Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

[DustyFeet]

i totally get the concerns over treatment of women... but, my own people, i'm sorry to say, there's some very ugly accounts of abuse, and the **cover-ups**... revolting. these are G-d fearing people. my people, my tribe. learning torah and praying multiple times, arguably over 100 times each day. people who are so far from islam, and yet, the abuse still occurs

many people pick on polyigamy. i would never do it, but i share their belief in cosmic eternal marriage... it has beauty that i cannot deny, and common ground...

 

[9-18-1]

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?

Are you aware of the contents of these texts?

The reason I ask is because fundamentally it doesn't matter when/where/whence the text(s) come from, what matters is what they are able to demonstrate/prove. I've spent the past 5 years or so digging through textual and philological discourses on the Qur'an; not the least of which are the two I linked to because one is available freely online for anyone to read for themselves, and the other is one of the most conclusive ever produced. Unfortunately the author of the first had to go into hiding, and the author of the second was ejected from academia because it pissed off too many Islamists.

Essentially, we must never, ever discount the magnitude of the claim made by the House of Islam: that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of "Allah" as delivered to Muhammad via an angel Jabriel - a book which Muslims regard as the highest authority surpassing ALL "man-made" laws on the planet and [of which] over 60% dictates to Muslims how to treat non-Muslims.

What I referenced not only categorically dismantles these claims, but it should also serve as a sobering eye-opener to just to what extent Islam is a part (as it has been for 1400 years) of the global conflict(s) PREVENTING 'peace' rather than fostering it.

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.

From what position are you making the claim "almost everything on this era is conjecture..."? Reading the rasm-text (original unmarked text) yields reading(s) which directly correlate/correspond to (in some cases, word for word) Christian liturgical hymns which utilized specific strophic hymnal structures/frameworks which were eroded by their transliteration into Arabic.

For example, taken from Gunter Luling's 'A Challenge to Islam for Reformation' are the four theses which he (adequately) sets out to prove:

THESES
1. The text of the Koran as transmitted by Muslim Orthodoxy contains, hidden behind it as a ground layer and considerably scattered throughout it (together about one third of the whole Koran text), an originally pre-Islamic Christian text.

2. According to the statements of Thesis 1, the transmitted text of the Koran contains four different kinds of layers of text.

3. The transmitted Islamic Koran text is the final result of several editorial revisions.

4. The findings within the Koran itself are confirmed by an abundance of Muslim traditions and useful information apart from and beyond the Koran text itself. These important traditions and information have hitherto either not been understood in their original meaning or they have remained unexamined.

Here is just one example of deductions found by Luling (p.31):

"...very clear that the text of Sura 96 is indeed a Christian text of Central Arabia from about at least 100 years before the activities of the prophet Muhammad. The vocabulary of the pre-Islamic biblical Arabic literature of central Arabia, strongly influenced as much by Christian Aramaic as by Jewish Hebrew, will be seen at least partly present in this text."

Luling disseminates a multitude of Qur'anic suras in over 500 pages which yield the same: not only is the Qur'an certainly adapted from Christian strophic hymns, it has undergone several revisions (as per his third thesis).

This one text alone; not to mention similar (equally potent) work of John Wansbrough and Christoph Luxenburg, more than renders the claim made by Islamic orthodoxy (divinity of Qur'an) to be completely false - not only is it a product of man, essentially every claim made by Islamic orthodoxy is precisely the opposite of what it true.

This is significant because Muslims are, to put it succinctly, unfortunately enslaved to a man-made book and paying reverence to an idol (Muhammad) that, in reality, was a terribly sick man who appealed to the base desires (sexual lust) of men by offering the capturing of women as war booty for fighting "in the cause of Allah".

Do you see what is happening in the world? Over 15 000 000 women in Britain alone have been sexually assaulted by a "migrant". In Sweden, 33% of women between the ages of 16-24 have been sexually assaulted by a "migrant".

The sexual degeneracy of Muhammad is in the very blood of the Muhammadans; it is like an infection which completely shuts down the brain such that they act only on sexual impulse. This is precisely why China designated Islam a "mental illness" - it certainly is. Why?

Muslims "believe" something(s) that is (are) not true, and by taking the "shahada", they therefor (every single one) violate one of the ten commandments issued by (allegedly) the same god they are claiming to worship.

To state that Islam is a Satanic religion would be an understatement.

