Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

Pastek · Nov 20, 2018

I'm personally not interested to prove anything about God or Muhammad. People can think what they want.
And it was (and i think still is) a lot debated about in the General forum.

9-18-1 said:
While Muslims may (and are free to) claim that the Qur'an is an "Abrahamic" text (through their claim that Muhammad is a messenger of the same "god" as the Hebrew patriarchs), I would gladly meet this with refutation: the Qur'an (Islam) essentially hijacked the Hebrew "Abrahamic" mythology and called it their own

That's the problem with people claiming that we "borrowed" from ancient texts.
Because the most important point is that Islam is not a new religion.
And it was already said many times in the Quran that's a Revelation confirming the previous ones so that we (Humanity) listen to and accept the Message (monotheism).

87.18 Indeed, this is in the former scriptures,
87.19 The scriptures of Abraham and Moses.

6.156 [We revealed it] lest you say, "The Scripture was only sent down to two groups* before us, but we were of their study unaware,"

*christians and jews

And whatever you want to refute concerning the previous Revelations "hijacked" - like you say - was something that the Quraish and other tribes already accused Muhammad of.

25.5 And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

9-18-1 said:
while capping it with their own Arabian prophet, who managed to violate just about all of the "laws" which preceded his revelations, including all of the ten commandments and the warning regarding the forbidden fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which causes (caused) the fall of man.

9-18-1 said:
I will later set out to demonstrate that such a behavior is directly linked to the first descendant of the (according to Abrahamic tradition) account of Adam and Eve (Kain). There is a very unique relationship between Kain and Abel which is of principle importance relating to whether or not one has the ability to deal in conflict resolution without enmity (Abel) rather than with enmity (Kain): 'enmity' taken to mean adopting a hostile/adversarial behavior toward an individual(s) being rather than the argument(s) and/or position(s) themselves.

You should have start with that. We are listening.

9-18-1 · Nov 20, 2018

Pastek said:
I'm personally not interested to prove anything about God or Muhammad. People can think what they want.
And it was (and i think still is) a lot debated about in the General forum.

That's the problem with people claiming that we "borrowed" from ancient texts.
Because the most important point is that Islam is not a new religion.
And it was already said many times in the Quran that's a Revelation confirming the previous ones so that we (Humanity) listen to and accept the Message (monotheism).

The assertion that Islam "is not a new religion" is a principle component of mainstream Islamic dogma and can not simply be "asserted". The notion that the biblical Hebrew patriarchs (none of which were actually living beings but rather titles indicating various stages of internal development) were "Muslims" and/or practiced the religion of Islam is rooted in the ignorance of what the original Hebrew books of Moses actually are. They are not historical accounts: they outline a progressive series of internal initiations, each of which is denoted by a title (eg. A-D-M, N-CH, A-B-R-M, M-SH-E etc.) which correlate to aspects of the Tree of Life (the understanding/construction of which is Noah's ark).

The "narrative" applied to these initiations (such as these titles indicating real people) is merely a garment and only the first of the four layers (P-R-D-S). Muhammad was unaware of this as he received these traditions told by various priests/rabbis.

On can go on ad infinitum simply asserting that Islam "is not a new religion" as per Islamic doctrine, but this is simply repeating Islamic dogma: it is not an argument and only serves to highlight the fact that Muslims don't actually know and/or understand what the Torah actually is: as this was also true for Muhammad.

Pastek said:
87.18 Indeed, this is in the former scriptures,
87.19 The scriptures of Abraham and Moses.

6.156 [We revealed it] lest you say, "The Scripture was only sent down to two groups* before us, but we were of their study unaware,"

*christians and jews

I'm not sure why you are quoting the Qur'an when the principle contention of this thread is that the Qur'an (Islam) is man-made. You can't use the item in question to prove itself. This applies to your later reference as well.

Pastek said:
And whatever you want to refute concerning the previous Revelations "hijacked" - like you say - was something that the Quraish and other tribes already accused Muhammad of.

What difference does this make? If people already "accused" (I would much rather prefer "recognized") that Muhammad is repeating old stories, that does not indicate its untrue. Quite the contrary: they knew then just as many know now that indeed Muhammad was repeating stories already told/written.

In fact, Muhammad not only repeated old stories, he actually modifies them according to his own whim.

It is true that the Qur'an is adapted from Syro-Aramaic Christian liturgical texts (strophic hymns) and contains modified/adulterated accounts of popular Jewish lore that is also found in the Talmud (in some cases Qur'anic passages are copied word-for-word from these and other pieces of poetry written by other authors). This is not conjecture, this is demonstrable. For example:

http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Christoph Luxenberg.pdf

as well as the work of Gunter Luling:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...r=8-2&keywords=challenge+to+reformation+islam

and:

https://www.amazon.com/Original-Sou...58&sr=8-2&keywords=original+sources+of+qur'an

contains/provides detailed deconstructions which indicate several Qur'anic passages were derived from Christian strophic hymns and Jewish fables.

Pastek said:

25.5 And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

Click to expand...

Pastek said:
You should have start with that. We are listening.

Coming in the next post.

9-18-1 · Nov 20, 2018

Islam (Muhammad) violate(s) the ten commandment(s).

