I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

[Immanuel Can]

I've read the Koran, in English, as I do not know Arabic. It is perhaps the most boring book I have ever read.

Absolutely. Same here.

It was so boring I had to fight to get through. It's entirely without charm, wit or literary style.

[Seleucus]

Why it gets a free pass from the Left, including from the British Labour Party that is essentially aligned with Hamas and terrorism, can be explained by sharing a common enemy --- a hatred of Jews, as well as a hatred of capitalism and free-speech and civil liberty that were developed in the western world.

I put it in terms of "Social Dominance Theory", but I've come to the same exact conclusion.

[Science Fan]

I'm glad someone had the same experience reading the Koran that I did --- I actually fell asleep something like four times trying to get through it. It was that boring. Then, after I finished, I remember thinking, "What's all the fuss about? This is a trivially boring book written by people who obviously didn't know much."

[Science Fan]

I'm not familiar with social dominance theory, but am glad to know you came to the same conclusion I did about these groups.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm glad someone had the same experience reading the Koran that I did --- I actually fell asleep something like four times trying to get through it. It was that boring. Then, after I finished, I remember thinking, "What's all the fuss about? This is a trivially boring book written by people who obviously didn't know much."

Islamists proudly say Mohammed was entirely illiterate. I believe them. But in point of fact, it's not even clear how much of it he spoke (he wrote none of it, they say, for obvious reasons: if he couldn't write, he couldn't). It's a compilation of snippets other people remembered him as saying, culled from a pile of alleged sayings of his that the later authorities decided were "not authentic," and burned.

So nobody knows what percentage of the book even hails back to Mohammed. And anyway, as you say, it's a boring, uninspired, and encourages homicide, xenophobia, intolerance and hatred of women.

That's maybe the best you can say about it.

[Science Fan]

The thing is about the claim regarding Muhammad being an illiterate is that Muslims also claim they have a duty to learn. So, that would mean Muhammad violated the teachings of Islam by being ignorant.

In researching the historical evidence, however, I have concluded that Muhammad never actually existed. Islam also appears to have come along the scene long after Muslims claim it originated. Part of the evidence against the existence of Muhammad consists of the following facts: 1. The alleged tribe that Muhammad was supposedly born into has no record of existing. Muslims even claim this tribe had a political alliance with Rome, but the Roman records do not list this tribe, while we do have Roman records listing other tribes in the area. 2. There is no evidence that Mecca existed during the alleged lifetime of Muhammad. It is certainly located in a place where it could not possibly have been the center of trade. 3. All of the earliest mosques point away from Mecca and only over something like a century did the mosques get built facing Mecca. 4. No one wrote anything about the alleged Muhammad during his alleged lifetime, including the enemies he would have supposedly conquered.

Every time I point out these facts to a Muslim, I never get any refutation, and typically they run away from the topic. The fact that Muhammad did not actually exist explains why there is a narrative thread lacking about him in the Koran, and why the Hadith collections are all over the map on what he allegedly did or did not do. Even the so-called five pillars of Islam are not mentioned in the Koran, as an actual fundamental doctrine of Islam, and some of the Hadiths only mention three pillars, or four, and not five. So, even the most basic aspects of Islamic doctrine do not appear to have been actually dictated by any alleged Muhammad but appear to have been pieced together haphazardly after the fact.

Also, what was all that stuff about "We did this..." and "We did that..." in the Koran when it mentions the supernatural? That's not even monotheism but some form of paganism, which adds credibility to the notion that Islam originated from paganism.

[Immanuel Can]

... I have concluded that Muhammad never actually existed. Islam also appears to have come along the scene long after Muslims claim it originated.

Have you heard about "The Night Journey"? Mohammed is said to have ascended to heaven on a winged horse, flying up from the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem. In fact, this is the Muslim rationale for calling Jerusalem its "3rd most holy site," and the reason for the mosque there.

But here's the problem: if Mohammed knew anything about Jerusalem at that time, he'd never have made such a claim. Why? Because a that time, there was no Temple in Jerusalem! It had been levelled. There's no way he actually ascended to heaven from there.

