Does anyone here believe in an Arch spirit of Evil?

[Knife]

To those who believe in a devil; does that make you polytheistic by definition then? I know Christians put a lot of credince to the monotheistic aspect of their religion even though with the Father, son and holy ghost, it isn't. Muslims and Jews just believe in the one god, unless you introduce an 'evil god' that god can't out right destroy and instead must have a 'war' between the two.

Doesn't it make them polytheistic?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Let me summarize your argument as best as I understand it. In other words, construct a huge strawman that I *think* actually represents your argument and then rebut it. If I'm wrong about this being your argument; then it's an accidental strawman and you can rant about how I'm an idiot for not understanding - but it's still in your interests to clarify so that you can get your point across:


1.) People cause bad things to happen to one another for a myriad of reasons.

2.) These reasons may or may not be justified, but can be very complex and at times require proper analysis and empathy to understand.

3.) Some people are idiots, some apathetic, and so they accept very oversimplistic explanations for why these things happen and stop seeking other explanations.

4.) One such explanation is that "Those people are 'evil' and they do 'evil' things, because the ringleader of 'Evil' people (Satan) makes them."

5.) Once thus convinced, these people are then easily rallied to do unjust things and make war on an 'enemy' that they view as evil rather than address the social issue in a reasoned, intelligent manner.

Therefore: Eliminate Point4: Belief in Satan.


I agree with points 1-5 of this, but I don't think that the conclusion is valid. Eliminating belief in Satan does not solve the problem, nor does continuing believing in Satan *necessarily* cause a problem. Someone who believes in Satan, believes that Satan drives people to do that which benefits themselves and causes harm to others with no thought to their 'higher qualities', and then goes on to actually study the situation and see what is happening on the ground and what can be done to solve the issue is at no risk of reaching point5.

Instead of "Therefore: Elminate Belief in Satan", which would only shuffle the problem to some new oversimplistic explanation, seek to eliminate the idiocy and apathy. Show people the complex human causes and make them care (don't ask me how to do this, I have no idea). If people want to go on believing in The Accursed Devil who desires nothing more than the worst for mankind, and they simultaneously know and search for peoples' outer motivations to do wrong (which they believe the devil is encouraging them to follow), then their belief in Satan becomes irrelevant to society.



-AHMAD

[Garlak]

Maybe it's just me, but you don't seem very secure in your faith. You mentioned you could stop *practicing* easily, but not believing. Aren't the rituals and ceremonies crucially important? I mean... the shared practices in a religion are just as much a part of it as the philosophy! If you can "ditch" practice, doesn't that mean you could ditch an interpretation or idea that displeases you, but still remain faithful?

I have the vague idea that Muslims are very... focused on their religion because the Qu'ran unified the tribes and held them together. To not follow the religion, or to follow and then abandon it!, would get you killed because it was tantamount to breaking away from the rest of your people. Religion and government was heavily mixed with cultural unity and identity..

That's why I believe in the Qur'an and God. And God tells me about Satan, so I believe in that too. Of course it's always possible I'm entirely wrong about all of this - it is merely a belief after all. So I try to live my life such that if I die and wake up and there's absolutely nothing there, I have no regrets over my life as a Muslim.

WTF? This makes it sound like you're hedging your bets on the afterlife, or on how you live your life. Pascal's Wager said that if God didn't exist, it didn't matter whether you worshiped or not; but if he did, you better worship him. So better be faithful just in case... also, it's a great social/political tool.

I'm not sure whether I'd prefer that you didn't have any doubts about your religion... maybe I dislike the fact that I can see some doubts in you, but you're still defending/explaining it.

[BountyHunterSAx]

To those who believe in a devil; does that make you polytheistic by definition then? I know Christians put a lot of credince to the monotheistic aspect of their religion even though with the Father, son and holy ghost, it isn't. Muslims and Jews just believe in the one god, unless you introduce an 'evil god' that god can't out right destroy and instead must have a 'war' between the two.

