Quote of the day
posted at 10:46 pm on January 14, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What if scholars can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Koran was not dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammad during the 7th century, but rather was redacted by later writers drawing on a variety of extant Christian and Jewish sources? That would be the precise equivalent of proving that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels really was a composite of several individuals, some of whom lived a century or two apart.
—
Apart from the little group at the University of the Saarland and a handful of others, though, the Western Academy is loathe to go near the issue. In the United States, where Arab and Islamic Studies rely on funding from the Gulf States, an interest in Koranic criticism is a failsafe way to commit career suicide.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Is this any different than Ron Paul’s writings and how they are handled now ?
William Amos on January 14, 2008 at 10:48 PM
In the Muslim World, there’s the rub.
snickelfritz on January 14, 2008 at 10:53 PM
kettle… black.
frreal on January 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM
How many buildings are going to burn down this time?
Fascinating stuff, though. I like any article that points out the parallels between the Nazis and the Mohammedans.
emailnuevo on January 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Now we have this week’s Islamic excuse to riot & burn Bush in effigy.
jgapinoy on January 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM
The more I learn about Islam as it is currently constituted – the more I read the “Blogging the Qu’ran” series, for example – the more I grow in despair. Islam, properly interpreted, demands war with the West, which I fear is too weak to fight it. And unlike Christianity, there is no hope of a Luther, a Hus, a Calvin… no hope of a Reformation which may lead, ultimately, to skepticism and temperance and reason. Islam – “submission” – demands the exact oppposite of compromise.
The possibility that there may be genuine historical evidence demonstrating (if not proving) that Islam is not the work of a single man, much less a divinely inspired prophet, is the first thing to give me genuine hope. God willing, this lead will pan out to something substantial… and not ignite a genuine apocalypse.
kiltedscotsman5 on January 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM
That’s very interesting. For a scholar to publish on this though would be essentially signing one’s own death warrant.
Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Somehow I think Islam will reject what is not their perception of truth.
BL@KBIRD on January 14, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Where’s Robert Spencer on this? I bet he has a thing or three to say on this topic.
TBinSTL on January 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I thought the Gospels did come from multiple people.
AbaddonsReign on January 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM
“career suicide?” You could shorten that to just plain ole’ suicide.
Unlike the Divinci Code, which has fictional murdering priests, the fine folks of Islam have many, many people willing to kill for any perceived slight. I’d say this qualifies.
lodestonejames on January 14, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Ever try telling a devout Christian the same thing about the Bible…that’s it’s all made up from ancient stories? Eh…at least they don’t try to cut your head off.
SouthernGent on January 14, 2008 at 11:10 PM
They did. Authorship of the Christian Gospels is not equivalent, in relative terms, to authorship of the Qu’ran. Read the article; the comparison is more properly made between the Qu’ran, and Jesus Christ himself… and finding that authorship of the Qu’ran is attributable to multiple individuals is more akin to finding that Jesus was a composite of several individuals.
kiltedscotsman5 on January 14, 2008 at 11:11 PM
MB4 on January 14, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I don’t see why they don’t put the films on the Internet and let the scholars at them.
bnelson44 on January 14, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Wait a minute… suicide bombers are only going to get 72 raisins?
Methinks that might change things.
Spolitics on January 14, 2008 at 11:20 PM
“Mohammadans” is to “Muslims”
what
“Orientals” is to “Asians”
Both sound so danged outDATED.
Shirotayama on January 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Here’s the WSJ article, and my favorite quote:
To which Coronagold, yesterday, said sour grapes.
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Didn’t they already prove that the Koran we know today is not the original? I remember seeing a television show that had done some detective work on a very old copy of the Koran which showed that it was written on top of another set of erased script, which was an earlier version of the same story. They used the same techniques that crime labs use to detect markings and other erased writings for the police.
Sydney Carton on January 14, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Are you seriously asking what would happen? They are called riots.
Jay on January 14, 2008 at 11:25 PM
No raisin bran for oil!
lorien1973 on January 14, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Islam is the religion of the death threat. No one is EVER free to say what he thinks.
Mojave Mark on January 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM
This poses a loss. It would just not be as effective to say “Wait, wait, we ran out of grapes/raisins”. I just love the fifth cartoon in this link. Classic-of-all-classics in cartoons! So long as I’m here on HA, I’ll link to it as often as it’s on topic.
