Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

[9-18-1]

This proves you are are unfamiliar with the scholarship on the issue.

There is an absolute wealth of critical scholarship on this issue, much of which very much contradicts the Islamic narrative and comes from people with no incentive to partake in 'dogma based resistance'. You could spend years simply reading the revisionist literature, let alone the other areas of critical scholarship. The idea that Western non-Muslim revisionists are partaking in 'dogma based resistance' and attempting to suppress the truth is tin foil hat level ludicrous.

You have it backwards - it is Eastern Muslim non-revisionists that are partaking in the 'dogma based resistance'. This is what Luling alluded to.

Critical scholarship literally starts with the axiomatic assumption that the Quran is not Divine, yet you are representing it as a branch of Islamic apologetics.

I represent no such thing - and such a default position should be expected. Unfortunately, as per my first comment Islamic approaches are inverted.

Admitting that 'the last place you would look' is among experts publishing peer-reviewed articles containing evidence and logical reasoning in support of claims which you can evaluate on their merits might be a reason you lack critical insight

That's actually not what I stated - I stated "within the field" because this is precisely where one finds the entanglements alluded to by Luling. I am happy to read any/all discourse(s) but the last place I would look for a definitive answer is in the very place that attempts to obscure it.

You claimed you had read GS Reynolds previously, do you consider him 'insufferably apologetic'? Most of his scholarship is on reading parts of the Quran as homily regarding a Biblical subtext.

I don't - insufferable apologetics is almost exclusively a characteristic of "Islamic" scholarship in my experience as "protecting" certain (untrue) traditions is placed before altruistic inquiry, which is neither scientific nor honest.

How do you factor in that Christians would likely win a 'body count' competition. How do they compare to Romans? Persians? Mongols? Chinese? etc.

You really seem to enjoy missing the point. It relates to a comment I made earlier.

The principle division between "believer" and "unbeliever" is not unique to Islam - it existed in Christianity. As such I don't care about body counts - both institutions are inherently idolatrous and essentially identical in their framework and associated bloody histories. You keep attempting to bring in lines of refutation that unnecessarily obfuscates everything into absurdity. There is not a single argument I would make against Islam that I would not make against Christianity because the former is a heresy of the latter and are thus unified as one 'thing'.

But your allusion to Christianity being responsible for a higher 'body count' is ridiculous: Islam is absolutely the winner here. However as I stated, it is a non-issue for me: they are both the same 'thing'.

No one doubts there is significant intertextuality between the Quran and Judaeo-Christian texts and traditions. What is disputed is the nature of this relationship.

People can dispute all they wish - fundamentally I only care about one thing: is it true or untrue that the Qur'an is the perfect word of god. The latter is correct and I still hold that approx. 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns and heretical apocryphal works originally written in a non-Arabic language(s).

As I've said before, the work you cite is naive and oversimplistic, the field of critical Islamic studies has moved on considerably in the last 30 years, let alone 100. For example, Tisdall assumes a rudimentary copying of sources ad that the Quran contains basic errors in relation to its intertextual references. This view is no longer tenable.

You can say all you wish - however to state the work of Tisdall "is no longer tenable" is asinine. If something is true, it can never become "no longer tenable". If you don't "like" his work or personally think (or don't think, and yield to whatever authority you kneel before) it is of merit, I will not encroach on your conscience.

Some views:

Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture.

Not relevant but thanks.

Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic

The Qur’ān’s complex manipulation of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions is,
furthermore, neither accidental nor haphazard. It is rather, quite deliberate and
sophisticated. It wood behoove readers to realize a basic fact concerning dogmatic
re-articulation as we have laid it out herein, namely that the Qur’ān excercises
complete control over its challenging or re-appropriation of passages from the
Aramaic Gospels—not vice versa. This is evident both implicitly and explicitly
within the text... Finally, consider that the text skillfully translates or interprets
Hebrew and Aramaic terminology and seamlessly integrates them into the overall
literary, rhetorical, and theological coherence of the particular passage or Surah
wherin they occur, which is the unmistakable intention behind zakariyyā in Q 19:2
and s.arrah in Q 51:29 for example.

Dispensing with hasty and superficial readings of the text—which may incorrectly
yield ‘mistakes’ or ‘contraditions’ in the qur’ānic re-telling of Biblical narratives
or post-Biblical controversies—is the first step in truly appreciating its
linguistic, structural, and thematic integrity... The point is that such a dexterous command
of Biblical and post-Biblical literature as a whole, and such strong volition on the
part of the Qur’ān’s authorship, is central to our understanding of its dogmatic rearticulation
of the Aramaic Gospels Tradition. (The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions. - E El-Badawi)

I am reminded of Luling's warning. I'm personally not interested in the work of El-Badawi as his motivations are clearly nowhere near altruistic, given his affirmation in/of the Islamic faith, but of course you are free to post whatever you wish.

However I will state the last paragraph falls into my own category of "insufferably apologetic".

Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience. In it there are frequent references to biblical patriarchs, prophets, and other gures of Late Antique, Jewish, and Christian religious lore. One hears of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, and Jonah, among others from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, one reads of Jesus, Mary, Zecharaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples from the New Testament, but no mention of Paul and his epistles. What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts. So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth- century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic"

S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic

I've not read anything from this author but given the above, I care not to. The last alone reeks of apologetics: the Arabic of the Qur'an is far from "good, clarifying Arabic". The Arabic of the Qur'an is not Arabic - some of it is Syriac which when rendered into the Arabic completely changes the meanings. For example the notion that man was created from a "clot of blood" is actually a poor rendition of a Syriac word which originally (should have) meant "mud/clay" as is consistent with the Biblical narrative. Muslims are now confused by this as the Hebrew word 'adama' is the stuff which composes 'Adam' who was made of the dust (mud/clay) of the earth, not a blood clot. There are innumerable such conflations throughout the Qur'an which are exceeding painful to point out given how wrong they are. As such regarding the above quote, the Qur'an is far from "clarifying" - it is actually the inverse (obfuscating).

Also

Mapping the Sources of the Qur'anic Jesus

Here Jesus belongs to the most important figures in the Qur’ān. Furthermore, in some other respects, he is even the most eminent character, since he is alone in enjoying a very high status: he is the only one to be called the word and spirit of God (4:171); he is born miraculously of the virgin Mary (the only woman named in the Qur’ān); he is the only prophet to receive a revelation from the cradle (19:30-33); his return to earth is the sign of the end of time (43:61); moreover, the holy spirit (rūḥal-qudus) is mentioned only four times in the Qur’ān, and in three cases, precisely about Jesus (2:87, 253; 5:110).

...which is once again consistent that much of the (early) body of the Qur'an was derived from Christian literature.

Passing the time by correcting your basic errors for anyone reading who might be interested in the issue.

If this is how you fill your time - arguing against someone allegedly on the same side of the table as you are - there are some more basic errors more deserving of your attention. Unfortunately they are of a nature that can not be addressed by appealing to outside authority.

 

[Augustus]

You have it backwards - it is Eastern Muslim non-revisionists that are partaking in the 'dogma based resistance'. This is what Luling alluded to.

Cool, but nothing I've said has anything to do with them.

That's actually not what I stated - I stated "within the field" because this is precisely where one finds the entanglements alluded to by Luling. I am happy to read any/all discourse(s) but the last place I would look for a definitive answer is in the very place that attempts to obscure it.

The field = Islamic Studies, the secular academic discipline which studies Islam, not the theological field of Islamic apologetics.

I don't - insufferable apologetics is almost exclusively a characteristic of "Islamic" scholarship in my experience as "protecting" certain (untrue) traditions is placed before altruistic inquiry, which is neither scientific nor honest.

You might have a point if I'd been discussing Islamic scholarship, but I've not. I've been discussing secular, academic scholarship. To bring up something completely irrelevant makes little sense.

You really seem to enjoy missing the point. It relates to a comment I made earlier.

No, because the point was situating Islam among all historical civilisations, not just Christianity. Humans are violent by nature, so assuming violence by religious people must count as religious violence is flawed. For example, if Roman society was equally violent before/after Christianity then why would one attribute most later deaths to 'Christianity'? Would you argue that the pre-Islamic 'Middle East' more peaceful than the post-Islamic?

But your allusion to Christianity being responsible for a higher 'body count' is ridiculous: Islam is absolutely the winner here.

If we apply your standards for 'jihad' deaths to Christian societies then Christianity would win easily. You'd have to count WW1 as 125 million deaths alone if you wished to avoid double standards (war deaths + subsequent flu outbreak, historical figures always include illness, famine, etc as war casualties so would need to include them here).

Including WW1 as 'Christian' would be stupid, but you chose the methodology.

