Peter Klevius is utterly embarrassed of again having to pick up this ultimate religious nonsense "science" scum, the notorious "Birmingham Koran" leafs.
It's like islam itself a product of PC and support of the Saudi dictator family's position as the "guardian" of "great religion". And scratch a little deeper and you'll probably find channels to Jeddah and Riyadh. Klevius won't waste his time for it.
"Prophet" Mohammad is the corner stone of islam - yet he is completely missing from any official muslim/islamic records until some half a century after his alleged death*. And the "researchers" behind the "Birmingham Koran" hoax must have known that - or...?!
* Isn't it quite peculiar that a man with so many wives didn't manage to father a single male successor? Even Klevius has managed to make an even distribution of the sexes with just a couple of wives. The son-less "prophet" is just an other outcome of the later introduction of Muhammad, i.e. to patch the lack of a male succession line of an invented "messenger". And because the "son-in-law" Ali represented one of the internally fighting muslim factions we got the now so visible Sunni-Shia split.
Peter Klevius (2014): "Birmingham Koran" has nothing to do with islam because Mohammad wasn't even introduced into islam at that time as yet. If you don't believe Klevius, ask whoever else serious historian! Moreover, whatever we will call the "book" from which the fragment comes, it must have been aJewish/Christian text of sort (is that why so many muslims seems to have grave issues with Jews?). "Prophet" Mohammad was a much later insertion into the muslim narrative.
Robert G. Hoyland: "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."
Peter Klevius many years ago: There was no Muhammad nor Koran during "Muhammad's time"!
This is self evident even without specific historical evidence because the Koran itself, as well as its followers behavior throughout islam's history and today, give us the true formula anyway.
However, for those interested, Klevius has compiled a short early islam history for the ignorant based on historical evidence. For Klevius is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
It won't hurt anyone, right? Especially not the "believers" because for them facts don't matter.
Iraq was attacked already in "Muhammad's time". The "wars against apostates" (ridda) were just pillaging and/or forceful heavy taxation combined with humiliation (i.e. dhimmi racism).
Futūḥ (ridda) were the early Arab-muslim "conquests" (i.e. more or less synonymous with what Islamic State tries to do today) which facilitated the violent spread of islam. The so called ridda wars have in muslim mythology been described as wars against apostates when they in fact were wars against infidels (i.e. "disbelievers") following these simple (but evil) instructions of Abu Bakr:
Seek the tribes which are your objectives. Call the Azaan (call for submission). If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack. Those who submit will not be attacked. Those who do not answer to the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword. All apostates who have killed muslims will be killed.
The ridda wars in Iraq occured during the alleged Muhammad's lifetime, which fact is evident because the main sources connect them to historically well known persons and their activities outside the islamic realm. A fact that is quite hidden for ordinary people under all the muslim mythology noise on the web and elsewhere.
Parvaneh Pourshariati has convincingly established that the muslim murder/looting/raping campaign of Mesopotamia (today Iraq) "took place, not, as has been conventionally believed, in the years 632–634, after the accession of the last Sasanian king Yazdgerd III (632–651) to power, but in the period from 628 to 632." An important consequence of this change in timeline means that the muslim jihad crusades started precisely when the Sasanians and Parthians were engaged in internecine warfare over who was to succeed the Sasanid throne.
Unlike other "religious" myths and legends, the muslim navel string was never cut off, leaving the rotting placenta contaminating the future via a mummificated canal from the dark ages to date.
2 The historical reality was Jewish/Christian texts (Jesus was a Jew) used in a Syriac-Arabic linguistic environment where Arabic took its first stumbling steps in the written world that the non-Semitic Sumerians had entered some 4,000 years earlier.
3 There was no historical Muhammad. Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati who beyond doubt shows the historical impossibility of such a death date) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever. The simple truth is that a mythological Judeo-Christian Messiah figure was applied to or used by one or several leaders, and later, under Malik, turned into a "muslim Messiah".
Islam is rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed/Messiah) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror "conquest".
4 The only logical/historical explanation to islam's expansion out of the Arabian desert is parasitism. Ironically, that's also the explanation the Koran gives - albeit strongly denied by PC people.
Conclusion: There was no Muhammad nor a Koran at the alleged time of the so called Birmingham Koran. So the only way to desperately try to make sense of what doesn't make sense, is to rely on unhistorical muslim mythology.
So, first you had a severe pillage inflammation in the narrow slave tracts through the desert. And the longer they got the bigger the gang which needed even more booty and women. Some three quarter of a century after the initial attacks (the slaughtering of the Jews in Medina etc.) the first Koran was edited together.
