Satanic Verses

The Quaran leaves out 53:20½, the verse Satan stuck in there, LOL. Ibn Ishaq tells us about it. The pagan priests offered to pay Mohammed off if he'd “Stop reviling our gods”. He really wanted to be accepted, so he got a revelation that its OK to worship the goddesses. That got him a speaking engagement at the Kaaba, preaching to a mixed audience of pagans and his own cultists. He kissed a little ass in the speech, saying

Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, and another, the third goddess, Manat? They are the elevated cranes; surely their intercession is dearly hoped for.

He called them high-flying—that is, up there close to Allah—cranes, because Arabian cranes were known for high altitude flights. This went over big with the pagans, so much so that when he called for them to bow at the end of the speech (v62) they all happily banged their foreheads on the ground together. Mohamed steals another pagan ritual here; this chapter is famous as the first official call for his people to prostrate themselves in prayer.

(v62) Bow instead in adoration before God and worship Him”,

The pagans spun all this as meaning Mo had embraced paganism, his cultists spun it that the pagans had accepted islam; everybody's happy. Politically, though, it was a miscalculation. Think about it. If the goddesses can intercede for you, then it makes sense to go to her priests for help, and bypass Mo. Whoops!

Mo realized he'd fucked up, so that night he had God send a new verse to say “Satan sent line 21; ignore it.” In the Koran's inept, oracular, stumblebum way this supposedly came out as surah 22:52,

(52) We sent not ever any Messenger or Prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God abrogates what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs -- surely God is All-knowing, All-wise --

See the clear specific reference there to Uzza and Lat? Yeah, me neither, but its as clear as god ever gets. You can't read an old dead language (like Classical Arabic) without having a dictionary handy because you can't figure out what half the lines mean. The Quran is written in Classical Gibberish, and the dictionary you need to pull out to explain it is the Hadith.

Tabari VI:110 "Thus Allah removed the sorrow from his Messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared, and canceled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were exalted high-flying cranes (goddesses) whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of 'Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.' the words: 'are yours the males and his the females? That indeed is an unfair division! They are but names which you and your fathers have given.'" [Qur'an 53:21]

Now that's more like it. But WTF? The koran is supposed to be a record of what god said. Here is god talking, so why isn't this in the book? To be accurate it should say god said that and then said replace that with this...” This is what politicians always do: lie, get caught; lie about their lie when it shows up on Youtube. Here, they were embarrassed by a rewrite that makes it look like their infallible god had fucked up, so they tried to cover it up, but omitting god's editing episode and passing the rewrite off as the original it makes it look like god's lying. Total clusterfuck.

What's more, Tabari says Gabriel showed up to chew Mo's ass the same night as the temple speech, but chapter 22 came ten years later, in Medina. There's like 80 verses in between these two! Looks like they were stonewalling, trying to whitewash it the whole time until the cultists had conquered Mecca and he didn't need to be careful anymore, then he just went whole hog with the abrogating bit.

Here's the relevant section with the original verses on the left and their replacements on the right.

(19) Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
(20) And another, the third goddess, Manat?

(20½) They are the elevated cranes; surely their intercession is dearly hoped for.

(21) What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? (22) Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!

(23) These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority whatever. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!
(24) Nay, shall man have just anything he hankers after?
(25) But it is to Allah that the End and the Beginning of all things belong.
(26) How many-so-ever be the angels in the heavens, their intercession will avail nothing except after Allah has given leave for whom He pleases and that he is acceptable to Him.
(27) Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.
(28) But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth.

The later version on the right looks like an obvious cut and paste job. It brings up the goddesses to talk about god's offspring, then immediately changes the subject to talking about what their names are, then changes back to intercessions on line 26. The original version on the left has a better narrative flow. It mentions the goddesses in terms of their interceding, and pretty much stays with that topic.

It's all hilarious. It seems like the compilers should have just left out all this stuff, but I guess they couldn't because it was big headlines in those days that everyone talked about. Another part of the story is how some of Mo's cult fled to Abyssinia to escape persecution by the normal people. Then they heard the Meccans had accepted Mo, so they thought it was safe and came back, but it turned out it wasn't. In fact for some people it still isn't; ask Salman Rushdie. Prophet of Doom summarizes pretty well:

That leaves Islam in an impossible position. Muslims must either admit that Muhammad was a power-hungry, money-grubbing, sex-crazed charlatan in cahoots with the Devil, or they must deny the validity of the Hadith and Qur'an. One leaves them without a prophet, the other without a god. Either way, they no longer have a religion.