You can say all you wish - however to state the work of Tisdall "is no longer tenable" is asinine. If something is true, it can never become "no longer tenable". If you don't "like" his work or personally think (or don't think, and yield to whatever authority you kneel before) it is of merit, I will not encroach on your conscience.

Which assumes it was 'true' in the first place, which the multiple sources quoted explain why it wasn't.

Not relevant but thanks.

Try reading it again then.

I am reminded of Luling's warning. I'm personally not interested in the work of El-Badawi as his motivations are clearly nowhere near altruistic, given his affirmation in/of the Islamic faith, but of course you are free to post whatever you wish.

However I will state the last paragraph falls into my own category of "insufferably apologetic".

Only because you don't actually understand it. To dismiss a scholarly source you haven't read based on ad hominem assumptions of bias is not the mark of someone 'altruistically' interested in 'truth'.

If you think that is 'insufferably apologetic' then you think that GS Reynolds is 'insufferably apologetic', as they make very similar points.

For example, here he is making an almost identical point:

Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. It expects that the reader has the Qur’an in one hand and the Bible in the other...

In any case, the Qur’an exhibits both a familiarity with and an amicability toward the Bible. It is not the record of confused proclamations in a barbarous context where the Bible was barely known. Instead, the Qur’an emerged in a late-antique religious context where Jews and various Christian sects were arguing over the Bible’s proper interpretation. When delivering its religious message, the Qur’an counted on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible, and it continues to do so today.

Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds


Also, why assume people like Luling, Tisdall or Luxenberg are 'altruistic'?

I've not read anything from this author but given the above, I care not to. The last alone reeks of apologetics: the Arabic of the Qur'an is far from "good, clarifying Arabic". The Arabic of the Qur'an is not Arabic - some of it is Syriac which when rendered into the Arabic completely changes the meanings. For example the notion that man was created from a "clot of blood" is actually a poor rendition of a Syriac word which originally (should have) meant "mud/clay" as is consistent with the Biblical narrative. Muslims are now confused by this as the Hebrew word 'adama' is the stuff which composes 'Adam' who was made of the dust (mud/clay) of the earth, not a blood clot. There are innumerable such conflations throughout the Qur'an which are exceeding painful to point out given how wrong they are. As such regarding the above quote, the Qur'an is far from "clarifying" - it is actually the inverse (obfuscating).

Sydney Griffiths, a Christian ordained as a Catholic priest who teaches at a Catholic university 'reeks of [Islamic] apologetics'? You have a very convenient method of dismissing everything you don't like without any need for evidence or critical thought.

Again you seem to misunderstand what the text actually says, he is referencing what the Quran says about itself. That it contains loanwords doesn't negate the fact that it is written in Arabic, and describes itself as an 'Arabic Quran'.

The point being made is that it isn't a rudimentary copying of Christian texts (as Tisdall claims), but a sophicticated intertextual dialogue which incorporates them (as Reynolds, Dye, El-Badawi, etc state in the provided quotes). So far you have accused 2 of them of engaging in apologetics, specifically stated one of them is not engaging in apologetics, and called one irrelevant despite them all making pretty much the same point which is directly related to what you have been arguing.

Got to love that level of consistency and impartiality

..which is once again consistent that much of the (early) body of the Qur'an was derived from Christian literature.

Let's try this again:

For the past century and more, many Western scholars have studied the Bible in the Qurʾān, looking for its sources and the presumed influences on its text in both canonical and non-canonical, Jewish and Christian scriptures and apocryphal writings. Most often they declared the Qurʾānic readings to be garbled, confused, mistaken, or even corrupted when compared with the presumed originals. More recent scholars, however, some more sensitive than their academic ancestors to the oral character, as opposed to a ‘written-text’ interface between Bible and Qurʾān, have taken the point that the evident intertextuality that obtains in many places in the three sets of scriptures, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim (and in their associated literaures), reflects an oral intermingling of traditions, motifs, and histories in the days of the Qurʾān’s origins. These various elements played a role in the several communities’ interactions with one another within the ambience of Muḥammad’s declamations of the messages he was conscious of having received for the purpose of proclaiming them in public. The Jewish and Christian texts in which scholars find them are not taken to be documentary evidences of the currency and availability of these elements in the Qurʾān’s Arabic-speaking milieu. It is no longer a matter of sources and influences but of traditions, motifs, and histories retold within a different horizon of meaning. In this vein some scholars have even begun talking of the Qurʾān’s role as a kind of biblical commentary in Arabic, reacting to the Bible, as one recent scholar has put it, as the Qurʾān’s “biblical subtext,”4 and developing many of its themes within its own interpretive framework. Griffiths

Do you see the difference?

 

[9-18-1]

You might have a point if I'd been discussing Islamic scholarship, but I've not. I've been discussing secular, academic scholarship. To bring up something completely irrelevant makes little sense.

You quoted a "scholar" that believes Muhammad flew on a winged horse into heaven.

No, because the point was situating Islam among all historical civilisations, not just Christianity. Humans are violent by nature, so assuming violence by religious people must count as religious violence is flawed. For example, if Roman society was equally violent before/after Christianity then why would one attribute most later deaths to 'Christianity'? Would you argue that the pre-Islamic 'Middle East' more peaceful than the post-Islamic?

Humans are not "violent" by nature - animals are. We may disagree what constitutes a "human" but for me, desire to spill blood is not "human" - it is animal. In fact I would suggest one of the reasons idol-based religions exist is to justify acting on this desire to spill blood - which is not human.

Yes I would argue that the pre-Islamic 'Middle East' was way, way more peaceful than the post-Islamic. One would have to go back a ways prior to the rise of idol worship which takes us into the era of construction of the major monolithic structures (pyramids) wherein entire populations were actually united and cooperated not only with themselves but other factions as well. The fall of the M/E was in correlation to the dark ages: the last golden age peaked in 11 500 BCE whereas the last dark ages peaked in 500 CE - with Christianity/Islam becoming state institutions within a few hundred years on either side of it. This argument would require a dissertation on how the cosmic cycle of 25 920 years works and how consciousness rises/falls within this circle. It is essentially a large version of the smaller 365.25-day cycle as all things (in time) operate on cycles.

If we apply your standards for 'jihad' deaths to Christian societies then Christianity would win easily. You'd have to count WW1 as 125 million deaths alone if you wished to avoid double standards (war deaths + subsequent flu outbreak, historical figures always include illness, famine, etc as war casualties so would need to include them here).

No actually - as I already stated, I don't treat Christianity and Islam as two separate things because they are not. Both are unified under one principle premise: both utilize an idol-based (central figure) structure that provides the populace with an idol to revere/imitate such that one who does not "accept" this idol is labeled an "unbeliever" and/or "infidel". This division existed in Christianity before it did Islam - and both are false. As such I have little to no interest in creating more this vs. that - I only care about the fundamental error(s) of such institutions that has lead to genocidal behavior. Both Christianity and Islam are equally guilty insofar as they are equally wrong.

Including WW1 as 'Christian' would be stupid, but you chose the methodology.

See above - I would actually argue that WW2 (and upcoming WW3) actually find their roots in Islam - but this would require deconstructing the proxies (West / Hitler) through which Islam acts. One of the methods of jihad warfare is to pit the West against itself: have as many non-Muslims hate Jews such that they rally behind a central figure (like Hitler) to wipe them out. This is precisely what happened in WW2 - Jew hatred which is rooted in the Qur'an.

Which assumes it was 'true' in the first place, which the multiple sources quoted explain why it wasn't.

There was not a source quoted that explained anything of the sort - the work of Tisdall is sound.

Only because you don't actually understand it. To dismiss a scholarly source you haven't read based on ad hominem assumptions of bias is not the mark of someone 'altruistically' interested in 'truth'.

I do understand it - I get bored with things I understand. It's the things I don't understand that keeps me glued to them.

If you think that is 'insufferably apologetic' then you think that GS Reynolds is 'insufferably apologetic', as they make very similar points.

This is not far from the truth - just because I read the work of someone does not mean I agree with all of it. GS Reynolds does encroach on that territory for me.

For example, here he is making an almost identical point:

Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. It expects that the reader has the Qur’an in one hand and the Bible in the other...

In any case, the Qur’an exhibits both a familiarity with and an amicability toward the Bible. It is not the record of confused proclamations in a barbarous context where the Bible was barely known. Instead, the Qur’an emerged in a late-antique religious context where Jews and various Christian sects were arguing over the Bible’s proper interpretation. When delivering its religious message, the Qur’an counted on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible, and it continues to do so today.

Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible

The story of Abraham and Sarah is an allegory. This is stated explicitly in the Bible. That the Qur'an "assumes" the audience is familiar with the story says nothing about the Qur'an itself - of course any discourse on Biblical stories must assume a familiar audience lest the discourse be a re-telling of them (in some cases the Qur'an actually does this and deviates from the Bible). What is important is: is it true or untrue that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god? The answer is no - it is not.

Also, why assume people like Luling, Tisdall or Luxenberg are 'altruistic'

It is not an assumption - it is something that can be tested. For example, if an author explicitly outlines his exact methodology which he shall use and holds to it to only produce what naturally follows from said methods (as Luxenberg sometimes fails to do but Luling does very well) then there is no assumption - one who shows ones work and limits himself/herself to the scope dictated by the method is altruistic insofar as they do not attempt to overstretch (Luxenberg) but rather remain within the scope (Luling). This is why I favor Luling for this reason - he provides clear theses, uses them and derives a conclusion that at least 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from "rasm" (naked) texts which were originally Christian strophic hymnal works. The method is clear, the theses are clear, and the conclusion naturally follows based on the work.

Sydney Griffiths, a Christian ordained as a Catholic priest who teaches at a Catholic university 'reeks of [Islamic] apologetics'? You have a very convenient method of dismissing everything you don't like without any need for evidence or critical thought.

Some of the worst apologetics can come from non-Muslim writers. To try to limit apologetics as something that can only come from Islamic writers is detrimental: one of the methods of jihad is to pay (bribe) prominent and prolific non-Muslims to write wide-reaching pieces speaking of Islam in a favorable light. Not to suggest this is the case with Griffiths - the point being apologetics can be done by literally anyone - Muslim or not.

Again you seem to misunderstand what the text actually says, he is referencing what the Quran says about itself. That it contains loanwords doesn't negate the fact that it is written in Arabic, and describes itself as an 'Arabic Quran'

We know what the Qur'an says about itself. That it contains loanwords doesn't contest that the Qur'an is "written" in Arabic, but indicates that the source(s) used to create the Qur'an were of non-Arabic origin - which is the point. Of course the Qur'an would indicate it is in Arabic - it can't claim anything otherwise when coupled with the claim it is the perfect word of god as delivered by an angel.

The point being made is that it isn't a rudimentary copying of Christian texts (as Tisdall claims), but a sophicticated intertextual dialogue which incorporates them (as Reynolds, Dye, El-Badawi, etc state in the provided quotes). So far you have accused 2 of them of engaging in apologetics, specifically stated one of them is not engaging in apologetics, and called one irrelevant despite them all making pretty much the same point which is directly related to what you have been arguing.

Got to love that level of consistency and impartiality

I don't care what the point is they are "trying" to make - just because they wrote it doesn't make it true. I care nothing for the persons who wrote it and don't mean to "attack" them, I only care about what is true. I wouldn't suggest the Qur'an is a "rudimentary" copying of Christian texts as you (or they) are implying (I don't even agree that this is the position Tisdall holds and I consider it a gross misrepresentation of his work) - but the fact that at least some of the Qur'an is derived from Christian texts is in some part, to some extent, absolutely true. This in itself is enough to challenge the perfect-word-of-god assertion the House of Islam holds, which is all that matters here.

Let's try this again:

For the past... ...interpretive framework. Griffiths

Do you see the difference?

I don't see anything here - just words. What exactly are you / is he actually "proving" here; or at the least arguing? Yes there was an obvious oral intermingling of traditions, motifs, and histories. We know that - which is precisely why the Qur'an contains such diversity. I have problems with the "messages he was conscious of having received..." part because, once again, this is an apologetic tone and an orthodox Islamic assertion/tradition that he is pandering to (I don't blame him - speaking about Islam in anything less than a positive light is inviting trouble). Copying/pasting such sayings doesn't actually offer anything except the opinion of its author. I am not too interested in opinions unless backed with something substantive to supplement.

 

[Augustus]

You quoted a "scholar" that believes Muhammad flew on a winged horse into heaven.

Any evidence for his religious views or are you just assuming that because of his name? He certainly isn't making a case for Islamic orthodoxy in his text (although you have no idea about this yet still assume he is some form of an apologist whose views can be dismissed out of hand. Conveniently, this automatically applies to everyone who disagrees with you, atheist, Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

Also, you quoted a scholar who believes Jesus rose from the dead, so if religious beliefs automatically make everything you say null and void...

Humans are not "violent" by nature - animals are. We may disagree what constitutes a "human" but for me, desire to spill blood is not "human" - it is animal. In fact I would suggest one of the reasons idol-based religions exist is to justify acting on this desire to spill blood - which is not human.

Humans are animals.

The idea that violence isn't part of our nature despite 100,000 years of evidence is less plausible than arguing the world is flat.

Yes I would argue that the pre-Islamic 'Middle East' was way, way more peaceful than the post-Islamic. One would have to go back a ways prior to the rise of idol worship which takes us into the era of construction of the major monolithic structures (pyramids) wherein entire populations were actually united and cooperated not only with themselves but other factions as well. The fall of the M/E was in correlation to the dark ages: the last golden age peaked in 11 500 BCE whereas the last dark ages peaked in 500 CE - with Christianity/Islam becoming state institutions within a few hundred years on either side of it. This argument would require a dissertation on how the cosmic cycle of 25 920 years works and how consciousness rises/falls within this circle. It is essentially a large version of the smaller 365.25-day cycle as all things (in time) operate on cycles.

I'll stick to things which actually can be supported with evidence rather than fantastic tales of magical golden ages...

Based on evidence, the Romans, Persians, Greeks, etc in the ME were just as violent.

I do understand it - I get bored with things I understand. It's the things I don't understand that keeps me glued to them.

As a rule, people who claim to understand something, yet keep woefully misrepresenting it don't understand it.

Some of the worst apologetics can come from non-Muslim writers. To try to limit apologetics as something that can only come from Islamic writers is detrimental: one of the methods of jihad is to pay (bribe) prominent and prolific non-Muslims to write wide-reaching pieces speaking of Islam in a favorable light. Not to suggest this is the case with Griffiths - the point being apologetics can be done by literally anyone - Muslim or not.

A more pertinent point being, people who are arguing against the traditional Islamic narrative are very unlikely to be paid apologist for those supporting the Islamic narrative.

This is why it is hard to believe you understand the material as you keep on misrepresenting it.

We know what the Qur'an says about itself. That it contains loanwords doesn't contest that the Qur'an is "written" in Arabic, but indicates that the source(s) used to create the Qur'an were of non-Arabic origin - which is the point.

Yes, the majority of religious terminology in the Quran reflects Syrio-Aramaic roots, that's even acknowledged by orthodox Muslim scholars.

Given Aramaic was a dominant language in the broader region, this is to be expected.

It doesn't mean that the Quran was definitely based on non-Arabic "sources" though. In an oral culture, awareness of traditions does not necessarily require familiarity with any sources.

the fact that at least some of the Qur'an is derived from Christian texts is in some part, to some extent, absolutely true.

It certainly engages with Christian traditions, but intertextuality doesn't necessitate that something is derivative.

I have problems with the "messages he was conscious of having received..." part because, once again, this is an apologetic tone and an orthodox Islamic assertion/tradition that he is pandering to.

Jesus wept.

within the ambience of Muḥammad’s declamations of the messages he was conscious of having received for the purpose of proclaiming them in public.

How can you see the statement "Muhammed believed he was a messenger of God and that he should spread the word" as being 'apologetics'?

I don't see anything here - just words. What exactly are you / is he actually "proving" here; or at the least arguing?

That intertextuality doesn't necessitate that something is derivative of specific source texts.

See above - I would actually argue that WW2 (and upcoming WW3) actually find their roots in Islam - but this would require deconstructing the proxies (West / Hitler) through which Islam acts. One of the methods of jihad warfare is to pit the West against itself: have as many non-Muslims hate Jews such that they rally behind a central figure (like Hitler) to wipe them out. This is precisely what happened in WW2 - Jew hatred which is rooted in the Qur'an.

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they aren't engaging in nefarious conspiracies to pull the puppet strings of their Western proxies to create the apocalypse...

 

[exchemist]

Cool, but nothing I've said has anything to do with them.



The field = Islamic Studies, the secular academic discipline which studies Islam, not the theological field of Islamic apologetics.



You might have a point if I'd been discussing Islamic scholarship, but I've not. I've been discussing secular, academic scholarship. To bring up something completely irrelevant makes little sense.




No, because the point was situating Islam among all historical civilisations, not just Christianity. Humans are violent by nature, so assuming violence by religious people must count as religious violence is flawed. For example, if Roman society was equally violent before/after Christianity then why would one attribute most later deaths to 'Christianity'? Would you argue that the pre-Islamic 'Middle East' more peaceful than the post-Islamic?



If we apply your standards for 'jihad' deaths to Christian societies then Christianity would win easily. You'd have to count WW1 as 125 million deaths alone if you wished to avoid double standards (war deaths + subsequent flu outbreak, historical figures always include illness, famine, etc as war casualties so would need to include them here).