More than hundred years after the alleged death of Muhammad the first sharia emerged.
So all of this has certainly nothing to do with that Koran "science" nonsense in Birmingham, which babbles about a non existing Koran written down at a time of a non-existing "prophet"!
Christoph Luxenberg's reading of the Koran
According to Christoph Luxenberg, the Koran was not written in Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Koran was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Koranic text.
Luxenberg remarks that the Koran contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Koran of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of muslim scholars.
According to Luxenberg, the Koran was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.
“What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.”
Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Koranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.
Luxenberg also argues that the Koran is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Syriac Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Koran we know today.
Klevius advise: You might be better off without your belief in ghosts. However, you will certainly be better off with a conscience resting on Universal Human Rights freedom (for you and others) than with limiting and imposing sharia that is also uncontrollable because different users can interpret it differently due to its that violates Human Rights of others and opens up for parasitism, racism and sexism.
Measured by basic Human Rights standard islam is extremely uncivilized. And this is the only logical in islam. Born out of evil always evil. And when you disinfect islam from its evil it's no longer islam.
Some early sources:
An eighth-century manuscript of a seventh-century text in Syriac, attributed to Thomas Presbyter contains the earliest known mention in a non-muslim text of a 'Muhammad'.
'In the year 945 [=634], indiction 7, Friday 4 February at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn(?), whom the Arabs killed. Some four thousand poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs (i.e. muslims) ravaged the whole region.'
The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time
The construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 691–92 represents the earliest known dated passages later found in the Koran. In these inscriptions, some letters are provided with diacritical points.
There can be little doubt that the first contacts between nascent islam and the Christian world were one-sidedly violent and bloody and that they brought much suffering on the populations of the Christian Countries that the muslims attacked.
These accounts show that offensive sword-jihad was the modus vivendi of the early muslims and that sack, pillage, the taking of (sex-)slaves and the ravaging of the land were commonplace.
The sources also show that the muslim sense of a “god-given” entitlement to Judea-Samaria, and thus modern Israel, goes back to the foundations of islam itself.
There is evidence of the establishment of Dhimmitude and payment of Jizya and other taxes that destroyed the wealth of the non-muslims.
The explanations for much of this can be found within the Koran, Biographic and Hadith literature.
Some muslims of today are inclined to say that the Hadith and Biographies are “inaccurate” or that they “reflect the views of the muslims of the times [a century or more after Muhammad] rather than the truth about islam”. What the above demonstrates is that the “views” expressed in the Ahadith and Biographies reach back to, if not the time of Muhammad himself, then to within a year or two of his death.
Given that the early records date to before the time of the textus receptus of the Koran and thus pre-date by centuries other muslim sources and further that they reflect the actions of the Sahaba, we can be quite certain that the attitudes in the later muslim sources which reflect these earlier sources are genuine in that they are accurately accounting the beliefs of the Sahaba.
PERF 558 is the oldest surviving Arabic papyrus, found in Heracleopolis in Egypt, and is also the oldest dated Arabic text during the islamic era.
It is a bilingual Arabic-Greek fragment, consisting of a tax receipt, or as it puts it 'Document concerning the delivery of sheep to the Magarites and other people who arrived, as a down-payment of the taxes of the first indiction. It's dated to the month of Jumādā which is the first in the year 22 after "Muhammad's" arrival to Medina, i.e. 643.
It includes:
The first well-attested use of the disambiguating dots in the still developing Arabic alphabet;
It begins with the Greek formula "ev onomati tou teou" (In the Name of God) after a Sign of the Cross
It records the date both in the islamic calendar (Jumada I, year 22) and in the Alexandrian calendar (30 Pharmouthi, 1st indiction), corresponding with 25 April 643 in the Julian calendar.
In Greek, it calls the Arabs "Magaritae", a term, believed to be related to the Arabic "muhajir" often used in the earliest non-islamic sources. It also calls them "Saracens".
Muslim mafia occupy Medina and eventually slaughter all Jews there
The numbers of the muslims in Medina grew thanks to the tolerance of the Jews and their error in giving the immigrants a safe haven. Jews did not foresee that the muslims to whom they gave asylum would turn against them and eventually slaughter them all.
After the incident of Badr when muslims ambushed a merchant caravan, and brought the booty, they got the upper hand in Medina. They were enriched by the stolen booty, and the popularity of becoming muslim grew. They were promised wealth and slave girls to those who took part in armed robberies, and paradise with houries and rivers of wine to those who got killed. For an ignorant fanatic and at the same time greedy Arab this was a proposition hard to resist.
No comments:
Post a Comment