Quote:Deuteronomy is in fact one of the books of the Bible which was added to coerce the people to follow the new edicts of King Josiah in the 7th century BC. It is exactly the same type of coercion I object to in the Koran.It sure isn't just Deuteronomy. Practically every book in the Old Testament is Chock Full 'o Nuts, so to speak. Moses ordered exactly the same kind of slaughter, rape and enslavement. Woe betide the society that tries to follow even half the recommendations in the Pentateuch, or even the Acts; every city in the country would be burnt to the ground within the week.
However, if you're objecting to these foundational texts of the Judaic and Christian religions just the same as the Koran, what exactly is it that singles Mohammed and Islam out for blame? Why no impassioned screeds about the atrocities of Moses, or King David? Why not attack Paul's bizarre misogynistic rantings from just about every letter he wrote?
I can't blame you for deploring the state of human rights in many Islamic countries, nor for trying to find the origins of these problems. But you appear to be either blind or apologetic to similar instances in other religions, especially Christianity. When a Muslim blows something up, he's suffering from "Islamification", and manifesting a hyper-version of a religion founded by a "vicious war lord." The religion should be closely monitored, and offenders deported or imprisoned. When a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, he's not really a "true" Christian, definitely nothing to do with the religion, he's just sick in the head. When Fundamentalist Mormons have polygamy and child marriage, you "...don't believe they are in it for the sex or the arranged marriages with under aged girls, but are practicing their beliefs and are in it for the bearing of many (FLDS) children." When Mohammed does it (14 centuries prior!) it's horrific child abuse, part of his "contrived" religion. I guess that means he just made up to justify his own behavour, utterly unlike the FLDS, who are simply genuine believers?
It's making your arguments seem lopsided, to put it gently.
Quote:The analysis I've seen shows that the prophecies were written after the events. Much like the biased embellishments made by Christian monks in translating earlier works. This is why historical accounts from non-Islamic writers near the same time are important in ferreting out the truth from the myth.I'm still not seeing the scholarship you keep mentioning. Going back to primary sources is admirable, but a very dangerous game without knowing the context, which is the point of the scholarship.
-Jester