You write in your book that two different interpretations of the Koran developed from the outset and persist until today. What were these two interpretations?
Azmayesh: The people of Mecca did not accept the message of the Prophet and obliged him to migrate to Medina. When he finally returned victoriously to Mecca the people were forced to choose between conversion and exile, so they decided to convert to Islam. But although they became Muslims, they did not change their beliefs and went on to develop their own interpretation of the Koran. So even in the lifetime of Muhammad, two antagonistic versions were born under the name of Islam, which rejected each other. All these tribal traditions such as stoning, the circumcision of girls, the cutting of hands and considering Muslims better than other people were introduced into Islam at that time.
So you are saying that even during the lifetime of the Prophet an erroneous interpretation of Islam developed which Muhammad was not able to eliminate?
Azmayesh: Yes, the newly converted Muslims which the Koran calls hypocrites and who remained attached to the tribal traditions, their hearts filled with teachings from the period of ignorance, presented a commentary of the Koran which was contrary to its actual intention. They committed a lot of atrocities against the people of the Arabian peninsula in the name of Islam and this continued throughout the Umayyad, the Abbasid and the Ottoman dynasties. This has become the history of Islam, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Muhammad. Hence, everything written about the history of Islam needs to be revised from the ground up.
What you are basically proposing is rejecting a large part of the established teachings of Islam and of that which is commonly understood as Islam. That′s highly controversial.