The Critical Qur’an will be out in two weeks. Preorder the hardcover here or kindle here.
Comments
Infidelsays
Also finally available for preorder on Nook
gravenimagesays
Video: Robert Spencer goes in depth on The Critical Qur’an
…………
Good point that there are variations–albeit minor ones–between Qur’ans.
And yes–translations of the Qur’an tend to be *very* consistent. And if you say something depends on context that is not enough–you have to note what the context may be. But apologists never do, because this is just a dodge.
And yes–if one cannot understand Islam without reading Arabic–absurd in any case, since most Muslims are not Arabic speakers, especially classical Arabic–then no Muslim could criticize Judaism or Christianity because they do not read Greek or Aramaic. But Muslim apologists are not consistent.
And important to note that Muslim apologists often try to obfuscate the meaning of Qur’anic verses, adding words such as “lightly” to whitewash the horrors of Islam. Just dishonest.
And when I first read the Qur’an shortly after 9/11 I knew *nothing* about the chronology of the Qur’an (Meccan or Medinan, broadly), nor anything about abrogation. Actually, knowing this generally reveals the Qur’an as *even worse*.
Robert Franklingsays
Some of the variants in the different Korans make DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES, so they are meaningful differences.
The differences are so ‘meaningful’ that Muslim scholars HIDE the differences from Muslims and REFUSE TO DISCUSS THEM, because it will lead to a loss of Islam’s MAIN argument of ‘PERFECT PRESERVATION’.
The Koran was substantially NOT perfectly preserved.
gravenimagesays
I am not a Qur’anic scholar, but I have never seen any differences that are of real doctrinal importance. Citations?
I think the main thing is that Muslims like to claim that there are *no* differences between Qur’ans over the centuries, which is clearly incorrect.
Robert Franklingsays
Jay Smith and Al Fadi will bring the proof of important textual variants.
Thanks, Robert. I’ll watch those videos as soon as I have time–probably tomorrow.
Infidelsays
The ‘not knowing Arabic’ is one of the stupidest refutations of anyone criticizing the qur’an, or islam. As you point out, only about 0.4 billion of the 1.8 billion muslims worldwide are Arab, in which case, the other 1.4 billion have no business following islam.
Not just that: it’s not uncommon for people to not know the root language of the religions they follow. How many Catholics are fluent in Latin? How many Lutherans outside Germany know German? How many non-Israeli Jews know Hebrew? Of India’s billion+ Hindus, how many of them know Sanskrit? I don’t, even though I’m familiar w/ a lot of the stories in Hindu scriptures, although admittedly not all
James Lincolnsays
Infidel,
To your point:
I once knew a Navy chaplain who could understand Greek and Hebrew.
He said that reading the Bible in its original languages was, subtly, a different experience – but not enough to actually fundamentally change the basic meaning of the texts.
gravenimagesays
I read enough German, and Middle English, to know this is true–shades of meaning–especially tone–can be subtly different.
But the idea that there is any language that simply cannot be translated is just tosh.
James Lincolnsays
Thanks for the reply and added info, gravenimage.
mortimersays
GI writes: “translations of the Qur’an tend to be *very* consistent”. I respectfully disagree after reading from many different English translations and those in other languages. There are in fact some significant disagreements in the interpretations given to obscure words and confusing, defective stylisms by ‘translators’ … in other words, they translate FREELY, rather than strictly and literally. To get any sense out of the original Arabic text, the Koran MUST BE INTERPRETED IMAGINATIVELY in other languages, because the text is so BAFFLING and INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
Some of the various Koranic translations are in fact creative PARAPHRASES or restatements or explications or elucidations of an otherwise OPAQUE, IMPENETRABLE and INCOMPREHENSIBLE text. These ‘translations’ are not really ‘translations’ in many cases.
GI observes correctly that in some of these paraphrastic renderings of the Koran, the number of words in brackets is copious … almost equal to the actual translation of the original Koranic words … which are totally vague as to their meaning. The real meaning of much of the Koranic text seems to be lost to scholarship. The original composers of the Koran may not even have known the meaning of those opaque passages … and they didn’t care to know. The Koranic text was carelessly thrown together in a rush … or so it seems. NOT a ‘literary masterpiece’!
gravenimagesays
Mortimer, if you read the Qur’an Corpus, which provides over a half dozen major translations side by side for each verse, you will find that differences are in most cases pretty minor, and the basic meaning is usually quite clear.
mortimersays
Good point from Robert Spencer. The Koran appears beginning in the 8th century and therefore seems to have been a collection of different writings collated by the caliphs.
