Tuesday, 8 June 2010

L'invention d'Allah, du Coran, de l'islam et de Mahomet

L’'avis des experts, islamologues, érudits et archéologues

Un érudit allemand, Theodor Nöldeke, écrivit en 1860 l’histoire du Coran. Pour la première fois, les chercheurs s’interrogeaient sur la création de l’islam, en dehors des légendes.(Geschichte des Quorans, Leipzig 1919).

Force fut de constater que le Coran, loin d’être tombé du ciel, obéit à des règles de composition humaine, compilation laborieuse, réécritures permanentes.

Un autre érudit, Adoph von Harnack, affirma, dès 1874, que le « mahométisme n’est qu’une lointaine dérivation de la gnose judéo-chrétienne, et non une religion nouvelle ».

Puis le français Gabriel Théry (sous le nom d’Hanna Zakarias) après trente ans d’études, conclut dans son ouvrage De Moïse à Mohammed que le Coran ne pouvait être l’œuvre de Mahomet. D’après lui, l’auteur était converti au judaïsme par son instructeur juif.

Bruno Bonnet Eymard constata que les textes ayant servi à composer le Coran étaient d’origine et d’inspiration syrienne.

Après 1950, le père Bertuel confirma ces recherches. Il publia L’islam, ses véritables origines (Nouvelles Editions latines, Paris 1981). D’après lui, Mahomet est un rabbin chassé d’Edesse par Héraclius, en 628. Beaucoup de travaux insistent sur le sabéisme de l’époque. D’autres mettent l’accent sur le nombre élevé de mots persans et syriaques dans le Coran.

On peut lire à ce sujet Pourquoi je ne suis pas musulman, d' Ibn Warraq (L'Age d'Homme, Lausanne 1999)

Hassan Abassi, dans Les secrets de l'islam, cite les experts musulmans recensant des milliers de différences entre les différents corans.

Patricia Crone, et Michaël Cook, coauteurs de Hagarism, The making of the islamic world, Patricia Crone a aussi publié Meccan trade and the rise of islam, démontrant que le berceau de l’islam ne peut avoir été La Mecque. D’après elle, l’existence de La Mecque est très incertaine, avant que les califes n’en fassent un centre de pèlerinage. Ces deux auteurs, Crone et Cook, considèrent que l’histoire islamique au moins jusqu’à Al-Malik (mort en 705) est une invention tardive. Michaël Cook signale les similarités entre les croyances musulmanes et celles des Samaritains, concernant la religion d’Abraham, dans l’ouvrage intitulé Le livre des Jubilés (daté de - 140 à - 100 avant J.C.)

Antoine Moussali estime que le Coran n’était que le lectionnaire, en araméen, d’une secte judéo-nazaréenne, au début du VIIe siècle (La croix et le croissant, Editions de Paris, 1998).

Dans son ouvrage Le Coran, la Bible et l'Orient ancien, Mondher Sfar souligne que les noms attribués à Allah sont recopiés des noms attribués au dieu babylonien Mardouk, dans un poème datant du 12ème siècle avant J.C. Il rapporte aussi que les descriptions du paradis et ses raisins blancs (traduits faussement par "houris vierges" lors de la traduction du Coran en arabe) concernent le roi Assourbanipal, sur un bas-relief datant de huit siècles avant J.C.

Dans Le Coran est-il authentique ?, il rappelle que nombre de sourates du Coran étaient dites par le calife Omar, puis confirmées par Allah. Le fils d'Omar déclare : "Omar avait une vision et alors le Coran descendait selon celle-ci... Personne ne pourra dire : j'ai eu le Coran dans sa totalité."

Dans A la recherche de Muhammad, Grégoire Félix évoque un manuscrit syrien de 874, où l'émir des Hagarènes (descendants d'Agar, mère d'Ismaël) se refère à la Thora en hébreu, et non au Coran.

Alfred-Louis de Prémare, dans Les fondations de l'islam (Le Seuil), évoque la charte de Médine, datée en réalité de 830, et pourtant rédigée par Muhammad le prophète. Il rappelle que tout ce qui concerne l'islam et l'existence de La Mecque date de 250 après les "faits." Il explique aussi que la bataille du Fossé eut lieu en 688 en Syrie et non à Médine, soit cinquante ans après la mort officielle de Mahomet. Il rappelle "qu'on déchire et brûle régulièrement dans cette histoire perturbée du Coran."

Dans son livre Les Arabes n'ont jamais envahi l'Espagne (Flammarion), Ignacio Olaguëexplique que Mahomet donne encore des ordres en 855. Ce qui confirme que Mahomet n'était que le surnom de tous les chefs de tribu.

Le Dr Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, professeur à l’université de Sarrebrück (Allemagne) traducteur duCoran de Sanaa, évoque les évolutions du texte dans Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, Christop Luxenberg, (Verlag Hans Schiler) « Puin a remarqué que les parchemins étaient des palimpsestes, c’est-à-dire des manuscrits dont on a effacé le texte initial pour pouvoir en écrire un nouveau…. Le Coran de Sanaa a été rédigé sans aucune marque diacritique (points, accents, cédilles portant sur une lettre ou un signe phonétique pour en modifier la valeur), sans voyelles ni aucun guide pour la lecture. Le Coran arabe est un faux : exemple de manuscrit effacé et réécrit.

L’islamologue Jacqueline Chabbi estime que le Coran a été compilé sous le calife Abd Al-Malik, à Damas, au début du VIIIe siècle (époque d’Hajjâj). Les plus anciens corans existants sont ceux du Yémen, découvert en 1972, celui de Topkapi (Istanboul), fin du VIIIe ou début du IXe siècle. Un autre exemple se trouve à la British Library à Londres, datant de la fin du VIIIe siècle, soit cent cinquante ans après l’hégire.

J. Wansbrough a étudié les origines samaritaines du Coran, dans Qur’anic Studies, Oxford, 1977, et The Sectarian Milieu, Oxford, 1978. Il a montré que le texte définitif du Coran n’était toujours pas achevé au IXe siècle. Il en déduisit qu’une origine arabe de l’islam était hautement improbable. Il note aussi l’absence de toute référence au Corandans le Fiqh Akbar I, document daté du milieu du VIIIe siècle, représentant pourtant l’orthodoxie dogmatique. Il ajoute que le Coran est « le produit d’un développement organique de traditions originellement indépendantes, au cours d’une longue période de transmission. »

Goldziher, dans On the Development of Hadith déclare « qu’un vaste nombre de hadiths, acceptés même dans les recueils musulmans les plus rigoureusement critiques, sont des faux complets de la fin du VIIIe et du IXe siècle, et qu’en conséquence, les chaînes de transmetteurs méticuleux qui les étayent sont totalement fictifs. »

Source:
http://coranix.org/200rem/resume_coran_experts.htm
http://www.bernard-raquin.fr/spiritualite/islam-coran-avis-experts.html

IHS

Friday, 4 June 2010

Some Counter-Apologetics

Javed Ahmad Ghamdi vs Ali Sina Debate; Some Extracts

(...) The Qur’an, on repeated occasions reiterates its claim to be a clear book (5:15) easy tounderstand (44:58, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40) explained in detail (6:114), conveyed clearly, (5:16, 10:15) with no doubt in it (2:1), with clear ordinances, (98:3), of divine nature, (10:37) full of wisdom, (36:2) etc. Yet you tell us that we must first learn its “scheme of presentation” in order to understand its meaning. If that is the case then what shall we make of the above claims of the clarity of the Qur’an? If we first need to learn the “scheme” of the book before we begin to understand it, then the claim that the book is clear and easy to understand is false. Please show me one verse where it says before understanding this book you must first learn its scheme of presentation. What is thist scheme of presentation? Will you please explain it to us?

(...) Are you suggesting that we should take first, a course on how to read the Qur’an before reading it? Will you please tell us why a book that claims to be so clear and easy to understand is so complicated? The Qur’an says that the unbelievers are “the vilest of animals”(8:55). How should we interpret this verse? In what scheme these insulting words mean something different than what they appear to mean? This to me sounds a hate speech. How would Muslims react if someone says Muslims are the vilest of animals?


(...) The Qur’an encourages the Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not take them as friends and helpers (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads ( 47:4). Under what light should we read these, and many other gory and hate mongering verses like these so we could instead love all mankind, respect others, mingle in amity with people of all faiths, be kind and loving and accepting of everyone? Don’t you think these verses are responsible for the fact that Muslims are violent and intolerant of others?


(...) There are hundreds of blunders and absurdities in the Qur’an. How can an infallible God err so much? If there were only one or a handful of errors, we could still argue that those verses have crept into the book in later stages. But when the book is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies, we must question the legitimacy of its divine origin.

(...) Why should we believe in Muhammad and not in equality-unproven claims of other prophet-pretenders and impostors? We know about all the bad things that Muhammad brought to the world, such as religious intolerance and misogyny that did not exist in Arabia before him. (The Arabs, even believed in a prophetess (Sijah), and women like Salma and Aisha led armies. Such thing is inconceivable today.)

