I don't know about your childhood, but perhaps you've played a kid's game called Simon Says. Simon gives a command after first saying "Simon Says" and you have to follow it in this case, and disobey it if he didn't say Simon Says. While this game is simple, it carries with it the message that there are times to obey a message, and times to disobey.
What am I getting at? Well, suppose I had some sort of identifier that it was actually me doing the writing, certain phrases I would use. Someone else tries to forge my handwriting and force me to write a false message, and I wouldn't use this identifier, so they would know it wasn't me.
Moving on. In the writing of the Qu'ran, the passages were not written in order by chronology, but by length of passage, so the text appears jumbled, with several instances of him speaking to people that seem out of context because the other parts are elsewhere. That said, another feature of the text is the practice of abrogation, that is, older passage are overwritten by newer ones. (The problem being, the average person reading through this, has no idea which passages are older or newer without doing a historical study)
More on this here.
There are two problems with this:
First, the entire concept of abrogation means the Qu'ran is
not a holy book, and not of divine origin. Why? Well, let me provide some background on myself. I am a writer, mainly of video games and the like, but I have at one point written a religious book known as the Mune Shinri (I have since changed my name and address, sorry, no autographs). This was a religious book on human religion, using the lessons of my own life. So whenever something I wrote turned out to be wrong, I rewrote it. This is okay, I never claimed this was God's word. Humans make mistakes. The problem being, if something claims to be the infallible word of God, it cannot have these rewrites or its whole legitimacy is called into question.
However, we have a more serious problem. According to the history of the man himself, at one point, he pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah. The next day at the behest of Gabriel, he claims that the verses were whispered by the devil himself. So, we are looking at the text, and there is a sudden shift from peaceful texts about trading with Jews and Christians, to increasingly paranoid text about how the Jews and Christians are plotting together, from an accepted command to not do violence except in defensive warfare to a change in 626 AD where things changed to largely offensive war.
We weren't around. How do we know that at some point, one of his relatives didn't actually take over? In fact, since Muslims of the time were largely silent, he very well could have been killed much earlier than claimed for being too soft. Or that he was influenced by the devil (what most of us would consider either insanity, or simply allowing himself to be consumed by hatred or revenge)? In either case, this change would reflect itself in the text, would it not?
And it does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the link above
Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest. [55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad [56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.
Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5). [57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace. [58] |
There is something wrong with this. You see, unlike previous passages, it does not include the classical beginning. This tells me that (1) Muhammad had been ordered to write this passage by others of his family and he dropped the typical callsign to let people know that it wasn't really him writing, or (2) it
wasn't him writing and the person who wrote this added it in here into the text before noticing that he always started (this would be like my sister trying to get my parents to write a letter of permission to go on a field trip, and doing it herself. Even if she forged their writing, the letter would be in the tone of a teenager rather than an adult, and clearly not written by my parents). There is another problem. This was written one year before his death (June 8, 632 AD), but at 626 they started declaring offensive wars. What writing was there in support of this in 626 AD?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/...of-christians/
As it turns out, there wasn't one. In 626, Muhammad wrote a text that in fact made it sinful to hurt other people of the book, making this extremist stance a violation of the original tenants of Islam. What then, are we to conclude from this? Islam was at some point hijacked. Muhammad, as flawed a human being as he was, did not advocate war, but his in-laws took over his followers and marched in direct conflict with his wishes (or killed him and claimed he died later).
Given this, we can conclude that this particular abrogation was likely falsely written, and has no validity. Since 2:190 does make it permissable to fight back, this is still permissable to defend, but the idea that jihad is an obligation is actually a heresy. Given this, any texts that this led to, are also falsely written. In short, because this part of the text was not written
in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful, it could only have been written by the demons or by man.
Muslims need to stop fighting, and start cleaning house. To start looking seriously at the Qu'ran, and actually allowing it to reform. To unseat the extremist elements of their own faith before they proceed to spread their religion. If you aren't sure whether all of your writings actually were inspired by God, you cannot share them with others without it being called into doubt.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