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Since when has the Muslim world ever cared about things like debate and discussion? There could be a mountain of evidence proving the Koran is nothing but a book, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. The Muslims will riot and burn things, the useful idiots will cry and whine about intolerance, and this will all go away as it always does. I’d love to be wrong of course, but somehow I doubt it in this case.
Grayson on January 14, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Entelechy, did you watch all those videos that Ezra Levant has put up on his website?
Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Or-
profitsbeard on January 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Anyone else getting the muslim dating service banner at the bottom of that article?
Real life is stranger than fiction.
TexasDan on January 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I did and he’s one of my new heroes. He should take the case to the Canadian Supreme Court and then he should tour the world with speeches. Also, a movie should be made for all freedom-loving people, or all who are still free, even if they don’t display such love, to see and internalize.
Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Did your spouse commit the final righteous act of jihad, leaving you to tend the little ones? Try this dating service!
AbaddonsReign on January 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Heh. That was a dumb question on my part after I saw where your link went to! I found that very inspiring also. He can tour and do speeches and Smeato can provide security.
Spirit of 1776 on January 15, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Spirit, my first boss in the U.S. told me “the only dumb question is the one not asked”. Maybe true, maybe not, but there’s a kernel of truth in it :)
Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 12:17 AM
It seems the main purpose of “jihad” is something the alpha males with the four wives tell the beta males for whom there are no wives available. That way the beta males won’t be lurking about any undercovered meat. Since not all the beta males fall for that, they have to throw bags over the heads of all the women so the wifeless males won’t be tempted.
pedestrian on January 15, 2008 at 12:22 AM
The question is asked in the article of why the Nazis, of all people would be interested in gathering evidence on the origins of Islam.
I’d guess, given the Nazis dislike for just about all religions other than national socialism, they were looking for ammo to discredit and destroy it amongst the people who happened to be sitting on top of a lot of oil…after, of course, enlisting them in that other little Nazi project that the Muslims of the time were only too happy to find common cause with – killing all the Jews.
Get them all in on ‘the party’, remove the ‘opiate’, they have nothing left to look to but the state.
Twisted and evil, but it makes sense,
Wind Rider on January 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM
The most valuable lesson here is that– despite the fervent faith of those who think the Tancredo “nuke Mecca” option is somehow the deus ex machina against radical Islam– there is no simple answer to obliterating a madness such as this. No magic bullet that will stop them from believing and make the ugliness just go away with a simple, albeit unpleasant, “justifiable” detour from our morality.
Not the destruction of Mecca nor the discrediting of the Koran will stop this madness. It can only be changed one person at a time.
a4g on January 15, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Indeed.
Spirit of 1776 on January 15, 2008 at 12:37 AM
what’s going on in here?
Metro on January 15, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Based on comments in his eye opening book, “The Truth about Mohammed”, Spencer seems to believe that Mohammed’s life, as recorded in the hadiths and others sources is likely accurate for the most part. However, he says it doesn’t matter whether he was real or not, what matters is how Muslims use his example to justify their deeds.
If you thought this article was interesting, I recommend spending 30 minutes or so reading the introduction to “Origins of the Qur’an” by Ibn Warraq which you can find here.
SpencerFan on January 15, 2008 at 1:19 AM
They are very careful to never say that again once I get done with them.
Tuco on January 15, 2008 at 2:03 AM
labrat on January 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM
I’ve often wondered about the validity of the Koran. From what little I know about it, wasn’t it collected by one guy from Mohammed’s followers, who burned every OTHER copy of what Mohammed said that he could?
That just seems like a great way to do some rewriting on the sly.
Don’t forget that Islam does have it’s good parts too. If it didn’t, it never would have gotten that far, I don’t believe. It’s just that the bad parts outweigh the good parts.
Vanceone on January 15, 2008 at 2:45 AM
What is it about that name??
labrat on January 15, 2008 at 3:06 AM
That is a great piece, profitsbeard.
hillbillyjim on January 15, 2008 at 3:55 AM
I think it’s ridiculous to reserve one’s opinion due to fear of attack. If they wanna get it on then let’s get it on and be done with it.. The real torture is pussyfootin’ around on this issue and dragging it out. Fredalanche!!!!
whiskeytango on January 15, 2008 at 5:18 AM
There’s another problem with early copies of the Qur’an that is not mentioned often: the diacritical marks (the dots above or below the letters) were not added until a few hundred years after Muhammad “received” the text. This makes for many diverse alternate readings. For example, the Arabic letters for b, t, and soft th, as well as y and n when they appear in the beginning or middle of words all have the same form. Without the diacritical marks, one cannot distinguish them from one another. Add to this the problem that Semitic languages only add vowel markings occasionally, and it makes for significant variations in reading the text.
