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.