Oldest Quran Manuscript discovered in Birmingham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between theological differences and feeling "superior" as someone was claiming. I can respect theological differences without feeling superior than someone who isn't of the same faith as me.

This isn't about feeling superior, but believing that your religion is superior to another. Superior in the sense of being better, more correct, more authentic, and etc.

Do you not believe that Muslim is a superior religion to Christianity? Or you think they are equals?

Not the PP you're responding to but had to ask, do Christians see Muslims as equals? What about Jews? Do Christians see Jews as being their equals and vice versa? Do any religions actually see those of other faiths as being "equals" or is that the whole premise of having different faiths? I found your line of questioning the PP pretty inane based on you singling out Muslims as if they are the only ones who don't see others as "equals".

I don't think you've been paying attention to the tread. My line of questioning is not inane in the context of the exchange that has occurred thus far: OP claims "unparalleled degree of certainty", poster a finds this remark provocative, poster b questions why is it provocative, I respond explaining that its provocative because it claims that this is evidence that Islam is superior to Christianity in terms of authenticity/true/whatever, poster c then claims that they don't feel superior than someone else who is in a different religion, I respond that superiority is in terms of one religion being better than another and not how one person feels towards another. You then respond the observation that the claim of superiority is mutual. Well no shit Sherlock, this is why I wrote in an earlier post:

NP here. Are you feigning being obtuse? Obviously Muslims believe their religion is superior to that of the Christians. Obviously the feeling is mutual. Obviously, Muslima's use of "Uparalleled" is a jab indicating that this level of authenticity in the scriptures enjoyed by Islam is not also enjoyed by Christianity, especially the English speaking ones.

This is provocative because it incites heated disagreement. Obviously.

So to summarize, you *DO* agree that Muslims believe and claim that their religion is superior to Christianity, and OP is claiming the discovered Quran fragments as objective evidence backing up this claim, which is indeed provocative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between theological differences and feeling "superior" as someone was claiming. I can respect theological differences without feeling superior than someone who isn't of the same faith as me.

This isn't about feeling superior, but believing that your religion is superior to another. Superior in the sense of being better, more correct, more authentic, and etc.

Do you not believe that Muslim is a superior religion to Christianity? Or you think they are equals?

Not the PP you're responding to but had to ask, do Christians see Muslims as equals? What about Jews? Do Christians see Jews as being their equals and vice versa? Do any religions actually see those of other faiths as being "equals" or is that the whole premise of having different faiths? I found your line of questioning the PP pretty inane based on you singling out Muslims as if they are the only ones who don't see others as "equals".

I'm not any of the above PPs, but if we do a little archaeology (back to the first page), that's exactly the question that started this derailment. Muslima posted something that prompted people to ask whether she was being "provocative" and/or felt superior. So this question about whether she was being provocative/superior is why she's being "singled out."

Ohh ok I see. I didn't get a superior vibe from her fwiw

Oh my gawd, you cannot possibly miss the fact that the OP was gloating about it, no different from when Car and Driver magazine publishes a comparison review placing VW on top, and the VW fanbois descend on the internet forums to gloat against their Honda rivals. Christians understandably find this gloating provocative. And atheists just sit and ponder how the world would be a better place if all this excess energy was put to actual productive use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL way to make everything about you. Actually, as Muslims, we don't believe our religion is superior and we see Christians and Jews as our brothers and sisters on a different path. As a Muslim, any time I see old versions of the Quran it just amazes me that over all this time, it hasn't changed and that we are reading the same book that our ancestors read. That to me is amazing.

It doesn't have anything to do with Christians or the Bible or Hindus or anyone else. Sorry to take the attention away from you :'(

A key tenet of Islam is that the Jews and Christians got it wrong, so God sent Mohammed to set everybody straight. You're definitely not speaking for all Muslims, or even most Muslims, or even many Muslims at all.

In any case, the age of a piece of paper/papyrus/stone proves nothing about the presence, or lack thereof, of divine inspiration behind the document.

PP at the top, I have to ask: why did you post something that you know to be untrue? Lots of us know that Muslims believe that Jews and Christians got it wrong. It only takes one person to call you out on this. I suspect you were involved in last year's crazy threads that were precipitated by claims about fantasy conversion rates to Islam, equal treatment of women, and so on, and I also suspect that you don't want a repeat of being called out by people on this stuff.

There's a big difference between theological differences and feeling "superior" as someone was claiming. I can respect theological differences without feeling superior than someone who isn't of the same faith as me.

The jizhya tax on other Abrahamic faiths has historically been a demonstration of their inferior status (although today it's often spun as a way to get out of fighting).

I'll let someone else answer about the Buddhists, Hindus and so on. I doubt top PP will answer this, however.

Hindus, Buddhists, etc were not given the 'decency' of jizhya tax, they were (and in some places still even today) forced to convert or die.

Historically, how were they treated under Christian rulers? I'm sure they weren't persecuted at all!

Obviously, yes they were also persecuted by Christian rulers, however there is a major significant understanding you're omitting. It was not commanded by the Christian religious text to convert or kill. It was done but not theologically commanded. Huge difference. In addition, Christians did not separate their treatment from those that followed non-Abrahamic religions or those that practiced Abrahamic religions. Their stance did not 'de-humanize' those that were not of an Abrahamic faith.

Also, this convert or kill theology is still being practiced today, right now in 2015 under the religious umbrella of Islam.

And here we go on the merry-go-round again. Haven't these points been made before and all this discussed to death? Even the jizhya tax was thoroughly explained as a tax to DEFEND non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, should the community be under tax. Only Muslims were compelled to fight in war, not non-Muslims. As such, non-Muslims were protected by Muslims and the tax was compensation. Google this yourself rather than opening up another mind numbing debate. The commandment to kill was only in times of war and in self defense. After all, Muslims in the Quran are permitted to marry Jews and Christian women. So what, the Muslim God said marry the infidels, okay, but then kill them immediately after consummation? Thats the proof that the commandment to kill was only in times of war and self defense. End.Of.Story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between theological differences and feeling "superior" as someone was claiming. I can respect theological differences without feeling superior than someone who isn't of the same faith as me.

This isn't about feeling superior, but believing that your religion is superior to another. Superior in the sense of being better, more correct, more authentic, and etc.

Do you not believe that Muslim is a superior religion to Christianity? Or you think they are equals?

Not the PP you're responding to but had to ask, do Christians see Muslims as equals? What about Jews? Do Christians see Jews as being their equals and vice versa? Do any religions actually see those of other faiths as being "equals" or is that the whole premise of having different faiths? I found your line of questioning the PP pretty inane based on you singling out Muslims as if they are the only ones who don't see others as "equals".

I don't think you've been paying attention to the tread. My line of questioning is not inane in the context of the exchange that has occurred thus far: OP claims "unparalleled degree of certainty", poster a finds this remark provocative, poster b questions why is it provocative, I respond explaining that its provocative because it claims that this is evidence that Islam is superior to Christianity in terms of authenticity/true/whatever, poster c then claims that they don't feel superior than someone else who is in a different religion, I respond that superiority is in terms of one religion being better than another and not how one person feels towards another. You then respond the observation that the claim of superiority is mutual. Well no shit Sherlock, this is why I wrote in an earlier post:

NP here. Are you feigning being obtuse? Obviously Muslims believe their religion is superior to that of the Christians. Obviously the feeling is mutual. Obviously, Muslima's use of "Uparalleled" is a jab indicating that this level of authenticity in the scriptures enjoyed by Islam is not also enjoyed by Christianity, especially the English speaking ones.

This is provocative because it incites heated disagreement. Obviously.

So to summarize, you *DO* agree that Muslims believe and claim that their religion is superior to Christianity, and OP is claiming the discovered Quran fragments as objective evidence backing up this claim, which is indeed provocative.

WHO gives a damn if the OP implied her religion was more authentic and declares it to be so? We are told every day that if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are doomed to hell. That's provocative too, but I get that it's their belief and they have a right to their own belief. Yes, Muslims do believe their religious book is more authentic than the Bible. Yes, Muslims do believe the Bible was significantly altered. But - they still believe both Jews and Christians may go to Heaven, despite having altered their book or misinterpreted God's law. You're just bored and looking to pick a fight. Take up knitting instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These texts are DH's academic area of study and he is rubbing his hands with glee for insights into the original language of the document.

Why, its written in Hijazi. I think the 1500 year old bible discovered in Turkey written in Syriac (The Native language of Jesus) much more interesting. It contains Gospels edited from today's Bible. Including Gospel references to Jesus as a prophet and his rise to heaven without death by Crucifixion.

Are you talking about the hoax Bible in Syriac? That one keeps cropping up -- the rumor just won't die.

[Anonymous]

If one finds a first edition of curious George that is very similar to the one on sale today does that mean it is real? Islam is no different then any other religion including Christianity that co-ops previous religions into their new one because it is easier to get sheep to Believe something close to what they already believe. It is all predicated on a magic space man made up by incestious goat fucking shepherds form so long ago that it holds no relevance. I don't listen to baby boomers who babble at work, I certainly won't pay attention to any of this or that nonsense form religion. Muslims are no different than Mormans being they took an old book and wrote a part 2 just as Christianity did and the Jews did to various multi God religions.

It is literally all plagiarist bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If one finds a first edition of curious George that is very similar to the one on sale today does that mean it is real? Islam is no different then any other religion including Christianity that co-ops previous religions into their new one because it is easier to get sheep to Believe something close to what they already believe. It is all predicated on a magic space man made up by incestious goat fucking shepherds form so long ago that it holds no relevance. I don't listen to baby boomers who babble at work, I certainly won't pay attention to any of this or that nonsense form religion. Muslims are no different than Mormans being they took an old book and wrote a part 2 just as Christianity did and the Jews did to various multi God religions.

It is literally all plagiarist bullshit.

You're a little rough around the edges but otherwise, well said. Of course, now people will peg you as some sort of "angry atheist" but that doesn't make your claim any less valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one finds a first edition of curious George that is very similar to the one on sale today does that mean it is real? Islam is no different then any other religion including Christianity that co-ops previous religions into their new one because it is easier to get sheep to Believe something close to what they already believe. It is all predicated on a magic space man made up by incestious goat fucking shepherds form so long ago that it holds no relevance. I don't listen to baby boomers who babble at work, I certainly won't pay attention to any of this or that nonsense form religion. Muslims are no different than Mormans being they took an old book and wrote a part 2 just as Christianity did and the Jews did to various multi God religions.

It is literally all plagiarist bullshit.

You're a little rough around the edges but otherwise, well said. Of course, now people will peg you as some sort of "angry atheist" but that doesn't make your claim any less valid.

not sure why my phone kicked out form when I wanted from

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And here we go on the merry-go-round again. Haven't these points been made before and all this discussed to death? Even the jizhya tax was thoroughly explained as a tax to DEFEND non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, should the community be under tax. Only Muslims were compelled to fight in war, not non-Muslims. As such, non-Muslims were protected by Muslims and the tax was compensation. Google this yourself rather than opening up another mind numbing debate. The commandment to kill was only in times of war and in self defense. After all, Muslims in the Quran are permitted to marry Jews and Christian women. So what, the Muslim God said marry the infidels, okay, but then kill them immediately after consummation? Thats the proof that the commandment to kill was only in times of war and self defense. End.Of.Story.

The explanation of jizhya as the price of protection is only one interpretation, and it's not scripturally grounded. The only explanation of the non-Muslim tax in the Quran is that of an expression of submission - "until they pay the tax and consider themselves subdued." It doesn't say "until they pay the tax so that they can be protected during wars." Quranically, jizhya is an acceptance of submission to the Muslim rule, nothing else. Additionally, unlike other fees collected by the Muslim state, the amount of jizhya has never been fixed. It's left to the discretion of the ruler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a big difference between theological differences and feeling "superior" as someone was claiming. I can respect theological differences without feeling superior than someone who isn't of the same faith as me.