The caliphs needed a book to create a state religion that competed with Byzantium’s Christianity.
In the mid-7th century, the Koran had not yet been assembled into one book, since there are references to various chapters of the Koran as being independent, separate books.
mortimersays
That should be ‘IN THE MID-8TH CENTURY’
Walter Sieruksays
Since Robert Spencer has published his new book on the Qu ‘ran it’s fitting to restate this old information
A claim by Islamic scholars as well as jihadists and non-jihadists Muslims is that no one can produce something as beautiful as the Qu ‘ran in the way the words are arranged and thus it can only be of God. This claim should be answered.
First, all someone has to do is examine some of the great works of literature to fine much written beauty. Such as the Greek epic poet Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey and then Virgil who produced the Aeneid has beauty. Even one of the non-Bible books in the Apocrypha called The Song of Three Children is also very beautiful. Thus just because someone sees a work that is written in great beauty doesn’t mean it’s inspired by God.
Second, the scholar Edward Gibbon wrote after an examination of the Qu ‘ran that it is an “incoherent jumble of fable and precept and declamation which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, sometimes craws in the dust and is sometimes lost in the clouds…” The writer Thomas Carlyle wrote the Qu ‘ran is “A wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [with] endless iterations [and] long-windedness…”
Likewise, the philosopher David Hume was NOT favorably impressed after reading the Qu ‘ran.
[Source of the three scholars mentioned – Secrets of The Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam’s Holy Book .56,66, by Don Richardson]
Furthermore, the following should be taken into consideration.
Of course, the Muslim who reads the Qu ‘ran will see great beauty in the way the words are arranged.
This is, in part, because of the power of suggestion after being told so many times that the Qu ‘ran is so beautifully written. That’s an old brainwashing method, repeating and being told that same thing again and again. Since he or she is always being told, the same lie will end up believing that lie.
In addition to that, the Imams try to discourage their people from reading other works, such as the Bible, so then they don’t have much or anything to compare or contrast the Qu ‘ran with. Of course, there are some Muslim’s that do read other works, but they are exceptions and they read other things only after they were already brainwashed by the Imams. In short, the Muslims can’t read the Qu ‘ran objectively because their Imams have programmed them to have a strong bias towards it.
Walter Sieruksays
The new book by Robert Spencer make it an appropriate time to reiterate that it’s a very important question: “Is the Qu ‘ran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Qu ‘ran the truth or a fiction and a hoax ?”
The answer is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical.
Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Qu ‘ran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Qu ‘ran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Qu ‘ran.
Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Qu ‘ran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” In addition , in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Qu ‘ran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’
On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
Even though the above essay was posted before, it should now be added that the last statement of the above that “the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Qu ‘ran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
staffsgt7says
drop leaflets (as done in previous wars) in islamic countries/areas the truth of islam, mohamed, and allah.
gravenimagesays
I think most Muslims know this–if they did not, there would not be so much Jihad. It is often Infidels who need to learn what is in that foul tome.
Walter Sieruksays
For a more full understanding of the actual nature of the Qu ‘ran a person, need to look back in time before the coming of Muhammad and then the Qu ‘ran. Back to the First Century AD which was the time of early Christian church. For the Early Christian Church had and now in modern times, the Christian church still has the Gospel of Christ, First Corinthians 15:1-4.
Much later, in time, came Muhammad and he gave much information, that many believe to be divine, some of which is said to have been obtained from an angle from heaven. This information was written down on different objects and things Those written words in different objects was then compiled together and then eventually went into the composition of what is now called the Qu ‘ran.
The Qu ‘ran is actually, that is in reality, another gospel, apart and greatly different from the Gospel of the Christian Church. Such a thing was predicted in the Bible. For the Bible does warn about those who will come and offer to people another gospel other than the one shown above, First Corinthians 15:1-4. For it is warned about any other “gospel” in the Bible. For it is written in the Bible “Though we or an angle from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preaches any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8, 9. [K.J.V.]
