Crosswords1 min ago
Keyplus: Answers to your questions
64 Answers
Since Venator, on his thread - http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just bumped into this site from curiosity but had to read through once I saw the fab Naomi's name. Too historically erudite for me - have devoted most of life to science.
Perhaps I could be helped with these.
(a) If Mohammed could neiher read or write, how did he exclude "illogicalities"? On this site he reads like an ignorant scribe copying what someone else told him. Is that a main thrust of the debate?
(b) What logicalities, hence illogicalities, exist in any religion although self-contradictions abound?
(c) Comment: before anyone spouts about divine inspiration - today it's called mental illness.
(d) Just maybe, Naomi et al could spend their time better by studying Hans C Andersen the brothers Grimm and other good but honest fairy-tale writers (lol).
Perhaps I could be helped with these.
(a) If Mohammed could neiher read or write, how did he exclude "illogicalities"? On this site he reads like an ignorant scribe copying what someone else told him. Is that a main thrust of the debate?
(b) What logicalities, hence illogicalities, exist in any religion although self-contradictions abound?
(c) Comment: before anyone spouts about divine inspiration - today it's called mental illness.
(d) Just maybe, Naomi et al could spend their time better by studying Hans C Andersen the brothers Grimm and other good but honest fairy-tale writers (lol).
solvitquick - “... If Mohammed could neiher [sic] read or write, how did he exclude 'illogicalities'?”
I assume you mean, 'How does the Koran not include any illogical statements and how is the Koran inerrant?'
If so, you are incorrect.
The Koran does contain errors and it does include many illogical statements. It is also replete with barbarism, violence, cruelty and injustice. As for Mohammed 'writing' the Koran – he didn't – he was illiterate as the Koran repeatedly tells us. The book itself was compiled after Mohammed's death by others. Whether the people who physically wrote down the Koran knew Mohammed personally isn't known.
I assume you mean, 'How does the Koran not include any illogical statements and how is the Koran inerrant?'
If so, you are incorrect.
The Koran does contain errors and it does include many illogical statements. It is also replete with barbarism, violence, cruelty and injustice. As for Mohammed 'writing' the Koran – he didn't – he was illiterate as the Koran repeatedly tells us. The book itself was compiled after Mohammed's death by others. Whether the people who physically wrote down the Koran knew Mohammed personally isn't known.
Keyplus possibly now you could answer my question posed in a previous post but so far unanswered.?
If as we are told, Muhammad was at one time deceived by Satan who impersonated Allah and dictated the 'Satanic verses' and these were once incorporated into Quran until corrected. How can we be certain that this was the only occasion on which this deception happened . How can anyone be certain that other verses in Quran are not in fact 'Satanic' ?
This is something that has worried me for quite a while now , any chance of a reasoned answer or are you just going to issue a fatwa ?
If as we are told, Muhammad was at one time deceived by Satan who impersonated Allah and dictated the 'Satanic verses' and these were once incorporated into Quran until corrected. How can we be certain that this was the only occasion on which this deception happened . How can anyone be certain that other verses in Quran are not in fact 'Satanic' ?
This is something that has worried me for quite a while now , any chance of a reasoned answer or are you just going to issue a fatwa ?
It strikes me as strange that the founders of both Christianity (not that Jesus actually founded Christianity) - and Islam - are each promoted as figures of some pathos. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, born in a stable (not), and the step-son of a lowly carpenter - and Mohammed, an illiterate orphan. Tugs at the heartstrings, doesn't it? I don't believe for a moment that Mohammed was illiterate. He was an orphan - but he was certainly no fool - in fact he was a clever man - and he was raised by wealthy and influential relatives. Some sections of the Koran reveal that Mohammed was clearly writing from his own point of view and although others were heavily involved in producing the final product, I have no doubt that Mohammed wrote the original. We'll never know for sure though because the original no longer exists.
I seem too have misinterpreted Naomi's first "question to keyplus" and starter to this "new" thread. See para 2 of 1st contribution "by Naomi or her copy from keyplus?". Exclusion of illogicalities is stated. This means retention of logicalities by my logic!
Naomi dear, who mentionned "illocalities" - not me. Please put specs on to read my first modest submission above before jumping down my throat.
Anyway too many Islam specialists on this site for me to interupt the party. I ain't read the Koran, too busy dissecting "christians'" two different books (old and new testaments) bound into the compendium called THE(?) bible and the flourishing commercial companies it has generated.
Sorry for interrupting "Carry on Outsmarting" film script. Love xxx
Naomi dear, who mentionned "illocalities" - not me. Please put specs on to read my first modest submission above before jumping down my throat.
Anyway too many Islam specialists on this site for me to interupt the party. I ain't read the Koran, too busy dissecting "christians'" two different books (old and new testaments) bound into the compendium called THE(?) bible and the flourishing commercial companies it has generated.
Sorry for interrupting "Carry on Outsmarting" film script. Love xxx
Solvitquick, although they are few and far between, yours is not the first apology on record here, but it's welcome all the same and graciously accepted. Thank you.
Incidentally, I had no intention of jumping down your throat, and I'm sorry if my post gave that impression. I simply answered your questions. MTH. :o)
Incidentally, I had no intention of jumping down your throat, and I'm sorry if my post gave that impression. I simply answered your questions. MTH. :o)
Satanic verses has worried Eddie for a while so I thought I better let him know what Muslims believe about it.
http://
http://
Keyplus - “... Satanic verses has worried Eddie for a while so I thought I better let him know what Muslims believe about it...”
Sorry to interject but it would appear that you have misinterpreted Eddie's question. Now there's a surprise! If you were listening to me I would advise you to re-read his original question and answer it honestly rather than posting your ridiculous link.
Ridiculous? Indeed it is. Have you even bothered to read it yourself Keyplus? Is so, then you have yet again confirmed that your ability to recognise a rational argument is effectively non-existent.
For example, there is a section in your linked document which discusses the matter of why muslims dismiss the satanic verses as false. It says, and I quote:
“... Now we will address the issue of why Muslims today simply dismiss the account mentioned by these two writers (al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd). To begin with, Muslims exegetes in the past have dismissed these accounts, too. This is not something new. Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi [have said], 'The story that Muhammad could have used the Satanic suggestion is rejected by almost all exegetes...' … Since the story is rejected by almost all the exegetes, are the Muslims not justified in dismissing the account related to the so-called 'Satanic verses'?...”
Do you see what's happened there Keyplus? Can you see the very obvious deception and the not-so-subtle slight of hand in that piece? Even though the authors specifically stated that they would, “... address the issue of why muslims today dismiss the account...” they then completely and utterly failed to address the matter at all. In a nutshell, all they have said is that because many muslims dismiss the writings of al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, that is enough to dismiss the matter out of hand.
There was no 'addressing of the issues' whatsoever in you linked document - just out and out refutation. This kind of thing is not rational argument Keyplus. It is the exact opposite. Not that I would expect you to understand since you have clearly given up thinking for yourself a long, long time ago.
Sorry to interject but it would appear that you have misinterpreted Eddie's question. Now there's a surprise! If you were listening to me I would advise you to re-read his original question and answer it honestly rather than posting your ridiculous link.
Ridiculous? Indeed it is. Have you even bothered to read it yourself Keyplus? Is so, then you have yet again confirmed that your ability to recognise a rational argument is effectively non-existent.
For example, there is a section in your linked document which discusses the matter of why muslims dismiss the satanic verses as false. It says, and I quote:
“... Now we will address the issue of why Muslims today simply dismiss the account mentioned by these two writers (al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd). To begin with, Muslims exegetes in the past have dismissed these accounts, too. This is not something new. Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi [have said], 'The story that Muhammad could have used the Satanic suggestion is rejected by almost all exegetes...' … Since the story is rejected by almost all the exegetes, are the Muslims not justified in dismissing the account related to the so-called 'Satanic verses'?...”
Do you see what's happened there Keyplus? Can you see the very obvious deception and the not-so-subtle slight of hand in that piece? Even though the authors specifically stated that they would, “... address the issue of why muslims today dismiss the account...” they then completely and utterly failed to address the matter at all. In a nutshell, all they have said is that because many muslims dismiss the writings of al-Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, that is enough to dismiss the matter out of hand.
There was no 'addressing of the issues' whatsoever in you linked document - just out and out refutation. This kind of thing is not rational argument Keyplus. It is the exact opposite. Not that I would expect you to understand since you have clearly given up thinking for yourself a long, long time ago.
Someone else told Keyplus what to believe - so he does. No change there then.
The so-called Satanic Verses were included in the Koran by Mohammed for political reasons, but we don't need to go back to them in order to spot the other bloopers he made. If errors exist - and errors still exist - then the accuracy of the rest of the book must be questioned.
The so-called Satanic Verses were included in the Koran by Mohammed for political reasons, but we don't need to go back to them in order to spot the other bloopers he made. If errors exist - and errors still exist - then the accuracy of the rest of the book must be questioned.
Keyplus, you have devoted so much of your intellectual capacity to the koran that you have sadly ignored the rest of the universe. Feel free to learn about evolution and the origins of the universe but don't expect us to spoon feed you.
Evolution is going on now, furnished with a few simple instruments you could go outside and measure it. But that would be blasphemy as it would go against the teachings of the koran wouldn't it?
Evolution is going on now, furnished with a few simple instruments you could go outside and measure it. But that would be blasphemy as it would go against the teachings of the koran wouldn't it?
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Anyone Listening To Radio 5 Live.....
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.