Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Queens Guy
The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book.
I'm not suggesting that any words be changed or omitted. Or that any Koran be damaged. Just that it be read in the order in which it was revealed.
My copy of the Qu'ran is the Penguin edited by NJ Dawood who notes in his introduction that he has abandoned the traditional arrangement of the books and suras, and produced a thematic sequence which 'begins with the more Biblical and poetic revelations and ends with the much longer, and often more topical chapters'. Michael Cook in his excellent The Koran: A Very Short Introduction explains the genesis of the definitive text authorised by Othman c650, but notes that while Othman used the leaves belonging to Muhammad's wife Hasma, it was known that there other inscriptions on bark and clay were in circulation, suggesting that some revelations might have been lost. For example, there was, allegedly, a revelation ordaining stoning for adultery, but it was on some tasty bark that was eaten by a goat. The Qu'ran says the punishment for adultery should be 100 lashes for both guilty parties. As with Hebrew, the absence of vowels renders many words in the Qu'ran ambiguous, more controversially some purists believe it is sacrilege to place diacritical marks on the text. These fine points are best left to scholars, although Cook does acknowledge the difference between the Meccan and Medinan verses which, however, do not seem to need to be separated. At least at an early stage there was a definitive text for the Qu'ran; in the case of the so-called Holy Bible Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon denounced the so-called Gnostic Gospels and insisted that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be accepted, the rest being considered heretical. Although this selection was consolidated in the age of Constantine, the existence of alternative histories which, for example, include the Gospel of Phillip which denies the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection or, another related book the Apocalypse of Paul claims the resurrection was a purely spiritual rather than a physical act. The point being that just as feelings can be inflamed when discussion of the Qu'ran are concerned, so the idea that there has been a conspiracy to prevent Christians from reading all the available stories of the life of the Christ other than those 'authorised' by the Church suggests there is something explosive that is being hidden from us by our masters....
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yodajazz
\
At the very least, the film makers need, answer questions, in a criminal investigation. Speech is not free, when the results lead to loss of life, injury, and property destruction.
They won't be charged with anything because they did not actively incite violence. They did not encourage anyone to use violence and at the most their offense indirectly led to violence whether they knew it would or not. I highly doubt they will be charged with an infraction of a U.S law. The issue is not that their speech is necessarily protected by the first amendment but rather that there must be a law on the books that would make the production of an offensive film illegal. I haven't followed the case and don't know the specific content of the film, but it's extremely unlikely that even a hateful film is illegal under U.S law.
Also I think your insinuations that Mossad was involved strange. But could you please link any article indicating that Mossad was involved in the production or distribution of the film as a tactic to get Americans killed?
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Queens Guy
Has anybody published a Koran that has the chapters arranged in chronological order?
It would be very useful in the discussion of 'Has Islam been 'corrupted' or is it violent at its heart?'
The earliest verses, written in Mecca make up the peaceful, loving and tolerant part. The latter verses, written in Medina, is the violent, hateful and intolerant part. And, since they hateful verses came after the peaceful verses, they overrule the peaceful ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
The Qur'an cannot be re-ordered. For believers the book, in Arabic, is a perfect entity handed down by Allah to the prophet. Not a word can be changed or omitted. That is one reason why damaging a Qur'an is considered so sacrilegous. When a Qur'an is disposed off finally it has to be given a funeral.
Fisrt of all, I must publically state, that I had nothing to do with shaving of beards of any Amish person.
Secondly, I must say that I am impressed with the knowledge of the Koran displayed here.
Thirdly: With regards to the order of the chapters, (Surahs), I was under the impression that they were placed in order of the longest to the shortest, (or vice versa). However, I was mistaken. It is true that they are not in chronological order. But it is known, as to what order they were revealed. Or, I should say scholars have opinions as to what the chronogical order is. I found this article which gives a listing of probable chronological order, vs. the book's order.
http://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm
According to the article the Prophet himself reviewed the Koran annually which included revising the order, I assume. And those revisions in order are credit to God (Allah), or his messenger, the angel Gabriel. I'll admit to not being God, so I dont completely understand the explanation. However in one case it was stated that the first Surah was like an summary of many important ideas.
I will state that in the Koran, I have, there are introductions by the tranlator, which state the probable order, or context of the chapter. Here's an example of the 'context' issue, I spoke about. One person quoted a couple of verses, in which the Prophet urged his followers to fight an kill. In my reading of the introductory comments, it was explained that the chapter was mainly in response to a rumor that a large army was coming to attack them. So it makes sense that in his role as a war general/leader, he would be urging his followers to fight vigorously. I think he may have referred to the enemies as non-believers. But it is essential to understand that the Koran, mostly does not consider Christian and Jews to be non-believers, since Allah is the the same God that Muslims, Christians and Jews believe in. However, a person who does not understand this, might believe that Muslims are commanded to fight an kill Christians and Jews. There are some people putting this uneducated view out to uninformed people.
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
They won't be charged with anything because they did not actively incite violence. They did not encourage anyone to use violence and at the most their offense indirectly led to violence whether they knew it would or not. I highly doubt they will be charged with an infraction of a U.S law. The issue is not that their speech is necessarily protected by the first amendment but rather that there must be a law on the books that would make the production of an offensive film illegal. I haven't followed the case and don't know the specific content of the film, but it's extremely unlikely that even a hateful film is illegal under U.S law.
Also I think your insinuations that Mossad was involved strange. But could you please link any article indicating that Mossad was involved in the production or distribution of the film as a tactic to get Americans killed?
Here's one article: http://www.thedailybell.com/bellincl...2#postFeedback
But its not just relying on this article, but looking at the facts of who benefits from US-Arab tensions. Israel would be first on the list, in my opinion. Secondly, thinking that the filmakers would be unaware of Muslim protests, over percieved insults in recent years is naive, in my opinion, given the effort they put into making a film about the Prophet of Islam. Also the minister Terry Jones, name has been mentioned with at least, advertising the project. Seems like you are claiming he was unaware of the world wide publicity, and the admonition from the President of the United States, that his planned Koran burning ceremony could endangers the lives of Us military personell, as well as others. I recall that US military lives were lost regarding the harming of the Koran, but I dont remember if it about the Jones ceremony, or another incident. You say they did not incite violence, but I say they most likely would have had knowledge of world events involving Islamic protesters, in recent years. If they had no knowledge that their film would incite violence, or was extemely offensive to Muslims, why did they hide its true intentions from the actors in the film? I have read accounts about Mossad being involved in the original 9/11. I remember reading of polls saying that a signifcant amount of people had doubts about the official 9-11 story. So 4 Americans getting killed is 1,000 times less than that.
If Mossad was involved Americans getting killed was only a by product of the goal, which is getting the US to perform millitary operations, on behalf of Israel. Take for example, Iraq. 'Weapons of mass destruction" were never found, however it was common knowledge that they had rockets whose range reached the edge of Israel. I believe their stated range was 500 miles. And even members of the US goverment admit to staging false attacks, to advance public support for military efforts. Someone recently mentioned the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", as an example.
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
"The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book."
Handed down over time to the Prophet and re-ordered perhaps at the behest of the delivering angel Gibreel. But not after his death. To the most devout Muslims re-ordering is not really acceptable.
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Yodajazz,
In criminal law it does not matter what the filmmaker thought or "knew" (in the sense that he predicted) the film would lead to. Unless a country has racial villification laws, such a film is not illegal. An individual is not held accountable for the behavior of third parties (as in conspiracy) unless there was some sort of coordination with them.
Secondly, the article you link is as low credibility as the rest of what you say. It is not affirmative evidence to say that someone indirectly benefits from something. It provides a conceivable motive but no direct or even circumstantial evidence they were involved in the commission of the act. One could say that you benefit from the act because you now have a subject for discussion in this thread. Are you therefore not accountable for the production of the film?
You have read about Mossad being involved in 9/11? I can only imagine what these sources look like. The evidence provided in this article is as follows: Iranian press tv says Pastor Jones is involved with Mossad and CIA and this is evidence that he is.
Also, if a government engages in a false flag attack on one occasion does that mean no evidence other than speculation is needed to assume they are responsible for every deed they can plausibly (or implausibly) be accused of? You are the reason that propensity evidence such as prior bad acts are excluded from trial. Nobody is arguing about whether it is conceivable for the government to do such a thing. Such propensity evidence would actually be a rebuttal to the argument that it is beneath the dignity of the U.S to ever do such a thing but offers no proof that they did in this case.
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Just to flip the issue...
Abby Martin dissects America's love affair with Israel:
America's Love Affair with Israel - YouTube
1 Attachment(s)
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
It's not flipping the issue. It's called a non-sequitur.
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Alright, I think I've laid on a bit too much sarcasm. If you think it's the flipside of the issue, then perhaps it's a good discussion in its own right if unrelated. I don't personally see how it's at all related to a film villifying Muslims or the response to that but if it's a nice distraction then by all means. You should ask yourself why you think it's the flipside of the coin. I don't think Jews and Muslims live in a zero-sum world where we're competing over who can be the most offended. It may seem that way but if it were the scoreboard broke a long time ago;.
