[JohnHuang2]

Quote of the Day by Ditto

[Demidog]

Moreover, much of what we know as Islam — the lives and sayings of the Prophet — is based on texts from between 130 and 300 years after Muhammad's death.

Not much different than the new testament.

[Paradox]

Crazy Whacko's. Why, I'll bet they even assert that Creation according to Genesis actually happened as written!

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #1

Mohammad Atta dies at WTC and goes to his heaven as martyrs and only get 72 "white raisins" ! He is conned by Mullahs. The life in heaven is so cruel. No virgins, just god-d*mm trees, and raisins.

[Darth Sidious]

So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.

This has all the makings of a Mel Brooks movie...

"Hey, where the white ones at?"

[Light Speed]

Probably the one platform that would make a Muslim have an uncontrolled bowel movement....bringing exacting criticism to the actuall wording in the Quran in comparison to Hebraic texts that pre-date Islam by hundreds of years..and the buffet line adaptation of Christian doctrines.
The Quran is in fact a series of selective doctrine manipulations to de-legitimise the Hebrew traditonal claims...
Christian doctrine too is turned back on itself and presented in a form which de-legitimises aswell.
Ie...Ishmael is offered as a sacrifice by Abraham...replacing Jewish legal claim thru Isaac.
The Quran is full of this reality twisting..accompanied by direct racial bigotry and image assailing.
Ie...Jews turn into monkeys at the Judgement..etc.
The Qurans crediblity is suspect...especially when comments like..."Prepare yourself before bed..so that SATAN cannot enter your body through your nose"..(Not an accurate trans..but you get my drift).
The Quran might be..the most demented book ever written!

[RaceBannon]

bump

[aculeus]

, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.

Let the word go forth from this day forward: THEY'RE RAISINS, YOU IDIOTS!

[mv1]

PBS once aired "Testament: the Bible and History," in which the British scholar John Romer examined the roots of the Old Testament and the degree of correspondence between biblical text and archaeological evidence. That and Joseph Campbell were all I needed to have an epiphany about the 3 middle eastern religions.

Now what is myth? The dictionary definition of a myth would be stories about gods. So then you have to ask the next question. What is a god?
--Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth

[sixmil]

I don't have time to read the article. Islam is still peace, right? Ok, thanks, gotta go.

[Heuristic Hiker]

I thought the article was pretty good. Its perspective is sort of interesting though, I don't think most scholars who work in this field in the US and Europe would consider Schacht's (died in 1950's), Goldziher's (from 19th c.) or Wansbrough's (work from 1970's) ideas particularly "new." Scholars working out of Princeton (the author lists Cook and Crone), I'm sure have not been called radical for years. Really the only signicant group that I can think of that would consider them that radical are Fundamentalist Islamic countries...sort of makes one wonder who the NYT target audience is.

I'm defending my thesis next week and parts of it are based on a number of the works listed below. My thesis is called "The Odyssey of Theodicy in Islamic Theology," and one of its primarly conclusions I make is that Islam is a system of thought that is "two faced" (I know this term sounds pejorative, but it is a straight translation from a 13th c. Muslim theologian describing a defense he was using for an earlier theologian). It has allowed two opposite theologies to co-exist because the Muslim theologians couldn't decide from the Qur'an which was scriptural (i.e. which was right). The same could be said about modern day Islam's approach to the elements of radical Islam represented by bin Laden and others: It is a two faced response, one which condemns him on one hand and on the other glorifies him. Both "faces" drawing from the same "legitimate" Qur'anic textual and tradition sources. Often the same person can be viewed, in the same discussion, to be defending/holding to both "faces" because he sees both as legitimate.

If one holds to the definiton provided by the article, then my thesis is a "new" and "radical" view...but I doubt it will make much of a splash...which might be a good thing right now :). I'm a radical!

[Revolting cat!]

White raisins? Dude, I wanna get off! How do I get my membership fees back? I think we've been had, my brothers in Allah. It's only white raisins. Sheesh!

[Revolting cat!]

72 freaking white raisins! Imagine that. Still, I think the author is wrong (or I hope he is, I've been looking forward, so to speak.) "houri", he says. Well, that's much closer to "whore" and to "ho" or even to "hurray" which you'd shout upon meeting the 72 virgins, than it is to "raisin". Either way, the finding is troublesome, because if we go with the cat's theory, as expounded above, we can't help but ask: are they virgins or are they hos?

[xm177e2]

"When I teach the history of the interpretation it is eye-opening to students the amount of independent thought and diversity of interpretation that existed in the early centuries of Islam," Mr. Rippin says. "It was only in more recent centuries that there was a need for limiting interpretation."

In other words, the further away from the seventh century they got, the MORE sure they knew exactly what happened in it.

And, the less literally the Quran was interpreted, the more peaceful they were.