Merged What the quran really says.

[Craig B]

I have not seen much criticism of the Quran over past centuries. There is one book entitled ' the original sources of the Qur'an ' by William Tisdall.
I actually just got a copy of it in paperback, but I have read some of it before because it is available, free to read on the internet.

I am fully aware there is a direct correlation between the Quran and the bible.

It is my argument that Muhammad stole most of his material from the bible because it occurred to him he could scare people into following him by pretending to get a message from God.

The bible is obviously full of trash, but I am not bothered about that and I do not intend to study the bible to find flaws in it because it has been done by experts.

Are you saying that people who derive ideas from the Bible are all swindlers? There is no good reason to suppose that, in the case of the Quran. Muhammad was exposed to the Judaism and Christianity already widespread in Arabia. His ides of what monotheism is, and on the attributes of God, were modelled on the Torah and the Testaments, for he had no other sources. It's possible that Muhammad was a charlatan, but more likely that he was really intellectually influenced by earlier religious teachings, as people have been both before and since his day.

Real charlatan religions do exist. Mormonism and Scientology are examples. Islam doesn't look quite as phoney or contrived as these later outfits.

 

[JJM 777]

Real charlatan religions do exist. Mormonism and Scientology are examples. Islam doesn't look quite as phoney or contrived as these later outfits.

To me, the Quran looks every bit as dishonestly designed as the Book of Mormon. But now that these works do exist, believing on them is on par with believing in the Bible or any other religious work. Believers in these religions are mostly not charlatans, they are simply misled.

 

[JJM 777]

As distinct from the Bible the Koran is meant to be the actual word of God. Only some small parts of the Bible are.

Practically all Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is word of God, inspired directly by God letter by letter, even if handwritten by humans. Even Jesus makes this claim concerning the Hebrew Torah.

 

[JJM 777]

I have not seen much criticism of the Quran over past centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran

Is the Quran the words of God?

My answer to that question is a definite no

Hmmm. How would you personally answer this question: Do any words of God exist, anywhere? Which is nearly same as: Does any God exist, anywhere?

My argument is largely that Muhammad plagiarised the bible and quotes it as factual when the bible stories are largely myths. I am thinking of the parting of the red sea, and Jonah and the whale, and Noah's ark, all of which are mentioned in the Quran as history. When in reality they are only myths.

But Christians happily believe in these stories, or happily ignore them if they don't believe them literally. So why would discrediting these stories in the context of Quran make a massive impact on anyone or anything, if it doesn't in the context of Christianity?

verse 22.5 of the quran did not require any revelation from God, as Muhammad could have been well aware of most of what is involved in the natural process of gestation.

Uhh oh. Don't expect to find even one verse in Quran and the Bible combined, for which your above-quoted statement would not be equally true.

The quran is clearly stating that the Sun has an orbit and the only realistic meaning of these verses is that Muhammed believed the Sun orbits the earth.

Don't spoil you critique of Quran with such unfounded guesswork. If Quran doesn't say that Sun orbits the earth, then it doesn't and it's the end of that topic.

Muhammed calls the Moon a light, which makes clear he did not know it was reflecting the Suns light. He clearly regards the Sun and Moon as separate sources of light, one for the day and the other for night.

The Bible does the same. But again, these conclusions are not worth a dime, they can be dismissed by saying that these verses were meant as allegorical simplifications. And that will be the end of topic for the other party in discussion, nothing to be won with such a weak argument. It merely risks the other party getting tired of you and going away before you make any statements that might actually matter something to someone.

 

[Craig B]

To me, the Quran looks every bit as dishonestly designed as the Book of Mormon. But now that these works do exist, believing on them is on par with believing in the Bible or any other religious work. Believers in these religions are mostly not charlatans, they are simply misled.

i agree. I mean the founders of these religions were charlatans, and the holy texts are phoney concoctions.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Quran was compiled as a single volume only after Muhammad's death, and consists of sermons and other pronouncements he made during his period of religious activity.

It is conceivable that Muhammad really believed he was channeling the Angel Gabriel when he delivered religious teachings, but it is simply not possible that Joseph Smith was sincere about his golden plates and the magic stone spectacles that could translate the words on them.

 

[Scorpion]

Don't spoil you critique of Quran with such unfounded guesswork. If Quran doesn't say that Sun orbits the earth, then it doesn't and it's the end of that topic.

I have shown that when the Quran says the sun has an orbit it means the sun orbits the earth by referring to a Hadith. See post one of this thread.

 

[Scorpion]

Oh really? We have an islamist to hand posting islamist crap. I am posting against him and you are not. Odd that.

Why is that. Surely this is your chance, After all this guy is a mad islamist. But OK, your are afraid. Sure I can understand why you might chicken out, WT actual F? You have the opportunity to make your case to an actual islamic wingnut and you are afraid to even open your beak?

Credibility is not a boomerang. Once you chuck it away, it is not returning.

There is an islamist posting here. Where, where show me, and I will chomp on his liver.

 

[Oystein]

i agree. I mean the founders of these religions were charlatans, and the holy texts are phoney concoctions.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Quran was compiled as a single volume only after Muhammad's death, and consists of sermons and other pronouncements he made during his period of religious activity.

It is conceivable that Muhammad really believed he was channeling the Angel Gabriel when he delivered religious teachings, but it is simply not possible that Joseph Smith was sincere about his golden plates and the magic stone spectacles that could translate the words on them.

It appears that the content of some suras was opportunisticallx crafted to suit Muhammad's political needs at the time. This smacks of deliberate, uninspired fiddling.

 

[Scorpion]

It appears that the content of some suras was opportunisticallx crafted to suit Muhammad's political needs at the time. This smacks of deliberate, uninspired fiddling.

I agree, he states he can have as many wives as he wants, and he is entitled to one fifth of the spoils of war. He says how people are to behave in his tent, and says people are not to annoy the prophet.

He uses many verses to justify himself and say he is not just a mad poet.
He excuses the fact that he cannot produce an angel to speak on his behalf.

He uses a surah to condemn his own aunt and uncle to hell for denying he was a prophet. What a thing to write in a book claiming to be the final message from God.

 

[Craig B]

I agree, he states he can have as many wives as he wants, and he is entitled to one fifth of the spoils of war. He says how people are to behave in his tent, and says people are not to annoy the prophet.

He uses many verses to justify himself and say he is not just a mad poet.
He excuses the fact that he cannot produce an angel to speak on his behalf.

He uses a surah to condemn his own aunt and uncle to hell for denying he was a prophet. What a thing to write in a book claiming to be the final message from God.

You have proved that his statements weren't a message from God. We agree on that.

He didn't "write a book": his utterances were assembled and redacted by other hands after he died.

However, Muhammad might well have persuaded himself that God was permitting him to have as many wives as he wanted. Such types of self serving delusion are not unknown, are they? Perhaps he believed sincerely that he was not merely a mad poet (albeit that Arabia then abounded in mad poets, it seems.) Such utterances are more credible as honest delusions than Joseph Smith's Magic "seer stone" scam, or L Ron Hubbard's SF gibberish.

 

[Scorpion]

You have proved that his statements weren't a message from God. We agree on that.

He didn't "write a book": his utterances were assembled and redacted by other hands after he died.

However, Muhammad might well have persuaded himself that God was permitting him to have as many wives as he wanted. Such types of self serving delusion are not unknown, are they? Perhaps he believed sincerely that he was not merely a mad poet (albeit that Arabia then abounded in mad poets, it seems.) Such utterances are more credible as honest delusions than Joseph Smith's Magic "seer stone" scam, or L Ron Hubbard's SF gibberish.

I think it is arguable that Muhammad did not even believe in God and he was a deliberate liar. He seems obsessed with the consequences of lying about God, as can be seen from the following Quranic verses. If he really believed in God he would be unlikely to lie about being a messenger.



4.50 Behold! how they invent a lie against God! but that by itself is a manifest sin!

6.21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God or rejecteth His signs? But verily the wrong-doers never shall prosper.

10.17 Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against God, or deny His Signs? But never will prosper those who sin.

11.18 Who doth more wrong than those who invent a lie against God? They will be turned back to the presence of their Lord, and the witnesses will say, "These are the ones who lied against their Lord! Behold! the Curse of God is on those who do wrong! -

29.68 And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against God or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith?

39.32 Who, then, doth more wrong than one who utters a lie concerning God, and rejects the Truth when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?

61.70 Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against God, even as he is being invited to Islam? And God guides not those who do wrong.

72.5 'But we do think that no man or spirit should say aught that untrue against God.

 

[Scorpion]

Looks like Muhammad had trouble convincing people he was not just a mad poet in his own lifetime.

021.005 "Nay," they say, "(these are) medleys of dream! - Nay, He forged it! -Nay, He is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!"

026.224 And the Poets,- It is those straying in Evil, who follow them:

036.069 We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear:

037.036 And say: "What! shall we give up our gods for the sake of a Poet
possessed?"

052.030 Or do they say:- "A Poet! we await for him some calamity (hatched) by Time!"

069.041 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!

 

[Craig B]

I think it is arguable that Muhammad did not even believe in God and he was a deliberate liar. He seems obsessed with the consequences of lying about God, as can be seen from the following Quranic verses. If he really believed in God he would be unlikely to lie about being a messenger.



4.50 Behold! how they invent a lie against God! but that by itself is a manifest sin!

6.21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God or rejecteth His signs? But verily the wrong-doers never shall prosper.

10.17 Who doth more wrong than such as forge a lie against God, or deny His Signs? But never will prosper those who sin.

11.18 Who doth more wrong than those who invent a lie against God? They will be turned back to the presence of their Lord, and the witnesses will say, "These are the ones who lied against their Lord! Behold! the Curse of God is on those who do wrong! -

29.68 And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against God or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith?

39.32 Who, then, doth more wrong than one who utters a lie concerning God, and rejects the Truth when it comes to him; is there not in Hell an abode for blasphemers?

61.70 Who doth greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against God, even as he is being invited to Islam? And God guides not those who do wrong.

72.5 'But we do think that no man or spirit should say aught that untrue against God.

Nothing in these verses indicates to me disbelief in God. Most likely, he was emphasising his own credentials as a messenger of God, which is a very understandable attitude to be adopted by a person believing himself to be a prophet.

Of course it is possible that Muhammad was a charlatan, but the differences between Muhammad on one hand, and Smith or Hubbard on the other are very significant. They were very obvious charlatans and swindlers. If Muhammad was a crook as well, he was more successful in disguising that fact, at the very least. And I say again, he didn't write a book; his utterances were compiled following his death, and they look very plausible as preaching of a monotheist prophet with the cultural and geographical background we see recorded in his biography.

 

[Thor 2]

He, Muhammad, does go on about it though doesn't he?

I wonder about those that feel they must repeat the same things over and over as a kind of chant. Is it an indication of their own insecurity of belief?

These words spoken at many (most?) Christian burials have always intrigued me:

"...... in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who ..."

In sure and certain hope???

Do not these words betray a feeling of uncertainty by overly trying to re-assure the faithful?

 

[Craig B]

He, Muhammad, does go on about it though doesn't he?

I wonder about those that feel they must repeat the same things over and over as a kind of chant. Is it an indication of their own insecurity of belief?

That illustrates the nature of the origin of the Quran. Following the death of Muhammad the various things he said that had been jotted down or memorised during his lifetime by hearers were collected together, reduced to writing and edited. Obviously Muhammad often said the same sorts of things in sermons and other teachings, delivered at different times or to different audiences. His favourite doctrines and themes appeared time and again, as one might expect. The mode of creation of the Quran, collecected from different notes and memories, ensured that such repetitions would be reproduced in the written work.

 

[JJM 777]

It is conceivable that Muhammad really believed he was channeling the Angel Gabriel when he delivered religious teachings

This is a matter of faith taste. My general feeling about nearly all politicized religious power, from ancient shamans to native South American human sacrifice and Catholic Church and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam, is that the highest-ranking guys always knew they were pretending to the general masses a lot more than they knew to be reality. A charlatan lives in every shaman and in every religious leader, if you ask me.

I have read the Koran from cover to cover, and my general feeling was that this guy is mainly just making up and using religion as a tool for political power. Consciously, charlatan-wise. Such as:

It appears that the content of some suras was opportunisticallx crafted to suit Muhammad's political needs at the time. This smacks of deliberate, uninspired fiddling.

I have shown that when the Quran says the sun has an orbit it means the sun orbits the earth by referring to a Hadith. See post one of this thread.

Mixing up Quran and Hadith will not help your cause. If Hadith says that the Sun orbits the Earth, then the truth is that Hadith says that the Sun orbits the Earth, and you should say that Hadith says that the Sun orbits the Earth. Nothing to do with Quran then, but a lot to do with Islamic tradition, of course.

How would you personally answer this question: Do any words of God exist, anywhere? Which is nearly same as: Does any God exist, anywhere?

Would be informative to get an answer to this question from Scorpion.

 

[Craig B]

This is a matter of faith taste. My general feeling about nearly all politicized religious power, from ancient shamans to native South American human sacrifice and Catholic Church and Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam, is that the highest-ranking guys always knew they were pretending to the general masses a lot more than they knew to be reality. A charlatan lives in every shaman and in every religious leader, if you ask me.
I have read the Koran from cover to cover, and my general feeling was that this guy is mainly just making up and using religion as a tool for political power. Consciously, charlatan-wise

Such as:

It appears that the content of some suras was opportunisticallx crafted to suit Muhammad's political needs at the time. This smacks of deliberate, uninspired fiddling.​

Leaving aside Islam in particular, I think you're taking a very extreme view of religious ideologies in general. I don't think it's as simple as to say. "It's all baloney so all these guys must be liars."

As to particular preaching being in line with political needs: this is a common feature of delusions of all kinds, honest or otherwise.

 

[Oystein]

Muhammad is far more removed in time, culture and language, and less directly known by own words, than are Hubbard and Smith. That makes it far more difficult for us to get a feel for what he "really" thought and believed.

My gut feeling is that the resemblance between Muhammad and Smith is striking.

 

[Craig B]

Muhammad is far more removed in time, culture and language, and less directly known by own words, than are Hubbard and Smith. That makes it far more difficult for us to get a feel for what he "really" thought and believed.

My gut feeling is that the resemblance between Muhammad and Smith is striking.

There is a major resemblance. They both created new religious communities and during their lifetimes were simultaneously the spiritual and secular rulers of these communities. But beyond that, the differences were substantial. Mhd's religious teachings stemmed from Jewish and Christian monotheistic influences, as well as established Arab pagan beliefs (about e.g. Jinns) and practices (e.g. Pilgrimage to Mecca); and the literature by which he is known was collected after his death from his lifetime teaching and preaching. This is all plausible enough as sincere activity, although of course it can't be excluded that he successfully practiced deceit.

Smith was different. Already an experienced treasure hunter, using magic stones to locate missing objects for a fee, he concocted a religion along the same lines, with a rigmarole of golden plates and magic translation stones.

He has been caught out with phoney translations of Egyptian scrolls. The decipherment of hieroglyphs happened at the same time as the invention of Mormonism, though Smith and other inhabitants of rural USA weren't up to speed with that, and carried on spouting gibberish about messages written by the patriarch Joseph, when they encountered ancient papyri.

Smith's history of ancient civilisations in America - still a popular scam theme, by the way - was a complete fabrication, in a sense in which Mhd's sometimes eccentric treatment of existing monotheistic literary sources was not clearly the product of deceit.

Mhd underwent persecution in Mecca, and he escaped from it not obviously by design, but by chance, when he was invited by the people of Medina to settle disputes among them, as an "honest broker", a common Arab custom. He migrated to an existing city by invitation of its residents. Smith dragged his group into the wilderness whenever things became too hot for him in settled areas, and his successor followed him in this practice.

There are a great many differences, too many to be listed here.

 

[Oystein]

While I agree with your assessment of Smith, I think some of your harsher treatment of him is due to simply you seeing him so much clearer and in greater detail, as he is so much closer in time and culture.

Both made up more "revelations" on the go to fix problems with their immediate political situation. That's the main thing. Both indeed relocated their flock in response to outside pressure.

Differences abound, naturally.