So how do they weasel out of this one? Well, two ways:

1) Mo couldn't make a mistake.

2) The isnad (line of people playing the telephone game) is incomplete

There's a 3rd explanation. If you put on hip boots and wade through Tabari's stuff, you'll find Mo talking to Gabriel and he says this:

“Then the Messenger of God said, "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."”

NO SHIT, DUDE! That little moment of clarity ought to be on the cover.

Surah 53: Abrogations

Chapter 53, the Star, ought to be called The Can of Worms, because it brings up at least four things muslim'd rather not talk about. Whoo—let's dive in! Our luck held for 17 chapters but this is a long one with 62 verses; the first 18 rather poetically protesting again that Mo's not crazy and god really really talks to him, and they sound like the previous moon goddish stuff. He brings up the pagan moon goddesses, and channels Satan; then halfway through he tries to quote the Bible and morphs into a Southern Baptist tent revivalist ranting how god will kick your ass. Nice start, poor finish.

Abrogations come into play on v3-4, claiming this is revelation from god. Remember grade school, where you'd win a game and they'd say “That doesn't count!”? You'd expect God to be a little more mature than that, but in the koran he just uses bigger words; he says “That's abrogated!” Here are the money quotes:

[2:106] None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar:
[16:101] When We substitute one revelation for another, ... most of them understand not.

No shit we don't understand why God would come around to set us straight on shit and then lie to us so he nullifies his own message. But its pretty easy to see why con artists would change their story from time to time, like when they wanted some new pussy. After all they are, not to belabor a point, only human.

The book makes it clear that Mo is taking things back, but there are all sorts of opinions over what abrogates what.

      1. Koran only abrogates koran
      2. Koran abrogates everything
      3. Hadith only abrogate hadith
      4. Hadith don't abrogate nutthin
      5. Hadith abrogate God's immutable word in the Koran
      6. What I say abrogates whatever you say, so fuck you, loser.

Well I made up the last one, but you get the idea. This chapter comes into it because people that argue the koran abrogates everything cite these lines for their proof,

[53:3] Nor does he speak out of his own desire.
[53:4] It is nothing but pure revelation revealed by God.

so see, that settles it: it's not Mo talkin', it's God revealin'. The whole damn book keeps insisting, garbledly, that it is God's revelation, so why they pick those two lines out of the whole 6000 is a mystery, but whatever. Seems more important to know which verses Big Daddy abrogated. Are we surprised to learn there are all kinds of written records on this, and that they all contradict each other? No we are not. There are somewhere between zero and 700 abrogated verses. Pick a number. No one knows. Bottom line is, some of the complete, clear, and perfect words of God don't count, but we don't know which ones.

So I can kick back in heaven if I

kill infidels wherever I find them (9:5),

or else that verse is abrogated and my skin will burn off in hell for not

showing them kindness (60:8).

Fifty-fifty, dude—take yer chances.

Some say certain people were more more reliable witnesses than others, but you'd have to know who wrote what, and we don't. Others claim that later verses abrogate earlier ones, which sounds sensible, but you'd have to know what order they came in, and no one knows.

This chapter, 53, supposedly happened before 22, so that god could abrogate what he hadn't said yet, but chapter 22 should go between verses 22 & 23 of this chapter, but wasn't put in here because colorless green ideas sleep unicorns. Or something. In linguistics we refer to the words that come before and after something by the term 'context'. If you don't have the linguistic context, analysis is pointless.

I call bullshit on the whole thing. For the whole 23 years Mo hung around preaching, it never occurred to anybody to ask? Dude, people that stupid do not conquer independent living, let alone the Known World. If it was a choice between
doesn't it seem like you would fucking ASK? Everybody teaches themselves the traffic regulations, and liquor laws, and Windows, but somehow they were never curious enough to find out if they would be tortured forever? If anything was going to convince me this whole thing was patched together after the fact, this would do it.

