Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[smaneck]

We aren't talking about the Bible here, but scholarly research that debunks your quran so deal with that, and dont try to sneakily change the subject again.

In other words you want to apply a double standard to the study of each religion's scripture.

Also I doubt your numbers. The Quran and Muslims do not tolerate dissent and criticism of it. The Muslim scholars and thinkers who critiqued it, paid with their lives or fled to the West for safety.

Show me a single Muslim scholar who lost their life for applying modern methods of scholarship to the Qur'an.

What you really mean is that those who try and attack the Qur'an might be subject to reprisals. What you don't seem to understand is that historical criticism and attacks are very different things.

Western scholars have taken up the critical study of the quran and they are not scared to publish such research. Their numbers are much large and growing.

Indeed, it is just that most of us don't come up with the absurd conclusions of the three you name.

[Cerebrum123]

Show me a single Muslim scholar who lost their life for applying modern methods of scholarship to the Qur'an.

Show me one that doesn't engage in rank "taqiyah" all the time.

[Dan Zebiri]

This thread is not about the Bible but the quran. Deal with that.

And I understand the difference between historical criticism and attacks quite well.Your problems and the Muslims too, is you all don't seem to know the difference and so each time we criticize the Quran historically you all take it as an attack on Islam and the quran.

In other words you want to apply a double standard to the study of each religion's scripture.



Show me a single Muslim scholar who lost their life for applying modern methods of scholarship to the Qur'an.

What you really mean is that those who try and attack the Qur'an might be subject to reprisals. What you don't seem to understand is that historical criticism and attacks are very different things.



Indeed, it is just that most of us don't come up with the absurd conclusions of the three you name.

[Dan Zebiri]

And BTW, Dr.Gerd Puin's conclusions about the Quran through his research of the Yemeni manuscripts are not absurd at all, like you wish to make them seem.

[smaneck]

Show me one that doesn't engage in rank "taqiyah" all the time.

How would you know if they did or didn't?

But I'll be happy to name the late Fazlur Rahman.

[smaneck]

And I understand the difference between historical criticism and attacks quite well.Your problems and the Muslims too, is you all don't seem to know the difference and so each time we criticize the Quran historically you all take it as an attack on Islam and the quran.

Sorry Dan, but anyone can tell from the tone of your posts that you are interested in attacking and nothing else. I'm an academic and I know the difference between attacks and higher criticism. It is a question of one's agenda and your agenda is and always has been to attack Islam. Are you really going to try and suggest otherwise?

[Cerebrum123]

How would you know if they did or didn't?

But I'll be happy to name the late Fazlur Rahman.

Well, since so many Muslim scholars I have read, either blatantly cover up for Mohammed's crimes, or they try and twist things to mean things that they do NOT mean, but usually quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to tell when they are engaging in taqiyyah. Also, do you have a link to any of Fazlur Rahman's works so that I can take a look at them(I don't have access to a library, and I don't have money to buy books)?

[Dan Zebiri]

Again you indulge in your selective criticism. The first part of my response says: This thread is not about the Bible but the *quran*.

So deal with that, and try not to change the subject.

Historical criticism of the Quran has always exposed it's inauthentic side. That's what people like you find so hard to swallow. So you got to learn to honestly deal with THAT, else you show you are no real academic, despite claims and 'facts' to the contrary.

Sorry Dan, but anyone can tell from the tone of your posts that you are interested in attacking and nothing else. I'm an academic and I know the difference between attacks and higher criticism. It is a question of one's agenda and your agenda is and always has been to attack Islam. Are you really going to try and suggest otherwise?

[Hesperado]

Interesting that the Bahai smaneck seems to have an unfailing reflex to defend Islam, even though mainstream Muslims (Sunni and Shia) have persecuted the Bahais horribly, and continue to do so, to this day.

Talk about Stockholm Syndrome!

Funny how defenders of Bahai try to paint it as a reform movement that softens and moderates the Islamic legacy; yet most of the time I have found Bahais aren't interested in reforming Islam at all -- only in defending it from all substantive criticism.

[Mikhail]

Buwhahahahahahahahaha!

[Dan Zebiri]

Don't know if that's you crying or laughing, Mikhail! Hehehehe...

But the whole world, especially Muslims themselves need to take themselves less seriously than they try to take credit for. And learn to laugh at themselves and their pre-stone age injunctions called for by their Koran!

What an improvement they would make for themselves and the rest of the world, really.

Dan.

[smaneck]

Interesting that the Bahai smaneck seems to have an unfailing reflex to defend Islam, even though mainstream Muslims (Sunni and Shia) have persecuted the Bahais horribly, and continue to do so, to this day.

That's not Stockholm Syndrome, it's what Shoghi Effendi called 'rectitude of conduct."
." It [rectitude of conduct] must be demonstrated in the impartiality of every defender of the Faith against its enemies, in his fair-mindedness in recognizing any merits that enemy may possess, and in his honesty in discharging any obligations he may have towards him."

[Dan Zebiri]

Not really true in your posts, suesie. Many of them display traits far from 'fair-mindedness' or even merits, from the many misquatations and misrepresentations of the Bible and the Gospel you have made...!

That's not Stockholm Syndrome, it's what Shoghi Effendi called 'rectitude of conduct."
." It [rectitude of conduct] must be demonstrated in the impartiality of every defender of the Faith against its enemies, in his fair-mindedness in recognizing any merits that enemy may possess, and in his honesty in discharging any obligations he may have towards him."