1God Damn Religion
Sunnah & Suratun
…Muhammad’s Despicable Life
Allah’s Repulsive Words
1
Islam’s Dark Past
The Quran may be lost unless you collect it. How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?
Bukhari: V6B60N201
The Quran may be lost.
There is only one marginally credible source of information regarding Muhammad and the formation of Islam compiled within two centuries of the time Allah’s Messenger terrorized Arabia and the religion of Islam was chaotically amalgamized from pagan Arab traditions, Judaism’s Talmud, and apocryphal Christian legends in largely illiterate and culturally isolated 7th-century Arabia. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah | Path of Allah’s Messenger stands alone – a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man, place, and time – and to the Quran, itself. And yet, as if a reflection on his deplorable recitals, the story of Muhammad’s grossly immoral and vicious existence was cobbled together from oral musings already twelve decades stale.
As if an exemplar of the religion itself, no one has found a single extant fragment of Ishaq’s original collection of Hadith | Oral Reports depicting the circumstances surrounding Muhammad’s Sunnah and Suratuns because the evidence was incriminating and destroyed. All that exists is a redaction of Ibn Ishaq’s 8th-century hearsay portrayal, one which was heavily edited in the 9th century because the truth, in Ibn Hisham’s words, was too “disgraceful to discuss,” including “matters which 2would distress certain people.” That is the truth, and neither faith nor rage change it.
Even after removing the most damning depictions, the ahadith retained within Hisham’s revised version of the Sirat Rasul Allah | the Path of Allah’s Messenger, paint a hideous portrait of the non-prophet. He was among the most appalling men who ever lived. The oldest Islamic sources reveal that Muhammad was a sexual pervert – a committed rapist and lifelong pedophile. He was incestuous and polygamous as a womanizer and misogynist. Abu al-Qasim was unethical, ever ready to murder for money – even torture his victims and traumatize the witnesses. He not only became the world’s most acclaimed terrorist and slave trader, he mandated that Muslims engage in mass murder – declaring war on all mankind. All the while, he was an illiterate and dimwitted dunderhead and thief who had no compunction against plundering literate people of their recitals, which he twisted in disturbing ways to compile his Quran. And once again, reality is unaltered even when it stands against an ignorant chorus of billions protesting Islamophobia.
There is no solution to this problem, because should the Sirat Rasul Allah’s disturbing portrait of Muhammad be invalid, then Islam’s lone Rasuli is reduced to legend and Islam to mythology. The Quran remains a jumbled mess, a word salad of irritating ingredients, tossed up chaotically without context or chronology. Those are the facts, and no amount of protestations or death threats change them. Assassinating me as the messenger, as so many thousands of irate Muslims have threatened, only serves to affirm that I am right, and that Islam is wrong.
That is not to suggest that Abu al-Qasim / Muhammad didn’t exist. Someone corrupted Arabs in the 7th century and inspired them to ravage the world in the names of Muhammad, Allah, the Quran, and Islam. The portrait of the man presented in Ibn Hisham’s redaction of Ishaq’s 3biographical Hadith provides the best explanation of why this occurred. Moreover, the Sunnah Traditions recited by Muhammad and his companions and found in the Sirat Rasul Allah are corroborated by the Quran and echoed by Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari.
While entirely hearsay, these are the only marginally credible sources. And therefore, the portrait they paint is presented throughout God Damn Religion to impugn Islam’s credibility, beginning with Allah, Muhammad, and their Quran – recognizing that it was a collaborative effort. Muhammad, as he was presented in the Hadith, was too dumb to have walked and talked at the same time. Even recognizing that the Quran is remedial, immoral, plagiarized, twisted, jumbled, repetitive, contradictory, and inaccurate, there is too much of it to have come from a single ignoramus. And since the most absurd diatribe is Allah’s insistence that he is God, it’s obvious that Satan was a significant contributor – particularly considering how much of the Quran is overtly sadistic and demonic.
The demented duo had helpers, of course, both then and now, because it is readily obvious that they pilfered portions of the Quran, including the language in which it was recited and then written, from Quraysh custodians of the Ka’aba in Petra, the few remaining Nabateans, from Arab converts to monotheistic Judaism among the Sabeans, and mostly from Jewish rabbis in Yathrib – as well as from pagan folklore, Christian apocryphal sources, and Zoroastrian mythology. However, in the progression of accomplices, recognizing that the Islamic Jibriel / Gabriel was an imaginary prop, we are left with Halal ben Shachar, more commonly known as Satan, in the role of Allah. This realization is affirmed based upon his preoccupation with annihilating and then sadistically torturing everyone who did not believe that he, and he alone, was God.
The most logical deduction is that Muhammad told the truth when he claimed through the Hadith that he was 4demon-possessed. He reaffirmed this when he acknowledged in the Quran that all of Allah’s Messengers spoke for Satan. His confession was repeated again as he neared death.
This conclusion is further reinforced by what Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah to foretell in Isaiah 14, revealing that Halal ben Shachar would seek to rise above the Almighty and be acknowledged as God through babel | commingling truth and lies to confound and confuse. This prophecy explains why “Allah” was so insistent upon claiming the Towrah and its characters as his own and then twisting their words such that they surrendered to him – swearing that al-Lahi/hu/ha was God. The Snake who entered the Garden and twisted Yahowah’s words to beguile ‘Adam and Chawah slithered into Muhammad’s life to torment all mankind.
Over the course of twenty-two years, the non-prophet and his un-god became inseparable and indistinguishable. They were both narcissists, schizophrenic, and psychotic sadists and psychopaths. They traded in lies and ravaged the truth. They celebrated death and ended life. They were inane and demonic, destructive and deadly, deceitful and debilitating, ultimately becoming dehumanizing and delegitimizing. As a result, Islam became the religion of ignorant and immoral malcontents. Evidently, there were and remain a lot of them.
If the collaboration between Muhammad and Satan in the Arabian Desert had concluded with the murder, rape, and enslavement of Jews, it would have been one of many sad chapters among Yahowah’s recalcitrant and religious people. But, instead, Islam metastasized and spread, subduing Arabia, Persia, India, Syria, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, and much of Byzantium. And this plague, rather than killing only those it infects, breeds jihadist zombies intent on ravaging the world on behalf of a book, prophet, and god too dumb for words.
5So, now we are left to pick up the pieces and ascertain the nature of the people and place where this pandemic was unleashed, seeking to determine how, why, where, and when they did so. And there are only five resources available to us, none of which were written by contemporaries nor which have survived intact. Islam’s past is exceedingly dark and impenetrable. And access to this abyss has been blockaded with mountainous lies.
After the Sira was collected, sanitized, and then presented, its oral histories were augmented by Hadith Collections compiled by the likes of Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari – all while memories faded and content degraded. Therefore, to believe that these subsequent Sunnah Traditions were accurate reflections of what transpired and that they were inspired by Allah, requires a leap of faith only Muslims seem willing to make.
And that is frustrating because the Hadith are required to explain the Quran – a book so deficient in context, chronology, and literacy it can only be understood when presented through the hearsay of Sunnah sources. Therefore, throughout God Damn Religion, I have been less concerned with the validity of these sources than with what they had to say. Their message comprises all that is knowable of Islam’s conception and the lives of the first Muslims.
Together, the Sunnah and Quran are Islam. Therefore, it is wise to take them at face value even when the story is less credible than Odysseus and his Odyssey. Throughout, we are primed to hear the siren song of a seductive beast proclaiming the inevitability of man’s tortuous demise.
One does not have to dig very deep to discover Islam’s dark past. Even a cursory reading of the Quran is sufficient to prove that it is among the worst books ever written – and to such an extent, it is irrational to think that the Creator of the universe could have been so inept as to compose a 6remedial tome devoid of context, and without chronology or intelligent transitions. After all, why would such a creative spirit need to plagiarize? How are we to excuse this god’s ineptitude regarding history and science? Would God be as exasperatingly repetitive as is the text of the Quran, as contradictory, or as mean-spirited and sadistic? Why would he defend a book that did not exist?
The God who created man wouldn’t have expressed great pleasure in torturing him, as Allah does. Nor would he order his slaves to follow his messenger’s example and thereby terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other books he claims he revealed. One doesn’t need an academic review of the Quranic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself.
While all of this is obvious, with so many myths being spun by Muslims throughout the centuries, it is time we explore the textual evidence for the Sunnah and Quran. It is one thing to say it doesn’t matter and another to realize it isn’t valid.
We’ll begin this assessment with what the Hadith has to say about the Quran’s origins. And while there are Hadiths that say Bakr tried to assemble the Quran and others that credit Uthman, Muhammad’s third successor, relying upon them is like using the uncalibrated results of radiocarbon decay collected by a magician’s wand to prove the validity of Carbon-‘11½’ dating. Nothing computes.
In Bukhari’s Hadith Collection alone, we find a sea of disturbing and contradictory claims regarding the compilation of Allah’s book. There were differing versions, even in Muhammad’s day. And the Sunnah Traditions reveal that Muhammad made no preparations for gathering his revelations. He left it up to his followers to sift through the conflicting verbal versions. The one man who tried, Muhammad killed.
7That’s astonishing, while not surprising, because the Quran had already served Muhammad’s purpose. He had become the most acclaimed messenger of god and terrorist of all time. Therefore, Islam’s lone “prophet” left his Quran as vapor, soundwaves that had long since faded.
Bragging one day, the imposter called his confounding and contradictory recitals divinely inspired…
Bukhari:V6B61N504 “Muhammad said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed. But what I have been given is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets.’” If the Book was his “miracle,” a “gift” to “believers,” why didn’t he ask someone to write it down and create a book? If he was divinely inspired by a fatalistic god, why did he admit to not knowing the fate of those who believed him?
The answer, of course, is obvious. Muhammad knew that his recitals had been situational scriptures designed to satiate his cravings and those of his Lord. They served no other purpose. The Quran was obsolete the moment Muhammad died.
After having presented countless retellings of the Never-Ending Argument, all to no avail, it had to be obvious to the non-prophet and un-god that providing a written record of their sadistic taunts would be devastating to them – eliminating the wiggle room the Snake needed to avoid being seen as a viper. He was too clever for that, knowing that the freedom to protest would have to be usurped before he could risk a written record.
This is why, immediately upon Muhammad’s death, the first Muslims, as slaves to Allah, commenced the War of Compulsion, attacking and killing any Arab who did not submit. Over the next century, Islam’s crusade against humanity and opposition to freedom, was only interrupted 8once, and that was during the Islamic Civil War, fought to determine who would be Caliph of the Jihadists.
All the while, there wasn’t a single written copy of the Quran or Hadith, not even among the literate nations that would succumb to this tsunami of terror. There were rivers of blood but not a drop of ink.
Prior to compulsion and the elimination of volition, an actual book read by literate people would bury Muhammad and curtail Allah’s aspirations. Therefore, that was to be avoided. Muslims would conquer without Quranic support.
Muslim:C24B20N4609 “The Messenger said: ‘Do not take the Quran on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it would fall into the hands of the enemy.’ Ayyub, one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters, said: ‘The enemy may seize it and may quarrel with you over it.’” Muhammad was afraid that someone in an educated and free society would do as I have done. And he knew that since neither he nor Allah could defend what they had claimed, a beguiled and illiterate Arab wasn’t going to fare any better. Written testimony isn’t malleable and is difficult to deny, making it the least appealing medium for shysters.
A number of Bukhari Hadith suggest that the non-prophet’s companions tried to remember what they could of what he had said, but there was a problem. Those who believed what Muhammad had recited became terrorists, or at least militants – both of which are dangerous professions. Consider Gaza today.
The best reciters, as devoted Islamic mujahideen, were out pummeling Arabs into submission. And in the process of becoming martyrs, they took the memory of the Quran with them to their graves. Panicked, Abu Bakr, the man who had given his six-year-old daughter to Muhammad when he was sixty-eight to exploit sexually, feared that large portions of the terrorist manifesto would be forgotten.
9The best Muslims were dying on the battlefield, subduing fellow Arabs. In one clash alone, most of the Quran’s quasi-knowledgeable reciters, some 400 men, were lost, and many Quranic passages along with them…
Bukhari:V6B60N201 “Zaid bin Thabit, the Ansari said, ‘Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Muhammad’s Companions were killed). Umar, who was present with Bakr, said, ‘The people have suffered heavy casualties at Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among those who can recite the Quran on other battlefields. A large part of the Quran may be lost unless you collect it.’
I replied to Umar, ‘How can I do something which Allah’s Apostle has not done?’ Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal. Zaid bin Thabit added, ‘Umar was sitting with Abu Bakr and was speaking (to) me. “You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you of telling lies or of forgetfulness. You used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. Therefore, look for the Quran and collect it (in one manuscript).”
By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would have been easier for me than the collection of the Quran. I said to both of them, ‘How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?’”
Zaid announced that collecting the Quran’s surahs would be an impossible task. He said that it would be easier to move mountains than to turn Muhammad’s string of oral recitals into a book. He also acknowledged that the Quran itself, had been a lie. There was no Book or Pen, nor had there ever been. All of Allah’s protests, claiming that he had sent down his Book, written clearly, filled with signs and proofs of its validity, were torn asunder.
The reason for Zaid’s recalcitrance wasn’t just that Muhammad had never compiled his Book, but because he did not want to be at cross purposes with Muhammad. Abu al-Qasim had been a despot during the last decade of his life, so he was in a position to demand whatever he wanted. 10Therefore, it was obvious that the non-prophet was opposed to producing a written copy of the Quran.
To go against the will of the man who threatened to rip unbelievers out of their graves and torture them was a step too far for this terrorist. So, based upon this Hadith, he said, “No!” What then? Who was going to probe the fading memories of dying jihadists who had been licensed to plunder and kill?
The First Islamic Civil War, or more correctly, the War of Compulsion, was raging circa 660 CE. The last battle was being waged in Yemen – attacking the people who had contributed most of the Quran’s early surahs.
There were also rumors that some phrases had been carved into the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as on palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark. But in reality, there was nothing better than the fleeting memories of the non-prophet’s warring Companions. In other words, the Quran, like the Hadith, is entirely hearsay.
No one had memorized all of the Quran, even most of it, including Muhammad. During his later years, he became preoccupied with the shortest surahs, those comprised of four to six short verses – and particularly Al-Falaq | The Dawn. It is chilling in its implications, especially when carefully translated from Arabic with a keen eye to its Hebrew origins.
Quran 113.001 “Qul | Speak and say, ‘A’udhu | I seek protection from subversion, refuge from perversion, and asylum from falsifying and twisting bi-Rabbi | with Exalted Lord and Master, Great Ruler and Controller, Prestigious Owner and Possessor al-Falaqi | the Dawn, cleft and cracked break of day, fissured and divisive, yet admirable and wonderful cleaver of creation,
Quran 113.002 min | from sharri | mean-spirited notoriety and sadism of evil, finding fault to defame while enamored by the flames 11of fire, ma khalaqa | what may or may not be measured and proportioned, originated or fabricated,
Quran 113.003 wa min | and from sharri | ill-natured infamy, wicked viciousness, and malevolence, casting aspersions and blame to denigrate and slander, captivated by the inferno ghasiqin | darkening and obscuring the shedding tears in an intensely cold and murky outpouring of darkness, this oozing and festering puss of decay idha | when waqaba | it descends, spreads, and enshrouds, invades, penetrates, and prevails, then disappears,
Quran 113.004 wa-min | and from sharri | mean-spirited notoriety and sadistic evil of finding fault to disparage while mesmerized by the fire al-nafathati | the satanic inspiration of the occultic endeavor of enchanting by blowing fi | in al-‘uqadi | the knots, striking a bargain and obligatory pledge of allegiance,
Quran 113.005 wa-min | and from sharri | ill-natured infamy, wicked viciousness, and evil of finding fault to defame while captivated by the flames, hasidin | an envious grudge born of jealousy, a hatred that is all-consuming, and a deep-seeded desire to deprive others of what is craved, and then hasada | he acts out in jealousy and envy, hatefully harboring the desire to deprive others while craving denial.’”
When fully amplified and affirmed by the underlying text, that was a lot to process – most of it dark, disingenuous, and demonic. So, let’s trim it down to its essential elements, while adding the required, but missing, definite articles and prepositions. We’ll do so because there was a reason this was Muhammad’s favorite recital – the one he was obsessed with and repeated over and over again. It provides a window into the non-prophet’s mindset while revealing his demonic accomplice’s motivations.
What it tells us is that Islam was not for mankind’s benefit but, instead, for Satan’s rise and human demise. Muhammad and Allah knew that the crime they were perpetrating was seditious, rebellious, and treasonous toward God. They were admitting that they were perverting the truth and falsifying their narrative, fabricating the Quran by misrepresenting Yahowah. And yet for the 12crimes of falsely claiming to be prophet and god while degrading and damning humankind, they sought asylum.
This begins with the Adversary, in the guise of a Rabbi telling his corporal manifestation and alter ego to give voice to their collective psychosis, explaining that they are not to be held accountable for what they have said and done. Quran 113.001-005…
Speak and say, ‘I seek protection from sedition, rebellion, and treason, refuge from perversion and falsification, along with asylum from fabricating and misrepresenting with the Exalted Lord and Master, the Great Ruler and Controller, the Prestigious Owner who possesses the Dawn, the break of day, this divisive and admirable cleaver of creation, from the mean-spirited notoriety and sadism of this evil which finds fault to defame while enamored by the flames, from what he may have originated and fabricated, planned and orchestrated,
and from the ill-natured infamy and wicked viciousness of the malevolence of casting aspersions and blame to denigrate and slander, captivated by the inferno by darkening and obscuring the shedding of tears in an intensely cold and murky outpouring of darkness, in this oozing and festering puss of decay when it descends, spreads, and enshrouds, invades, penetrates, and prevails, then vanishes,
and from the mean-spirited notoriety and sadistic evil of finding fault to disparage while mesmerized by the fire, this satanic inspiration of the occultic endeavor of enchanting by striking a bargain and obligatory pledge of allegiance,
and from the psychotic and delusional sadism of projecting one’s faults to slander and defame others while enchanted by the fire, holding an envious grudge born of jealousy, a hatred that is all-consuming, festering deep-seeded desires to deprive others of what is personally craved and coveted acting out in jealousy and envy, hatefully depriving while in denial.’
When we take into account the malignant and transparent contents of this Suratun, and that Muhammad relished this satanic overture more than any other, we should see it for what it is – an admission of demonic 13possession and psychosis. The non-prophet and his un-god were pretentious and egomaniacal, knowingly perpetrating this fraud as Satan and the Devil’s Advocate. They were divisive, separating man from God, while dividing the world into Muslims against all others in a pledge of war against all mankind.
Through it all, they have been mean-spirited, craving notoriety while lashing out in a sadistic manner, consistently evil, always projecting their faults onto others. This “I am God so fear me as if I were Satan” was the essence of their plan, one orchestrated from the beginning. Throughout it all, they have cast aspersions, blaming others for their maladies and failures. They have darkened our world and denigrated man and God while obscuring their true nature. The Quran from its first to last breath has been an intensely confounding outpouring of darkness, wallowing in the festering decay of what they have invaded and enshrouded. And in the end, they know that it will all be for naught. They will vanish as they are cast into oblivion in She’owl.
Sadistic and Satanic, disparaging and denigrating, psychotic and delusional, an occultic endeavor and enchanting bargain, culminating in the obligatory pledge to kill. Theirs was a grudge conceived in envy, a jealous hatred of successful and productive people. And so they would deprive all others of life while in denial regarding their own.
This is overt, even for the Devil – a demonic swan song if you will. The Lord of the Dawn is Satan, which is why Yahowah named him both Ba’al | Lord and Halal ben Shachar | Arrogant Child of the Dawn. He is renowned for being evil and is continually associated with darkness. He is a malignant purveyor of the demented and demonic in the guise of religion.
14Having read this far, you know my affinity for Yahowah, Yahuwdym, and Yisra’el, the Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey, as well as Hebrew – God’s chosen language of revelation. So, I want to use this opportunity in the most revealing of Suratuns to explore the connection between the mother of languages and the miscarriage.
Qul is from Qaf-Waw-Lam. In Arabic it is to “speak, say, or utter through oral speech. In Hebrew, qow’ is “to vomit up and spue out,” while the Hebrew equivalent, qowl, is “a voice, sound, and noise.” This potentially adds a rather unsavory flavor to Allah constant insistence on “Say…” And while I have accurately described what followed as verbal diarrhea, I was unaware that al-Lahi/ha/hu agreed.
A’udhu is from Ayn-Wah-Thal. Arabic dictionaries define it as “seeking protection, refuge, or asylum,” and “to be shielded from harm.” In Hebrew, ‘awath is “to subvert and overthrow, to be crooked and perverted, to falsify, bend, and twist.” Here, it is by augmenting the Arabic with the Hebrew meaning from which it was derived that we better appreciate the nature of the crimes Allah has committed and from which he seeks immunity.
Rabbi is from Ra-Ba-Ba. As a result of its use in the Quran, it is incorrectly defined as “to be a lord and master, to possess and own, even to rule over.” The proper terminology for these things is ba’al and ‘adown. In Hebrew rab is “great.” A rab speaks of “an abundance and multitude.” The rab is the “chief or captain, the highest-ranking authority.” Rabab is “to be multiplied in manifold greatness.” This is why overtly religious Jews coveted the rab and applied it to themselves. Then in Yathrib, rabbis evidently thought it would be hilarious to yank Muhammad’s chain such that he began his god by their title. I don’t suppose they got the last laugh.
15Falaqi is from Fa-Lam-Qaf. In Arabic it means “to split, crack away and divide, cleaving, fissuring, and fragmenting. And because the “break” of day is at “dawn,” that is the implication. While there is no Hebrew word sharing the complete Peh-Lamed-Qoph root, there are two which are similar. They are pelek, which is “to whirl around something, circumambulating it,” and palag, which is “to divide, cleaving and splitting apart.” Also, pala’ is a “sign and wonder.”
Sharri is from Shiin-Ra-Ra. It is commonly rendered simply as “evil” in the Quran. Although, it also appears as “bad, worse, and worst,” while showing a fascination with sparks and flames.” It means “to do evil, be ill-natured and wicked, to find fault and to defame.” It conveys “being vicious and exceptionally elated by fire.”
For comparison, sha’ar in Hebrew is “to split open. A sa’ar is a “dreadful tempest and a horrid terrorist.” And sho’ar describes something that is “horrid, disgusting, vile, and offensive.” So, there is significant commonality between the languages in this case as there was in the others.