Bottom line is, for each verse, we don't know: who wrote it or why; in what order; whether it goes in the koran or hadith, or even if it has been abrogated by something else and shouldn't be there at all. The oldest existing copies are from 100 years after Muhammed's death, and we do know that the people who put it together belonged to different political groups actively fighting for control, like in modern day Iraq, and they were perfectly willing to murder each other, let alone fudge the truth about some line of poetry. We can't trust our own politicians, and they don't even assassinate each other.
Anyway, unless its abrogated, Mo spends 18 lines insisting he talks to god: after this it gets better ...

Muslim Mobs Burn Quran

Fate of Prophet's (pbuh) original text remains unknown

Breaking News
Posted: 653 AD
Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Sources in Arabia report Muslim mobs have destroyed copies of the Holy Quran in book-burnings held at cities throughout Arabia and the Muslim world.
Instigated by a fatwa of the Caliph Uthman that proscribes any unauthorized copy of Islam's Holy Book following a newly completed rescension, all existing older copies of the Quran have been rounded up and consigned to the flames.

According to noted Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Bahadur Zarkashi “Ibn Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified:

"I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies; not a one spoke out against him." Ali commented, "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same."

Ali was a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) himself, during his lifetime and clearly approved the actions taken by Caliph Uthman. During Uthman's rule Islam had spread to many areas where the Muslims were not Arabs and couldn't read Arabic properly, so many variant readings sprung out. To correct this Uthman appointed a committee of scribes to produce a standardized version of the Qur'an, which was sent to each city under Muslim rule. All older copies were to be collected and burned.

Even though Arabia is one of several countries where desecrating the the Quran may be punishable by death, officials have shown little interest in this case. No arrests were made, and no official investigation has been undertaken to date.

As told by Wikipedia, most schools of Islamic law dictate that a Muslim may not touch the Qur'an, which is regarded as the literal word of God, unless he or she is in a state of ritual purity (wudu). Muslims must always treat the book with reverence, and are forbidden, for instance, to pulp, recycle, or simply discard worn-out copies of the text. Intentionally insulting the Qur'an is regarded as a form of blasphemy, and has led to rioting.

As of this writing the fate of the original copy of the Holy Quran, compiled by the Messenger Himself (pbuh) remains uncertain. The hadith make it clear that the Qur'an was available in written form from the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), reports Sahih Al-Bukhari, our most reliable source. He tells us,

“Narrated Qatadah: I asked Anas Ibn Malik: ‘Who collected the Qur’an at the time of Prophet?’ He replied: ‘Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubay Ibn Ka‘ab, Mu‘adh Ibn Jabal, Zayd Ibn Thabit and Abu Zayd.'”

This first Quran was allegedly in the possession of Hafsa bint Umar, a daughter of Umar and one of Muhammad's widows, and was thrown into the fires and burnt with the other old copies. The loss of this original manuscript, reputed to be the literal word of God, would arguably be a great loss to historians.

Skeptics, who asked to remain anonymous, dismissed Uthman's latest move as political grandstanding designed to gain support for his illegitimate Caliphate and distract attention from the War in Baluchistan.

WTF is this Quran thing?

Unless you're willing to worship a complete fuckwad, it's pretty obvious that the Koran is not the revealed word of the Great Almighty God (GAG).

It's supposed to be god talking, but you'll never know that by reading the book because it never tells you. What kind of dipshit writes an entire book and never identifies the characters ? Scene Development = F!

So you find somebody to explain that it is god talking, and you read right at the beginning that god is worshipping himself. Then in the fourth line god says "You alone WE serve" If this means anything it means there is more than one god; saying such a thing is Shirk, the muslims tell us, the worst crime there can be. So god is committing the one sin that will doom him to hell. What a dope, god.

One functioning synapse is enough to tell you that someone else is talking TO god, so why didn't the translator write that? Maybe because the muslims want it this way. They even have a name for it, iltifat, and they're fucking proud of it.

...Muhammad had created an entirely new literary form ...

...The dynamic style of the Qur'an is an obvious stylistic feature and an accepted rhetorical practice. ...
...The Qur'an is the only form of Arabic prose to have used this rhetorical device ...

The fuck? In linguistics, we have a technical term for this 'accepted form' that's only in one book in the whole world: we call it "word salad". My cat box has things in it with more sense than that.

