Reading the Qur'an and Muhammad

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 19, 2009 at 09:24

Plato wrote

>hello dnm,

Hi Plato

>Great, now I know Allah was really an alias of Muhammad.

Well I doubt that there was really a historical Muhammad. Again like anything in islam the islamic sources or kutub al-turath al-islami are the worst enemy of the Islamic tradition. Notice that you cannot even reconsturct the life of Muhammad by reading the Qur'an only. And if you examine the extant Arabic language sources you will not even find his name for about 72 years after his death mentioned any where! So where was he? Then we are told in the islamic sources, that were written about 200-300 years after the death of Muhammad, that his name was really Qutham and his Kunya was Abul Qasim so who is this Muhammad/Ahmad? and it really makes you wonder that the story of the Biblical parakletos was no more than the reason for calling this man Muhammad/Ahmad, if he ever existed, and this is no more than a case of reversing cause for effect. Even when we are told that the word Taha really means Muhammad and it is another name for him. But if you read Ibn kathir you will discover that Taha is supposed to be a rabbinical formula: Ta'aa al-ard ya rajul or stand on both feet O man. Which is more evidence that much of Quranic exegesis is suspect

Now is the Qur'an the words of a man by the name of Qutham whose Kunya was Abul Qasim and whose very names Muhammad/Ahmad are suspect and his name cannot be Taha? I doubt it very much and here are my reasons: I will give you a very simple and very celebrated example and it is the word ILAF in Suart Quriash no one has a clue not back then and not now what this very word means but this is indeed puzzling as the Qur'an claims to be a kitab mubeen or clear book maktub bi 3arabi fasseh or written in clear/eloquent Arabic. Now do you know what this means? (see Cook):

1. It is either the Qur'an predates Muhammad and by the time of his death in 632CE no one had a clue what this word Ilaf really means.

2. Or that the Quranic logias and pericopes were only circulating but not canonized between the time of his death in 632CE and 2-3 centuries when the Ulama were working on the muslim masora (Hebrew for examination of the language and grammar of the text) but by then no one had a clue what this very word Ilaf really means and so much for the little bogus drama of the collection of the Qur'an which does not make any sense any way

But do you know what this means?

1. It means that we can detach Muhammad from the Qur'an

2. We can also detach Arabia from islam

So much for Muahmmad and his Qur'an

Now I will provide you with 2 examples of great work on the Quran that caste great doubt on this the origin of this opaque revealtion called al-Qur'an

1. John Wansbrough's "variant traditions": as you know Allah seems to be in the habit of repeating himself ad nauseum as in the case of "the Shu3ayb tradition" and "the two gardens" tradition. The Ulama explained it that it is all about asbab al-nuzul or reasons for revelations. But a more eloquent explanation is provided by Wansbrough where he suggests that these "variant traditions" are (in the words of Cook) "the results of the development of independent possibly regional traditions incorporated more or less intact into the canonical compilation" and do you know what this means? it means that the Quranic material as in the case of these "variant traditions" have multiple authors!

2. More interesting is Angelika Neuwirth who in the words of Cook "the Koran despite the prominent part it plays in Muslim life is used only to a limited extent in liturgy proper in marked contrast to the Bilbe among the Jews and Christians.......Neuwirth who highlited the problem found in the Meccan material of the Qur'an indications that it took shape in liturgical contexts which subsequently disappeared." which makes one wonder that Q25:1 could be an example and indeed the very old parts of the Qur'an could be it

Now one final point: when you read the islamic sources you find Muhammad to be a nasty man who had 23 wives and slaves and did not hesitate to kill and chop and fight and we can even read that he was gay and he loved food and women and perfumes which makes him very shallow indeed.

I do believe, but like anyhting in islam one cannot prove it, that the Persians that were involved in the 2-3 centuries of islam in composing the books of hadith and tafseer and history (Ali Dashti estimated that 70% of the islamic tradition was written by Persians!) had no like for islam as they and their nation were dragged into islam yelling and screaming and this is the ultimate revenge.

>regardsPlato

I hope i helped

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".