An Inconvenient Question(s)

[Rayaan]

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 thae 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?

1. If your opinion is backed by sources, then please provide a link or a reference to these sources which prove that the Quran was altered after Muhammad's death, by whom it was done, and why.

2. My sources? I already gave a link to one my sources in # 7, which is this. Additionally, there's a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami (see this at amazon). You can also download it from here.

3. Okay, you didn't say that Muhammad wrote the Quran. What you did say, however, is that some unknown mysterious person (or people) added more verses to the Quran which wasn't in the original Quran. So, this is what needs to be backed up.

4. The fact that Christians and Jews lived there is not a proof that they were the ones who were adding verses from the Bible and Torah into the Quran. On the contrary, the Jews and Christains were keeping their scriptures away from the Muslims, and secondly, it is also important to know that there were no Arabic translation of the Bible till the tenth century CE, or three centuries after the Prophet’s death. The available texts of the Bible were either in Syrian, Greek, or Hebrew. Also, I think it is very unlikely that the Jews and Christians would be able to create such beautiful Arabic poetry as those in the Quran. Even the Arab non-believers couldn't imitate the language of the Quran.

5. No, I don't think it is logical to assume that parts of the Torah and Bible found their way into the Quran, because the Quran was already memorized and completed while Muhammad was still alive. So, there can't be a "later" time in which the Quran was being changed after his death. The verses of the Quran were already memorized and made into manuscripts as well to preserve them.

6. I don't think I dodged the question. I did provide rational arguments and historical evidence against the theory that "the Quran was cobble together after Muhammad's death," in this post as well as in the last post in # 7, which you didn't reply to for some reason.

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.

1. Yes, many of these "memorized copies" have been written down, and they are called mushafs (or manuscripts). Afterall, how can it be a "copy" if it is not written down somewhere? The Muslims were also reciting the Quran five times a day in the mosque, and that within a short span of time after the Prophet's death, Islam spread throughout Persia, the Roman Empire, and North Africa with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in their prayers and thereby strengthening the memorization of the Quran.

2. Yes, you did not say the "original" Quran, but again, your statement that "half of the (alleged) sayings of Muhammad that were put forward to be in the Quran were rejected by the person in charge of determining what went into the Quran" is, without a doubt, contradictory to historical evidence. Also, to support that argument, you will have to explain how "half of the Quran" could be missing if Muslims already had it written down in their manuscripts and even memorized the Quran (right after Muhammad's death).

3. I've already made plenty of cases in this thread. The reason for putting links is so that you can know where I'm getting my information from and to know that I'm not making them up. These are scholarly opinions.

4. Yes, you're the one who's asking the questions, and I'm also answering them as I go along. I asked you some questions, too, so you should try to answer them as honestly as possible. We're only discussing the subject matter.

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.

1. I think you are right, in saying that sexism and intolerance occur more in Muslims countries than other countries, but most of it occur especially in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan because these countries have a political theory which is pragmatic and acknowledges that a tyrannical ruler is better than a state of social anarchy. However, there are other Muslim countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and countries in Africa where there are less of these cases of hatred and violence between the Muslims which you are talking about.

2. As far as Taliban goes, they banned women from working and they forcibly implemented the rural customs of women upon the entire population. The vast majority of women in Afghan society already wore headscarves and most of them did not have an issue with the dress-code. They had an issue with not being able to work, especially when over half the population was widowed and unemployment was already astronomically high. Were they oppressive towards women? Absolutely. Does the Quran approve of the way they were being treated? Absolutely not. And the rapes, stabbings, acid attacks, and outright murders that are going on are now a part of the new Taliban.

3. The 9/11 attacks do not have any basis in the teachings of Islam. There is no way to justify an action of flying airplanes into a building and kill people because the Quran forbids harming innocent people and non-combatants in several verses. And those who did it are extremists indeed. We don't have to pretend that they are extremists. However, there is also a possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack planned out by the US government which I have talked more about in this thread.

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 occurred, and still cite it as a valid motive. Just one of those great things about Islam I suppose.

1. Yes, many non-Muslims scholars view Islam as a peaceful religion, and they have written books about Islam also. For example, one of them is titled Visions of Islam. I can give you more links and names if you want to see them.

2. The terrorists did not interpret the Quran correctly. I don't know if they even read the Quran, because if they did, then they shouldn't do these things. Also, the Western civilation didn't invade anything by using pop/rock-and-roll/metal/emo/rap music, and that's not the reason why there are terrorists. I don't know where you're getting that from.

