Skip to comments.Origins of the Koran
Posted on 04/14/2005 6:56:06 PM PDT by abu afak
"....While modern Muslims may be committed to an impossibly conservative position, Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible, realizing that parts of the Koran were lost, perverted, and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of the Koran. For example, As-Suyuti (died 1505), one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Koran, quotes Ibn Umar al Khattab as saying: ""Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, I have acquired of it what is available" (As-Suyuti, Itqan, pt3, pg72). Aisha, the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by as-Suynti, "During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded"(73).
As-Suyuti also tells this story about Uba ibn Kab, one of the great companions of Muhammad:
"""This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, "How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said, "Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning". The man asked, "What is the verse of the stoning?" He (Uba) said, "If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."""
As noted earlier, since there was no single document collecting all the revelations, after Muhammads death in 632 C.E., many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form. Soon we had the codices of several scholars..."
(Excerpt) Read more at secularislam.org ...
And then the sons of Satan hijacked Islam and perverted it to the disgraceful point it is now. Teaching hate and murder. Mostly for their own personal gain! People have been deceived, because there ain't no 72 virgins waiting for them after they murder innocent people, but rather, an angry God who will repay for the souls that they murdered.
In the hierarchy of attention spans, Moslems pay lip service to the Koran, they quote the Hadiths, and they obey the Sharia.
The way to deal with them is to disestablish the Sharia and put in it's place the US Tax Code and the Uniform Commercial Code. All else will follow!
Aren't Mulism the ones always telling us about the "Corrupted", "Not-Firrst-hand", Bible?.... and trumpeting the pure revelation of Mohammed?
And doesn't it turn out the Koran has Far more legitimacy problems then the Books of the OT and NT?
Since so much of the Koran appears to be "lifted" from the very same sources from which we get much of the Bible, one might suppose it is as subject to error.
What did you think about http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/ - Empire of Faith?
PBS pulled a COMPLETE WHITEWASH on that Joke of a show.
Their worst ever 'Documentary'.
The Saudis had gotten to it pre-airing and during Production.
Jack Chick is even more insane than Mohammed ... but his insanity comes from the same source.
PBS tries to respect people's religious beliefs when it presents programs that focus on the origins of the religion itself. For example, the military conquests of India wasn't treated in much detail at all.
It was narrated by Ben Kingsley, who seemed almost worshipful in his treatment of the spiritual aspects of the religion.
One thought that struck me after listening to its treatment of the dome of the rock was that arguments over who can go there, and the bitter divisions over how significant it is and to whom are just sad to the point of being absurd.
Not just the conquest of India...
The first several Hundred brutal years of Islam -
The whole Life of Mohammed - A religion financed and popularized by robbery and the Booty system.
Really an Arab Warrior Handbook.
So much of the basics not included that it's not even worth discussing the ridiculous "romanticized orientalist" portrait painted by PBS.
I wouldn't be surprised if they win some converts every time the program airs.
"""One thought that struck me after listening to its treatment of the dome of the rock was that arguments over who can go there, and the bitter divisions over how significant it is and to whom are just sad to the point of being absurd."""
The truth about the Dome of the Rock and Jerusalem re Islam..
is that Jerusalem is NEVER mentioned in the Koran .. and is/was not the "The Furthest Mosque" - nor the place where Mohammed 'ascended' to anywhere.
If you're interest.. a great Article on this:
"...One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur'an "as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta"which is to say, not once..."
The tract would of course be about his repentance and conversion to the One True Church.
But I wont hold my breath.
No, no, no. Jack is
just a passionate Christian
with no PC bones.
And his comic books
are a great statement of faith.
There's a boldness there
that demands respect
whether you agree with him
or not. Like Ayn Rand,
he's true to his thoughts,
damn the torpedoes. I bet
he's won souls for Christ!
I think Pipes differs from what I remember Kingsley saying about Ishmael's brother Isaac nearly being sacrificed in the location of the dome of the rock. I had the impression from this program that both religions teach that it happened in the same place; Pipes says they differ in that Muslims believe that it happened in Mecca.
Which sources would those be?
What is not in Dispute.. or Shouldn't be .. is where Mohammed ostensibly ascended to Heaven .. the so-called 'Night Journey'
THAT is the Main Muslim Claim to Jerusalem... not the Ishmael/Isaac issue.
As Pipes and others have shown, there was no "Furthest Mosque" ("al-Aqsa") or Muslims in Jerusalem for Mohammed to have ascended from..It was a turn of Phrase or other plave like Medina With a Mosque, and that Jerusalem was Shoehorned into Islam post-facto.
AND.. even after .. until Israel's existence .. and even AFTER THAT until 1967 was a Neglected place by Muslims.
See Pictures on this page of "Islam's Third Holiest site' in 1875-1880
Also on the above page:
"The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False"
There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632CE when the Prophet Mohammed died... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian city
by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann
The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever..."
My point is that if Islam and Judaism both claim that Abraham had his dagger stayed by God on the same location, and if they both believe that there is common ground between their belief systems tied into that very spot, why on earth would they try to keep each other from paying homage to history and faith there? It's just sad. The issues you raise are good points, but shouldn't trump the fact that both faiths teach that a miracle that ties their beliefs together happened there. Anyone wanting to keep the other away would be acting in bad faith, in my opinion.
Another "source" consists of the Sumerian records ~ everybody and his brother managed to "lift" some of those stories.
You are aware, of course, that Mohammad grew up in a town with a major religious site to which people all over the Middle East sent idols and sacred manuscripts.
His story begins with him being told by an angel to reach down and pick up a manuscript that just happened to be on the floor of the cave and read it.
Most folks get hung up on the part about Mohammad "reading". They should get excited, however, at the idea that he found a manuscript of ancient vintage right where it should have been ~ in a cave in a town where the ground was filled with ancient manuscripts.
Too bad no one bothered to slip this fellow a copy of one or the 4 gospels, but then again it was the Dark Age and books were rare.
That's what I like about you. You're the best BSer on the site.
Recall, if you will, these are the guys who invented writing!
For a number of reasons their language and writing style lingered on in Semitic Babylon for many centuries after they, themselves, disappeared.
Not sure why you'd think it BS for scrolls and tablets written in Sumerian to have been buried at the holy site in Mecca. You must have a good reason for this, so speak up!
In the meantime this site has a reference to just how late in history folks were using Sumerian cuneiform: http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Games/cuneiform.html
All this is ignoring the article, which gives some good reasons for thinking Mohammed was never at Mecca.
Cuniform wasn't in use nearly late enough for Mohommed to read it. And Mohammed couldn't read anyway. And nobody anywhere in the world had known Sumerian for hundreds of years. So unless we're dealing with an Arabian Joseph Smith, Sumerian records have exactly nothing to do with it.
Now, a question for you. What is it in the Koran which suggest Mohammed had access to anything more than muddled retellings of Bible stories?
Jack Chick is a liar.
End of discussion.
BTW, the religious authorities at Mecca (where they kept all the idols and ancient scriptures) most likely maintained the knowledge of how to read those ancient sciptures. We just don't know enough about what was going on in the pre-Islamic period to say yea or nay at this late date. A major archaeological expedition is in order ~ now, if we can just clear the place of all those religious fanatics so we can dig it up ~ we'll get all the answers we need.
BTW, the last "known" writing in Sumerian was 65 AD.
Oh, and the other thing ~ Mohammad had 12 disciples initially. It's a magic number, of course, so he maybe had half a dozen or a dozen followers. We don't know everything we need to know about those gentlemen to say if any of them could read ancient documents. However, as his group grew (and after relocating to Medina) he attracted intellectuals and military engineers (if we can believe the Moslem stories).
When the Moslems created the Koran in Damascus it's quite clear they had access to sources of which we are not now aware. I would imagine they simply destroyed anything that didn't conform to their point of view.
It's pretty clear that Mohammad did not have a Bible, or not a complete Bible at any rate, and what he did have available was at some variance with the Bible version itself.
Remember that the way Jewish traders came to have a Torah was to have copied one ~ presumably they followed the ancient Jewish custom of treating a worn out Torah after the manner of a deceased human ~ they wrapped them appropriate and buried them!
Some places in the Middle East are dry enough to preserve such items for thousands of years ~ just like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jews weren't the only people with ancient scriptures, and ancient stories. Babylonians had them too. In any case, the provenance of many of the Jewish and Babylonian stories can be traced back to the Sumerians quite easily, particularly those that refer to a place called "Eden". After all, that's the Sumerian name for the land between the Tigris and Euphrates!
It's also pretty obvious that many Sumerian stories were translated into Semitic languages, e.g. Babylonian and Hebrew. Why this should happen and the same stories not have been translated into Arabic would be a good question!
So she taught him languages and scripts nobody knew anymore?
Taking your unlikely speculations as fact and presenting them as such is a bad habit.
You can stay with the thread ~ to wit, that the Koran has something other than divine origins, and that among its sources are texts other than those we find in the Bible, but which are contemporaneous to the Bible, and may derive from other materials which the Bible itself references.
You have argued that Mohammad was illiterate (and that was his reputation, but we do not know it for a fact) and therefore was unable to directly read ancient texts. I merely asserted that Mohammad probably could read (and he most certainly could read after his encounter with the angel), and that he had associates who could read, and that there were other people at Mecca who could read pre-dot Arabic, and most likely a variety of other writing systems and languages.
Mecca was, after all, a major stop on a major trade route in the Middle East. Such places attract knowledgeable and talented people.
Your final argument, to wit: "take your unlikely speculations" to someplace else, pretty clearly identifies you as an Islamist who's not willing to face up to the fact that God didn't deliver the Koran to anybody named Mohammad!
Yep, you got me.
With such razor-sharp reasoning, no wonder you're always so good at figuring out the secrets of the past.