@dalahow2,
I wonder why, when a person from one religion posts about errors in 'the competition', that they don't point out the same basic problems in their own?
--------------------------------------------------
- Islam wasn't written by Mohammed, who couldn't write
According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations.[10] Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it.[11] These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman's codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran we have today.
Any narrative by multiple people, especially those written years after the fact, are going to have differences and contradictions. This problem exists in both the Bible, and Islam. One could argue on a Time Vs Contradiction scale, that the problem is more glaring in Islam when the Bible is written over thousands of years, but the Quran / Sunna / Haddiths, what, 150 years?
However there is a very simple explanation for the contradictions in both religions - human nature. Humans are prone to error / perceptual differences / memory recall problems / wanting to improve things / wanting to use things for their own ends...etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Islamic concept of Abrogation was developed to cover the glaring contradictions in the Quran between peace verses and jihad verses.
The life of Mohammed makes is clear that as his political circumstances changed, so did his teaching, starting with pure peace and ending with convert or die...whether you put that down to Allah's abrogation or political convenience as Mohammed gained more & more political power...is up to the individual.
---------------------------------------------------------
- the Sunna also wasn't written by Mohammed (obviously, given the nature of the book)
----------------------------------------------------------
- the Haddiths, carried by word of mouth from Mohammed's followers until they were gathered up and compiled from decades to over 200 years later later... can be notoriously unreliable, with scholars having to 'grade' their reliability...but weight is given to them in religious interpretation by scholars.
By the 9th century the number of hadiths had grown exponentially. Islamic scholars of the Abbasid period were faced with a huge corpus of miscellaneous traditions, some of them flatly contradicting each other. Many of these traditions supported differing views on a variety of controversial matters. Scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted as authentic and which had been invented for political or theological purposes. To do this, they used a number of techniques which Muslims now call the science of hadith.
----------------------------------------------------------
As the Quran contains little to no context, and no chronology - context must be obtrained from the Sunna and Haddiths, and chronology implied from both...leading to
scholars having to be the ones to make rulings on what particular Quranic texts means...with those scholars arguing amongst themselves...but the OP here throws stones at his 'competitor religion' because the Chronology & Context of his competitor religion are there for an ordinary person to see, and so open to the ordinary person to criticise?
It's quite disingenuous.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, I'm think it would be nice if a God existed (but not essential), yet if an Allah does exist, I doubt very much it's the version supplied by Christianity, nor the version supplied by Islam.
