stevenlmeyer,
My former Pastor who was born in India and immigrated to Australia with his parents when he was four. has now gained several degrees after his name including Master of Theology. He decided five years ago to study ancient History as a subject at Sydney University.

He discovered the teachers in that faculty were mostly Muslim. After six months he decided to leave the course because of the amount of distortion they placed on ancient history. I will contact him to get the facts.

Muslims make the claim their monotheistic heritage dates bach to Abraham. Mainly because they believe the Koran is the most accurate book of God, and its historical innaccurateies therefore are believed to be true.

Philo,

Leaving aside Muslim mythology, the provenance of the koran is quite murky. The earliest extant printed version of the koran in its current form dates to some decades after Muhammad's death. Internal evidence – most notably the verses on human embryos that seem to be plagiarised from the writings of Galen, a second century physician – suggest that the koran underwent considerable editing before its contents were settled.

Whatever the koran is, it is probably not what a seventh century Arabian warlord imagined he heard.

To be credible you have to:

--Name your university

--Name the faculty members there

--Explain what they are teaching

--Demonstrate how their teaching is false

In doing this you should not rely solely on your pastor. Never report anything until it has been corroborated from multiple sources.

However,

That applies equally to your lecturers.

(1) Are your lecturers treating Muslim mythology – eg the provenance of the koran – as fact?

(2) If they teach the Muslim version of events do they teach other points of view as well?

If the answer to (1) is "yes" and the answer to (2) is "no" you should expose them.

Good luck

Can the same not be said of the Bible, stevenlmeyer?

>>the provenance of the koran is quite murky<<

The Bible, as I understand it, is not a coherent document, but a gathering of early writings brought together in order to underpin a particular religious view. Is this not the case?

Of some interest to scholars, I believe, are various documents that were omitted from the "authorised" version, because they didn't represent a sufficiently supportive position to the main theme. Am I incorrect in thinking this?

What has always intrigued me, as I have mentioned a few times on this forum, is the fact that there is no contemporary account of the events involving Jesus, that were seen as somehow "different" by his followers. No corroborative mention of meetings (sermon on the mount), miracles (surely the tabloids of the day would have picked up a few of those?) or the resurrection.

The resurrection should at least have rated a small mention, somewhere?

The lack of contemporary corroboration, as opposed to the later manufacture of a myth, surely lends itself well to the definition of its provenance as "murky"?

Particularly when you use as evidence of "murky" the following, related to the Qur'an:

>>The earliest extant printed version of the koran in its current form dates to some decades after Muhammad's death<<

Errr... when was the Bible written? And what is the date of "the earliest extant printed version?"

Pot, meet kettle. Note, please, its fine ebony sheen.

Pericles,

I am if not an actual atheist an extremely sceptical agnostic. I'll believe in a deity when shown some evidence.

Even if there exists an entity that could be called a deity I would not expect him / her / it / they to resemble the deity described in the bible, the koran, or any other human "holy" book.

I certainly would not regard the provenance of the bible as anything but murky.

So what is your point Pericles?

Just to drive home the point Pericles:

Let us suppose a university professor were to teach creationism instead of evolution to biology students. I would want that fact publicised.

In the same way, if professors are teaching Muslim myth as fact I want that out in the open.

Whenever I make statements like that I am asked whether I believe in "academic freedom."

My answer is: Absolutely.

I respect the right of anyone to teach whatever they want. If someone truly believes a seventh century Arabian warlord was God's last and greatest messenger and that an angel dictated the koran to him word for word that's fine. They are welcome to teach that as historical fact.

Similarly, if someone really believes evolution is all a load of codswallop and that God created the world over a six day period 6,000 years ago that's also OK.

For all I care a physics professor can teach the phlogiston theory of heat.

However, the right to teach what you want is not the right to avoid scrutiny. I want what is being taught out in the open.

-That way students can make an informed choice of university.

-That way employers can make an informed decision about the value of the degrees granted by the university.

My understanding is that Philo believes Muslim faculty are teaching Muslim mythology as fact in classes that are not specifically religious in nature. I have no way of knowing whether he is correct. I suspect not. Undergraduates often get things wrong. Oft times when I've been marking exam papers I've said to myself "You anal cavity, to you really think I taught you that?"

But, if Philo is correct, if Muslim faculty are teaching mythology as fact, that information should be made public.

Now what point were you trying to make again Pericles?

This knee-jerk defence of Muslims is getting tiresome.

I take your point, stevenlmeier.

However, you and I both know that Philo is simply inventing mozzies-under-the-bed stories to get his cohorts all pumped up with vitriol.

I was simply pointing out that the teaching of any religion, using selected historical documents, while at the same time protecting those documents from scrutiny by insisting they are somehow sacred, is dishonest.

>>For all I care a physics professor can teach the phlogiston theory of heat.<<

And so they should.

I recall being told about phlogiston as part of the lead-in to understanding oxidation. I certainly would have no problem if religion were taught in the same way. As a lead-in, perhaps, to a philosophy course, or to a study into the human need for "completion".

>>This knee-jerk defence of Muslims is getting tiresome<<

Strange if it came across this way, but I'll bear it in mind. It may be that there are simply so many christians on this thread who denigrate Islam at the drop of a hat that my reaction inevitably seems to be a pro-Islam knee-jerk, when it is simply intended to be anti-bigotry.