DAN..the koran..Was AT FIRST SPOKEN..then later recorded..onto tablets papyrus/paper..transcribed etc..but its essentially..in the way..of revelation/AS comforter/AFFIRMATION AND EXPANSION.

[FOR EXAMPLE..It reveals AMONG MANY OTHER AFFIRMATIONS..THAT JESUS SPAKE AS A CHILD..defending his MOTHER]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=JESUS+SPAKE+AS++A+child&

it further expands..on other more obscure..but AMAZING AFFIRMATION[of the higher levels..OF SPIRIT..[AS WELL AS THE INPUTS FROM JINN]..[DOnt tar the whole text..because..all texts/wORDS..WORKS MUSt needs have equal motivations to their expression

it in no way can Replaces the books of the ot..nor the gospil..or even the pauline letters..etc..but for me was a final affirmation[the cherry on top if you will..

except swedenberg luther wesly mary baker eddie and other texts have yet further expanded on the rich list of messengers god in hiS MERCY HAS sent TO MANKIND TO COMFORT AND AFFIRM.

I WAS Fortunate..that i knew god..before i searched the texts of His MESSENGERS..I read them to know more of the amassing sustainER..or all light life logic MERCY GRACE..LOVE..and living.

i thank the many messengers..be THEIR mess-age AS..SURE/clear..as mankind can bare..[or could at that time bare]..ITS SAID by those loving the simplicity..of his message..that he would be..the final/last messenger..because his suRVING texts..have inspired much further reveal

[just as other SACRED/texts held holy to mem..[like Swedenborg encyclopedic..arcana..text..has revealed many insights to our one MOST holy life giver.

it reveals..too that each nation..received..its own messenger
but clearly..this was before we discovered the americas/AUSTRALIANS/internet etc..who each reveal a new facit..of the most holy onE....many would call good...

[but jesus himself revealed..that WE in time would do greater than the few that..in real time..saw him..'do'..that we are thus assured..we shall dO GREATER.

we each..reveal much of our creator..EVERY LEAF..EVERY LIFE
ITS really our own greatness we fear..INDEED AS YU HAS Said..MANY TIMES..you are GOD..so get over it..and get on with 'knowing thyself*

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." -- Harry A. Blackmun

"When the government..premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that the dead corpete fiction[person]..is equal to a living being..

yes all 'persons are created..equally
via govt act...thing is you asre not a person..you hold trust over persons[persons are govt id/govt issued licence/busness licence etc etc[not you]

govt created 'persons'..under the act..it only controles those dead persons it created[not ther living but the dead paper fictions..we think is us..

but its these ignorances of law
plus things like getting rid of the queen 'reigning over all persons[again..not ruling over us but the persons created under her warrent[warrent is permission..to do that otherwise unlawfull for the dead [person]..to do.

ignorance of the law is no excuse
thus dead corperate persons suck the lifeblood away..from the living

its satanic..secular stuff
thats what happens when the clever get far too clever

remove god..at.. thy own peril
your already lorded over by ignorant atheists and ignorant demons
the lawfull term=imbisiles ..wards of the state...the every day term=treasoners.

sure the lie of her..'reigning''us in by reigning over us as if we are the created fiction..[reigns are re control]..govt queen licence etc has no power over us..govt has no power over us[unless we hurt someone..living[the dead feel no pain..the dead cant suffer a loss cause their dead.

these treasons are enforced over us..or rather our person[ie the state fiction..of person/licence etc..anything you had to sign..on their form creates a person.

just regestering anything..creates a person
sign here..creates a contract..violate the contract..govt can lord it over you[your person is their way to en slave you

but you ignorant of the law..let the lie send us broke

the living earn wage
the dead only 'earn'..incom,e

income isnt wage
blackmail/tax..intrst/rent money etc
thats income

wage has a value adding component[life energy]
the living earn wages..only..the dead [person]..mustpay income tax

the dead suck the life blood from, the living
every govt agency=a person
every thing created under govt act=person

via the lie of person alone do they lord it over you
reign the living fia dead fictions..of person

anyhow the rich..use their person..to avoid paying tax on their 'income/..by paying the income to themselves as..wage/or expenses

bah why bother

tax only the dead
you never gave informed concent..
so the person govt owns isnt a valid contract...[cant be enforced by by the dead..so we force it on..the living

your not 'a person'
you act as trustee for person..[they dont care johan]

Pericles,
“Is this making any sense to you at all?”

No you are making no sense. OSAMA BIN LADEN DID NOT AUTHOR THE QUR’AN!

In the case of Mein Kampf, we are justified to infer its contents from the actions of its author. In the case of the Qur’an, we are NOT making inferences about the writings of Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zakawi.

These guys are claiming legitimacy for their actions in the Qur'an and so the question is: Can they justify their claims? Therefore, we need to examine the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet

Is this making any sense to you at all?

Let me repeat what Foyle said in full so that I can make two points:

“A secularist in a person who seeks evidence to support his or her philosophy and only forms a firm view when the evidence provides strong, almost overwhelming, support.

In describing a secularist, the use of the adjective fundamentalist is really an attempt to denigrate anyone who aims to be a clear thinker guided only by evidence.

I am a member of a secular, sceptical, group and I would be jumped on if I expressed, in that group, a view for which I couldn't provide strong supporting evidence.”

My first point: If not for your fundamentalist mentality, you would not have failed to see the fallacy of the Hitler analogy...or are you prepared to admit error afterall?

My second point: Foyle himself fails to countenance the possibility that at times secularists may not be as clear thinking as they imagine.

It is no surprise to me that no secularist on this forum has been able to acknowledge Dawkin’s error or criticise him for expressing views about Islam’s teachings without first looking at the evidence. How many times have they parroted Dawkin's "fairies at the back of the garden" remarks no doubt assured that this guy has done his homework! Afterall, is he not like them and therefore by definition "a clear thinker guided only by evidence."

WmTrevor

<<Which book is Dawkins admitting to never reading? Also. does that mean, some, lots or all?>>

Dawkins himself admits that he hasn’t read the Qur’an and that in fact he didn’t need to. The reference is below*

<<Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qur’an documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)>>

You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Qur’an.

<<"Qur'an itself" is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence.>>

And how do you know? Are you like Pericles who can logically derive these things without reading the subject matter? Given me an explanation for the Qur'an that is evidence-based and consistent with your view of things. Or are you another secularist who doesn’t have to know what they are talking about to know what they are talking about.

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

Thanks for the clarification, grateful... as I started reading this thread from 1 February and saw your "...even described the Qur'an as akin to the Mein Kauf while admitting he has never read the book." it was not clear which of the two books was being referred to.

"<<Essentially the muslim faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the Qur’an documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)>>

You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Qur’an."

Here is what Dan S de Meregue wrote which prompted my edited version:

"Essentially the Christian faith is also historical in nature. It's founded in history, with the NT documents being its most reliable source (amongst others.)"

Now I don't know what you are claiming... the muslim faith is not historical? The Qu'ran documents are unreliable? Or should Dan respond to you with:

"You have no idea what you are talking about. Another Dawkins? Prove my conjecture wrong and tell me what you have read of the Bible."

"<<"Qur'an itself" is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence.>> And how do you know? "

Umm... because it is according to any concept of logical analysis.

For comparison members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God so the quote would become,

'The Book of Mormon is the hypothesis - it is not the evidence'.

You might respond that Mormons are wrong about the word of god. Can you proove it? They might respond that you are wrong about the word of god. Can they proove it? So, apart from waving books at each other as verification of the opposing claims, what would be the substantiating supporting evidence?

Just to repeat my point: 'Tricky things these claims to knowledge.'