Deliberately mixing belief with science produces non-science and non-"scholars"!
Koran means 'recitation', i.e. repeating something. That something was Judeo/Christian (compare "Jews believing in Jesus") Syriac-Arabic texts spiced with Arianism, and used for keeping Arab bandit gangs together, and much later collected as a book and spiced with the hitherto unknown islamic Muhammad.When Klevius wrote that 'the biased and unscientific way the so called "Birmingham Koran" was handled and presented is deliberate forgery of facts', some people didn't seem to get it. So here's some more in simple science English:
1 The "islamic paradigm" (i.e. what muslims believe) is a non-historical system of myths completely segregated from scientific scrutiny. It's like "studying" ghosts, and when the ghost doesn't appear/make sense it's explained as tbhe "will of Allah".
In other words, the oxymoron "muslim scholar" is a pure charlatan in a scientific context. And if you insist in using "Allah" as your a priori axiomatic launch pad - it differs radically from e.g. Euclid's' axioms. Whereas "Allah" is a muddled and inscrutable abode for human wishes and fears built on sand, Euclid is clear and open and functioning as a bedrock for logical conscusions drawn from his axioms/postulates - incl. Popper's falsification test.
And unlike other myths and legends, the muslim navel string was never cut off, leaving the rotting placenta contaminating the future via a mummificated canal from the dark ages to date.
2 The historical reality was Jewish/Christian texts (Jesus was a Jew) used in a Syriac-Arabic linguistic environment where Arabic took its first stumbling steps in the written world that the non-Semitic Sumerians had entered some 4,000 years earlier.
3 There was no historical Muhammad. Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati who beyond doubt shows the historical impossibility of such a death date) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever. The simple truth is that a mythological Judeo-Christian Messiah figure was applied to or used by one or several leaders, and later, under Malik, turned into a "muslim Messiah".
Islam is rooted in an eastern Jewish-Christian schism. Jews and Jews believing in (a monophysitism inspired Christianity) MHMD (anointed/Messiah) didn't only offer the wealthy background against which barbaric (according to islam's foremost historian Ibn Khaldun) Bedouin Arabs were enslaved and/or submitted/enrolled, but also constituted the missing fifth columnist historical link to the "unexplained" success of early islamic terror "conquest".
4 The only logical/historical explanation to islam's expansion out of the Arabian desert is parasitism. Ironically, that's also the explanation the Koran gives - albeit strongly denied by PC people.
Conclusion: There was no Muhammad nor a Koran at the alleged time of the so called Birmingham Koran. So the only way to desperately try to make sense of what doesn't make sense, is to rely on unhistorical muslim mythology.
So, first you had a severe pillage inflammation in the narrow slave tracts through the desert. And the longer they got the bigger the gang which needed even more booty and women. Some three quarter of a century after the initial attacks (the slaughtering of the Jews in Medina etc.) the first Koran was edited together. More than hundred years after the alleged death of Muhammad the first sharia emerged.
So all of this has certainly nothing to do with that Koran "science" nonsense in Birmingham, which babbles about a non existing Koran written down at a time of a non-existing "prophet"!
Christoph Luxenberg's reading of the Koran
According to Christoph Luxenberg, the Koran was not written in Arabic but in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language, the traders' language of Mecca and it was based on Christian liturgical texts. When the final text of the Koran was codified, those working on it did not understand the original sense and meaning of this hybrid trading language any more, and they forcefully and randomly turned it into classical Arabic. This gave rise to a lot of misinterpretations. Something like this can only have happened if there was a gap in the oral transmission of the Koranic text.
Luxenberg remarks that the Koran contains much ambiguous and even inexplicable language. He asserts that even muslim scholars find some passages difficult to parse and have written reams of Quranic commentary attempting to explain these passages. However, the assumption behind their endeavours has always been, according to him, that any difficult passage is true, meaningful, and pure Arabic, and that it can be deciphered with the tools of traditional muslim scholarship. Luxenberg accuses Western academic scholars of the Koran of taking a timid and imitative approach, relying too heavily on the biased work of muslim scholars.
According to Luxenberg, the Koran was not originally written exclusively in Arabic but in a mixture with Syriac, the dominant spoken and written language in the Arabian peninsula through the 8th century.
“What is meant by Syro-Aramaic (actually Syriac) is the branch of Aramaic in the Near East originally spoken in Edessa and the surrounding area in Northwest Mesopotamia and predominant as a written language from Christianization to the origin of the Koran. For more than a millennium Aramaic was the lingua franca in the entire Middle Eastern region before being gradually displaced by Arabic beginning in the 7th century.”
Luxenberg argues that scholars must start afresh, ignore the old islamic commentaries, and use only the latest in linguistic and historical methods. Hence, if a particular Koranic word or phrase seems meaningless in Arabic, or can be given meaning only by tortured conjectures, it makes sense – he argues – to look to the Aramaic and Syriac languages as well as Arabic.
Luxenberg also argues that the Koran is based on earlier texts, namely Syriac lectionaries used in the Syriac Christian churches of Syria, and that it was the work of several generations who adapted these texts into the Koran we know today.
