Thursday, March 02, 2006

History Channel decodes the Koran

Right now History Channel is running part 1 of Decoding the Past: Secrets of the Koran. They jsut got to the really fun part. Mohammed is dead and now they have to codify what has until then been recited. Verses allowed were those witnessed by two people who heard Mohammed and must agree with what his Companions, who had been reciting it, remember.

So far they have tackled the Sura used to justify attacking the unfaithful to show if taken in context and from the history of the Medina/Mecca war it means the followers of Islam must only attack if attacked. Too bad back in the 700s it was not properly applied or far less of the world would have been conquered by the sword before faltering due to Charles Martel and the holding of Vienna.

Christ did not die on the cross but G_d lifted him up and allowed someone else to die in Christ's place. There is no Redemption of Humanity's sins.

Oh that is neat, how to marginalize the Judeo-Christian Bible, because of distortions Allah had to reveal His word one more time. Hence the Quran. At least that is what they are saying in the show.

Hope part 2 is equally interesting.


Anonymous said...

It's amazing, as with my discussions with Sari, that although the Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, that they completely disregard all of his teachings and sayings. How could someone be a true prophet and be a liar? And Sari also could not offer any proof that Their prophet Mohammed was any more creditable than any one else who claimed to be a prophet. My argument to him was- If I walked out of the desert after 40 days and claimed that God had spoken to me and given me commandments by which everyone should live, why shouldn't I have as much credit as Mohammed? As I have stated before, NO HUMAN can give proof positive for the basis of their religion.....it's ALL a matter of teaching and faith. If ANYONE can dispute this by offering physical undeniable proof, I will gladly listen, other than physical proof, I remain a faithful, believing doubting Thomas (or Andy as the case may be).


The MaryHunter said...

Good point, Andy.

I watched the first hour and about 20 min of second, but was passing out and had to go to bed. Hope they show them again this weekend.

It did sound as if they would have commentators from both sides -- the Religion of Peace vs Religion of War -- and get into how the Islamofascists are misappropriating the teachings, but I didn't see enough to know if there was significant slanting either way.

The main point I took from my limited viewing was that interpretation is really up to the Koran reader, since there is no real hierarchy in Islam that dictates orthodoxy.

But that often doesn't matter with other religions, of course -- as per moonbat Cardinal Mahoney in DL's recent post, effectively bastardizing the Roman Catholic Church's Catechism and encouraging actions against US law. (thanks for commenting on said post, btw)

Anna said...

That was in the second part the modern morphing of Islam into a virulent rejection of anything modern by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics in Egypt.

They also talked about how the Quran was both a book of peace and of war. Along with recognizing how the words could be interpreted and no central authority to reign in extremists. Last chance for a central authority died either with the grandson Hussein or Saladin, depending upon whom you talk to.