JS on January 15, 2008 at 6:48 AM
And Pres Bush has bought into the Islam == Peace crapola, hook, line and sinker. And today we see that Mitt Romeny is paling around with Islamist radical backer Rep Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) as part of his campaign in Michigan.
If our current Repub pres and a major candidate in the Repub party dont get it, how on earth can we ever fight these Islamist jihadists??
And the Dems are totally lost when it comes to defending the US against the Islamist threat. Obama supports the radical Islamist in Kenya and Bill Clinton had Arafat as his most freqent Whitehouse guest, and Hillary would be as bad or worse.
The fact is that money, mostly oil money is driving these decisions. Until we change that this Islamist threat will not go away.
georgealbert on January 15, 2008 at 7:45 AM
I wrote about this on my blog if anyone’s interested.
JS on January 15, 2008 at 8:28 AM
I can hear the secular relativist/progressive response already… “but it can also be proven the the Bible isn’t the word of God either“.
MT on January 15, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Language is funny thing, that’s why so much is often lost in translation.
Some say the Kosacks were dyslectic-look at their alphabet.
Others say the only persons capable of translating the Koran are Pharmacists-only a pharmacist can decipher islamic (doctors) handwriting.
Cyphers written in ‘Sanrift’ and in the sand alway change when the wind blows and their meaning is determined only by the direction the wind was blowing.
Finally, one should always be suspicious of a person who writes from right to left-because they are going in the wrong direction.
MSGTAS on January 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Fair enough, we do take our beliefs seriously; however, The Da Vinci Code made tons of money. It was hardly a career ending choice for those involved.
Clearly people have no problem making those statements about the Christian faith.
Esthier on January 15, 2008 at 9:50 AM
It won’t matter, publish it. Their are other religions, who with absolute proof were not honestly created. We have religions where supposed God have them the exact words, a God of perfection, and the book has proved to be false, have to be re-written, a ideas and words taken from Masonary, no geological proof to show that any cities ever existed, or mountains where thousands of people were killed, but never a bone or fighting instrument were found.
Jones had people, most highly educated even some senators, convinced.
Manson had girls kill viciously for him, and for years still believed him. Patti Hearst, my God, there are thousands of cases of people blinded by faith. Priests, taking women, religious leaders taking children as brides, or wives of other church members, for the name of God.
The fact is, when blinded by faith, they will even give up their children…
So publish what you have, it won’t make a difference, they will just harden their stand, and become more adamant defending their faith.
right2bright on January 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM
That happens all of the time, the difference is, show Christians proof, real proof, and see what the reaction is. After 2,000 years, no one has come up with the proof.
Telling someone you don’t believe them and showing them proof is to totally different things.
right2bright on January 15, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Why do you think they use pseudonyms?
I disagree on both points (as does my university). Except that on the first one, I use the spelling Mahometan. (And Marlowe, by the way, refers in Tamburlaine to the alcoran.)
Tzetzes on January 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Eliminate the threat to anyone’s career by simply publishing the images online for any and all who are interested to examine, explore, decipher, discuss them. These are not the actual documents we’re talking about. These are images captured on film.
Before the film becomes too brittle – publish the images online with multiple ghost sites posted anonymously.
She has already lost one position based on the false assumption that she can protect Islam’s image by severely restricting access to these images. Few knew of their existance prior to this article. Now the proverbial cat is out of the bag. She is out of her league now. For the sake of all humanity, Post them.
heroyalwhyness on January 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Nazis? Bombing raids? Conspiracy? Evidence that the Koran is a fraud? This entire story is straight-up unrefined awesomeness!
Blacklake on January 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Ahhhh,RoP….the time warp has caught up w/ you……O well,
forwardback to the stoneage.http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Abul-Kasem-Interview-An-Apostate-Speaks.htm
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543
lobosan5 on January 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Indeed! It’s hard to argue with the “Queen of Spain”. They don’t possess the intellect and the nuance. I’ve met some of them too and it’s always fun.
Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Yea, those parts about banging four chicks at a time and “45 minute marriages” are good parts.
Tim Burton on January 15, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Comment pages: