Actually, there are at least parts of the koran the have been dated to the late seventh century- the Sana'a_manuscripts. Unfortunately for orthodox islam, they aren't identical to the relevant passages of the accepted 'modern' version of the text. What a surprise!
Gerd Puin, a German academic who has been investigating the Sana'a manuscripts for years, has the following to say about the koran:
However, even if the koran was a single, unified text with a traceable history (and lets be clear: it isn't), it would still be open to multiple interpretations. Mo3 seems to think that islam and the koran can somehow be seperated out from the rest of culture; that a 'pure' interpretation of the koran is somehow possible. This is a nonsense, an illusion, self-deception. Religion is part of culture; the koran always has been, and can only be, interpreted through a cultural lens.
This leads me back to an earlier point. What really matters is what muslims do in the name of their religion. Female genital mutilation, for example, is a pre-islamic practice that is not discussed in the koran. But it has been, and sometimes still is justified in religious terms. I've posted this before, its written by the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars:
Child marriage/ rape has a much clearer islamic connection. Iirc, mohammed married aisha when she was 6 or 7, and started raping her when she was 9 or 10. Isn't that right, mo3?
Gerd Puin, a German academic who has been investigating the Sana'a manuscripts for years, has the following to say about the koran:
Quote:My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.Source: excellent Atlantic Monthly article on the koran.
However, even if the koran was a single, unified text with a traceable history (and lets be clear: it isn't), it would still be open to multiple interpretations. Mo3 seems to think that islam and the koran can somehow be seperated out from the rest of culture; that a 'pure' interpretation of the koran is somehow possible. This is a nonsense, an illusion, self-deception. Religion is part of culture; the koran always has been, and can only be, interpreted through a cultural lens.
This leads me back to an earlier point. What really matters is what muslims do in the name of their religion. Female genital mutilation, for example, is a pre-islamic practice that is not discussed in the koran. But it has been, and sometimes still is justified in religious terms. I've posted this before, its written by the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars:
Child marriage/ rape has a much clearer islamic connection. Iirc, mohammed married aisha when she was 6 or 7, and started raping her when she was 9 or 10. Isn't that right, mo3?
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche