Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

[9-18-1]

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.

 

[9-18-1]

Of principle importance is to address the central claim of Islam surrounding the so-called 'divinity' of the Qur'an. Such a claim only has two possibilities:

i. the Qur'an is the perfect word of (a/the) god 'Allah' of the Abrahamic tradition(s).
ii. the Qur'an is NOT the perfect word of (a/the) god 'Allah' of the Abrahamic tradition(s).

If i. is true (which the House of Islam holds), it is the responsibility of any holder(s) of this claim to DEMONSTRATE the validity of this claim BEFORE it is granted.
If ii. is true (which I, and many, hold), it is NOT the responsibility of any holder(s) of this denial of i. to DEMONSTRATE the invalidity i.

It is the responsibility of the holder(s) of i. to affirmatively demonstrate, beyond reproach, that such a claim is true. Until this is done, such a claim is not (as can not be) granted.

In summary (and in loose terms), regarding the divinity of the Qur'an: it either 'is' or 'is not'. This captures the principle division between 'believer' and 'unbeliever'.

To state my own position: I do not 'believe' anything: belief is necessarily rooted in unknowing. If one 'knows', one need not 'believe' anything. I 'know' that the Qur'an is a product of man, therefor a 'belief' that the Qur'an is anything else is precisely what binds (ultimately enslaves) Muslims to Islam and belief-based living. Belief can be taken here as ignorance: when in a state of 'knowing' whether or not a claim(s) is true, there is no place nor currency in "belief".

The fact that Muslims considers themselves "believers" is precisely indicative of their 'not knowing' that the Qur'an is a product of man, and that Muhammad (either knowingly or unknowingly) misled his followers if/when making the claim that the (all) passages contained in the Qur'an (of which a written form was never ordered/sanctioned by Muhammad/Allah himself/itself) were divinely "revealed".

The understanding of this principle 'it is' or 'it is not' therefor proves powerful: for if it is not, Islam, Muhammad and all belief(s), tradition(s) and practice(s) associated with it are invariably a product of mankind.

 

[YmirGF]

Congratulations on a fairly well written OP that contains a huge amount of information to unpack.

Out of the starting gate and off the top of my head:

Isn't it a little bit late to be querying the validity of the claims 1400 years after the fact? Faith claims cannot be proven or disproved. That's why we call them faith claims. Do we really need to look so closely at faith claims?

I recall that I floated the idea of a Muslim Trinity some time ago. The Muslim Trinity is Muhammad, the Qur'an and Allah. I maintained that one cannot exist without the other and that, together, they formed a very real Trinity in the Islamic power structure. As you may imagine, that idea didn't go over too well with the resident Muslims mainly because it made Allah dependent which is a big no-no.

Likewise, I have surmised that the Muslim world is the victim of centuries old hero worship. The hero worship is so pervasive that it is not even seen for what it is. No, Muslims to not directly worship Muhammad as a deity but they do try to emulate his every action which is the very definition of hero worship. Islam is very much a personality cult because of this.

While it is true that Christians feel a need to emulate Christ, it isn't in such an exaggerated fashion. It is more an ideal to become or try to be Christ-like, which most fail to do... but, still... This emulation is simply not on the same order as Muslims do with Muhammad. For example, some older Muslim men feel it is perfectly fine to marry and bed you girls simply BECAUSE their spiritual leader, Muhammad, was alleged to have to it. That is taking the shtick a tiny bit far.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

(Eyeroll)

This has been discussed here ad nauseum and I doubt you’ll find a Muslim willing to waste their time debating this.

 

[9-18-1]

Congratulations on a fairly well written OP that contains a huge amount of information to unpack.

Out of the starting gate and off the top of my head:

Isn't it a little bit late to be querying the validity of the claims 1400 years after the fact? Faith claims cannot be proven or disproved. That's why we call them faith claims. Do we really need to look so closely at faith claims?

I would suggest that the Qur'an being of divine authorship does not fall outside the purview of testability in as much as it can be demonstrated, with precision, from whence we derive the Qur'an. Whereas the Muslim may argue from a faith-based position (which as you alluded to can not be proven) any individual can argue from a fact-based position that the Qur'an is a product of man - a position which I hold.

