2005-08-06 03:55:20 UTC
1. The Koran is incomplete
2. Muhammad is not trustworthy
The Koran was revealed to Muhammad by his death in 632. He transmitted
it to his following who compiled it during the decades after his
death, and varied compilations were completed in the mid 650s. There
were multiple compilations at the time, each using different material
based on the recitations of different caliphs. This variation caused
concern for Muslim scholars at the time. 'We thus face serious
contradictions in our source material regarding two issues: who
collected the Koran, and what it was collected from. In historical
terms, the differences between the rival accounts are not trivial'. In
the tenth century there were between 7 and 14 major different versions
of the Koran available.
* * * Ref: "The Koran: A Very Short Introduction" (Paperback)* * *
Upon the compilation of the version we have today there were doubts
and the writing of Muslim scholars expressed it: That some of the text
may have been missed. This was why the compilations were completed in
the first place, because those who Muhammad had instructed the words
of the angel Gabriel to were becoming old. Early Muslim sources state
'[A Koran compiler's] Koran was incomplete, perhaps dramatically so.
'Let none of you say', averred the pious son of Caliph Umar, 'that he
has the whole Koran in his possession. How does he know what the whole
of it is? Much of the Koran has gone', and early compilers also
despaired 'of the sharp divergences in Koranic recitation that had
appeared among the Muslims - just had been the case, he warned, among
the Jews and Christians before them.
The Koran is incomplete... there are rules, guidelines and comments by
God that we no longer possess. The Koran is not compiled in order; the
patchwork canonization period was not capable of being done
chronologically. We do not know what order the texts were supposed to
be in. The missing text may contain really quite important rules and
texts! For example, the important rule "Muslims must cut their beard,
for health and hygiene purposes, once a month or once a week if they
work in the kitchens" may have been missed out! We do not know what is
missing... it really could be anything.
Muhammad not trustworthy
At one point Muhammad and his kin were opposed by the polytheists
around them. In particular, they were oppressed by the followers of 3
pagan gods in Mecca. When defeated, surrounded and under siege,
Muhammad 'seems to have even compromised his monotheism, at first, to
make peace with the Meccans', and suddenly recalled some text that
stated that the three pagan gods were valid intercessors [Q53:19-20],
after all! Lucky for Muhammad he remembered this important fact!
However, when Muhammad had a powerful army and his exiled followers
returned, he recited a further passage... saying that it was an error,
the three pagan gods were not valid! How could this be? There are two
possibilities, the first of which I accept and the second that Islam
has accepted traditionally.
... it can be seen that Muhammad was defeated and gave in to pressure
from his enemies. He compromised truth, God's eternal word, for
material benefits: To stay alive. This is the truth of the matter. If
Muhammad can do this here, he could have done it with any part of the
Koran. We do not know which parts of the text were due to Muhammad's
materialism and selfishness and which parts he honestly thought were
the words of Gabriel. Like the Christian scriptures, we are left only
with Human text, not godly text.
The Satanic Versus
However Islamic tradition has it that these versus were not the result
of Muhammad's insincerity. They were versus that were sneaked into the
Koran by Satan. At an emotional moment Satan tricked Muhammad into
thinking that these versus were genuine, and it was only later that
"God annuls what Satan casts" (Q22:52).
* * * Ref: "Why I Am Not a Muslim", by Ibn Warraq (Paperback)* * *
"Muslims have always been uncomfortable with this story, unwilling to
believe that the Prophet could have made such a concession to
idolatry. [...] It seems unthinkable that such a story could have been
invented by a devout Muslim such as al-Tabari [...]. Besides, it
explains the fact why those Muslims who had fled to Abyssinia
returned: they had heard that the Meccans had converted. It seems
apparent that this was no sudden lapse on the part of Muhammad, but
had been carefully calculated to win the support of the Meccans. It
also casts serious doubts on Muhammad's sincerity: Even if Satan had
really put the words in his mouth, what faith can we put in a man so
easily led astray by Satan? Why did God let it happen? How do we know
there are no other passages where Muhammad has not been led astray?"
"Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq p102
Which leaves us with some very interesting problems!
Because if Satan can inspire versus we do not know which ones are
valid and which ones are not. For all intents and purposes, the faked
ones were real from the time Satan slipped them in until the time God
annulled them. A period of some years! What further versus is God to
cancel? What other versus were inspired by Satan? We do not know... as
a result the Koran cannot be trusted!
The Koran cannot be trusted!!!
If Muhammad falsified the words of Gabrielle to save his own neck then
we cannot trust Muhammad... yet if it was Satan who inspired the
versus, we cannot trust the Koran! Adding to this the fact that we
know there is text missing from the Koran... what are we left with?