Doesn't it make them polytheistic?

We don't believe that the devil is a God. We believe he's a Jinn who was promoted and permitted to worship among the ranks of the angels, and then cast from paradise due to his arrogance. At that juncture (as the story I quoted from the Qur'an shows) he asked God to spare him for some time, and God gave him permission to do so. Satan declared that he would try to misguide mankind, and God allowed him to do so, telling him that he would be very successful, except on "my sincere worshippers".

He is not God (from deus, or worthy of worship). He is not all-powerful, he is not eternal, and he does not act except by God's leave.

-AHMAD

[Darth Wong]

Let me summarize your argument as best as I understand it. In other words, construct a huge strawman that I *think* actually represents your argument and then rebut it. If I'm wrong about this being your argument; then it's an accidental strawman and you can rant about how I'm an idiot for not understanding - but it's still in your interests to clarify so that you can get your point across:


1.) People cause bad things to happen to one another for a myriad of reasons.

2.) These reasons may or may not be justified, but can be very complex and at times require proper analysis and empathy to understand.

3.) Some people are idiots, some apathetic, and so they accept very oversimplistic explanations for why these things happen and stop seeking other explanations.

4.) One such explanation is that "Those people are 'evil' and they do 'evil' things, because the ringleader of 'Evil' people (Satan) makes them."

5.) Once thus convinced, these people are then easily rallied to do unjust things and make war on an 'enemy' that they view as evil rather than address the social issue in a reasoned, intelligent manner.

Therefore: Eliminate Point4: Belief in Satan.

You're a fucking moron. It looks more like this:

1) Religion teaches people to accept oversimplistic explanations for why things happen. This is why creationism exists as a movement.

2) The particular religious belief in Satan teaches an oversimplistic explanation for why bad things happen. Religious people have a built-in inclination toward oversimplistic explanations already, so this is not out of the ordinary.

3) When confronted with bad things, religious people are far more likely to believe they were caused by Satan or those influenced by Satan than someone who does not believe Satan exists.

You can't argue against any of these points, so you make up your idiotic version, where there is no difference between actively believing in a particular oversimplified explanation and simply being "lazy". A person who is lazy but does not believe in Satan can simply say "I can't understand why someone would ever do that". He doesn't necessarily have to choose between believing in Satan and being an academician, but thanks for the idiotic false dilemma fallacy.

The person who believes in Satan, on the other hand, is far more likely to say "Satan is working in this world."

[Count Chocula]

Many have power, but there can be only one! So spake Connor MacLeod.

A belief in Christianity or Allah does not make you polytheistic by default. In both faiths, there is only one All-Powerful Being (tm). Christians also believe in angels and demons, but they do not worship them; they are clearly stated as beings that are subordinate to The One. The Holy Trinity is explained as all being facets of The One.

The worship of a single deity in modern Christianity and the Muslim faith seems to be the key point of departure from the Sumerian, Greek, Roman and other polytheistic pantheons upon which the modern faiths built. Speaking again of Christianity, God plays the role of Zeus (patriarch, ruler of all), but unlike the ancient mythologies, no other deities are worshipped. You can pray to the Virgin Mary for help, for example, but all you're doing is asking her to whisper in God's ear on your behalf.

[Garlak]

I agree with points 1-5 of this, but I don't think that the conclusion is valid. Eliminating belief in Satan does not solve the problem, nor does continuing believing in Satan *necessarily* cause a problem. Someone who believes in Satan, believes that Satan drives people to do that which benefits themselves and causes harm to others with no thought to their 'higher qualities', and then goes on to actually study the situation and see what is happening on the ground and what can be done to solve the issue is at no risk of reaching point5.

