Where did the Koran come from?
Which humans made it? What are the historical antecedents for the writing of
the Koran? Why is it littered with so many mistakes, nonsense, racism,
surpemacism and violence? Why do Moslems believe that a moon deity Hub'Allah made
it? Why don't they study it as a historical document? Why do Western
ignoramuses accept the claim that the ilah [the one] created it?
Moslems worship the Koran with a devotion that
borders on the irrational and mystical. As one author described it, the Koran
"....is the holy of holies. It
must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never
drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in
silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster." For
Moslems the Koran is simply the most important set of injunctions ever written
down – some 1400 years ago.......
In times past the Koran was ridiculed within the
Western world and anyone who has read the Koran would know why. Today of course
a moon deity premised and pre-modern ritualized cult is recast as a religion.
Gibbon the arch anti-religious and cult zealot described Muhammad's project and
manual as an “incoherent rhapsody of fable.” 'Great Man' theorist Thomas
Carlyle found the Koran an “insupportable stupidity”. Scholar Reinach wrote:
“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation,
repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared
reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that
this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and
that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it.”
true. The Koran is adolescent, irreligious cult dogma. It is a violent
anti-humanist rant, which finds its corollary in Mein Kampf.
The Koran was created to form a
cult of rabid devotion to Muhammad through the worship of an ilah or El-Lah, namely
the one. In reading the Koran, both Allah and Muhammad seem interchangeable.
This makes sense since Muhammad was the ilah's only spokesmen and whatever
Muhammad wanted, the ilah also supported and vice-versa. It is certainly fair
to state that Allah is another name for Muhammad.
When the 'great man' Muhammad
died, four of his companions succeeded him as leaders of the Islamic cult. The
last of these four was bizarrely both his cousin and his son in law. He was
murdered by a rival named Muawiya in 661 A.D. and Muawiya became the first of
the Ummayad caliphs an empire which lasted until 750 A.D. The Umayyads were
deposed by the ‘Abbasids, who lasted in Iraq and Baghdad until the thirteenth
The Ummayads were termed 'godless'
and had little inclination to Islamic totalitarianism. The Abbasids were
'purer' and regarded themselves as religious [or more accurately in the case of
Islam cult] fanatics. It was the Abbasids who invented the Hadiths or the
sayings of the great man Muhammad. The most 'legitimate' of the Abbasid writers
of the Hadiths was of course Bukhari who lived during the 8th century
– at the time of the Abbasid revolt. As one historian pithily reported:
“The ruling power [the Ummayads]
itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the
opposition of pious circles silenced [the Abbasids]; it too had to know how to
discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did:
invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what
In other words once the Abbasids
got the story telling rolling, the Ummayads responded in a like-minded manner.
Both sides had story-tellers who made a good living inventing 'what the Prophet
said and did....' Like medieval chansons de gestes, the Moslem troubadours
regaled their audiences with the most minute facts about everything Muhammad
said, did, wanted and alluded to. The most intricate details of his toiletry
and defecation are even recorded. Rituals, prayers, positions, prostrations and
mumblings all to support the pious school [Abbasids] or the ruling temporal
powers [Ummayads] issued forth. Seen in this light Bukhari's works are
political pieces of propaganda and are merely one of some 200 such sets of
'traditions', all of whom were invented some 200 years after Muhammad had
The perspicacious Islamicist,
Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field
of Islamic studies and are a must read, stated the following [my summary only]:
'isnads' [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to Muhammad only
began to be developed during the Abbasid revolt —i.e., the mid-8th century;
ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be,
the more likely it was to be spurious.
existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the prophet, though some of them
might ultimately be rooted in his teaching.” [quote from Schacht]
great majority of traditions from the Muhammadan era are documents which date
not from Muhammad's life time but from much later stages in the development of
the totalitarian doctrines which made up Islamic 'law' in succeeding centuries.
The Koran and the Hadiths are very
much man-created. The Hadiths purport to explain the Koran, but they were
created some 200 years after Muhammad died. How accurate can they be, based as
they are on testimony and investigation during a time of 8th century
civil war? How accurate do you think the oral tradition lasting some 200 years
was by 750 AD? What implications do the above facts have for Islam, Muhammadan
law, and the concept of modern Sharia and Islamic liturgy?