Instead of inspired holy scripture, it sounds more like the insincere
legacy of Muhammad, or the mixed opinions of God and Satan! Some
scripture is not only missing, or wrong, but designed to deceive: In
all cases, the book is not the pure word of God, and is not a suitable
text for Muslims to know the will of God.
Furthermore...even the Hadith texts are broken !!!
Islam does not only rely on canonical texts. The Hadith sayings are
given religious authority and attributed to Muhammed:
"Modern Western scholarship, however, examining critically the
earliest surviving documents, has cast a much more fundamental doubt
over the Hadith literature. The first to raise questions about the
traditional version of the rise of the Hadith literature was Ignaz
Goldziher. He showed that up to three centuries after Muhammed, many
individuals, political parties and sectarian movements within Islam
were manufacturing Traditions that supported their claims and
positions. These Traditions, claiming to be on the authority of
Muhammed, gave each faction legitimacy and authenticity"
* * * Ref "The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach" * * *
by Moojan Momen ", 1999 p 325.
It is clear that Islam has serious issues with it's texts...
Historically, Muslim scholars have known this...
"...[critics say] that the Koran often copied Biblical stories, and
sometimes did so inaccurately, [...].
Against the charge that Muhammad had copied from previous scriptures
Muslims developed the doctrine of Muhammad's illiteracy, which implied
his complete inability to read the scriptures. The doctrine was based
on the application to Muhammad in the Koran of the adjective ummì.
which was alleged to mean 'illiterate'. The word occurs a number of
times in the Koran in both singular and plural, and apears to have
been taken from the Jews and to mean 'Non-Jewish' or 'Gentile' or
* * "Islamic Fundamentalism and Modernity" by W. Montgomery Watt, p9
In Muslim dogma, this Earth belongs to Satan. Satan wishes to keep
power on this Earth as part of a conflict with God... Satan believes
he can hold some power apart from God, whereas God disagrees. Satan
was given the Earth: Stars, Galaxies and the whole Universe were
created in order to show Satan how insignificant his domain is and how
temporary his "power" is. But by submitting yourself completely to God
(like the animals and disabled people have done) you ignore Satan's
power, and show him he has no power. So, materialism is Satanic.
Materialism is giving temporary power to Satan, anything not of God is
doing the same. This sets the scene for the Islamic religion's stance
on mankind... the word Islam means "submission" to God.
Where does Muhammad and the Koran stand in light of this dualistic
cosmic power struggle? Muhammad, if he altered God's word, was a
materialist and the Koran a materialistic tool... a tool of Satan. Or
at least parts of it. Following the Koran means that in part at least,
you are following Satan. Which means Islam is a self-contradictory
However if you don't believe Muhammad done this, and you subscribe to
the theory that the Satanic Versus were from Satan, not from Muhammad,
then we have a deeper problem. Because Satan's versus in to the Koran
saved Muhammad's life from the pagans by temporarily inspiring
Muhammad's new religious dogma. What does it mean that Muhammad,
supposedly dependent and submitted purely to God, was saved by Satan?
The entire Islamic religion would only exist because of Satan himself.
So is Islam submission to God... or Satan? If the former, then it is
submission to God only by means of the actions of Satan... Satan truly
had power of control over the creation of the Islamic religion.
It seems that even the "good" of the Koran is based on Satan's
power... Satan chose to let Muhammad live, when faced with the pagans
whom Muhammad could not conquer without Satan's help. Or... if Satan
did not inspire the verses, then Muhammad himself perverted God's law
and therefore his recitation of the Koran is not pure or from God, at
least in part, due to the materialistic (Satanic) Earth... the Earth
that had power over even Muhammad. With verses missing, verses created
by Muhammad according to his needs and not according to truth, and
with an unknown quantity of verses inspired by Satan, the Koran is
more of a mistake than divinely inspired. No wonder The Satanic Verses
is such a painful reminder for Muslims of how their scripture is
indebted to Satan!
"Satan represents the state of affairs recognized by Satanists: That
all good is based on evil: That love and altruism are both selfish and
carnal. Satan represents the evil and uncaring attitude of the dark
force in nature. It represents good being dependant on evil and life
being ultimately defeated by death. Satan represents all of this evil
which in turn creates all good. Without our evil sides we are lost and
Satan represents acceptance of this."
(ISIS) The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Societies
* Over the Rainbow: http://tinyurl.com/ct8gb (IZ)
"If it is true that most Muslims are not Islamist,
it is no less true that all Islamists are Muslims."