Including WW1 as 'Christian' would be stupid, but you chose the methodology.



Which assumes it was 'true' in the first place, which the multiple sources quoted explain why it wasn't.



Try reading it again then.



Only because you don't actually understand it. To dismiss a scholarly source you haven't read based on ad hominem assumptions of bias is not the mark of someone 'altruistically' interested in 'truth'.

If you think that is 'insufferably apologetic' then you think that GS Reynolds is 'insufferably apologetic', as they make very similar points.

For example, here he is making an almost identical point:

Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. It expects that the reader has the Qur’an in one hand and the Bible in the other...

In any case, the Qur’an exhibits both a familiarity with and an amicability toward the Bible. It is not the record of confused proclamations in a barbarous context where the Bible was barely known. Instead, the Qur’an emerged in a late-antique religious context where Jews and various Christian sects were arguing over the Bible’s proper interpretation. When delivering its religious message, the Qur’an counted on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible, and it continues to do so today.

Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds


Also, why assume people like Luling, Tisdall or Luxenberg are 'altruistic'?



Sydney Griffiths, a Christian ordained as a Catholic priest who teaches at a Catholic university 'reeks of [Islamic] apologetics'? You have a very convenient method of dismissing everything you don't like without any need for evidence or critical thought.

Again you seem to misunderstand what the text actually says, he is referencing what the Quran says about itself. That it contains loanwords doesn't negate the fact that it is written in Arabic, and describes itself as an 'Arabic Quran'.

The point being made is that it isn't a rudimentary copying of Christian texts (as Tisdall claims), but a sophicticated intertextual dialogue which incorporates them (as Reynolds, Dye, El-Badawi, etc state in the provided quotes). So far you have accused 2 of them of engaging in apologetics, specifically stated one of them is not engaging in apologetics, and called one irrelevant despite them all making pretty much the same point which is directly related to what you have been arguing.

Got to love that level of consistency and impartiality




Let's try this again:

For the past century and more, many Western scholars have studied the Bible in the Qurʾān, looking for its sources and the presumed influences on its text in both canonical and non-canonical, Jewish and Christian scriptures and apocryphal writings. Most often they declared the Qurʾānic readings to be garbled, confused, mistaken, or even corrupted when compared with the presumed originals. More recent scholars, however, some more sensitive than their academic ancestors to the oral character, as opposed to a ‘written-text’ interface between Bible and Qurʾān, have taken the point that the evident intertextuality that obtains in many places in the three sets of scriptures, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim (and in their associated literaures), reflects an oral intermingling of traditions, motifs, and histories in the days of the Qurʾān’s origins. These various elements played a role in the several communities’ interactions with one another within the ambience of Muḥammad’s declamations of the messages he was conscious of having received for the purpose of proclaiming them in public. The Jewish and Christian texts in which scholars find them are not taken to be documentary evidences of the currency and availability of these elements in the Qurʾān’s Arabic-speaking milieu. It is no longer a matter of sources and influences but of traditions, motifs, and histories retold within a different horizon of meaning. In this vein some scholars have even begun talking of the Qurʾān’s role as a kind of biblical commentary in Arabic, reacting to the Bible, as one recent scholar has put it, as the Qurʾān’s “biblical subtext,”4 and developing many of its themes within its own interpretive framework. Griffiths

Do you see the difference?

This is very interesting and thought-provoking.

 

[9-18-1]

Any evidence for his religious views or are you just assuming that because of his name? He certainly isn't making a case for Islamic orthodoxy in his text (although you have no idea about this yet still assume he is some form of an apologist whose views can be dismissed out of hand. Conveniently, this automatically applies to everyone who disagrees with you, atheist, Muslim, Christian or otherwise.

Also, you quoted a scholar who believes Jesus rose from the dead, so if religious beliefs automatically make everything you say null and void...

He admits he is a Muslim.

There is an Islamic holiday wherein Muslims celebrate Muhammad's night journey - flying on a winged horse - Lailat al Miraj. You can't be a Muslim and reject this "event" anymore than a Christian can reject the Resurrection.

The entire Jesus rising from the dead paradigm is based on a solar event that happens every year - while Tisdall might have believed there was an historical Jesus (sun) that resurrected, he was wrong about the literal historicity of it. This doesn't render his work "wrong" as he is not defending Christianity (as the former does Islamic) but undermining the claims of another institution entirely.

Humans are animals.

The idea that violence isn't part of our nature despite 100,000 years of evidence is less plausible than arguing the world is flat.

Most humans are animals - especially ones who worship/follow/imitate an animal for a living. Penetrating a nine year old girl and cutting people's heads off is about as animal as one can get.

Whereas violence may be a part of "your" nature and the animals you identify with, I do not condone violence in any of its forms.

I'll stick to things which actually can be supported with evidence rather than fantastic tales of magical golden ages...

Then perhaps go read about the Great Year of 25 920 years wherein human consciousness rises and falls. The last golden age as 11 500 BCE, the last dark age was 500 CE - within a few hundred years of the rise of Christianity/Islam and...

Based on evidence, the Romans, Persians, Greeks, etc in the ME were just as violent.

...these. You really seem to love to deflect and point fingers everywhere else - this was the basis of a comment I made earlier that you share a lot in common with Muslims. Can you stay on the topic of Islam and the Qur'an?

I'm almost expecting you to soon defend pedophilia. You seem the type to do it, given your defense of at least genocide thus far.

As a rule, people who claim to understand something, yet keep woefully misrepresenting it don't understand it.

A lot of projection here ... we'll see if this continues.

A more pertinent point being, people who are arguing against the traditional Islamic narrative are very unlikely to be paid apologist for those supporting the Islamic narrative.

This is neither pertinent nor a point - irrelevant would be better.

This is why it is hard to believe you understand the material as you keep on misrepresenting it.

You can "believe" whatever you wish. "Belief" is the same problem Christians/Muslims have - it means you don't "know". What I know, I know. What you "believe" is irrelevant to me.

Yes, the majority of religious terminology in the Quran reflects Syrio-Aramaic roots, that's even acknowledged by orthodox Muslim scholars.

Right, and this all stems back to Hebrew which is the parent. Languages erode over time until they reach a "breaking" point and a new one is fashioned. That's exactly what we have with the transition from Hebrew/Aramaic>>>Syriac>>>Arabic. That's why applying a Syriac reading to the Qur'an reveals its sources which are... Christian strophic hymns.

Given Aramaic was a dominant language in the broader region, this is to be expected.

It's a beautiful language - I highly recommend it. It's not only a "language" but a number system. Essentially this means every word is also formula; every sentence is an equation etc.

It doesn't mean that the Quran was definitely based on non-Arabic "sources" though. In an oral culture, awareness of traditions does not necessarily require familiarity with any sources.

Luling's work essentially proves the opposite of what you said. The Qur'an was absolutely based on non-Arabic sources - Hebrew/Aramaic was also an oral culture. The "real" Torah was oral and only given orally. The relationships between Judaism and Islam are far too numerous to discount.

It certainly engages with Christian traditions, but intertextuality doesn't necessitate that something is derivative.

That alone doesn't, but it necessarily indicates a need to look deeper - and upon doing so, we do find a derivation that is impossible to dismiss unless one is wearing a tin foil hat.

Speaking of which, that I might put a face to you, can you post a pic? I find it helps to give me an idea as to who I am actually dealing with.

Jesus wept.

Jesus wasn't real - he is an archetype of the cosmic Christ. If you don't know what that is, you probably don't have any business commenting on the nature of the writings regardless of where they came from.

within the ambience of Muḥammad’s declamations of the messages he was conscious of having received for the purpose of proclaiming them in public.

How can you see the statement "Muhammed believed he was a messenger of God and that he should spread the word" as being 'apologetics'?

That statement alone - it's not apologetic. Indeed Muhammad "believed" (there is that word again) he was a messenger of God and he should spread the word (as he did, by the sword, committing genocide against the very people he "borrowed" traditions from). However writing an entire treatise that essentially "backs" this message (and related conduct), even if it involves attacking orthodox, is still apologetic. It requires "belief" (there is that word again). I don't care about what people "believe", I care about what "is" and can be proven to be true.

That intertextuality doesn't necessitate that something is derivative of specific source texts.

You keep repeating this - I know you want to "believe" it, such "belief" can be eradicated by actually reading the work of Luling. At the very least failing to acknowledge that many attempts have already been made to pinpoint such a derivation puts one in their own world - the derivation has been made clear by many authors.

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they aren't engaging in nefarious conspiracies to pull the puppet strings of their Western proxies to create the apocalypse...