Ma is from Miim-Alif. While it means “are not, so not, and what,” in the Quran, it is translated “then are not, and not, but not, none, for not, so not,” and most often as “not,” “then not” or “what.”
In Hebrew, ma’ is an interrogatory posing a who, what, where, why, when, or how question. It serves as a prefix to many words to encourage us to ponder the implications of what follows.
Khalaqa is from Kh-Lam-Qaf. While it means “measured and proportioned,” and by implication, “devised, fabricated, forged, and formed.” In the Quran, it is presented as “designed, fabricated, created, creation, and creator.”
16In the parent language, since there are no words sharing the entire consonant root, we can consider kalah, which is “to accomplish something.” Kalal is “to complete and finish the job.” Kele’ speaks of “imprisonment, confinement, and restraint.” Even more Islamic, kalam is “to humiliate, insult, confuse, confound, and dishonor.”
Wa-min is obviously from Wah and then Miim-Nun. Wa is “and” in both Hebrew and Arabic. It is used in both languages to designate the beginning of a new sentence or to connect related thoughts. Similarly, min means “out of, from, or because of” in Hebrew as well as conveying these same connotations in its bastard child, Arabic.
Ghasiqin is from Gh-Sinn-Qaf. It is translated “ice-cold darkness,” “dark, murky, intensely cold,” “purulence,” “a festering puss,” “oozing and foul puss,” the “discharge from dirty wounds,” “the corruption flowing from the bodies of the damned,” “gore,” “festering blood” “decayed and rotten,” “cold and stinking,” and as “dark, dirty, and black” in the Quran. It is the nasty composition of the “boiling fluid and festering puss” that Allah’s victims are made “to taste” in Quran 038.057 & Quran 078.025 as the un-god pours it down their throats while roasting them in Hell.
Strangely, however, in Quran 017.078 ghasaqi was used to say: “Establish the prostration prayer at the decline the sun till ghasaqi | festering and oozing, corrupting and damning, coldness from the foul discharge of darkness and the Quran at dawn is ever witnessed.” The fact that the same word is used to depict one of Allah’s most revolting tortures in one breath and is associated with the salat | prostration prayer and the al-Quran in the next, reveals what Allah actually thinks of Islam’s most identifiable trademarks. He’s playing Muslims for fools.
It is also telling that there is a similar reference to “dawn” in the passage. Although, there in Quran 017.078 it 17is spelled fajri rather than falaqi in Quran 113.001. The realization that it means “to cut apart and divide, breaking open and deviating,” even “to gush forth,” may be why it is translated as both “wicked” and as “dawn” throughout the Quran.
Waqaba is from Waw-Qaf-Ba and is used only this once in the Quran. It is thought to mean “to set, come upon, overspread, and disappear.” It is rendered as “descends, grows dark, settles, is intense, overspreads, comes, the dark intensified, enshrouds, invades, penetrates, gathers, and prevails.” Since it appears that Allah made up this “word,” there is no Hebrew equivalent.
Al-nafathati is from Nun-Fa-Tha. It is defined in Arabic dictionaries as “satanic inspiration, occultic endeavors, being enchanting, casting spells, whispering, suggesting, and blowing.” While it is used to describe demonic activities throughout the Hadith, with many directly attributed to Muhammad, it is found only this once in the Quran. Allah’s little helpers have rendered al-nafathati as “occult endeavors,” “blowing,” “malignant witchcraft,” “mischief of those who practice secret arts,” practicing magic by blowing,” “spitting,” “who blow incantations,” “the evil of the witches who blow,” “whisper into convictions,” “female magicians and sorceresses,” “whisper evil suggestions,” “mischief of conjuring witches,” and “practicing black magic,” even “those who manipulate brain waves to make black magic.”
The potential Hebrew derivations include naphal, meaning “to fall prostrate” as well as “to attack in the desert, causing others to fall.” A nephel is “a miscarriage or abortion,” not unlike Islam. Naphats is “to shatter and break, beating someone up and pulverizing them.” It is also a “driving storm which causes people to scatter and disperse,” once again, like Islam. A nepesh is “a soul or consciousness,” something Allah despises. And nopheth, 18which is the closest word linguistically, suggests that “sweet as flowing honey” in Hebrew is satanic in Islam.
Al-‘uqadi is from Ayn-Qaf-Dal. Four of the seven times it appears in the Quran it is rendered as a variation of a “knot or knots.” The other three occurrences, ‘uqadi is a “pledge or contract.” It is used twice in the 5th surah to describe, well, let’s have Allah explain it… “not will call you to account al-Lahu for the thoughtless utterances in your oaths but he will call you to account for what you ‘uqadi | contracted the oath,” in Quran 005.089. The same Suratun opens with, “O you who believe, fulfill the ‘uqudi | contracts…” in Quran 005.001. So, once again, the fact that the same word is used to describe something as essential to Islam as the Pledge to Wage War Against All Mankind and then an occultic practice, suggests that there isn’t much separating Allah from Satan.
In Hebrew, we find that Aleph-Qoph-Daleth spells ‘aqad, which is “to tie and bind.” And while this could be extrapolated into being “bound to honor a promise or oath,” the one time it is used in the Towrah is when ‘Abraham bound Yitschaq and laid him on the wooden planks during their father and son prophetic enactment of Pesach. Few things are as confusing in the Quran than what occurred, with whom, where, and why, than this event.
Finally, hasidin and hasada, which are written Haa-Sinn-Dal, are found five times in the Quran – two of them here. These renditions of the same word are rendered as “envy, envier, envies, jealousy, jealous, and begrudge.” Arabic dictionaries affirm that it means “to be envious and hold a grudge that is born of jealousy, to experience hatred that is consuming, and to hold a deep-seeded desire to deprive others of something craved for oneself.”
In Hebrew, envy and jealousy are from qana’, which bears no resemblance to hasidin. So, the envious envier is unique to the Quran.
19However, hasidin isn’t unique to this Suratun. It is used infamously in Quran 048.015 to say, “As soon as you (O believers) are about to set forth on a war that promises booty, those who stayed behind will surely say, ‘Allow us to go with you.’ They would like to alter the Word of God. Say, ‘By no means shall you go with us. Al-Lahi has declared aforetime (to whom all spoils shall belong).’ Thereupon they will (surely) answer, ‘Nay, but you hasidin | jealously begrudge us (our share of booty)!’ Nay, they can grasp but so little of the truth.”
Then in Quran 002.109 we read, “Many among the People of the Book wish they could turn you (believers) back to disbelief because of their hasidin | envy, after the truth has been made clear to them. Pardon and bear with them until al-Lahu delivers His decision. Surely al-Laha is most capable of everything.”
So, are we to believe that stealing during terrorist raids is godly and good but that coveting stolen property is ignorant and un-Islamic? Likewise, we were told that the three “books” were all the same, but nonetheless, the first to receive them tried to turn the last to accept one back to disbelief because they were envious after the truth had been made clear to them. More perplexing still, in two Suratuns hisidin | envy was bad, but in Quran 113, it’s something Muhammad relished.
As proof that this ode to the Devil and his vices was Muhammad’s favorite recital, we have this from Aisha, who was six when the 68-year-old (based upon the actual date of the Year of the Elephant when Muhammad was born) non-prophet began abusing her…
Bukhari:V6B61N535 “Narrated Aisha: Whenever Allah's Messenger became sick, he would recite Mu’awwidhat (Surat Al-Falaq and Surat An-Nas) and then blow his breath over his body. When he became seriously ill, I used to recite (these two Suras) and rub his hands over his body hoping for its blessings.”
Worse still (should that be possible), the Muslim chosen for this impossible task was the one in the best position to plagiarize the Torah and Talmud. And it’s 20obvious he did. Remember: Tabari VII:167 “In this year, the Prophet commanded Zayd bin Thabit to study the Book of the Jews, saying, ‘I fear that they may change my Book.’”
There is another Bukhari Hadith which covers similar ground in the beginning but then detours through the spiritual operating room to garner Zaid’s support…
Bukhari:V6B61N509 “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al- Khattab sitting with him.
Abu Bakr then said (to me), ‘Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the Quran (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost. Therefore, I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Quran be collected.”’
I said to Umar, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ Umar said, ‘By Allah, that is a good project.’ Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which Umar had realized. Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Quran and collect it in one book.’
By Allah, if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Quran. Then I said to Abu Bakr, ‘How will you do something which Allah’s Messenger did not do?’ Abu Bakr replied, ‘By Allah, it is a good project.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and Umar.
So I started looking for the Quran and collecting it from (what was written on) palm stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat at-21Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him.
The Verse is: ‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty…(till the end of Surat-Baraa) (at-Tauba)’ (Quran 009.128-129). Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Quran remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar.”
As is typical of the Islamic Traditions, there is no evidence of this being reliable. And with this next Hadith, a favorite among Muslims, it comes with a poison pill…
Bukhari:V6B61N511 “Zaid bin Thabit said, ‘I started searching for the Quran till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi but I could not find them with anyone other than him. They were: ‘Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves.’” (Quran 009.128) The reason that this is incriminating is because the 9th surah was the second to last revealed. If only one person could remember it, there is no chance those which were revealed twenty-two years earlier were retained.
Furthermore, this Tradition contradicts the most highly touted Islamic mantra because most Muslims contend Uthman, not Bakr, ordered the collection of the Quran a decade later.
Bukhari V6B61N510 “Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to Uthman, ‘O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.’
So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.’ Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.
22Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Quran was revealed in their tongue.’ They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.”
There is one thing certain about contradictions – one or the other is not true and likely both. There were, as of this date, no manuscripts or copies, but had there been I’m sure Muslims worldwide would have risen up to protest the burning of Qurans. And who knows what version they finally committed to paper, if they ever did?
Bukhari:V6B61N513: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel [when he wasn’t blotting out the luminosity of the sun and moon with his 600 wings] recited the Quran to me in one way. Then I requested him and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways.’” Assuming Muhammad could count using both hands, this means that there were at least seven Qurans. The Pen had been busy.
That wasn’t the end of the confusion. In version two of “Gabriel’s” recital, Muhammad switched roles with his imaginary friend… Bukhari:V6B61N519: “In the month of Ramadan Gabriel used to meet Muhammad every night of the month till it elapsed. Allah’s Apostle used to recite the Quran for him.” Then, we go from every night to once a year. Bukhari:V6B61N520: “Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Quran with the Prophet once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he died.”
If I may remind readers, Gabriel was a poor choice among “angels” because Gabry’el means “God’s Most Competent and Courageous Man.” (In Hebrew, from which the name is derived, gibowr means “capable and bold.” It is from geber | a strong man.) In reality, Gabry’el 23is Israel’s Messiah and King, the Firstborn Son of God, Dowd | David. He is Islam’s most fervent foe.
No wonder they couldn’t remember who said what to whom. Bukhari:V6B61N549 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The example of the person who knows the Quran by heart is like the owner of tied camels. If he keeps them tied, he will control them, but if he releases them, they will run away.’” To release something memorized requires sharing it. Therefore, this Hadith is apparently telling Muslims not to recite surahs for fear of losing them.
And speaking of losing it… Bukhari:V6B61N550 “The Prophet said, ‘It is a bad thing that some of you say, “I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Quran.” For indeed, I have been caused to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Quran because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.’” Equating the Quran to a camel wasn’t among Muhammad’s most intelligent comments – but I wouldn’t want to be tasked with compiling a more lucid list.
This frivolity is important because it exposes a lie that sits at the heart of Islam. It’s irrational to think God would shift from a reliance on literate Jewish prophets and written scrolls to an illiterate Arab who could not even remember what he said one day to the next.
Nonetheless, the foundation of Islamic teaching is based upon the notion that Allah chose Arabs because they had good memories. Therefore, the supposition is to discard the primordial Pen because the Quran would be retained mouth to ear more effectively than would it have been had it been a written book – even though it has been presented as that which it was not.
Although Islamic schools from Egypt to Pakistan are founded around this internal contradiction, Muhammad’s Quran was largely forgotten and replaced by an amalgamized text from many reciters. It was lost before it ever found paper. And by contrast, since the Towrah 24started out as words on parchment, it has remained true to its initial inspiration 3,500 years after it was committed to writing. The Dead Sea Scrolls underscore this truth.
But it gets even worse for Islam. Muslims insist on confining the Quran to Religious Arabic – a language that is so hard to learn with its inane grammar and antiquated vocabulary, it’s ranked second by linguists after Chinese as the world’s least hospitable communication medium. And even in Arabic most of the Quran is unintelligible because so many words are missing, and others are nonsensical.
There was, however, a prior analog that Muslims in Baghdad followed. Four centuries earlier, in 383 CE, to preclude common men from reading it, Jerome translated the New Testament out of common Greek into Latin. He and his Church not only destroyed every Greek text they could find, they threatened to kill anyone who rendered it out of their Latin prison. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church was free to do whatever the popes wanted without anyone being able to hold them accountable.
Therefore, it’s not rational to think that an inarticulate god would choose illiterate people and such a difficult, and recently derived language if he wished to communicate his message to the whole world. It’s like using cow patties to fuel a lamp and then covering it with mud and muck.
But there was a method to their madness. By confining the Quran to Religious Arabic, Islamic clerics and kings can say whatever they want – and they do. An Egyptian doctor who edited the first edition of Prophet of Doom wrote: “You would be amazed how they can distort facts to deceive others.”
In keeping with the camel theme, Allah’s divinely inspired messenger announced this rebuttal to Allah’s overreaction toward those who hamstrung his she-camel… Bukhari:V6B61N552 “The Prophet said, ‘Keep on reciting the 25Quran, for Quran runs away (is forgotten) faster than camels that are released from their tying ropes.’”
In the interest of full disclosure, I present… Bukhari:V6B61N559 “The Prophet said, ‘Why does anyone of the people say, “I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Quran)?” I am, in fact, caused (by Allah) to forget.’” It’s a wonder anyone takes Islam seriously.
Since Volume 6, books 60 and 61 of Sahih Bukhari were devoted to the transmission of the Quran, here are some additional gems for your consideration. This is the foundation upon which Islam sinks or survives, so let’s not mince words…
Bukhari:V6B61N506 “Narrated Jundub: Once the Prophet fell ill and did not offer the night prayer (Tahajjud prayer) for a night or two. A woman (the wife of Abu Lahab) came to him and said, ‘O Muhammad! I do not see but that your Satan has left you.’ Then Allah revealed (Surat-Ad-Duha): ‘By the forenoon, and by the night when it darkens (or is still); Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor hated you.’”
While it is reassuring with all of the vitriol in the Quran that Allah does not hate Muhammad, the realization that the non-prophet remained demon-possessed is disheartening. And as would be expected, let there be no doubt that Allah’s Messenger was an expert on Satan…
Bukhari:V6B61N530 “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger ordered me to guard the Zakat revenue of Ramadan. Then somebody came to me and started stealing from the foodstuff. I caught him and said, ‘I will take you to Allah’s Messenger!’
Then Abu Huraira described the whole narration and said: ‘That person said (to me), “(Please don’t take me to Allah's Messenger and I will tell you a few words by which Allah will benefit you.) When you go to your bed, recite Ayat-al-Kursi, (Quran 002.255) for then there will be a guard from Allah who will protect you all night long, and Satan will not be able to come near you till dawn.”’ (When the Prophet heard the story) he said (to me), ‘He 26(who came to you at night) told you the truth although he is a liar; and it was Satan.’”
One of the less desirable perks of being the Devil’s Advocate is that sooner or later Satan discards even his most devout loyalists…
Bukhari:V6B61N505 “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah sent down His Divine Inspiration to His Apostle continuously and abundantly during the period preceding his death till He took him unto Him. That was the period of the greatest part of revelation; and Allah's Messenger died after that.”
This is an odd statement since the Quranic evidence is to the contrary. Early on, surahs were short and frequent. And in the end they were tediously long and anything but continuous. As evidence of this, over the first ten years, Muhammad claimed 86 surahs, receiving them at the rate of nine per year. However, in Yathrib, Muhammad got distracted by terrorist raids, which occurred at the rate of six per year, while revelations slowed to two per year. Obviously, Muhammad was not a multitasker.
In the upside-down world of non-prophets, their god listens to them rather than the other way around… Bukhari:V6B61N541 “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said, ‘Allah does not listen to a prophet as He listens to a prophet who recites the Quran in a pleasant tone.’”
Since Allah was preoccupied with threatening to torture unbelievers, why would he, of all gods, be impressed with a pleasant tone? Is murder and mayhem more palatable when served by a slippery tongue?
Bukhari:V6B61N537 “Narrated Abdul Aziz bin Rufai: Shaddad bin Ma’qil and I entered upon Ibn Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma’qil asked him, ‘Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Quran)?’ He replied. ‘He did not leave anything except what is Between the two bindings (of the Quran).’” Keeping in mind that “(besides the Quran)” and “(of the Quran)” were both added by the translator, this affirms that Muhammad left nothing other than the means to bind Muslims.
27This is yet another proof the Quran is invalid…
Bukhari:V6B61N536 “Narrated Usaid bin Hudair: That while he was reciting Surat Al-Baqara (The Cow) at night, and his horse was tied beside him, the horse was suddenly startled and troubled. When he stopped reciting, the horse became quiet, and when he started again, the horse was startled again. Then he stopped reciting and the horse became quiet too. He started reciting again and the horse was startled and troubled once again. Then he stopped reciting and his son, Yahya was beside the horse. He was afraid that the horse might trample on him. When he took the boy away and looked towards the sky, he could not see it.
The next morning he informed the Prophet who said, ‘Recite, Ibn Hudair! Recite, Ibn Hudair!’ Hudair replied, ‘Allah’s Messenger! My son, Yahya was near the horse and I was afraid it might trample on him, so I looked towards the sky, and went to him. When I looked at the sky, I saw something like a cloud containing what looked like lamps, so I went out in order not to see it.’
The Prophet said, ‘Do you know what that was?’ Ibn Hudair replied, ‘No.’ The Prophet said, ‘Those were Angels who came near to you for your voice and if you had kept on reciting till dawn, it would have remained there till morning when people would have seen it as it would not have disappeared.’”
Angelic lamps, what a clever idea. I wonder if they come in colors other than demonic black, Islamic green, and blood red?
The following surah serves as an exposé on Islam. What appears triumphant on Allah’s behalf, is actually an admission of guilt. It is a confession whereby every odious and repetitive rant found within the Quran can be viewed correctly. In his review of it, Islamic commentator and deceased terrorist, al Maududi, wanted Allah’s slaves to believe that the opposite was true. He protested that the religion of Islam, as presented in the Quran, was brilliantly comprised of three fundamental doctrines:
“Tauhid (the oneness of Allah) [whom we have yet to meet], the apostleship of Muhammad [whose ‘apostleship’ is covered in 28the Sunnah, not the Quran], and the belief that the dead are raised bodily [which is both impossible and counterproductive]. The 112th surah, ‘Pure Faith,’ teaches Tauhid, pure and undefiled. Therefore, the Prophet regarded this one surah as equal to one-third of the Quran.”
Said a different way, albeit a very long time ago… Bukhari:V6B61N534 “Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said to his companions, ‘Is it difficult for any of you to recite one third of the Quran in one night?’ This suggestion was difficult for them so they said, ‘Who among us has the power to do so, O Allah's Messenger?’ Allah Apostle replied: ‘Allah (the) One, the Self-Sufficient Master Whom all creatures need (Surat Al-Ikhlas Quran 112.001 - 004) is equal to one third of the Quran.’” Too bad he didn’t tell the truth on this occasion. It would have been refreshing for a change.
Nonetheless, in all Al-Ikhlaas | Sincerity of Faith…
Quran 112.001 “Say, ‘He, (is) al-lahu | the for him, the one. Quran 112.002 Al-lahu | the for Him, the indispensable, eternal, and absolute. Quran 112.003 Not He begets, and not is He begotten. Quran 112.004 And not is lahu | for Him, equivalent (to) any.”
We should all rejoice that there is only one “For Him” and that he was self-incriminating. However, this counterfeit deity was not named in this surah. Having translated it from the Word By Word Translation and Quran interlinear, I can assure you that the text reads “al-lahu” which is comprised of “al – the” and “lahu – for him.” It does not say “Allah,” nor does it convey al-ilah, which would have been “the god.”
Therefore, with the inclusion of the definite article, which is al in Arabic, and lahu | for him, al-lahu was being presented as a title, revealing the intent of the surah – perhaps the entire Quran. It was all Lahu | for Him to rise above the Almighty in the sight of Muslim slaves. This realization reinforces the intent of al-lahu-akbar.
Affirming this reality, the titles of 59 of the Quran’s surahs begin with Al | The, including this one, Al-Ikhlas | The 29Sincere Faith. As a result, the Lord of the Quran has announced that this book is for Him – and therefore, was not revealed for the benefit of humankind.
This is a curious confession because it is one that all six of the “translations” I originally consulted to present the Quran as accurately and completely as possible throughout what was Prophet of Doom, misrepresented al-lahu. Since lahu | for him is readily understood and easily translated, and since it was scribed three times in these four verses, why did Ahmed Ali, Pickthal, Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Khan for The Noble Quran, and Hilai for the Quran Word By Word Translation and interlinear all present the first two lahu errantly as “Allah” and the last correctly as “for Him”?
To highlight their duplicity, the surah reads: “Qul huwa al-lahu ahadun al-lahu al-samadu lam yalid walam yulad walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahadun.” And yet, that is not what any of these translators wrote…
Ahmed Ali: Say: ‘He is God the one, the most unique, God the eminently indispensable. He has begotten no one, and is begotten of none. There is no one comparable to Him.’
The Noble Quran: Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): ‘He is Allâh, (the) One. Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks). He begets not, nor was He begotten; And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.’
Pickthal: Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.
Shakir: Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him.
Yusuf Ali: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.
30The Quran Word By Word is also mistaken: Say He (is) Allah, the One. Allah the Eternal the Absolute, Not He begets and not He is begotten, And not is for Him equivalent any (one).
By conducting this exercise, we can correctly deduce that Islamic scholars will knowingly and deliberately alter their renderings of the Quran to create the impression that Allah is God when the actual script demonstrates otherwise. We can also surmise that these horribly written diatribes found throughout the Quran were Lahu | For Him, and not for anyone else – including humans. It was all recited such that the Lord of Islam might appear beyond compare, the greatest of all, which is a stretch since he is but a Snake – a lowly reptilian beast.
Perhaps the most relevant deduction that can be derived from the deliberate deceit contrived by Quran translators is that a serious investigator cannot intelligently rely on any one of them, even five of them. To understand what was revealed and why, we must systematically and diligently work our way through these rants – no matter how obscure and perverted.