Now, if it was just a vision, that's one thing: he wouldn't be mistaken or lying, because a person can dream anything. And the winged horse would be a dead giveaway that Mo was just dreaming. But in that case, Islam loses any warrant for calling Jerusalem special or a "holy site" for Islam. On the other hand, if it wasn't a dream, and Mo really went there, he sure as heck didn't fly off the Temple that wasn't there. So he'd be a liar.

I've never heard a Muslim handle that one either.

[Science Fan]

Good point, and you are right. The Jews created Jerusalem. The Jews have been the majority of people living in Jerusalem since at least the mid 1800s. The Jews have had a consistent presence in Jerusalem for thousands of years. Yet, the Muslims claim that their alleged prophet flew to Jerusalem on a horse, which makes Jerusalem theirs. It's amazing how so many people deny the Jews a right to their historic homeland in favor of a pure fantasy claim that no thinking person can take seriously.

You are also right in the fact that the story reads more like it was made up many years later, by those who did not know actual history. Another sure sign that the alleged prophet of Islam never really lived and is a figment of the imagination only.

[Harbal]

Now, if it was just a vision, that's one thing: he wouldn't be mistaken or lying, because a person can dream anything. And the winged horse would be a dead giveaway that Mo was just dreaming. But in that case, Islam loses any warrant for calling Jerusalem special or a "holy site" for Islam. On the other hand, if it wasn't a dream, and Mo really went there, he sure as heck didn't fly off the Temple that wasn't there. So he'd be a liar.

You obviously don't think there's anything wrong with rubbishing religious beliefs provided they're not yours. God must not mind the disparagement of "Mo" in the same way he does Jesus (Jezza) and it's not as if offending a Muslim is on a par with doing likewise to a Christian, is it?

[Harbal]

The Jews have had a consistent presence in Jerusalem for thousands of years. Yet, the Muslims claim that their alleged prophet flew to Jerusalem on a horse, which makes Jerusalem theirs. It's amazing how so many people deny the Jews a right to their historic homeland in favor of a pure fantasy claim that no thinking person can take seriously.

What would you say the implications of applying this argument to the USA and Native Americans (Red Injuns) are?

[Science Fan]

The situations are not the same. For one thing, there were numerous warring American Indian tribes, so the USA was never under the control of any single group of American Indians. Secondly, the American Indians did align themselves with various foreign powers and engaged in open warfare against the colonists. Thirdly, no American is claiming any right to land in the USA based upon an alleged prophet flying to America on a horse. Fourthly, no American Indian tribe constructed any city in the USA. Fifthly, Americans are not denying the actual history of American Indians, including their mistreatment, through the years. Muslims, on the other hand, do deny the actual history of the Jewish people, and consider the persecution of Jews as a good thing.

I'm not condoning the mistreatment of American Indians, but the two situations are distinct historically, and certainly, there is nothing in any reference to the American Indians' history in the USA that would justify an Islamic claim to Jerusalem by an alleged prophet flying on a horse. If that's the best you have, you may as well give up your argument now.

[Harbal]

If that's the best you have, you may as well give up your argument now.

I don't have an argument to give up. I'm completely impartial, which is probably why it's so easy for me to recognise that you are most definitely not.

[Immanuel Can]

You obviously don't think there's anything wrong with rubbishing religious beliefs provided they're not yours.

There's nothing wrong with calling falsehood into question, no. Nobody gets a free ride on that. You may have noticed that I also don't give free rides to Atheists.

No human being is well served by being encouraged to delude himself. And it's no act of kindness to do that to someone. I know you don't see things the same way, but that's the point: we're not agreeing, and don't have to agree in order to get along. It's a thing called "tolerance": it means (lit.) "putting up with" things you firmly believe are simply not true. It doesn't entail pretending everything is true: for that's not "tolerance" but "indifference."

[Harbal]

There's nothing wrong with calling falsehood into question, no.

No but I wouldn't have expected you to treat other religions with the same disrespect that someone like me would.

[Arising_uk]

I've read the Koran, in English, as I do not know Arabic. It is perhaps the most boring book I have ever read. There is no narrative story in the Koran, and the chapters are arranged by length. ...

Here's how it was read originally - https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronologica ... e_Qur%27an