Paranoia is essentially what is at the root of Semitic religions (Judaism/Islam) and Christianity esp. regarding eternal damnation (hellfire). In fact Judaism teaches that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Islam/Muhammad routinely dictated to followers that they must fear Allah. When such a state is deeply seeded in a being, cognitive faculties are disengaged and people start behaving like animals that might actually believe the only way to "save" humanity is to destroy it which will prompt the coming of the messiah.

That's paranoia; and it leads to insanity. I don't "believe" such things - I only go where evidence follows. The UN is absolutely working as a vehicle through which to force out mass (Islamic) migration to non-Muslim countries (never Islamic ones) in accordance with the Qur'an's explicit instructions to emigrate and spread Islam. It actually takes a clear mind to see it - paranoid minds would default to some religious dogma.

By the way thank you for the pic - it definitely gives me a better idea of who I am dealing with and actually feel a bit sorry after having seen it.

 

[Augustus]

He admits he is a Muslim.

There is an Islamic holiday wherein Muslims celebrate Muhammad's night journey - flying on a winged horse - Lailat al Miraj. You can't be a Muslim and reject this "event" anymore than a Christian can reject the Resurrection.

Numerous Muslims reject it, particularly Quranist ones. In addition, there has always been a school of thought within Islam that saw it as a spiritual rather than physical journey.

This doesn't render his work "wrong" as he is not defending Christianity (as the former does Islamic) but undermining the claims of another institution entirely.

The text isn't 'defending' Islam, and certainly doesn't support the orthodox Islamic narrative, bu facts like this seem not to concern you as everything is dismissed as 'apologetics'.

Most humans are animals - especially ones who worship/follow/imitate an animal for a living. Penetrating a nine year old girl and cutting people's heads off is about as animal as one can get.

Whereas violence may be a part of "your" nature and the animals you identify with, I do not condone violence in any of its forms.

Violence being part of our collective nature has nothing to do with 'condoning' it. It is a statement of fact as evidenced by the continual violence present in human societies. Violence is no less a art of our nature than altruism.

What makes you think humans are not animals?

Then perhaps go read about the Great Year of 25 920 years wherein human consciousness rises and falls. The last golden age as 11 500 BCE, the last dark age was 500 CE - within a few hundred years of the rise of Christianity/Islam and...

And you were mocking people who believe in flying horses?

That someone has written a book about it, doesn't make it actual history.

...these. You really seem to love to deflect and point fingers everywhere else - this was the basis of a comment I made earlier that you share a lot in common with Muslims. Can you stay on the topic of Islam and the Qur'an?

Deflection? It's basic history.

You claimed that the rise of Islam made the region significantly more violent, again the facts disagree. This can only be done by comparing before/after.

How do you think the Romans, Persians and Greeks gained and kept control of the region? The world was (and is) a violent place.

I'm almost expecting you to soon defend pedophilia. You seem the type to do it, given your defense of at least genocide thus far.

If we are talking what actually happened (rather than your imaginary history), what 'genocide'?

There was a pretty standard conquest after which the region was ruled pretty much the same as it had been before for the best part of a century. People lived under the same laws but just paid their taxes to a different ruler. Even took about a century for people to realise they had been conquered by adherents of a different religion.

Also, you might want to work out the difference between discussing history and 'defending' the ethics of what happened.

as he did, by the sword, committing genocide against the very people he "borrowed" traditions from

Who would be the victims of this mystery genocide then?

You can "believe" whatever you wish. "Belief" is the same problem Christians/Muslims have - it means you don't "know". What I know, I know. What you "believe" is irrelevant to me.

There are 2 options:

a) You understand the material, yet choose to deliberately misrepresent it.
b) You don't understand it.

Right, and this all stems back to Hebrew which is the parent. Languages erode over time until they reach a "breaking" point and a new one is fashioned. That's exactly what we have with the transition from Hebrew/Aramaic>>>Syriac>>>Arabic. That's why applying a Syriac reading to the Qur'an reveals its sources which are... Christian strophic hymns.

Hebrew is a sister language of Aramaic, not the parent language.

Ultimately, Luling is making an argument that, in his opinion, this alternate reading makes more sense. This is hardly 'proof' that an ur-Quran existed, it is simply one interpretation of an opaque historical issue. Very little can be objectively proved from ancient history, just inductively argued for with more or less probability of being correct. He also argues for a fully fledged Christian community on Mecca which is, to say the least, highly debatable.

You keep repeating this - I know you want to "believe" it, such "belief" can be eradicated by actually reading the work of Luling. At the very least failing to acknowledge that many attempts have already been made to pinpoint such a derivation puts one in their own world - the derivation has been made clear by many authors.

I have no need to 'believe' it as it is a basic fact that intertextuality does not necessitate derivation. As just one example, a critique of a text is not a derivative of a text. Another, a rhetorical discourse with a text is not derivative.

Jesus wasn't real - he is an archetype of the cosmic Christ. If you don't know what that is, you probably don't have any business commenting on the nature of the writings regardless of where they came from.

This would be very unlikely based on the evidence that his story is based on a real human (not to say that many of the details are supported by the evidence, just his existence as a man).

Beside the evidence, why would anyone create a messiah that was such a supremely bad fit for the Jewish Messiah that they had to create implausible and convoluted backstories to shoehorn him into the prophecies? Why not just create someone who actually was a good fit?

That's paranoia; and it leads to insanity. I don't "believe" such things - I only go where evidence follows. The UN is absolutely working as a vehicle through which to force out mass (Islamic) migration to non-Muslim countries (never Islamic ones) in accordance with the Qur'an's explicit instructions to emigrate and spread Islam. It actually takes a clear mind to see it - paranoid minds would default to some religious dogma.

Conspiracies involving Jews, Freemason, lizard people, or stealth jihads that have coopted everyone from Western leaders to international organisations...

Always markers of a clear mind free of paranoia.

 

[9-18-1]

Numerous Muslims reject it, particularly Quranist ones. In addition, there has always been a school of thought within Islam that saw it as a spiritual rather than physical journey.

It doesn't matter what "Muslims" accept/reject. What matters is what the House of Islam holds and/or teaches to adherents (beginning at a young impressionable age). Whether or not one accepts the teachings is of no relevance.

We should stick to the institution (House of Islam) and stop making it about "Muslims". My argument has nothing to do with "Muslims".

The text isn't 'defending' Islam, and certainly doesn't support the orthodox Islamic narrative, bu facts like this seem not to concern you as everything is dismissed as 'apologetics'.

It doesn't concern me because it is completely irrelevant - you are bringing up non-issues and treating them as issues. The only issue is whether or not the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. That is the only concern I have and deal with because if true, no change, but if false, Islam is likewise false.

Violence being part of our collective nature has nothing to do with 'condoning' it. It is a statement of fact as evidenced by the continual violence present in human societies. Violence is no less a art of our nature than altruism.

It has absolutely everything to do with us 'condoning' it - 'our' ancestors 'condoned' it in the past by virtue of the fact it happened. It would be better to say that it is a statement of fact that our ancestors condoned violence. I'm not concerned about the past and most certainly not as fixed to it as you are, I am only concerned with 'now' because we are alive 'now' and can still choose whether or not we 'condone' violence, rape, murder, religious persecution etc. and actually 'change' our 'nature' from that of 'violence' to 'peace'.

Unfortunately the institution (House of Islam) which claims to be a religion of 'peace' is both historically and even now no more 'peaceful' than any other religion. In fact the opposite can be argued - it is a catalyst of perpetual conflict that began an internal conflict upon the death of Muhammad (Sunni/Shia) which continues to this day.

What makes you think humans are not animals

I never suggested they were - one can have a human body but be of animal nature. I would suggest this is the case for people who generate any desire to spill the blood of another "human" - especially in the manner of cutting off their head. Muhammad routinely engaged in this kind of behavior and, combined with his notoriously sexual promiscuity, would fall into the category of "animal" for me as a "human" by comparison.

And you were mocking people who believe in flying horses?

I wouldn't hesitate - believing in flying horses is idiotic.

That someone has written a book about it, doesn't make it actual history.

That works both ways - including with the Qur'an. These things should be scrutinized. The problem is finding authors who do it altruistically.

Deflection? It's basic history.

You claimed that the rise of Islam made the region significantly more violent, again the facts disagree. This can only be done by comparing before/after.

I'm not sure what "facts" disagree with the fact that Islam has a bloody history including when Muhammad was alive and the split of Sunni/Shia when he died. If you are trying to drag other factors into the mix to obscure this "fact" then you're being disingenuous. The focus is whether or not the Qur'an is the perfect word of god and it has nothing to do with anything outside of Islam.

How do you think the Romans, Persians and Greeks gained and kept control of the region? The world was (and is) a violent place.

Can you stop trying to bring irrelevant matters into the argument? I don't care who did what for power/control. What is wrong for one is wrong for the many.