Given that the Qur'an is man-made, this necessarily renders Muhammad's claim of prophecy both a false testimony and employing the name of god in vain:

Ex.20:7
לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙יְהוָ֔האֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו לַשָּֽׁוְא׃
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Ex.20:16
לֹֽא־תַעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵעֲךָ֖עֵ֥ד שָֽׁקֶר׃
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Because joining Islam requires a testimony 'shahada', which is necessarily false, all Muslims of past present and future are necessarily not following/serving/worshiping the same god which issued these commandments.

As a result, Muhammad (and some/many Muslims that follow) go on to violate the remaining commandments, some of which:

Ex.20:15
לֹ֣֖א תִּֿגְנֹֽ֔ב׃
Thou shalt not steal.

Islam (Muhammad) actively employs a system wherein land, property, assets etc. are collected (stolen) from non-Muslims to be fed into the "cause of Allah" (jihad). This system has been employed ever since the foundation of Islam and continues to drain financial assets from non-Muslim nations.

Ex.20:14
לֹ֣֖א תִּֿנְאָֽ֑ף׃
Thou shalt not commit adultery

Muhammad had multiple wives (11) and accessory concubines (sex slaves) and instructed his followers to take up to 4. This is what is responsible for the severe disharmony/imbalance between men and women in the Islamic world which has resulted in the denigration of women into sources of sexual gratification.

In fact, Muslim hijra (invasion) brings with it the sanctioning of taking non-Muslim women as sex slaves: a form of jihad coined "rape jihad". This form of jihad is employed to strike terror in hearts of women such that they feel insecure and are forced to consider wearing a hijab just to prevent themselves from being raped by a Muslim. Presently in Sweden, roughly 33% of teenage women have been sexually assaulted by a Muslim immigrant. This is because jihad involves sexual assault (adultery) and is happening on a global scale.

Ex.20:13
לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃
Thou shalt not kill

Muhammad committed genocide (Jews at Khaybar by beheading) and waged 'holy war' against many groups/factions - most (if not all) of which were unprovoked. To date, over approx. 270 000 000 (two hundred and seventy million) humans have been slain as a result of jihad 'holy war' - most of which were Muslims. The in-fighting (Sunni vs. Shia) and out-fighting (believer vs. unbeliever) continues to this day.

Ex.20:17
לֹ֥א תַחְמֹ֖ד בֵּ֣ית רֵעֶ֑ךָ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹ֞ד אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֶ֗ךָ
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife...

Muhammad invoked the will of Allah to marry his adopted son's wife .

These are the simpler ones; the remaining ones are more difficult because they require explaining precisely what is meant by "sabbath" and honoring of mother/father (which has nothing to do with biological parents) but the above should suffice.

And this is all based upon the taking up of false testimony with the shahada: a kind of "mark of the beast" in its own right.

exchemist · Nov 20, 2018

9-18-1 said:
Islam (Muhammad) violate(s) the ten commandment(s).

Given that the Qur'an is man-made, this necessarily renders Muhammad's claim of prophecy both a false testimony and employing the name of god in vain:

Ex.20:7
לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙יְהוָ֔האֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו לַשָּֽׁוְא׃
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Ex.20:16
לֹֽא־תַעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵעֲךָ֖עֵ֥ד שָֽׁקֶר׃
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Because joining Islam requires a testimony 'shahada', which is necessarily false, all Muslims of past present and future are necessarily not following/serving/worshiping the same god which issued these commandments.

As a result, Muhammad (and some/many Muslims that follow) go on to violate the remaining commandments, some of which:

Ex.20:15
לֹ֣֖א תִּֿגְנֹֽ֔ב׃
Thou shalt not steal.

Islam (Muhammad) actively employs a system wherein land, property, assets etc. are collected (stolen) from non-Muslims to be fed into the "cause of Allah" (jihad). This system has been employed ever since the foundation of Islam and continues to drain financial assets from non-Muslim nations.

Ex.20:14
לֹ֣֖א תִּֿנְאָֽ֑ף׃
Thou shalt not commit adultery

Muhammad had multiple wives (11) and accessory concubines (sex slaves) and instructed his followers to take up to 4. This is what is responsible for the severe disharmony/imbalance between men and women in the Islamic world which has resulted in the denigration of women into sources of sexual gratification.

In fact, Muslim hijra (invasion) brings with it the sanctioning of taking non-Muslim women as sex slaves: a form of jihad coined "rape jihad". This form of jihad is employed to strike terror in hearts of women such that they feel insecure and are forced to consider wearing a hijab just to prevent themselves from being raped by a Muslim. Presently in Sweden, roughly 33% of teenage women have been sexually assaulted by a Muslim immigrant. This is because jihad involves sexual assault (adultery) and is happening on a global scale.

Ex.20:13
לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃
Thou shalt not kill

Muhammad committed genocide (Jews at Khaybar by beheading) and waged 'holy war' against many groups/factions - most (if not all) of which were unprovoked. To date, over approx. 270 000 000 (two hundred and seventy million) humans have been slain as a result of jihad 'holy war' - most of which were Muslims. The in-fighting (Sunni vs. Shia) and out-fighting (believer vs. unbeliever) continues to this day.

Ex.20:17
לֹ֥א תַחְמֹ֖ד בֵּ֣ית רֵעֶ֑ךָ לֹֽא־תַחְמֹ֞ד אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֶ֗ךָ
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife...

Muhammad invoked the will of Allah to marry his adopted son's wife .

These are the simpler ones; the remaining ones are more difficult because they require explaining precisely what is meant by "sabbath" and honoring of mother/father (which has nothing to do with biological parents) but the above should suffice.

And this is all based upon the taking up of false testimony with the shahada: a kind of "mark of the beast" in its own right.

".......not in the spirit of seeking competition or hostility, but rather seeking to establish a dialogue which promotes tolerance for all positions/contentions."

Yeah, Right.

9-18-1 · Nov 20, 2018

exchemist said:
".......not in the spirit of seeking competition or hostility, but rather seeking to establish a dialogue which promotes tolerance for all positions/contentions."

Yeah, Right.

You stopped at/before the most important part(s):

I wish to issue a challenge to any and all (including myself) wishing to partake in these discussions; not in the spirit of seeking competition or hostility, but rather seeking to establish a dialogue which promotes tolerance for all positions/contentions. This challenge thus only requires one component:

whether arguing for a position, defending one, or challenging another, any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded) rather than the position/argument provided (by a living person) is i. inadmissible and ii. a demonstration of inability to address the position/argument itself. Articles i. and ii. thereby capture the essence of the terms 'null' and 'void' insofar as they are not remotely directed toward furthering a meaningful discussion.

Muhammad is dead and I have not attacked anyone.

exchemist · Nov 20, 2018

9-18-1 said:
You stopped at/before the most important part(s):

I wish to issue a challenge to any and all (including myself) wishing to partake in these discussions; not in the spirit of seeking competition or hostility, but rather seeking to establish a dialogue which promotes tolerance for all positions/contentions. This challenge thus only requires one component:

whether arguing for a position, defending one, or challenging another, any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded) rather than the position/argument provided (by a living person) is i. inadmissible and ii. a demonstration of inability to address the position/argument itself. Articles i. and ii. thereby capture the essence of the terms 'null' and 'void' insofar as they are not remotely directed toward furthering a meaningful discussion.

Muhammad is dead and I have not attacked anyone.

..apart from Mohammed, obvs.

9-18-1 · Nov 20, 2018

exchemist said:
..apart from Mohammed, obvs.

...who is dead. Hence,

...any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded)...

I may as well take this opportunity to explain why this is a problem. Please bear with my use of bold/italic/underline to stress emphasis.

This is directed to/at/for all.

The reason such institutions as Christianity and Islam exist is because it is inhabited by followers who don't understand what idol worship is. Whatever the reason: whether taught poorly/improperly or not at all, it doesn't matter. I would like to use the word 'ignorant' here but not in a condescending way: 'ignorance' simply means one is unaware/unknowing of something.

Now idol worship has nothing to do with physical objects. Idol worship indeed can (but need not necessarily) manifest in physical ways that includes the construction/worshiping of figurines and/or symbols. This is precisely what was happening in/around the Kaaba.

However, the nature of an idol is wholly psychological. That is to say, idolatry first occurs in the mind (as above) if/before it finds expression in the physical (so below). The axiom (as above, so below) is indicated in many different traditions, including the god of Moses which forbid idols in the ten commandments.

For example, there is not a living Jesus anyone can point to. There is not a living Muhammad anyone can point to. There is not a single person on this planet that has even ever witnessed a living Jesus and/or Muhammad in the flesh.

As such, the entire nature, impression(s) of, character, characteristics of, understanding of, interpretation of etc. (essentially the totality of who/what Jesus and/or Muhammad is/was and/or represents) is strictly psychological. This means that anyone/everyone "constructs" or "imagines" (or has in them constructed by dogma and lack of conscious awareness of what an 'idol' is) their own unique (common) "version" of these central figures according to what that unique individual was exposed to based on their surroundings: culture, education, dogmas etc.

Thought experiment: who am I describing?
-exalted prophet of god
-mercy upon mankind
-humble and compassionate
-exemplary conduct and rightful deed
-taught modesty and integrity
etc.

These qualities can be applied to either Jesus and/or Muhammad. Yet not a single person on this planet ever actually WITNESSED such a person(s) to have lived; let alone actually observably/verifiably demonstrate these or related qualities, such as:

-Was receiving revelations from an angel (are angels even real?)
-Was the only begotten Son of God (does God have a partner?)
-Was flown to heaven on a winged horse (where is heaven?)
-Was crucified and resurrected back to life... 2 000 years ago.
etc.

So aside from the psychological idolatry, we run into another damning violation of one of the ten commandments: bearing false witness.

BOTH Christianity and Islam require testimonies in order to join them:

X: "I testify Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior; who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins."
I: "I testify there is no god; only Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

These are testimonies. Their utterance directly implicates the testimony commandment. This is because these testimonies are either:

TRUE or FALSE

Which brings me back to the OP: if the Qur'an is NOT the perfect, inimitable, inerrant, unaltered word of 'Allah', it necessarily follows:

It is MAN-MADE, thus:
Muhammad is/was NOT a/the messenger of a/the god of Moses 'Allah' rendering:
the shahada a FALSE TESTIMONY.

My contention is that, it is exceeding obvious, provable (proven) demonstrable etc. that the Qur'an is indeed forged and of mixed array, and is most certainly not the perfect word of the same god of Moses (which Muslims themselves claim) which renders Islam a man-made religion because:

ISLAM NECESSITATES THE VIOLATION
OF THE FALSE TESTIMONY COMMANDMENT
IN ORDER TO JOIN THE RELIGION
IN THE FIRST PLACE

In other words, you can't join Islam without breaking the testimony commandment. Every single Muslim is in violation of it.

