I just watched this fascinating video on YouTube. It is about the a) earliest versions of the Koran (70 years after the death of Muhammad) found to date and b) an innovative translation method that is extremely accurate. Muslim countries have banned it. Natch.
The oldest versions don't have vowel markings or distinguishing dots over letters so words from the original can have up to 30 different meanings.
At the time of the Koran's original construction Arabic writing was just starting. In fact the Koran is the VERY FIRST BOOK WRITTEN IN ARABIC. So the language would be very different from today. As different as english was a thousand years ago. See if you can understand an olde inglishee style version of Beowulf or even the Canterbury Tales, written in the middle ages. So the very first arabic writing was a mishmash of spoken arabic and other established written languages - like english is (a great many of the words we use are of french or german or latin origin).
The author posited that one of the languages was Syro-Aramaic. A widely used written language in the region at that time but which is no longer used. When applied to an understanding of the ancient Koran it turns many passages on their heads.
For instance the passage that many claim is responsible for women having to wear the hajib is just telling them they should go about wearing belts (like monks of the time wore). Another passage mentioned is the one about the 72 virgins (or houris (make up yer mind Muhammad!)). In the more accurate translation it is talking about white grapes. In frescoes in the region made at that time people can be seen sitting on angels laps being given white grapes as a symbol for spiritual succor. As Islam took bits and pieces from Christianity and Judaism, that the Koran says you can have wonderful wine in heaven may be sourced to that christian symbolism too.
There are other examples.
I suggest that the anti jihadist of the sort who reads the Koran/hadith/sira HAS to get a copy of this book. It is The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran by Christoph Luxenberg (Not the author's real name. He used a nome de plume because he didn't wanna go boom).
Here is the book at amazon:
The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (I don't have a deal with amazon and have not monetized this blog).
What is so mind boggling about this is that it may well turn out that muslims who preach a strict literal following of the Koran et all have been following a complete mistranslation. The mother of all mistranslations in fact. All those women covered head to toe in bee keeper outfits could have been walking around in shorts and breathable cotton blouses all these centuries- just as long as they also wear belts.
Update on that last paragraph. The 90 year old brother of Hasan al Bana, the originator of the ultra right wing Muslim Brotherhood (the group behind the resurgance of the burka phenomenon) and the author of over 90 books on the Koran and Islam, said there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anywhere in the holy books that says anything about wearing the head scarf or burka. The passage he says is used to justify the burka actually says muslim woman are not allowed to expose their breasts in public. THATS IT. So according to real orthodox fundamentalist islam, muslim women are allowed to wear WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT, they just can't go topless or appear in a muslims go wild video. It makes all those public beatings in Sudan and Afganistan women get for wearing trousers or toe polish even more inescusable. Not that that's possible.
Here is the link to the video. It is a 50 minute documentary by a mulim man interviewing other muslim men about the Muslim Brotherhood posted by Kitman TV:
Freedom, Equality and the Moslim Brotherhood
So in fact Bin Ladin Al Quida, the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood really really are actual apostates. They believe the Koran is the exact word of god and cannot be refuted by man. But that word of god they have based their beliefs has been mistranslated by men. In fact ALL MUSLIMS COULD BE APOSTATES. Jeez louise. You see now why I think this is a big deal?
There are a few muslim scholars in the vid who argue against him but their arguments are pretty old hat and have been refuted by experts on the subject (people who have actual degrees in this stuff - not doofoids like yours truelly). If you do a little looking up you might find which middle eastern country funds the various chairs one or more of these islamic scholars hold.
That muslims have made this guy scared to show his real name or face shows they care far more about the earthly benefits of power and wealth the current translation of the Koran gets them and don't really give a shit about spirituality or their souls in the afterlife. If they did they would certainly be more interested in a provably more accurate translation. If they believe the Koran is the direct word of god to Muhammad- don't they want to know what god REALLY said? Not if it makes the bitches and Covassier dry up they don't.
I couldn't get it to display as well as it appears on YouTube so I put a link to it instead. Right click and choose open in new tab or window so you can come back here for the link for the book if you are interested. If you have comments about the vid please make them on the vids YouTube page. If you have comments about this commentary leave those comments on this page.
The Vid:
The Qur'an - Original Manuscript and Interpretation
Steen Raaschou, editor of snaphanen.dk (1) suggests a new kind of crime called Dominance crime. A crime where the motive of the perpetrator is to experience dominance, rather than to achieve material gain. It is a rational yet innovative suggestion as the experience of dominance is already known to be the primary motive for rape.
Many countries have now criminalized motivation as well as action. The current motivation crimes are called hate crimes. If crimes can be hate motivated and thus garner stonger punishment, then criminalizing other motives is not an idea which comes from left field. Indeed, dominance is just as bad as hate as a motivating factor for crime.
Many crimes or antisocial behavior have their roots in documented and common primate behavior. Primates have been witnessed to engage in murder, rape, assault, adultery (ya ya I know that's not a crime) and theft. Primates also engage in behavior to establish and maintain dominance that would be criminal when done by a human.
In psychology the extreme need to dominate others is called sadism.
Sadism is not merely a need to hurt. It is an abnormal need to dominate. The pain, verbal abuse and imposed restrictions are merely methods used to achieve the feeling of dominance.
We are all aware of it as a sexual dysfunction but it is also a personality disorder known as Sadistic Personality Disorder or SPD (2).
SPD is a need to dominate others. Key to that is for the dominated to know and acknowledge that they are dominated. Does that sound familiar? You bet your burka it does.
Psychologists and anthropologists have known for some time that it is possible, thru natural selection, for cultures to have different amounts of incidence of specific disorders. Extreme examples of this phenomena have been documented in populations that are geographically remote from others.
What happens is this. A culture values a trait. Those with that trait, thru natural (or unnatural) selection have a higher chance of having offspring. As a result more people with that trait appear in the population and the expressions of that trait become stronger and stronger. The most extreme expressions of the trait are forms of insanity.
Of course it's not just biology. An individual interacts with their culture. But if that culture is geared towards extreme shows of dominance, because its been created by people who have a predisposition for displaying and valuing dominance, we see an echo chamber effect, with psychology/biology creating the culture and culture having an effect upon psychology/biology of the individual.
Did that make ANY sense? It sure wasn't easy to write.
A culture that engages in polygamy, where the most dominant men get most of the mates and less dominant men get mostly none, would exacerbate the increase in a population of those who have stronger and stronger predispositions to have a deep rooted psychological need to show dominance.
Schizophrenia, autism and retardation are not necessarily included in that theory as they can have other causes than just "natural" selection.
This is not the same as the "bell curve" nonsense. It is also not saying that humans are incapable of making rational decisions about their behavior. We do so thousands of times a day.
It is also not saying that only one people in the world experience this particular disorder. Mental disorders are merely extreme expressions of tendencies we all have.
It is also not intended to discount the effect of intentional radicalization and propoganda. Though such effects and their success do have a symbiotic relationship with culture and personal predisposition.
However it does appear to that there is a direct relationship between islam, the culture developed under islam, and the results of polygamy and an increase in more numerous and more extreme expressions of SPD.
It is a matter for Historians to determine if Muhammad is the generating factor or if the factors and their interrelationship I discuss above were already in existence in that region at the time of his birth. It is clear from the source material that he was a sadist but was that an over common psychological phenomena of the region already? If that is the case than even if Muhammad never existed, another with similar ideas would have eventually achieved the same kind of success he did because his ideas were of a sort that would gain traction in that particular culture.
The point I was trying to make in the previous paragraph is that Muhammad may not be responsible for the inception of the phenomena, but was himself and his resulting ideas, the result of an already existing process. If polygamy was already a common feature of the region than there could have been a process in motion already. Though if that is the case his ideas and the culture they produced certainly did not help matters.
Discus.
1.A new term: Dominance crime
2. Sadistic Personality Disorder A definition by Stephen J. Hucker, MB, BS, FRCP(C), FRCPsych at Forensic Psychiatry. ca