(...)
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” asked the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, six hundred years ago. The only answer Muslims had to this question, when it was repeated by Pope Benedict, were riots, burning of churches and killing an elderly nun and her bodyguard. Will you answer this question now? Will you tell us what new Muhammad brought that was not evil? I have counted innumerable evil things that this man brought. Will you tell us about one good thing that he brought?

(...) Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who was Muhammad's secretary and used to write down the Qur’an for him, realized that Muhammad was making things up. He was not an illiterate like Muhammad and often suggested better ways to compose the Qur’anic verses that Muhammad happily would agree. He escaped and went back to Mecca and told his story to everyone, which prompted Muhammad to decide to kill him even though he promised he would not kill anyone in Mecca if they surrendered.


(...) When Muhammad recounted his tale of ascending to the seventh heaven, riding on a horse-like beast with the head of an angel and there meeting the dead prophets and bargaining with Allah on the number of prayers that Muslims should say, Abu Bakr was stunned. He did not know what to make of this. This sounded utterly mad. He had two choices. He had to either admit that Muhammad was a loony and leave him or believe in his fantastical tales. There was no middle ground.

(...) Ibn Ishaq says when Muhammad made his vision known, “many Muslims gave up their faith, some went to Abu Bakr and said, ‘What do you think of your friend? He alleges that he went to Jerusalem last night and prayed there, and came back to Mecca!’ He replied that they were lying about the apostle, but they said that he was in the mosque at that very moment, telling people about it. Abu Bakr said, ‘If he says so, then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communications from Allah, from heaven to earth, come to him in an hour of a day or night, and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!’” The logic is flawless. Basically what Abu Bakr was saying is that once you give up your rational faculty and believe in an absurdity, you might as well believe in anything. Once you let yourself to be fooled, then you should be prepared to be fooled again and again because there is no end to foolishness.


(...) How many people would let a 54 year old man sleep with their 9 year old daughter? Such thing requires extreme foolishness. This much foolishness, that you erroneously call “sincerity” is only possible through blind faith.

The last thing that can be said about the Qur’an is that it is ‘clear’ because it has been a source of confusion to Muslims from the beginning. Why do we think early Muslims had those wars between them? Didn’t each side quote the Qur’an? Why do we have sunna? Isn’t it to explain what is not clear after reading the ‘clear’ Qur’an? Why do we have so many tafseer books? Isn’t it to explain the Qur’an? Why should Allah need a human interpreter for Him?


Source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9450967/Ghamdi-Sina-Debate

IHS

Sources of the Qur'an

”Contributions by `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh”

Abstract
Muhammad had scribes write his revelations down for him. One scribe was `Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. As Sarh wrote these revelations down, he frequently made suggestions on improving their wording. Muhammad often agreed and allowed the changes to be made. Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word. Later, after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad ordered Sarh's death.

Introduction
During Muhammad's 23 years of prophetic ministry, Muhammad claimed to receive revelations from God, given to him by an angel. Muhammad used many men, functioning as scribes, to write down these assumed revelations. Different scribes wrote down different revelations. `Abdullah Sarh was one of Muhammad's scribes. Evidently, Sarh had some literary skills, sometimes suggesting improvements to Muhammad in the wording of the recited Qur'an. Muhammad often agreed with Sarh's improvements, and allowed the changes to be made. Sarh eventually left Islam because he knew that no mere scribe should be allowed to change something that was proclaimed to be the word of God. The changes were frequent enough that it caused Sarh to realize that something was amiss. Upon leaving Islam, Sarh became a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. It would no longer be believed to be the word of God if a man had been allowed to edit and change it. Sarh's threat to the credibility of the Qur'an was also a threat to Muhammad's credibility. No real prophet would allow the word of God to be changed. Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Some time later, Muhammad and his army moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. On that day, Muhammad ordered the murder of 10 people living in Mecca. Muhammad said "God forbid killing in Mecca, except for this one day." Sarh was one of the people Muhammad ordered to be murdered. His crime? He had left Islam, and he constituted a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an and the prophethood of Muhammad. No wonder then that Muhammad wanted him dead.

PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES

#1 Sirat Rasul Allah
Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550:

[words in brackets [ ] are mine]
The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka`ba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa`d, brother of the B. `Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose foster brother he was. [`Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest friends, and later became the Caliph of Islam]. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes, [granting `Abdullah immunity from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar [Muhammad's helpers from Medina] said, then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing. NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of Muhammad. It was even written before the Hadith were compiled.

#2 Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir
Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here the list of names found in Ibn Sa`d "Tabaqat", Vol 2, pg 168. Ibn Sa`d corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:

A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the already mentioned Abdallah] if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The the apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfil your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him." The prophet said signalling would have been a breach of faith. "It does not behave the prophet to make signal."


#3 From
Al-Sira by al-'Iraqi
The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise', and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'" So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says, 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him." So on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca, he commanded his scribe to be killed. But the scribe fled to `Uthman Ibn `Affan, because `Uthman was his foster brother (his mother suckled `Uthman). `Uthman, therefore, kept him away from Muhammad. After the people calmed down, `Uthman brought the scribe to Muhammad and sought protection for him. Muhammad kept silent for a long time, after which he said yes. When `Uthman had left, Muhammad said "I only kept silent so that you (the people) should kill him."


#4 Al-Baidawi commenting on the Qur'an, Sura al-An`am 6:93

DISCUSSION
Above I presented the details and the context behind the order to murder `Abdullah ibn Sarh. He was a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. He was a Muslim, worked with Muhammad in writing down the Qur'an, and, from time to time he suggested some minor changes, or made deliberate omissions or additions. `Abdullah eventually realized that if this Qur'an were truly from God, no changes would be made at his suggestion. Sarh realized Islam and the Qur'an were false and went back to Mecca. After Muhammad took Mecca, and issued the order to kill him, he hid out with `Uthman who was one of Muhammad's closest companions. Later Sarh pled for amnesty. Muhammad wanted one of his men to kill him on the spot, but they didn't know if they should, because they couldn't read Muhammad's mind. So, finally, Muhammad gave him amnesty. We see here that Muhammad really wanted Sarh dead. But Muhammad handled this in a very irrational way. Muhammad issues an edict to have a man executed, but fails to have it carried out because he doesn't want to make a signal with his hand, or wink with his eye??? Why didn't Muhammad kill him himself? If this man had committed such a crime as to cost him his life, why didn't Muhammad see that his death sentence be carried out? What kind of law is that? "You committed a major crime, punishable by death, but I'm going to let you live because I am too proud to signal with my hand."???

Note here that the
Qur'an itself, revealed in regard to Sarh in 6:93, calls Sarh extremely wicked.


This shows that Muhammad gave orders willy-nilly. This man committed no major crime, he just exposed Muhammad and the Qur'an. Muhammad just wanted this man killed for personal reasons. People lived or died based on Muhammad's frame of mind, not based on law and justice. Yet we find that the Qur'an has suffered corruption. Remember, all of the sources I presented are from early, sincere, dedicated, Muslim writers. There were devout Muslims, not moderates or liberals who would change real Islam for their own ease.

Note: These additions by `Abdullah ibn Sarh are still part of the Qur'an today.

QUESTIONS

1) Why did Muhammad so readily accept Sarh's fragrant addition to his "revelations"?

2) If Muhammad so easily accepted the input of Sarh, could he not have accepted the input of his other scribes and spliced them into the Qur'an
?

Modern scholars have shown that the Qur'an's style has been broken, and re-combined together, (see Bell's "Introduction to the Qur'an" for additional details on textual and stylistic flaws within the Qur'an).


3) Since Muhammad liked Sarh's addition, could he not have also added other stories to embellish the Qur'an?
Examining the composition of the Qur'an, we find that there are many stories borrowed from other religious sources: the Old Testament, the New Testament, other works of Judaism (the Mishnah, midrashic commentaries like they are found in Rabbi Pirke Eliezer, etc., pre-Islamic religious stories, Sabeanism, other pagan religion, etc.. Could these also have been borrowed?


4) If this story about Sarh were a fabrication, why did so many early Muslim writers document it? Certainly devout Muslims would not document a lie that serves to undermine their faith.

CONCLUSION
Proof has been presented that the Qur'an has been tainted. Early Muslim writers have showed that there is corruption in the Qur'an. They have also displayed Muhammad's real motives. Sarh did add to the Qur'an; he realized that and left Islam. Muhammad then knew another threat to his credibility existed. After Muhammad took Mecca he ordered Sarh's death to erase the threat. Because of his vanity Muhammad did not have Sarh murdered but had to pardon him. To this day, this corruption in the Qur'an exists. Further,
we have seen upon what principles Muhammad really operated on; principles of mood, not of law.

Source

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/index.htm

IHS