The only reason Muslims can not see/understand this is because they are already violating the commandment pertaining to idol worship: Muhammad. Reverence for, praise, admiration, imitation of, emulation of, "pattern of conduct" of (which is a graven image) etc. is precisely what is preventing them from seeing:

ISLAM IS NOT A PART OF THE 'SOLUTION' FOR PEACE
ISLAM IS A PART OF THE 'PROBLEM' PREVENTING PEACE

And this due to the fact that Muslims are themselves regarding ISLAM/MUHAMMAD/QUR'AN as the ultimate final authority which surpasses all else: including so-called "man-made" laws of non-Muslim nations.

This is the fatal pathology which China used as a precedent to declare ISLAM a MENTAL ILLNESS, because it technically is.

It is BACKWARDS: Muslims psychologically project their own deficiencies outward and imbue others as being the source of their suffering.

For example, take ISLAMOPHOBIA. Muslims are calling anyone/everyone who criticizes Islam an "Islamophobe". No: it is the MUSLIM that has the phobia of (criticisms of) Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an. Because of their idol worship (which is actually also related to the ego) and emotional/psychological attachment to their "BELIEF", they project their phobia outward in the form of a defense mechanism/protection which involves labeling others as what they themselves are.

Jesus/Isa: "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life."
Muslims: "I am a "believer".

There is a big difference between
"BELIEF" and "TRUTH".

Beliefs can be untrue.
Truth can not be believed;
it can only be known.

I'll leave it at that for now.

exchemist · Nov 20, 2018

9-18-1 said:
...who is dead. Hence,

...any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded)...

I may as well take this opportunity to explain why this is a problem. Please bear with my use of bold/italic/underline to stress emphasis.

This is directed to/at/for all.

The reason such institutions as Christianity and Islam exist is because it is inhabited by followers who don't understand what idol worship is. Whatever the reason: whether taught poorly/improperly or not at all, it doesn't matter. I would like to use the word 'ignorant' here but not in a condescending way: 'ignorance' simply means one is unaware/unknowing of something.

Now idol worship has nothing to do with physical objects. Idol worship indeed can (but need not necessarily) manifest in physical ways that includes the construction/worshiping of figurines and/or symbols. This is precisely what was happening in/around the Kaaba.

However, the nature of an idol is wholly psychological. That is to say, idolatry first occurs in the mind (as above) if/before it finds expression in the physical (so below). The axiom (as above, so below) is indicated in many different traditions, including the god of Moses which forbid idols in the ten commandments.

For example, there is not a living Jesus anyone can point to. There is not a living Muhammad anyone can point to. There is not a single person on this planet that has even ever witnessed a living Jesus and/or Muhammad in the flesh.

As such, the entire nature, impression(s) of, character, characteristics of, understanding of, interpretation of etc. (essentially the totality of who/what Jesus and/or Muhammad is/was and/or represents) is strictly psychological. This means that anyone/everyone "constructs" or "imagines" (or has in them constructed by dogma and lack of conscious awareness of what an 'idol' is) their own unique (common) "version" of these central figures according to what that unique individual was exposed to based on their surroundings: culture, education, dogmas etc.

Thought experiment: who am I describing?
-exalted prophet of god
-mercy upon mankind
-humble and compassionate
-exemplary conduct and rightful deed
-taught modesty and integrity
etc.

These qualities can be applied to either Jesus and/or Muhammad. Yet not a single person on this planet ever actually WITNESSED such a person(s) to have lived; let alone actually observably/verifiably demonstrate these or related qualities, such as:

-Was receiving revelations from an angel (are angels even real?)
-Was the only begotten Son of God (does God have a partner?)
-Was flown to heaven on a winged horse (where is heaven?)
-Was crucified and resurrected back to life... 2 000 years ago.
etc.

So aside from the psychological idolatry, we run into another damning violation of one of the ten commandments: bearing false witness.

BOTH Christianity and Islam require testimonies in order to join them:

X: "I testify Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior; who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins."
I: "I testify there is no god; only Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

These are testimonies. Their utterance directly implicates the testimony commandment. This is because these testimonies are either:

TRUE or FALSE

Which brings me back to the OP: if the Qur'an is NOT the perfect, inimitable, inerrant, unaltered word of 'Allah', it necessarily follows:

It is MAN-MADE, thus:
Muhammad is/was NOT a/the messenger of a/the god of Moses 'Allah' rendering:
the shahada a FALSE TESTIMONY.

My contention is that, it is exceeding obvious, provable (proven) demonstrable etc. that the Qur'an is indeed forged and of mixed array, and is most certainly not the perfect word of the same god of Moses (which Muslims themselves claim) which renders Islam a man-made religion because:

ISLAM NECESSITATES THE VIOLATION
OF THE FALSE TESTIMONY COMMANDMENT
IN ORDER TO JOIN THE RELIGION
IN THE FIRST PLACE

In other words, you can't join Islam without breaking the testimony commandment. Every single Muslim is in violation of it.

The only reason Muslims can not see/understand this is because they are already violating the commandment pertaining to idol worship: Muhammad. Reverence for, praise, admiration, imitation of, emulation of, "pattern of conduct" of (which is a graven image) etc. is precisely what is preventing them from seeing:

ISLAM IS NOT A PART OF THE 'SOLUTION' FOR PEACE
ISLAM IS A PART OF THE 'PROBLEM' PREVENTING PEACE

And this due to the fact that Muslims are themselves regarding ISLAM/MUHAMMAD/QUR'AN as the ultimate final authority which surpasses all else: including so-called "man-made" laws of non-Muslim nations.

This is the fatal pathology which China used as a precedent to declare ISLAM a MENTAL ILLNESS, because it technically is.

It is BACKWARDS: Muslims psychologically project their own deficiencies outward and imbue others as being the source of their suffering.

For example, take ISLAMOPHOBIA. Muslims are calling anyone/everyone who criticizes Islam an "Islamophobe". No: it is the MUSLIM that has the phobia of (criticisms of) Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an. Because of their idol worship (which is actually also related to the ego) and emotional/psychological attachment to their "BELIEF", they project their phobia outward in the form of a defense mechanism/protection which involves labeling others as what they themselves are.

Jesus/Isa: "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life."
Muslims: "I am a "believer".

There is a big difference between
"BELIEF" and "TRUTH".

Beliefs can be untrue.
Truth can not be believed;
it can only be known.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Well you've obviously got a bee in your bonnet, that's for sure, if not several. Possibly accompanied by a few bats, even.

My contact with Islam in the Middle East convinces me it has something of real value to offer its adherents, so I'm not in the market for a hysterical demolition job that offensively describes islam as a mental illness.

I'll leave you to your crusade.

9-18-1 · Nov 20, 2018

exchemist said:
Well you've obviously got a bee in your bonnet, that's for sure, if not several. Possibly accompanied by a few bats, even.

My contact with Islam in the Middle East convinces me it has something of real value to offer its adherents, so I'm not in the market for a hysterical demolition job that offensively describes islam as a mental illness.

I'll leave you to your crusade.

...whether arguing for a position, defending one, or challenging another, any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded) rather than the position/argument provided (by a living person) is i. inadmissible and ii. a demonstration of inability to address the position/argument itself. Articles i. and ii. thereby capture the essence of the terms 'null' and 'void' insofar as they are not remotely directed toward furthering a meaningful discussion.

This is the kind of response anticipated in the OP regarding ad hominem (underlined).

Thank you for providing an example of null and void rhetoric. We can let it serve as an example.

Regarding your 'contact' with Islam in the Middle East, that's great - I dated a Muslim woman for several years and she was wonderful too. I learned a lot from her: especially from her recount of how she was raped as a child and disowned by her family for choosing to marry a non-Muslim man to flee her previous Muslim one that routinely beat her.

But none of that or this has anything to do with the Qur'an being of man-made origin rather than of divine (the topic of the thread). While it may be true that Islam offers 'something of real value to its adherents' one must not discount/ignore the other side of the equation.

Over 270 000 000 people have been killed as a result of Islamic jihad. That's simply the truth (fact) of the matter and need not become polarized. People suffer and die under Islam - and the reason is because the Qur'an is man-made, just as the suffering/death (and/or 'something of real value') associated with Islam is man-made.

exchemist · Nov 20, 2018

9-18-1 said:
...whether arguing for a position, defending one, or challenging another, any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded) rather than the position/argument provided (by a living person) is i. inadmissible and ii. a demonstration of inability to address the position/argument itself. Articles i. and ii. thereby capture the essence of the terms 'null' and 'void' insofar as they are not remotely directed toward furthering a meaningful discussion.

This is the kind of response anticipated in the OP regarding ad hominem (underlined).

Thank you for providing an example of null and void rhetoric. We can let it serve as an example.

Regarding your 'contact' with Islam in the Middle East, that's great - I dated a Muslim woman for several years and she was wonderful too. I learned a lot from her: especially from her recount of how she was raped as a child and disowned by her family for choosing to marry a non-Muslim man to flee her previous Muslim one that routinely beat her.

But none of that or this has anything to do with the Qur'an being of man-made origin rather than divine (topic of thread). While it may be true that Islam offers 'something of real value to its adherents' one must not discount/ignore the other side of the equation.

Over 270 000 000 people have been killed as a result of Islamic jihad. That's simply the truth (fact) of the matter and need not become polarized. People suffer and die under Islam - and the reason is because the Qur'an is man-made, just as the suffering/death associated with Islam is man-made.

[click]

Salvador · Nov 20, 2018

The first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:

J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Therefore, the first living breathing human being was never directly formed out clay by Allah as the Koran falsely claims.

Anybody who has an understanding of how humans precisely evolved , know the Islamic tales of Creation are mythological rather than factual.

These myths are the made-up stories of ancient nomadic tribesmen rather than Allah's word.

[/QUOTE]

Faithofchristian · Nov 21, 2018

9-18-1 said:
Greetings to all,

I invite anyone and everyone - from any and all manner of science(s) and/or faith(s) to partake and share in this discussion regarding the "divinity" of the Qur'an: that is, any notion suggesting an inspired/divine authorship.

This book is central to the institution(s) of Islam.

I wish to issue a challenge to any and all (including myself) wishing to partake in these discussions; not in the spirit of seeking competition or hostility, but rather seeking to establish a dialogue which promotes tolerance for all positions/contentions. This challenge thus only requires one component:

whether arguing for a position, defending one, or challenging another, any discourse which involves ad hominem attacks directed at or toward a living 'person' (dead person(s) excluded) rather than the position/argument provided (by a living person) is i. inadmissible and ii. a demonstration of inability to address the position/argument itself. Articles i. and ii. thereby capture the essence of the terms 'null' and 'void' insofar as they are not remotely directed toward furthering a meaningful discussion.

With this, I hereby assert and can/will contest the following:

i. Contrary to a central claim held by the institution(s) (inspired by) Islam and/or Muhammad, the Qur'an is most certainly not of divine origin, inspiration and/or authorship: rather, it is a product of mankind.
ii. Contrary to a central claim held by the institution(s) (inspired by) Islam and/or Muhammad, Muhammad's behavior is most certainly not one which, if/when imitated/emulated, which can ever establish global/humanitarian 'peace'.
iii. Contrary to a central claim held by the institution(s) (inspired by) Islam and/or Muhammad, Islam is most certainly not a 'religion of peace'.

by defending:

i. The Qur'an is, rather than being divinely inspired, a collection/assortment of Jewish mythical traditions, mixed with (what were originally) Christian strophic hymns derived from Syro-Aramaic liturgical compositions scattered about the region(s) within which Islam arose, and is (as such) erroneously imbued with 'divine authority/authorship' (knowingly or unknowingly) by Muhammad, thereby Muslims.
ii. Muhammad's sexual behavior (penetrating a nine-year-old A'isha along with the numerous wives (polygamy) and assorted concubines) establishes a precedent (imitated/emulated by Muslim men) of behavioral infidelity, and
iii. As a result of i. and ii. Islam, as a cohesive entity, actively (forcibly) provokes division, conflict, intolerance, enmity and exceeding war and bloodshed rather than delivering any means toward a true and lasting 'peace'.

As such, Islam (along with Judaism before it) is a major global contributor to war(fare) stemming from the principle division of 'believer' and 'unbeliever' (House of Islam and House of War).

Consequently, Islam (and related institutions of Abrahamic composition) is (and should be designated as) a humanitarian crisis birthing hostile faction terrorist organizations.

The principle premise of Islam rests on the utilization of Muhammad (a central figure serving as a role model/idol) by imitating/emulating the 'pattern of conduct' of this idol. For this reason, emotional/psychological attachment between worshipers (Muslims) and Muhammad (idol) such that criticisms of Muhammad triggers provocative (hostile) responses. This emotional/psychological attachment to Muhammad ('idolatry' in general) is what is responsible for the 'phobia' of Islam that, because Muslims are unaware they are worshiping an idol, psychologically project this phobia outwards and imbue other beings who ridicule the doctrine(s) of Islam for their being fundamentally flawed. This global campaign of 'Islamophobia' has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of investment into (otherwise) secular institutions in attempt to suppress the concern(s) raised about Islam - a form of (what the West considers) fascism.

While the contention to/with Muhammad being an 'idol' that is 'worshiped' by followers of Islam (Muslims) by Muslims is to be expected, the observation that Muhammad is an idol worshiped by Muslims - a position I am arguing to establish as a recognition of reality that has led to perpetual conflict for over 1400 years: with Christianity and Judaism perpetuating similar conflict(s) before it. In summary: any/all institutions (past/present/future) which utilizes (a) central figure(s) serving as a "model" [idol] to be revered, regarded as imbued with authority of a divine nature etc. is an idolatrous institution based in the practice of 'idol worship': a practice expressly warned against in writings associated with the Abrahamic traditions.

It is therefor the case that the Islamic 'shahada'; a required testimony taken by every Muslim, is a false testimony: in violation of the commandment forbidding false testimony (allegedly, according to Muslims and proponents of other Abrahamic faiths was issued by the god 'Allah' which they serve/worship) as per i. ii. and iii. above. In effect, if one is to GRANT the ten commandments as a product of the "same" divine authority/authorship (as Muslims must necessarily do without reproach by virtue of their own claim that Moses (Moshe/Musa) was a prophet/servant of the god 'Allah' worshiped in Islam), then all Muslims are in violation the same laws they claim to be paying respect to: rendering Islam, in its totality, an heretical institution, as well as Muslims (knowingly or unknowingly) inherently heretical.

The assertion (held by the 'House of Islam') that the Qur'an is of divine authorship/authority is extreme in grandiosity which gives sanction and legitimacy to the principle civilizational division: 'believer' (one who has accepted the "faith" of Islam) and 'unbeliever' (one who has not accepted the "faith" of Islam). This principle division (which undoubtedly existed (exists) in Christianity and (in a similar form) Judaism) is at the root of the fundamental conflict central to the Middle East regarding Jerusalem which has, continues to, and will (I argue) continue to generate conflict, war and death, so long as Islam (and the Abrahamic insitutions before them including Christianity and Judaism) continue to hold/assert "beliefs" that are not 'true' as per i. ii. and iii. above.

In closing, I am prepared to defend any/all assertions above by addressing any/all contentions brought forward by any/all representation(s) or positions of disagreement. This includes demonstrating (if and as needed) how and why the precepts relating to Islam (and by extension, Muhammad) are an inherently and instrinsically destructive element of human civilization, rather than a one fostering peace and prosperity. I can and will do this by meeting any objection(s) raised which do not violate the aforementioned challenge of refraining from rhetorical ad hominem which renders the users position 'null' and 'void': a challenge which I argue proves the failure/weakness of any such contention(s) made with any of the above.

Therefor all are welcome to participate and share in this discussion, to the extent granted (and proportional to) the ability to refrain from the use of ad hominem. I will later set out to demonstrate that such a behavior is directly linked to the first descendant of the (according to Abrahamic tradition) account of Adam and Eve (Kain). There is a very unique relationship between Kain and Abel which is of principle importance relating to whether or not one has the ability to deal in conflict resolution without enmity (Abel) rather than with enmity (Kain): 'enmity' taken to mean adopting a hostile/adversarial behavior toward an individual(s) being rather than the argument(s) and/or position(s) themselves.

Click on site below to watch video. You may find it interesting.

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

9-18-1 said:
This term 'elohim' is a composite singular: combining the masc. 'el' (god) and fem. 'elah' (goddess)

i am still reviewing all the details of what you propose. it is fascinating. while it doesn't make me feel "good" and i hope you're wrong, i have to be honest, most of what you're saying goes way way over my head.

however, the assessment of the divine name quoted above: i think that needs more support. my understanding is actually the opposite. the name "elokim" i think is rooted in gevurah / restriction. which would be significantly masculine.

i'm going from memory, but i think the name comes from "mi eleh", "who made these". the name is numerically equivilant to hatevah (nature). and looking at creation as decribed by b'reisies bara, what's happening is an ordered emanation chain. each creation here in the material world / the world of action becoming more and more defined / restricted until it exists as as a "thing" in ha'aretz or shamayim ( on land or in heaven ). this definition, this restriction is manifested by G-d operating as elokim, thru gevurah, i think this is why in our prayer books, elokim is often translated the the "master of the universe". Also why so many refer to G-d as He or Him when technically G-d they are speaking to/about is G-d as the creator, not G-d as the ultimate unity and source. Technically G-d the ultimate source cannot be only "He". But referring to G-d as "He" in the context of prayer serves a purpose.

elokim is the "maker" or the "master". in this way, elokim is distant, aloof, unaffected, closed, dominant, instructive, etc.. from our perspective, elokim can be imagined as a dot, like a yud. and that i think is best defined as spiritually masculine. sprititually feminine would be: proximal, engaged, open, nuturing, healing, accepting, etc... from our perspective, spiritually feminine could be visualized as a cloud. this i think is represented by the 2 letter name. the balance of masculine/feminine i think is the 4 letter name. i visualize the 4 letter name as an eternal flame ( the burning bush from exodus ? ). both constant and volatile, or consistently volatile

but again, i think you have more data, and i could be wrong.

Augustus · Nov 22, 2018

9-18-1 said:
It is true that the Qur'an is adapted from Syro-Aramaic Christian liturgical texts (strophic hymns) and contains modified/adulterated accounts of popular Jewish lore that is also found in the Talmud (in some cases Qur'anic passages are copied word-for-word from these and other pieces of poetry written by other authors). This is not conjecture, this is demonstrable. For example:

http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Christoph Luxenberg.pdf

as well as the work of Gunter Luling:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...r=8-2&keywords=challenge+to+reformation+islam

and:

https://www.amazon.com/Original-Sou...58&sr=8-2&keywords=original+sources+of+qur'an

contains/provides detailed deconstructions which indicate several Qur'anic passages were derived from Christian strophic hymns and Jewish fables.

A 100 year old text and a couple of scholars from INÂRAH is not really a good cross section of Quranic scholarship, even purely within the revisionist field. Have you looked at many sources beyond these to see the range of views on almost everything to do with this issue?

Almost everything on this era is conjecture as information is rarely complete and unambiguous. The field is rapidly evolving die to new discoveries and also due to the growing interdisciplinary nature of Islamic Studies which reflects the true complexity of studying the origins of Islam.

9-18-1 · Nov 22, 2018

DustyFeet said:
i am still reviewing all the details of what you propose. it is fascinating. while it doesn't make me feel "good" and i hope you're wrong, i have to be honest, most of what you're saying goes way way over my head.

however, the assessment of the divine name quoted above: i think that needs more support. my understanding is actually the opposite. the name "elokim" i think is rooted in gevurah / restriction. which would be significantly masculine.

Hello! I will attempt to clarify what elohim refers to in a more "technical" way as it relates to the tree of life which, fortunately, you are familiar with.

In Aziluth, chokmah (wisdom) is given the name YHVH. Binah (intelligence) is given the name YHVH elohim.

YHVH can loosely be understood as:
Y: phallus.....................(+)
H: ovum.......................(-)
V: masculine (male)....(+)
H: feminine (female)...(-)

but it is wholly undivided: singular. Or in other words, an infinitely dense singularity from whence all comes. The actually "breaking up" into its +/- counterparts only occurs in/through binah (YHVH elohim).

Whereas YHVH is wholly singular and encompasses the notion of "oneness", elohim encompasses the notion of "wholeness" and/or "allness" wherein diversity is a/the expression of the oneness.

Elohim, when independent of YHVH (as it is in Genesis 1:1 'B'resheeth bara elohim...') describes this relationship between masculine/feminine (+/-) but with no YHVH (often translated into English as LORD) governing it (chokmah/wisdom). In other words, the two forces are in a state of chaos and only find 'order' based on the mechanical (physical) laws of the cosmos which describe the basic physical universe/nature. This would lead to the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc.

And so YHVH elohim (Eng. LORD God) can be understood as the "singular" "wholeness" wherein, as you pointed out, the wholeness/diversity portion is based on restrictions (collapses).

DustyFeet said:
i'm going from memory, but i think the name comes from "mi eleh", "who made these". the name is numerically equivilant to hatevah (nature). and looking at creation as decribed by b'reisies bara, what's happening is an ordered emanation chain. each creation here in the material world / the world of action becoming more and more defined / restricted until it exists as as a "thing" in ha'aretz or shamayim ( on land or in heaven ). this definition, this restriction is manifested by G-d operating as elokim, thru gevurah, i think this is why in our prayer books, elokim is often translated the the "master of the universe". Also why so many refer to G-d as He or Him when technically G-d they are speaking to/about is G-d as the creator, not G-d as the ultimate unity and source. Technically G-d the ultimate source cannot be only "He". But referring to G-d as "He" in the context of prayer serves a purpose.

I am in agreement with all of this; elohim describing the various collapse(s) of the emanation chain you alluded to which ultimately emanates from (and returns to) the singular(ity) YHVH.

DustyFeet said:
elokim is the "maker" or the "master". in this way, elokim is distant, aloof, unaffected, closed, dominant, instructive, etc.. from our perspective, elokim can be imagined as a dot, like a yud. and that i think is best defined as spiritually masculine. sprititually feminine would be: proximal, engaged, open, nuturing, healing, accepting, etc... from our perspective, spiritually feminine could be visualized as a cloud. this i think is represented by the 2 letter name. the balance of masculine/feminine i think is the 4 letter name. i visualize the 4 letter name as an eternal flame ( the burning bush from exodus ? ). both constant and volatile, or consistently volatile

but again, i think you have more data, and i could be wrong.

When you say "from our perspective" are you referring to Judaism?

I wouldn't hesitate to agree that "maker" and "master" are appropriate terms for elohim. However (and this is just me, not stating as definite) I understand YHVH as the singular point and elohim as a circle surrounding the point - like the symbol for the sun. YHVH, being a singular(ity) "point" and elohim being any/all manifestatio(s) resulting from that point.

It is interesting because elohim can be understood as "goddess of the sea/expanse"; as 'im' is "sea" (mayim is "water"). If this is true, where is the masculine/male portion?

The Hebrew word 'shamayim' is essentially 'water' with 'fire' at the beginning; rendering something like "firey-water". This is the Hebrew word which translators of the bible rendered "heavens". This relationship between fire and water (fire in the water) resolves the problem above and, when read backwards, renders the name "Moshe" (Moses) which, as we know, means "born of the water". Moses, having been drawn from the "water" by a priest/priestess of Levi, is essentially the fire in the water which ultimately leads him (his archetype) to discover the "eternal flame" which consumes not, neither is consumed.

My understanding of Torah is that each biblical patriarch represents an internal archetype (system of internal progression beginning with ADM and ending with Messiah). This is just but one more reason I find Islam to be, to put it bluntly, a Satanic death cult which essentially hijacked the Hebrew scriptures/narrative, mishandled/misinterpreted/mistranslated them, gave all of the Hebrew patriarchs Arabic names, and topped it all off with adding their own deluded infidel warlord "prophet" that violated essentially every law in Torah: not the least of which was abusing the sexual energy: spilling blood by day and spilling seed by night.

Many (not necessarily all) Muhammadans that follow his sunnah are essentially intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually etc. degenerated because this is what abuse of the sexual energy does: if the sexual energy is not raised up the spine to nourish the brain, but rather is used for fornication (lust), the brain degenerates/dies. This is exactly what Muhammad represents: degeneration back into animal nature. This is directly related to Eve (sex) giving the fruit to Adam (brain), they fornicate and give birth to Kain who spills the blood of Abel.

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

9-18-1 said:
When you say "from our perspective" are you referring to Judaism?

from our perspective here in asiyah

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

9-18-1 said:
The Hebrew word 'shamayim' is essentially 'water' with 'fire' at the beginning; rendering something like "firey-water"

the stars in the fluid sky ?

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

9-18-1 said:
The actually "breaking up" into its +/- counterparts only occurs in/through binah (YHVH elohim).

Whereas YHVH is wholly singular and encompasses the notion of "oneness", elohim encompasses the notion of "wholeness" and/or "allness" wherein diversity is a/the expression of the oneness.

forgive me, but breaking up and oneness, these contradict each other?

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

and a little bit of a personal question...

9-18-1,

I have met some very special muslims ( and christians and mormons and catholics.. ) in my life, beautiful minds, the most giving hosts, and open hearts. One man, ( bless you Wallid ) practically saved my life, and he didn't even know it. i credit his beliefs... in Islam.

haven't you met any Muslims that you like?

DustyFeet · Nov 22, 2018

reagarding your approach,

i feel like it is off balance,

it reminds me of ground hog day. ( for non americans ground hog day is when someone gets stuck repeating the same day over and over and over and nothing ever changes and it's torture ).

it's like your approach is stuck on the 13th omer. yes, what you're saying is "founded" in "justice". and yes, the 13th omer always falls on the 28th. i hope you are seeing the numerical significance... yes, it's a "mighty" day, potentially the "mightiest" day on the calendar. but where are the other 48 omer in your approach? where is the love?

Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

Sunni muslim

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

RF's Swedenborgian

Well-Known Member

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan

…

Active Member

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan