[homewithkids]

After reading the Quran it is painfully obvious that it is not the literal "word of god"
but the rantings of a seventh century merchant who was diluded into believing he was a prophet.
He may have been schizophrenic.

As Mr. Rushdie so eloquently asks in the article;
Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of 7th-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger’s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

[Prime Choice]

As Mr. Rushdie so eloquently asks in the article; Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of 7th-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger’s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

And isn't it interesting how the "peaceful, tolerant Muslims" won't lift a finger to have the bounty on Rushie's head removed?

I am always leery of any group that goes nonlinear when faced with constructive criticism.

[Mr. Jeeves]

After reading the Quran it is painfully obvious that it is not the literal "word of god" but the rantings of a seventh century merchant who was diluded into believing he was a prophet.

He may have been schizophrenic.

True. But in all honesty, reading the writings of the Apostle Paul can give the neutral observer the exact same impression.

[Rummyfan]

Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of 7th-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger’s personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

Well, far be it from me to question The Almighty, but I did want to observe it was a sh*t-hole in the 7TH century, and it's a sh*t-hole now!!!!