Proof (IMO) that the Qur'an was not divinely revealed.

[stevecanuck]

There are four aspects of Islamic belief that prove (IMO) that the Qur'an, and by extension the religion of Islam, was 100% the product of Mohamed's mind rather than being divinely revealed:

1. The apparent necessity of hadiths to supplement the Qur'an. Does it make any sense that 'Allah' would use 22 years to create 6,236 verses and STILL need further examples to get his point across? This need also contradicts verse 5:3, which says he has "completed his favor upon you and chosen Islam as your religion".

2. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a purely orally taught Qur'an would eventually get corrupted and would need to be written down to preserve the original message.

3. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a plan of succession was needed in order to prevent an inevitable power struggle and a potential split.

4. Saving the best for last - the need for imans and scholars to 'interpret' the Qur'an. The whole frigging point of revealing the Qur'an to the masses via Mohamed was for 'Allah' to DIRECTLY and CLEARLY tell them EXACTLY what to think and do. Several verses are reminders of this, and reiterate that the Qur'an was made "easy to understand". If a supposedly infallible being who is capable of wishing the universe into existence couldn't figure out how to adequately communicate a few simple points to the critters that he created for the sole purpose of worshipping him, then he's not much of a 'god'.

 

[Hamish Howl]

So, like every other religion.

 

[stevecanuck]

So, like every other religion.

Wow, that was virtually instant. I'm touched that you hang on my every word. Oh, and yes, justs like every other religion.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Wow, that was virtually instant. I'm touched that you hang on my every word. Oh, and yes, justs like every other religion.

Trust me....no one is hanging on your every word.

If it wasn't Saturday night and home alone I wouldn't bother with your vapid bullshit.

 

[btthegreat]

There are four aspects of Islamic belief that prove (IMO) that the Qur'an, and by extension the religion of Islam, was 100% the product of Mohamed's mind rather than being divinely revealed:

1. The apparent necessity of hadiths to supplement the Qur'an. Does it make any sense that 'Allah' would use 22 years to create 6,236 verses and STILL need further examples to get his point across? This need also contradicts verse 5:3, which says he has "completed his favor upon you and chosen Islam as your religion".

2. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a purely orally taught Qur'an would eventually get corrupted and would need to be written down to preserve the original message.

3. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a plan of succession was needed in order to prevent an inevitable power struggle and a potential split.

4. Saving the best for last - the need for imans and scholars to 'interpret' the Qur'an. The whole frigging point of revealing the Qur'an to the masses via Mohamed was for 'Allah' to DIRECTLY and CLEARLY tell them EXACTLY what to think and do. Several verses are reminders of this, and reiterate that the Qur'an was made "easy to understand". If a supposedly infallible being who is capable of wishing the universe into existence couldn't figure out how to adequately communicate a few simple points to the critters that he created for the sole purpose of worshipping him, then he's not much of a 'god'.

Who is your target audience here? If its someone other than a muslim, we are already there with you. If it's a Muslim, they will not be persuaded.

 

[Individual]

What would you expect of a being who lacked any education at all?

 

[stevecanuck]

Who is your target audience here?

People who read other's thoughts on "Beliefs and Sceptisism" and want to comment on them - so, people who come into a forum like this.

If its someone other than a muslim, we are already there with you. If it's a Muslim, they will not be persuaded.

Yup. Actually we haven't had a Muslim here for quite some time. Too bad.

 

[Juin]

1. The apparent necessity of hadiths to supplement the Qur'an. Does it make any sense that 'Allah' would use 22 years to create 6,236 verses and STILL need further examples to get his point across? This need also contradicts verse 5:3, which says he has "completed his favor upon you and chosen Islam as your religion".

Islam is only half understood in the world outside Islam. The hadiths are a case in point.

The understanding of Islam in the world outside Islam is one of the Quran being the holy book and Mahomet is a prophet. The use of the word "prophet" is misleading. In Christianity a prophet is merely someone chosen by God to communicate to the world. It is not assumed that he is perfect. It is not assumed that he cannot fall into temptation and sin. Critically his personal views and habits don't count. Only what God says through him counts. How he eats, sleeps drinks is his personal business.

Mahometanism in Mahomet proposes a perfect man, or man perfect. Mahomet is the example that must be emulated in everything. There is no abstract good or evil to judge Mahomet by. What is good or evil flows from him. If Mahomet had sex outside marriage, then sex outside marriage is ok.