This isn't about feeling superior, but believing that your religion is superior to another. Superior in the sense of being better, more correct, more authentic, and etc.

Do you not believe that Muslim is a superior religion to Christianity? Or you think they are equals?

Not the PP you're responding to but had to ask, do Christians see Muslims as equals? What about Jews? Do Christians see Jews as being their equals and vice versa? Do any religions actually see those of other faiths as being "equals" or is that the whole premise of having different faiths? I found your line of questioning the PP pretty inane based on you singling out Muslims as if they are the only ones who don't see others as "equals".

I don't think you've been paying attention to the tread. My line of questioning is not inane in the context of the exchange that has occurred thus far: OP claims "unparalleled degree of certainty", poster a finds this remark provocative, poster b questions why is it provocative, I respond explaining that its provocative because it claims that this is evidence that Islam is superior to Christianity in terms of authenticity/true/whatever, poster c then claims that they don't feel superior than someone else who is in a different religion, I respond that superiority is in terms of one religion being better than another and not how one person feels towards another. You then respond the observation that the claim of superiority is mutual. Well no shit Sherlock, this is why I wrote in an earlier post:

NP here. Are you feigning being obtuse? Obviously Muslims believe their religion is superior to that of the Christians. Obviously the feeling is mutual. Obviously, Muslima's use of "Uparalleled" is a jab indicating that this level of authenticity in the scriptures enjoyed by Islam is not also enjoyed by Christianity, especially the English speaking ones.

This is provocative because it incites heated disagreement. Obviously.

So to summarize, you *DO* agree that Muslims believe and claim that their religion is superior to Christianity, and OP is claiming the discovered Quran fragments as objective evidence backing up this claim, which is indeed provocative.

WHO gives a damn if the OP implied her religion was more authentic and declares it to be so? We are told every day that if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are doomed to hell. That's provocative too, but I get that it's their belief and they have a right to their own belief. Yes, Muslims do believe their religious book is more authentic than the Bible. Yes, Muslims do believe the Bible was significantly altered. But - they still believe both Jews and Christians may go to Heaven, despite having altered their book or misinterpreted God's law. You're just bored and looking to pick a fight. Take up knitting instead.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Interesting article. Picture shows very clearly it is written in Hejazi script, as most early versions were for some time. This script contains no diacritical marks, which distinguish short vowels, but more importantly, uses no dots, which are needed to distinguish one consonant from a number of others. Lots of room for interpretation between then and various decisions that set forth many years later the official version of what the words were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And here we go on the merry-go-round again. Haven't these points been made before and all this discussed to death? Even the jizhya tax was thoroughly explained as a tax to DEFEND non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, should the community be under tax. Only Muslims were compelled to fight in war, not non-Muslims. As such, non-Muslims were protected by Muslims and the tax was compensation. Google this yourself rather than opening up another mind numbing debate. The commandment to kill was only in times of war and in self defense. After all, Muslims in the Quran are permitted to marry Jews and Christian women. So what, the Muslim God said marry the infidels, okay, but then kill them immediately after consummation? Thats the proof that the commandment to kill was only in times of war and self defense. End.Of.Story.

The explanation of jizhya as the price of protection is only one interpretation, and it's not scripturally grounded. The only explanation of the non-Muslim tax in the Quran is that of an expression of submission - "until they pay the tax and consider themselves subdued." It doesn't say "until they pay the tax so that they can be protected during wars." Quranically, jizhya is an acceptance of submission to the Muslim rule, nothing else. Additionally, unlike other fees collected by the Muslim state, the amount of jizhya has never been fixed. It's left to the discretion of the ruler.

Exactly. Abrahamic faiths pay the tax to Muslims so that Muslims won't fight *them*, i.e. Muslims won't fight Christians or Jews who pay the tax and are sufficiently subdued. The choices for Abrahamic faiths being to convert to Islam, pay the tax, or die. This can, and today is often, spun into "Christians or Jews don't have to fight anybody (Muslim or otherwise)." However, it seems unlikely the earliest Muslims wouldn't have wanted to fill their armies with Christians and Jews, even jizhya payers, who refused to convert to Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHO gives a damn if the OP implied her religion was more authentic and declares it to be so? We are told every day that if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our Savior, we are doomed to hell. That's provocative too, but I get that it's their belief and they have a right to their own belief. Yes, Muslims do believe their religious book is more authentic than the Bible. Yes, Muslims do believe the Bible was significantly altered. But - they still believe both Jews and Christians may go to Heaven, despite having altered their book or misinterpreted God's law. You're just bored and looking to pick a fight. Take up knitting instead.

WHO tells you "every day" that you are doomed to hell if you don't accept Jesus? Nobody here on DCUM, that's for sure. About once a week somebody here explains that that's a minority view among certain Christians, but it's certainly not held by many Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And here we go on the merry-go-round again. Haven't these points been made before and all this discussed to death? Even the jizhya tax was thoroughly explained as a tax to DEFEND non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, should the community be under tax. Only Muslims were compelled to fight in war, not non-Muslims. As such, non-Muslims were protected by Muslims and the tax was compensation. Google this yourself rather than opening up another mind numbing debate. The commandment to kill was only in times of war and in self defense. After all, Muslims in the Quran are permitted to marry Jews and Christian women. So what, the Muslim God said marry the infidels, okay, but then kill them immediately after consummation? Thats the proof that the commandment to kill was only in times of war and self defense. End.Of.Story.

The explanation of jizhya as the price of protection is only one interpretation, and it's not scripturally grounded. The only explanation of the non-Muslim tax in the Quran is that of an expression of submission - "until they pay the tax and consider themselves subdued." It doesn't say "until they pay the tax so that they can be protected during wars." Quranically, jizhya is an acceptance of submission to the Muslim rule, nothing else. Additionally, unlike other fees collected by the Muslim state, the amount of jizhya has never been fixed. It's left to the discretion of the ruler.

Exactly. Abrahamic faiths pay the tax to Muslims so that Muslims won't fight *them*, i.e. Muslims won't fight Christians or Jews who pay the tax and are sufficiently subdued. The choices for Abrahamic faiths being to convert to Islam, pay the tax, or die. This can, and today is often, spun into "Christians or Jews don't have to fight anybody (Muslim or otherwise)." However, it seems unlikely the earliest Muslims wouldn't have wanted to fill their armies with Christians and Jews, even jizhya payers, who refused to convert to Islam.

Someone obviously hasn't read up on the history of the Ottoman empire...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And here we go on the merry-go-round again. Haven't these points been made before and all this discussed to death? Even the jizhya tax was thoroughly explained as a tax to DEFEND non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, should the community be under tax. Only Muslims were compelled to fight in war, not non-Muslims. As such, non-Muslims were protected by Muslims and the tax was compensation. Google this yourself rather than opening up another mind numbing debate. The commandment to kill was only in times of war and in self defense. After all, Muslims in the Quran are permitted to marry Jews and Christian women. So what, the Muslim God said marry the infidels, okay, but then kill them immediately after consummation? Thats the proof that the commandment to kill was only in times of war and self defense. End.Of.Story.

The explanation of jizhya as the price of protection is only one interpretation, and it's not scripturally grounded. The only explanation of the non-Muslim tax in the Quran is that of an expression of submission - "until they pay the tax and consider themselves subdued." It doesn't say "until they pay the tax so that they can be protected during wars." Quranically, jizhya is an acceptance of submission to the Muslim rule, nothing else. Additionally, unlike other fees collected by the Muslim state, the amount of jizhya has never been fixed. It's left to the discretion of the ruler.

Another correction: Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women, but this doesn't work in reverse. A Muslim woman can only marry the guy if he converts to Islam.

First PP, why do you keep making dodgy statements like this? You should know by now that we aren't a bunch of easy targets for conversion who will swallow this stuff whole. Somebody here is usually going to challenge you if you misrepresent your religion.