Mistranslation-muslim martyrs get 72 'raisins' instead of 'virgins'

That is hilarious!

I wouldn't get out of bed for 72 grapes, white or dark!

When you look into the origin of the Qur'an, which lacks context, you are compelled to look into the Ta'rikh, or history of Muhammed and Islam, written by al-Tabari.

Muhammed, who in his first days as a pseudo-prophet was convinced he was possessed by demons, said he had his devil all his life, and was fearful of what would happen to him when he died. His contemporaries clearly stated that he was demon-possessed.

One would think the great and only prophet of Allah would be given a straight ticket to Paradise, but not Muhammed. He knew better. As he was dying, he was scared. With reason.

So now it is suggested that the hodge-podge of Islamic texts may not have been interpreted correctly. Imagine that.

reply to post by heyo


I really don't know what to think of your inverted logic. I would have start by accepting your premise but that's faulty.

Religion is not about coolness and is really pointless to debate articles of faith with someone who neither a Muslim and most likely none practising in his own faith.

You can make your opinions in public, however, if it is untrue or more zionist inspired propaganda you must be open to being corrected. There are a couple of Muslims on ATS and myself and you will find that none of us debase the Jewish faith like zionist debase Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

reply to post by dooper


Looks like you are lifting you opinions from that crazy Texan reported on in Al Ahram.

Have you no original thoughts, geez!?


[edit on 092828p://pm2824 by masonwatcher]

Originally posted by n0b0DY
Great another interesting thread ruined thanks to masonwatcher

Yes,attempting to derail threads with noisy,hysterical,unhinged accusations is never pretty to see.
Anyone who disagrees with him or his agenda is instantly labelled an evil zionist -it would be funny if it were not so attention seeking and childish.

I've mentioned before its all about objective free enquiry but he still thinks its all a paranoid zionist conspiracy.
I'm not a zionist,I think 'all' the abrahamic mythologies have had a negative,divisive and bloodthirsty effect on humanity as a whole (and we'd be better off without them).

reply to post by masonwatcher


I don't know who the hell Al-Ahram, or whatever you called him is.

Try, try again.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by heyo

 

I really don't know what to think of your inverted logic. I would have start by accepting your premise but that's faulty.

Religion is not about coolness and is really pointless to debate articles of faith with someone who neither a Muslim and most likely none practising in his own faith.

You can make your opinions in public, however, if it is untrue or more zionist inspired propaganda you must be open to being corrected. There are a couple of Muslims on ATS and myself and you will find that none of us debase the Jewish faith like zionist debase Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Wow! One was a metaphor for the other.

A kid who gives himself a cool nickname can think he's cool all he wants but he isn't fooling anyone.

A religion who claims it isn't self-demonizing can think it's not self-demonizing all it wants but it isn't fooling anyone.

If anyone out there thinks i'm a hypocrite then let me say i am aware of the state of christianity.

reply to post by karl 12


nobody said

"Allah- Now my sons, here are your virgin grapes.

Sons- Grapes? Don't you mean virgins?

Allah -*puzzled*

Sons- We were supposed to get 72 virgins...."



Is this quality of debate you are after?

Originally posted by M157yD4wn
As a muslim, i've never seen the oft referenced 72 virgins in any text. i really have not. its not in the Quran.

From original article:

The exact number of virgins (or raisins) is not specified in Koran, but the number 72 comes from a quotation of Muhammad recorded in one of the lesser-known Hadith. ("Hadith" is an Arabic word meaning traditions.) After Muhammad's death, several collections of his deeds and sayings were collected to form the Hadith, which is the second most authoritative document is Islam, after the Koran.

Originally posted by heyo

A religion who claims it isn't self-demonizing can think it's not self-demonizing all it wants but it isn't fooling anyone.

No point in banging my head against a wall, I haven't got a helmet like yours nor the genetics.

Your metaphor is weak and misses its target by a mile.

I do not know enough about the Koran, Hadith or other Muslim texts to comment on whether they promise 72 virgins or grapes. If text everyone is referring to does not promise 72 "virgins," it does not make sense to think that it promises grapes.

Martyring oneself is obviously a difficult thing to do. If one is supposed to be rewarded for it, one would think they would get more than 72 pieces of fruit. Therefore, it seems incorrect to state the text promises grapes.

Perhaps the text does not promise virgins or concubines. It should however promise something more valuable than a piece of fruit.

reply to post by masonwatcher


It wasn't a debate until a certain someone came out of his hole.

There mods delete this one too!

No disrespect to Islam, but that cracks me up...so much for the infallability of holy texts, eh? Guess you need to read the fine print: your translation may vary.

Seriously, though, the whole concept is pretty silly if you think about it a bit: what kind of god would offer you either virgins or grapes for matyrdom? What kind of reward is that? I understand the symbolism of the grapes, i.e., eternal food, but if you're dead what good is that to you? If you need to eat in heaven, your afterlife might be in serious trouble.

On the other hand, what kind of perv offers a virgin, much less 72, as a reward? What about the virgin's feelings? I guess she doesn't matter. And what the hell would you do with them? I can just imagine thousands of martyrs, each with 72 perpetual virgins hanging around him.

I'm not sure which image is more ridiculous: a massive, virgin-swapping orgy, thousands of guys desperately trying to find some peace and quiet, or those same guys glumly looking each other muttering "grapes...72 freaking grapes..."

Silly or sick, take your pick.

And lest you think I'm picking on Islam, pretty much every religion I've studied is equally silly and sick.

Muslim traditions suggest that the Qur'an first became a book at the direction of Abu Bakr, father-in-law to Muhammed.

It is said the first Caliph was fearful that the sayings of Muhammed would be lost, so the second Caliph convinced Bakr that this had to be done, as Muhammed's companions were dropping like flies.

The legend says that Zaid, a resident of Mecca, was commissioned to make the gather, in fact, gathering the elements of the Qur'an from every quarter, from fig leaves, bones, stone, and memory.

No one had any idea in which chronological order they belonged. Therefore the first Qur'an was a mess, jumbled, out of order, contradictory, and even inaccurate, but more damning, is that there is no corroborating evidence that the "Qur'an" even became a book under Umar, Said, or Bakr.

Not a single letter or reference from any of the conquered nations to suggest the existence of a book form of the Qur'an.

After all, the Arabic peoples were illiterate between the 6th and 8th centuries.

The first and best Hadith, Sunnah, and Sira were compiled in Baghdad, not Mecca nor Medina, and those were two and three centuries removed.

Actually, an argument can be made that the Qur'an and Islam is a Persian creation, from Baghdad, and not Arabian, from Medina or Mecca.

So if misinterpretations or misrepresentations occur, do not expect me to be surprised.

I think it was made up as they went, to justify their amoral behaviour.

lol yeah i've been doing the same thing with my head too!! Is metaphor not the right word? Both parties in my example believe that simply by saying something about themselves it makes it true.

Originally posted by masonwatcher

There is nothing more fanatical than a rampaging zionist; it is a combination of neuroses and spite. Looks very odd to the impartial observer. It must be exposed, at least for comical value

There is something more fanatical Mr masonwatcher. Someone who posts thousands of times in a few weeks, day and night, creating threads and inserting malign comments about J... oops ... "zionists" non-stop. That might be considered obsessive? ... fanatic?

Ever hear about the muslim ladies in London paid stipends just to post anti-z stories, true or not, on conspiracy sites?


Two scoops of raisins to ya.


MF

reply to post by dooper


Muslims claim that the Koran is infallible. They also claim that the Christian and Jewish books have been corrupted over time by scribes, which is their explanation as to why Christian and Jewish scriptures sometimes conflict with the Koran. Yet, as you pointed out, the Koran as we know has the same "flaws" that Christian and Jewish books have.

It may be a very long time before the contents of the Bavarian archive are known. Some Koranic critics, notably the pseudonymous scholar "Ibn Warraq", claim that Professor Angelika Neuwirth, the archive's custodian, has denied access to scholars who stray from the traditional interpretation. Neuwirth admits that she has had the archive since 1990. She has 18 years of funding to study the Bavarian archive, and it is not clear who else will be allowed access to it.

The Great Koran Controversyreply to post by masonwatcher


Apparently Professor Neuwirth holds the key to the archives. As they say,"it is not clear who else will be allowed access to it".

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


No, not the same flaws. Not even close.

There are over 25,000 ancient parchments, fragments, scrolls, and letters that testify to the accuracy of today's Bible.

The Septuagant, the Greek translation of the Hebrew survives to this day. Translated 275 years before the Christian age, it serves as proof that nothing has changed. It matches today's Old Testament with amazing fidelity. Then we have another validation in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, date between 250 BC and 70 AD, the very period that Muhammed claims that the Christian and Jewish teachings were tainted. Changed. Altered.

The very existence of these 2,000 year-old scrolls are proof that the very foundation of Islam is false, as these ancient scrolls are virtually indistinguishable from the texts we have today.

The only archaeological evidence whatsoever outside of the first hundred years of the Qur'an, is a coin and an inscription inside the Dome of the Rock, which differ from each other and the book.

So no. Not the same thing.

Not even close.

reply to post by masonwatcher


Its the quality of debate I'm after. That was funny as heck.

Thats the first thing I thought when I read the OP, "There sure are going to be some disappointed martyrs."

But the little skit was much cooler to read than what I was thinking.

I would love a compromise, when I die I would like 72 virgins each holding a single white grape.