I recall that I floated the idea of a Muslim Trinity some time ago. The Muslim Trinity is Muhammad, the Qur'an and Allah. I maintained that one cannot exist without the other and that, together, they formed a very real Trinity in the Islamic power structure. As you may imagine, that idea didn't go over too well with the resident Muslims mainly because it made Allah dependent which is a big no-no.

This is interesting; a similar trinity exists between the relationship between the Qur'an, the sunnah (life of Muhammad) and the hadith (sayings). Undoubtedly these three do serve as the basic triune structure of Islamic order(s).

Likewise, I have surmised that the Muslim world is the victim of centuries old hero worship. The hero worship is so pervasive that it is not even seen for what it is. No, Muslims to not directly worship Muhammad as a deity but they do try to emulate his every action which is the very definition of hero worship. Islam is very much a personality cult because of this.

Very well spoken and I am in agreement. Your choice of words 'personality cult' is acute.

While it is true that Christians feel a need to emulate Christ, it isn't in such an exaggerated fashion. It is more an ideal to become or try to be Christ-like, which most fail to do... but, still... This emulation is simply not on the same order as Muslims do with Muhammad. For example, some older Muslim men feel it is perfectly fine to marry and bed you girls simply BECAUSE their spiritual leader, Muhammad, was alleged to have to it. That is taking the shtick a tiny bit far.

Again in agreement - bearing that there is actually no conclusive historical evidence that there was a living Muhammad (with exception to the mere 4 specific mentions of a word/title bearing the same name meaning 'praised one' in the Qur'an itself) it seems much more likely that the idol of Muhammad is used as a device to sanction/justify behaviors which you allude to: bedding young women.

(Eyeroll)

This has been discussed here as nauseum and I doubt you’ll find a Muslim willing to waste their time debating this.

It's open to all people, not just Muslims. While it is to be expected that Muslims may feel 'offended', the point I am presenting is the only reason they are becoming 'offended' is because this is a natural consequence of idol worship (related to ego). If not for the (knowing or unknowing) worshiping of an idol (be it Muhammad or ones own ego(s)) it would be impossible to be offended by anything - an idea I attribute to true 'liberation'. The notion of 'taking offense' is precisely part of the equation of psychological slavery/control: something my own arguments only wish to alleviate rather than promote.

The emotional/psychological attachment to a(n) idol(s) is precisely the conduit through which (otherwise sovereign and free) beings are controlled by institutions: establishing such an attachment grants the owner(s) of the idol(s) control over how a "worshiper" thinks, feels, and acts. This kind of control is garnered through idolatrous institutions such as those of the Abrahamic faith which is at the center of the crisis of the M/E and continues to be a force of division(s) of humanity.

 

[YmirGF]

You are a very articulate writer, @9-18-1 and certainly a significant cut above the average "anti-Islam" cadre. You make some fairly interesting points.

 

[YmirGF]

(Eyeroll)

This has been discussed here as nauseum and I doubt you’ll find a Muslim willing to waste their time debating this.

Well, in all fairness, my friend, openly questioning a basic tenant of Islam is certainly fair game. Islam, like other religions, is a house of cards that remain in place due to rigid thinking. I don't think you even have to prove that the Qur'an is not authored by a deity. Just organizing doubt should be enough to begin to dispel the mythos that support the fanciful notion of divine authorship.

 

[9-18-1]

You are a very articulate writer, @9-18-1 and certainly a significant cut above the average "anti-Islam" cadre. You make some fairly interesting points.

Ditto and likewise friend.

On a separate note, I will advance an argument(s) which stands to undermine a fundamental precept(s) held by Islam that Muhammad's 'Allah' is the (one true) god/creator of the universe which underlies the entire Abrahamic tradition.

If Muslims claim that Muhammad's Allah is the (sole) creator of the heavens and the earth (universe), we must then (by necessity) refer to the book of Genesis (which once again, by virtue of Muslims claiming Moses to be a prophet, is a valid source) to meet this claim.

I have studied the Hebrew language to the extent that I have a basic understanding of what each letter (symbol) represents (from various schools including occult ones such as kabbalah), as it has proven fundamental in testing the claims that Islam makes regarding (the books of) Moses as a prophet/servant of Muhammad's Allah.

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖יתבָּרָ֣אאֱלֹהִ֑יםאֵ֥תהַשָּׁמַ֖יִםוְאֵ֥תהָאָֽרֶץ
B'resheeth bara elohim et hashemayim ve'et haaretz.
In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.

The term rendered GOD in English is the Hebrew word 'elohim'.

This term 'elohim' is a composite singular: combining the masc. 'el' (god) and fem. 'elah' (goddess) producing the androgynous 'elohim' which, within itself, is composite but when referenced from the outside 'bara' is treated as singular.

The word itself can be translated in numerous ways, each no more or less than the other: 'GOD', 'gods and goddesses', 'goddess [of the] sea/expanse', 'powers in/of the sea/expanse' etc. There is a great deal of literature which deals on this subject, most notably the Zohar which is a collection of Jewish mysticism that expounds on the mysteries of the Hebrew language and how it is intimately integrated with the books of Moses.

In other words, intrinsic to the construction of the word 'elohim' is the notion that it inherently contains a relationship between masculine and feminine.

Because Adam is made in the likeness of 'elohim':
Genesis 5:2
"Male and female created they them and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created."

and 'elohim', according to the first book of Moses, created the heavens and the earth, then it should necessarily follow that 'elohim' and 'Allah' are one-and-the-same. Failing this, Muhammad's 'Allah' and 'elohim' are not the same 'thing'.

That 'elohim' and 'Allah' are the same is an argument a Muslims are welcome to make, but it invites a whole host of problems which relates to the relationship Muhammad had with women. If the creator of the universe which (allegedly) employed Muhammad to deliver a message(s) to humanity, it must be based upon a principle relationship between masculine and feminine (as attested to by the book of Genesis) wherein they exist in a cordial/equal relation to one another. Muhammad must have demonstrated this to be true with respect to his own relationship(s) and/or conduct with women.

As is established, Muhammad shared a bed with multiple women (having 11 wives) and instructed his followers that they make take up to 4 women to wife, aside from female 'captives of the right hand'. This, combined with the notion that Islam is to theoretically 'dominate the planet' has, does, and would further upset what should otherwise be a balance of men/women (approaching a 1:1 balance/correlation) on a 'peaceful' planet living in harmony with one another.

That is to say, one man should (if peace/harmony is what is being sought) only ever be attached/married (joined as one flesh) to one woman, which fulfills the same 'likeness' as 'elohim' which created Adam (Adam/Eve; male/female) in their likeness (as above) - so below. This notion underlies the principle of 'fidelity'; with its opposite 'infidelity' being a single being engaging in/with multiple other beings 'infidelity'. This fundamental axiom (alluded to by almost every major tradition, including the Abrahamic one) of 'as above, so below' must hold true to the balanced relationship between masculine and feminine: it being the principle characteristic of 'elohim'.

Undoubtedly, this balance was/is upset by the precepts of the teachings of Muhammad and/or Islam which, when viewed through this lens, should cast exceeding doubt as to whether or not Muhammad himself respected (and/or even knew of) the fundamental universal axiom of 'elohim' (Allah): there requiring a balance of masculine and feminine (male and female) - as it is in the likeness of 'elohim' and/or 'Allah' as found in the book of Moses.

This alone stands as sufficient to, at the least, warrant serious considerations on the part of Muslims as to the fidelity of Muhammad himself and, at the most, cast serious doubt as to the authenticity of Muhammad's claim to receiving revelations from an angel in accordance with the precepts previously expounded in the Abrahamic tradition as it relates to 'elohim'.

 

[exchemist]

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 "dvinity" of the Qur'an: that is, any notion suggesting an inspired/divine authoriship.

This book is central to the insitution(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 represention(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.

It is admittedly hard to avoid the impression that this is flamebait.

I would be very interested to take part in a discussion that compared and contrasted the claims of divine authorship for the Koran and the Bible, thus subjecting both to equal scrutiny.

But as it stands, I'm out.

 

[YmirGF]

My main criticism is that you may well find people who are ready for this kind of an explanation however it is almost a given that no self-respecting Muslim would seriously entertain these ideas. My experience is that Muslim writers are not adverse to performing elaborate mental gymnastics. My guess is they will reject your thesis out of hand, much like @Epic Beard Man did earlier. You are on to something regarding the inappropriate outrage that all too many Muslims exhibit when their prophet is derided or criticized I'd explore the underpinnings for that outrage as it is recognition that something isn't right..

 

[YmirGF]

It is admittedly hard to avoid the impression that this is flamebait.

I would be very interested to take part in a discussion that compared and contrasted the claims of divine authorship for the Koran and the Bible, thus subjecting both to equal scrutiny.

But as it stands, I'm out.

One significant difference is that the vast majority of Christians do not perceive the Bible to be authored by God himself, rather it is written by men who were divinely inspired. In Islam, otoh, the vast majority, literally believe the Qur'an is the word of God and that Muhammad was merely a conduit. God wrote the Qur'an via Gabriel and Muhammad. Yes, there are Christians and Muslims who hold beliefs that go against the grain but they are in a distinct minority.

 

[9-18-1]

It is admittedly hard to avoid the impression that this is flamebait.

If someone resorts to 'flaming' it is only, once again, a demonstration of their own inability to engage in the topic(s) directly, which is all I'm interested in for myself and others.

I would be very interested to take part in a discussion that compared and contrasted the claims of divine authorship for the Koran and the Bible, thus subjecting both to equal scrutiny.

But as it stands, I'm out.

The Bible and Qur'an can not be compared on such simplistic terms: the original books of Moses were written in Hebrew and actually do fascinatingly contain characteristics that merit a discussion as to possible authorship by an advanced being(s), intelligence etc. which is an entirely separate topic that falls outside the scope of the Qur'an itself.

The Bible has already undergone extensive scrutiny by academia; the same is not true for the Qur'an however because any such serious endeavors often end up (as they have) in the individual(s) becoming obstructed by zealots and fanatics.

 

[9-18-1]

My main criticism is that you may well find people who are ready for this kind of an explanation however it is almost a given that no self-respecting Muslim would seriously entertain these ideas. My experience is that Muslim writers are not adverse to performing elaborate mental gymnastics. My guess is they will reject your thesis out of hand, much like @Epic Beard Man did earlier. You are on to something regarding the inappropriate outrage that all too many Muslims exhibit when their prophet is derided or criticized I'd explore the underpinnings for that outrage as it is recognition that something isn't right..

This is essentially what 'Islamophobia' actually is. The underpinning being Muslims suffer a phobia of (criticisms) of Islam and/or Muhammad such that, if/when faced with such criticisms, they psychologically project this phobia outward and imbue others as having it.

This has manifested on the planet as non-Muslims being labelled as 'Islamophobes' by Muslims and/or apologists for Islam. The 'Islamophobia' is actually suffered by the people (Muslims and/or apologists) that are unable to handle/cope with criticisms of Islam and/or Muhammad. This circles back into ego / idol worship.

This is precisely why I would argue that the fundamental psychological pathology that underpins Islam is psychological projection: imbuing others with characteristics or qualities that one themselves possess.

This synthesizes the inherently 'backward' (hypocritical) nature of Islam as a whole: the institution of Islam essentially blames the outside world of conflict(s) generated by Islam itself on anyone/anything else but themselves - undoubtedly the same psychological illness Muhammad would have suffered.

I am therefor in agreement with China that they designate Islam as a 'contagious disease' as it actually can be classified as one: it lures people into a pathology of blaming others for ones own complexes.

China Declared Islam a Contagious Disease — and Quarantined 1 Million Muslims

 

[exchemist]

If someone resorts to 'flaming' it is only, once again, a demonstration of their own inability to engage in the topic(s) directly, which is all I'm interested in for myself and others.



The Bible and Qur'an can not be compared on such simplistic terms: the original books of Moses were written in Hebrew and actually do fascinatingly contain characteristics that merit a discussion as to possible authorship by an advanced being(s), intelligence etc. which is an entirely separate topic that falls outside the scope of the Qur'an itself.

The Bible has already undergone extensive scrutiny by academia; the same is not true for the Qur'an however because any such serious endeavors often end up (as they have) in the individual(s) becoming obstructed by zealots and fanatics.

Then let's see the comparison, to show that we are being even-handed. Without that, it seems to me that I, as someone from the Christian tradition, will find it hard to exercise proper objectivity in an exercise of this type. And perhaps equally to the point, the exercise it will inevitably look prejudiced, to the point that I would find embarrassing to be associated with it.

I am by the way doubtful about your assertion that the Koran has not been academically scrutinised. For most of its history, Islam was a lot more intellectually open than it has become in recent decades, due to the rise of Political Islam.

 

[9-18-1]

Then let's see the comparison, to show that we are being even-handed. Without that, it seems to me that I, as someone from the Christian tradition, will find it hard to exercise proper objectivity in an exercise of this type. And perhaps equally to the point, the exercise it will inevitably look prejudiced, to the point that I would find embarrassing to be associated with it.

What exactly is it that you are asking for? I'm not sure what you mean by 'the comparison'.

I can point you toward a foundation which has discovered a pattern in the first verse of the book of Genesis which describes a 3,10 torus knot: the 3 alluding to the principle triunity that exists in creation (which the tradition of Christianity handles as Father/Son/Holy Spirit) and the 10 alluding to the 10 sephiroth of the human body.

Meru Foundation Research: Hebrew Alphabet, Genesis, Geometric Metaphor, and Kabbalah
Meru Foundation Research: The 3,10 Torus Knot, Adam Kadmon, and the Tree of Life

The 28-letter string of Hebrew characters describes a torus field which is of a seed-and-womb composition:

Meru Foundation Research: An Organic Model of Civilization: The Tree of Abraham by Stan Tenen

Such fascinations, in addition to the requirement of knowing the Hebrew characters and how they are derived, is but part of the reason why I did not include the Bible as part of this thread, as I can not (and do not) argue that the Bible (specifically, the books of Moses in their original Hebrew) is a product of fallible man, as I have actually discovered much to suggest the contrary. On the other hand, I do argue that the Qur'an is a product of man.

I am willing to discuss any material on the site I linked to above in relation to Judaism/Chritianity/Islam and/or the books of Moses.

I am by the way doubtful about your assertion that the Koran has not been academically scrutinised. For most of its history, Islam was a lot more intellectually open than it has become in recent decades, due to the rise of Political Islam.

I did not assert that the Qur'an has not been academically scrutinized. I suggested that it has not been held to the same degree of scrutiny as the Bible has. This is undeniably true: the Bible has withstood far more scrutiny than the Qur'an has. In my search for textual criticisms of the Qur'an, there really is only a handful of prominent academics that undertook the task of deconstructing the Qur'an back into its core components: those being derivatives of Christian strophic hymns and Jewish lore.

Islam has always been political: it is not only a "religion" but an entire way of life which necessarily involves political infrastructure. While it is true that the political element (already present in Islam) has flared in recent times, it is of no effect: Islam is inherently political just as much as it is religious. And, if not for the fact that Muslims erroneously imbue the Qur'an as the 'perfect word of god' which calls for endless spreading of the (political) doctrine of Islam, any degree (either benign or extreme) of "political Islam" is still a violation of human sovereignty and freedom.

Over 60% of the Qur'an actually describes how Muslims should be treating non-Muslims: that's not a personal "religion", that is a political doctrine which is, as I already argue, completely man-made and based in perversity.

 

[exchemist]

What exactly is it that you are asking for? I'm not sure what you mean by 'the comparison'.

I can point you toward a foundation which has discovered a pattern in the first verse of the book of Genesis which describes a 3,10 torus knot: the 3 alluding to the principle triunity that exists in creation (which the tradition of Christianity handles as Father/Son/Holy Spirit) and the 10 alluding to the 10 sephiroth of the human body.

Meru Foundation Research: Hebrew Alphabet, Genesis, Geometric Metaphor, and Kabbalah
Meru Foundation Research: The 3,10 Torus Knot, Adam Kadmon, and the Tree of Life

The 28-letter string of Hebrew characters describes a torus field which is of a seed-and-womb composition:

Meru Foundation Research: An Organic Model of Civilization: The Tree of Abraham by Stan Tenen

Such fascinations, in addition to the requirement of knowing the Hebrew characters and how they are derived, is but part of the reason why I did not include the Bible as part of this thread, as I can not (and do not) argue that the Bible (specifically, the books of Moses in their original Hebrew) is a product of fallible man, as I have actually discovered much to suggest the contrary. On the other hand, I do argue that the Qur'an is a product of man.

I am willing to discuss any material on the site I linked to above in relation to Judaism/Chritianity/Islam and/or the books of Moses.



I did not assert that the Qur'an has not been academically scrutinized. I suggested that it has not been held to the same degree of scrutiny as the Bible has. This is undeniably true: the Bible has withstood far more scrutiny than the Qur'an has. In my search for textual criticisms of the Qur'an, there really is only a handful of prominent academics that undertook the task of deconstructing the Qur'an back into its core components: those being derivatives of Christian strophic hymns and Jewish lore.

Islam has always been political: it is not only a "religion" but an entire way of life which necessarily involves political infrastructure. While it is true that the political element (already present in Islam) has flared in recent times, it is of no effect: Islam is inherently political just as much as it is religious. And, if not for the fact that Muslims erroneously imbue the Qur'an as the 'perfect word of god' which calls for endless spreading of the (political) doctrine of Islam, any degree (either benign or extreme) of "political Islam" is still a violation of human sovereignty and freedom.

Over 60% of the Qur'an actually describes how Muslims should be treating non-Muslims: that's not a personal "religion", that is a political doctrine which is, as I already argue, completely man-made and based in perversity.

Yeah yeah, I'll leave you to it.

 

[9-18-1]

Yeah yeah, I'll leave you to it.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the meaning/reason for your choice of avatar? What does that form (of 7) represent?

 

[exchemist]

If you don't mind me asking, what is the meaning/reason for your choice of avatar? What does that form (of 7) represent?

Norbornane. Interesting due to the weird structure of the related norbornyl cation, a very rare example in carbon chemistry of a 3 centre 2 electron bond.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well, in all fairness, my friend, openly questioning a basic tenant of Islam is certainly fair game. Islam, like other religions, is a house of cards that remain in place due to rigid thinking. I don't think you even have to prove that the Qur'an is not authored by a deity. Just organizing doubt should be enough to begin to dispel the mythos that support the fanciful notion of divine authorship.

But this has been discussed ad nauseum. Islam on this website continues to be the subject in the gallows of criticism and hate here and quite frankly it’s boring and uneventful. For one a true discussion of Islamic doctrine must also include the language of Arabic.

Similarly like discussing the Jewish Bible certain words and phrases have different meanings than they do in the English language therefore a word may not just specifically address one thing but a multitude of things. In addition the historical context of the applied verse in conjunction to the historical events of said religion.

I think a true discussion and/or criticism of any Abrahamic text needs to be academic which is why you’ll never find me discussing Abrahamic doctrine specifically. It’s far too many English speakers who claim to know what certain words mean in the literal sense without truly understanding semitic languages.

 

[9-18-1]

But this has been discussed ad nauseum. Islam on this website continues to be the subject in the gallows of criticism and hate here and quite frankly it’s boring and uneventful. For one a true discussion of Islamic doctrine must also include the language of Arabic.

It doesn't matter how much this has been 'discussed': Islam erroneously claiming that the Qur'an is of divine origin is significant enough to warrant endless discussion: unless otherwise resolved, it will lead to the same thing this same erroneous belief has resulted in for 1400 years: war resulting in the deaths (genocide) of hundreds of millions. The early Muhammadans literally built walls of severed heads several feet high, and would probably do the same today if given the chance.

Also such discussions aren't intended to be a sort of entertainment: if you personally find them subjectively "boring" and "uneventful" that is your right, but objectively calling it such is disingenuous at best.

Anyone is welcome to bring Arabic into the discussion: I am more than happy to compare and contrast with biblical Hebrew. Many of the Arabic roots are identical to Hebrew and there are certainly instances where roots were confused when constructing the Qur'an from Syro-Aramaic sources.

Similarly like discussing the Jewish Bible certain words and phrases have different meanings than they do in the English language therefore a word may not just specifically address one thing but a multitude of things. In addition the historical context of the applied verse in conjunction to the historical events of said religion.

Correct: and with a working knowledge of Hebrew, I can and am willing to engage in the topic including discrepancies between the English rendition(s) and what the original Hebrew indicates (as/if needed).

That's part of the point of this discussion.

I think a true discussion and/or criticism of any Abrahamic text needs to be academic which is why you’ll never find me discussing Abrahamic doctrine specifically. It’s far too many English speakers who claim to know what certain words mean in the literal sense without truly understanding semitic languages.

The Qur'an is not an Abrahamic text: it is an Arabic one (derived from Syro-Aramaic Christian strophic hymnal passages that exist(ed) in Christian apocrypha). 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 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.