If we are talking what actually happened (rather than your imaginary history), what 'genocide'?

Muhammadans committed many genocides: two principle ones being North Africa and India wherein over approx. 200 000 000 were killed. This is very conservative: some historians estimate approx. 400 000 000 Hindus alone were slaughtered.

https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

There was a pretty standard conquest after which the region was ruled pretty much the same as it had been before for the best part of a century. People lived under the same laws but just paid their taxes to a different ruler. Even took about a century for people to realise they had been conquered by adherents of a different religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term 'standard conquest' - if you are in favor of imperialistic and militaristic conquest, then we are surely of different breeds of beings. I am not in favor of any war or bloodshed, and neither do I "accept" that this is "human nature" and should be something that is "accepted".

Also, you might want to work out the difference between discussing history and 'defending' the ethics of what happened.

I do not defend invasions that lead to genocide by cutting people's heads off - if that clarifies. This is precisely what Muhammadans did in India - and if you wish to defend such an act, you will find no interest from me.

Who would be the victims of this mystery genocide then?

It's not a mystery - it is all factual. I recommend Robert Spencer's The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS. He lays out every single major war Islam was involved in.

There are 2 options:

a) You understand the material, yet choose to deliberately misrepresent it.
b) You don't understand it.

There is a third option.

c) You keep bringing up non-issues and trying to argue them as issues while dragging the topic away from the central one.

The central issue is surrounding the so-called 'divinity' of the Qur'an and you've continuously dragged us down into a plethora of non-issues.

Hebrew is a sister language of Aramaic, not the parent language.

I was speaking with respect to Arabic, not claiming Hebrew itself was parent. The point made is Arabic is derivative.

Ultimately, Luling is making an argument that, in his opinion, this alternate reading makes more sense. This is hardly 'proof' that an ur-Quran existed, it is simply one interpretation of an opaque historical issue. Very little can be objectively proved from ancient history, just inductively argued for with more or less probability of being correct. He also argues for a fully fledged Christian community on Mecca which is, to say the least, highly debatable.

Regarding the last point - contrary to orthodoxy (and dogma) the Qur'an was not written in Mecca anyways so it is a non-issue. As to the rest, it has much less to do with an "ur-Qur'an" and more to do with the implications it has to the central issue: given the work of Luling (and all others) is the claim that the Qur'an is the perfect word of god remotely tenable? The answer is no - and if you personally take issue with my argument that the Qur'an is in part derived from Christian strophic hymns, you'll have to find your own way to deal with that.

I have no need to 'believe' it as it is a basic fact that intertextuality does not necessitate derivation. As just one example, a critique of a text is not a derivative of a text. Another, a rhetorical discourse with a text is not derivative.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by your use of the term "intertextuality". Regardless, nobody claimed "intertextuality" necessitates derivation. If you mean to suggest I am trying to argue this, you are mistaken.

This would be very unlikely based on the evidence that his story is based on a real human (not to say that many of the details are supported by the evidence, just his existence as a man).

Beside the evidence, why would anyone create a messiah that was such a supremely bad fit for the Jewish Messiah that they had to create implausible and convoluted backstories to shoehorn him into the prophecies? Why not just create someone who actually was a good fit?

There is no evidence for an historical "Jesus" - that he may be "based" on a real person does not indicate there was an historical "Jesus".

Why would the creation of a messiah necessarily require satisfying a/the Jewish "meshiach"? The Greek figure "Jesus" is/was very critical of the Jews and was never intended to be a "fit" for them - in fact it serves the alternate in creating a separation from what would otherwise be Jewish rule (law). Islam is yet another (more severe) manifestation of a central figure critical of Jews.

Conspiracies involving Jews, Freemason, lizard people, or stealth jihads that have coopted everyone from Western leaders to international organisations...

Always markers of a clear mind free of paranoia.

I'm not sure what you mean by your use of the word "conspiracies" - I actually don't like the word at all because it is abused and used to demote thinking for ones self.

I am not sure where your references to conspiracies relating to "Jews", "Freemasons" and/or "lizard people" (?) are coming from so I will leave them right where I found them - with you.

However with regards to the stealth jihads, there is a plethora of documented evidence that there is a global network of jihadist organizations (connected through a central Muslim Brotherhood) that are specifically designed to undermine Western institutions via political, social, judicial etc. means. In order to understand this, you have to understand Islamic jihad (its specific doctrines so you know what you are looking for) and pay attention to geopolitics. Otherwise one is likely to fall into the trap of labeling others as "conspiracy theorists" which is actually a (social) jihad warfare tactic similarly employed in the use of the term "Islamophobia" - both are designed to suppress discussions as they (may) relate to a topic(s).

Forcibly suppressing (critical) discussion is 'fascism' and is a central component of Islam esp. re. criticisms of Qur'an/Muhammad/Islam. Islam is itself a fascist institution that is, as it pertains to the topic, man-made by virtue of the fact the Qur'an is most certainly *not* the perfect word of any god.

 

[Augustus]

It doesn't matter what "Muslims" accept/reject. What matters is what the House of Islam holds and/or teaches to adherents (beginning at a young impressionable age). Whether or not one accepts the teachings is of no relevance.

We should stick to the institution (House of Islam) and stop making it about "Muslims". My argument has nothing to do with "Muslims".

Seems to be a bit of a trend here. You make a specific false claim in support of a point, when it is explained why you are wrong you decide it is now 'irrelevant'.

In this case you were talking about how you can dismiss an author out of hand based on how he believes in flying horses. I was pointing out that you have no idea what he believes.

It doesn't concern me because it is completely irrelevant - you are bringing up non-issues and treating them as issues.

See above

There is a third option.

c) You keep bringing up non-issues and trying to argue them as issues while dragging the topic away from the central one.

The central issue is surrounding the so-called 'divinity' of the Qur'an and you've continuously dragged us down into a plethora of non-issues.

See above.

This one was about your 'sources' for the Quran.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by your use of the term "intertextuality". Regardless, nobody claimed "intertextuality" necessitates derivation. If you mean to suggest I am trying to argue this, you are mistaken.

You are making that claim implicitly, whether you understand what intertextuality is or not.

Intertextuality is just what text A has some form of connection to text B. The OT and the NT, Die Hard 1 & Die Hard 2, or when the Simpsons has George Bush move to Springfield.

You are saying the perceived commonalities with Christian texts necessitates the Quran being derivative of them. Absent any documentary evidence, any link could be intertextual rather than derivative: allusion, stylistics imitation, genre commonality, recontextualisation, etc.

The only issue is whether or not the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. That is the only concern I have and deal with because if true, no change, but if false, Islam is likewise false.

You've made numerous points beyond that.

All non-Muslims agree anyway, so you might as well ask people 'are you a Muslim?' if that's your only concern.

I wouldn't hesitate - believing in flying horses is idiotic.

I'd put it on a par with believing in magical golden ages of evolved consciousness such as the kind you were proposing. Each to their own.

I never suggested they were - one can have a human body but be of animal nature.

A human body is an animal body. A human mind is an animal mind. Scientifically, we are animals.

There is no evidence for an historical "Jesus" - that he may be "based" on a real person does not indicate there was an historical "Jesus".

There is evidence of a Jewish preacher who was crucified by the Romans and who started a religious movement that would later evolve into Christianity. By definition, this is a historical Jesus.

Why would the creation of a messiah necessarily require satisfying a/the Jewish "meshiach"? The Greek figure "Jesus" is/was very critical of the Jews and was never intended to be a "fit" for them - in fact it serves the alternate in creating a separation from what would otherwise be Jewish rule (law).

Because his early followers were Jews, and it mattered a great deal to them hence the convoluted Gospel narratives that were created.

It was mainly Paul who created the universalist message, Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews.

Muhammadans committed many genocides: two principle ones being North Africa and India wherein over approx. 200 000 000 were killed. This is very conservative: some historians estimate approx. 400 000 000 Hindus alone were slaughtered.

https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

Haha, that's likely 60-70% of all the people killed in all violence, ever.

Your source is ludicrously false. 400 million is insane. The 80 million normally quoted by those claiming 'genocide' is insane, but 400 is just comical. The population of India was less than 100 million, not the 600 million claimed in your 'source'. How can you be so credulous while talking about 'altruism' in historical enquiry.

There was no genocide. The population of India increased throughout the era of Muslim rule. The wealth of the country increased throughout the period of Muslim rule. Minority rule for long periods of time requires alliances with majority leaders which is hard to achieve when you are hell ben on committing "The Greatest Genocide in History". They weren't angels full of kindness and benevolence, but nobody was back then. Had they not invaded then Hindus would still have been killing other Hindus in the battle for dominance (and they did destroy each other's temples, pillage towns and slaughter populations too. Everyone did).

So we have 'the greatest genocide in history' and after many centuries of occupation; the Hindu population was still the majority; the Hindu population was larger than at was at the time of the first invasion; the country was wealthier than it had been at any point in history.

And that doesn't seem a bit incongruent to you?

It's not a mystery - it is all factual. I recommend Robert Spencer's The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS. He lays out every single major war Islam was involved in.

Spencer is a an agenda driven polemicist. He counts on people being easily impressed by citations because they lack the critical insight into understanding the nature of literary historical sources, hagiographies and works of historical propaganda. Cherry picking the most sensationalist historical sources as uncritically repeating them as fact does not lead to an accurate portrayal of reality.

The kind of person who takes a figure like 400 million at face value despite its very obvious impossibility would be impressed by his 'altruistic scholarship'.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term 'standard conquest' - if you are in favor of imperialistic and militaristic conquest, then we are surely of different breeds of beings. I am not in favor of any war or bloodshed, and neither do I "accept" that this is "human nature" and should be something that is "accepted".

A conquest is very different from a genocide. Muslim conquests were not notably different from non-Muslim conquests.

Whether you accept it or not, doesn't change the reality of human society. Maybe human nature will change again in the next magical golden age whenever that's due in the stars.

I'm not sure what you mean by your use of the word "conspiracies" - I actually don't like the word at all because it is abused and used to demote thinking for ones self.

I am not sure where your references to conspiracies relating to "Jews", "Freemasons" and/or "lizard people" (?) are coming from so I will leave them right where I found them - with you.

However with regards to the stealth jihads, there is a plethora of documented evidence that there is a global network of jihadist organizations (connected through a central Muslim Brotherhood) that are specifically designed to undermine Western institutions via political, social, judicial etc. means. In order to understand this, you have to understand Islamic jihad (its specific doctrines so you know what you are looking for) and pay attention to geopolitics. Otherwise one is likely to fall into the trap of labeling others as "conspiracy theorists" which is actually a (social) jihad warfare tactic similarly employed in the use of the term "Islamophobia" - both are designed to suppress discussions as they (may) relate to a topic(s).

When someone claims stealth jihad caused WW2 and jihadis run the major international organisations of society without a shred of evidence, conspiracy theory is the right label. Conspiracy theorist always beleive they have uncovered a hidden truth that th 'sheeple' are too stupid to see. Jewish cabals, Rothschild Central Banks, stealth jihadis, Freemasons, etc. all pat of the same trend.

Start with a kernel of truth, then magnify, distort and exaggerate beyond all logical reason.

 

[9-18-1]

Seems to be a bit of a trend here. You make a specific false claim in support of a point, when it is explained why you are wrong you decide it is now 'irrelevant'.

In this case you were talking about how you can dismiss an author out of hand based on how he believes in flying horses. I was pointing out that you have no idea what he believes.

That the Qur'an is in part derived from Christian strophic hymnal works, is not a false claim. If you personally reject the natural conclusion (and/or appeal to authorities rejecting it) of the work of Luling, it does not alter the fact it is true.

Regarding the author - I personally do not care what he believes, I care whether or not his work is true - altruism being a bonus. "Belief" has no existential relevance - only what is true and untrue. Even from an Abrahamic perspective: day one of creation is diving light from darkness. If one can not distinguish what is true from what is untrue, this is the bed for "belief" which, as a Muslim, the author is a "believer". What exactly he "believes" is wholly irrelevant - the fact that he "believes" anything is intrinsically problematic to me.

This one was about your 'sources' for the Quran.

Sources are not "mine" - I only point to them. What is important is whether or not the sources have altruistic approaches to discerning what is true from what is untrue.

In the case of Luling, essentially any page in his treatise directly answers the question whether or not it is 100% certain that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. The answer is this "belief" is not only beyond unreasonable, it is patently false, which is the entire point of this thread.

You seem to have an art for dragging the debate as far away from the "point" as possible. We are dealing with "it is" or "it is not".

You are making that claim implicitly, whether you understand what intertextuality is or not.

I understand what it is - I don't understand what you "mean" by invoking the term. To me "intertextuality" is wholly irrelevant to the point.

Intertextuality is just what text A has some form of connection to text B. The OT and the NT, Die Hard 1 & Die Hard 2, or when the Simpsons has George Bush move to Springfield.

See above.

You are saying =...recontextualisation, etc

I am not saying that. "Perceived commonalities" with "Christian texts" does not necessitate the Qur'an is derived from them.

If you wish to debate, please don't try to misrepresent and/or invent claims the other is making.

All non-Muslims agree anyway, so you might as well ask people 'are you a Muslim?' if that's your only concern.

This isn't about non-Muslims, this is about Muslims "believing" something that is not true. The point of the thread is to discuss with Muslims "why" what they believe is not true and how they can understand it for themselves. You're not even a Muslim (as you claim) and are arguing with someone on the same side as you are on the point. If you disagree with the work of Luling, feel free to open a new thread and I will debate there.

I'd put it on a par with believing in magical golden ages of evolved consciousness such as the kind you were proposing. Each to their own.

I don't "believe" such things, they are scientifically true. You do realize the solar system (time) operates based on cycles do you not? Do you not recognize there is a yearly solar cycle of 365.25 days? This is a circle; there is a greater one called the "Great Year" and it is known, studied, and indeed utilized by many esoteric sciences including the 'God of Abraham'. If you are ignorant of such things, you would naturally default to "believing" instead of actually "knowing".

A human body is an animal body. A human mind is an animal mind. Scientifically, we are animals.

Agreed on the first, but the second is problematic. Scientifically, we are of animals, but possess characteristics that transcend (ie. different from) animal nature, such as rationalization. Animals are intrinsically irrational; humans can be, but they can also develop a rational conscience (self-science; awareness) that transcends animal "mind".

Scientifically, you may be an animal and of animal mind, but I actually do use my conscience to rationalize. I recommend it if you haven't done so yourself.

There is evidence of ...this is a historical Jesus.

No actually it's not. It would be better to state this is an idol (Jesus) based on an historical figure whose name can't have been "Jesus" because "Jesus" is a Greek name.

Because his early followers were Jews, and it mattered a great deal to them hence the convoluted Gospel narratives that were created.

You are assuming what is written of this "historical Jesus" is true. I don't bear such a false witness - indeed there is much to suggest that the whole account of "Jesus" surrounded by twelve "disciples" is yet another mythological construct of the sun passing through the twelve zodiacal houses throughout one solar year. This "science", regardless of if it is "true" or not, was the main "school" of learning in ancient times: those learned in astrology/astronomy wielded power because they had the ability to calculate seasonal changes in order to instruct farmers when to plant/harvest. Even the Pyramids of Egypt are aligned to the astrological Orion's belt and numerous sun temples were erected to monitor the celestial sky.

It was mainly Paul who created the universalist message, Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews.

Quite right - but "Jesus" is a Greek name.

Haha, that's likely 60-70% of all the people killed in all violence, ever.

Not funny - unfortunate.

Your source is ludicrously false. 400 million is insane... How can you be so credulous while talking about 'altruism' in historical enquiry.

Population at any given time has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The scope is over several centuries. If 210 000 000 over a span of five-six generations absorb a genocide of 110 000 000, the population would naturally fall to a figure of 100 000 000 at once given time from what would have otherwise been a bed for further growth.

The estimate of 80 000 000 is highly conservative - it is likely more. Please expand your thinking and understand how "population" is not static - it is dynamic and is directly impacted by things like invasion/genocide.

However, even if it were 10 000 000, what does this alter about the point of the thread? If the Qur'an is not the perfect word of god, these 80 000 000 or 10 000 000 died over a false "belief".

There was no genocide. The population of India increased throughout...and slaughter populations too. Everyone did).

If you are denying that Muhammadans invaded India and committed genocide, you are "somewhere else" as this is nearly the most ahistoric thing one could possibly state regarding the topic. Once again, I recommend the book 'A History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS' from Robert Spencer to understand how ludicrous your claim that there was no genocide is. It's completely ahistorical and dishonest.

So we have 'the greatest genocide in history' and... that doesn't seem a bit incongruent to you?

No - genocide does not necessitate the conquering invaders make themselves the majority. When Islam invades, it gives three options: convert, pay jizya, or die. In fact it is perfectly normal for a ruling Islamic body to "tax" a non-Muslim majority that refuses to convert. The ones that refuse to pay are the ones who get the axe, hence: genocides.

Spencer is a an agenda driven polemicist. He counts on people being easily impressed by...accurate portrayal of reality.

Here comes more ad hominem - you accuse me of attacking others based in ad hominem (which I actually don't) yet you do this with R. Spencer?

Do you understand how psychological projection works? It's when you project your own characteristics outward and accuse others of wrong doing. This is exactly what you are doing here.

Robert Spencer's work is meticulously sourced. I don't care about his "character" - I care about his ability to compile accurate information, which he has done for all of his works. He is almost required to do so by nature given the subject matter and susceptibility to people like yourself that can only criticize him by attacking him personally and not his work. It reminds me of the typical Liberal hate-inspired rhetoric.

The kind of person who takes a figure like 400 million at face value despite its very obvious impossibility would be impressed by his 'altruistic scholarship'.

Still playing with numbers? You get really attached to things that are actually irrelevant. How many millions does it require for you to understand 'genocide is wrong'? Or do you actually support genocide? If so, you are not a 'human being' by my understanding of the term.

A conquest is very different from a genocide. Muslim conquests were not notably different from non-Muslim conquests.

Wrong - Muslim conquests end in one of three solutions:

1. Convert
2. Pay Jizya (to enrich Muslims)
3. Death............................<---------------Genocide

The genocide number will be comprised of all people that did not accept options 1 or 2.

Whether you accept... in the stars.

It does naturally - it is a cycle as sure as our yearly solar one. It requires actual knowledge to understand it - not "belief".

When someone claims stealth jihad caused WW2 and jihadis run the major international organisations of society...exaggerate beyond all logical reason.

The 'without a shred of evidence' is laughably naive of you. Just because you can't see and/or don't even know where to look does not mean it doesn't exist. I might start with the Muslim Brotherhood plan to conquer the West. It's a document you can easily find online and it outlines specific injunctions that are observably manifest on the planet today.

I'm sure you know C. Sagan - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - I would add especially as it pertains to people such as yourself who are wholly ignorant of Islamic jihad warfare and its employment methods, which can be seen through the UN. I understand people like to label things they can't see and/or don't "like" as "conspiracy theories" but this only speaks to their limited capacity to perceive and understand what is actually there. In other words, yes there are people "too stupid to see" because they lack objective reasoning. It need not involve more "conspiracy theories" that, once again, you yourself brought up - and, once again, I will leave them where I found them: with you. All mention of "conspiracy theories" is coming from you, because you are the one entertaining information as "conspiracy theory" which makes you the "conspiracy theorist", not me. It's projection again - though I doubt you will understand.

 

[Augustus]

I am not saying that. "Perceived commonalities" with "Christian texts" does not necessitate the Qur'an is derived from them.
If you wish to debate, please don't try to misrepresent and/or invent claims the other is making.

That the Qur'an is in part derived from Christian strophic hymnal works, is not a false claim. If you personally reject the natural conclusion (and/or appeal to authorities rejecting it) of the work of Luling, it does not alter the fact it is true.

If you disagree with the work of Luling, feel free to open a new thread and I will debate there.

That would be a great thread.

"Luling proved the origins of the Quran but I won't refer to his argument as you should read it and then you will know he proved it. Anyone who disagrees he proved it is an apologist and so I won't respond to their arguments."

Here comes more ad hominem - you accuse me of attacking others based in ad hominem (which I actually don't) yet you do this with R. Spencer?

I don't think you understand what ad hom actually is.

If I had stopped at 'agenda driven polemicist' it would have been. There were several more sentences that explained why which you seem to have ignored based on the rest of your reply.

Do you understand how psychological projection works? It's when you project your own characteristics outward and accuse others of wrong doing. This is exactly what you are doing here.

Robert Spencer's work is meticulously sourced. I don't care about his "character" - I care about his ability to compile accurate information, which he has done for all of his works. He is almost required to do so by nature given the subject matter and susceptibility to people like yourself that can only criticize him by attacking him personally and not his work. It reminds me of the typical Liberal hate-inspired rhetoric.

Criticising someone's methodology, is not 'attacking their character', so "If you wish to debate, please don't try to misrepresent and/or invent claims the other is making."

As I explained previously "He counts on people being easily impressed by citations because they lack the critical insight into understanding the nature of literary historical sources, hagiographies and works of historical propaganda. Cherry picking the most sensationalist historical sources as uncritically repeating them as fact does not lead to an accurate portrayal of reality."

Do you believe we should take pre-modern historical sources at face value when it comes to numbers? (remember this is what caused you to be spectacularly wrong by close to 400 million deaths)

Would you agree that it is very easy to create a 'meticulously sourced' text which does not lead to an accurate portrayal of reality? If for example, I cited a hagiography, would you expect this to be very accurate? Or if I cited historical propaganda?

Do you think anyone was writing 'altruistic', 'objective' history 500+ years ago?

Population at any given time has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The scope is over several centuries. If 210 000 000 over a span of five-six generations absorb a genocide of 110 000 000, the population would naturally fall to a figure of 100 000 000 at once given time from what would have otherwise been a bed for further growth.

Population has everything to do with it.

If you start with 100 million. You are not going to be able to kill 110 million over 5 or 6 generations and end up with 160 million at the end of it.

f you are denying that Muhammadans invaded India and committed genocide, you are "somewhere else" as this is nearly the most ahistoric thing one could possibly state regarding the topic. Once again, I recommend the book 'A History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS' from Robert Spencer to understand how ludicrous your claim that there was no genocide is. It's completely ahistorical and dishonest... Still playing with numbers? You get really attached to things that are actually irrelevant. How many millions does it require for you to understand 'genocide is wrong'? Or do you actually support genocide? If so, you are not a 'human being' by my understanding of the term.

Let's try this again. If someone is carrying out The Greatest Genocide in History on the group comprising 95% of the population, would you expect this to occur concurrently with record population growth?

Or might you take this as evidence that claims of a terrible genocide are perhaps not particularly accurate?

Wrong - Muslim conquests end in one of three solutions:

1. Convert
2. Pay Jizya (to enrich Muslims)
3. Death............................<---------------Genocide

The genocide number will be comprised of all people that did not accept options 1 or 2.

That's what you might think if you have based your entire understanding of this history on one book by Robert Spencer, but the reality was far different. Although I get the feeling it would be a waste of time to explain this further.

Seeing as the point was it was pretty much like the average conquest though, what on earth do you think happened when cities got conquered by anyone else?

They had to pay taxes/tribute to the conquerers and if they refused they got killed. The jizya (as with other aspects of Sharia Law that deal with governance) were adaptations of policies from the Roman and Persian Empires. In general though, rulers didn't want to eradicate their economic and tax base by killing them all as that sort of defeated the purpose of conquering their territory in the first place and also makes you much weaker as you can't afford to pay your army. Also, seeing as you need local allies to help administer the region, killing everyone sort of makes this a lot harder.

One of the reasons the Roman and Persian Empires were so weak they allowed the rise of the (proto)Islamic Empire was the plague which wiped out a large number of people and collapsed the tax base meaning they couldn't afford strong armies.

As a matter of fact, Jizya or poll tax had been in vogue since before the advent of Islam. The Greeks are reported to have imposed a similar tax upon the inhabitants of the coastal regions of Asia Minor during 500 B.C. The Romans imposed similar taxes upon the people they conquered, and the amount was much heavier than what was later imposed by the Muslims. The Persians are also reported to have introduced a similar tax upon their subjects.6 According to Shibli Nu'mani, the word Jizya itself is the Arabicised version of the word Kizyat, meaning a levy which the Persian rulers used to employ in administering the affairs of war. Shibli further indicates that this term was either in currency in both the languages, or the Arabs adapted it from the Persian language. Whatever the case, it is certain that the Arabs first knew about this tax from the Persians. The Sasanid emperor Nawsherwan is reported to have introduced a tax, upon his subjects also termed as Jizya by the Arab historians, with the exemption of the nobility, satraps, military personnel, secretaries and those in the service of the emperor, at the varying rates of 12/8/6/2 dirhams upon each person The concept of jizya in early Islam - Ziauddin Ahmad

Based on your logic, every single major conquest in history was a genocide, because people who openly rebelled against their new rulers were killed.

Which major society from history do you view as being paragons of virtue, benevolence, altruism and peaceful coexistence against whom all other societies should be judged?

It does naturally - it is a cycle as sure as our yearly solar one. It requires actual knowledge to understand it - not "belief".

Yes, just like the "actual knowledge" people have of flying horses.

What would you say is the most persuasive evidence of this "knowledge" that would persuade any fair minded person?

would add especially as it pertains to people such as yourself who are wholly ignorant of Islamic jihad warfare and its employment methods, which can be seen through the UN. I understand people like to label things they can't see and/or don't "like" as "conspiracy theories" but this only speaks to their limited capacity to perceive and understand what is actually there.

Yes, yes. Everyone is stupid except a few enlightened ones such as yourself.

If you would like to make any actual arguments, along with some evidence, feel free to do so. You don't seem to be great with backing up any of your statements though so I won't hold my breath.