 

[DustyFeet]

9-18-1,

clearly you **are** brilliant, how can i encourage u to use that amazing brain for something more productive?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

Honestly, I don't see how I can add anything to this. Aside from fundamentalist types, alot of Christians see their book as divine inspired from people who encountered God. It is very very hard to make a case that one's book is the direct word of God. But Muhammad has even less of a case than the average person, since his vision was accompanied by an actual suicide attempt. That is, Muhammad had as his first instinct upon meeting Gabriel, to assume he was cursed or something.

 

[9-18-1]

from our perspective here in asiyah

Can I inquire further as to the "our"? Are you (we?) with company?

the stars in the fluid sky ?

Is this how you render shamayim?

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

I hoped the inclusion of the "" to be suggestive of the notion of "breaking up" to be the illusory perception/sense of fragmentation whereas/in it is indeed one.

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?

I dated a Muslim woman (as a non-Muslim) for a number of years. It is actually the catalyst that lead me into studying Islam.

She was/is an incredibly compassionate, sweet, loving, affectionate person (not to mention beautiful).

Unfortunately these features, as great as they sound, are precisely what made her so vulnerable to others exploiting her. In short, she has been exploited by friends, family members, ex-husbands etc. and upon hearing her stories, and upon learning more about Islam, there was a definite connection between the two.

It is, as such, a double-sided problem: in the end, it will always necessarily lead to a form of suffering because fundamentally Muslims "believe" something that is not true. I personally find Islam as a barrier to the potential for even fuller expression of the beauty that lies in the heart of Muslims. In other words, Islam is a subjugating force rather than a liberating one that allows for full expression of the human/divine soul.

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?

I am probably as imbalanced as they come; but I am of the personality type that I don't care what other people "believe" and/or how they might get offended by something. In my mind, if someone takes offense to something, it is a result of their own insecurity - a form of ego (attachment) which is what brings us into idol worship.

The last standing idol (to borrow from Muhammad's epic endeavor to destroy all idols) will always be ones own ego - admittedly my problem regarding balance is, if I know something to be 100% true and based in reality, I care little to nothing for how others might "take" my expression of it. Especially regarding matters that are of global concern involving the lives of hundreds of millions and well-being of women.

As an example, if Muslims take offense to me (or anyone else) indicating that the historical Muhammad (who was likely not even named Muhammad) was a sexually degenerated war lord that denigrated women into property, I couldn't care less, because this is precisely what happened, and happens. I can only try my best to show how/why this is exactly idol worship which leads to enmity and bloodshed. The problem with the "believing" Muslim is they are generating this enmity and desire to spill blood (Kain) within themselves, but are projecting it outward and labeling others as the source of it.

This is the seed of the deficiency of Islam: projection. Muslims imbue others as having the traits/characteristics they themselves possess. I'm not sure if I already alluded to the example of "Islamophobia" here, but I will briefly (re)iterate.

Muslims have a phobia of (criticisms of) Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an, due to their immense attachment to these things. Criticisms of any of these triggers upset within the Muslim wherein he/she projects this phobia outwards and labels other people as having it.

No: if Muslims didn't revere (worship) Muhammad and/or their own egos, they wouldn't generate such things as enmity/Islamophobia (to be projected outward). In other words, the sediment is in their own glass of water. If someone like me stirs their glass and upsets their sediment, it's still their sediment. If they had no sediment to stir, there isn't a single thing that would "trigger" them.

I myself try to live in this way: if I ever "feel" offended by something, it's my own ego trying to defend itself against something. But becoming triggered to the point of calling for bloodshed for criticizing an idol (Muhammad) such as the lunacy going on with Christian Asia Bibi - this is categorical derangement and insanity, which, if Muslims were truthful, should serve adequate example as to why Moses (Musa) forbid worshiping of idols - including Muhammad.

 

[YmirGF]

9-18-1,

clearly you **are** brilliant, how can i encourage u to use that amazing brain for something more productive?

AWESOME POSSUM! I could not agree more fully!

 

[DustyFeet]

AWESOME POSSUM! I could not agree more fully!

can i get little rainbow?

 

[Augustus]

Are you aware of the contents of these texts?

The reason I ask is because fundamentally it doesn't matter when/where/whence the text(s) come from, what matters is what they are able to demonstrate/prove. I've spent the past 5 years or so digging through textual and philological discourses on the Qur'an; not the least of which are the two I linked to because one is available freely online for anyone to read for themselves, and the other is one of the most conclusive ever produced. Unfortunately the author of the first had to go into hiding, and the author of the second was ejected from academia because it pissed off too many Islamists.

I'm aware of their work, and the belief that they 'demonstrate/prove' what they claim is often due to an unfamiliarity with competing theories.

INÂRA is well known for producing work that is on the far fringes of the revisionist end of the scale which is generally not well received even among others who would be classified as revisionists.

Luxenburg didn't 'go into hiding' as he/she has always written pseudonymously and takes the Syrio-Aramiac thesis far beyond what the evidence supports (for example houris = grapes despite obvious evidence to the contrary).

Luling might have had some influence as some consider him to be roughly 'looking in the right places', but is rarely considered to have been accurate in any specifics.

Tisdale is just a bit to outdated these days given the evolution of the discipline.

These are sources who, at best, gave people something to think about and avenues to explore, but are generally considered to be somewhat shoddy scholars who make many errors.

From what position are you making the claim "almost everything on this era is conjecture..."? Reading the rasm-text (original unmarked text) yields reading(s) which directly correlate/correspond to (in some cases, word for word) Christian liturgical hymns which utilized specific strophic hymnal structures/frameworks which were eroded by their transliteration into Arabic.

For example, taken from Gunter Luling's 'A Challenge to Islam for Reformation' are the four theses which he (adequately) sets out to prove:

THESES
1. The text of the Koran as transmitted by Muslim Orthodoxy contains, hidden behind it as a ground layer and considerably scattered throughout it (together about one third of the whole Koran text), an originally pre-Islamic Christian text.

2. According to the statements of Thesis 1, the transmitted text of the Koran contains four different kinds of layers of text.

3. The transmitted Islamic Koran text is the final result of several editorial revisions.

4. The findings within the Koran itself are confirmed by an abundance of Muslim traditions and useful information apart from and beyond the Koran text itself. These important traditions and information have hitherto either not been understood in their original meaning or they have remained unexamined.

From what position is almost everything conjecture (i.e. an opinion formed based on incomplete information)? Based on the position that there is a distinct lack of complete and objectively correct information.

There is plenty of evidence of intertextuality regarding the Quran and other Biblical and para-Biblical texts, yet not that there is a single text behind 1/3 of it suggesting it was 'copied'.

The redaction hypothesis is debated, but hardly an incontrovertible fact.

It's also perfectly clear that early exegetes didn't understand certain Quranic passages, but as this being evidence for Luling's thesis, it's not sufficient on its own.

Rather than generic claims, what specific points would you say demonstrate their accuracy?

What other scholars do you find insightful?

This is significant because Muslims are, to put it succinctly, are enslaved to a man-made book and paying reverence to an idol (Muhammad) that, in reality, was an terribly sick man who appealed to the base desires (sexual lust) of men by offering the capturing of women as war booty for fighting "in the cause of Allah".

Do you see what is happening in the world? Over 15 000 000 women in Britain alone have been sexually assaulted by a "migrant". In Sweden, 33% of women between the ages of 16-24 have been sexually assaulted by a "migrant".

The sexual degeneracy of Muhammad is in the very blood of the Muhammadans; it is like an infection which completely shuts down the brain such that they act only on sexual impulse. This is precisely why China designated Islam a "mental illness" - it certainly is. Why?

Muslims "believe" something(s) that is (are) not true, and by taking the "shahada", they therefor (every single one) violate one of the ten commandments issued by (allegedly) the same god they are claiming to worship.

To state that Islam is a Satanic religion would be an understatement.

This part seems to have very little to do with the earlier part of your post.

Muslims believe the Quran is Divine, non-Muslims don't, sort of goes with the territory.

I like early Islamic history but this issue is of no real interest to me as it leads nowhere. Given that Muslims believe the message of the Quran had been revealed to previous prophets, even if what you say about textual similarity was correct, it still makes no difference from the perspective of Islamic hermeneutics.

In general though, political polemics and the study of history don't make good companions really as the latter is usually interpreted in what ever way best supports the former.

 

[9-18-1]

9-18-1,

clearly you **are** brilliant, how can i encourage u to use that amazing brain for something more productive?

I am nothing of the sort; actually I am nothing, but am fine with this.

What could be more productive than telling ~1.8 billion people they are being lied to? Please do tell!

Honestly, I don't see how I can add anything to this. Aside from fundamentalist types, alot of Christians see their book as divine inspired from people who encountered God. It is very very hard to make a case that one's book is the direct word of God. But Muhammad has even less of a case than the average person, since his vision was accompanied by an actual suicide attempt. That is, Muhammad had as his first instinct upon meeting Gabriel, to assume he was cursed or something.

Agreed!

Muhammad was also an epileptic; it actually made Khadija (Muhammad's first wife) very troubled when she learned the extent of Muhammad's internal "issues" including his epileptic moments.

Muslim orthodoxy has always tried to explain away this epilepsy as a sign indicating Muhammad was in conversation with Jabriel.

Epilepsy is a very serious problem:

Epilepsy is a group of neurological disorders characterized by epileptic seizures.[10][11] Epileptic seizures are episodes that can vary from brief and nearly undetectable periods to long periods of vigorous shaking.

The cause of most cases of epilepsy is unknown.[1] Some cases occur as the result of brain injury, stroke, brain tumors, infections of the brain, and birth defects through a process known as epileptogenesis.[1][2][3] Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal neuronal activity in the cortex of the brain.

Epilepsy - Wikipedia

Personally, I would never grant an epileptic their claim that they are the final messenger of god whose message/doctrine was 'peace' (which they spread by the sword) and this must be spread to the whole world.

 

[DustyFeet]

"I do BELIEVE as I post!"
--- a rogue theologian?
---**The** Rogue Theologian!

happy thanksgiving wherever u are brutha-man

darkness is darkness
evil is evil

ref isaiah 45:7

hmmmmmm another important verse in the "7s" in isaiah...

What does that form (of 7) represent?

edit: wow, this is post #50 on this thread, 9-18-1, what does 50 represent? understanding

 

[david-david]

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...

To emulate Christ....... Have you ever considered what it might mean to 'emulate' Christ? Do you think He was a very 'laid back' person who tried to have 'everyone' get along?

1 Corinthians 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Do you think Christ had long hair? Do you think He was like a 'laid back' person who could have had long hair to go with his 'laid back' image?


Okay. So God and The Father and Christ knows that it was They who Created Everything. They don't need any convincing of what They know for a fact. And after the fact that They know, God sends forth His Only Begotten Son, into the 'Place' that supposedly was reporting themselves as 'knowing' God and The Father like the 'back of their hand'. The religious teachers/scholars/judges within that place guarded the persons living there, the Temple which many outside foreigners came into to worship within, kept the Temple taxes as well as local 'taxes', watched over Law and Civility; these claimed to have 'known' God and The Father. They were respected, honored, almost revered for their supposed, knowing of God and The Father. And so God sends His Only Begotten Son into this place. God and The Father and Christ KNOWS that ALL is Theirs. They KNOW, they don't need to believe. They KNOW.

So when He came into the World in that place, those that supposedly KNEW God and The Father like the back of their hand ended up NOT even recognizing Divinity or 'Love', even from Scriptural contexts, when HE was standing right in their midst, talking with them, curing, raising, teaching, providing, etc.... Even though He was right there in front of their eyes on a daily basis doing things only God or The Father could do, they did not even realize what was going on. Yet all the while claiming they KNEW God and The Father.

'Hypocrites', He said.

So do you think that He was some kind of 'intergalactic' 'being' of some sort that just happened to decide to stop on Earth for a while and say hello? No.


So this 'faith' many have a difficult time with, is exactly like those religious scholars/ teachers/ leaders who claimed to have KNOWN God and The Father.


Remember... Although He was in their midst, day in and day out, and although day in and day out they were claiming to KNOW God and The Father, many of them never ended up believing that they were visited by The Only Begotten Son of the very ONE they claimed to KNOW.


He tried and tried to keep telling them, 'I'm the One!'. No, no... they kept saying... we don't believe you. So God spoke out of the Clouds... Still... no.. no... we still don't believe you... So He raised the dead, cured the sick, healed the blind and deaf.... Still... no, no... we still don't believe You. He multiplied loaves and fishes.... He walked on water.... Still. no, no... we still don't believe You. . Unless you give us a sign, we will not believe You.

What kind of sign did HE not give?


Maybe if He had bags of 'monies' appear in their hands, they might have started to believe?

Then what? The 'unscrupulous' ones would have cashed in...


Humans are the homo sapiens, 'the wise person(s)'. What kind of 'wisdom' is not knowing what is right in front of your eyes, day in and day out?

If you're brave and courageous enough to try to make a mockery out of your own parents, then I guess you might be able to do the same with God and The Father.

One major difference maybe being, parents do not have an unlimited amount of 'patience' as God and The Father might.

But it's only mere speculation to think or believe that parents can be so lacking. After all, I can prove myself to be 'better' than my very own parents some of the times, if not most of the times, right?

Or am I one of those that does not have a 'problem' with Parental Authority?


Are you SURE you had children. I mean, absolutely SURE? Do you absolutely KNOW that you had children? Are you sure you don't need to be convinced so maybe you can begin 'believing' that you had children? Are you absolutely SURE you KNOW because I think they, the children, aren't absolutely SURE that they had parents.

I've heard some say, 'I'm a child of the/a Nephilim'.

oh boy.


So many try to reason and show how the Nephilim were persons that lived thousands and thousands of years ago and to think or believe that a current human being is a 'child' of a person that lived thousands and thousands of years ago is not sane or mentally healthy.

Sometimes, all 'hell' breaks loose when this happens.


To emulate Christ....... Have you ever considered what it might mean to 'emulate' Christ? Do you think He was a very 'laid back' person who tried to have 'everyone' get along?


How does anybody 'emulate' God and The Father and Christ?


This is where Science comes in with genetic codings, duplications, creations, quantum theories and experiments, explanations and Scientific 'texts' of Truths, resurrecting the dead, etc.....

Question. How in God's Name can a person or any mechanical instrument measure any distance between 'galaxies' in Light years? What 'camera' lens is powerful enough to 'zoom' in between those 'distances'?


We do not have a Starship Enterprise which travels between galaxies to bring 'home' informations.

Imagine all the 'foods' and 'drinks' that would need to be in inventory for a 5 year journey.


The LMC is 179,000 light years away from the Milky Way. The SMC is further out, at 210,000 light years.

light year
A unit of length used in astronomy which equals the distance light travels in a year. At the rate of 300,000 kilometers per second (671 million miles per hour), 1 light-year is equivalent to 9.46053 x 1012 km, 5,880,000,000,000 miles. (????, is this True???) .... 5 Trillion, 880 Billion, miles? And then times that by 179,000? But wouldn't you first need to get on the edge/outskirts/border line of the Milky Way to have this 'calculation' correct?

The Cosmic Distance Scale



(just imagine if State or World 'leaders' subscribed to these informations).... shhhhhh.
(let's not throw them off the right path)

Emulate Christ. Hmm.... How long might that take?

But of course, don't emulate to the point of immolating.


As far as showing any lack of validity of the existence of any Divine or True, it might require a direct answer from God to know how that might be accomplished.


Who said They go by the word 'Divine'? lol


Am I foolish for subscribing to the 'lack' of the Divine? Or am I foolish for subscribing to the 'wastes' of monies doing so?

 

[YmirGF]

To emulate Christ....... Have you ever considered what it might mean to 'emulate' Christ? Do you think He was a very 'laid back' person who tried to have 'everyone' get along?

1 Corinthians 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Do you think Christ had long hair? Do you think He was like a 'laid back' person who could have had long hair to go with his 'laid back' image?

I don't even pretend to know what kind of a point you are trying to make.

 

[DustyFeet]

I am nothing of the sort; actually I am nothing,

No! this demands a response! You **are** something very special! I promise!

as a jew, i am obligated to act when I observe a transgression. excessive humility is "bearing false witness", a transgression of the noahide laws.

edit: in addition, disrespecting the creation, disrespects the creator
edit edit: i'm looking for the talmud ref....
edit edit edit: i think it's Talmud Bavli 20a ( the story about Rabbi Elazar ) i'll snap a pic and attach it
edit edit edit edit: i'm thinking faster than my fingers can type... it's in Taanit, i found a reliable source online... it'll be in the next post

 

[9-18-1]

I'm aware of their work, and the belief that they 'demonstrate/prove' what they claim is often due to an unfamiliarity with competing theories.

I agree - especially of Luxenberg, what he himself "claims" reaches further than his work could possibly yield to any certainty.

At the very least, he seems to have generated enough interest to warrant a closer look. That aside, he does sufficiently demonstrate that, in at least some cases, application of a Syro-Aramaic reading resolves portions of the text which are otherwise incomprehensible.

INÂRA is well known for producing work that is on the far fringes of the revisionist end of the scale which is generally not well received even among others who would be classified as revisionists.

I am of the mind that yielding to how "well received" something is, is not indicative of whether or not it is good/accurate. Sure; scholarly reception and scrutiny is important, but sometimes the truth stings certain people in such a manner that, regardless of the quality of the work, if someone does not like its implications, they wouldn't "receive" it well - especially considering the inherently sensitive area of one of the most revered books in human history.

Luxenburg didn't 'go into hiding' as he/she has always written pseudonymously and takes the Syrio-Aramiac thesis far beyond what the evidence supports (for example houris = grapes despite obvious evidence to the contrary).

As mentioned above, I agree he took it too far.

However, I actually agree with his deduction of houris denoting white grapes as white grapes were actually legitimately considered a delicacy to be expected to be found in (a Christian version of) heaven. I'm not sure what the basis is for "obvious evidence to the contrary" is - I haven't come across it.

Luling might have had some influence as some consider him to be roughly 'looking in the right places', but is rarely considered to have been accurate in any specifics.

Tisdale is just a bit to outdated these days given the evolution of the discipline.

Do you mean W. St. Clair Tisdall 'The Original Sources of the Qur'an'?

I have it here - correct/accurate information can never be "outdated". There are certainly many points in this text that are beyond refutation concerning whether or not Muhammad adopted/modified Jewish Talmudic stories. The author provides the Qur'anic and Talmudic accounts side-by-side and highlights their commonalities (some word for word) as well as areas of "creative" deviance.

These are sources who, at best, gave people something to think about and avenues to explore, but are generally considered to be somewhat shoddy scholars who make many errors.

Considered by who? I'm having trouble understanding this constant blind appeal. If you can point me in the direction of a source(s) which deconstructs these authors/works in an strictly objective manner (not blindly subjective without substance) I would be grateful.

From what position is almost everything conjecture (i.e. an opinion formed based on incomplete information)? Based on the position that there is a distinct lack of complete and objectively correct information

If the deduction(s) you take from even Luling's work alone is "lack of complete and objectively correct information", we will have to agree to disagree what constitutes "objectively correct". It is objectively correct that Luling uncovers fragments of Christian strophic hymns which predate Muhammad in the Qur'an that Muhammad/Islam claims to have received directly from god. The former has precisely 0 support. The latter has objective and comprehensive analysis.

It doesn't matter what "argument" one makes regarding the Qur'an - the Islamic orthodoxy claims it is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. Unless one is a "believing" Muslim, on what grounds would one invariably grant/accept this in the face of the work(s) which indicate such a claim is extremely unsound?

There is plenty of evidence of intertextuality regarding the Quran and other Biblical and para-Biblical texts, yet not that there is a single text behind 1/3 of it suggesting it was 'copied'

Would you prefer to argue that an epileptic Muhammad received it from an angel Jabriel?

The redaction hypothesis is debated, but hardly an incontrovertible fact

How does it stand against the claim that Muhammad received it from an angel?

This is starting to get ridiculous: the only "alternative" is the acceptance of the Islamic orthodoxy that Muhammad received it from an angel directly from god. Either this is true (which is itself impossible to prove), or untrue.

You are challenging any/all of the material which heavily supports the latter while (perhaps) not realizing the former is the only suggested alternative. The central point of the OP is (regarding the "divinity" of the Qur'an): it is, or it is not. By trying to "refute" the numerous works suggesting how/why it most probably (I would say certainly) is not, the only alternative is defending that it is.

Are you willing to defend that the Qur'an is the perfect of god? If so, please do share.

It's also perfectly clear that early exegetes didn't understand certain Quranic passages, but as this being evidence for Luling's thesis, it's not sufficient on its own.

Current Islamic scholars don't even understand certain Qur'anic passages - this has not changed.

Rather than generic claims, what specific points would you say demonstrate their accuracy?

This is not about "making a claim" - Islamic orthodoxy has already done that. This is about rejecting a (ridiculous) claim already being made. Once again, the only alternative is defending that the Qur'an is the perfect word of god. Are you (or anyone) willing to defend this?

If not, undermining the work done to refute this claim is to no end. You can not flip the burden of proof on those arguing in the negative as such are not making any claims aside from pointing to works refuting the claim to divinity.

What other scholars do you find insightful?

Here are some:

Patricia Crone
Gerd Puit
Gabriel Said Reynolds
Gabriel Sawma
Dr. Andrew G. Bannister
Arthur Jeffrey
Angelika Neuwirth / Nicolai Sinai / Michael Marx
Daniel King

This part seems to have very little to do with the earlier part of your post.

Muslims believe the Quran is Divine, non-Muslims don't, sort of goes with the territory.

I like early Islamic history but this issue is of no real interest to me as it leads nowhere. Given that Muslims believe the message of the Quran had been revealed to previous prophets, even if what you say about textual similarity was correct, it still makes no difference from the perspective of Islamic hermeneutics.

In general though, political polemics and the study of history don't make good companions really as the latter is usually interpreted in what ever way best supports the former.

This is only about one issue: either the Qur'an is "divine", or it is not. I don't care about what Muslims "believe", I care about what is true.

There has not been a single argument in this thread (so far) that defends the divinity of the Qur'an. All we have seen is loose attempts to undermine the array of works set out to reject this claim and present what the Qur'an actually is, which is (obviously) man-made.

Once again: if there are any individuals interesting in willing to defend the notion that the Qur'an is divine (which is the initial claim made by the House of Islam) please feel free.

As it stands, there have been no arguments arguing in the affirmative: (rather bizarrely) only attacks mounted against works/authors suggesting the contrary. There are only two possibilities: it is, or it is not.

 

[DustyFeet]

The Vessel

Once Rabbi Elazar son of R. Shimon was coming from Migdal Gedor, from the house of his teacher. He rode along the riverside on his donkey, and was feeling happy and elated because he had studied much Torah.

There chanced to meet him an exceedingly ugly man, who greeted him, "Peace be upon you, my master!" R. Elazar did not return his salutation but instead said to him, "How ugly this person is! Are all the people of your city as ugly as you?"

"I do not know," said the man. "But go to the craftsman who made me, and say to him: How ugly is the vessel which you have made!"

Realizing that he had done wrong, R. Elazar dismounted from his donkey, prostrated himself before the man, and said to him, "You are right. Forgive me!" But the man replied, "I will not forgive you until you go to the craftsman who made me and say to him, 'How ugly is the vessel which you have made.'"

R. Elazar kept on walking after him until he reached his city. The residents of the city came out to greet him, saying, "Peace be upon you, O Teacher! O Master!" Said the man to them, "Whom are you calling 'Master'?" Said they, "The person walking behind you."

Said he to them: "If this is a 'Master,' may there not be any more like him in Israel."

"Why?" asked the people.

Said the man: Such-and-such he has done to me.

"Nevertheless, forgive him," said they, "for he is a man greatly learned in the Torah."

"For your sakes I will forgive him," said the man, "but only if he does not act this way anymore."

Soon after this R. Elazar entered the study hall and taught: "A person should always be pliant as the reed, and let him never be hard as the cedar. And for this reason the reed merited that of it should be made a pen for the writing of the Torah, tefillin and mezuzot."

 

[DustyFeet]

A person should always be pliant as the reed

hmmmmmm this sounds familiar

 

[david-david]

It is true that the early bird gets the worm. However, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva

(in Mahayana Buddhism) a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings.


'the early bird gets the worm'.
how many 'birds' are there in a given morning?

1 worm might feed 1 bird for half the day. The same worm divided into 4's could feed 4 birds for 1/16th of the day.

Classic example of 'Survival of the fittest'.

The Darwinian theory of 'Natural Selection' is dependent upon 1 thing. The 'supply' is a 'constant' or a small Variable. As population increases and 'supply' remains at 'constant', or small variable, the 'Natural Selection' of 'survival of the fittest', shows competitive.

Unfortunately, or rather, Fortunately, Mr. Charles Darwin would not know what is or what is not 'the' Constant or a small variable in terms of 'supply'. Unless that 'constant' or small variable was manipulated by his peers.

But in a 'free world', such a 'constant' or small variable, might not or probably would not exist. The 'Das Kapital'-isms of Social Capitalism is a 'regulated' philosophical ideology which had its roots in Islam and which is based around the philosophical school of Nihilism, for myself, which is based around the concept of 'nothing' to which this capitalism gives the 'something'; regulation. Regulation against 'unwanted' things in Society.

The Nihilist movement was a Russian movement in the 1860s which rejected all authorities.[1] It is derived from the Latin nihil, meaning "nothing". After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence in order to bring about political change.

Russian nihilist movement - Wikipedia


So again, we have the basic 'human' qualities which causes the macro changes to the World. The 'World' does a lot to keep itself safe and in good qualities which is a blessing.

Out of the current 7.6 billion persons or so, I would more likely agree that the majority would be on the side of 'blessings' over 'curses'.


YmirGF
Bodhisattva


Help save the suffering. yay!

 

[DustyFeet]

It is true that the early bird gets the worm. However, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.

wow......

 

[Augustus]

At the very least, he seems to have generated enough interest to warrant a closer look. That aside, he does sufficiently demonstrate that, in at least some cases, application of a Syro-Aramaic reading resolves portions of the text which are otherwise incomprehensible.

Arguably.

I am of the mind that yielding to how "well received" something is, is not indicative of whether or not it is good/accurate. Sure; scholarly reception and scrutiny is important, but sometimes the truth stings certain people in such a manner that, regardless of the quality of the work, if someone does not like its implications, they wouldn't "receive" it well - especially considering the inherently sensitive area of one of the most revered books in human history.

Would you say someone like Patricia Crone was overly concerned about implications and sensitivity in her appraisal?

If not, undermining the work done to refute this claim is to no end. You can not flip the burden of proof on those arguing in the negative as such are not making any claims aside from pointing to works refuting the claim to divinity.

Patricia Crone
Gerd Puit
Gabriel Said Reynolds
Gabriel Sawma
Dr. Andrew G. Bannister
Arthur Jeffrey
Angelika Neuwirth / Nicolai Sinai / Michael Marx
Daniel King

You are claiming a particular origin for much of the Quranic material which is very debatable.

It would be a grave error to claim that all scholarship on the impact of Syriac—or Aramaic more generally—on the Qur’ān argues the text is derivative of a Biblical text (i.e. urtext). The scholarship, rather, demonstrates a spectrum of positions. On one end of the spectrum is the Luxenberg school, which despite its marginalization, still has a small following who argue the Qur’ān we posses today was originally a Syriac Christian liturgical text.13 This claim is hotly contested, if not rejected outright by most Qur’ān specialists.

On the other end of the spectrum is Angelika Neuwirth, Der Koran: Band 1, which examines the early Meccan Suras according to the chronology established in Islamic tradition and accepted by Nöldeke’s Geschichte des Qorans. For Neuwirth, the Qur’ān is fundamentally a text of late antiquity and belonging to the Arabian context illustrated in Islamic tradition. The relationship between Qur’ānic passages and Syriac Christian literature are only part of a wider intertextual dialogue between the Qur’ān and religious works of late antiquity.14

In the middle of the spectrum is The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext by Gabriel Reynolds, who neither accepts the traditional qur’ānic chronology, nor an explicit urtext. Reynolds argues that qur’ānic passages are best understood when read solely through the lens of late antique Syriac Christian homiletic literature. The utility of Islamic tradition (especially Tafsir) is diminished significantly given the mufassirūn’s unawareness of the subtexts behind the passages they examine. For Reynolds, it is more fruitful to understand the Qur’ān by reading it “as homily.”15

There is quite evidently a lack of consensus about the contribution of Aramaic (especially Syriac) Christian literature to the Qur’ān. There is equally a lack of consensus about whom the audience of the Qur’ān were in light of the impact of Aramaic.


The Impact of Aramaic (especially Syriac) on the Qur’ān - Emran El-badawi

How does it stand against the claim that Muhammad received it from an angel?

This is starting to get ridiculous: the only "alternative" is the acceptance of the Islamic orthodoxy that Muhammad received it from an angel directly from god. Either this is true (which is itself impossible to prove), or untrue.

You are challenging any/all of the material which heavily supports the latter while (perhaps) not realizing the former is the only suggested alternative.

There are many alternatives to the orthodox Islamic traditions and: "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."

This is only about one issue: either the Qur'an is "divine", or it is not. I don't care about what Muslims "believe", I care about what is true.

There has not been a single argument in this thread (so far) that defends the divinity of the Qur'an. All we have seen is loose attempts to undermine the array of works set out to reject this claim and present what the Qur'an actually is, which is (obviously) man-made.

As has been noted, there aren't that many Muslims who post here regularly (as they tend to get bullied, even the super friendly and unassuming ones) and fewer who are interested in debating such issues.

Where there though, your arguments would not be problematic from within the Islamic hermeneutical framework, as similarities with existing texts will be interpreted as confirming the idea that the key messages of the Quran had been sent to all the prophets.

Equally, arguments in favour of the Divinity of the Quran are unpersuasive towards non-Muslims, for reasons you understand.

Your references to scholarship on the issue of Quranic origin are somewhat misleading though, so it is fair to point this out.

 

[Augustus]

which is based around the philosophical school of Nihilism, for myself, which is based around the concept of 'nothing' to which this capitalism gives the 'something';

Russian nihilism was something though (or many things). It was a progressive and scientistic ideology that wanted to destroy the traditional society in order to create a new and better world.