Adamant wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:25am:


Ummm... interesting leap in logic you have there.

You *SEEM* to be saying that the quran we have today is more recent than the oldest part of the Sana text - and therefore it is somehow unauthentic.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

How does "older" mean more authentic? You seem to assume that the oldest part of the Sana manuscript must be the very first quranic text. Flawed logic I'm afraid.

Seems you have trouble understanding the sequence of events, so I'll explain it for you: First came the oral revelation, which was transcribed at the time by scribes on to parchments. These were approved by the prophet, and put away for safe keeping. Second came the first compilation of these revelations into the one book under Abu Bakr. Between this first compilation and the time of Uthman, several versions of the book were created - most it seems came from those who had memorised the revelation, rather than from the original transcripts. Finally, Uthman came along and said these different version must go, and a new version must be created using the original transcripts - still safely kept away by the prophet's widow. Evidently at least one of these pre-Uthman versions survived - ie the sanna manuscript.

So yes, the quran we know today was written later than many of the other versions that were still in existence - but it was copied from the original. Sorry your attempts to smeer islam was such a spectacular fail.

please reread my *VERY* simple explanation FD - the answer is right there.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:


who is Abu - Abu Bakr, the first caliph?

Abu's version was written earlier - yes - whats your point?

Also I don't know whether that first version was entirely from the original manuscripts, or if at least some of it came from the narrations of those who had memorised it.

Many version were created in different dialects right after the prophet died. Uthman came along after these were made and said a new version that was true to the original manuscripts must be made. The original manuscripts were still kept safe and intact by the (still alive) prophet's widow. The sana manuscript (at least the oldest part of it) is presumably one of the earlier, slightly less reliable versions.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:31pm:


well yes...

but the point being discussed with adamant related to its physical age - that through carbon dating, the passages in the sanna manuscript that matches the current quran, was physically written later than the other passages. He seemed to think that because there exists records that were written earlier than the current version - records which are slightly different to the current version - then that necessarily means the current version is fabricated. That of course is flawed logic, since I already explained why those non-standardised versions are older.

So yes, you are absolutely right that the current version is an accurate copy of the original - and thats precisely my point.

Quite right, old chap. Sufi mystics simply don’t exist. Persian and Moghul poets.- never ever. Moor and Moghul architecture, musical instruments - like the prototype for the guitar, wind instruments - like the bagpipes, and complex musical scores,  intricate carving,  tiles, carpets, tapestries - never happened.

Thank heavens for that. Grappling, bafflement and human dialogue are not in your list of favourite things, eh? As for a changing understanding of things, well.

Lets just leave that to the postmodern numpties, shall we?

Shurely shome mishtake, old chap. You imagined for a second that you were all those things you think the Muselmen isn’t. Humans with ears, eyes and hearts discerning for meaning, eh?

Thanks for the chuckle, dear boy. Jolly good show. I’ll have to pass that one onto Sir Reggie and the chaps down at the embassy.

Quote:


Most of the Muslims I have spoken to here say that apostasy is punishable by death under Islam. Does that count?

Also, the basic sciences seemed to suffer under Islam, and still do. Abu countered this with examples from a Saudi University of research into the medicinal benefits of camel urine.

It is easy to paint the whole history of European science as a clash between the church and academia - if you are satisfied with one or two examples as evidence, as gandalf appears to. But the facts show a completely different picture.

See for example this list of religious people who contributed to fundamental scientific research.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Abu liked to counter this with a list that includes the guy who supposedly made a fundamental contribution to our understanding of flight by jumping of a tall building with feathers glued to his arms.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:


no. That doesn't even make sense FD.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11am:


And you have evidence that camel urine has no medicinal benefits - or that this theory/belief has been arrived at unscientifically? Show me the studies and/or the scientific debate (if any exists). Seems a pretty bizarre example to demonstrate how science suffers under islam.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:55am:



As I argued in the other thread, islam has been going through a dark age - just like christianity did. What happened in western (christian) Europe between circa 500AD and 1400? Wasn't exactly an age of enlightenment and learning was it? This is the period in which the church ruled, and actively suppressed the scientific and artistic pursuits that didn't strictly conform to the church's world view. Whats happening in islam today - and for the last 800 years or so isn't nearly as bad as what happened to christianity, but there is no denying it is a relatively closed-minded period. But lets not forget this period proceeded a period  of some 500 years of great cultural and scientific enlightenment under islam. But like all great civilizations, they eventually enter a period of decline - just as christianity and western civilization is entering now - and its lasted about the same time as Islam's golden age.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 10:55am:


yes you've said this before, and as Karnal explained to you before, artistic, scientific, social and political reforms are not considered less important than submission to Allah - when these things are seen as the very expression of submitting to Allah. In fact, Islam demands the pursuit of knowledge - and as I said in my last post, I can't think of any sort of scientific or artistic field that is contradictory to islam such that it must be suppressed.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:


The entire medieval period - nearly a whole millenium - is just one gigantic case study of the suppression of scientific knowledge and artistic pursuit. They don't call it the dark ages for nothing.

Of course scientific and artistic advancements came about only when western Europe began to rebel against the church's crippling hold on society, and committed acts which previously were condemned as heresy.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:


um yeah - could that possibly be because medieval Europe was christian? 

In any case, your statement is still bullshit:

Quote:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Córdoba