Klevius advise: You might be better off without your belief in ghosts. However, you will certainly be better off with a conscience resting on Universal Human Rights freedom (for you and others) than with limiting and imposing sharia that is also uncontrollable because different users can interpret it differently due to its that violates Human Rights of others and opens up for parasitism, racism and sexism.
Measured by basic Human Rights standard islam is extremely uncivilized. And this is the only logical in islam. Born out of evil always evil. And when you disinfect islam from its evil it's no longer islam.
Klevius wrote:
Friday, July 24, 2015
The laughable Birmingham Koran forgery* doesn't qualify on Klevius science blog. Maybe Klevius should start a joke blog...
Some readers have urged Klevius to write about the "Birmingham Koran" scandal. However, as it has absolutely nothing to do with science Klevius politely refers you to Origin of islam - the worst racist sexist hate crime ever against humanity.
Klevius wrote:
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The laughable oxymoron "islamic science", how could anyone possibly take it seriously?!
The oxymoron "islamic science" is utter defamation of science, and is rooted in ignorance about the origin of islam!
Klevius science tutorial for Seyyid Hossein Nasr and others
Seyyid Hossein Nasr (“professor” of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University) at MIT Islamic Students Association (sponsored by the Pakistan Study Group, the MIT Muslim Students Association and “other groups”): “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum. Science arose under particular circumstances in the West with certain philosophical presumptions about the nature of reality. As soon as you say, m, f, v, and a, that is, the simple parameters of classical physics, you have chosen to look at reality from a certain point of view. There is no mass, there is no force out there like that chair or table. These are particularly abstract concepts which grew in the seventeenth century on the basis of a particular concept of space, matter and motion which Newton developed. The historians and philosophers of science in the last twenty [or] thirty years have shown beyond the scepter of doubt that modern science has its own world view. It is not at all value free; nor is it a purely objective science of reality irrespective of the subject you study. It is based upon the imposition of certain categories upon the study of nature, with a remarkable success in the study of certain things, and also a remarkable lack of success [in others], depending on what you are looking at.”Klevius: Listen to this utter crap! “Science has its own world-view. No science is created in a vacuum”. Two cardinal flaws in just twelve words! Does this muslim fella also believe that "the Western interpretation" 2+2=4 has a corresponding Sharia compliant islamic version?! The choice to look at reality from a certain point of view isn't science, just like what you choose to do with your power tool isn't the power tool!
OK, science doesn’t have its own world-view, that’s for sure. If it had it wouldn't be science anymore. This is the very definition of science. Just as Negative Human Rights don’t have a world-view either, simply because they are supposed to protect you from “world-views”.
Science is pure logic* and shouldn’t be confused with the scientific process, i.e. including its non-scientific parts, such as choice of topic, background/pre-understanding etc., and the interpretation of results from the scientific part of the scientific process. Nor should flaws in the scientific process (such as e.g. errors, deliberate or accidental) be blamed on scientific logic. And yes, logic could be described as “a vacuum” just like Negative Human Rights is the eliminating of impositions. Logic that is dependent on a worldview is per definition not logic at all, and Human Rights that are dependent on an ideology/world-view (e.g. Sharia) aren’t (negative, i.e. the basic freedom rights) Human Rights at all.
As Klevius use to put it: Our most holy duty is to NOT fill the freedom Human Rights with anything! You shouldn’t have the positive Sharia “right” to, for example, be raped by your husband; instead you should have the negative right to choose not to have sex. Even a child understands that this latter right doesn't deny you from having sex, only protects you from imposed compulsion. The difference is, as you can see, is mind blowing if you have been raised within an islamic "world-view".
And this is the reason why the islamofascist muslim world organization/Umma, Saudi initiated and based islamofascist OIC with its fanatic Turkish Fuhrer/caliph Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu 1) has abandoned Human Rights and REPLACED THEM WITH SHARIA, and 2) criminalized scrutiny/criticism of islam (the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity) and calls any critical scrutiny "islamophobia" or "defamation of religion".
* as Klevius has explained in Demand for Resources (1992) pure logic is the pointing out of conceptualized deterministic chains (e.g. 2+2=4) in a universe that is deterministic yet chaotic in the sense that our existence-centrism excludes us from "a total, god-like overview" (see Origin of Universe").
Here's what Klevius wrote about "islamic science" a couple of years ago
One example is the Medieval Indian/Persian Al Beruni whom the notorious islamic mass murderer and enslaver (one of the worst known to history - also called the plunderer of India), Mahmud of Ghazna, imprisoned and let stay alive as long as he submitted to islamic Mohammedanism.
But BBC, Wikipedia etc. happily present this islamic hostage as a "muslim scientist" (sic)!
The bloodthirsty Mohammed is the evil and only pope of islam - and needs to be pierced by Enlightenment so his ignorant followers may be released and his deliberate followers may be ashamed. However, a strategy based on naming evil good seems less appropriate for this task, doesn't it.
It's truly sad that the descendants of islam's victims through 1400 years continue defending their bully!?
No comments:
Post a Comment