so do please at least try to use my entire quote and not just pick n' choose bits of it.

The amount that I typed is significantly greater than the links. Plus, what's wrong with the links? And like I already said, the links are there to show where I'm getting my info and for providing additional materials (IF you are interested in reading them).

As for saying that I didn't use your entire quote, I want you to show me which quotes I didn't use from your post (in the last page), and then I'll respond to them. But, I'm pretty sure that I used all your quotes, and I tried to reply to each of the sentences one by one, as clearly as I can. Also, it's funny that you're saying that I'm picking and choosing your quotes (although I didn't find anything that I missed) while you're the one who's not even quoting me at all. So, who is dodging? You or me?

Anyhow, I did not mean invade in the military sense. I meant that the American culture, a symbol of Western "civilation", has values that are not considered good in an Islamic sense, and therefore can conflict with Muslim cultures.

Yes, many things in things in American culture do conflict with the Muslim culture, but again, there is no need for Jihad for that reason. America does allow freedom of religion at least. If the Muslims still have a problem, then they should go to a different place.

And, yes, the #1 Worst American President since Reagan and G. Dubya's father were in the office did make the case for a useless war, everybody knows that. And the instant we get out of those countries, the "governments" will collapse, and it is back to Islamic fundamentalism...I mean "extremism".

So that's why they should stay in those countries? No, and I don't think that getting out of those countries will result in extremism. Rather, going there in the first place could be more of a reason for extremism.

5. This should also refute your answers to questions 1 and 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an

You should try to refute them by quoting what I said and in your own words. The link doesn't address my comments in #s 1 and 2. Also, it's ironic that you're telling me not to post links even though you just did the same thing right now.

6. Read this post by theVOID from the thread "Atheism VS the Quran":
"I shouldn't even need to point out how utterly arbitrary that is, but it was so fucking easy to refute that I couldn't resit. Again with reference to the Confucians.

Why did you bring the dreadful parallel argument back to life again?! *shudders*

The challenge is to produce a Traditional Chinese Confucian poem of less than thirteen lines than contain all possible dictates regarding how a junior should treat a senior, without forming incomplete sentences or resembling any of the classics in language or style or becoming self-refuting, hasty or rhetorical.

If you can't do that Confucian teachings are all true and necessarily divinely inspired, agreed?

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was divinely inspired. But this is different in the case of the Quran, because the the miracle is that an illiterate man without having the requisite of linguistic/literary, historical, theological, scientific, psychological, geographical, mathematical, and philosophical education, in a desert country wherein there was almost no access to scientific literature and most prose was just orally composed and memorized poetry, could have composed a book such as the Quran, without ever being caught as a liar. And to me, that is miraculous.

Of course, I never said that this is an absolute 100% proof that the Quran is divine. All these "proofs" are basically a matter of degrees, in the same way as are teleological arguments, fine tuning arguments, and all the other arguments for the existence of God.

Well done Rayaan... I sure as hell couldn't stand to read much more of that tripe. Maybe he gets better

If you said "well done," then why did you vote that I was not successful in answering his questions? Also, are you sure that my posts aren't more of a tripe than his? Do you think you're fooling me?