In other words Mahomet is the Law. His every word or deed is the Law. How he stepped into the restroom- I do not recall if its left foot first- is the law. Kid you not the Mahometan is instructed to hold his penis with left hand when peeing. And after peeing to shake penis three times...

Since Mahomet had to be emulated in everything there was a necessity to collect anecdotes of his life after his death. These are the hadiths. They are usually a paragraph or two going something like: Allah's apostle met Mr this or that.... Each hadith is an incident or encounter recording what Mahomet did, and this becomes law for everyone. To shake the penis after peeing with right hand would be a sin if Mahomet was reliably known to shake with left hand. There are thousands and thousands of these hadiths.

The degree of minutiae is mind boggling. A Mahometan may not pee while facing Mecca, or moon the Mecca. Ideally a compliant Moslem is such that the user inside is aligned such that the axis of symmetry oh his torso bisects perpendicularly the axis connecting him to Mecca.

At the end it is hard to tell if it Mahomet the slave of Allah or vice versa. Mahomet keeps claiming he is the slave but it is Allah doing his every bidding

 

[Hari Seldon]

Islam is only half understood in the world outside Islam. The hadiths are a case in point.

The understanding of Islam in the world outside Islam is one of the Quran being the holy book and Mahomet is a prophet. The use of the word "prophet" is misleading. In Christianity a prophet is merely someone chosen by God to communicate to the world. It is not assumed that he is perfect. It is not assumed that he cannot fall into temptation and sin. Critically his personal views and habits don't count. Only what God says through him counts. How he eats, sleeps drinks is his personal business.

Mahometanism in Mahomet proposes a perfect man, or man perfect. Mahomet is the example that must be emulated in everything. There is no abstract good or evil to judge Mahomet by. What is good or evil flows from him. If Mahomet had sex outside marriage, then sex outside marriage is ok.

In other words Mahomet is the Law. His every word or deed is the Law. How he stepped into the restroom- I do not recall if its left foot first- is the law. Kid you not the Mahometan is instructed to hold his penis with left hand when peeing. And after peeing to shake penis three times...

Since Mahomet had to be emulated in everything there was a necessity to collect anecdotes of his life after his death. These are the hadiths. They are usually a paragraph or two going something like: Allah's apostle met Mr this or that.... Each hadith is an incident or encounter recording what Mahomet did, and this becomes law for everyone. To shake the penis after peeing with right hand would be a sin if Mahomet was reliably known to shake with left hand. There are thousands and thousands of these hadiths.

The degree of minutiae is mind boggling. A Mahometan may not pee while facing Mecca, or moon the Mecca. Ideally a compliant Moslem is such that the user inside is aligned such that the axis of symmetry oh his torso bisects perpendicularly the axis connecting him to Mecca.

At the end it is hard to tell if it Mahomet the slave of Allah or vice versa. Mahomet keeps claiming he is the slave but it is Allah doing his every bidding

Just like the orange Jesus. Anything he does or says is correct no matter how ridiculous or contemptible.

 

[MamboDervish]

All Abrahamic religions stem from the same tainted source, so all are equal in superstition and foolishness.

If those archaic biblical laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the bible, were followed by any developed Western nation, they would be no less stupid and draconian than the countries that practice Sharia Law today.

 

[Sven Karma]

Next you'll be casting aspersions on the origin story of the Book of Mormon.

 

[stevecanuck]

Trust me....no one is hanging on your every word.

Yet, here you are.

If it wasn't Saturday night and home alone I wouldn't bother with your vapid bullshit.

Or, you could tell me what you disagree with - you know - do something other than contribute another mindless driveby.

 

[Mulefoot]

All Abrahamic religions stem from the same tainted source, so all are equal in superstition and foolishness.

If those archaic biblical laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the bible, were followed by any developed Western nation, they would be no less stupid and draconian than the countries that practice Sharia Law today.

The NT replaced OT Levitical law with "Love God, Love Neighbor". From my POV the Levitical law had a variety of purposes - the most common seemingly to physically sustain a relative small tribe of people for some period of time.

Christianity as an Abrahamic religion then draws not on a system of rules and regulations and customs, but on nothing more than his faith. Even so, Abraham's life is completely unnecessary following Christ.

 

[stevecanuck]

Islam is only half understood in the world outside Islam. The hadiths are a case in point.