Then there's this thing called 'editing', where you get on the phone and scream at a publisher if they get the sections of your manuscript out of order. The early Arabs never figured out this 'editing' thing for their koran object; I don't call it a book because books have actual beginnings, and ends, with plots, narrative structure, at least chronology for chrissake. This is 6000 verses all stuck together at random, not in sequence, not arranged by topic, just pin-the-verse-on-the-donkey order. Supposedly they're arranged from longest to shortest chapter-as if that made any sense-but they couldn't even get that right:

Well, okay, ignoring that this is supposed to be god's perfect book, why is it like that? Tradition says that

When Prophet Muhammad used to receive a revelation, he dictated it to a Companion, who wrote it down on anything that was available: bark, stone, bones, leaves, etc.

wait...what? leaves? They wrote on bones and leaves? Papyrus had been around for 4000 years. It was invented in the Nile delta, and was a major export on the caravans going through their back yards, driving their economy; and they wrote on leaves? I think not. Tradition paints a picture of gathering everybodys' notes, like an unlabeled shoebox full of Gramma Flo's old photos, and dumping them in a pile. What tradition doesn't say is that they started grabbing whichever one they picked up off the top of the pile and made it the next verse. But tradition is all you've got, as there's no historical records, and everyone argues about the details, which is like nailing Jello to the ceiling. Usually, to back up their version of the koran they cite sources:

The Qur'an is the only divine book that God has sent

And how do we know this? Because it is written in Surah 5:

"To you We sent the Scripture (Book) in truth,(Surat 5:48)

Ha! I'll see your proof and raise you. Here's the proof that you're wrong.

Mohammed was a big fat fake.

And how can we prove this? Because it is written in Annotation 2.

The whole thing is really fucking stupid, because even a good account of how it was done doesn't explain why things were done that way, in the face of some pretty fucking obvious reasons why they shouldn't. Like good writing: Is it really necessary to tell us 40 times that God is forgiving and kind? Even once would be overdoing it: It's god, isn't that in it's job description? By the 33rd time he reminds us that he is all mighty and all wise, I'm not buying it.

It garbles up entire stories, too. I counted story of Moses and the Pharoahs in there 18 times, and the details don't match up. One time the Pharaoh drowns, another time he doesn't. Which is odd since the koranophiles constantly try to devastate us with this argument:

If it had not come from God, they would have found in it many contradictions (4:82).

No shit, Sherlock. Like this one:

2:253 Of all these apostles We have favored some over the others.

2:285 We make no distinction between the apostles.

Thanks to Kafirgirl for spotting that, but if I had a nickel for every contradiction in the koran I could afford fill up my gas tank. There is in fact a miracle in the holy koran, and it is that blatant contradictions obvious to an aphasic blind illiterate are invisible to moslems. Well, wait, they're not all invisible, there's whole schools devoted to the problem of "abrogation". Whoever's passing himself off as god said,

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar (2:106).

Well, you all-mighty and all-wise and all-plural gods, why didn't you just say something better in the first place? The expert scholars' verdict on it is this: there are between 0 and 700 abrogated verses, although no one agrees on which ones, or what order they go in, and "This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt(2:2). Oh, and if you don't interpret it correctly you'll be tortured in hell forever,--just BTW.

How about this for an explanation? While Mohamed was alive he rode serious herd on the cult, and if he wanted your opinion he'd fucking well tell you it. When you have absolute power you don't want anybody writing shit down or recording your emails. After he died and they had to start thinking for themselves, and couldn't, they were all like "What would our Master^® do? And they started arguing, and they still are, over little things like who got to be mo's successor, the shia or the sunni, which they fought over for 20 years and then had a civil war. Somewhere in that 20 years they set up a committee to standardize all the various versions of history that they they remembered, or claimed to remember in the interest of promoting their political faction. Memories got put down as Hadith (in some other book) or Surah (in the koran).

Hadith: somebody claimed to remember that Mo said something

Surah: somebody claimed to remember that Mo said god said something.



So why'd they end up with this weird ordering? Probably got sick of it and said "Fuck it! Just print the goddamned thing the way it is. I've got pussy waiting at home." It's hard to believe, but starting with Mo himself, moslems have been challenging anyone to produce verses better than the koran. It's the famous Surah Challenge:

If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful. (al-Baqara, 2.23)

Dude, I could eat alphabet soup and shit verses better than these.