3. I think that Bush tried to deceive the Americans into supporting a war in Iraq and there were actually no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq which he admitted himself in 2003 (see this). But, that is irrelevant to the main subject of this thread. So I don't want to talk about it.

4. No, it wouldn't be right to carry out a Jihad 500 years later. As stated in the Quran, "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).

5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snip* 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. Feel free to tell me what exactly is rubbish about those threads.

2. Yes, you didn't say that Muhammad wrote the Quran, but you did say that the verses were written and/or added after his death, which is contradictory when you take into account the fact that Muslims have memorized the Quran and had it written down as well, so any additions or changes to the Quran would have been caught by them and corrected. So, this was the method of preserving the Quran.

3. I don't think that I'm a delusional person, but if you think so, that's fine. I can't do anything about that.

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?

1. My opinion probably doesn't matter to you, but if it is sound and consistent with reality, then it matters to me at least. Also, what kind of "compelling reasons" are you looking for? Like I said before, this is going to be subjective, and some people will set a lower a standard on what is compelling or not. What I find compelling may not be compelling to another person.

2. Actually, the challenge of the Quran does have an objective element because there is a measurable style in the Quran, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions: "There are the sixteen al-Bihar [in Arabic](literally 'The Seas,' so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose [saj or mursal], nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook." And there are Christian scholars who did try to imitate or write something better than the Quran, and one of the most famous is entitled "The True Furqan," which clearly didn't meet the challenge. Their efforts were put to shame.

3. I said that there is no "actual" evidence that he was a prophet. So, what is evidence to me, may not be evidence to you. For example, the air, water, earth, clouds, food, animals, light, etc. are all proof to me for the existence of God, but they are only natural elements for you. Similarly, even humans are a proof to me, while for you, they are just biological entities originating from a sperm and an egg cell. So ultimately it is going to be subjective.

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.

Again, you have to be able to prove the claim that "new words" were inserted into the Quran in the first place. Also, keep in mind that Quran is in Arabic and this is a living language which is still spoken today. The Quran is a "recitation" and it is something that is recited and read throughout the world without any differences which is a proof that it is preserved. You could take a Quran, hide a few verses and if you bring it to a hafiz (or memorizer of the Quran), he would right away notice that it is not the Quran. Whether we remove or add, it would be noticed, and the greatest proof to me is the memorization of it, word-for-word and identical.

As for using the linguistic style of the Quran as a proof, I think it is a good one, in my opinion. Most of the Quranic scholars consider the literary aspect of the Quran to be a miracle while knowing the fact that Muhammad was not a trained poet who had the function of re-enforcing the prophetic claim. For despite being unlettered, he was nonetheless recognized as eloquent, but when the Arabs heard the revelation recited, even bitter foes were overwhelmed by the literary prowess. Eloquence and rhetoric are language arts in Arabic and unlike anything that men have produced, the linguists have demonstrated that there isn't a single verse in the Quran that could be re-worded and made more eloquent. There are even illiterate Bedouins who can barely spell their names, but have memorized the Quran along with hundreds of lines of poetry. And the Quran's transmission is not an issue of historical interpretation, but simple facts of textual transmission.

[ruhollah]

1. Wasn't the Quran a cobbled-together combination of plagarisms from the Torah and Bible, sayings of Muhhamad, and assorted drivel that was made after the illiterate founders death?
If you take any course in comparative religion, you'll find there are a fair amount of subtle differences between these books. The belief is all these books (and many other books/messages/scriptures that were lost or destroyed) are from God and therefore would have the same stories. However the belief is that because the original bible and Torah were lost, their messages were manipulated as the centuries past by and therefore wouldn't have same stories that are in the Quran.

2. Wasn't over half the material that was proposed to be in the Quran rejected?
What do you mean material? Whenever the prophet began with "bismellah" it was considered a message coming from God and many many people started to either record what was coming from his mouth or memorized the message. In the end all these messages were compiled thoroughly into a book known as the quran. In fact every time these messages were coming to him, they would come at suitable time. The first few verses were to introduced the idea of a higher being, and than as the years go by when war happens new verses would come to him to handle that situation. And then near the end of the prophet's life, verses come out discussing the dangers or riba (i.e interest based monetary system under fiat currency).

3. Aren't sexism, stoning, and intolerance still thriving in Muslim countries?
Maybe in countries where they are suffering from years of war and chaos and the general public are uneducated. But this kind of stuff happens in any country regardless what the national religion is. Some times the priest, rabbis or imams themselves are afraid and would say things to please the status quo, or some of them are insane and get a high from creating chaos. The thing is that evil happens everywhere. I can point out all the negative stuff in the western country such as teenage moms killing their illegitimate live babies so they can get on with there life and find another man (http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.a...yid=122241) Or young couples kill their second born because they can't afford it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...child.html). Evil happens everywhere, it doesn't discriminate.

4. Aren't terrorists following the "word of allah" in waging "holy war/jihad" against anybody who is not a Muslim?
No, and this statement you are making shows you haven't read anything about Islam nor have you consulted with an Imam. This whole terrorist thing is extremism out of chaos, people get into it because of wars, rampant crime, hyperinflation,...etc.

5. Why the theoretical hell aren't we allowed to "make graven images" of Muhhamad? He was just an ordinary man, right?
Some times a graven image will be used to worship the prophet himself and not God. Also images can be used to mislead or discourage people from this religion. For example in Christianity, they view Jesus as a white man with long blond hair and say that he was God in human form. For a black man looking at this, wouldn't he be questioning why did God chose to come to earth as a white man and not as a black man? These kind of questions will lead the black man to avoid the religion all together.

6. Why do Muslims invoke the "Pretty...poetry..." argument when making a case for the Quran/Islam?
Look the message of the Quran is the most important thing. It basically has a set of moral rules that will lead you to have peace with yourself and with others. Do you have any concerns about today's society? Maybe in another thread you can list what are your concerns are and we can explain how the Quran addresses these issues. I gave two examples above. Today's financial system is absolutely fraudulent and totally against the teachings of Islam. Even the so-called Muslim nations are using these systems because the rest of the world is. Also when everyone is in heavy financial situations you have people either killing their children or killing themselves because they can't afford the debt. I can address all these issues some time in another thread.

7. Wasn't Muhhamad close friends with a docter that may have provided some of the "super-duper, ultra, ultimate,supreme, devestating, magnificent, amazing, high-tech, state-of-the-art, and just plain worshipful" scientific information?
I'm not sure where you got this information, I'm interested to know more about this doctor. Look people say a lot of stuff, they say Moses was high on a DHT trip and that is how he gave out the commands. The thing is, these kinds of theories are made to probably distract people especially in religious communities. Most religious people just want to live a peaceful life and want to contribute to a real economy where people respect one another.

8. Don't Muslims mutilate their children's reproductive organs and sow up their female babie's...er...private...parts.
???? Are you talking about circumcision? It's only for males, not for females.... It's benefit is to prevent disease and/or infection.

9. Why isn't there any argument for Islam that I have as of yet heard of except for the Quran?
????

10. And, finally, can anyone explain the mass riots...er...protests, death threats and bounties, and some minor propery destruction when a Dutch cartoonist dared to...make a few cartoons that actually, GASP,...showed a picture of an Arabian man, presumably Muhhamad. Very, very openminded and tolerant there.
Here is the thing, you have the western nations invading Iraq for no reason, killing or injuring more that a million civilians (most of them Muslims) and on top of this, a cartoonist further takes the stereotype to the extreme and insults the prophet himself where a billion Muslims consider him as role model. If you don't add insult to injury, people won't go crazy.

---

Yeah, Rayaan....I can't imagine WHERE I get those ideas from.

....
Just sort of came to me, I imagine.

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.

Hey Min

There has been a lot of protesting by Muslim nations. I gave examples in the past that Iran was fighting the Taliban and Al Qeada long before US came into Afghanistan. What do you think all the protesting that is going on right now is for? People want to get rid of Draconian governments so people live peacefully and extremism can be eliminated for good.

[Minimalist]

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

That makes you an enabler, Rayaan. The crazies act in the name of all muslims because people like you do not denounce them. I understand WHY you do not denounce them....you don't want rocks thrown at your head....but you still sit silently as they act.

[Atheist Jew]

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

Refutation by parallel argument:

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?"

[Minimalist]

People want to get rid of Draconian governments so people live peacefully and extremism can be eliminated for good.

Sorry, Ru. Didn't see that until just now.

I'd like to hope you're right but I'm not that naive. Egyptians got rid of Mubarak for the primary reason that the economy is stagnated and lots of young, educated Egyptians were working as camel jockeys for the tourists, if they were working at all. They have gotten rid of Mubarak and done exactly jack shit to alter the underlying issues. Now they have the Army running things and we all know how good armies are at defending civil liberites. You know, one of the facets of Western Democracy is that the majority understands that the minorities have rights, too. I'm not so sure that our jerkoff Neo-Con purveyors of democracy understand that very well themselves but they sure as shit do not get that people who have not grown up with the concept at all think that "majority rules" means you beat the minorities up in the streets. We've already seen that going on in Egypt between nutty muslims and nutty copts.

So, no. I'm not particularly swayed by the so-called Arab spring. My guess is that it will lead, in virtually every country, to a more Draconian government than the one it replaced. Let's re-visit the issue in say....two years?

[Violet]

My gods man (Atheist Jew)... why would anyone even read your posts with that many brain-breaking statements?

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

[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?

[Faith No More]

10. And, finally, can anyone explain the mass riots...er...protests, death threats and bounties, and some minor propery destruction when a Dutch cartoonist dared to...make a few cartoons that actually, GASP,...showed a picture of an Arabian man, presumably Muhhamad. Very, very openminded and tolerant there.
Here is the thing, you have the western nations invading Iraq for no reason, killing or injuring more that a million civilians (most of them Muslims) and on top of this, a cartoonist further takes the stereotype to the extreme and insults the prophet himself where a billion Muslims consider him as role model. If you don't add insult to injury, people won't go crazy.

This 'insult to injury' as you call it, is known as freedom of speech and never a reason for violence. The cartoon drawer had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion and the fact that you seem to be saying it is a justification for going crazy is deplorable. If Muslims truly want to be part of the rest of the world, they need to learn that people have the right to disagree with them and speak against them, regardless of how offensive it is to them. Thus is the nature of freedom and no one should have to suppress that just because it is offensive to Islam. It seems that Muslims want the rest of the world to conform to their beliefs, but Muslims need to conform with the rights that come with living in a free society.

[Atheist Jew]

1. I never said to pretend that I never said that. Here is an article that talks about the compilation I mentioned.
Compilation: By the time of the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, there was a perceived need for the compilation of the Qur'an. The Caliphate had grown considerably, bringing into Islam's fold many new converts from various cultures with varying degrees of isolation. These converts spoke a variety of languages but were not well learned in Arabic and so a complete written text of the Qur'an had to be compiled. Another reason for compiling the Qur'an was that many of the Muslims who had memorised portions of the Qur'an were dying, especially in battle.

Uthman is said to have begun a committee (including Zayd and several prominent members of Quraysh) to produce a standard copy of the text. Some accounts say that this compilation was based on the text kept by Hafsa. Other stories say that Uthman made his compilation independently, Hafsa's text was brought forward, and the two texts were found to coincide perfectly.[citation needed]

Until this time there was reportedly only one written text of the Qur'an. According to Islamic accounts, this text was faithful to its original version. Non-Muslim scholars believe that, while this is entirely possible, there must at least have been slight variations produced from some corruptions.[6]

Thus, this became known as al-mushaf al-Uthmani or the "Uthmanic codex".[18]

Uthman's reaction in 653 is recorded in the following:

"So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'"[Qur'an 33:23][Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:61:510]
Although the order of his earlier script differed from the Uthmanic codex, Ali accepted this standardized version.[17]

Some scholars suggest that the early Uthmanic texts of the Qur'an differed in terms of punctuation from the version traditionally read today. It is believed that early versions of the text did not contain diacritics, markers for short vowels, and dots that are used to distinguish similarly written Arabic letters such as r[ر] & z[ز] or t[ت] & ṭ[ث] or f[ف] & q[ق]. One claim is that dots were introduced into the writing system sometime about half a century after the standardization of the Uthmanic text around 700 A.D.[19]

When the compilation was finished, sometime between 650 and 656, Uthman allegedly sent copies of it to the different centers of the expanding Islamic empire. From then on, thousands of Muslim scribes began copying the Qur'an
2. See #1. And do you have any proof that they recited it in its entirety daily? Any written recitations that match perfectly with the Quran?
3. Yes, it is your interpretation, because technically, if some country attacked another country several to five hundred years ago then they did not "leave you in peace".
4. Actually, you could interpret that as "culturally attacking" the Muslim countries. Not quite no offense intended Ryaan, but you are just like the Jews and Christians who insist that their texts didn't advocate slavery, genocide, cruel and unusual punishment, delusional faith, and time wasting. And, no I don't think we should stay in those countries. At this point I think I should say that having read Minimalist's message about you being one of the "better Muslims around", I was expecting someone who would present logical arguments instead of accusing me of things I never said, and presents arguments over and over and over, even after I disassemble them.

---

5. Yes, but I only did it once or twice whereas you have done it a dozen times. Big difference there.

[Violet]

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?

I voted that because I saw the equivalent of "I disagree" as a poll option and clicked it. I've read scant few of your answers, as the questions asked have been aggravating to the point I never got through them.

My well done is entirely in regards to your being able to read through and counter those questions