The understanding of Islam in the world outside Islam is one of the Quran being the holy book and Mahomet is a prophet. The use of the word "prophet" is misleading. In Christianity a prophet is merely someone chosen by God to communicate to the world. It is not assumed that he is perfect. It is not assumed that he cannot fall into temptation and sin. Critically his personal views and habits don't count. Only what God says through him counts. How he eats, sleeps drinks is his personal business.

Mahometanism in Mahomet proposes a perfect man, or man perfect. Mahomet is the example that must be emulated in everything. There is no abstract good or evil to judge Mahomet by. What is good or evil flows from him. If Mahomet had sex outside marriage, then sex outside marriage is ok.

In other words Mahomet is the Law. His every word or deed is the Law. How he stepped into the restroom- I do not recall if its left foot first- is the law. Kid you not the Mahometan is instructed to hold his penis with left hand when peeing. And after peeing to shake penis three times...

Since Mahomet had to be emulated in everything there was a necessity to collect anecdotes of his life after his death. These are the hadiths. They are usually a paragraph or two going something like: Allah's apostle met Mr this or that.... Each hadith is an incident or encounter recording what Mahomet did, and this becomes law for everyone. To shake the penis after peeing with right hand would be a sin if Mahomet was reliably known to shake with left hand. There are thousands and thousands of these hadiths.

The degree of minutiae is mind boggling. A Mahometan may not pee while facing Mecca, or moon the Mecca. Ideally a compliant Moslem is such that the user inside is aligned such that the axis of symmetry oh his torso bisects perpendicularly the axis connecting him to Mecca.

At the end it is hard to tell if it Mahomet the slave of Allah or vice versa. Mahomet keeps claiming he is the slave but it is Allah doing his every bidding

Excellent post.

I suppose the only justification for taking religious instruction from hadiths is that the Qur'an holds Mohamed up as the perfect example as you said, so if Mohamed did it, it's good. That, and because the Qur'an explicitly condones it, is why Muslims can rape their captives with a clear conscience.

However, the rest of it still makes no sense. If 'Allah' meant for men to use their left hands to pee, surely he would have found the time in that 22 years to simply say so in the Qur'an. For example he could have deleted one of the many hundreds of warnings of hell to make room for that.

 

[Bodecea]

There are four aspects of Islamic belief that prove (IMO) that the Qur'an, and by extension the religion of Islam, was 100% the product of Mohamed's mind rather than being divinely revealed:

1. The apparent necessity of hadiths to supplement the Qur'an. Does it make any sense that 'Allah' would use 22 years to create 6,236 verses and STILL need further examples to get his point across? This need also contradicts verse 5:3, which says he has "completed his favor upon you and chosen Islam as your religion".

2. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a purely orally taught Qur'an would eventually get corrupted and would need to be written down to preserve the original message.

3. Neither 'Allah' nor Mohamed figured out that a plan of succession was needed in order to prevent an inevitable power struggle and a potential split.

4. Saving the best for last - the need for imans and scholars to 'interpret' the Qur'an. The whole frigging point of revealing the Qur'an to the masses via Mohamed was for 'Allah' to DIRECTLY and CLEARLY tell them EXACTLY what to think and do. Several verses are reminders of this, and reiterate that the Qur'an was made "easy to understand". If a supposedly infallible being who is capable of wishing the universe into existence couldn't figure out how to adequately communicate a few simple points to the critters that he created for the sole purpose of worshipping him, then he's not much of a 'god'.

No so-called holy books are divinely revealed.


None of them.

 

[stevecanuck]

The NT replaced OT Levitical law with "Love God, Love Neighbor". From my POV the Levitical law had a variety of purposes - the most common seemingly to physically sustain a relative small tribe of people for some period of time.

Christianity as an Abrahamic religion then draws not on a system of rules and regulations and customs, but on nothing more than his faith. Even so, Abraham's life is completely unnecessary following Christ.

Yup.

No matter how much whataboutism the Don't Blame Islam Club throws against the wall, nothing will ever change the fact that the mythical character called Jesus said to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), and the Qur'an says to kill your enemies.

 

[stevecanuck]

No so-called holy books are divinely revealed.


None of them.

Agree.

 

[j brown's body]

I like Thomas Paine's take on this

"...admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

Thomas Paine: Age of Reason

Full text of Thomas Paine's --Age of Reason--

www.ushistory.org

 

[stevecanuck]

I like Thomas Paine's take on this

"...admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

Thomas Paine: Age of Reason

Full text of Thomas Paine's --Age of Reason--

www.ushistory.org

Excellent take on the part of Mr. Paine. To expand on that, the glaring irony of Mohamed's entire ministry is that he was spared the one thing that he requires of his followers - faith. If his story is to be believed, the appearance of Gabriel was physical proof that he was receiving messages from Allah. Everybody else has to take his word for it.

 

[poppopfox]

No matter how much whataboutism the Don't Blame Islam Club throws against the wall, nothing will ever change the fact that the mythical character called Jesus said to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), and the Qur'an says to kill your enemies

AI Overview (Google)

Some passages in the Quran, when taken out of context, may appear to instruct Muslims to kill their enemies However, a closer examination of these verses within their broader context, and with consideration of accompanying verses and historical circumstances, reveals a more nuanced understanding.
Contextual Understanding of Relevant Verses:

• Self-Defense: Several verses, such as Quran 2:190, emphasize that fighting is permissible in self-defense against those who initiate aggression. They explicitly state, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors". This highlights that fighting is allowed only in response to an attack and prohibits exceeding necessary force.
• Response to Persecution: Some verses, like Quran 2:191, mention fighting and killing in the context of persecution, where Muslims were unjustly driven out of their homes. This was revealed to allow Muslims to defend themselves against those who oppressed and attacked them.
• Covenant Violations: Certain verses, such as Quran 9:5, are sometimes interpreted as promoting violence against non-believers. However, scholars suggest that these verses refer to specific historical situations, such as those who broke treaties and continued hostility towards Muslims. They do not advocate for the general killing of non-believers.
• Stopping Aggression: Quran 2:193 states that fighting should continue until oppression ceases. However, it also clarifies that if the aggressors stop their hostility, then fighting must stop.
• Protection of Religious Freedom: The Quran permits defensive war to protect religious freedom for all, including monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques.

Sanctity of Life and Limitations:

• Killing the Innocent: The Quran strongly condemns the killing of innocent people. Quran 5:32 states that killing a soul unjustly is equivalent to killing all of humanity.
• Rules of Warfare: Islam has established strict rules for warfare, including protecting non-combatants, the elderly, women, children, and religious places. Mutilating corpses, using scorched-earth tactics, and attacking before a declaration of war are also forbidden.
• Seeking Peace: The Quran emphasizes the importance of pursuing peace and accepting offers of peace. Muslims are encouraged to negotiate and seek reconciliation whenever possible.

Conclusion:
While some verses in the Quran do address violence and warfare, they are generally interpreted within the context of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and upholding justice. Islamic teachings place a high value on the sanctity of life and advocate for peace and compassion. Aggression, the killing of innocent people, and indiscriminate violence are strictly prohibited.

If Jesus said to love your enemies why have Christians killed millions throughout the centuries since that preaching? IMHO, none of the Abrahamic religions have peace and love as core values.

 

[stevecanuck]

AI Overview (Google)

Some passages in the Quran, when taken out of context, may appear to instruct Muslims to kill their enemies However, a closer examination of these verses within their broader context, and with consideration of accompanying verses and historical circumstances, reveals a more nuanced understanding.
Contextual Understanding of Relevant Verses:

• Self-Defense: Several verses, such as Quran 2:190, emphasize that fighting is permissible in self-defense against those who initiate aggression. They explicitly state, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors". This highlights that fighting is allowed only in response to an attack and prohibits exceeding necessary force.
• Response to Persecution: Some verses, like Quran 2:191, mention fighting and killing in the context of persecution, where Muslims were unjustly driven out of their homes. This was revealed to allow Muslims to defend themselves against those who oppressed and attacked them.
• Covenant Violations: Certain verses, such as Quran 9:5, are sometimes interpreted as promoting violence against non-believers. However, scholars suggest that these verses refer to specific historical situations, such as those who broke treaties and continued hostility towards Muslims. They do not advocate for the general killing of non-believers.
• Stopping Aggression: Quran 2:193 states that fighting should continue until oppression ceases. However, it also clarifies that if the aggressors stop their hostility, then fighting must stop.
• Protection of Religious Freedom: The Quran permits defensive war to protect religious freedom for all, including monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques.

Sanctity of Life and Limitations:

• Killing the Innocent: The Quran strongly condemns the killing of innocent people. Quran 5:32 states that killing a soul unjustly is equivalent to killing all of humanity.
• Rules of Warfare: Islam has established strict rules for warfare, including protecting non-combatants, the elderly, women, children, and religious places. Mutilating corpses, using scorched-earth tactics, and attacking before a declaration of war are also forbidden.
• Seeking Peace: The Quran emphasizes the importance of pursuing peace and accepting offers of peace. Muslims are encouraged to negotiate and seek reconciliation whenever possible.

Conclusion:
While some verses in the Quran do address violence and warfare, they are generally interpreted within the context of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and upholding justice. Islamic teachings place a high value on the sanctity of life and advocate for peace and compassion. Aggression, the killing of innocent people, and indiscriminate violence are strictly prohibited.

If Jesus said to love your enemies why have Christians killed millions throughout the centuries since that preaching? IMHO, none of the Abrahamic religions have peace and love as core values.

I'm busy for the next 6ish hours, and I gotta leave now. I will happily address this perfect example of AI algorithmic bias later (I got this same answer when I asked it).

 

[j brown's body]

Excellent take on the part of Mr. Paine. To expand on that, the glaring irony of Mohamed's entire ministry is that he was spared the one thing that he requires of his followers - faith. If his story is to be believed, the appearance of Gabriel was physical proof that he was receiving messages from Allah. Everybody else has to take his word for it.

Oh, his comments are by no means limited to Islam.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Wow, that was virtually instant. I'm touched that you hang on my every word. Oh, and yes, justs like every other religion.

If a man staggers out in front of my Jeep, I wasn't waiting for him.

By the way, remember when the Catholics put the bible solely in Latin so only the priests could interpret it?

Totally different, right?

 

[Fearandloathing]

All Abrahamic religions stem from the same tainted source, so all are equal in superstition and foolishness.

If those archaic biblical laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the bible, were followed by any developed Western nation, they would be no less stupid and draconian than the countries that practice Sharia Law today.

I once, in bible study, challenged Liviticus

Islam is only half understood in the world outside Islam. The hadiths are a case in point.

The understanding of Islam in the world outside Islam is one of the Quran being the holy book and Mahomet is a prophet. The use of the word "prophet" is misleading. In Christianity a prophet is merely someone chosen by God to communicate to the world. It is not assumed that he is perfect. It is not assumed that he cannot fall into temptation and sin. Critically his personal views and habits don't count. Only what God says through him counts. How he eats, sleeps drinks is his personal business.

Mahometanism in Mahomet proposes a perfect man, or man perfect. Mahomet is the example that must be emulated in everything. There is no abstract good or evil to judge Mahomet by. What is good or evil flows from him. If Mahomet had sex outside marriage, then sex outside marriage is ok.

In other words Mahomet is the Law. His every word or deed is the Law. How he stepped into the restroom- I do not recall if its left foot first- is the law. Kid you not the Mahometan is instructed to hold his penis with left hand when peeing. And after peeing to shake penis three times...

Since Mahomet had to be emulated in everything there was a necessity to collect anecdotes of his life after his death. These are the hadiths. They are usually a paragraph or two going something like: Allah's apostle met Mr this or that.... Each hadith is an incident or encounter recording what Mahomet did, and this becomes law for everyone. To shake the penis after peeing with right hand would be a sin if Mahomet was reliably known to shake with left hand. There are thousands and thousands of these hadiths.

The degree of minutiae is mind boggling. A Mahometan may not pee while facing Mecca, or moon the Mecca. Ideally a compliant Moslem is such that the user inside is aligned such that the axis of symmetry oh his torso bisects perpendicularly the axis connecting him to Mecca.

At the end it is hard to tell if it Mahomet the slave of Allah or vice versa. Mahomet keeps claiming he is the slave but it is Allah doing his every bidding

It's still fiction.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....all this history that's actually irrelevant since the whole show is an invention by man.


Every religion has LAWS. Law is not love. Law is force. Religions impose force and punishment to those who won't conform.

Any god has got to be better than what we call man...and IF he created us, he wouldn't be in such a hurry to wipe out millions on a ****ing whim. He wouldn't be taking sides in our wars. He wouldn't wipe out 800,00 Egyptians to save some Jews. He would have merely given them all sore feet so they couldn't follow.

Oh everyone wants to be so special that a super identity will take us under its wing and love us forever. But the gods of their invention have some very ugly human qualities....like revenge. Revenge is non existent in the animal kingdom. How come we're no better?

Get this. Life is an accident. The more of it there is the more the universe is in peril.

 

[Daisy]

If a man staggers out in front of my Jeep, I wasn't waiting for him.

By the way, remember when the Catholics put the bible solely in Latin so only the priests could interpret it?

Totally different, right?

Even worse, they burned people at the stake...Joan of Arc, for instance...