Where did the Koran come from? Which humans made it? What are the historical antecedents for the writing of the Koran? Why is it littered with so many mistakes, nonsense, racism, surpemacism and violence? Why do Moslems believe that a moon deity Hub'Allah made it? Why don't they study it as a historical document? Why do Western ignoramuses accept the claim that the ilah [the one] created it?

Moslems worship the Koran with a devotion that borders on the irrational and mystical. As one author described it, the Koran "....is the holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster." For Moslems the Koran is simply the most important set of injunctions ever written down – some 1400 years ago.......

In times past the Koran was ridiculed within the Western world and anyone who has read the Koran would know why. Today of course a moon deity premised and pre-modern ritualized cult is recast as a religion. Gibbon the arch anti-religious and cult zealot described Muhammad's project and manual as an “incoherent rhapsody of fable.” 'Great Man' theorist Thomas Carlyle found the Koran an “insupportable stupidity”. Scholar Reinach wrote: “From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it.”

All true. The Koran is adolescent, irreligious cult dogma. It is a violent anti-humanist rant, which finds its corollary in Mein Kampf.

The Koran was created to form a cult of rabid devotion to Muhammad through the worship of an ilah or El-Lah, namely the one. In reading the Koran, both Allah and Muhammad seem interchangeable. This makes sense since Muhammad was the ilah's only spokesmen and whatever Muhammad wanted, the ilah also supported and vice-versa. It is certainly fair to state that Allah is another name for Muhammad.

When the 'great man' Muhammad died, four of his companions succeeded him as leaders of the Islamic cult. The last of these four was bizarrely both his cousin and his son in law. He was murdered by a rival named Muawiya in 661 A.D. and Muawiya became the first of the Ummayad caliphs an empire which lasted until 750 A.D. The Umayyads were deposed by the ‘Abbasids, who lasted in Iraq and Baghdad until the thirteenth century.

The Ummayads were termed 'godless' and had little inclination to Islamic totalitarianism. The Abbasids were 'purer' and regarded themselves as religious [or more accurately in the case of Islam cult] fanatics. It was the Abbasids who invented the Hadiths or the sayings of the great man Muhammad. The most 'legitimate' of the Abbasid writers of the Hadiths was of course Bukhari who lived during the 8^th century – at the time of the Abbasid revolt. As one historian pithily reported:

“The ruling power [the Ummayads] itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced [the Abbasids]; it too had to know how to discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what they did."

In other words once the Abbasids got the story telling rolling, the Ummayads responded in a like-minded manner. Both sides had story-tellers who made a good living inventing 'what the Prophet said and did....' Like medieval chansons de gestes, the Moslem troubadours regaled their audiences with the most minute facts about everything Muhammad said, did, wanted and alluded to. The most intricate details of his toiletry and defecation are even recorded. Rituals, prayers, positions, prostrations and mumblings all to support the pious school [Abbasids] or the ruling temporal powers [Ummayads] issued forth. Seen in this light Bukhari's works are political pieces of propaganda and are merely one of some 200 such sets of 'traditions', all of whom were invented some 200 years after Muhammad had expired.

The perspicacious Islamicist, Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field of Islamic studies and are a must read, stated the following [my summary only]:

1. The 'isnads' [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to Muhammad only began to be developed during the Abbasid revolt —i.e., the mid-8th century;

2. That ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be, the more likely it was to be spurious.

3. “No existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the prophet, though some of them might ultimately be rooted in his teaching.” [quote from Schacht]

4. The great majority of traditions from the Muhammadan era are documents which date not from Muhammad's life time but from much later stages in the development of the totalitarian doctrines which made up Islamic 'law' in succeeding centuries.

The Koran and the Hadiths are very much man-created. The Hadiths purport to explain the Koran, but they were created some 200 years after Muhammad died. How accurate can they be, based as they are on testimony and investigation during a time of 8^th century civil war? How accurate do you think the oral tradition lasting some 200 years was by 750 AD? What implications do the above facts have for Islam, Muhammadan law, and the concept of modern Sharia and Islamic liturgy?