Instead of "Therefore: Elminate Belief in Satan", which would only shuffle the problem to some new oversimplistic explanation, seek to eliminate the idiocy and apathy. Show people the complex human causes and make them care (don't ask me how to do this, I have no idea). If people want to go on believing in The Accursed Devil who desires nothing more than the worst for mankind, and they simultaneously know and search for peoples' outer motivations to do wrong (which they believe the devil is encouraging them to follow), then their belief in Satan becomes irrelevant to society.

Giving simply answers is a very good thing... For children! When we grow up, we learn that it's our parents that get us presents, not Santa Claus. (And honestly I wonder why they'd invent a fictional figure, rather than spin Christmass as "kids, your parents love you so they're giving you presents! Isn't that nice?" *shrug*) When we get further into school, we learn that the American Civil War was NOT fought to free the slaves, and that the atom is a lot more complex than a miniaturized solar system.

Supernatural explanations were perfectly fine when people had no clue why they got sick or died or what happened when they died or why their food didn't grow or... Or a lot of other things.


The bottom line is that people who have answers, and are used to being given answers as part of a package that places a lot of insubstantial "holy" importance on it's ideas... they will not look further into the question.

In the beginning, man was afraid of the unknown... and he had few means of achieveing understanding. The unknown and mysterious is both a threat and a goal; it could scare us or it could inspire us to understand just what makes it tic. But if we turn on backs on the unknown because of religion, satisfied that we have all the answers, it will be that much harder to advance our understanding of the world.

It's relaxing to blame Murphy or narrative causality for misfortune. But we don't attribute every tragedy; we face them and acknowledge their corporeal and material causes.

Nowadays people have created new ways to stick their head in the ground; by coming up with conspiracy theories. Aliens, monsters and shadow governments all exist to make our lives miserable. Nowadays when people ask "why? Why me?" they're unsatisfied with religion, so they simply move on to something that CAN provide satisfactory answers.

And let's face it, politics and economics is/are confusing enough, at least for the layman or youth, that "the devil did it" just doesn't fly. It was actually a wizard/alien/MIB agency that did it.

[Darth Wong]

Conspiracy theories are not a replacement for the idea of "evil"; if anything, conspiracy theorists tend to be more like to believe in the idea of "evil" as a powerful motivating force; this is what helps them believe so many people would work toward a conspiracy which gives them no personal gain.

[BountyHunterSAx]

1) Religion teaches people to accept oversimplistic explanations for why things happen. This is why creationism exists as a movement.

2) The particular religious belief in Satan teaches an oversimplistic explanation for why bad things happen. Religious people have a built-in inclination toward oversimplistic explanations already, so this is not out of the ordinary.

3) When confronted with bad things, religious people are far more likely to believe they were caused by Satan or those influenced by Satan than someone who does not believe Satan exists.

I agree entirely. Which is why it is so important for people who believe in Satan to simultaneously seek out the more detailed explanation, specific explanation. And why it is so important for people who believe in Zeus to simultaneously seek out the scientific explanation of the lightning bolts. etc. etc.

-AHMAD

[General Zod]

A quick aside - how does one choose to start or stop 'believing' in something? the fact is that even if - for arguments sake - I decided that I needed to stop believing in Islam, it's not like I have a magic light switch that I can flip to 'off' and make my belief disappear. I could stop practicing that easily, yes, but not beliving.

Children do it all the time. The vast majority stop believing in Santa Clause and monsters under the bed once they reach a certain age.

2.) but the bigger reason: The Qur'an and Seerah. I find it inconceivable for such a book to have been written by a man in Muhammad (S)'s time given Muhammad (S)'s resources. I refuse to get into a discussion on the subject of "what about the Qur'an is so amazing to you?" with somebody who can't read it (in it's Arabic) or couldn't be bothered to read it (due to apathy) - so for the time being you can just take it as my irrationality (and thusly a premise, if a stupid premise). Further, for a man of Muhammad (S)'s straightforward honest character to suddenly start spouting a pack of lies is another leap in logic I can't accept. What possible motivation could he have to do so? Especially seeing as to how he refused kingship, a 50-50 deal, women, power, and wealth in favor of continuing his mission.

Honest character? How do you know he was honest? The only thing you have to go by is a thousand year old book and his say-so with no corroborating evidence. Scientology books paint L. Ron Hubbard as an honest person too, but only an idiot would take them at face value.

Once I accept that the Qur'an couldn't have been written by someone in Muhammad (S)'s time and place with his resources, then where do you go from there? The Qur'an was edited/modified over time and so those specific things that I find inconceivable for him to have written were updated and upgraded? No - absolutely not. The Qur'ans transmission was heavily monitored cross-checked and guarded. It's more likely that dinosaurs were faked than that the Qur'an was. From the point of its revelation there were always *several* people who memorized all that had been revealed in its totality. To change the Qur'an at least 60% (arbirtrary number, but it's reasonable when you consider just how diligently these people took their faith) of them would have to agree on the modification (and the other 40% be silenced or marginalized). That would require a very very very elaborate conspiracy. Nor is it something that could just be 'forgotten' or accidentally changed, as there were so many people to cross-check it on. No, we are forced to accept that the Qur'an we hear today is the same as it was 1425+ years ago.


That's why I believe in the Qur'an and God. And God tells me about Satan, so I believe in that too. Of course it's always possible I'm entirely wrong about all of this - it is merely a belief after all. So I try to live my life such that if I die and wake up and there's absolutely nothing there, I have no regrets over my life as a Muslim.

-AHMAD

So you believe in the Qu'ran. . .because the qu'ran tells you to?

[Darth Wong]

1) Religion teaches people to accept oversimplistic explanations for why things happen. This is why creationism exists as a movement.

2) The particular religious belief in Satan teaches an oversimplistic explanation for why bad things happen. Religious people have a built-in inclination toward oversimplistic explanations already, so this is not out of the ordinary.

3) When confronted with bad things, religious people are far more likely to believe they were caused by Satan or those influenced by Satan than someone who does not believe Satan exists.

I agree entirely. Which is why it is so important for people who believe in Satan to simultaneously seek out the more detailed explanation, specific explanation. And why it is so important for people who believe in Zeus to simultaneously seek out the scientific explanation of the lightning bolts. etc. etc.

-AHMAD

The problem is that if they don't have a more detailed, specific explanation (which most people won't bother to get), they have a ready-made enemy to blame. This is why the belief in Satan is harmful, even though you obviously won't admit it.

[BountyHunterSAx]

2.) but the bigger reason: The Qur'an and Seerah. I find it inconceivable for such a book to have been written by a man in Muhammad (S)'s time given Muhammad (S)'s resources. I refuse to get into a discussion on the subject of "what about the Qur'an is so amazing to you?" with somebody who can't read it (in it's Arabic) or couldn't be bothered to read it (due to apathy) - so for the time being you can just take it as my irrationality (and thusly a premise, if a stupid premise). Further, for a man of Muhammad (S)'s straightforward honest character to suddenly start spouting a pack of lies is another leap in logic I can't accept. What possible motivation could he have to do so? Especially seeing as to how he refused kingship, a 50-50 deal, women, power, and wealth in favor of continuing his mission.

Honest character? How do you know he was honest? The only thing you have to go by is a thousand year old book and his say-so with no corroborating evidence. Scientology books paint L. Ron Hubbard as an honest person too, but only an idiot would take them at face value.

Firstly, the Qur'an speaks of the prophet's character *twice*...TOTAL, so that's not the source, no. The Prophet's life story is recorded by his companions as well as various people from wherever he went. While the Hadith are certainly far more prone to corruption and editing than the Qur'an is, there are quite a large number of "tawaatur" Hadith (or narrations that had four or more separate solid lines of transmission before being recorded). The idea is that while one person could certainly lie about having heard something, or three or four, if twenty different people all said that they heard or saw something then it's very unlikely that it was false. The study of Isnad is quite an in-depth study in its own right. And these were recorded by his followers including the actions of his enemies. Though I'll freely admit that of all the sources this is the weakest link.

Once I accept that the Qur'an couldn't have been written by someone in Muhammad (S)'s time and place with his resources, then where do you go from there? The Qur'an was edited/modified over time and so those specific things that I find inconceivable for him to have written were updated and upgraded? No - absolutely not. The Qur'ans transmission was heavily monitored cross-checked and guarded. It's more likely that dinosaurs were faked than that the Qur'an was. From the point of its revelation there were always *several* people who memorized all that had been revealed in its totality. To change the Qur'an at least 60% (arbirtrary number, but it's reasonable when you consider just how diligently these people took their faith) of them would have to agree on the modification (and the other 40% be silenced or marginalized). That would require a very very very elaborate conspiracy. Nor is it something that could just be 'forgotten' or accidentally changed, as there were so many people to cross-check it on. No, we are forced to accept that the Qur'an we hear today is the same as it was 1425+ years ago.

So you believe in the Qu'ran. . .because the qu'ran tells you to?

No, I believe it because it was sent by God.

-AHMAD

[General Zod]

Firstly, the Qur'an speaks of the prophet's character *twice*...TOTAL, so that's not the source, no. The Prophet's life story is recorded by his companions as well as various people from wherever he went. While the Hadith are certainly far more prone to corruption and editing than the Qur'an is, there are quite a large number of "tawaatur" Hadith (or narrations that had four or more separate solid lines of transmission before being recorded). The idea is that while one person could certainly lie about having heard something, or three or four, if twenty different people all said that they heard or saw something then it's very unlikely that it was false. The study of Isnad is quite an in-depth study in its own right. And these were recorded by his followers including the actions of his enemies. Though I'll freely admit that of all the sources this is the weakest link.

You realize it's likely that his followers embellished his character a considerable deal, right? Given how many contradictions there are on account of Jesus' life in the Bible I have a hard time believing Muhammad's own people were completely honest.

No, I believe it because it was sent by God.

Wee, circular reasoning. "I believe the Qu'ran was sent by God. . .because the Qu'ran says it was sent by God!"

[Darth Wong]

No, I believe it because it was sent by God.

-AHMAD

So sayeth the man who agrees that the great danger is oversimplistic explanations

[BountyHunterSAx]

Firstly, the Qur'an speaks of the prophet's character *twice*...TOTAL, so that's not the source, no. The Prophet's life story is recorded by his companions as well as various people from wherever he went. While the Hadith are certainly far more prone to corruption and editing than the Qur'an is, there are quite a large number of "tawaatur" Hadith (or narrations that had four or more separate solid lines of transmission before being recorded). The idea is that while one person could certainly lie about having heard something, or three or four, if twenty different people all said that they heard or saw something then it's very unlikely that it was false. The study of Isnad is quite an in-depth study in its own right. And these were recorded by his followers including the actions of his enemies. Though I'll freely admit that of all the sources this is the weakest link.

You realize it's likely that his followers embellished his character a considerable deal, right? Given how many contradictions there are on account of Jesus' life in the Bible I have a hard time believing Muhammad's own people were completely honest.

Absolutely. I acknowledged that by freely admitting that this is the weakest link. If his good character was the only thing I had to go on then I'd drop it.

No, I believe it because it was sent by God.

Wee, circular reasoning. "I believe the Qu'ran was sent by God. . .because the Qu'ran says it was sent by God!"

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did. Now that something else could be time travelers from the future (though I doubt it in the extreme since a human would have been driven by practical benefit and motive), could be Loki or a mischievous spirit, could be Zeus, could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc. etc. But why the shod hell should *ANY* of them care whatsoever to do so? What possible desire/benefit could drive them to put this book here?

The Prophet (S) claims divine origins for the book, that claim makes sense insofar as God would have a motive to send the book. There's nothing circular about it, despite your intense desire for it to be so.

-AHMAD

[salm]

What´s up with the (S)?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Short for 'Sallalahu Alaihi Wa Sallam'. Supposed to say it after talking about any of the prophets, and so I do.

-AHMAD

[General Zod]

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did.

"It was impossible for Muhammed to make it, therefore God did it" is absurd. The explanation that does make sense? A significant deal was a complete fabrication for the benefit of the ruling elite. Since the vast majority of people were illiterate back then, how would they be capable of telling whether it was real or not?

But why the shod hell should *ANY* of them care whatsoever to do so? What possible desire/benefit could drive them to put this book here?

The same thing that drove L. Ron Hubbard to create Scientology. The blind adulation and worship of the masses at your command, and I hear profit is always a nice bonus.

[Darth Servo]

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did. Now that something else could be time travelers from the future (though I doubt it in the extreme since a human would have been driven by practical benefit and motive), could be Loki or a mischievous spirit, could be Zeus, could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc. etc. But why the shod hell should *ANY* of them care whatsoever to do so? What possible desire/benefit could drive them to put this book here?

The Prophet (S) claims divine origins for the book, that claim makes sense insofar as God would have a motive to send the book. There's nothing circular about it, despite your intense desire for it to be so.

-AHMAD

False dilema fallacy. What actual evidence is there that "the Prophet" was illiterate, that he actually wrote the book himself, that it wasn't a collaborative effort, that he didn't copy shit from other holy books and myths of the time, just like the Bible?

[BountyHunterSAx]

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did.

"It was impossible for Muhammed to make it, therefore God did it" is absurd. The explanation that does make sense? A significant deal was a complete fabrication for the benefit of the ruling elite. Since the vast majority of people were illiterate back then, how would they be capable of telling whether it was real or not?

Your alternative is untenable because Muhammad (S) would not be capable of fabricating the Qur'an. It would require poetic excellence beyond his ability and the best of his contemporaries' abilities. Thought it would not absolutely require it, the choice of words like 'Alaq' which can simultaneously mean blood clot, hanging thing, sucking thing, and leech-like hanging thing, rather than any other number of words to describe an embryological stage would have required a knowledge of both poetry and science that was well beyond his level.

Further, I would like you to actually explain this to me - because I'm not following you at all - just what is written that is to "the benefit of the ruling elites" in the Qur'an? If you had said much was fabricated to "placate the masses and lull them to join him" that I could at least have seen your argument. But the fact of the matter is that the Qur'an unapologetically took a very controversial message - monotheism as opposed to the prevalent paganism. It called for leaving off the idols, which were at the root of the Makkan Quraish economy (as they were the guardians of the Ka'abah). Further, prior to becoming a prophet, Muhammad was a wealthy man with a wealthy wife and born to the most noble of the tribes (the Quraish) the first 13 years of his message were met with a signifcant *loss* in this prestige followed by his eventual exile from Makkah.

-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did. Now that something else could be time travelers from the future (though I doubt it in the extreme since a human would have been driven by practical benefit and motive), could be Loki or a mischievous spirit, could be Zeus, could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. etc. etc. But why the shod hell should *ANY* of them care whatsoever to do so? What possible desire/benefit could drive them to put this book here?

The Prophet (S) claims divine origins for the book, that claim makes sense insofar as God would have a motive to send the book. There's nothing circular about it, despite your intense desire for it to be so.

-AHMAD

False dilema fallacy. What actual evidence is there that "the Prophet" was illiterate, that he actually wrote the book himself, that it wasn't a collaborative effort, that he didn't copy shit from other holy books and myths of the time, just like the Bible?

That the Qur'anic verses he would-have-been composing challenged the literate ruling elite (along with the rest of the Makkans) to do just that. To try and come up with even a few verses somewhat like unto it. If the Qur'an were a product of Muhammad (S) and those whom he could rope into it to try and work with him on it - without the secret leaking out - then it stands to reason that the Quraish would have been able to beat his challenge and thus discredit him.

-AHMAD

[Darth Servo]

That the Qur'anic verses he would-have-been composing challenged the literate ruling elite (along with the rest of the Makkans) to do just that. To try and come up with even a few verses somewhat like unto it. If the Qur'an were a product of Muhammad (S) and those whom he could rope into it to try and work with him on it - without the secret leaking out - then it stands to reason that the Quraish would have been able to beat his challenge and thus discredit him.

-AHMAD

Ah, appeal to ignorance, "I can't figure it out so it must have been God!!!" And you're still appealing to your own mythology to support itself.

[Patrick Degan]

I think you're trying to be deliberately infuriating. I believe the Qur'an was sent by God because the other explanations make even less sense. Muhammad (S) being an illiterate, and having access to 1425 year old sources could not have produced the Qur'an. Therefore, something else did.

"It was impossible for Muhammed to make it, therefore God did it" is absurd. The explanation that does make sense? A significant deal was a complete fabrication for the benefit of the ruling elite. Since the vast majority of people were illiterate back then, how would they be capable of telling whether it was real or not?

Your alternative is untenable because Muhammad (S) would not be capable of fabricating the Qur'an. It would require poetic excellence beyond his ability and the best of his contemporaries' abilities. Thought it would not absolutely require it, the choice of words like 'Alaq' which can simultaneously mean blood clot, hanging thing, sucking thing, and leech-like hanging thing, rather than any other number of words to describe an embryological stage would have required a knowledge of both poetry and science that was well beyond his level.

And your evidence for this is... your own Appeal to Incredulity?

[General Zod]

Your alternative is untenable because Muhammad (S) would not be capable of fabricating the Qur'an. It would require poetic excellence beyond his ability and the best of his contemporaries' abilities. Thought it would not absolutely require it, the choice of words like 'Alaq' which can simultaneously mean blood clot, hanging thing, sucking thing, and leech-like hanging thing, rather than any other number of words to describe an embryological stage would have required a knowledge of both poetry and science that was well beyond his level.

Or perhaps I'm suggesting someone other than Muhammad fabricated it, not that it was necessarily fabricated by Muhammad.

Further, I would like you to actually explain this to me - because I'm not following you at all - just what is written that is to "the benefit of the ruling elites" in the Qur'an? If you had said much was fabricated to "placate the masses and lull them to join him" that I could at least have seen your argument. But the fact of the matter is that the Qur'an unapologetically took a very controversial message - monotheism as opposed to the prevalent paganism. It called for leaving off the idols, which were at the root of the Makkan Quraish economy (as they were the guardians of the Ka'abah). Further, prior to becoming a prophet, Muhammad was a wealthy man with a wealthy wife and born to the most noble of the tribes (the Quraish) the first 13 years of his message were met with a signifcant *loss* in this prestige followed by his eventual exile from Makkah.

There's the little fact that the Qu'ran pretty much dictates how someone should live their life right down to when to pray. Control over how people behave can be very tempting, and a centralized religion with strict tenants gives someone a considerable deal of power in this regard.

[FSTargetDrone]

I take it you've never considered that Satan may simply be misundestood?

Actually no, I haven't. The very notion is completely absurd

I forgot to add the appropriate smiley at the bottom of the thing I found because it was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek (and I apologize if that didn't come through), but in any case, you're half-right: The entire notion of the existence of a Devil figure, let alone an omnipotent, omniscient entity which may or may not have cast this Devil out of some heavenly abode is absurd in general.

The entire thing is nonsense. Which version of the Bible should we use that may conflict with similar accounts in a Koran or elsewhere? What does it matter? We find more logic and self-consistency discussing exotic fictional technologies in PSW.