(March 17, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:This is for those who say Ummayads founded the Quran!

You are sounding more and more desperate. Are we finally getting through to you?

"Jesus" had a family too. So what? It's still made up bullshit. Just like your fucking koran.

Strawman. Why would Ummayads say the family of Mohammad has authority and are chosen guides in Quran while their official doctrine is that they are not authorities or chosen guides so much so they prosecuted those who believed in family of Mohammad being Guides. Go ahead and explain it. Why would they make up a teaching and doctrine in Quran, but then go oppose it. Go ahead and explain it.

Uthman canonized the Quran some time after Mohammed's death. Add to this fact the tradition of how the Quran was cobbled together and the fact that Mohammed wrote nothing himself. Sprinkle on top the claim of 'the last prophet' (bullshit detector should be pegged high). Mix all this together and it takes some major league gullibility to think that the Quran as we know it today is exactly how Mohammed dictated it.

(March 17, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Cato Wrote: Uthman canonized the Quran some time after Mohammed's death. Add to this fact the tradition of how the Quran was cobbled together and the fact that Mohammed wrote nothing himself. Sprinkle on top the claim of 'the last prophet' (bullshit detector should be pegged high). Mix all this together and it takes some major league gullibility to think that the Quran as we know it today is exactly how Mohammed dictated it.

Uthman collecting the Quran was taken to have no proof by those claiming Mohammad didn't exist as they believed Islam was founded much later. All such "reports" of history had no strength. Now you take some reports as absolute fact. This makes me laugh.

(March 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 17, 2015 at 3:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So this is strong evidence that it was founded by either God or Mohammad!

There you have it, folks. A future "former skeptic."

---

RobertE: [hide] tags!

You mean spoiler the huge text that was quoted in my first reply?

Edit: just to clarify, this is what I am commenting on:

(March 17, 2015 at 3:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The theory that Mohammad didn't found the Quran asserts that rulers made up the religion for there interest. Those in power made the religion.

And also this:

(March 17, 2015 at 3:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: So this is strong evidence that it was founded by either God or Mohammad!

While I have no proof of this, it would make sense that people make up religions for their own gain. Looking at religion from the outside, I see an entity that is attempting to control people and people do use religion to try and control people. If you are scared of hell and want to make it into heaven then it makes sense to believe. People in power have known this for centuries. There are countless Churches with grand paintings and stained glass windows depicting all sorts of things and the paintings serve reminders of what the Churches want people to believe. On many Mosques you have something similar in the calligraphic inscriptions.

Need I remind people that many people have not read the Quran in a language that they can understand? This allows people to use the Quran to abuse people and, like the Bible, people do use it to justify whatever they want, knowing that many people haven't/can't/won't read it. As a result of the high rates of illiteracy in many countries, people are unable to understand the religious texts they hold dear, text such as the Quran, and this obviously causes problems. The problem of illiteracy was even worse in the days of the Salaf.

Even if people did not create a religion for their own gain we shouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that it's 'the truth' because we shouldn't judge a religion solely on that basis. If we did, then it could be argued that any number of religions could be 'the truth' just on the basis that the people who kick-started that particular religion didn't do it for personal again.

Taking your argument at face value would suggest that Buddha, the Gurus of Sikhism and Jesus also created the right religion because there is no suggestion that they did it for personal gain. And we cannot have that, now can we? Heck, Buddha suffered a lot and even gave up his life as a member of the royal family of his country so he couldn't have done it for personal gain because he gave up all his wealth!

Jesus I can sort of understand because he also considered a prophet. But Buddha, really? Or will you agree with the Ahmadiyya and claim that Buddha was also a prophet even though it is clear that he taught things that contradict that Quran? Ahmadiyya also believe that the likes of Zoroaster, Krishna and Confucius where prophets too even though they each spread messages that contradict one another.

Your argument might be compelling were it not for the numerous problems I see in the Quran - mainly ones relating to a lack of historical accuracy. But in regard to your comment about Sunnis: they use a similar argument. Sure, Sunnis don't talk about Immans in the Quran, but they say something similar and I've heard it on several occasions. I know this because I spend hours listening or watching often mind-numbing, but occasionally hilarious, videos made by those wanting to spread al-Saud's cultural hegemony.

Here is an argument I've heard from people wanting spread the ideas of Mr. Wahhab and export the Saudi Arabian status quo:

Either Muhammad was deluded/had psychological issues, he did what he did for personal gain or he revealed 'the truth'. Muhammad could not have been deluded because... Muhammad could not have been doing it for personal gain because... Therefore Muhammad revealed 'the truth'.

That same argument that people didn't do it for personal gain can be applied to Buddha, the gurus of Sikhism and many others too. Nobody wants to believe that the people who kick-started their religion did it for personal gain. People sometimes make irrational choices because they have an emotional investment in a particular religion/text. People are always wanting to put bandages on their religious texts because they'd hate to concede that they are wrong.

Wow, learn to read and address the actual argument. Where was I arguing with your arguments. I'm saying this is proof Ummayads didn't found the Quran. I never talked about personal gains of Mohammad or even tried to argue to show Islam is true.

(March 17, 2015 at 5:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Uthman collecting the Quran was taken to have no proof by those claiming Mohammad didn't exist as they believed Islam was founded much later. All such "reports" of history had no strength. Now you take some reports as absolute fact. This makes me laugh.

I am not one that made the claims you are arguing against. Try again.

(March 17, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Cato Wrote:

(March 17, 2015 at 5:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Uthman collecting the Quran was taken to have no proof by those claiming Mohammad didn't exist as they believed Islam was founded much later. All such "reports" of history had no strength. Now you take some reports as absolute fact. This makes me laugh.

I am not one that made the claims you are arguing against. Try again.

The general view is that the recitation in which dialect is what Uthman canonized and not the actual letters of the Quran which was canonized during lifetime of the Messenger.

At any rate, despite his efforts, Muslims have different variations of recitation.

For example. There is a verse that says "El Yaseen" according to some of the recitations passed down and it says "Auli Yaseen" according to others.

That is something that a lot of Muslims don't know but it has not been safeguarded.

Although most Qurans printed today are of a certain recitation, there is no way to know that recitation was the one recited by the Messenger.

(March 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Although most Qurans printed today are of a certain recitation, there is no way to know that recitation was the one recited by the Messenger.

That's only important for believers. Theological splitting of hairs. The only thing mattering is that Islam grew in power during the 7th century and became a force to be reckoned with. It's historical role is the only thing mattering for outsiders. Yes, it is interesting who actually compiled the book. But purely from a historical perspective. The figure of Mohammed is also of interest, but again, from a historical and not from a theologic perspective.

(March 17, 2015 at 5:39 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Wow, learn to read and address the actual argument. Where was I arguing with your arguments. I'm saying this is proof Ummayads didn't found the Quran. I never talked about personal gains of Mohammad or even tried to argue to show Islam is true.

MysticKnight, I was addressing these points you raised in your initial post to this topic, the opening paragraph in fact:

"The theory that Mohammad didn't found the Quran asserts that rulers made up the religion for there interest. Those in power made the religion."

In particular the part where you said "those in power made the religion". You made a claim when you said "asserts that" and I am assessing that claim. I am saying that it's possible that people can create religions for gain and even if a religion isn't it doesn't matter. So I think my contribution deserves to be addressed.