69 million page views

The Qur'an? that opaque revelation?

Reader comment on item: Salman Rushdie and British Backbone
in response to reader comment: To dhimmi: Fundamentals of Islam are written in Quran and not in al-Maghazi by Waqidi

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 3, 2007 at 20:36

The Qur'an is a confused and confusing book. It is full of grammatical mistakes and many mistakes in syntax. It does not tell us anything about the life of Abul Qasim (I challenge you to prove me wrong) . It is full of strange words (eg: ababeel and sijeel, kalala, Ilaf ) and many foreign words (eg: Ruum, sarat, tur) when it claims to be a kitab mubeen maktuub bi 3Arabi faseeh. But most damaging to the Qur'an as literature is that without the help of the hadith and the sira and asbab al-nuzul and al-tafseer and al-ta'weel the Qur'an makes no sense.

But if the sira and the hadith and asbab al-nuzul and the tafseer/ta'weel are all bogus then we have no clue what this opaque revelation called the Qur'an is really saying

The fact that the 3Ulama had no clue not back then or now what words like Ilaf in Surat Quraish really means or if the word MLK in surat al-fatiha is maaliki or the owner of (see the 1923-1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an) or maliki or the king of (see the 1969 Tunisian edition of the Qur'an) It is either Muhammad heard it as maaliki or maliki. It could not have been both. Take also Q66 the Quranic allusuions there make no sense but we are told the funny and fancy stories about the big drama in Muahmmad's home and about a certain mariya al-Qibtiya. But Ibn Kathir tells us that such allusion is about Muhammad ate some bad 3asl nahl! So it is either that there was a drama in Abul Qasim's little abode and there was indeed such a person as mariya al-Qibtiya (The Qur'an as uausl is silent about Mariya al-Qibtiya) or that Muhammad just ate some bad 3asl nahl (the Qur'an is also silent about Abul qasim's eating 3asl nahl) but it cannot be both. And it also means that Tabari and Ibn Kathir had no clue about what the Qur'an is really saying.

Do you know what this means (see Michael Cook)?

1. It could mean that the Quranic material predates Muhammad and in this case we can detach the Qur'an from Muhammad because by time of his death no one seem to know what the word ilaf really means.

2. Or the Quranic material was circulating as logias and pericopes and the Qur'an was not canonized until the 3rd century of Islam but by then no one had a clue what such material really means. And do you know waht this means? It means that we can detach islam from Arabia.

Wanna know more? Just ask.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)