Therefore, the Koran is the result of the deception of a false prophet, Mathew 7:15., who may have come in contact with a fallen angle, a demon, So the imams and mullahs who preach it a truth to other are accused of and by God.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Infidel says
Also finally available for preorder on Nook
gravenimage says
Video: Robert Spencer goes in depth on The Critical Qur’an
…………
Good point that there are variations–albeit minor ones–between Qur’ans.
And yes–translations of the Qur’an tend to be *very* consistent. And if you say something depends on context that is not enough–you have to note what the context may be. But apologists never do, because this is just a dodge.
And yes–if one cannot understand Islam without reading Arabic–absurd in any case, since most Muslims are not Arabic speakers, especially classical Arabic–then no Muslim could criticize Judaism or Christianity because they do not read Greek or Aramaic. But Muslim apologists are not consistent.
And important to note that Muslim apologists often try to obfuscate the meaning of Qur’anic verses, adding words such as “lightly” to whitewash the horrors of Islam. Just dishonest.
And when I first read the Qur’an shortly after 9/11 I knew *nothing* about the chronology of the Qur’an (Meccan or Medinan, broadly), nor anything about abrogation. Actually, knowing this generally reveals the Qur’an as *even worse*.
Robert Frankling says
Some of the variants in the different Korans make DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES, so they are meaningful differences.
The differences are so ‘meaningful’ that Muslim scholars HIDE the differences from Muslims and REFUSE TO DISCUSS THEM, because it will lead to a loss of Islam’s MAIN argument of ‘PERFECT PRESERVATION’.
The Koran was substantially NOT perfectly preserved.
gravenimage says
I am not a Qur’anic scholar, but I have never seen any differences that are of real doctrinal importance. Citations?
I think the main thing is that Muslims like to claim that there are *no* differences between Qur’ans over the centuries, which is clearly incorrect.
Robert Frankling says
Jay Smith and Al Fadi will bring the proof of important textual variants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFXRYsRuGnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shH-bhbkkx4
gravenimage says
Thanks, Robert. I’ll watch those videos as soon as I have time–probably tomorrow.
Infidel says
The ‘not knowing Arabic’ is one of the stupidest refutations of anyone criticizing the qur’an, or islam. As you point out, only about 0.4 billion of the 1.8 billion muslims worldwide are Arab, in which case, the other 1.4 billion have no business following islam.
Not just that: it’s not uncommon for people to not know the root language of the religions they follow. How many Catholics are fluent in Latin? How many Lutherans outside Germany know German? How many non-Israeli Jews know Hebrew? Of India’s billion+ Hindus, how many of them know Sanskrit? I don’t, even though I’m familiar w/ a lot of the stories in Hindu scriptures, although admittedly not all
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
To your point:
I once knew a Navy chaplain who could understand Greek and Hebrew.
He said that reading the Bible in its original languages was, subtly, a different experience – but not enough to actually fundamentally change the basic meaning of the texts.
gravenimage says
I read enough German, and Middle English, to know this is true–shades of meaning–especially tone–can be subtly different.
But the idea that there is any language that simply cannot be translated is just tosh.
James Lincoln says
Thanks for the reply and added info, gravenimage.
mortimer says
GI writes: “translations of the Qur’an tend to be *very* consistent”. I respectfully disagree after reading from many different English translations and those in other languages. There are in fact some significant disagreements in the interpretations given to obscure words and confusing, defective stylisms by ‘translators’ … in other words, they translate FREELY, rather than strictly and literally. To get any sense out of the original Arabic text, the Koran MUST BE INTERPRETED IMAGINATIVELY in other languages, because the text is so BAFFLING and INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
Some of the various Koranic translations are in fact creative PARAPHRASES or restatements or explications or elucidations of an otherwise OPAQUE, IMPENETRABLE and INCOMPREHENSIBLE text. These ‘translations’ are not really ‘translations’ in many cases.
GI observes correctly that in some of these paraphrastic renderings of the Koran, the number of words in brackets is copious … almost equal to the actual translation of the original Koranic words … which are totally vague as to their meaning. The real meaning of much of the Koranic text seems to be lost to scholarship. The original composers of the Koran may not even have known the meaning of those opaque passages … and they didn’t care to know. The Koranic text was carelessly thrown together in a rush … or so it seems. NOT a ‘literary masterpiece’!
gravenimage says
Mortimer, if you read the Qur’an Corpus, which provides over a half dozen major translations side by side for each verse, you will find that differences are in most cases pretty minor, and the basic meaning is usually quite clear.
mortimer says
Good point from Robert Spencer. The Koran appears beginning in the 8th century and therefore seems to have been a collection of different writings collated by the caliphs.
The caliphs needed a book to create a state religion that competed with Byzantium’s Christianity.
In the mid-7th century, the Koran had not yet been assembled into one book, since there are references to various chapters of the Koran as being independent, separate books.
mortimer says
That should be ‘IN THE MID-8TH CENTURY’
Walter Sieruk says
Since Robert Spencer has published his new book on the Qu ‘ran it’s fitting to restate this old information
A claim by Islamic scholars as well as jihadists and non-jihadists Muslims is that no one can produce something as beautiful as the Qu ‘ran in the way the words are arranged and thus it can only be of God. This claim should be answered.
First, all someone has to do is examine some of the great works of literature to fine much written beauty. Such as the Greek epic poet Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey and then Virgil who produced the Aeneid has beauty. Even one of the non-Bible books in the Apocrypha called The Song of Three Children is also very beautiful. Thus just because someone sees a work that is written in great beauty doesn’t mean it’s inspired by God.
Second, the scholar Edward Gibbon wrote after an examination of the Qu ‘ran that it is an “incoherent jumble of fable and precept and declamation which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, sometimes craws in the dust and is sometimes lost in the clouds…” The writer Thomas Carlyle wrote the Qu ‘ran is “A wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [with] endless iterations [and] long-windedness…”
Likewise, the philosopher David Hume was NOT favorably impressed after reading the Qu ‘ran.
[Source of the three scholars mentioned – Secrets of The Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam’s Holy Book .56,66, by Don Richardson]
Furthermore, the following should be taken into consideration.
Of course, the Muslim who reads the Qu ‘ran will see great beauty in the way the words are arranged.
This is, in part, because of the power of suggestion after being told so many times that the Qu ‘ran is so beautifully written. That’s an old brainwashing method, repeating and being told that same thing again and again. Since he or she is always being told, the same lie will end up believing that lie.
In addition to that, the Imams try to discourage their people from reading other works, such as the Bible, so then they don’t have much or anything to compare or contrast the Qu ‘ran with. Of course, there are some Muslim’s that do read other works, but they are exceptions and they read other things only after they were already brainwashed by the Imams. In short, the Muslims can’t read the Qu ‘ran objectively because their Imams have programmed them to have a strong bias towards it.
Walter Sieruk says
The new book by Robert Spencer make it an appropriate time to reiterate that it’s a very important question: “Is the Qu ‘ran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Qu ‘ran the truth or a fiction and a hoax ?”
The answer is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu’ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical.
Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Qu ‘ran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Qu ‘ran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Qu ‘ran.
Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Qu ‘ran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.” In addition , in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Qu ‘ran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’
On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
Even though the above essay was posted before, it should now be added that the last statement of the above that “the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Qu ‘ran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
staffsgt7 says
drop leaflets (as done in previous wars) in islamic countries/areas the truth of islam, mohamed, and allah.
gravenimage says
I think most Muslims know this–if they did not, there would not be so much Jihad. It is often Infidels who need to learn what is in that foul tome.
Walter Sieruk says
For a more full understanding of the actual nature of the Qu ‘ran a person, need to look back in time before the coming of Muhammad and then the Qu ‘ran. Back to the First Century AD which was the time of early Christian church. For the Early Christian Church had and now in modern times, the Christian church still has the Gospel of Christ, First Corinthians 15:1-4.
Much later, in time, came Muhammad and he gave much information, that many believe to be divine, some of which is said to have been obtained from an angle from heaven. This information was written down on different objects and things Those written words in different objects was then compiled together and then eventually went into the composition of what is now called the Qu ‘ran.
The Qu ‘ran is actually, that is in reality, another gospel, apart and greatly different from the Gospel of the Christian Church. Such a thing was predicted in the Bible. For the Bible does warn about those who will come and offer to people another gospel other than the one shown above, First Corinthians 15:1-4. For it is warned about any other “gospel” in the Bible. For it is written in the Bible “Though we or an angle from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preaches any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8, 9. [K.J.V.]
Therefore, the Koran is the result of the deception of a false prophet, Mathew 7:15., who may have come in contact with a fallen angle, a demon, So the imams and mullahs who preach it a truth to other are accused of and by God.