National Geographic: The Koran

[Madonna]

Ive just seen it and I want to share :) its very interesting in my opinion

now waiting for your opinions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrX3Sr0CUUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2xVrXUpgA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwM0eV1FJaA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SddkbwMplHI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTi-lIyle3E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mciNmqPTlPI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXhUd-3Tly4

[Madonna]

I like the part where they said what team of Luxombourg discover in the translation

starting here :11:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTi-lIyle3E
and continue here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mciNmqPTlPI

[Onur]

Thanks for the post jusia9. I watched this documentary before and it was really great.



I like the part where they said what team of Luxombourg discover in the translation
This is the most interesting part of the documentary, talking about the oldest written Koran, written in Aramaic letters and by using Aramaic-Arabic fusion language.

This kinda proves that all three semitic religions are just different expressions of the same belief system. Especially the most striking part is the grapes in heaven mentioned in Aramaic Koran is quite similar of what new testament says.

[Twistedmind]

This kinda proves that all three semitic religions are just different expressions of the same belief system. Especially the most striking part is the grapes in heaven mentioned in Aramaic Koran is quite similar of what new testament says.
How exactly? Would you be so kind to explain? :laugh:

[dado]

just lousy attempt to shaken our beliefs...if we add a dot here and dot there ahahahahahaahha...german experts :picard1:

christians arre hoping that we will do to the kuran the same they did to bible...but that wont happen

[Grenzland]

Yes it's just about making Muslims insecure and it spreads a lot of lies. :rolleyes:

[Corvus]

I am going to watch it, because honestly I don`t know much about Islam, but I doubt it will change my opnion regarding this faith.

[Madonna]

This document is interesting because it shows that Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc, and it shows that some of Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand it shows that Koran want equality for all and want union of the people.

[Su]

This document is interesting because it shows that Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc, and it shows that some of Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand it shows that Koran want equality for all and want union of the people.
Thanks, perfectly explained what I was intended to post.

[Onur]

This document is interesting because it shows that Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc, and it shows that some of Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand it shows that Koran want equality for all and want union of the people.
I agree to this but all the things you have said here are also valid for all the 3 semitic religions.

These religions are always about controlling and manipulating the messes while preventing their resistance and refusal by covering the truth and presenting it as some kind of "divine cause/word of God" to secure their obeisance.

[Twistedmind]

This document is interesting because it shows that Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc, and it shows that some of Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand it shows that Koran want equality for all and want union of the people.


I agree to this but all the things you have said here are also valid for all the 3 semitic religions.

Where are part of Bible which say ame things as those Jusia quoted?

[Illancha]

I'll watch it later and see if there's anything worth commenting on.

[evon]

Will watch it later, just finished another documentary so need a small break, but will post here when i finally see it:)

[Onur]

Where are part of Bible which say ame things as those Jusia quoted?

There are so many examples but these are first things came to my mind;


Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc
The existence of 100s of different bibles before the 2nd council and selection of only 4 between them, the ones which was suitable for the desires of Roman empire.

Some of these bibles said that Jesus was human, some others said that Jesus was the son of god. Some said that Maria Magdalena was Jesus`s wife but some didn't. Some mentioned holy trinity but some didnt and many more like these contradictions...



Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism.
Papacy brainwashing the messes and starting crusades, just to confiscate the riches of the eastern world back then but using "the word of god" to justify the terror they caused.

Even G. Bush said that they started a new crusade during the Iraqi war, using similar arguments and justifying the terror they caused.

[Su]

Too bad that they didn't show Sunni Muslims from Turkey, they have shown just the alevis.

If they have shown also Sunnis from Turkey and comparing them with Arabs, then they will discover a whole new difference to addition.

[Twistedmind]

There are so many examples but these are first things came to my mind;
Lol.



The existence of 100s of bibles before the 2nd council and selection of 4 among 100s, the ones which was suitable for the desires of Roman empire.
Onur, well, I know you are just retarded moron, but since I acctually had classes from New Testament Isaggics I will tell you secret. There is no entire Bible manuscript older than 4th century. Please go and kill yourself and do it painfully, you deserved it. :laugh:
Yes there are lot of fragments, but unluckily for your childish phantasmogorie, they do not differ from what we have now.
Part abot "suitable for desires of Roman Empire" is loolzable. According to your "logic" calling men to renounce world for Christ is "suitable for desires" of faling Empire. Sometimes there is no words to describe your idiocy. Honestly.


Some of these bibles said that Jesus was human, some others said that Jesus was the son of god.
Well, I know you didnt read New Testament, but it calls Christ Son of God, and man in same time. :)


Some said that Maria Magdalena was the Jesus`s wife, some didn't and many more...
Gnostic Gospel which was never taken as authentic.

Besides, what all "things which came to your mind" have to do with heros and their multiple wives?

[Herr Abubu]

This is revisionism. I have read the Koran and it does in fact state that infidels, that is to say all non Muslims, should be killed or persecuted. Moreover, it calls for war against all non Muslims. The goal of Islam is in itself to conquer all of the world. Not very surprising for a religion whose most important prophet was a warlord. I view all of the Abrahamic religions as outdated and hateful, because they indeed are, but Islam is by far the worst of all of the Abrahamic religions. I think a lot of multiculturalists tend to forget the fact that whoever wrote the Koran did it during a time and in a place where such things were very much the norm. I doubt outright calls to wage war against infidels, to kill and persecute, etc. infidels should or even could be interpreted figuratively; the Koran never was meant to be taken as anything but a literal piece of work and command of god.

When it comes to Islam, there are three options, which are as follows: revisionism, fundamentalism or none of it. The former denigrates the essence of the religion, just as it would with any religion, for the purpose of making it fit with modern norms. Obviously that is better than the second alternative, yet it is not feasible, because there will always be those who see through it, and it requires a lack of critical thinking, i.e. sheepish behaviour. Religion, as the word of god, cannot change. Therefore, fundamentalism will always be the true, single interpretation. This obviously wouldn't work for the greater good, though. Islam is of a nature that doesn't fit with any humane, progressive line of thought and never will. Adherence to Islam is adherence to the calls to kill and persecute, and in the end conquer, anyone who doesn't adhere to Islam. There's nothing peaceful about it. Indeed, the only way for there to be peace in the world according to the Koran is through war and conquering in the name of Allah. It is therefore that Islam should be left altogether, or at least ousted away from any decent place on the Earth. Atheism or aislamism is the better option.

[evon]

It took such a long time to buffer at youtube that i only got to 5/7 tonight, i will watch the rest tomorrow, but i would like to comment on what i have seen so far.
There are a few errors or misleading points that i noted, the first is the simplification of Islam and its interpretation, its clear to me that they have made it like this to be able to reach people whom are uneducated in Islamic history and judiciary/interpretation, but it leaves me annoyed at the oversimplification, the most obvious one to mention is the way it displays Sufi's as something akin to a united mass of people with the same ideas, this is wrong, Sufism is the most varied way of practising Islam is you ask me.
The second issue is that it says that the dome of the rock is a Mosque, which it is not.
The third is that it says all the Shi'a imans were killed, this is theological history, secular historians reject this.
Another misleading part is when it says Europe got the ideas via the Muslims, this is not right, the Classical ideas never left Europe, but they did go out of fashion, and many of the peoples whom they later sited as sources where infact Jews, and not Muslims, whom simply used Arabic as their written language while living in Iberia under "Muslim rule". There are some other issues too, i felt the show was very selective, and did not stray too much out of the middle east, i would have liked more focus on Eastern Muslims in Indonesia, China, Europe and so on also...The show also focus too much on the Abrahamic relation to Islam and not enough on the other religions which have been under Islamic rule, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and so on..



Anyways, will write more when i see the rest..

[Illancha]

Quite interesting.

As Evon said it is understandably not all encompassing, but I would still recommend it to people who have no education in Islam. It would certainly enable many to form a more reasonable understanding of the religion rather than working off of their preconceptions or 'what they have heard'.

Regarding the Sana'a manuscript, I am in support of cooperation and further investigation as with all other such issues. I do not believe we have anything to fear from the findings, quite the contrary, it would enrich our knowledge and better establish the history.

Finally I would like to note that this is not revisionism as Vagabond stated. I am going to refrain from refuting your statements as I am uninterested in participating in a meaningless never-ending discussion. It is not revisionism when people seek the truth rather than accepting what the minority has ordained.

Tariq Ramadan makes several very brief appearances in the documentary, but I would like to point out that he is a very forward thinking person and it is certainly worth looking into what he has to say for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

[ALSh]

This document is interesting because it shows that Koran can be misinterpreted by some Musilms specially about hijab, having 72 virgins after death as a hero and etc, and it shows that some of Muslim Leaders brainwash Muslims with precept which were never mentioned in Koran only to justify acts of terrorism. On the other hand it shows that Koran want equality for all and want union of the people.

That is true.I have a Cristian friend here in Albania who has read both Bible and Koran. He says that they have a lot of similarities, is the same God, and he thinks that UNDOUBLY Koran is the Word of God !

[Illancha]

Another central point that the documentary did not mention is the implications of verse 49:13.


O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.
Many scholars nowadays like the promote this idea of a single Islamic entity that is homogeneous and identical throughout. However, it is my belief that this verse refutes such claims. It is clear to me that God in this verse is acknowledging the differences of human populations. It is paying tribute to the beauty of our diverse traits, cultures, lifestyles, mentalities, temperaments, tendencies and ethnicites. I view ideologies that promote the destruction and assimilation of cultures with as much loathing as many members on this forum. Such views are not in agreement with Islam and this is why this verse is so important.

[Onur]

Another misleading part is when it says Europe got the ideas via the Muslims, this is not right, the Classical ideas never left Europe, but they did go out of fashion
No, this is not true.

The classical ideas and everything related with ancient Greece has been destroyed by the Romans after they accepted christianity. They demolished most of the ancient Greek monuments and used the broken marbles to build church walls. You can see those churches in Turkey. They also burned and destroyed all the ancient Greek knowledge by branding them as devilish and pagan. They even destroyed most of the ancient Egyptian monuments too or at least damaged the hieroglyphs, carved the pictures on the walls. They killed all the remaining ancient Egyptian priests and burned their sacred books too.

The people in 8-9-10th century islamic countries was working in mathematics, medicine and engineering by using the ancient Greek texts and developing math systems like algebra and trying to decipher ancient Egyptian texts too.

On the other hand, the people in Europe was thinking about stuff like the gender of angels, church was selling properties from heaven, burning the so-called witches alive and suffering from plague at the same time because they were killing cats everywhere, so-called the devilish animal.

[evon]

No, this is not true.

The classical ideas and everything related with ancient Greece has been destroyed by the Romans after they accepted christianity. They demolished most of the ancient Greek monuments and used the broken marbles to build church walls. You can see those churches in Turkey. They also burned and destroyed all the ancient Greek knowledge by branding them as devilish and pagan. They even destroyed most of the ancient Egyptian monuments too or at least damaged the hieroglyphs, carved the pictures on the walls. They killed all the remaining ancient Egyptian priests and burned their sacred books too.

The people in 8-9-10th century islamic countries was working in mathematics, medicine and engineering by using the ancient Greek texts and developing math systems like algebra and trying to decipher ancient Egyptian texts too.

On the other hand, the people in Europe was thinking about stuff like the gender of angels, church was selling properties from heaven, burning the so-called witches alive and suffering from plague at the same time because they were killing cats everywhere, so-called the devilish animal.

Actually no, most of the Classical knowledge was kept and past on to Christian monks in the west, and they did debate and so on central philosophical terms and ideas, but this did go out of fashion, Christianity was so new to them that they would rather dwell on central issues relating to the bible, then to look into the past literature for the most part. but some things did not go out of fashion, one was the architecture of Rome, which was continued in building of churches, statues of previous pagan gods and such were converted into Christian usage or to that of state power (such as in Byzantium), Temples were converted into churches and the culture fusion between pagan and Christian ideas fused to be reborn as Western Christianity in western Europe and Eastern in Byzantium and Russia.

