Genesis Of A Holy Book

FOOTNOTES:

{1  This battle occurred c. 632 in eastern Najd, near the town of Yamama.  It was waged against the rival prophet, Maslamah ibn Habib of the Banu Hanifa (a.k.a. “Musaylimah”).}

{2  He is not to be confused with the 9th-century Persian writer, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj of Nishapur: author of the vaunted “Muslim” Hadith collection.}

{3  To reiterate: There exist no copies of any text up to and including the Uthman-commissioned text.  So even if we DID have original copies of what Zayd ended up compiling, there is nothing to compare it to.  We’d just have to take his word for it.}

{4  We might also keep in mind that, according to Bukhari, MoM HIMSELF admitted–on several occasions–that he would forget many of the verses that HE HIMSELF had relayed.  Others often had to remind EVEN HIM of things he’d uttered.}

{5  Reference 2:53/87, 3:186-187, 4:54/131/136, 5:44/48/57, 6:91/154, 7:169, 10:94, 11:17/110, 17:2-4, 29:27, 40:53, 41:45, 45:16, 46:12, and 57:16.  It might be noted that “kitab” can be more widely translated as “scripture”, but this does not remedy the problem–as references are made to SEEING and to that which people can physically hold in their hands.  Meanwhile, other passages (17:58, 18:49, 50:4, 56:78, 78:29, and 83:9/20) use “kitab” to mean REGISTER–that is: an official record of things.  This is hardly a way one would describe something that was orally-transmitted.}

{6  It can’t be reiterated enough: This includes (as Bukhari admits) SINGLE SOURCES–as with verses from a man named “Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari”.  When we hear, “He’s the only one who was aware of that passage; so it’s a good thing we found him!” it is a hint that the process was not exactly the epitome of perspicacity.}

{7  A “mahram” is a relative with whom one is not allowed to have sex.  It was believed that once a grown man suckled from a woman either five or ten times, he would be deemed “mahram” and thereby disqualified from being able to bed her (ref. Muslim’s Hadith no. 3600 and 3605).  Thus a man sucking on a woman’s breast–on numerous occasions–was deemed a way to PREVENT him from having sex with her.  Note that the woman has no say in whether or not this wacky prophylaxis is employed.}

{8  Though it has polemical flaws, Ibn Warraq’s “The Origins Of The Koran” contains useful information on this subject.}

{9  Perhaps.  After all, we find a similar degree of widespread delusion about sacred scripture within Christendom.  Being fanciful about the sources of one’s Faith is endemic to ardent religiosity.  A willingness to embrace laughably far-fetched tales (spec. “just-so stories”, custom-tailored to arrive at a foregone conclusion) is typical in such situations.  Hence the proliferation of apocrypha in all religious traditions.}

{10  Note that we encounter the exact same problem (programmatic disingenuousness) with clerics in the other two Abrahamic religions.}

{11  Who is Idris?  Nobody knows for sure.  Some suspect it might have been an oblique reference to Enoch.  Oddly, the only other place where Idris is referenced (again, without any explanation of who, exactly, he was and what, exactly, he did) is another instruction to remember him–found in 21:85-86.  (Why?  What about?  Nothing more is said.)  The problem with THAT passage is that it is a repetition of 38:48…EXCEPT for the inclusion of Idris.  In the former instance, we are instructed to recall Ismail, Idris, and Dhul-Kifl.  In the latter instance, we are instructed to recall Ismail, Al-Yasa, and Dhul-Kifl.  Why this (inexplicable) discrepancy?  It’s as if two versions of an entreaty made it into the final edition.  Note: “Dhul-Kifl” is taken to be Ezekiel; “Al-Yasa” is a sloppy cognate of “Elisha”; and “i-D-R-S” may have been a scribal error, as Enoch was typically called “Akhnuk” in Arabic.}

{12  Who was the brother of “Ad”?  And why not just refer to him by name (seeing as how he is important enough to be designated in the Final Revelation to all mankind)?  Note that there is even confusion about the identity of “Ad”.  He may have been the son of Uz ben Aram ben Shem ben Noah.  (That is: Noah’s great-great-grandson.)  The moniker eventually came to be associated with a tribe hailing from a place somewhere near “Iram” (the city of the pillars mentioned in 89:7), which may have been in Hadramaut in southern Arabia…OR at Wadi Rum in Nabataea…OR the land of Aram in northeastern Levant (as “Iram” could be a cognate of the patriarch by that name; even though Aram is nowhere near southern Arabia).  “Al-Ahqaf” (place of the sand-dunes) could be a description of any of these places.  The authors seem to have been quite confused on this point.  As a tribe / location, “Ad” is mentioned two dozen times in the Koran (and, per 46:24-25 and 89:6-14, was destroyed by the Abrahamic deity).  It is said to have been where the Abrahamic prophet, Hud, preached and was rebuffed.  (Ergo said destruction.)  But who was “Hud”?  Nobody knows…even though an entire Surah (11) is named after him.  (He may have been a correlate of “[h]Eber”, who was a patriarch of both the Israelites and the Ishmaelites.)  As for who the BROTHER OF “Ad” might have been, we can only speculate.}

{13  The Vatican’s “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” has proscribed landmark works like Nicolaus Copernicus’ “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”, Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”, and Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”.  In other words, the church denounced three of the most important books ever written…simply because they contradicted Church doctrine.  Johannes Kepler’s “Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae” was on the Index until 1835.  And until the modern era, the Vatican did not even want ITS OWN holy book printed in any language other than Latin (that is: in any language that would have been comprehensible to the laity)…a shortcoming that would be addressed by John Wycliffe in the 14th century, then by Martin Luther and William Tyndale in the 16th century.  Of course, the Vatican’s recalcitrance knows no bounds.  The curia did not see fit to pardon Galileo until 1992.}

{14  The irony is that censorship demeans the very people it purports to protect; for it presumes they are so feeble-minded so as to be incapable of even rudimentary discernment.  When the Harry Potter books were banned at the turn of the millennium, it was presumed that supplicants were so credulous that were they to be exposed to children’s books about pagan magic, they may become convinced that it might really exist.  As usual, the penchant for censorship is born of insecurity.  Thus we see–on full display–a deep-seated worry that one’s own ideology is so fragile that it cannot withstand the glare of outside light.}

{15  Some Koranic chapters didn’t even end up with titles.  They eventually came to be referred to by the letters that happen to occur at the beginning of the Surah–as with chapters 20, 36, 38, and 50.  Those alphabetic designations (dubbed “fawatih”) are inexplicable TO THIS DAY.  They are likely a vestigial nomenclature from the collation process; and perhaps even a mnemonic device.}

{16  The problem with disputing passages from the most vaunted Hadith is that one is thereby forced to foreswear what are deemed the best sources about MoM (and the Sunnah): the Hadith collections that have been universally deemed “sahih”.  The “catch” is that they come as a package deal; so to reject ONE PART of them is to bring the entire corpus into question.  To retain the full integrity of the “sahih” Hadith, one is forced to embrace them replete with all the undesirable parts: every last incriminating anecdote.}

{17  “Salaf” is the moniker used for the few generations that ensued from the so-called “Sahabah” (companions of MoM)…starting with the “Tabi-un” (successors).}

{18  There was, of course, some revisionist history that emerged on this point.  The most cited of white-washed accounts is from the Sufi hagiographer, Abu Abd al-Rahman “Al-Sulami” of Nishapur c. 1000.  Based on no evidence whatsoever, he blithely averred that the recitations of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Zayd ibn Thabit were all exactly the same.  He likely assumed that nobody would actually look at the Hadith record to corroborate this claim; so nobody would notice that he was disregarding much of what was recorded by the most trusted sources.}

{19  He supposedly learned his version from someone who’d learned it from Abd Allah ibn Abbas…who had, in turn, learned it from Zayd ibn Thabit and/or Ubay ibn Ka’b.}

{20  He was a student of Abi Ishaq of Hadram, and seems to have learned much of what he knew from the Kufan school.}

{21  Volume 8 of Bukhari’s Hadith notifies us that Umar reported that “among what god revealed was the verse of the ‘Rajam’ [stoning of adulterers].  We recited this verse and understood and memorized it.  God’s apostle carried out this punishment of stoning, and so did we after him.  [Yet] I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘We do not find the verse of the Rajam in god’s book.’  Consequently they will go astray by leaving an obligation which god has revealed.”  Clearly, Umar was a fan of the “stoning” verses…the only copy of which had been eaten by a sheep.}

{22  There is an interesting coinky-dink regarding Masoud’s stern admonishment to keep the version that HE endorsed, and thus reject the version touted by Zayd ibn Thabit.  According to the “Fuqaha”, Ubayd-ullah ibn Abd-allah ibn Utbah stated: “Masoud disliked Zayd ibn Thabit copying the musahif [manuscripts]”; and so beseeched his fellow Mohammedans to “avoid copying the Recitations of this man.”  Masoud then stated: “O, people of Al-Iraq!  Keep the musahif that are now with you; and conceal them.”  But wait.  People of Iraq?  This is very interesting; for Masoud did NOT have in mind people of the Hijaz.  In this passage (“sunan” Jami Al-Tirmidhi; no. 3104), Masoud equates Muslims with those dwelling in Mesopotamia; and notes that it is THEY who have the correct versions.  Apparently, the Recitations were NOT being retained in Arabia…where they purportedly originated.  For more on this peculiarity, see my essay on “Mecca And Its Cube” (where I make the case that Islam likely originated in Petra, not in the Hijaz).}