Is the Quran only for Muslims?

[outhouse]

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'


This states they are factually not historical figures.


The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.

No exodus happened, it factually has no historicity.

In either case, the Book of Exodus forms a "charter myth" for Israel: Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belongs to him through the covenant

Charter myth means it is pseudo history.


and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.

Historians ALL agree on Israelites Canaanite origin, since the exodus is mythology.


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century Kingdom of Judah.

This states we see it was a literary creation

That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible

exodus impossible

While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

Moses as written factually has no historicity.

 

[Pastek]

This in context is talking about some of the Pharisees and temple authorities which acted as the governement and treasury known to be corrupted due to Roman oppression.

It is not addressing Judaism or Christianity as a whole.

And it in context has absolutely nothing to do with the koran verse I posted that shows islams book factually tearing out the heart of christianity

Like Islam, the verses you quoted aren't about their religions as a whole.
The Quran just said what was said before, it was concerning the fact that some don't practice the Law. Like i quoted in one of my post before, if you remember.

5.68 Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord."

It was never against the religion like you try to say but the acts of some people.


And the Trinity is not a teaching from Jesus. So the Quran doesn't attack something that Jesus never said.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'


This states they are factually not historical figures.


The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.

No exodus happened, it factually has no historicity.

In either case, the Book of Exodus forms a "charter myth" for Israel: Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belongs to him through the covenant

Charter myth means it is pseudo history.


and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.

Historians ALL agree on Israelites Canaanite origin, since the exodus is mythology.


Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century Kingdom of Judah.

This states we see it was a literary creation

That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible

exodus impossible

While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

Moses as written factually has no historicity.

That you called as proof ? Wikipedia ? You must be joking . . .

Show me the verse and the errors. . . . what evidence you have to disapprove all those scriptures ?

This is a Scriptural Debates section.

 

[outhouse]

And the Trinity is not a teaching from Jesus. So the Quran doesn't attack something that Jesus never said.

I never said jesus you did.

I said you attack christianity at its heart ripping it out, as you do.

 

[outhouse]

That you called as proof ? .

Do all muslims hate education and knowledge?

Every word there is sourced to a professor or archeologist.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Who writes Wikipedia?

You do! Yes, Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a "Wikipedian," or, more formally, an "editor." When a large group of people work to compile information on a given topic, disputes may arise. A useful feature of Wikipedia is the ability to tag an article, or a section of the article, as subject of a dispute about a neutral point of view. This feature is especially popular for controversial topics, topics subject to changing current events or other topics where divergent opinions exist. To resolve the dispute, the interested editors will share their points of view on the article's talk page. They will attempt to reach consensus so that all valid perspectives can be fairly represented. This allows Wikipedia to be a place not only of information but of collaboration. Now it's time to ask yourself- have YOU edited an article on this wiki before??

Many users of Wikipedia consult the page history of an article in order to assess the number, and the perspective, of people who contributed to the article. You may also consult the talk page of any article to see what other readers and editors have to say about it.

Our best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted "featured" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.)

 

[outhouse]

This is a Scriptural Debates section.

And the evidence I provided shows mythology and pseudo history of your scripture. :yes:


You gots any ebidunce

 

[outhouse]

Who writes Wikipedia?

:biglaugh:


Your so funny

It works against you


That means all of islam cannot change a single word on its pages, because it has nothing credible to change a SINGLE word! let alone a paragraph.


Why dont muslims change it then since it shows no divine inspiration ???????????????

 

[Muslim Atheism]

And the evidence I provided shows mythology and pseudo history of your scripture. :yes:


You gots any ebidunce

You know nothing about the Quran and history. . . and you know nothing about weight of evidence.

That is not truth

That is not knowledge. .

That is lying, deception.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

:biglaugh:


Your so funny

It works against you


That means all of islam cannot change a single word on its pages, because it has nothing credible to change a SINGLE word! let alone a paragraph.


Why dont muslims change it then since it shows no divine inspiration ???????????????

None you refer is from the Quran and if it is the truth, why it is so hard for you to point out the errors and the verses ?

Straight to the main source of evidence. . . prove it from the Quran.

I have been asking the verse for almost 3 pages. . .

 

[outhouse]

You gots any ebidunce?

You have no credibility.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

Philosophy of history

The term philosophy of history refers to the theoretical aspect of history, in two senses. It is customary to distinguish critical philosophy of history from speculative philosophy of history. Critical philosophy of history is the "theory" aspect of the discipline of academic history, and deals with questions such as the nature of historical evidence, the degree to which objectivity is possible, etc. Speculative philosophy of history is an area of philosophy concerning the eventual significance, if any, of human history.[1] Furthermore, it speculates as to a possible teleological end to its development—that is, it asks if there is a design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the processes of human history.

 

[outhouse]

No more food for you.

Now on ignore list

 

[Muslim Atheism]

You gots any ebidunce?

You have no credibility.

Simple question, where is the verse from the Quran, which part from the Bible?

Can you prove or not ?

If you can't . . . then it is a deception. You know nothing about all the things you talk about. It is all BS.

You have no credibility.

You are making all the blank claims against billion of peoples , I'm merely asking you to prove your blank allegations , then why I'm the one who is not credible ? It is your burden of proof, and it is you who have no credibility.

 

[outhouse]

This kind of religion is not ready to go global. It shows barabaric practices.

Four beheaded corpses found in Egypt's Sinai: security sources


CAIRO (Reuters) - Four beheaded corpses were found by residents of a town in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Wednesday, security sources said, blaming Islamist militants waging an insurgency against Cairo

Im sure they feel justified in their religious actions.

 

[Muslim Atheism]

So where does it say in the Quran about beheading people's head?

Can you point out the verse from the Quran , and how does it relate and justified the above facts ?

 

[outhouse]

More not ready for prime time religion.

Obama: US won't stop confronting Islamic State

Calling the Islamic State a cancer, Obama forcefully condemned the group that seized territory in Iraq and Syria, and he called for a vigilant, relentless and global effort to curtail an organization he said is torturing, raping and murdering thousands of people in "cowardly acts of violence."

 

[Muslim Atheism]

That is not a discussion or a debate. . . . Where does it allowed in the Quran? What verse?

This is a discussion and scriptural debate forum, or you're merely interested to debate with yourself and enjoying posting external links?

. . .

What is Islam ?
Who is a Muslim?

2. To believe Islam is about Muslim is a fallacy and lack of common sense for differentiating the "Causation" and "Association".

Gandhi has said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Christ is the idea and Christians is the followers of that idea. Christians is not about causation, but about their association with the ideology of Christ. For someone to assume Christ is Christians, they must answer one "missing premise":

Do they follow what is taught from the doctrine ?​

Therefore, those who assume Christ as Christians are those who fail to differentiate Causation and Association. They have an inherent tendency to “see” events associated or that “go together” as “events that cause one another”; ie. they conclude that because characteristic X (smoking) is associated with characteristic Y (death), that X therefore causes Y (death). Whereas someone may die for many reasons. This conclusion is a fallacy.

Similarly, Islam is the doctrine from the Quran and Muslims are the followers of that doctrine. Islam is an idea and Muslim is about people. Islam is not Muslim and Muslim is not Islam. Islam is not Muhammad and Muhammad is not Islam. Muhammad is a Muslim, not Islam. Therefore and for one to assume Islam as Muslim, they must at least answered one "missing premise":

Do they follow what is taught from the Quran ?​

If they cannot prove Muslim are following the doctrine from the Quran, then it is not about Islam and it is a fallacious argument. It is at least the fallacy of the Ignoratio Elenchi, the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. According to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from “ignorance of the nature of refutation,” ie. proving the wrong point.​

 

[Smart_Guy]

I tend to promote truth in science and history.

Religion does not do this, I wish it did.


This is not personal against you, I actually like you and find you to be very reasonable to some extent, and of good character.

I dont give blind compliments either.

Science is a good argument there, but history? That's the same complaint you have against me, which means your own argument applies right back at you. And no, the sources you gave me does not change a thing. You have your sources and I have mine. It changes nothing important simply believing your sources are legit and mine are not.

Why even go there? I have no ill feelings. All I am trying to do is get you to accept the historical truth knowmn through credible education and knowledge.

Have I stated or implied even the thought of going there? I'm only describing your way in being forcibly insistent in planting your beliefs at me as if it something as serious as reacting/defending against physical harm. I know you have no ill feelings

Again, you claim your sources credible knowledge and truth and I claim mine so.

Exactly.

But we have contrasting views. We are supposed to be debating to find truth. One of us is backed by education and every college in the world, the other person by religious views containing some mythology.

Keeping your religious views are great, I have no issue with that.

Its when you make statements against this knowledge, that I am trying to correct, it is my position islam is not for the rest of the world, as your own people murder each other over the books. More so then teh rest of the worlds religions. And in debating this, trying to find out why to correct these issues. If we dont run from the truth.

We had our debate, we finished at and have noting more to say about it, why keep insisting on trying to force it to one another after we ended it?

And, I said so many times that I do not give statements against your knowledge, I give my beliefs and what I'm convinced of. That mean it does not negate nor offend what you say. I'm just not convinced about it is all.

If I gave you the implication that I offended your sources or knowledge, then I apologies and it was not my intention.

 

[outhouse]

. And no, the sources you gave me does not change a thing. You have your sources and I have mine. It changes nothing important simply believing your sources are legit and mine are not.

I understand no amount of education and knowledge will be accepted

That is the problem with your religion and why it is not ready for everyone


Fundamentalism and fanaticism is a global problem, not a solution.

Again, you claim your sources credible knowledge and truth and I claim mine so.

The difference is I have credible evidence, and you have absolutely nothing