I would really recommend this series to you, since you have such a twisted view of European history after Rome (i have posted it before in its own thread, but you must have not seen it since you keep pushing the same old nonsense):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK1KTqjbAjE

Destruction of pre-Abrahamic temples and statues did occur in europe, but the same development happened in the middle east when Islam took over there, its just a matter of degree and whom were behind it ect, white washing church interiors and destruction of statues for the conversion into Mosques is the same thing as happened when conversion to churches.

Having plagues is not something restricted to Europe, and it has been established that rats where not the carriers of most plagues, but we humans were (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/17/black-death-rats-off-hook), even holy cities such as Mecca have been ravished by plague on several occasions (http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/blackDeath.html), and i dont remember that Islam endorses having cats or dogs as pets, it is rather frowned upon by most muslims, so the same problem would occur..

You should start citing sources rather then just post your opinion, it would be a great improvement!

[alb0zfinest]

See this instead.
30520

[alb0zfinest]

The fact that Mohammed was illiterate and he simply recited what "god" told him, who says that the person who wrote it didn't actually change what Mohammed said or anything, so this thing that islamists claim that it is the "word of god" probably isn't true.
Yes i realize- double post

[1stLightHorse]

just lousy attempt to shaken our beliefs...if we add a dot here and dot there ahahahahahaahha...german experts :picard1:

christians arre hoping that we will do to the kuran the same they did to bible...but that wont happen

The bible is corrupt, yes. So is the Qur'an...Your prophet was not divinely inspired.
What about where he confuses Maryam the sister of Harun, with Maryam the mother of 'Isa? He thinks they're the same person.
Everyone right now, with me, Search in google for QURAN 19: 27-28..."Maryam" here is in reference to the mother of Jesus, because Islam also acknowledges the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Now...look carefully at this 'ayah, Maryam in verse 27 is carrying Baby jesus in her Arms, in verse 28 they call her "Sister of Harun (Aaron)". Maryam was the name of the sister of Aaron, YES. But these two Maryams were separated by thousands of years. Muhammad thinks they are the SAME PERSON.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: Dr Zakir Naik and other muslim apologists have attempted to refute this with the most pathetic arguments i've ever heard. This is an overt blunder by Muhammad or whoever transcribed the Qur'an. Let's give Muhammad the benefit of the doubt and say that he conveyed an accurate message to his transcriber...STILL, the book is not the perfect words of Allah as muslims claim.

[1stLightHorse]

Allow me to drive another nail in the coffin while i'm here.

In the Qur'an, Surah Baqarah, 'ayah 102-103, it says that Humans were taught Black magic by 2 Angels as instructed by Allah (God).
These angels are named Harut and Marut. They taught people spells and curses which can separate husbands and wives, etc. ONLY BY ALLAH'S PERMISSION. Remember this.

Now, in a hadith (narration) of the Prophets life in Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, (this collection of hadith are considered to be the most Correct and authentic of all the books of hadith along with Sahih Muslim (Sahih means correct/authentic in arabic).
IT SAYS....as narrated by A'isha, (the prophets wife) that Muhammad kept thinking he had sexual relations with his wives when in fact he did not. Muhammad tells her that Lubaid ibn Assam (a magician) was the one responsible for this, by using some kindof date skin. (the date fruit) in a spell i assume...

This same hadith is also found in Volume 7, Book 71. Verifying it's consitency and authenticity.

Either Muhammad is (A) committing Zina' (adultery) on A'isha, and is getting himself confused....or (B)....he is Actually affected by black magic like he says, which means ALLAH ALLOWED HIS FINAL PROPHET to be ensnared by black magic. Because like the Qur'an says, only ALLAHs permission can enable the use of black magic, since Allah is Al-5abir (the wholely aware) and al-Qadir (the wholely powerful), he must have known and allowed this event. I guess they forgot Allah is also al-Mudhill (the humiliator)...in this case with his most important and final prophet?!

So...Allah must enjoy allowing black magic to be used on his prophet, confusing him and his wives about making him believe that he slept when them, when in fact he did not....Okayyyy.

[Herr Abubu]

Quite interesting.

As Evon said it is understandably not all encompassing, but I would still recommend it to people who have no education in Islam. It would certainly enable many to form a more reasonable understanding of the religion rather than working off of their preconceptions or 'what they have heard'.

Regarding the Sana'a manuscript, I am in support of cooperation and further investigation as with all other such issues. I do not believe we have anything to fear from the findings, quite the contrary, it would enrich our knowledge and better establish the history.

Finally I would like to note that this is not revisionism as Vagabond stated. I am going to refrain from refuting your statements as I am uninterested in participating in a meaningless never-ending discussion. It is not revisionism when people seek the truth rather than accepting what the minority has ordained.

Tariq Ramadan makes several very brief appearances in the documentary, but I would like to point out that he is a very forward thinking person and it is certainly worth looking into what he has to say for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I have read the Koran myself. It's by no means a peaceful religion, if it had been it wouldn't have incited to war against infidels. That's why it's revisionism. They're trying to interpret it in a way that fits with the modern world, forgetting to see it in the historical context which it stems from. They are trying to fix a problem whose issues they won't recognize, because it would hurt someone's feeling, and we're not supposed to do that, even if it's well-founded. They are replacing the exterior of the car to fix it when the car's engine is the problem. Why? Because the car owner's feelings are attached to the engine, and would rather replace the exterior and live in the belief that the car is running.

What they're trying to do is to see a more than thousand year old book through a modern view, yet they are mutually exclusive, Islam nor any other religion can truly fit in a modern world. They recognize that the car is not functioning, but they fail to recognize that it is a Benz Velo, which is too outdated and too flawed.

A fundamentalist view, that is to say the recognition of the essence of an idea, is the only possible correct view, as anything but it is a corruption. Any theist who is not a fundamentalist is trying to stand on both sides of the river not understanding that the river is too broad and that he will fall into the river.

If god was omnipotent he would have made a final, finite framework for his followers, thus there can only be one and a fundamental interpretation whose relevance extends beyond any epoche. Based on this premise, neither Islam nor any other deity based theistic view holds.

[evon]

Ok, i finally finished it, so much buffering issues so it took awhile...

Some issues that caught my eye was the issue of Shari'a, where they are right in that its all but impossible to get any sort of conviction of criminal issues, hence why all societies in the past have had both secular and religious courts, this is also part of the reality that Islam alone is not enough to govern a society, and if you base it on the Quran alone, there is no way for it to function as any form of government or state system provider, its just too lacking.

Another issue was the very selective view on Hadiths that this documentary show, the majority of Muslims do follow them and see them as authentic, but few that ive come across see them as equal to the quran, they are though just below the quran in importance for most Muslims, clearly defined by the classical Islamic scholars.

On the matter of veiling in Egypt during the 6-70's, it was during a secular nationalist part of their history, while earlier in history veiling have been common in the wider middle east, but with regional variations of course, so the documentary give a very false image here.

On the matter of priestly class in Islam, during the early days it was uncommon for anyone to have it as a profession, but there were people whom functioned as "brokers" in matters of conflict, later this became more professionalized as the needs in society became more sophisticated, hence you later see more and more scholars and such whom try to work out gods plan for mankind, which makes sense if you read the history, as they wanted to live righteous Muslims lives as best they could. One thing that i agree with them on is the matter of making money from religion, i was somewhat shocked when i saw this documentary (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2013/03/20133413812851784.html) on prayer callers in turkey, and this documentary reminded me of that, to bad it seems you cannot watch it via Al-Jazeera anymore.

On the matter of Quranic unchanging in history, well to me as a secular historian it would be obvious that such things would happen to any body of text that has lived in a oral environment long enough, and many western scholars are agreed on this, its just variance in how much change there have been and what change that is disputed.. Though in the end its upto you as a interpretor that will give the text most change, as anyone who is educated in hermeneutics know, noone today can understand it as people did in the past, that opportunity is passed, and the quran like any other part of history is subject to history, taking it further from its time with every second that passes...