BF2S Forums Islam Unveiled: Channel 4 Documentary

One thing this program seems to suggest to me is that no one in today's world can truly claim to definitively know what the Qu'ran says. Some Saudi copies printed today are so skewed and biased they even make reference to "missiles" and "planes". It appears to be a very interesting book whose role in this world has changed dramatically over the years...

"In the period after the death of the prophet Muhammed, when Islam was in the ascendancy, the Qur’an acted as a springboard for an incredible leap in the development of Muslim art and architecture, science and medicine, mathematics and philosophy. Islam during that period was open, confident and tolerant. When it is under pressure, though, as it is in many parts of the world today, it tends to narrow its view and look inwards."

Perhaps most importantly "some western scholars are arguing that forensic analysis of a very early version of the Qur’an indicates that the text itself can be reinterpreted, and was probably not passed down word for word". So flat-out claims that the Qu'ran simply IS violent are overly simplistic.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-14 14:02:17)

What I gathered from the program was that reading a copy of the Q'uran in English is absolutely pointless. The differences in how the bloody thing can be interpreted in the Syriac and Arabic versions alone were colossal without even losing more in the translation to English. I also gathered that not one of us on this forum is even remotely qualified to interpret the bloody thing either. When you see people who've dedicated their lives to theological studies of the Q'uran (as with the Bible) you realise that taking snippets here and there is total bollocks.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-14 16:05:57)

CameronPoe wrote:

What I gathered from the program was that reading a copy of the Q'uran in English is absolutely pointless. The differences in how the bloody thing can be interpreted in the Syriac and Arabic versions alone were colossal without even losing more in the translation to English. I also gathered that not one of us on this forum is even remotely qualified to interpret the bloody thing either. When you see people who've dedicated their lives to theological studies of the Q'uran (as with the Bible) you realise that taking snippets here and there is total bollocks.

I'd say the same about the bible.
King James.
Gideons.
NIC.

And so on.

I say I think the world would do well to study up on the history of worlds religions, to see the common evolutions, but politics have become too intermingled with religion. To the point that both have outlived their usefullnesses.

Turquoise wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

At the end of the day Muhammad was still a warlord.

QFT

He never wrote down a single word you know, he was supposedly illiterate. All his words were documented by others and eventually collated into the Qu'ran. I reckon all religious figures are hyped out to be better than they actually were in reality.

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

At the end of the day Muhammad was still a warlord.

QFT

He never wrote down a single word you know, he was supposedly illiterate..

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

At the end of the day Muhammad was still an illiterate warlord.

Fixed.

Interpretation is everything I think.

David.P wrote:

The way I see it is.

Judiasm = Neutral Evil.

Christianity = Lawful Evil.

Islam = Chaotic Evil.



3 great Evils from the same fucking Asshole. Fuck you Abraham! You 5000+ Year old lying fuck!

Putting it in D&D terms is oddly appropriate.  lol...   Speaking of which, the new D&D rocks. (Ok, I'm done with the nerding out.)

Turquoise wrote:

David.P wrote:

The way I see it is.

Judiasm = Neutral Evil.

Christianity = Lawful Evil.

Islam = Chaotic Evil.



3 great Evils from the same fucking Asshole. Fuck you Abraham! You 5000+ Year old lying fuck!

Putting it in D&D terms is oddly appropriate.  lol...   Speaking of which, the new D&D rocks. (Ok, I'm done with the nerding out.)

Does it? I've seen the adds. Might give me and my uni mates something to do when they get back for the hols next time.

Turquoise wrote:

I don't know how experienced you are with D&D, but 4th edition is like a simplified version of 3rd, but this is a good thing.  You get less customization but more practical powers.  The classes are somewhat reminiscent of WOW, but again, this is a good thing.  I never cared for WOW as a video game, but strangely, the design works really well for D&D because of how much it encourages teamwork.

