One way or another, all Islam is fraudulent.
 
B 

 
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023811.php
 
 

December 7, 2008


What if Muhammad never existed?


 <http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000974.html>
RushdieCoffin.jpg

The above picture from
<http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000974.html> Tom
Gross Media shows "Salman Rushdie's coffin being prepared at the
'International Exhibition of the Koran' at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque in
Tehran" in September 2008. Note also the coffin for the state of Israel in
the background -- as well as the caricature of Bill Clinton.

Old grudges die hard in Tehran, apparently, but the article below notes that
there are historical investigations being carried out that Islamic
authorities may ultimately find even more threatening than Rushdie's novel.
Is Muslim tradition a "myth, a 'pious fraud' created after the Islamic
conquests to provide an ideological foundation for the expanding empire"?

The implications of this are very large. Since the literal, mainstream and
authoritative version of Islam mandates warfare against and the subjugation
of unbelievers, only a movement that rejected literalism in regard to the
Qur'an, Hadith, and sira could possibly make for the creation of an Islam
that taught the necessity of peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals
on an indefinite basis. Of course, the possibility that such a thing will
ever appear is remote, but if it ever were to do so, it would be based on
historical investigations such as those outlined in this article.

I'm thinking that this would be a good subject for a book -- one that I hope
to write in the next year or so.

"The gospel truth?," by Sean Gannon in the
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702431692&pagename=JPost%2FJ
PArticle%2FShowFull> Jerusalem Post, December 5 (thanks to all who sent this
in):

September 26 marked the 20th anniversary of Viking Penguin's publication of
Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. While generally well-received by the
critics, its treatment of Islamic themes in a series of narrative subplots
was quickly deemed blasphemous and Viking Penguin's refusal to heed demands
for its withdrawal led to an international furor, culminating in an Iranian
fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death. His crime? Responsibility for a book
which was "compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the
prophet and the Koran" and "dared to insult the Islamic sanctities." 

That Rushdie was forced to spend 10 years in hiding (and still lives under
threat of execution) on the grounds that The Satanic Verses, a work of
fiction, represented a "total distortion of the historical facts" about
Islam is deeply ironic, given that a genuine critico-historical assault on
"Islamic sanctities" had been under way for more than a decade with no
repercussions.

Well, not quite. When one Islamic scholar, Suliman Bashear, taught his
students at An-Najah National University in Nablus that the Qur'an and Islam
were the products of historical development rather than being delivered in
perfect form to Muhammad,
<http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y> his
students threw him out of the window of his classroom. Christoph Luxenberg,
who has done groundbreaking work in this area, publishes under a pseudonym
for a very good reason.

Spearheaded by scholars at London University's School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS), it focused largely on the Koran, which these
so-called new historians of Islam subjected to modern historical and
philological analysis. Their findings flatly contradict the Islamic account
of its origins. 

According to this account, the Koran represents the uncorrupted word of God,
"constant, immaculate, unalterable and inimitable." It was transmitted to
man through Muhammad, a prosperous Meccan merchant who received it via the
angel Gabriel as a series of verse revelations between 610 and his death in
632. Uneducated and illiterate, Muhammad committed these revelations to
memory before reciting them to his followers, who memorized them verbatim in
turn. The killing of hundreds of these "memorizers" in the battle of Yamama
in 633 alerted his successor as Muslim leader, the first caliph, Abu Bakr,
to the danger that the revelations could be lost. He therefore gathered all
available sources into a loose compilation called the suhuf which was then
used by the third caliph, Uthman, to produce in the mid-650s a standardized
text of the Koran. Copies were sent to Islamic communities with orders that
all other versions be destroyed. Muslims believe this Uthmanic recension is
the Koran as we have it today.

BUT ACCORDING to the New Historians, there is no evidence that the Koran was
compiled by Muhammad or canonized under Uthman; in fact, there is no proof
it existed in any form before the end of the seventh century, and the first
signs of a standardized codex date from the early 800s, 150 years after
Uthman's death. In his 1977 survey Qur'anic Studies, the late professor of
Semitic studies at SOAS, John Wansbrough, applied to the Koran "the
instruments and techniques of biblical criticism" developed in the 19th
century by German biblical scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher and
Julius Wellhausen - i.e., treating it as a literary construct and comparing
it to contemporary devotional works.

The fact that it is "strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently
obscure and inconsequential in both language and content... and given to the
repetition of whole passages in variant versions" is evidence, he argued,
that it "is not the carefully executed project of one or many men, but
rather the product of an organic development from originally independent
traditions during a long period of transmission."

The existence in Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock of Koranic inscriptions which
differ from Uthman's text, and the discovery in 1972 of a Yemeni "paper
grave" containing thousands of Koranic fragments exhibiting other textual
variations, further indicate that, far from being divinely revealed in its
unchanging entirety, the Koran evolved as a literary artifact.

IN A follow-up study, The Sectarian Milieu, Wansbrough postulated that the
Koran emerged out of a two-centuries-long dialogue between Muslims and the
Christians and Jews they encountered during the Islamic conquests. Its
precepts slowly developed in opposition to the older religions, resulting in
a tradition distinctively Arabian but based on Judaeo-Christian foundations.
Wansbrough saw rabbinical Judaism as the Koran's overriding influence,
citing its biblical and talmudic borrowings.

Other scholars, however, have highlighted its Christian substrates. The
German scholar Christoph Luxenburg contends that it is based on the qeryana
- lectionaries used in seventh-century Syrian Christian churches. He even
proposes that the Koran is not exclusively in Arabic (for Muslims, a
sacrilegious suggestion) but incorporates sections of Syro-Aramaic, a
language similar in structure and script, and that many of its more
impenetrable passages become coherent only when read as Aramaic. Most
controversially, Luxenburg claims the word houri, commonly translated as
"wide-eyed virgins" in the verse describing the jihadist martyr's heavenly
reward, is actually an Aramaic word meaning "white grapes of crystal
clarity."

And that is the one finding out of all these investigations that has so far
entered the popular consciousness.

THE IDEA of an evolving Koran has been developed by Wansbrough's former SOAS
students Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. In Hagarism: The Making of the
Islamic World, they eschew Muslim sources for Islam's early history in favor
of contemporary Armenian, Greek and Syrian accounts. These, they maintain,
demonstrate that Muslim tradition is a myth, a "pious fraud" created after
the Islamic conquests to provide an ideological foundation for the expanding
empire. The Koran was compiled as part of this process, to provide a
coherent scriptural basis for the growing body of law that its governance
required. It was then attributed back to Muhammad to give it unassailable
authority....

Read it all.

Posted by Robert at December 7, 2008 7:53 AM
 <http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/12/023811print.html> Print this
entry |
<http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-popupemail.cgi?entry_id=23811> Email
this entry |
<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/02381
1.php&title=What if Muhammad never existed?&bodytext= The above picture from
Tom Gross Media shows > Digg this |
<http://del.icio.us/post?v=2&url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023811.p
hp&title=What if Muhammad never existed?> del.icio.us |
<http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/pub/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.jihadwatch.org%252
Farchives%252F023811.php> Buzz up!

Comments



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to