Okay, first off, the Koran was not initially written in Arabic. It was written in Aramaic. Consider how "72 virgins in heaven" translates into "grapes on a vine" in Aramaic, making more thematic sense within Abrahamic traditions. The Koran was initially a Nestorian Aramaic text that was translated into Arabic, butchering a lot of meanings.
Now, Muhammad didn't exist. There is little evidence he did. Invading Rashidun made up the story of Muhammad in order to placate the non-Arabs they invaded, in particular Sassanids. This is why Islam has a lot of rituals adopted from Zoroastrians, such as praying five times a day, ablutions before praying, facing a site of particular importance, and more.
Now, about the dogs. Since Arabs and Persians were rivals, the Arabs decided to invert what the Persians beloved: dogs. However, few know this, but Sassanian Persians abused cats frequently, in fact one can argue superstitious views of cats descended from Persians sadly.
So Arabs flip-flopped it around: dogs are bad, cats are good. This was done to make known they have rule over Sassanid Persians and are now boss.
Note, ofc some unorthodox Zoroastrian sects were vegetarian and loved all animals, such as Mazdakism and the Gnostic offshoot Manichaeism. However, these were not as popular. Orthodox Zoroastrians were pretty cruel to some animals, like cats and frogs, but they were very kind to others, like dogs.
If you need sources, then I can provide, you stupid edgelord piece of shit. You can Google and find more of the reputable sources, but obviously brainlets like you lack that capacity.
Daniel Torres
You present an interesting argument, but at the same time your post sounds a lot like the /x/-tier walls of text lunatics post here on occasion. I don't know enough about religion in the middle-east around this period to assert how right or retarded you are.
Jordan Walker
>I don't know enough about religion in the middle-east Then your opinion means absolute shit, and I don't need your retarded simple-minded post. "Hurr durr, I don't know if it's retarded or not." Maybe the problem is that you're retarded?
Also, Jesus didn't exist. Richard Carrier's arguments on the lack of historicity of Jesus are pretty good.
Ayden Sullivan
You definitely sound like one of those schizos straight out of /x/.
Christian Harris
Not an argument, you little edgelord piece of shit. The commonly accepted narratives of the general populace are driven by other motives instead of the search for truth or honesty.
Neither Muhammad nor Jesus existed.
Nathaniel Taylor
> Not an argument Go to bed, Stefan.
Wyatt Jenkins
>I can only think in memes It's time you grow up and understand nuance, you little fucker.
Thomas Diaz
Nowhere in Quran does it say "72 virgins" that's a hadith, so right off the bat you're already wrong. Muslims don't hate dogs due to Islamic reasons if they do, I've got myself a dog and there's even a hadith about a man who goes to heaven for giving a thirsty dog water. Though in some cultures and countries they dislike dogs, because they are a nuisance especially in the poorer nations of the world.
Jason Jones
fake news
Liam Taylor
That user is correct. Dogs are not said to be unclean in the quran, only in hadiths. It's a cultural basis, not religious.
Wyatt Powell
>hadith about a man who goes to heaven for giving a thirsty dog water. I remember it as a prostitute who let the thirsty dog drink water out of her shoe.
Justin Ortiz
The one about the prostitute is that she helped a cat, and the one with the dog is a man who let it drink out of his shoe, if my memory serves me right.
Brody King
Go take your pills schizo. Shit thread
Owen Thomas
Maybe it was a male prostitute.
Kayden Brooks
religishits on suicide watch
It's 2018 it's time to put an end to your fairy tales.
Justin Hughes
You're right about the number 72, but huris are promised in the Koran. Check Chapter (78) sūrat l-naba (The Great News) and verse 33.
"Q. - Let´s come to the misunderstandings. One of the most glaring errors you cite is that of the virgins promised, in the Islamic paradise, to the suicide bombers.
A. - "We begin from the term ´huri,´ for which the Arabic commentators could not find any meaning other than those heavenly virgins. But if one keeps in mind the derivations from Syro-Aramaic, that expression indicated ´white grapes,´ which is one of the symbolic elements of the Christian paradise, recalled in the Last Supper of Jesus. There´s another Koranic expression, falsely interpreted as ´the children´ or ´the youths´ of paradise: in Aramaic: it designates the fruit of the vine, which in the Koran is compared to pearls. As for the symbols of paradise, these interpretive errors are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation.""
Zachary Lee
I knew about dogs and hadiths, and my point still stands.
Jeremiah Bailey
Yes because grapes are usually described as having large eyes, lmao alright dude.
Christian Wood
It's about Aramaic vs Arabic. The Koran was originally a Syro-Aramaic Christian text that the Gulf Arabs translated and distorted.
>and the one with the dog is a man who let it drink out of his shoe >letting dirty hated animal drink out of the object that Arabs find the most insulting
It's Islam alright.
Jonathan Turner
Are you absolutely completely utterly retarded? The Quran is written in verse, and even contemporary well-read Arab linguists stand in awe before the eloquence, which what made Muhammed popular in the first place, this muhammed's only miracle: An illiterate shepards writing something that even the most proud Arabic poets couldn't imitate, and many did try.
Benjamin Lewis
this post is 0% accurate
Jeremiah Davis
Why are you being rude online? Would your mom approve of this behavior?
Cooper Bell
OP BTFO and confirmed a shit eating faggot
Blake Rogers
Muslim (I think) here, i live I Tunisia and almost everyone I've ever met likes dogs to a certain extent, I'd say cats are less liked here.
Matthew Rodriguez
The Quran is "the translation of a Syriac text," is how Angelika Neuwirth describes Luxenberg's thesis – "The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Quran is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."[9]
Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenburg's "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."[8]
Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[4]:51 He adds that according to Luxenberg, for the last two hundred years, Western scholars "have totally misread the Qur'ān" and that, ad hominem, no one can understand the Qur'an as "Only he can fret out for us the Syrian skeleton of this text."[4]:56 Summing up his assessment of Luxenberg's method, he states:
Christian Carter
The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language.[4]:55[12]
Saleh further attests[4]:47 that Luxenberg does not follow his own proposed rules.[13]
Richard Kroes in a review on Livius.org[year needed] describes him as "unaware of much of the other literature on the subject" and that "quite a few of his theories are doubtful and motivated too much by a Christian apologetic agenda."[14]
Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in a 2008 article at opendemocracy.net refers to Luxenberg's work as "open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism".[15]
Owen Torres
>be promised a bunch of fresh young gash if you blow yourself up >blow yourself up >receive grapes >sheeeeeit