I see the alignment system as a way to decode people and their character. Sometimes when i think of people i've known for a very long time, I think what alignment they might be. Oddly enough it's not just one or two, But three alignments that most people fit in too, Depending on the current situation.

EDIT: My family members are the most interesting.

Dad = Lawful Neutral around me, Because he always wants to be the center of authority(He enjoys having power) Around others Lawful Good.

Mom = Chaotic Neutral in general, Because she cares mostly about her self and people's opinions of her.(Listens too much to her girlfriends, and to gossip about her, She does not care for me unless It hurts her in some way)

Bro = Chaotic Neutral like my Mom, sometimes Neutral Good. But at work he's Lawful Evil.(Fucken well adjusted Bastard)

Me = IRL around everyone Lawful Good, Online and to certain People Chaotic Neutral = Chaotic Evil.(Fuck Morality! It's brought me nothing but trouble and lies! The way my life is now is because of the Bullshit I was told about how forgiving and loving god is and other shit! Bull-Motherfucking-Shit! I'd rather take the word of a known Liar over that of a Hypocrite)

Last edited by David.P (2008-07-14 20:13:05)

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Sorry Braddock.  I really haven't the stomach for my own religion, let alone one has show to produce suicidal extremists.

I have no time for any religion personally, it just annoys me when I hear certain individuals throwing out lines like "the actual teachings of Mohamed ARE violent and there's no denying that...blah blah blah" when in fact the original writings are incredibly hard to decipher, even for the most learned Islamic scholar. One of the scholars on the program last night even said that it is possible that the whole "72 virgins" thing might actually have been a mistranslation and some scholars theorise that it could mean "a bunch of grapes" instead (how disappointing would that be!?).

If this is true, then this furthers the idea that Mohammed was really just a warlord that other people decided to create a religion around.  It would be kind of like starting a religion based on Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan.

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Sorry Braddock.  I really haven't the stomach for my own religion, let alone one has show to produce suicidal extremists.

I have no time for any religion personally, it just annoys me when I hear certain individuals throwing out lines like "the actual teachings of Mohamed ARE violent and there's no denying that...blah blah blah" when in fact the original writings are incredibly hard to decipher, even for the most learned Islamic scholar. One of the scholars on the program last night even said that it is possible that the whole "72 virgins" thing might actually have been a mistranslation and some scholars theorise that it could mean "a bunch of grapes" instead (how disappointing would that be!?).

The problem is that someone has all ready deciphered that and interpreted in his way to be a call to wage war.  All be it, his religious philosophy is largely denounced by most, it's in effect a cancer to that particular religion -Always there festering, eating away the good the mainstream has.

I wonder if there would still be the extremism phenomenon if there was never a virgin land and it had been grapes all along?!  Spain would be the promised land.  I hope that guy doesn't write a book on it... Remember Rushdie?

Well, the Qu'ran is supposedly the unaltered word of God and God speaks in Arabic. That's why only the Arabic Qu'ran is deemed "true" by the Muslim world.

Is it possible man fucked it up? Yes.

Do Muslims generally believe that to be possible? No.

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Sorry Braddock.  I really haven't the stomach for my own religion, let alone one has show to produce suicidal extremists.

I have no time for any religion personally, it just annoys me when I hear certain individuals throwing out lines like "the actual teachings of Mohamed ARE violent and there's no denying that...blah blah blah" when in fact the original writings are incredibly hard to decipher, even for the most learned Islamic scholar. One of the scholars on the program last night even said that it is possible that the whole "72 virgins" thing might actually have been a mistranslation and some scholars theorise that it could mean "a bunch of grapes" instead (how disappointing would that be!?).

If this is true, then this furthers the idea that Mohammed was really just a warlord that other people decided to create a religion around.  It would be kind of like starting a religion based on Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan.

Bingo...........a peaceful tolerant religion built around a brutal tyranical warlord.......Makes perfect sense don't it? Not sure what the problem is.