Therefore, I would like to remind readers that I began presenting a composite rendering of the five most popular and esteemed translations of the Quran. Along the way, I turned to interlinears to be more literal and correct, checking them against an expanded group of 66 other English translations. And by the time our focus shifted to the last of the Quran’s Suratuns chronologically, I was augmenting the interlinear presentations with Arabic dictionaries and lexicons, in addition to searching Hebrew roots, to be as precise as possible. This known, it should be readily apparent that no one seems to know what the voice of the Quran was trying to convey, so translations differ appreciably. And without translations into current languages, the Quran languishes in its paleo-Arabic coffin.
31You should know that a number of things occurred over the ensuing period from Prophet of Doom to God Damn Religion which had an effect on this comprehensive revision. First, the presentation of Allah and Muhammad’s voices in the Quran and Hadith have been so shrill over the centuries that, after posting Prophet of Doom online and conducting 5,000 talk-radio interviews to promote its findings, young Muslims were in a quandary. In the face of what I was sharing, the “Islam is peaceful” and “jihad is a spiritual struggle” arguments were discredited. So, to make their religion appear acceptable and civilized, Muslims sanitized the text. They inserted “Allah” when the Quran read “al-lahu/hi/ha,” “ilah,” “rabbi,” and “ar-Rahman” to dispense with the realization that Allah was a come-lately. Then, they replaced “terror” with “awe” in many translations in a disingenuous attempt to disassociate their un-god and non-prophet from Islamic terrorism.
While they were at it, the Muslim Student Association at my alma mater did two additional things – one annoying, the other helpful. Since there was no consensus guiding the nomenclature of the Hadith, they rearranged their sanitized renderings under a different numbering system, making it slightly more difficult to verify my citations apart from using an online search engine. Then, to counter the accusation that students of the Quran were deprived of translation aids and in contrast to the vast wealth of tools available to study the Hebrew text of the Towrah, they began offering Arabic / English interlinears. These not only enable a literal rendering, conveying the words as they are now written, they present the Arabic terms from which they were derived. But these tools, and there are now many of them, impugn “Allah’s” credibility because they reveal in no uncertain terms that the text of the Quran is impoverished and incomprehensible while, at the same time, providing a means to a more accurate rendering.
32Had I taken the easier path to God Damn Religion, I would have copied and pasted from one of 70 available translations and left it at that, giving the erroneous impression that this one version was correct. Knowing otherwise, I invested the time required to compile a rendering that was far more accurate and complete. And now, with the benefit of interlinears, I can provide a literal rendering while still retaining the credibility provided by the foremost Arabic linguists and scholars. This approach became essential when I began to notice the inappropriate renderings of many Arabic words whose definitions are clearly conveyed by their Hebrew roots. Examples are kafar / kafir which is incorrectly rendered “disbelievers, infidels, or wrongdoers” when the word is derived from the Hebrew kaphar, meaning “reconciled,” and derivatives of quwm, which is presented as “people” but actually means “to stand up.” Another example includes the variations of bayn, which means “between” and “understand” and denotes “making the proper connections to comprehend.” And yet is almost always rendered “clear” or “clear signs” when presented in the Quran. There was also the introduction of the un-god’s name into surahs ascribed to al-lahu | for him, al-lahi | to him, al-lahu | for her, ilah | god, rabbi | my lord, or Ar-Rahman | the Merciful, all of which were changed to either Allah or God.
Therefore, the available options were either to misrepresent the Quran, as is the case with existing translations, or to invest the time to provide a more literal and exacting representation of the underlying text. I chose the latter and used interlinears, Arabic dictionaries, lexicons, and an appreciation of the underlying Hebrew roots to derive the translations found in God Damn Religion while pointing readers to scores of other options online at resources such as IslamAwakened.com.
This known, let’s continue to investigate the many myths associated with the Quran’s compilation…
33Bukhari:V6B61N533 “Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: A man heard another man reciting (Surat-Al-Ikhlas [the four lines of Quran 112.001-004]) ‘Say He is Allah, (the) One.’ repeatedly. The next morning he came to Allah's Messenger and informed him about it as if he thought that it was not enough to recite. On that Allah’s Messenger said, ‘By Him in Whose Hand my life is, this Surah is equal to one-third of the Quran!’”
Moving to much longer surahs where a single line can be more verbose than the entirety of Al-Ikhlas | Sincere Faith, we find that Muhammad grew excited when his un-god inspired the faithful to terror. This became the lone occasion when he insisted that his Lord’s order be written for posterity. So, he asked Zaid to bring the scapula bone and inkpot, everything but the Pen, expecting his call to arms to be memorialized. Now, if only he could read it…
Bukhari:V6B61N512 “Narrated Al-Bara: There was revealed: ‘Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.’ (Quran 004.095) The Prophet said, ‘Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot).’ Then he said, ‘Write: “Not equal are those Believers who sit.”
And at that time `Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet. He said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?’ So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed: ‘Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.’” (Quran 004.095)
Since every Muslim has been blinded by Muhammad and Allah, why don’t they accept their Get-Out-of-Jihad Card and stay at home? Although, while it’s not my place to criticize Zaid, it seems as if he may have written the same thing on three sides of the scapula…
Quran 004.095 “Not equal the ones who sit and remain passive, among believers {other than the disabled}, and the ones who Jihad | Fight, striving in the Way of al-Lahi with their wealth and their lives. Al-Lahu preferred the ones who Jihad | Fight with their wealth 34and their lives to the ones who remain passive and stay at home (in) exaltation and rank. And all al-Lahu promised the best, (but) al-Lahu preferred al-Mu-Jahid | the Muslims who Jihad over the ones who are passive (by) a tremendous reward.”
I wonder if there has ever been another god whose primary cause was to fight and kill. Typically, in pagan lore, deadly deities did their own killing. But not in Islam – which is a curious thing for a wannabe god who renounces partners.
Bukhari:V6B61N580 “Narrated `Abdullah: The Prophet said, ‘Recite (and study) the Quran as long as you agree about its interpretation, but if you have any difference of opinion (as regards to its interpretation and meaning) then you should stop reciting it (for the time being).”
Since this is a command from Allah, why is anyone citing the Quran? There are more differences of opinion among Muslims than there are Muslims. Case in point…
Bukhari:V6B61N582 “Narrated `Abdullah: That he heard a man reciting a Quranic Verse which he had heard the Prophet reciting in a different way. So he took that man to the Prophet (and told him the story). The Prophet said, ‘Both of you are reciting in a correct way, so carry on reciting.’ The Prophet further added, ‘The nations which were before you were destroyed (by Allah) because they differed.’”
Only in Islam is incongruity considered correct. There are so many contradictions in the Quran, there is actually a verse explaining that the last inconsistency is official and correct.
Bukhari:V6B61N527 “Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Quran) yet we leave some of what he recites. Ubai says, ‘I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave for anything whatever.’ But Allah said, ‘None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar.’ (Quran 002.106)”
35The abrogation verse of Quran 002.106 is so essential to Allah’s nature and to impugning Islamic credibility, let’s consider it in context. Allah allegedly told Muhammad…
Quran 002.099 “Verily, we have revealed to you clear signs (which inform in detail about the Jews and their secret plots); and none disbelieve and reject them but those who are perverse miscreants, defiantly disobedient. Quran 002.100 And whenever it is they took an ahdan | covenant pledge, some party among them threw it away. Nay! Most of them believe not.
Quran 002.101 And when came to them a Messenger from al-Lahi confirming that which was already with them, a party of them who were given the writing threw away the writing (book) of al-Lahi, behind their backs, as if they did not know.
Quran 002.102 They follow what al-Shayatin | the Adversary, Satan, recited over the kingdom of Sulaiman | Solomon. Solomon never disbelieved. The al-Shayatin | the Adversary, Satan denied and disbelieved, teaching people magic and sorcery, and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Harut, and Marut.
And they both did not teach any one unless they both said, ‘We are only a temptation and trial, so do not deny or disbelieve.’ But from those two they learned what causes division with it between the man and his wife. And they could not harm them or profit them except by al-Lahi’s permission. And, indeed, they knew that whoever buys it, lahu | for him, (there is) no share in the hereafter. And, indeed, evil is what they sold themselves with if they but knew.
Quran 002.103 And if that they had believed, and feared, surely a better recompense from al-Lahi, if they but knew. Quran 002.104 O you who believed. Do not say, ‘Ra’ina (an ambiguous verb used by Jews which had a derisive connotation in Hebrew, may mean ‘hear us,’ ‘listen to us so you become deaf,’ or ‘our evil shepherd’),’ but say, ‘Unzuma (pay attention to us and listen to us).’ And for disbelievers a painful punishment.
Quran 002.105 Not like those who kafar | disbelieve (the earlier revelation) among people of al-kitabi | the writing (Jews) and not al-mushrikun | the polytheists (who ascribe partners and coworkers), that be sent down to you any good from rabbikum | your Lord. But 36al-Lahu | the For-Him chooses for his Rahman | Mercy whom he wills. And al-Lahu owner great merit.
Quran 002.106 Whatever from ayatin | signs or proofs (verses) nansakh | we abolish and abrogate or nunsiha | we cause it [sic] to be forgotten, we bring better than it or similar (to) it. Do not you know that al-Laha over every thing all powerful?”
This statement speaks for itself. And while it was critiqued in the Anti-Semite chapter of the Slaughter volume of God Damn Religion which focuses on the 2nd surah, suffice it to say for now, Allah announced that he cannot be trusted. This is not only devastating to the wannabe god’s credibility, but it also annuls the possibility that the Quran was written long ago and then delivered as a perfect book. Allah remains suicidal.
In our quest to learn what the ahadith say about the Quran, we find this tongue twister of a tongue lashing…
Bukhari:V6B61N564 “Narrated Ibn Abbas: Regarding His (Allah’s) Statement: ‘Move not your tongue concerning (the Quran) to make haste therewith.’ (Quran 075.016)
And whenever Gabriel descended to Allah’s Messenger with the Divine Inspiration, Allah’s Messenger used to move his tongue and lips, and that used to be hard for him, and one could easily recognize that he was being inspired Divinely.
So Allah revealed the Verse which occurs in the Surah starting with ‘I do swear by the Day of Resurrection.’ (Quran 075.001) i.e. ‘Move not your tongue concerning (the Quran) to make haste then with. It is for Us to collect it (in your mind) (O Muhammad) and give you the ability to recite it by heart.’ (Quran 075.016-17) which means: ‘It is for us to collect it (in your mind) and give you the ability to recite it by heart.’
And when We have recited it to you (O Muhammad) through Gabriel then follow you its recital. (Quran 075.018) means: ‘When We reveal it (the Quran) to you, Listen to it.’ for then: It is for Us to explain it and make it clear to you' (Quran 075.019) i.e. It is up to Us to explain it through your tongue.
37So, when Gabriel came to him, Allah’s Messenger would listen to him attentively, and as soon as Gabriel left, he would recite the Revelations, as Allah had promised him.”
Al-Qiyamah | The Resurrection surah actually requires the Hadith’s interpretation of the Quran’s lazy tongue approach to revelation to keep Allah from contradicting most everything Muslims believe about the preexistence of the Quran and how it was revealed. So, as we consider this extraordinary confession of how the Quran was conveyed, please note that, unlike the Hadith, there is no mention of Gabriel, the Quran, Muhammad, or Allah.
The speaker begins in first person with “I” and shifts to “we” in third person by the third statement. “I / we” is found swearing by the irrational notion of a universal resurrection of everyone’s body throughout time. Delusions such as this were only believable because they had been popular among pagans and had been reinstituted as part of Christianity and Judaism. In this case, the universal reanimation of bones and tissues provides the opportunity for “I / we” to torture his foe – humankind. I will share why this is so in a moment and explain the relationship with predestination – a fate that cannot be avoided or understood.
From the perspective of the previous Hadith suggesting that the 75th surah is addressing how the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, there appears to be an abrupt change of topics from condemning humankind to not moving one’s tongue between the 15th and 16th verses, which is exceedingly awkward. But it is needed to salvage Muhammad’s reputation because, without Ibn Abbas’ explanation in Bukhari:V6B61N564, everything Muslims believe about their “prophet’s recitals” goes poof…
Quran 075.001 “I swear by the Day of Resurrection. Quran 075.002 And I swear by the self-accusing person and reprehensive soul to witness. Quran 075.003 Does man think that We shall not 38gather and assemble his bones? Quran 075.004 Yes, we are able to put together in perfect order the tips of his fingers.
Quran 075.005 Nay! He desires to continue committing sins and to lie about what is before him. Quran 075.006 He asks, ‘When will be this Day of Resurrection?’ Quran 075.007 So, when the sight shall be dazed, Quran 075.008 and the moon is eclipsed, Quran 075.009 and the sun and moon will be conjoined, Quran 075.010 on that Day man will say, ‘Where to flee?’
Quran 075.011 No, Never! There is no refuge or escape. Quran 075.012 Unto your Lord will be the retreat on that day. Quran 075.013 On that day man will be informed of what he sent forward, and what he left behind. Quran 075.014 Nay! Man will be a witness against himself, Quran 075.015 though he may put forth his excuses.
Quran 075.016 Move not your tongue concerning to make haste. Quran 075.017 Lo! It is for us to collect, put together, and recite. Quran 075.018 And when we have recited it to you, follow its recital. Quran 075.019 Then, lo, upon us to explain it. Quran 075.020 But no. You love this fleeting life.”
Should Muslims contend that Allah has transitioned from condemning humankind to imparting his instructions to Muhammad regarding the process of revealing the Quran, without the Bukhari interpretation, they are toast. Recitals cannot be recited without moving one’s tongue, negating Muhammad’s perceived role in all of this. Further, since “Us” is “collecting it and putting it together,” the notion that a Book written by the Pen prior to creation is torn asunder – as is every Hadith claim that the Quran was collected and put together by men.
In this surah, Gabriel has been eliminated from the process, negating Muhammad’s insistent claim that the supposed angel was responsible for communicating all of it to him. “Us” are now the reciters, not Gabriel, not even Muhammad, nor the first Muslims. Moreover, it is not for Muhammad or for any man to explain what otherwise appears senseless – only Allah knows, and he isn’t sharing.
39However, Allah isn’t actually as clever as he wants everyone to believe. This is one of many confessions – each revealing Satan’s agenda.
I came to understand that the Quran served as Allah’s means to shed his ha Satan | Adversary title and present himself as God twenty-two years ago when initially writing Prophet of Doom. But that realization was insufficient to explain the 75th surah. That would not come until last year when I composed the Babel series for Yada Yahowah.
The clearest and most complete presentation of Satan’s ultimate scheme is presented in the Book of Ezekiel – which serves as the Adversary’s autobiography. After presenting himself as God, Satan sets his sights on raping, plundering, and annihilating Jews – fantasizing over his 25 torturous ways to eliminate them. After sharing a revisionist portrayal of himself in the Garden, Satan debuts his Day of Resurrection scheme with the Valley of Dry Bones. This leads to the mythical Magog War followed by the Adversary repurposing Jerusalem and building what is essentially a massive concentration camp over it. With Jews eliminated, most of humanity dead, and his trophy placed atop the Temple Mount, the Adversary portends to make his grand entrance, claiming to be God.
This is the only way he prevails, and in this regard, I am his principal foe. Satan is clever, not stupid. He knows that his Day of Doom is actually Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah / sunset, October 2nd, 2033. Yahowah has promised to return with His beloved Son, the Messiah, Dowd | David, for a Family Reunion with a remnant of Yisra’el | Individuals who Engage and Endure with God and Yahuwdym | Beloved of Yah. If there are none left, Yahowah’s plans are thwarted and it is game over for the Beryth | Covenant because there would be no one there to participate – nullifying countless prophecies and God’s purpose. Should this occur, Yahowah stays in 40Shamaym | Heaven and the ‘Erets | Earth remains ha Satan’s sandbox in which he can pretend to be God.
My mission is to awaken Yahuwdym and Yisrael such that Yahowah’s return with Dowd is celebrated as anticipated and Satan is dispatched to She’owl | Hell along with his many religious advocates. That is the purpose of Yada Yahowah. It is why I have rewritten Prophet of Doom as God Damn Religion at this time. And it is why I’ve done more than just excoriating Islam.
From this perspective, the otherwise incomprehensible and grossly immoral 75th surah is exposed. The Day of Doom which awaits Satan is transformed into a nakba | catastrophe for humankind with his Day of Resurrection. The Devil even swears by it, and he has elicited the service of the “self-accursing person and reprehensible soul as a witness.” Accordingly, Ezekiel’s Valley of Dry Bones is perceived as real. Worm rot will be reconstituted into people who can be interrogated and tortured. The lesser light of the moon will be eclipsed so that it can be conjoined with the sun, a metaphor derived from the fourth day of creation to turn the Adversary into God.
In Satan’s scheme, there will be no escape from his elaborate concentration camp, with all of its walls and guards, set atop the Temple Mount. Nay, the Lord will be their retreat as mankind serves as a witness against himself. Sure, there will be excuses, but they will not matter – so move not your tongue in defense. Lo! It is for us to collect your bones and put you back together and then recite your fate. We will explain it to you.
“But wait,” the Muslim apologists whine, “not everyone is destined to suffer. There are also the beaming faces of believers awaiting their Lord.” Of course, without some Muslim slaves worshiping him, how would Satan continue to play God? He is not trying to eliminate everyone, just those who prefer Yahowah over him. Case in point, the Suratun was not over at the 20th verse…
41Quran 075.001-020 “I swear by the Day of Resurrection, and I swear by the self-accusing person and reprehensive soul to witness. Does man think that We shall not gather and assemble his bones? Yes, We are able to put together in perfect order the tips of his fingers. Nay! He desires to continue committing sins and to lie about what is before him. He asks, ‘When will be this Day of Resurrection?’ So, when the sight shall be dazed, and the moon is eclipsed, and the sun and moon will be joined together and conjoined. On that Day man will say, ‘Where to flee?’ No, Never! There is no refuge or escape. Unto your Lord will be the retreat on that day. On that day man will be informed of what he sent forward, and what he left behind. Nay! Man will be a witness against himself. Though he may put forth his excuses. Move not your tongue concerning to make haste. Lo! It is for Us to collect, put together, and recite. And when We have recited it to you, follow its recital. Then, lo, upon Us to explain it. But no. You love this fleeting life Quran 075.021 and neglect the Hereafter.
Quran 075.022 Some faces that Day shall be Nadirah | Shining Brightly, Refulgent and Resplendent, Beaming, Quran 075.023 looking at their Lord. Quran 075.024 And some faces on that Day will be Basirah | Woe-Begone, Despondent, Gloomy, and Dismal, Frowning, Quran 075.025 fearing and knowing that some calamity, a great disaster, is about to fall upon them. Quran 075.026 Nay! When it comes up to the throat and reaches the collar bone, Quran 075.027 and it will be said, ‘Is there wizard, a magician, or reciter of charms (who can save him from death)?’
Quran 075.028 And he will realize it is the parting, Quran 075.029 and leg will be joined with another leg as anguish is heaped upon agony and combined with affliction. Quran 075.030 To your Lord that day will all be driven. Quran 075.031 For he (the disbeliever) never accepted nor prayed. Quran 075.032 But only disavowed, belied, denied, rejected and turned away. Quran 075.033 Then he strutted back to his people full of haughtiness, conceitful, while admiring himself.
Quran 075.034 Alas, the woe is for you, yea, woe! Quran 075.035 Woe to you! And again, woe to you! Quran 075.036 Does man think that he will be left Suda | alone, neglected without being punished, or uncontrolled without purpose? Quran 075.037 Was he not a Nutfah | mixture of male and female sexual discharge? Quran 42075.038 Then he became an Alaqa | clot of coagulated blood. Then shaped and fashioned in proportion, Quran 075.039 and made him two sexes, male and female. Quran 075.040 Is not He able to bring the dead to life?”
Satan, veiled as Allah, has explained his Quran and agenda. You can now choose to accept him as God or reject him as the Devil. You can fear him and be tormented by his slaves or join Yahowah in condemning him. But do not say you were not warned.
What was said matters, not how it is said. Nonetheless, we find Muslims arguing over which form of snake venom is the most toxic…
Bukhari:V6B61N582 “Narrated `Abdullah: That he heard a man reciting a Quranic Verse which he had heard the Prophet reciting in a different way. So he took that man to the Prophet (and told him the story). The Prophet said, ‘Both of you are reciting in a correct way, so carry on reciting.’ The Prophet further added, ‘The nations which were before you were destroyed (by Allah) because they differed.’”
Carry on, slaves. It does not matter what you say because you have no say in the matter. Said another way a few years later with a different result…
Bukhari:V6B61N523 “Narrated Alqama: While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas`ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him, ‘It was not revealed in this way.’ Then Ibn Mas`ud said, ‘I recited it in this way before Allah’s Messenger and he confirmed my recitation by saying, “Well done!”’
Ibn Mas`ud detected the smell of wine from the man’s mouth, so he said to him, ‘Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah’s Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?’ Then he lashed him according to the law.”
This is not only evidence that within a few years of Muhammad’s death, the first Muslims disagreed on the wording of the Quran; it means that four generations hence, the disparities would have outnumbered the similarities. It also shows a shift in Islamic morality. During 43Muhammad’s lifetime, disparate recitals were laughed off as a source of amusement, but now, the suggestion that the Quran is not perfect and evolving is worthy of the whip.
This is actually the same approach Jerome and the Roman Catholic Church took long ago to combat the realization that there were untold variations of the books comprising the New Testament. An amalgamated and augmented text was formulated and written in the language of those who were empowered while all divergent manuscripts were destroyed.
Bukhari:V6B61N522 “Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama: Once Abdullah bin Mas`ud delivered a sermon before us and said, ‘By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah’s Messenger. By Allah, the companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah’s Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them.’ Shaqiq added: ‘I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech).’”
The best reciter among Muhammad’s religious terrorists could recite 70 out of 114 surahs. And yet, no one bothered to write them down. They just listened.
Bukhari:V6B61N518 “Narrated Shaqiq: Abdullah said, ‘I learnt An-Naza’ir [presumably Quran 110 An-Nasr | Help although possibly Quran 079 An-Nazi’at | Soul Snatchers] which the Prophet used to recite in pairs in each rak`a.’ Then `Abdullah got up and Alqama accompanied him to his house. And when Alqama came out, we asked him (about those Suras).
He said, ‘They are twenty Suras that start from the beginning of Al- Mufassal, according to the arrangement done by Ibn Mas`ud, and end with the Suras starting with Ha Mim, e.g. Ha Mim | the Smoke. and ‘About what they question one another?’ (Quran 078.001)”
There is no surah named Al-Mufassal. The term is thought to apply to the short surahs at the end of the Quran which were among the first revealed. They are recited with many cadence breaks between them and are, therefore, 44called mufassal | divided – even when comprised of a handful of run-on sentences.
A common theme among them is that they are presented using the names the Sabean Arab converts to Judaism used to describe their god – “Bismillah al-Rahman al Rahem | In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.” While both names are of Hebrew origin and from the root “racham | to treat favorably and kindly, showing love and compassion,” these traits are out of character for Allah. Further, Rahman was the first name of a Quranic god, with the 55th surah devoted to Ar-Rahman.
There is a dispute among Muslims as to the beginning of the Mufassal surahs, with some claiming An-Naba (78) and others insisting on Al Hujurat (49). Lo! Me knows not nor does me care. However, if An-Naza’ir is An-Nasr, then it is the 110th surah. Twenty surahs before it would be the 90th Al-Balad | the City, and thus not either the 49th or 78th.
There is no surah named Ha Mim, and the one named Smoke is Ad-Dukhan, number 44 in Allah’s Hit Parade of Celestial Clunkers. However, there are those who prefer the name Ha-Min as-Sajdah over Fusilat | Spelled Out for the 41st Surah. But this leads to another raging debate. Fusilat in Arabic means “explained,” and is used in contrast with those surahs whose meanings are muddled.
Moving on, we find Muhammad doing his best impression of Allah and transforming himself from demonic despot to savior after a long line of Hebrew failures…
Bukhari:V6B60N003 “Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, ‘On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, “Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.” So they will go to Adam and say, “You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.”
45Adam will say, “I am not fit for this (intercession for you).” Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed. He will say, “Go to Noah, for he was the first Apostle Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth.” They will go to him and Noah will say, “I am not fit for this undertaking.” He will remember his appeal to his Lord to do what he had no knowledge of, then he will feel ashamed and will say, “Go to the Khalil--ar-Rahman [Friend of Ar-Rahman].”
They will go to him and he will say, “I am not fit for this undertaking. Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah.” So they will go to him and he will say, “I am not fit for this undertaking.” and he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will say, “Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him.”
Jesus will say, “I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad, the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.” So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord’s permission and I will be given permission. When I see my Lord, I will fall down in prostration and He will let me remain that way as long as He wishes and then I will be addressed.”
“Raise your head. Ask, and your request will be granted; say, and your saying will be listened to; intercede, and your intercession will be accepted.” I will raise my head and praise Allah with a saying (i.e. invocation) He will teach me, and then I will intercede. He will fix a limit for me (to intercede for) whom I will admit into Paradise.
Then I will come back again to Allah, and when I see my Lord, the same thing will happen to me. And then I will intercede and Allah will fix a limit for me to intercede whom I will let into Paradise, then I will come back for the third time; and then I will come back for the fourth time, and will say, “None remains in Hell but those whom the Quran has imprisoned (in Hell) and who have been destined to an eternal stay in Hell.”’
Abu Abdullah said: ‘But those whom the Quran has imprisoned in Hell, refers to the Statement of Allah, “They will dwell therein forever.” (Quran 016.029)’”
The reprobate rapist, perverted pedophile, preposterous psychopath, tormented terrorist, and mass 46murdering megalomaniac, Muhammad, is claiming to be superior to ‘Adam and Noach, even better than the ever-friendly god of the Sabeans, Ar-Rahman, who perhaps is being substituted for ‘Abraham to get around the Covenant. When it comes to intercession, he would have Muslims believe that he is a superior savior to Moseh or the mythical Jesus, therefore positioning Islam above Judaism and Christianity. He, of course, forgot to mention Yahowah’s choice of Savior, Dowd, because, well, he just doesn’t measure up. There was also no mention of the Miqra’ey which provide the means to salvation according to Yahowah.
But to be fair to Islam’s non-prophet, it’s obvious that he did not claim any of this. His attention span was not nearly this long and he had a passionate aversion to chronology. So, we can credit Anas for the story.
As for explaining the 16th Surah – not so much. We covered it in God Damn Religion ~ Snake. Picking it up with the nifty invention of the “stabilizers,” we read…
Quran 016.015-17 “He affixed, casting stabilizers into the Earth, mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you, and rivers and roads that you may be guided. And landmarks. But the stars guide themselves. So, is then He Who creates like the one who creates not? Then will you not mind?
Quran 016.018-21 And if you could count the favors of al-Lahi, you could not count them. Lo! Al-Laha, forgiving, kind. And al-Lahu knows what you conceal and what you reveal. And those whom they invoke besides al-Lahi, they have not created anything themselves but were created. Dead, not alive, not living. And not they perceive when they will be resurrected.
Quran 016.022-24 Your god one god. But for those who believe not in the hereafter, their hearts deny, and they are arrogant. Undoubtedly, al-Laha knows what they hide and what they disclose. Lo! He does not like the arrogant ones. When it is said to them, ‘What is it your Lord sent down?’ They say, ‘Tales of the ancients, fables from long ago.’
47Quran 016.025-26 That they will bear their burdens undiminished on the Day of Resurrection, and also the burdens of those whom they misled without knowledge. Ah, evil, indeed, is that which they will bear. Lo! Those who before them plotted, but al-Lahu came at and struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the doom of tormenting punishment overtook them from somewhere they did not suspect.
Quran 016.027-29 Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace them and will say, ‘Where are My partners, those whom you used to oppose with them?’ Those who have been given the knowledge will say, ‘Lo! Verily. Disgrace this Day the disgrace is upon the disbelievers.’ Those who the angels take wronging themselves, then they will offer submission. ‘We were not doing any evil.’ Nay! Lo! Al-Laha knows all what you used to do. So enter the gates of Hell to dwell therein forever. Woeful and dreadful a dwelling lodging the arrogant.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t see an intercessor. Perhaps the Hadith are wrong in that regard. But it wouldn’t stand alone since this was a demented Suratun.
And with that note, we move onto dueling versions of Al-Furqan…
Bukhari:V6B61N514 “Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan [The Criterion, Surah 25] during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Messenger had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, ‘Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?’
He replied, ‘Allah’s Messenger taught it to me.’ I said, ‘You have told a lie, for Allah’s Messenger has taught it to me in a different way from yours.’ So I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger and said (to Allah's Messenger), ‘I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!’
48On that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Release him, (O Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!’ Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Messenger said, ‘It was revealed in this way,’ and added, ‘Recite, O Umar!’ I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Messenger then said, ‘It was revealed in this way. This Quran has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you.’”
If Muhammad were alive today and made this statement, he would be branded an apostate, hunted down and executed. As we shall soon discover, he just contradicted Islam’s holy grail.
And yet, there was nothing holy about the Quran. It is equal parts delusional and sadistic, ignorant and arrogant. In this regard, Al Furqan | The Criterion reads like every other Suratun. Looking for tribute and seeking acclaim, this begins with the egomaniacal lord speaking of himself in third person to hide his conceit…
Quran 025.001 “Blessed be he who sent down the criterion to his slave that he may be a warner to the worlds. Quran 025.002 The one who to him belongs the command and control of the heavens and the ground, and who has not begotten a son and for whom there is no partner, associate, or friend in the kingdom he measured and determined everything. Quran 025.003 Yet they have taken besides him other gods that measured nothing but are themselves proportioned. They possess for themselves neither harm nor benefit. They possess no power of death, nor life, nor resurrection.”
If one has to bless themselves, they don’t deserve it. And in this case, he may crave command and control, even protest that he has it, but nothing could be further from the truth. However, Satan is correct in stating that he has not begotten a son and that he has no friends. I would also acknowledge that in the realm he has created for himself in his mind, he has predestined an outcome commensurate with his illusions. But none of it’s true, and it was as obvious then as it is now…
49Quran 025.004 The reconciled say, ‘This is nothing but a lie, a forgery he invented, in which others have helped him.’ But, lo, they have produced mischief and a slanderous falsehood. Quran 025.005 They say, ‘These are tales of former people which were dictated to him morning and evening from that which was written down.’
Quran 025.006 Say, ‘The one who sent it down knows the secret in the heavens and the earth. Truly he is Rahman, oft-forgiving.’ Quran 025.007 And they say, ‘Why does al-rasuli | the messenger eat food and walk in the markets? Why is not an angel sent down to him to be a warner with him?
This was pathetic, even for a Snake pretending to be God. The Towrah delineated the criteria for differentiating between true and false prophets, authenticating who spoke for Yahowah or for themselves. In that analysis, Rahman, forgiveness, rasulis, warners, gardens, rivers, palaces, eating, and angels are not part of the equation – because historical accuracy, consistency, and fulfilled prophecy are all that matter.
Quran 025.008 Or, treasure thrown down to him, or why has he not a garden paradise from which to eat?’ And the al-zalimun | the cruel lords say, ‘You follow not but a man bewitched, deprived of reason.’ Quran 025.009-14 See how they set forth for you the similitudes, but they have gone astray, so they cannot find a way. Blessed is He Who if He willed could have made for you better than that, gardens flowing from underneath it the rivers, and He could have made palaces for you.
Nay! They deny the Hour, and so for those who deny the Hour, We have prepared a Blazing Fire. When it sees them from a far place, they will hear its raging and roaring. And when they are flung into a narrow place of it, bound in chains, they will plead for death and destruction. Do not ask for one death but many to be destroyed on this day.”
The proposed penalty for those who were right about Muhammad, and thus engaged in the Never-Ending Argument, which seems to have included almost everyone familiar with the initial Suratuns, was to be roasted. And that is why they needed bodies. Satan was intent on 50torturing humanity. And therefore, Muslims must extrapolate that they would be doing Allah a favor to kidnap and then burn Jews, just as they did on October 7th, 2023 following their Lord’s example.
Bukhari:V6B61N579 “Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet said, ‘The example of a believer who recites the Quran and acts on it, is like a citron which tastes nice and smells nice. And the example of a believer who does not recite the Quran but acts on it, is like a date which tastes good but has no smell. And the example of a hypocrite who recites the Quran is like a Raihana (basil) which smells good but tastes bitter. And the example of a hypocrite who does not recite the Quran is like a colocynth which tastes bitter and smells bad.’”
I shared this culinary delight from Chef Muhammad to confirm that the best reciters of Allah’s demented diatribe are akin to citron. For those who may not know, the citron, or etrog in Hebrew, is one of the Four Species required by rabbis in their observation of Sukkot. Like them, it is a hideously ugly fruit that serves no purpose because it is inedible. So, not only is the etrog | citron a religious icon, but its inclusion in this story reeks of plagiarism. Rabbis make similar comparisons regarding reading and acting upon the Talmud with their four species.
In our quest to understand the compilation of Allah’s Book, we are reminded of the Mufassal | Divisions which permeate the early surahs which were pilfered from Arab converts to Judaism.
Bukhari:V6B61N563 “Narrated Abu Wail: We went to Abdullah in the morning and a man said, ‘Yesterday I recited all the Mufassal Suras.’ On that Abdullah said, ‘That is very quick, and we have the (Prophet’s) recitation, and I remember very well the recitation of those Suras which the Prophet used to recite, and they were eighteen Suras from the Mufassal, and two Suras from the Suras that start with Ha Mim.”
We did this math earlier and determined that rather than being 20 surahs (or in this case, 18+2) between An-Nasr, the 110th surah and either the 49th or 78th surahs, Al 51Hujurat or An-Naba, depending upon your preference in this raging debate, is either 32 or 61 by my count – even using Arabic numerals.
And should you think that debate was contentious, we are now entering the realm of Muhkam…
Bukhari:V6B61N555 “Narrated Sa`id bin Jubair: Ibn Abbas said, ‘I have learnt all the Muhkam Suras during the life time of Allah’s Messenger.’ I said to him, ‘What is meant by the Muhkam?’ He replied, ‘The Mufassal.’”
Jubair is confused. Muhkam addresses surahs which are considered “clear,” and thus nonexistent. It is contrasted against the Mutashabih | Ambiguous surahs, which would comprise the rest of the Quran. Mufassal speaks of “Divided,” of which there are a specific number in unidentified locations.
Bukhari:V6B61N577 “Narrated Ali: I heard the Prophet saying, ‘In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection.’”
No more Mr. Nice Guy. Good Muslim jihadists have been ordered to kill the talkative ones. Do so and win a prize. Pay-for-Slay evidently was not invented by the PLO Fatah Fakestinians – although, they have honed their craft.
Continuing to consider what the ahadith reveal about the Quran, we discover that the first copy wasn’t in Muhammad’s preferred dialect, necessitating translation… Bukhari:V4B56N709 “Uthman called Zaid, Abdallah, Said, and Abd-Rahman. They wrote the manuscripts of the Quran in the form of a book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, ‘If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Quran, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, as the Quran was revealed in their language.’ So they acted accordingly.”
52Because there was such confusion, Uthman ordered competing versions to be burned. But by destroying the evidence, he destroyed the Quran’s credibility. Now, all Muslims have is wishful thinking.
Since faith is not a substitute for knowing, and since the Islamic ahadith are more conflicting than helpful, we may want to consider evidence and reason to ascertain what is true and what is not. But first, let’s establish what Muslims believe so that we can direct our attention to determining whether or not it is plausible. As evidenced by the official Islamic introduction to The Noble Quran, Islamic scholars contend…
“The Quran is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Quran different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Quran is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet’s. The Quran has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Quran is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors, such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superceded [sic].”
Funny thing, though, the Allah-inspired Sunnah just confirmed that the Quran used “human words” and that it wasn’t “fixed letter for letter by Allah.” Muslims ought to read their own scriptures.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, Islamic “scholars” contend that today’s Quran is an identical copy of Allah’s Eternal Tablets, even so far as the punctuation, titles, and divisions of chapters are concerned. Maududi, one of the most esteemed Quranic interpreters, said, “The Quran exists in its original text, without a word, syllable nor even letter having been changed.” (Towards Understanding Islam, Maududi) That’s embarrassing since it is grammatically incorrect and only occasionally lucid.
53Abu Dhabi, another leading Muslim apologist, claimed, “No other book in the world can match the Quran. The astonishing fact about this Book of Allah is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. No variation of text can be found in it.” (Basic Principles of Islam) That’s factually untrue, every word of it. But facts don’t matter in matters of faith.
The Quran says of itself: “Nay this is a glorious Quran, (inscribed) on a Preserved Tablet.” (Quran 085.201)
“A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Quran in Arabic.” (Quran 041.003)
“We have coined for man in this Quran. (It is) a Quran in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein).” (Quran 039.027)
Richard Nixon tried that line, too. It didn’t work any better for him than it does for Allah. Over the course of these pages, we’ll discover why.
This review of Islam’s Dark Past follows three thousand pages of Islamic scripture, all punctuated by my analysis. So now, at least for the remainder of this section, we are going to shift gears and try a different approach. The following presentation of the Quran’s veracity will be driven by more recent Islamic scholarship – and by those with the intellect and fortitude to apply rigorous academic standards to the ether of religious mythology. And while their findings are shocking, at least you have been warned.
One of the most succinct explanations over the past four decades of scholarship was provided in 1995 by Dr. Jay Smith. He holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies. In a debate at Cambridge University, he reported…
54“Most Westerners have accepted Islamic claims at face value. They have never had the ability to argue their veracity because the claims could neither be proved nor disproved, as their authority was derived solely from the Quran itself. There has also been a reticence to question the Quran and the prophet due to the adverse response directed upon those who were brave enough to attempt it in the past. So Westerners have been content to assume that Muslims have some evidence to substantiate their beliefs.”
We are about to discover that apart from the Hadith we have just reviewed, they have no such evidence. And what they possess only serves to destroy Islam’s credibility.
One of the more interesting assessments of the Quran’s opaque past was produced by the world’s foremost authority on Quranic paleography, Arabic calligraphy and orthography, Dr. Gerd R. Puin. Professor Puin lectures on the Arabic language and literature at Saarland University in Saarbrucken, Germany. He is the co-author of The Hidden Origins of Islam with Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
In his assessment, “The Quran is a cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions, there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.
“The Quran claims for itself that it is mubeen, or ‘clear,’ but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims and Orientalists will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible – if it can’t even be understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable. People fear that. And since the 55Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not – as even speakers of Arabic will tell you – there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.” (Interview with Toby Lester for the article ‘What is the Koran,’ The Atlantic 1999)
Among the first to challenge the authenticity of the Quran and Hadith was David Samuel Margoliouth, an English Orientalist. He was Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford from 1889 to 1937. Margoliouth was educated at Winchester College and at New College, Oxford where he won numerous prizes in Oriental languages. He was fluent in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Armenian and Syriac, in addition to Hebrew and English. He received a Doctor of Letters degree from New College, Cambridge, in 1902.
Dr. Margoliouth’s scholarly articles on the history of Islam became the standard treatises in English, including Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (published in 1905), The Early Development of Mohammedanism (composed in 1914), and The Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam (written 1924).
Professor Margoliouth, among the most brilliant translators of Arabic, became a member of the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society and served as its director. His most famous theory, that ‘the poems considered pre-Islamic were actual forgeries of a later Islamic period,’ was postulated in his The Origins of Arabic Poetry in 1925. And since Islam is dependent upon criticizing them to demonstrate the superiority of Islam, his research serves as another fatal blow to the religion. As a result, his analysis has been attacked in typical Islamic fashion, not upon its veracity, but because it was seen as “a campaign to cast aspersions on the relevance and reliability of the whole corpus of classical Arabic literature of the Jahiliyyah | Period of Ignorance preceding the enlightenment of Islam,” 56according to Pakistani apologist, Javed Ghamidi. (Meezaan, 2014)
In his Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, Margoliouth wrote, “The language of the Koran was thought by experts to bear a striking likeness to that of the early poetry: and though for us it is difficult to pass an opinion on this point, seeing that the early poetry is largely fabrication modelled on the Koran, we may accept the opinion of the Arabs.”
In an article in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Margoliouth stated, “The relation of this Quranic style to the verse and rhymed prose of classical Arabic is an enigma which cannot at present be solved.”
Sir William Muir was a Scottish Orientalist from the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Beyond academia, he also served as a colonial administrator, becoming the Lieutenant Governor of the North-Western Provinces of British India. He was knighted in 1867. Returning to academia, in 1885 he was elected Principal of the University of Edinburgh, succeeding Sir Alexander Grant, and held the post till 1903, when he retired. During this period of Sir Muir’s illustrious life, he became the most acclaimed scholar of Islam for his era. His chief area of expertise was the history of Muhammad and the early caliphate. His books include A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira; Annals of the Early Caliphate; The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall, which as an abridgment to Annals, takes readers to the onset of the Mongols; The Koran: its Composition and Teaching; and The Mohammedan Controversy, comprising five essays published at intervals between 1885 and 1887. In 1888 he delivered the Rede lecture at Cambridge on The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam.
A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira was published in 1861 in four volumes. It was heralded in both literary and missionary circles and 57provoked responses ranging from appreciation to criticism. It would eventually evoke a rebuttal from the Indian Muslim philosopher Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who advanced the notion of the “Two-State Solution,” this one calling for Muslim Indians to have their own state in Pakistan since they could not coexist with Hindus.
Contemporary reviewers uniformly praised him for his knowledge of Arabic. Contemporary historian E.A. Freeman called his thesis a “great work,” yet questioned its conjectural methodology, particularly Muir’s conclusion that Muhammad was inspired by Satan. Another contemporary, Aloys Sprenger, criticized Muir for ascribing Islam’s origins to the Devil, even though Muhammad, himself, admits to as much, and the Quran confirms it. The British Quarterly Review of 1872 criticized his approach as ‘he is treading ground whither the historian of events and creeds must refuse to follow him.’ When the truth hurts, evidently, it is best not said.
Mohammed Hussein Heikal regarded Muir’s work as “an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.” That, of course, is illogical because Muhammad is indistinguishable from Islam. If Satan inspired him, which he admits, then Islam is Satanic.
Aaron W. Hughes, much later in 2012, opined that Muir’s work was part of a European Orientalist tradition that sought to show that Islam was “a corruption, a garbled version of existing monotheisms.” He meant it as an insult, but Muir’s conclusion, is, nonetheless, both obvious and accurate.
Clinton Bennett, who wrote In Search of Muhammad in 1998, would laud Muir’s work as “a detailed life of Muhammad more complete than almost any other previous book, at least in English,” noting, however, that besides “placing the facts of Muhammad’s life before both Muslim and Christian readers, Muir wanted to convince Muslims 58that Muhammad was not worth their allegiance. He thus combined scholarly and missionary purposes.” Once again, just because it is true, and the truth discredits Muhammad, it does not impugn Muir’s motives. But Clinton Bennett had an agenda of his own, having tried to advance interfaith dialogue between Islam and other religions.
Consider the following passage from Muir’s Life of Mahomet: “It is incumbent upon us to consider this question…and to ask whether the supernatural influence, which...acted upon the soul of the Arabian prophet may not have proceeded from the Evil One... Our belief in the power of the Evil One must lead us to consider this as at least one of the possible causes of the fall of Mahomet...into the meshes of deception. May we conceive that a diabolical influence and inspiration was permitted to enslave the heart of him who had deliberately yielded to the compromise with evil.”
As a result of his evaluation of the Arabic texts, in the final chapters of Life of Mahomet, Muir concluded that the main legacy of Islam was a negative one, and he subdivided it into three radical evils: “First: polygamy, divorce, and slavery strike at the root of public morals, poison domestic life, and disorganize society; while the veil removes the female sex from its just position and influence in the world.
“Second: freedom of thought and private judgment are crushed and annihilated. Toleration is unknown, and the possibility of free and liberal institutions foreclosed. Third: a barrier has been interposed against the reception of Christianity.”
While he was correct on all three issues, the final point is germane to this discussion because, while wrong about many things, Christian influence on society has been superior to Islamic oppression. Compare North America and Europe to the Middle East and Northern Africa.
59Muir’s Life of Mahomet and The Caliphate are still considered reliable monuments of scholarship. He displays an impressive antipathy toward the caustic influence of Islam. However, according to Edward Said, a Progressive anti-Orientalist: “his attitude towards his subject matter was fairly put by him when he said that ‘the sword of Muhammed, and the Koran, are the most stubborn enemies of Civilization, Liberty, and the Truth which the world has yet known.’” Progressive platitudes such as this remain as ignorant as they are immoral, and as irrational as they are irresponsible. Not only was Sir Muir correct, but we are witnessing the result playing out around the world.
Sir Muir’s Annals was received with fewer reservations. In fact, it was Annals that established Muir’s reputation as a leading scholar on Islam in the West. Nevertheless, his earlier hypercritical Life of Mahomet was used as a poster child by contemporary Muslim commentators to dismiss all criticism of their religion emanating from Western scholars. Syed Ameer Ali, for example, went as far as to declare Muir “Islam’s avowed enemy.” We should all strive to be distinguished as such.
American commentator on foreign policy and the Middle East, Daniel Pipes, is wrong about almost everything pertaining to Islam. He claims to have investigated the origin of the phrase “Satanic Verses,” and opined that despite Salman Rushdie’s claim that he had borrowed the phrase from al-Tabari, the earliest traceable occurrence is in Muir’s Life of Mohamet. If Pipes were not a propagandist for Islam, he would do well to read Volume 6 of al-Tabari’s Tarikh, beginning on page 101 through page 118, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira beginning on page 130, and then the 22nd and 53rd Surahs of the Quran.
Dr. John Wansbrough was among the most intrepid Orientalists willing to venture into Islam’s Dark Past. He earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University and, as a professor, taught at the University of London’s School of 60Oriental and African Studies where he was Vice Chancellor from 1985 to 1992. He is credited with founding the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies as a result of his rigorous criticism of the religion’s unfounded historical claims. He devoted his academic career to ascertaining a more historically credible version of Islam’s beginnings, arguing in favor of methodological skepticism of the early Islamic sources.
Professor Wansbrough argues that the Quran was collected and written over a 200-year period and cannot be dated to the 7th-century in Arabia but, instead, to the 8th and 9th centuries, which represent the 2nd and 3rd centuries AH (After Hijrah). He also attests that the Quran was first compiled in Abbasid, Iraq – not Mecca or Medina. While he passed away in 2002, he left a living legacy. Among his students were Andrew Rippin, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cook, along with Norman Calder and Gerald Hawting. And they have become bright lights in a dark world.
Dr. Wansbrough’s research affirms what I have stated repeatedly: that Muslim literature, specifically the Hadith collections of Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari, is late, dating to more than a century and a half after the death of Muhammad. Furthermore, after studying early Islamic manuscripts of the Quran, he realized that those texts addressed an audience that was familiar with Jewish and Christian literature. He realized that the sharp criticisms of “infidels” was addressed, not to idolaters and pagans, but to monotheists who did not meet newly imposed criteria. Since those observations did not fit the Islamic narratives, he reasoned that Islam did not begin within a polytheistic Arab society.
John Wansbrough was among the first to determine that early Muslim legal arguments did not refer to the Quran or Hadith, which now comprise Islamic Sunnah and Sharia. As a result, it became obvious that there wasn’t a written canon of scriptural texts in the Rashidun and 61Umayyad eras. And this indicates that the Quran and Hadith, as a source of law, had been backdated.
John Wansbrough analyzed the Islamic narratives that had been previously ascribed to 150 to 200 years after Muhammad died using established academic methods, particularly literary criticism. This led to the realization that the texts were not historical accounts but later literary constructions whose actual historical core is, at best, tenuous, and cannot be detected.
On that basis, he developed the technique of using what he referred to as “conjectural provisional” and “tentative and emphatically provisional,” to demonstrate that “neither the Quran nor Islam was a product of Muhammad or even Arabia.” He also concluded that the original Arab conquerors of the Umayyad empire were not actually Muslims. He postulated that “Islam did not emerge as a new religion but was derived from Jewish and Christian sources.”
The “person of Muhammad,” he claimed, “was a later invention. His only function,” he reasoned, “was to provide the new religious movement with a role model fashioned loosely after a prophet in the style of the Hebrews. Bereft of any archaeological witness, and hardly attested in pre-Islamic Arabic or external sources,” it was Professor Wansbrough’s conclusion that the Quran “became a source for biography, exegesis, jurisprudence, and grammar” two centuries AH in Abbasid Iraq rather than in 7th century Western Arabia as traditionally dated and located. Specifically, Wansbrough thought it must have been completed by Ibn Hisham around the time he edited Ibn Ishaq’s Sīra of Muhammad.
John Wansbrough argued that the Quran was not derived from “various recollections of ancient texts, but the outcome of conflicting interpretations.” He wrote that “variants in the form of multiple versions of the same story 62within the text of the Quran are present in such quantity that they rule out the theory of an ‘Urtext (original text)’ or even that of a composite edition produced by deliberations in committee.” He also reasoned that “classical Arabic was developed later than the colloquial forms, and contemporaneously with the codification of the Quran.”
It is hard to argue with Wansbrough’s findings because the first century of Islam is characterized by a river of blood without a drop of ink. All we know for certain is that someone turned isolated, impoverished, and illiterate nomadic Arabs into formidable killing machines. And with no other viable explanation, reason dictates that the heinous man and deplorable god depicted within the Quran and Hadith were responsible for this diabolical plague. Moreover, while nothing they claimed was true, and nothing they accomplished was moral, what matters regarding Islam is that all good Muslims are terrorists because they believe it. Therefore, non-Muslims must learn to diagnose this plague and isolate it before it devours the planet.
Furthermore, since that was not the end of it, but instead the beginning, Wansbrough’s findings, while thought-provoking, are not relevant in this regard. Islam has suffocated people from Indonesia to Morocco, impeding any meaningful progress beyond the 7th Century. And it is directly and solely responsible for having inspired the terrorist attacks of 09.11.01 and 10.07.23. Even more concerning, it is the impetus behind the grossly immoral, horrendously ignorant, and mean-spirited uprisings around the world calling for death to America and death to Jews, the elimination of Israel and the annihilation of its people. The legacy of Muhammad cannot be reasoned with or contained, and in that they have been supported by Progressives who are moronically serving as their propagandists, the world is in peril. As a result of the collective ignorance and immorality of Muslims and 63Progressives, and their combined influence on society, humankind will not survive the ensuing decade without Divine intervention.
Nonetheless, I have promised a scholastic review of Islam’s inception, and the next bright light on that list is Andrew Rippin. A Canadian Islamic Studies scholar, he was Professor of History and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. A softer, more accepting version of his mentor, Rippin authored eleven books on Quranic Studies, including the widely read, Muslims - Their Religious Beliefs and Practices.
Dr. Patricia Crone was not an apologist, however. A Danish historian specializing in early Islamic history, she earned her Ph.D. in Islamic Studies while working alongside Professor Wansbrough at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. Her thesis was titled “The Mawali in the Umayyad period.” She became a senior research fellow at the Warburg Institute until 1977 and then Lecturer in Islamic History and Fellow at Oxford. She was later appointed to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, where she became an Andrew W. Mellon Professor.
The central theme of Patricia Crone’s scholarship focused upon the question of the historicity of Islamic sources. Her best-known works, Hagarism and Meccan Trade demonstrate that Islam is an amalgamized religion that began somewhere other than Mecca. And while she was right on both accounts, she was less cognizant of the realization that the religion began in Petra and that the Talmud’s interpretation of the Towrah fueled Islam.
Following in the footsteps of her mentor, and collaborating with her colleague, Dr. Michael Cook, Patricia Crone questioned the historicity of the Islamic traditions regarding the beginnings of Islam. They found 64and cataloged numerous witnesses written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac and used them to reconstruct the story of Islam’s beginnings – one that differs radically from the stories told throughout the Hadith Traditions. Crone and Cook claimed that Islam came into being through the fusion of various Near Eastern cultures under Arabic leadership.
Hagarism, named after the Egyptian slave who bore Ishmael to Abraham at Sarah’s insistence, reveals that there is a much more varied body of source material available. It demonstrates that Islam was deeply rooted in Judaism, because Arabs and Jews were initially allies.
According to Professors Crone and Cook, “an Arab uprising in the 7th century CE led to the conquests and resultant caliphate, and they were inspired by Jewish messianism.” Crone and Cook contend that “an alliance of Arabs and Jews sought to reclaim the Promised Land from the Byzantine Empire,” and that as a result “the Quran consists of 8th-century edits of various Judeo-Christian and other Middle-Eastern sources” wherein “Muhammad was the herald of Umar the redeemer, a Judaic messiah.” (Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, 1977)
Since I value their research and fortitude, it pains me to say that their conclusions in this regard were mostly wrong. While I concur that rabbis were complicit in the creation of the Quran by selling Talmud recitals to Muhammad, and that Abu al-Qasim wanted to be seen as a messiah, and even that the first Muslims sought to conquer and claim Jerusalem, Jews were the first victims of Islam, not co-combatants. Muhammad annihilated them.
The hypotheses proposed in Hagarism have been criticized, yet the book remains a seminal work in advancing a more accurate understanding of Islam’s dark past. Crone’s research questioned prevailing assumptions and proposed new interpretations that were more credibly 65supported. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Schacht and John Wansbrough, Hagarism encouraged scholars to use methodologies deployed in biblical studies.
Digging a bit deeper, Professors Cook and Crone postulate that “the first adherents of the amalgamated religion were known as Muhajirun | Migrants rather than Muslims, and that their Hijra | Migration was to Jerusalem rather than Medina. Its members,” according to Cook and Crone, “were initially Jewish and Arab but the Arabs’ increasing militant success impelled them to break from the Jews around the time of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in the late 7th century.”
According to their research, “the name Hagarenes was commonly expressed in Greek Magaritai, Syriac Mahgre or Mahgraye sources to describe the 7th-century Arab conquerors known today as Muslims. The word was a self-designation of the early Muslim community with a double meaning. Firstly, it is a cognate of muhājirūn, an Arabic term for those who partake in a hijra (exodus). Secondly, it refers to Ishmaelites: descendants of Abraham through his [actually her, as in Sarah’s] handmaid Hagar and their child Ishmael, in the same way as the Jews claimed descent and their ancestral faith from Abraham through his wife Sarah and their child Isaac.”
They reasoned that “Muhammad would have claimed such descent for Arabs to give them a birthright to the Holy Land and to prepend a monotheist genealogy compatible with Judaism to their pagan ancestral practice (such as sacrifice and circumcision). Hagarism thus refers to this early faith movement.”
In Hagarism, the contention is made that, after parting from the Jews, the “Muhajirun flirted with Christianity, and came to consider Jesus as prophet and Mary as Virgin.” From there, Crone and Cook assert that the “Muhajirun developed an independent Abrahamic monotheist 66identity.” They concluded that the resulting religion “borrowed key concepts from the Jewish breakaway sect of Samaritanism: the idea of a scripture limited to the Pentateuch, a prophet like Moses (Muhammad), a holy book revealed like the Torah (the Quran), a sacred city (Mecca) with a nearby mountain (Jabal an-Nour) and shrine (the Kaaba) of an appropriate patriarch (Abraham), plus a caliphate modeled on an Aaronid priesthood.”
While I will afford Crone and Cook credit for thinking outside of the box, the religion they have described isn’t reflected in the Quran. It bears no resemblance to the teachings in the Towrah or the myths in the Gospels. It is far more inconsistent with ‘Abraham than accurate regarding him. There is no counterpart in Islam for Mount Choreb or Mount Mowryah. The Temple was magnificent while the Ka’aba was a rock pile. Further, there is no connection between the work of the Lowy kohen | Levite priests associated with ‘Aharown and the Islamic caliphate. For smart people, these conclusions were unreasonable.
Moreover, what’s the point? There are no Muhajirum committing terrorist atrocities and no one is rioting over Hagarism. Even if their theory were right, theirs is the wrong approach.
Professors Crone and Cook interpreted 7th-century Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew writings to forward the hypothesis that Muhammad was alive during the conquest of Judea, and therefore, about two years longer than traditionally believed. They claim that “the caliphate of Abu Bakr was a later invention.” According to Crone and Cook, “Muhammad led Jews and Hagarenes (Arabs) under a united faith described as Judeo-Hagarism, as a prophet preaching the coming of a Judaic messiah who would redeem the Promised Land from the Christian Byzantines. This redeemer came in the person of Umar, as suggested by the Aramaic origins of his epithet Al-Faruq.” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism)
67They further opined, “the Hijra, as religious duty of Hagarenes, referred to the emigration from northern Arabia to Palestine (later more generally to conquered territories), not to a single exodus from Mecca to Medina.” And while they said, “no 7th-century source identifies the Arab era as that of the hijra” – this claim could be said of everything associated with Islam’s genesis since little if anything was committed to writing until the 8th century.
“To combine the Abrahamic, Christian, and Samaritan elements,” the authors of Hagarism concluded, “the role of Muhammad was recast as a prophet parallel to Moses, bringing a new scriptural revelation. The Quran was expeditiously collected from earlier disparate Hagarene writings, possibly heavily edited into its complete form by al-Hajjaj.”
Recognizing that there are no records written by Muslims during the first 100 years of Islam and that the accounts which emerged over the next century were universally incredulous, what Professors Crone and Cook have done is to backfill their own thoughts into this void. While they have done a great service in revealing that the earliest non-Islamic sources paint a conflicting picture, their interpretive analysis isn’t helpful in dealing with the deadly nature of Islam.
To some extent, her views would change, as is evident in Patricia Crone’s Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Written in 1987, she argued that the importance of the pre-Islamic Meccan trade suggested within the Quran and Hadith had been grossly exaggerated. She discovered, as I have also learned and shared, that Mecca was never part of any of the major ancient trade routes. In fact, as we found when pursuing the legacy of Tub’a ‘Ab Kariba As’ad, the Himyarite leader among the Sabeans, based upon what was claimed in the 50th surah regarding Tubba’s alleged destruction, by the 7th century CE, the preferred mode of transport was aboard ships.
68Therefore, Dr. Crone suggested, “While Muhammad never traveled much beyond the Hijaz, internal evidence in the Quran, such as its description of his opponents as ‘olive growers,’ might indicate that the events surrounding Muhammed took place nearer the Mediterranean than in Mecca” As a result, her Meccan Trade was considered a devastating critique of the Islamic accounting of the rise of the religion. And in this regard, she was correct. Islam was not born in Mecca but, instead, in Petra.
As for Crone’s colleague, Michael Cook, he developed an early interest in Ottoman history while attending King’s College, Cambridge in the 1960s. He joined Patricia Crone while conducting his postgraduate studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London. He was appointed Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and became a Guggenheim Fellow.
For the most part, Dr. Cook agreed with Professor Crone. Collectively, they concluded that it was by studying the surviving contemporary accounts of the rise of Islam written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac, that they could reconstruct a more realistic explanation of Islam’s beginnings than found in the Islamic Hadith Traditions. Their conclusion was that Islam was a fusion of Near Eastern civilizations and a blending of Judaism and Christianity with Arab paganism and monotheism.
In his book, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, published by Cambridge in 2000, Michael Cook draws comparisons between “western and eastern Ibāḍism and with the doctrines of the other Islamic sects and schools.” Riveting reading, to be sure.
Case in point: “Comparing the Ibāḍī doctrine of forbidding wrong with the doctrines of other Islamic sects and schools, the significant point is that, left aside the close association of forbidding wrong with righteous rebellion 69and state-formation which the Ibāḍīs share with the Zaydīs, Ibāḍī views do not in any systematic way diverge from those of the Islamic mainstream.”
Dr. Michael Cook also penned The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2000) and A Brief History of the Human Race (Norton, 2003). Professor Cook served as editor of The New Cambridge History of Islam, which covers the entirety of Islamic history. It won the 2011 Waldo G. Leland Prize for the ‘most outstanding reference tool in the field of history’ published between May 2006 and April 2011.
As was expected, in his later years Michael Cook became less vocal regarding his reconstruction of Islam’s beginnings and concentrated on Islamic ethics and law. And even Patricia Crone would later suggest that Hagarism was “a graduate essay and hypothesis,” not “a conclusive finding.” That much was obvious.
Dr. Joseph Schacht, now also deceased, was a British-German professor of Arabic and Islam at Columbia University in New York – the incubator for Islamic hate today. His specialty was Islamic Law and the origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. As the author of numerous articles within the Encyclopedia of Islam, Schacht also co-edited with C. E. Bosworth, The Legacy of Islam for Oxford University Press. In the 1960s, he authored the textbook An Introduction to Islamic Law.
Schacht developed an expertise in Semitic languages, beginning with Hebrew and then transitioning to Greek and Latin. In 1925 he began teaching at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg in Breisgau, achieving the academic rank of ‘Professor Extraordinarius’ at 25 years of age, the youngest in Germany. Then, coming down to Earth, in 1929 he became ‘Professor Ordinarius’ of Semitic languages. To his credit, in 1934, Joseph Schacht became an opponent of the Nazis and moved to Cairo in 1939, 70offering his services to the British government while working for the BBC. He would relocate after the war and teach at Oxford University from 1946 through 1954. Then he moved to the Netherlands, working at the University of Leiden. In 1957, he lectured at Columbia University, becoming a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies. He remained at Columbia until his retirement in 1969 as professor emeritus.
Professor Schacht’s greatest contribution is the recognition that Hadith were derived from a variety of different traditions over time which were later converged to create a common ancestry. He argued that “Islamic Law was not as classical Islamic jurisprudence has taught,” thereby “negating the mythology underpinning the Quran, the Sunnah (Hadith collections), Qiyas (the process of deductive analogy), and Ijma (the consensus of Muslim scholars).” Further, “the chronology of events does not follow a direct path from Muhammad and his Companions, nor to Medina.” Rather, instead, “Islamic Law arose from a variety of customs operating in parallel during the Umayyad Caliphate.” This has proven irrefutable and serves as a devastating indictment of the Hadith and of an early Quran.
Dr. Joseph Schacht demonstrated that “the unification of Islamic legal systems occurred under al-Shafi’i (767-820 CE), when the ahadith [plural of Hadith] retroactively attributed to Muhammad became pre-eminent in their interpretation of the Quran. The most important of the schools of Islamic law developed in Kufa in Mesopotamia, according to Schacht’s research, and its legal precepts spread to other cities such as Medina.”
Beginning around 100 AH (720 CE), Schacht demonstrated that “ahadith attributed to Muhammad began to be fabricated, forming the Islamic Sunnah as it is known today.” While scholars recognized that many ahadith were 71false and attempted to weed these out with ʻilm al-ḥadīth, this was in vain as most, if not all, are inauthentic.
According to Dr. Schacht, “with only a few minor modifications dictated by the Quran, the Islamic Sunnah is the same as the sunnah of pre-Mohammed Arabia.” He just said that Islam is the same religion that surrounding Arabs practiced under a different name. And in this conclusion, he was correct.
By way of example, “prevailing Arab customs called for theft to be punished by flogging, even though the Quran prescribes maiming and amputation.” Schacht, therefore, argues that “the fabrication of ahadith came from a literary convention popularized in Iraq, whereby authors prescribed their own doctrine under the aegis of Muhammad’s authority.” Also, in Kufa, this “was followed by the Medinese influence falsely ascribing their doctrines by postdating them to Muhammad’s Companions.” (Forte, David F. 1978. Islamic Law ~ the impact of Joseph Schacht, Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review)
Schacht “blames this religious fervor on those who detested the use of Qiyas and Ijma. Providing suspicious justification for the Traditionist fabricators of forged ahadith, they were said to have provided final legitimacy to what Muhammad did and said.” (J. Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law, (1964))
This affirms my conclusion that Hadith fall under two categories. They either strive to provide the context the Quran lacks so that its more obscure and insane claims are explained, or they provide illustrations of Muhammad’s alleged words and deeds so that Muslims can follow his example. While both are contrived, they form the essence of Sunnah custom and practice today.
According to the most diligent student of the inception of Islamic Sunnah pursuant to Islamic jurisprudence, “all 72authentic early writings of Islamic Law are devoid of any mention of ahadith of Muhammad. A trace number are attributed to the Sahabah | Companions of Muhammad, but never to Muhammad, himself.” Schacht correctly reasoned that “the best way of proving that a tradition did not exist at a certain time was to show that it is not used as a legal argument in a discussion which would have made reference to its imperative if it had existed.”
Schacht’s conclusions could be summarized as: 1) communications in the Islamic empire were good enough for doctrines and views to spread easily and quickly from one juristic center to another; 2) if the behavior and utterances of Muhammad were the basis of Islamic law from the beginning of Islamic society, it is unlikely those involved in matters of law – among the most learned and pious men of Islam – would not know them; and 3) there were not dozens but hundreds of examples in which the disparity between an early decision and a later tradition took place. Accordingly, it goes beyond rational belief to think that these men would have been so consistently ignorant of contrary actions by Muhammad. Simply stated, the Hadith collected by Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari did not exist at the time. This means that they were fabricated a century or two after the fact and backdated.
Professor Joseph Schacht, through the application of Islamic Law, was able to deduce that “the origins of ‘ilm al-ḥadīth in the 8th and 9th centuries CE, coincided with the development of Islamic legal reasoning among the newly emerging professional traditionalists (muḥaddith) and jurists (faqīh) classes in the urban centers of the Middle East.” He further stated, “Because the Quran has relatively few verses pertaining to fiqih, al-Shafi’i’s system meant that the great bulk of the rules of Islamic Law were derived from ahadith. Al Shafi’i repeatedly insisted that ‘nothing could override the authority of the Prophet, even if it was attested only by an isolated tradition, and that if a hadith 73was well-authenticated (Ṣaḥīḥ) going back to Muhammad, it had precedence over the opinions of his Companions, their successors, and later authorities.’”
Following in the footsteps of 19th-century Hungarian scholar Ignac Yitzhaq Yehuda Goldziher, Schacht argued that it “was al-Shāfiʻī who first elevated the Sunnah and constituent Hadith Traditions to legal prominence. The material importance of the Qurʾān and ḥadīth thereafter enjoyed an unassailable status because such well-established traditions invite no debate as to their validity; their truth simply imposes itself upon the human mind, leaving no room for doubt or speculation.”
Building on this point, Schacht contends that “far from constructing the standards of a legitimate epistemic enterprise, al-Shāfiʻī's science of aḥadīth amounts to little more than an uncritical acceptance of prophetic traditions which justified his own legal preferences.” He also stated that “there was in fact a large-scale fabrication of Prophetic ’isnāds in the generation preceding al-Shāfiʻī's teacher, Mālik ibn ’Anas (d. 795 CE). Even Mālik's esteemed golden narrative chains include suspicious gaps and obvious substitutions. For these reasons modern scholars cannot be optimistic about the historical-analytic value of ḥadīth literature as were medieval Muslims.”
The only refutation of Professor Schacht’s findings is self-incriminating. Muṣṭafā al-Aʻẓamī and Wael Hallaq argue that “Schacht mistakenly assumed that medieval Muslims held ḥadīth to be apodictically true.” According to Hallaq, it is more likely the case, that at least where matters of law were concerned, “medieval Muslim scholars judged the majority of ḥadīth as only probabilistically true. It was the epistemic sum of probable traditions, and not the assured truth of any one tradition in particular, upon which they built their legal rulings.” (Hallaq, Wael B. (1999). The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith: A Pseudo-Problem, Studia Islamica, No. 89: 77-84.)
74This is to say, no one took anyone’s Hadith seriously, and even if there were repetitions of the same story, the value was so remedial that no one bothered to cite them. Nice work, fellas.
Back in the 19th century, Hungarian Islamic scholar Ignac Yitzhaq Yehuda Goldziher, became the first European to devote much of his career in academia to Islamic Studies. His other famous undertaking was to prove the stories presented within the Towrah were original and not borrowed from other cultures – in sharp contrast to Islam. Goldziher’s primary contribution to Islamic scholarship pertained to his systematic investigation of pre-Islamic and post-Islamic traditions, religion, poetry, and laws. As a result, he was of the contention that Mecca, as the birthplace of Islam, was a myth. And it is obvious.
Goldziher authored Muslim Studies, which is considered one of the most influential and foundational research efforts underpinning Orientalist thinking. He did so by inaugurating the critical study of Hadith authenticity. He concluded that “the great majority of Traditions from Muhammad are reports, not of the time to which they claim to belong, but created during later centuries of Islam, making them fraudulent.” This included “Hadith accepted even in the most rigorously critical Muslim collections,” which meant that the meticulous isnads that supported them were utterly fictitious. Instead, Goldziher argued in Muslim Studies, “Hadith were the product of debates and arguments within the emerging religion and society... projected back into the time of Muhammad and were a means of putting support for one party or another... into the mouth of the prophet.”
Among these scholars there is a common thread – the Quran evolved over a period of time and the Hadith are not credible. However, without the Hadith, the Quran is indecipherable and Islam is not possible.
75Scottish-born Norman Calder attended Wadham College in Oxford, where he received degrees in Arabic and Persian languages in 1972. He traveled throughout the Middle East, working as an English teacher. Returning to Britain, he joined the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and earned his Ph.D. under John Wansbrough. In 1980 he matriculated to the University of Manchester’s Department of Middle Eastern Studies, becoming a Senior Lecturer in Arabic until his death.
During his time in academia, Calder focused on Islamic Law during the developing years of Islam. He analyzed the earliest texts through literary criticism. He found that the earliest ahadith were the product of a prolonged process and subject to the editorial work of many authors. Calder dated many ahadith to the first half of the 3rd century AH which coincides with the middle of the 9th century CE. This means that the earliest texts were written 200 to 300 years after the founding of Islam.
Yet another Orientalist piercing the heart of Islam is Gerald Hawting. He has the distinction of being taught by both Bernard Lewis and John Wansbrough. He received his Ph.D. in 1978 and became Emeritus Professor for the History of the Near and Middle East at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.
Professor Hawting studied the environment in which Islam was conceived, analyzing all available resources pursuant to the Arabian Peninsula in the 3rd through 7th centuries. Hawting’s conclusions were similar to my own, in that Islam did not develop within a world of polytheism as is reported by the Quran and Hadith – all of which were written 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death. Instead, Islam was an amalgamation of monotheistic beliefs among local Arab, Jewish, and Christian communities. It was Dr. Hawting’s assessment that the religion of Islam was not codified prior to the Umayyad dynasty – decades after Muhammad’s death.
76Arthur Jeffery was an Australian professor of Semitic languages at the School of Oriental Studies in Cairo, and, from 1938 until his death in 1959, at Columbia University. He is the author of numerous studies of Middle Eastern Islamic manuscripts. His important works include Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran: The Old Codices, which catalogs all surviving documented variants of the orthodox Quran text; and The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran, which traces the origins of 318 foreign (non-Arabic) words found in the Quran. And in actuality, when the Hebrew roots of words like quran and arab are considered, almost every important concept within the Quranic text is of foreign origin.
F. E. Peters was considered to be one of the 21st century’s most learned scholars on the subject of early Islam. He was Professor and Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages, Literature and History at New York University. He has authored four insightful books on Islam.
Francis Edward Peters strove to become a Jesuit and spent four years at their novitiate at St. Andrew on the Hudson. He earned his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies at Princeton University and then taught at NYU from 1961 to 2008 and Chaired their Middle Eastern Studies Department until his death in 2020. His expertise was in comparative religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As a result, he wrote Islam ~ A guide for Jews and Christians. In it, he explains that the Quran contains copious references to the Torah and Gospels.
R. Stephen Humphreys is an American historian financed by the Saudis. He was the 'Abd al-Aziz al-Sa'ud Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara and is now an emeritus professor at UCSB. Humphreys received a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1969 in Islamic and Middle Eastern History.
77His Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age has been widely reviewed and cited as an introductory assessment of the world of Islam. He has also written a history of the Ayyubids, From Saladin to the Mongols (published in 1977). He composed a biography of the first Umayyad caliph, Mu’awiya I, Mu’awiya ibn abi Sufyan: From Arabia to Empire (released in 2006). He wrote Islamic History ~ A Framework for Inquiry, which was published in 1991. It presents a bibliography and systematic review of the resources available to those studying the birth of Islam. His expertise is in the formative period of Islam from 600 to 900 CE.
Dr. Jay Smith is an outlier on this list. Like the rest, he is well-schooled, earning his Ph.D. in Polemics from the Melbourne School of Theology. He holds a Masters of Divinity from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Apologetics and another in Islamic Studies from the Fuller Theological Seminary. Born in India, he moved to Senegal and then London, continuing his education at the School of Oriental and African Studies.
He has elevated his stature in this field through his formal debates with leading Islamic scholars and apologists, including Omar Bakri Muhammad, Azzam Tamimi, Shabir Ally, Anjem Choudary, Abdur Raheem Green, and Edip Yüksel. And this is the reason I find him interesting. He published the evidence and reasoning he prepared for his debates, making a wide cross-section of Islamic scholarship more readily available. This composite of the research conducted by Gerd Puin, David Samuel Margoliouth, Sir William Muir, John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Joseph Schacht, Andrew Rippin, Yehuda Goldziher, Gerald Hawting, Yehuda D. Nevo, Ibn Warraq, and Arthur Jeffery, Dr. Smith revealed: “Almost universally, independent scholars studying the Quran and Hadith, have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later 78redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Quran which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-7th century but is a product of the 8th and 9th centuries.
“It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years.”
While these are strong words, rest assured that the referenced scholars prove their case. Virtually nothing is known about the formation of Islam and the creation of the Quran. It is as if they were conceived in the least civilized place on Earth, a place completely devoid of intelligent and literate individuals – even moral ones.
Dr. Smith would report: “Source material for this period of Islam’s formation is sparse. The only manuscripts available to historians are from Muslim sources. What is more, outside the Quran, the sources are all late. Prior to 750 CE, and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah | Path of Allah’s Messenger we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can provide a window into Islam’s formative period. Even then, his manuscript has been lost so we are dependent upon one abridged by Ibn Hisham in 830 CE.
“No independent secular document exists with which to corroborate any Hadith. As a result, it becomes evident that it was not until the 9th century that Islamic sages in Baghdad attempted to describe Islam’s beginnings from their viewpoint. But much like an adult writing about their great, great grandfather’s childhood, the account is colored and biased. The picture that Islam was fully developed religiously, politically, and legally by an illiterate man in one of the most primitive places on earth isn’t feasible,” Smith attested in his Cambridge debate.
79Sure, Muhammad’s testimony often bordered on insane – equal parts delusional, dimwitted, and demented, regurgitated, plagiarized, and twisted, as repetitive as it was contradictory. However, there was too much of it to have been comprised and retained in the vacuum of the Hijaz. Central Arabia wasn’t part of, or even known to the civilized world at the time.
Further, the Islamic Traditions themselves refer to this period as Jahiliyyah, or Period of Ignorance, implying its backwardness. “Arabia did not have an urbanized culture, nor could it boast of having the sophisticated infrastructure needed to create, let alone maintain, the scenario painted by the later Traditions. There is no historical precedence for such a scheme,” Smith explained before the Oxford audience.
Dr. Ibn Warraq may not be a scholar along the lines of Wansbrough and Schacht, but he is brilliant and courageous as the author of the bestselling Why I am Not A Muslim, written nearly 30 years ago. Ibn Warraq is the pen name of the anonymous author who is also the founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society. At one point in his life, he was a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.
The nom de plume Ibn Warraq | Son of a Papermaker was chosen due to his concerns for his personal safety. Warraq stated, “I was afraid of becoming the second Salman Rushdie.” It is a name that has been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam. It refers to the 9th-century skeptical scholar Abu Isa al-Warraq.
Under this pen name, Warraq has written historiographies of the early centuries of the Islamic timeline and has published works that question Muslim conceptions of the period. As a result, Muslim apologists hate him and launch all manner of ad hominem attacks to slander his credibility. His books begin with Why I Am Not 80a Muslim (1995) and include: The Origins of the Koran (1998), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (2000), What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text and Commentary (2002), Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism (2007), Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, and the Influence of Pre-Islamic Poetry (2008), and Why the West Is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy (2011).
Warraq studied Arabic and read the Quran as a young man, expecting to become a follower of the Islamic faith. However, his father decided to send him to a boarding school in England, which, in Warraq's opinion, was to circumvent a grandmother’s effort to push an Islamic religious education on his son at the local madrasa.
Obviously open-minded, at 18, Warraq took part in the Bridge in Britain exchange in Israel and spent six months working on a kibbutz. While the scholarship embarrassed his father, the experience made him more aware of the perceptions of Islam in different cultures. Then upon his return to Europe, he moved to Scotland and attended the University of Edinburgh, where he studied philosophy and Arabic with Islamic studies scholar W. Montgomery Watt.
Warraq claims to have been compelled to write against Islam as a result of Western intellectuals blaming Rushdie during the Satanic Verses controversy – much as they do today when Progressives moronically support Islamic terrorism. He noted a lack of anti-Islamic articles in Free Inquiry, an American secular humanist publication. And as a result, he presented Why I am not Muslim. He was outraged over the fatwa and death threats against Salman Rushdie – who, like himself, had been raised a Muslim.
The title of his first book, Why I Am Not a Muslim was inspired by Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian (which was written in 1927). His title, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad was inspired by Albert 81Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus (written in 1906 and published in English in 1910). And Warraq’s What the Koran Really Says was borrowed from German author Manfred Barthel’s What the Bible Really Says (published in 1992).
Ibn Warraq would next examine the historical claims attributed to the Quran and Muhammad. In The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, Ibn Warraq includes some of Theodor Nöldeke’s studies. In 2005, Warraq spent several months working with Christoph Luxenberg, who wrote about Syriac versus Arabic interpretations of Quranic verses.
In a 2012 review of Ibn Warraq’s book, Virgins? What Virgins, Rice University historian of Islam David Cook wrote: “As a scholar of Islam myself, I find Ibn Warraq’s attitude to be very refreshing, and his scholarship for the most part to be accurate and devastating in pinpointing the weaknesses in Muslim orthodoxy. It could almost serve as a history of our field, and of its systematic failure to critique the foundational texts of Islam as those of other faiths have been critiqued.”
Yehuda D. Nevo wasn’t trained as a scholar, but with a B.A. in archeology from Hebrew University, he was offered a grant and discovered Kufic inscriptions in the Negev desert in Israel. Some four hundred of these were published in Ancient Arabic Inscriptions from the Negev by Judith Koren, the librarian at the University of Haifa, and information specialist. She also published Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State based upon Nevo’s findings. They concluded that Arabs conquered the Near East with a mixture of pre-Islamic pagan and indeterminate monotheistic beliefs – which I have shown came from Sabaean converts to Judaism in what is now southwestern Yemen. Similarly, they demonstrate that Arab beliefs were modified in contact 82with Jewish and Christian monotheism, foreclosing on the narrative that Muhammad was a prophet.
They are quoted in Ibn Warraq’s The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, “Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies,” saying, “Since external evidence is necessary to corroborate a view derived solely from the Muslim literary account, lack of such corroboration is an important argument against that account’s historicity. This approach is, therefore, more open than the traditional account to acceptance of an argumentum e silentio. For if we are ready to discount an uncorroborated report of an event, we must accept that there may be nothing with which to replace it: that the event simply did not happen. That there is no evidence for it outside of the traditional account becomes positive evidence in support of the hypothesis that it did not happen. A striking example is the lack of evidence, outside the Muslim literature, for the view that the Arabs were Muslim at the time of the Conquest.”
While I understand that an argument from silence is weak, I disagree with their conclusions. Crossroads to Islam argues that the rise of Islam never happened: Muhammad did not exist as a historical person, there were no early Arab conquests, and Islam itself did not begin to take shape until Arab rulers essentially invented it starting seven decades after the traditional account has Muhammad unifying Arabia under Islam’s banner. But to the contrary, something turned peaceful Arabs into savage warmongers, and frankly, the Quran and Hadith provide the best explanation for what occurred.
With experts such as Gerd Puin, David Samuel Margoliouth, Sir William Muir, John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Joseph Schacht, Andrew Rippin, 83Yehuda Goldziher, Gerald Hawting, Yehuda D. Nevo, Ibn Warraq, Arthur Jeffery, Jay Smith, John Glubb, R. Stephen Humphreys, and F.E. Peters, converging on Islam and sharing their collective wisdom regarding its inception and the veracity of the Quran and Hadith, we gain insights beyond what I’m able to muster by presenting and analyzing the earliest sources.
While one would think that it would be as easy to critique the Quran as it is to challenge the Bible, such is not the case because the first century of Islam is dark, a veritable black hole from which nothing emerges. The primary sources which we possess are 150 to 300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those times and characters. For this reason, they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on hearsay material. The first and largest of these sources is what is called the Islamic Traditions or Hadith.
As we proceed further into this historic review of Islam’s credibility, the findings and even many of the words should rightly be credited to Gerd Puin, David Margoliouth, William Muir, John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Joseph Schacht, Andrew Rippin, Yehuda Goldziher, Gerald Hawting, Yehuda D. Nevo, Ibn Warraq, Arthur Jeffery, John Glubb, Stephen Humphreys, and F.E. Peters, and even Jay Smith, since he included all of them in the paper he published in advance of his Cambridge debate. And so as not to turn this appendix into a book, I have elected to abridge their findings. While I have come to the same conclusions, the credit for what follows belongs to the aforementioned scholars.
Islamic Traditions are comprised of writings that were compiled by Muslims in the late 8th to early 10th centuries concerning what Muhammad said and did back at the dawn of the 7th century. These Hadith comprise the sole body of material that we have for Islam’s formation. The Quran by itself is difficult to follow, as it leaves readers confused 84while it jumps from story to story, with little background narration or explanation. So the Traditions are critical as they provide the context of place, circumstance, and time which otherwise would be lost.
In some instances, the Hadith prevail over the Quran. For example, the Quran refers to three daily prayers (Quran 011.114, Quran 017.078, & Quran 030.017). The Hadith demand five. Muslims prostrate themselves in accordance with Muhammad’s Sunnah orders rather than Allah’s Quranic command.
A number of genres exist within the Islamic Traditions. Their authors were not writers themselves but were compilers and editors who drew together information passed to them. There were many compilers, but the four who are considered by Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre lived and assembled their material between 750 to 923 CE (or 120 to 290 years after Muhammad’s death).
These include The Sira (Arabic for “Path” and extrapolated to mean “conduct of life”), which is an accounting of Muhammad’s life, including his raids. The earliest and most comprehensive Sira was composed by Ibn Ishaq, who died in 765 CE. His manuscript has been lost. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira redaction of Ibn Hisham, who died in 833 CE. He edited Ishaq, and, by his own admission, omitted Hadith which he thought might have caused offense.
While Smith quoted Crone as his source, I’d like you to read what Hisham wrote… Ishaq:691 “For the sake of brevity, I am confining myself to the Prophet’s biography and omitting some of the things which Ishaq recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the Apostle and about which the Quran says nothing. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss, matters which would distress certain people, and such reports as al-Bakkai [Bukhari] told me he could not accept as trustworthy – all of these things I have omitted.”
85Since the character, words, and deeds of Muhammad presented in Hisham’s edits of Ishaq’ Sira are revolting, it is hard to imagine what would have been too “disgraceful to discuss.” And in case you’re wondering, the “matters that would distress certain people” speak volumes about what Muslims do to those who question Muhammad, Allah, the Quran, or Sunah – or just consider the likes of Puin, Margoliouth, Muir, Wansbrough, Crone, Cook, Bulliet, Schacht, Rippin, Goldziher, Hawting, Nevo, Warraq, Jeffery, Smith, Glubb, Humphreys, Peters, Zwemer, Carlyle, Tisdall, Mourad, Guillaume, Khan, Katsh, Hussein, Dashti, Wherry, al-Suyuti, Musallam, Mingana, Fehervari, Creswell, Allan, Carlier, Reinach, Pfander, Lester, Zaid, Lüling, Safadi, Lings, and Gilchrist right. The Hadith that comprise the Sunnah were composed and compiled in a highly politicized environment 200 years after Muhammad’s death. A compiler’s life was dependent upon not offending the cleric-kings.
While the Sira is nothing more than a collection of Hadith arranged in chronological order, the most “official” Islamic Hadith collection was compiled by al-Bukhari, who died in 870 CE. His list includes two thousand short reports or narratives (akhbar | news) on the sayings and deeds of Muhammad. Of the most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari and Muslim are considered to be the most authoritative.
Al-Bukhari’s Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari – The True Traditions was collected by Islamic scholar Imam Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari between 840 and 860 CE. I have favored the nine-volume English translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Imam Bukhari reviewed some 600,000 Hadith Traditions and distilled them down to 7,563 full-isnad narrations of which he was certain were Sahih | Authentic.
Trimmed of duplications and contrasting accounts of the same episode, there are 2,600 Hadith in his collection, 86each shedding light on Muhammad, Allah, the Quran, and the formation of Islam. Muhammad al-Bukhari began his research in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca before moving to the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina, establishing the final collection in 846 CE (232 AH), where it was thoroughly examined and verified by the most celebrated Islamic scholars of the day. The oldest surviving partial copy of his manuscript dates to 984 CE / 340 AH and a complete copy to 1155 CE / 550 AH. But at this point, the verbal reports in his collection would have been passed along orally for ten generations.
Sahih Muslim, a 9th-century topical Hadith arrangement of Sunnah, was collected by Persian scholar Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi. An advocate for the newly emerging ‘science of the isnad,’ he reduced 300,000 oral reports emerging from Allah’s Messenger and his companions down to 4,000. The subsequent Hadith Collection is compiled into 56 books and presents 3,033 independent narratives.
Sahih Muslim is among the most valued books in Sunni Islam alongside Sahih al-Bukhari. Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, along with Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari comprise the most important Kutub al-Sittah and are considered Sahihayn | the Two Authorized Sahihs.
The Ta’rikh (which means “History” in Arabic) provides chronologies of the prophet’s life and the formation of Islam. The earliest and most famous was written by al-Tabari, who died in 923 CE. The History of al-Tabari was compiled by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 CE. Tabari’s History is comprised entirely of Islamic Hadith.
Some portions of Ishaq’s original manuscript, discarded by Hisham, were retained by Tabari. Of particular interest is Ishaq’s recording of Muhammad’s insane Islamic creation accounts and his entanglement in 87the Idolatrous Indulgence and Satanic Verses. As such, the Ta’rikh, or History of al-Tabari is the oldest surviving uncensored account of Muhammad and Islam.
According to Islamic scholars: tafsir, which means explanation or interpretation in Arabic, comprise the fourth most reliable Islamic source documents. They are commentaries and exegeses on the Quran. The earliest, most universally respected, and best known was also written by Tabari.
As an interesting aside, I am routinely threatened by Muslims who assail my character in colorful ways. They claim that I know nothing about Islam and that my words are offensive, repulsive, disgraceful, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, mean-spirited, and #%$&*. But little do they know, they are not my words. All I have done is report what Islam has to say about itself. Apart from the Sira, Ta’rikh, and categorical Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim, nothing is known about Muhammad or Islam. The Quran disintegrates without them since it is devoid of context and chronology and filled with historical inaccuracies and copious contradictions, therefore, it is rendered gibberish.
This puts Muslims in a hellish predicament. If the Hadith compilations of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim are true, their non-prophet was among the most reprehensible men who ever lived – a bloodthirsty thief, a ruthless terrorist, a sadistic mass murderer, and a sexual pervert. His Islam was nothing more than the Profitable Prophet Plan. Allah was just one of many moon rocks. That’s not good. But if the Hadith compilations of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim are not true, Islam evaporates.
Obviously, we must ask why these Traditions were written so late, 150 to 300 years after the fact. We simply do not have any account from the Islamic community during the initial 150 years. Not a single document has been 88found that can be traced to the period between the first Arab conquests of the early 7th century and the appearance of the Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith collections of Bukhari towards the late 8th and 9th centuries. In particular, historians and scholars would expect to find something of merit in those intervening two centuries, some evidence for the development of Islam; yet there is nothing.
This means that the totality of the Islamic conquests from Spain to India was complete before the first verse of Islamic scripture was written or retained. A river of blood, not a drop of ink.
A few Muslims disagree, maintaining that there is evidence of an earlier Tradition called the Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas. He died in 795 CE. Yet even a cursory review shows this collection was comprised of ‘schooled texts,’ transmitted and developed over several generations. More incriminating still, they follow al-Shafi’i’s “four-source” theory of law. It demands that all Hadith be traced to Muhammad by way of isnad authentication. Yet the “science of the isnad” and its observance did not come into effect until after 820 CE.
Al-Shafi’i was one of four Islamic Imams, who along with Malik Ibn Anas, Abu Hanefa, and Ibn Hanbul, was credited with establishing Islamic Law, or Feqh. Each had their own interpretation of the Quran and Hadith. The most extreme, militant, and radical was Ibn Hanbul, nicknamed Hunbali. In the Middle East, his name is used to describe a highly religious or obsessed person. The Hunbali School, which is equated to the teachings of Ibn Taymea (1263-1328 CE), forms the basis of Salafi, fundamentalist Islam and Saudi Arabian Wahabism – and is a favorite of Islamic clubs such as al-Qaeda, IS, Hezbollah, and Hamas. And yet, when their correspondence is considered, we find that they invented Hadith to validate their positions.
89The Oxford-accredited curator of Ancient Islamic Manuscripts for the British Museum, Martin Lings, a devout Muslim, confirmed in his Muhammad, His Life Based Upon the Earliest Sources, that Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah was Islam’s earliest and most reliable accounting of Muhammad’s life. In his accounting of “Key References,” he lists the books upon which God Damn Religion was based: “The Quran, the Ta’rikh of al-Tabari, and the topical aHadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim.” Lings does, however, acknowledge two additional sources. The first is Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, a compilation of Muhammad’s raids. While interesting, Waqidi doesn’t help explain Islam as he focuses on battles and invasions. He doesn’t even venerate Muhammad as a prophet. Lings also referenced Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabgir | Book of the Major Classes, presenting a compilation of significant people in Islam, even though its portrait of the non-prophet was especially vulgar.
John Glubb, a renowned Muslim sympathizer, has written eleven books on Islam and lived among Muslims for the better part of his life. Nonetheless, under the heading “Sources” in his The Life and Times of Muhammad, he wrote: “There are three sources for the life of Muhammad: the Quran, the Biographies [Sira] and the Traditions [Hadith].” Glubb admits, “The Quran’s value as a source is limited for it was not intended to be a narrative of events.”
Glubb led a Jordanian army against God’s people during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. While occupying the West Bank on Jordan’s behalf, he acknowledged: “The second source at our disposal is the biographies and histories of the first Arab writers. The earliest of these is Muhammad ibn Ishaq, who wrote his Life of Allah’s Apostle, the Sirat Rasul Allah, about 120 years after the prophet’s death.” And as we know, the only 90edition of Ibn Ishaq that has survived was that edited by Ibn Hisham, who died some 200 years after Muhammad.
Glubb wrote, “Another early narrative is the Al Mughazi of Waqidi, who died 197 years after the prophet.” However, since a mughazi is an Islamic “raid or invasion,” Waqidi’s collection is only useful in judging Muhammad’s skill as a raider and terrorist.
Sir Glubb stated, “The third source of information on the life of Muhammad is the Traditions, called in Arabic Hadith. This word really means a “conversation or verbal report.” After the death of Muhammad, his companions took great pleasure in describing him, recounting his sayings and sharing their experiences in his company. New converts listened to these stories and passed them on until an immense quantity of such anecdotes was in circulation.”
Glubb further stated, “The two most reliable and famous tradition collectors are Bukhari and Muslim. Bukhari compiled his massive work The True Traditions which consists of ninety-five books or sections, about 220 years after the death of Muhammad. Muslim published his Hadith collection some five or six years later.”
One of the 20th century’s most universally respected Islamic scholars is Dr. Arthur Jeffery. He headed the Department of Middle East Languages at Columbia University and taught linguistics at the School of Oriental Studies in Cairo. He wrote, “The briefest investigation suffices to reveal that the problem of Islamic sources is relatively simple, for most volumes represent little more than the working over (with fabulous and irrelevant additions and modifications) of perhaps half a handful Arabic texts of primary importance. The earliest Life of Muhammad of which we have any trace was written by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who died in 768 C.E. i.e., 130 years after the death of the prophet. The Sirat Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq, however, has perished, and all we know of it is what 91is quoted from it (and these quotations are fortunately considerable) in the works of later writers, particularly Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. This work of Ibn Ishaq, in addition to being the earliest known attempt at a biography, has a further importance in that, whether because the writer was somewhat of a free thinker, or because he had not come under the influence of later idealizing tendencies, his work contains very much information of a character that is distinctly unfavorable to Islam's prophet.” I find it incriminating that scholars refer to Muhammad as a “prophet” when there isn’t a single fulfilled prophecy attributable to him.
That notwithstanding, to validate his point, Jeffery quotes Dr. Margoliouth’s review of Muhammad’s character from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Volume 8, p. 878) which I have shared previously. It begins: “The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable.”
Dr. Arthur Jeffry concludes his review of Islamic source material by confirming the validity of what we have read from others. In his The Quest of the Historical Muhammad, he wrote, “The first important source that has actually come down to us, therefore, is Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, or Book of the Raids. Al-Waqidi died in 822 C.E. and his book may best be consulted in the translation of the important parts of it given in Wellhausen's Muhammad in Medina (Berlin, 1882). Waqidi’s work, however, has the serious limitation that it deals only with Muhammad’s campaigns… Later Arabic biographies are of very secondary value as compared with these. And even these works are not primary sources, as they are themselves based on two sources: Tradition and the Quran. The most important collections of Tradition are those of Bukhari (who died in 870 C.E.), and Muslim (who died in 874 C.E.). What value can be placed on the Traditions is 92questionable because the dates of the Hadith collections are even later than those of the biographies.”
While this review is repetitive, it is meant to be affirming. God Damn Religion was composed on the premise that there were only four early sources of information regarding Muhammad and the formation of Islam and that they must be used collectively to paint an accurate picture of the resulting religion.
For a more contemporary view, let’s review the sources used by F. E. Peters, as he was considered to be one of the 21st century’s most learned scholars on the subject of early Islam. As a Professor and Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages, Literature and History at New York University he authored four books. Recognizing that the process of defining the sources that comprise Islam is less than inspiring, Peters put his source evaluation in an appendix at the end of his Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. In it, we read, “The earliest integral example we possess of a biography is the Life of the Apostle of Allah composed out of earlier materials [Hadith, or oral traditions] by the Muslim scholar Ibn Ishaq (d. 767). In some ways this, by now standard Muslim Life, looks like a Gospel, but the appearance is deceptive. Ibn Ishaq's original, before a certain Ibn Hisham (d. 833) removed the extraneous material from the work, was more in the nature of a world history than a biography. The story began with Creation, and Muhammad’s prophetic career was preceded by accounts of all the prophets who had gone before him. This earlier, ‘discarded’ section of Ishaq’s work can to some extent be retrieved.”
It was not all lost. Ishaq’s discarded Hadith depicting Islamic Creation and Muhammad’s presentation of the Towrah’s patriarchs were retained in Volumes I-V of The History of al-Tabari.
93Speaking of the Quran’s deficient presentation of Muhammad, Professor Peters said: “We do not have material in the Quran to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, spoof, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture or sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries….
“The Quran gives us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered… The Quran is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Quran is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu, much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.”
Dr. Peters debunks the myth that the formation of Islam was played out in the clear light of history. He wrote, “For Muhammad, unlike [the mythical misnomer] Jesus, there is no [traitor like Flavious] Josephus [circa 37 to 100 CE] to provide a contemporary political context [while in Rome], no literary apocrypha for a spiritual context and no Qumran Scrolls to illuminate a sectarian [the bulk of the texts were not religious] milieu. From the era before Islam there is chiefly poetry whose contemporary authenticity is suspect but was nevertheless used as the main vehicle of Arab history in the pre-Islamic and early Islamic periods. The fact remains that between the contemporary Greek and Roman sources about Arabia and the later Islamic Traditions about the same place, there is a total lack of continuity. Despite volumes of information supplied by later [9th and 10th century] Muslim literary [and thus not historic] sources, we know pitifully little for sure about the 94political or economic history of Muhammad’s Mecca or of the religious culture from which he came.”
Professor Peters acknowledges, as do all serious scholars, that “the earliest biographers of the prophet, whose work is preserved by Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, were little more than collectors of oral reports or Hadith on the raids conducted by or under Muhammad. Yet, despite these obvious and serious disabilities, Ibn Ishaq’s Biography of Allah's Apostle, is on the face of it a coherent and convincing account and gives the historian something to work with, particularly if the latter closes his eyes to where the material came from.”
While we could consider the source evaluations of another score of Islamic scholars, suffice it to say, nothing would change. The Quran is regarded as inadequate due to its lack of context, chronological order, and its literary deficiency. Ishaq’s Sira is the oldest and most reliable source, but sadly it’s composed only of oral reports a century removed from their authors. Moreover, the Sira | Biography has been edited for political consumption, so we are reliant on Tabari’s Ta’rikh | History. It thus provides the oldest uncensored narrative of Muhammad’s words and deeds, his ambition, god, and religion. Bukhari and Muslim are additive but their lack of historical grounding, their late date, and their constant contradictions render them considerably less valuable. But as bad as these are, they are the best Islam has to offer.
Bemoaning the dearth of accurate and contemporaneous source material, Dr. Stephen Humphreys wrote: “Muslims, we would suppose, would have taken great care to record their spectacular achievements, and the highly literate and urbanized societies which they subjugated could hardly avoid coming to grips with what had happened to them. Yet all we find from this early period are sources which are either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives, 95completely annulling any possibility of reconstructing Islam’s first century. We have no reliable proof that any Hadith Tradition actually speaks of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Quran,” Joseph Schacht attested after putting the Hadith through the most rigorous scholastic investigation in history.
Dr. Joseph Schacht was ingenious. He used the court records from the early 9th century to show that neither the defense nor the prosecution used Hadiths that have since become the backbone of Islamic law. There is no chance, he reasoned, that men would have been convicted or exonerated in an Islamic court without referencing the most appropriate Hadith unless they simply didn’t exist at the time. Professor Schacht, therefore, dates the creation of a Hadith to the time they were first used at trial. Not only did he find late dates for most Hadiths, but he also discovered something very sinister. Hadith with the best isnads were the most suspect.
Stephen Humphreys stated, “We are asked to believe that these documents written hundreds of years later are accurate, though we are not presented with any evidence for their veracity, outside of isnads, which are nothing more than lists purporting to give the names of those from whom the oral traditions were passed down. Yet even the isnads lack any supportive documentation with which to corroborate their authenticity. Simply stated, insights into Islam’s formation, the Quran’s creation, and Muhammad’s life are as black as the message they proclaim.”
Professor Humphreys continued to report, “Muslims maintain that the late dates of the primary sources can be attributed to the fact that writing was simply not used in such an isolated area or at that time. This assumption is somewhat unfounded, however, at least in the larger context of Syria, Persia, and Byzantium, because writing on paper began long before the 7th century. Paper was 96invented in the 4th century and used extensively throughout the civilized world thereafter.”
“The Umayyad dynasty of Islam’s first one hundred years was headquartered in the former Byzantine region of Syria, not Arabia. Thus, unlike Arabia, it was a sophisticated society which used secretaries in the Caliphal courts, proving that manuscript writing was well developed. Yet nothing has been found to support the religion of Islam. Not a single Hadith or Quran fragment dates to this time or place. The Muslims who had managed to conquer and tax much of the world during Islam’s first 100 years couldn’t manage to write a single scroll, surah, Sira, or Sunnah during those same 100 years.”
Dr. Humphreys added: “So we must ask how we came by the Quran if there was no Muslim scribe, cleric, or scholar capable of putting pen to paper before the 8th century? Muslims claim the existence of a number of codices of the Quran shortly after the death of Muhammad. The Uthmanic text, for example, had to have been written, otherwise it wouldn’t be a text, right? Writing was available, but for some reason, no record was written prior to 750 CE.”
These are very serious accusations. And ultimately, they will lead us to a singular, undeniable, and very dire conclusion relative to Islam’s veracity.
Muslim scholars maintain that the absence of early documentation can be blamed on old age. They believe that the material upon which the primary sources were written either disintegrated over time, leaving us with no examples, or wore out and so were destroyed. But this argument is dubious. In the British Library, we have ample examples of documents written by individuals in communities near Arabia. And they predate Islam by centuries. On display are New Testament manuscripts such as the Codex Syniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, both of which 97were written in the 4th century, 400 years before the period in question. Why have they not disintegrated with age?
Then, of course, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were copied between 350 BCE through 70 CE, some 800 to 1,000 prior to the oldest surviving Islamic text.
Where this argument is especially weak, however, is when we apply it to the Quran itself. The Uthman text, which is allegedly the final canon supposedly compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit under the direction of the third Caliph, is considered by all Muslims to be the most important piece of literature ever written. According to Quran 043.002, it is the ‘Mother of all Books.’ And while this late-date miscarriage is anything but, Muslims are led to believe that this jumbled and illiterate mess was an exact replica of the ‘Eternal Tablets’ that exist in heaven (Quran 085.022). Muslim Traditions claim that all other competing codices and manuscripts were destroyed after 650 CE. Even Hafsah’s copy, from which the final recension was taken, was burned. If this Uthmanic text was so important, why then was it not written on paper, or other material which would have lasted? And if the earliest manuscripts wore out with usage, why were they not replaced with others written on skin, like so many other older documents which have managed to survive?
We have absolutely no evidence of the original Quran. Nor do we have a surviving fragment from the four copies that were made of this recension and allegedly sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus. Even if these copies had somehow disintegrated with time, there would surely be some fragments we could refer to. By the end of the 7th century Islam had expanded across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. And yet there was no trace of the Quran, which according to tradition, was the centerpiece of these expansive raids and conquests. Within that enormous sphere of influence, there should be some Quranic documents or manuscripts which have survived. 98Yet, there isn’t even a scrap from that period. There is literally nothing from the first three generations of Islam to suggest that the Quran existed.
According to Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, “Christianity can claim more than 5,500 known Greek fragments and manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,500 other early versions, adding up to 25,000 New Testament sources still in existence, most of which were written between 25 to 350 years after the death and resurrection of [the mythical misnomer] Christ (or between the 1st and 4th centuries CE),” while Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the 8th century. If Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient documents, all of which were written centuries earlier, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated more rapidly, then one wonders why Muslims were unable to forward a single manuscript from this much later period? This renders the argument that all the earliest Qurans simply disintegrated with age, absurd to the extreme.
The evidence, or lack thereof, leads us to a solitary conclusion. The reason no one has found a single surviving Quran or Hadith fragment, manuscript, or scroll dating to within a hundred years of the time they were allegedly revealed is that they never existed. The Quran and Hadith, and therefore Islam, were born in Baghdad, not Petra, Mecca, or Medina in the late 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, not during the time of Muhammad’s life circa 600 CE.
While some may be disheartened knowing that what we have read from the Quran and Sunnah was largely fabricated, it has been my contention all along that it doesn’t matter. Something happened to turn good men bad. For the first 3,000 years of recorded history, the Bedouins of Arabia were productive, self-reliant, peace- and freedom-loving peoples. While they were known on two 99occasions to have menaced neighboring Jews, they conquered no one. Then at the dawn of the 7th century, everything changed. These Arabs, now Muslims, became the planet’s most ruthless and destructive militants. They raided the civilized world, plundering and taxing it for booty, raping and enslaving as they went. They left oceans of blood and dictatorial tyrannies in their wake. Someone and something changed them – poisoned them. If not this egomaniacal psychopath and the message of his sadistic and demonic god, who and what?
In all the annals of human history, Islam is the most caustic expression of gang mentality ever endured. A rapist and terrorist, a mass murderer and thief, who claimed to be the lone conduit to a demented deity triggered a psychotic reaction to such an extent that he is esteemed beyond all others as the leader of an enslaved death cult. No matter how much we may despise the result, he and his gang have garnered our undivided attention.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what actually happened in the searing sands of the Arabian Desert. What resonates now is what Muslims believe was said and done. It is why they terrorize themselves and the rest of the world, shouting: “Allahu Akbar!”
The faith of two billion is predicated upon these illusions – now purported by ink in a book. If we want to assess why they kill, if we want to stop them, we must come to understand what infects them. Simply stated, the words and deeds now scribed in Islam’s Hadith and Quran portray the character of Muhammad and Allah, the non-prophet and un-god, who turned good men bad. We are witnessing the result. They are solely responsible for repressing the lives of billions of Muslims and tormenting and terrorizing countless Christians and Jews. Their legacy is on the streets now, draped in red, black, and green, shoving and chanting for all to see and hear. They are responsible for the sorrowful state of the Islamic world, for 100Gaza and Lebanon, for Saudi Arabia and Iran, for Iraq and Afghanistan, for Libya and Syria, for Yemen and Somalia, and for 09.11 and 10.07.
We have been reading the Constitution of a death cult committed to enslaving the world – bringing everyone down to their hellish level. You can join them like the Progressives, or you can become one of the few with the character and courage to oppose them. But a time has come when remaining neutral is no longer viable. October 7th, 2023 changed the world forever. It unleashed the monster. Muhammad is in your hometown, lurking outside your home, and he is a rapist and pedophile, a sadist and terrorist, a murderer and human trafficker. What are you going to do about him…now?
It is interesting to note that, while Progressives dominate Western academia and the media, they are incapable of learning. The overwhelming majority of those kidnapped and killed in Israel on 10.07.23 were Progressives, comprised of young liberals, aging socialists, multiculturalists, and peace activists who advocated on behalf of Muslims and who wanted to integrate Fakestinian Gazans into Israeli society, while also rewarding their terrorist culture with an independent state. One of them actually rebuked Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas, for abducting and killing the very people who were advocating for him and his cause. So, even when they are proven wrong and abused by a draconian death cult comprised of rapists and child molesters, kidnappers and mass murderers, Progressives remain unfazed by reality.
Preferring to be responsible, I have taken the Quran and Sunnah at face value, sharing the Hadith as if it were an accurate accounting of Muhammad’s words and deeds. I have exposed the Quran as if Muhammad actually recited it. I did this for many reasons. It is the only means we have to understand the motivation for terror. The words contained in these books are sufficient in and of themselves 101to demonstrate the deceitful, hateful, intolerant, immoral, and vicious nature of Muhammad, Allah, and Islam.
Therefore, by reviewing them we have killed three beasts with the same stone. We have shown that Islam is without merit, rotten to its core. The motivation for Islamic terror has been exposed. We know why good Muslims are 222% more violent than others not similarly infected. And by comparing the Islamic scriptures to Mein Kampf, we have been warned: we ignore Islam at our peril.
In response to these assertions regarding Islam’s Dark Past and the gloom it has now cast on humankind, Muslims contend that they have a number of the Uthman Qurans, original copies from the 7th century, in their possession. I have heard Muslims claim that there are originals in Mecca, Cairo, and almost every ancient Islamic settlement. I have often asked them to furnish the evidence which would substantiate their antiquity; a task which, to date, nobody has been able to accomplish.
During his 1995 debate against Islamic apologists at Cambridge on the notion, “Is the Qur’an the Word of God,” Dr. Jay Smith correctly surmised, “There are two documents which hold some credibility, and to which many Muslims refer. These are the Samarkand Manuscript, which is located in the State Library at Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and the Topkapi Manuscript, which can be found in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey. These two documents are old, and there has been ample etymological and paleographical analysis on them by scriptologists, as well as experts in Arabic calligraphy to warrant discussion.
“The Samarkand Manuscript is far from a complete document. Out of the 114 surahs found in today’s Qurans, only parts of suras 2 to 43 are included. Out of these surahs most of the text is missing. Further, the surviving 102inscriptions in the Samarkand codex present a real problem because the presentation is so irregular.
In John Gilchrist’s Jam’ Al-Quran – Codification of the Quran Text, we find a succinct and universally accepted assessment of the partial manuscript’s condition. “Some pages are neatly and uniformly copied while others are quite untidy and imbalanced. On some pages the text is expansive, while on others it is severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter Kaf has been excluded, while on other pages it is the dominant letter on the page. Because so many pages differ so extensively from one another, the assumption is that we have a composite text, compiled from portions of different manuscripts.”
“Also, within the text one can find artistic illuminations between the surahs, usually made up of colored bands of red, green, blue, and orange medallions. These illuminations have compelled the scriptologists to give the codex a 9th-century origin, as it is grossly unlikely that such embellishments would have accompanied a 7th-century Uthmanic manuscript sent out to the various provinces.” (debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/par1)
According to Gilchrist, “The Topkapi Manuscript in Istanbul is also written on parchment. It is devoid of vocalization, the diacritical points needed for word discernment. Like the Samarkand MSS, it is supplemented with ornamental medallions indicating a later age.” (Based upon the research of Lings & Safadi 1976: 17-20)
According to Dr. Smith, “Some Muslims claim that it must be one of the original copies, if not the original one compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit. Yet one only needs to compare it with the Samarkand codex to realize that they most certainly cannot both be Uthmanic originals.
“For instance, Istanbul’s Topkapi codex has 18 lines to the page whereas the Samarkand codex in Tashkent has only half that many… The Istanbul codex is inscribed 103throughout in a very formal manner, while the text of the Samarkand codex is often haphazard and considerably distorted. One cannot believe that both were copied by the same scribes.
“Experts in manuscript analysis use three tests for ascertaining the antiquity of a document. They test the age of the substrate on which the manuscript is written, using such chemical processes as carbon-14 dating. Precise identification of between +/- 20 years is possible. There has been a reticence to use it, however,…even though a refined form of carbon-14, known as Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, requires only 0.5 mg. of material for evaluation. Yet, to date, neither of these manuscripts has been tested by either method.
“Experts also study ink of the manuscript, analyzing its makeup, discerning where it originated, or if it had been erased and copied over.” But the inaccessibility of these manuscripts for detailed research has precluded that. Those who guard them are afraid of what the tests will reveal. Therefore, specialists must turn to the script itself to determine the document’s antiquity, using paleography.
Letter styling and formation evolve over time. Dr. Smith noted that, “These changes tend to be uniform as manuscripts are written by professional scribes.” “Penmanship tends to follow well-delineated conventions, with only gradual modifications,” something affirmed by Vanderkam’s 1994 research. By examining handwriting in texts whose dates are known, a paleographer can compare them with undated texts to ascertain the period to which they belong.
“When experts apply these paleographical standards to the Samarkand and Topkapi manuscripts, the evidence reveals that neither could be from Uthman’s lifetime. Both manuscripts were written in Kufic Script, a scribal style which, according to modern Quranic experts, such as 104Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the 8th century (beginning in the 790s CE or later). There is no evidence of it in Mecca or Medina in the 7th century – or anyplace else for that matter.” (Lings & Safadi 1976: 12-13, 17; Gilchrist 1989: 145-146, 152-153)
“The basis of this realization, beyond the tangible evidence, is quite simple. The Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi, derives its name from the city of Kufa in Iraq” – which was part of Persia. “It would be rather odd for this to be the official script of an Arabic Quran as it takes its name from a different culture. At the time, Arabic was a foreign language to the Persians. Further, for most of Islam’s first century, the new empire was ruled from Syria, the very place where written Arabic had recently evolved from a Nabatean variation of Hebrew and Aramaic through the influence of Sabaic and Syriac. Baghdad and Damascus were vying for power, and at the time, the Syrians were in charge. The Kufic script reached its zenith during the 9th century, nearly 200 years after Muhammad’s death. From this period, and after the assimilation of Persia into Islam, it became widely used throughout the Muslim world.” (Lings & Safadi 1975: 12,17; Gilchrist 1989: 145-146)
“This makes sense,” according to Smith, “because after 750 CE, 130 AH, the Abbasids controlled Islam. These Persian Muslims moved the Islamic capital to Kufa and then Baghdad. They naturally wanted their script to dominate, having been themselves dominated by the Umayyad Arabs based in Damascus the previous century. Over time, the Arabic script which originated in the Persian Abbasid area of influence, evolved into Kufa script we find scribed within the Samarkand and Topkapi Qurans.” Kufa, Najaf, and Karbala are the most important towns for Persian Shia Muslims even today.
Another consideration in ascribing late dates to these manuscripts is the format in which they are written. “Due to the elongated style of the Kufic script, they both use 105sheets which are wider than they are tall. This landscape format was borrowed from Syriac, Sabiac, and Nabatean Christian documents of the 8th and 9th centuries. ‘Previous to this, Arabic manuscripts were all written in the upright format,” Dr. Hugh Goodacre of the Oriental and India Office of Collections explained. “Because the Topkapi and Samarkand Manuscripts were written in the Kufic script, and because they use the landscape format, they could not have been written earlier than 150 years after Uthman’s Recension was supposedly compiled.” (Gilchrist 1989: 144-147)
“The first Arabic scripts used in Mecca and Medina were al-Ma’il and Mashq. The Ma’il Script came into use at the end of the 7th century and is easily identified, as it was written at a slight angle. The word al-Ma’il means ‘slanting.’ The Mashq Script emerged at the same time. It is more horizontal and can be distinguished by its cursive style.” (Gilchrist 1989: 144) From this, Dr. Smith postulated, “If a Quran had been compiled in Mecca or Medina in the waning days of the 7th century, it would have been written in the Ma’il or Mashq style.”
As it would transpire, there is a Quran written in the Ma’il script. Many Muslims consider it to be among the earliest extant copies. Yet it is not found in either Istanbul or Tashkent, but, ironically, resides in the British Library in London. It has been dated to the end of the 8th century by Martin Lings, the former curator of manuscripts for the British Library. He was a curious convert to Islam who entertained himself by dressing up like Lawrence of Arabia. That notwithstanding, using paleography, scholars are certain that there is no known manuscript of the Quran that can be dated to within a century of Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. (Lings & Safadi 1976: 17,20; Gilchrist 1989: 16,144)
This is also true for Quran fragments. In her book Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel 106underscores this point as she reviews the evidence pertaining to recently discovered Sana’a Qurans. She wrote, “The earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the 8th century.”
The Sana’a Quran fragments are still shrouded in mystery because, once the initial findings proved detrimental to Islam, the Yemen government denied access to them and placed restrictions on the German team of paleography experts hired to evaluate them. But what is known is that the words written in these early 8th-century Quran fragments do not correspond to those written beneath them or to today’s standards.
Representing the closest thing Muslims have to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Sana’a fragments were discovered by accident in 1972. This occurred during the restoration of the Mosque of Sana’a in Yemen – the very place where Arab converts to Judaism composed the initial poetic surahs of the Quran and began the process toward Arab monotheism.
In his article for The Atlantic, “What is the Koran,” Toby Lester wrote, “Construction workers found a paper grave between the mosque’s inner and outer roofs. While it looked to be an unappealing pile of old Arabic parchments fused together over the millennia, and gnawed at by rats and insects, it was really a stash containing Quran fragments. Seven years later, the curator of the mosque managed to interest a German scholar in the discovery.”
In his investigative study of the Sana’a find, Toby Lester, writing for The Atlantic, explained, “Some of the parchment pages from the paper grave seem to date back to the 7th and 8th century, or Islam’s first two centuries, making them the oldest Qurans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments reveal intriguing aberrations from the standard text – devastating in that Muslims are told that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is the perfect and 107unchanging Word of God – letter for letter how he wrote it.” But that would not be the case.
Lester continued, “The first scholar to examine the Yemeni fragments was Gerd Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Quranic paleography. His inspection revealed unconventional verse orderings, textual variations, and artistic embellishments. Scripture was written in a rare and early Hijaz Arabic script. And newer scripts were very clearly written over earlier, worn-out versions, proving that the text evolved. Based upon what he was witnessing, it could not have been revealed in its entirety to Muhammad in 612 CE, as alleged.”
More than 15,000 fragments of the Yemeni Quran’s have been flattened, cleaned, sorted, and assembled. They await further examination in Yemen’s House of Manuscripts. Yet that is something Islamic authorities have been reluctant to allow – initially trying to preclude publication. Dr. Puin suggests, “They want to keep this thing low-profile, as we do, although for different reasons.”
Puin, and his colleague, Graf von Bothmer, an Islamic historian, have published short essays on what they discovered. They continue to feel that when the Yemeni authorities realize the implications of the find, they will refuse further access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 shot 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and brought the pictures back to Germany.
Those photographs have now been scrutinized and the findings have been published, albeit without Yemeni support. Gerd Puin wrote, “So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Quran is Allah’s unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Quran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Quran has a history too. The Sana’a 108fragments will help us accomplish this.” That, and the fact that the Quran is the worst book ever written.
In his article on the Yemeni fragments, Toby Lester quoted scholars I have referenced. They are important because we are navigating perilous waters.
One such expert was Dr. Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, and a man at the forefront of Quranic studies. He said, “The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt. Their variant readings and verse orders are very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Quranic text is much more of an open question than most have suspected. The text was less stable, and therefore had less authority than has been claimed.”
Dr. Stephen Humphreys, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, wrote, “To historicize the Quran would in effect delegitimize the whole experience of the Muslim community. The Quran is the charter for the community, the document that called it into existence. If the Quran is a historical document, then the whole Islamic struggle of fourteen centuries is effectively meaningless.” Well, for that reason and the fact that the Quran is the worst book ever written by any rational, moral, or literary standard.
The prospect of Muslim rage has not completely deterred the critical rebuke of the Quran. In 1996, the Quranic scholar Günter Lüling wrote for The Journal of Higher Criticism: “The wide extent to which both the text of the Quran and the official Muslim account of Islamic origins have been distorted has been unsuspectingly accepted by Western Islamicists until now.”
In 1994, the journal Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam published a study by Yehuda Nevo of the Hebrew University, detailing 7th- and 8th-century religious inscriptions on stones in the Negev Desert. Yehuda Nevo 109found, “These pose considerable problems for the traditional Muslim account of the history of Islam.”
That same year, and in the same journal, Dr. Patricia Crone, a historian focusing on early Islam at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, published an article in which she argued that elucidating problematic passages in the Quranic text requires “abandoning the conventional account of how the Quran was born.”
Patricia Crone collaborated in the book she coauthored with Michael Cook, called Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. They discovered that the Quran came into being later than is now believed. “There is no hard evidence for the existence of a Quran in any form before the last decade of the 7th century, and that only includes inconsistent and sparse quotations from inside the Dome of the Rock.” And as one might expect, for pronouncing the obvious, Hagarism came under immediate attack from Muslims who despised its reliance on non-Islamic sources. However, the citations from inside the hideous shrine to Islamic terror do not match the Quran and are not correctly dated to the end of the 7th century. And as such, we are back to the realization that untested partial manuscripts in the late 8th-century Kufic script are the oldest witnesses to a troubled time and horrific message.
As presented previously, Gerd Puin was cited saying, “My idea is that the Quran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information.”
Professor Crone agreed, stating, “The Quran is a scripture with a history like any other, except we don’t know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it. Nobody would mind the howls if they came from Westerners, but Westerners feel deferential 110when the howls come from other people. Muslims shout: ‘Who are you to tamper with our legacy?’”
After studying the Quran and Hadith and then witnessing the trauma Islam has inspired, I share Sir William Muir’s perspective. He wrote, “The Quran is the most stubborn enemy of Civilization, Liberty, and Truth which the world has yet known.” While he is right, I would add that the Quran is the enemy of Yahowah, Yahuwdym, Yisra’el, the Towrah, Naby’, Beryth, and to life, itself.
But Muslims would rather be indoctrinated than investigate. The truth frightens them, as do facts and rational thought. They routinely reject all non-Islamic approaches to the Quran. Unable to refute the assault on their book with facts, history, or reason they simply assail the messengers of news they do not want to hear.
An Egyptian doctor who edited Prophet of Doom explained: “Their response is psychological. It is what you’d expect from someone who has been told that their religion is a delusion. The revelation triggers a defense mechanism of anger. This is what I faced every time I tried to discuss Islam with them. Our only hope is that Muslims learn to contain their anger and then make use of their minds. But I’m afraid that will not be tolerated by those who benefit from imposing Islam. If Islam suddenly disappears, Muslim clerics and kings, dictators and terrorists would lose their power and funding. A million Islamic clergy, dictators, and terrorists would instantly be out of work.”
Here is an example of how they respond. In 1987, in the Muslim World Book Review, an Islamic apologist, Parvez Manzoor, wrote: “The Western enterprise of Quranic studies is a project born of spite, bred in frustration and nourished by vengeance. The Western man, coordinating the powers of the State, Church and Academia [now there’s a delusional thought], launched his 111most determined assault on the citadel of Muslim faith with arrogance, reckless rationalism, and a world-domineering fantasy of sectarian fanaticism [this boy would have done well to have gazed in a mirror], joined in an unholy conspiracy to dislodge the Muslim Scripture from its firmly entrenched position as the epitome of authenticity and moral unassailability. The ultimate trophy that the Western man sought by his daredevil venture was the Muslim mind itself. [Yes, we would like to open it.] In order to rid the West forever of the ‘problem’ of Islam, Muslim consciousness must be made to despair of the cognitive certainty of the Divine message revealed to the Prophet. Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Quranic revelation would abdicate his universal mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West. Such, at least, seems to have been the tacit, if not the explicit, rationale of the assault on the Quran.” That may be the most delusional rant I’ve read, apart from the Quran and Hadith.
Muslims have a vivid imagination and are particularly susceptible to conspiracy. Like their non-prophet and un-god, they perceive conspiratorial plots being hatched everywhere – and typically blame them, rather than Islam, for their impoverished lives. Muslims have become so proficient at deceit that they have become paranoid and delusional. It is woven into the fabric of their lives.
When Western doctors inoculate Muslim children against disease, imams preach that they are infecting them with HIV. When Americans deliver food to feed starving families, the clerics claim the food is drugged so as to make Muslims barren. When it doesn’t rain, it’s a CIA plot. It’s pathetic. Yet, to believe a scheme as deceptive and delusional as Islam, one’s mind has to be corroded, so it’s not surprising.
In a way, Manzoor was right. The motivation for exposing the Quran has been “spite, bred in frustration and 112nourished by vengeance.” (Muslim World Book Review (1987)) As an example, I deplore what Muslims did to Jews on October 7th, 2023, and I’m frustrated that countless millions of Muslims around the world condone the rape, mutilation, kidnapping, and savage murder. I want to hold Islam accountable because the carnage is not limited to Hamas any more than the Islamic suicide bombings of September 11th, 2001 were constrained to al-Qaeda. The problem is Islam.
Another Muslim scholar, Abu Zaid, protests: “The Quran is a literary text [said the kindergartener to the first-grader], and the only way to understand, explain, and analyze it is through a literary approach. This is essentially a theological issue.” No. There is nothing remotely theological or literary about the Quran. It is both demonic and inane.
While Zaid may not like God Damn Religion, I have systematically analyzed the Quran based on its claims and word choices. However, free speech is not tolerated in Islam, nor are contrarian views. In 1995 Abu Zaid was officially branded an apostate, a ruling that was upheld by Egypt’s highest court. Yet, Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim.
Toby Lester incorporated the public shunning of Zaid into his article, writing, “Abu Zaid sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled Cairo for Holland, calling the affair: ‘a macabre farce.’ Sheikh Youssef Badri, the cleric whose preaching inspired much of the opposition to Zaid, was ecstatic. ‘We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion... No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again.’” Sorry sheikh, not everyone is so easily dissuaded.
113According to Lester, “Abu Zaid was justified in fearing for his life and fleeing Egypt for Europe. In 1992, the Egyptian journalist, Farag Foda, was assassinated by Islamists for criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1994, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed for writing an allegorical novel, structured like the Quran, while presenting heretical conceptions of Allah and Muhammad. Algerian Mohammed Arkoun, a professor emeritus of Islamic Thought at the University of Paris, is quoted saying, ‘Deviating from the orthodox interpretation of the Quran is a very sensitive business with serious implications. Millions refer to the Quran to explain their actions and to justify their aspirations.’” And therein is the reason I am compelled to expose and condemn Allah’s disturbing rant.
I agree with Toby Lester: “Despite its repeated assertions to the contrary, the Quran is extremely difficult for contemporary readers – even highly educated speakers of Arabic – to understand. It makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse. It assumes a familiarity with language, stories, and events that seem to have been lost even to the earliest Muslims, which is typical of a text that initially evolved through oral tradition. Its inconsistencies are easy to find: Allah is referred to in the first and third person in the same sentence; divergent versions of the same story are repeated at different points in the text; and divine rulings contradict one another. The Quran, anticipating this criticism, defends itself by asserting the right to abrogate its own message: ‘Allah blots out or confirms what He pleases.’” Every independent scholastic review of the Quran gives Allah failing marks.
Toby Lester went on to write, “As Muslims came into contact with literate people during the 8th century, the wars of conquest were accompanied by theological challenges, in which Christians and others latched on to the confusing 114literary state of the Quran as proof of its human origins. So Muslim scholars found themselves fastidiously cataloging the problematic aspects of Allah’s Book. These include incomprehensible vocabulary, omitted words, foreign words, grammatical incongruities, contradictions, historical inaccuracies, scientific errors, and deviant texts. Yet for complicated political reasons, the official Islamic doctrine became that of i’jaz | inimitability of the Quran. [Which is to say: believe, don’t think.] As a result, Allah’s Book is recited in Religious Arabic by Muslims worldwide, the overwhelming majority of whom do not understand any form of the language.” His assessment was entirely accurate and very well written.
Rather than attempt to defend the Quran rationally, objectively, or historically, Muslims hide under the cover of an arcane language virtually no one understands.
As I have shared previously, after studying the Yemenite parchments, Dr. Gerd Puin spoke with disdain about the insistence of Muslim and Western scholars to accept the Quran as divine: “The Quran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you just look at it, you will see that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Quranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Quran is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Quran claims repeatedly to be clear but is not – there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.” That was another adept assessment of the Quran from a knowledgeable source.
Professor Stephen Humphreys, writing in Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, discussed the nature of the historical vacuum surrounding the formation of Islam, 115“If our goal is to comprehend the way in which Muslims of the late 8th and 9th centuries understood the origins of their society, then we are very well off indeed. But if our aim is to find out what really happened in terms of reliably documented answers about the first century of Islamic society, then we are in trouble.”
In his article for The Atlantic, Toby Lester reported, “The person who, more than anyone, has shaken up Quranic studies in the past few decades is John Wansbrough, formerly of the University of London. Puin is re-reading him now as he prepares to analyze the Yemeni fragments.”
In this regard, Patricia Crone said that she and Michael Cook “did not say much about the Quran in Hagarism that was not based on Wansbrough. Anybody engaged in the critical study of the Quran must contend with Wansbrough’s two main works – Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History.”
“Wansbrough applied the entire arsenal of instruments and techniques of Biblical scholarship, form, source, and redaction criticism, to the text,” Lester concluded. “The Quran evolved only gradually in the 8th century, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq. The reason that no Islamic source material from the first century or so of Islam has survived,” Lester stated, citing Professor John Wansbrough, “is that it never existed.”
Wansbrough’s conclusions are so well-researched and supported that they have been widely accepted in scholarly circles. However, Muslims continue to find evidence and reason deeply offensive. Parvez Manzoor has described 116Wansbrough and others as “a naked outburst of psychopathic vandalism.” Another messenger lies wounded by Islam’s intolerant tongue while his facts lay undisputed.
The hostility experienced was not unique. One of his most famous predecessors was a prominent Egyptian government minister, and university professor, Taha Hussein. He is considered by many Muslims to be the Dean of Arabic Studies. Hussein devoted himself to understanding pre-Islamic Arabian poetry and ended up concluding, “Much of that body of work had been fabricated well after the establishment of Islam in order to lend outside support to Quranic mythology.”
Recently, the Iranian journalist and diplomat Ali Dashti, in his 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, took his fellow Muslims to task for not questioning the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life, much of which he called “myth-making and miracle-mongering.” Ali is right. What’s more, it’s obvious.
Lester explains, “Such work has not come without cost, however. Taha Hussein, like Nasr Abu Zaid, was declared an apostate in Egypt. Ali Dashti died mysteriously just after the 1979 Iranian revolution. Muslims interested in challenging doctrine must tread carefully. I would like to get the Quran out of this prison,” Abu Zaid has said of the prevailing Islamic hostility, “so that it becomes productive for our culture, which is now being strangled.” Yet the majority of Muslims are unlikely to question the orthodox approach to the Quran and Islamic history. There is something distasteful about being killed, I suppose.
There is also much discussion amongst secular historians and Islamic clerics as to the credibility of the Hadith compilations. “It now seems obvious that the early 9th century schools of law authenticated their own agenda by asserting that their doctrines came initially from the 117companions of the prophet and then from the prophet himself,” Dr. Joseph Schacht reported.
Professor Schacht maintains that the inspiration for his investigation was Islamic scholar al-Shafi’i, who died in 820 CE. He stipulated that all Traditions of law must be traced back to Muhammad in order to retain their credibility. Schacht explains, “A great mass of legal traditions invoking the authority of the prophet originated during the time of al-Shafi’i and later. Consequently, they all express Iraqian doctrines and not those from early Arabia or even Syria. The Iraqi legal and political agenda imposed by each school demonstrates that most Hadith were conceived in the 9th and 10th centuries, invalidating the authenticity of the Sunnah.”
In his Cambridge debate, Dr. Jay Smith said something readers of God Damn Religion already know, “Certain compilers wrote reports which contradict other reports which they had themselves collected. Tabari, for instance, often gives conflicting accounts of the same incidents. Ishaq informs us that Muhammad stepped into a political vacuum upon entering Yathrib, but then later tells us that he snatched away authority from an established ruler. He says the Jews in Medina were supportive of their Arab neighbors, and yet were molested by them. Which are we to believe?” Crone points out, “The stories are told with complete disregard for what the actual situation in Medina may have been.”
Dr. Crone correctly observed, “Contradictory accounts are also given by different compilers. Many are variations on a common theme. For example, there are fifteen different versions of Muhammad being blessed by a representative of a non-Islamic religion who ‘recognized’ him as a future prophet. Some place this encounter during his infancy, others when he was nine; some say he was twenty-five at the time. One Tradition maintains he was recognized by Ethiopian Christians, several by a Syrian 118monk, many by Yathrib Jews, one by a local Hanif, while others maintain it was a sorcerer. Others even suggest it was the belly of a dead animal.” Crone concludes, “What we have here is nothing more than fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place.” True that.
Michael Cook reported, “To make matters worse, the later the Hadith, the more detail it contains. Take for instance of the death of Abdallah, Muhammad’s father. Ishaq and Tabari were agreed that Abdallah died early enough to leave Muhammad an orphan; but as to the specific details of his death, ‘Allah knows best.’
“Waqidi, who wrote a half-century later, tells us not only when Abdallah died, but how he died, where he died, what his age was, and the exact place of his burial.” Therefore, according to Michael Cook, “This evolution in the course of fifty years from uncertainty to a profusion of precise detail suggests that a fair amount of what Waqidi knew was not knowledge. This is rather typical of Waqidi. He was always willing to give precise dates, locations, names where Ishaq had none. But given that this information was all unknown earlier to Ishaq its value is doubtful in the extreme. And with spurious information accumulated at this rate in the three generations between Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the four generations between Muhammad and Ishaq.”
The sheer number of Hadith that suddenly appear create a good deal of skepticism. Bukhari claims that by 850 CE, there were 600,000 Hadith about Muhammad. They were so numerous, the ruling Caliph asked him to pick the “true” sayings of the prophet out of the sea of false ones. But if he had done so, neither the Quran nor the Hadith would exist.
Bukhari never spelled out the criteria that guided his choice, except for vague pronouncements of ‘unreliability’ 119or ‘unsuitability.’ In the end, he retained only 2,602 Hadith (9,082 if one includes the repetition of the same story presented with a different isnad) – a mere 0.5%! Of the 600,000 ahadith 597,398 were admittedly false and had to be scrapped. The others were simply suspect. Thus, by the time they were collected, 99.5% of the Oral Traditions upon which Islam was based – including the Quran and Sunnah – were considered spurious.
Muslims now maintain that the primary means for choosing between potentially authentic and clearly spurious Hadith is found in the chain of oral transmission called “the science of the isnad.” This, Muslims contend, must have been the undisclosed process which Bukhari, Tabari and other 9th- and 10th-century compilers deployed to authenticate their compilations. They included a list of names, which supposedly traced back the oral communication from mouth to ear through the generations to Muhammad himself. For them, an isnad was considered essential, because it provided a veneer of authenticity to fourth-generation hearsay. However, there is no evidence that the isnads were legitimate – and even if they were, they do not legitimize hearsay.
Rather it seems that isnads were simply applied to Hadith that approved or outlawed matters of interest to the Iraqi community in generations after Muhammad had died. Those believed to be complicit in the scuttlebutt were canonized, and the Hadith were supposedly authenticated. Therefore, from a legal standard, isnads, which affirm hearsay, actually weaken that which they sought to confirm. We are left with the realization that without anything being committed to writing between the early 7th century, throughout the 8th century, and into the 9th, Islam’s Sunnah is nothing more than the children’s game of Whispers run amuck with imaginary players.
Called Chinese Whispers or Telephone, this internationally popular children’s game is conducted by 120whispering a few simple sentences to the first person in a circle of five or more. They quietly convey that message to the next person down the line until the last child announces it amidst laughter. The result typically bears little resemblance to the original – making about as much sense as the Towrah’s characters do in the Quran. Over the course of five people, and a minute’s time, with just a few sentences, the message becomes as garbled as the Sunnah and Suratun.
Humphreys asserts, “The science of isnad set about to authenticate chains of reporters in the 9th and 10th centuries, long after the fact and they are without relevance. Consequently, the larger the list, which includes the best-known historical names, the more suspect its authenticity.”
From a credibility standpoint, the Hadith are only slightly more credible than the Quran. And this is because at least there is an attempt to identify those participating in the hearsay process. And yet, if one’s preference is for fact over faith, there isn’t so much as a trace of it coming out of Islam’s first century. Archeologists haven’t found a scrap of paper, a papyrus sheet, a parchment scroll, or even a rock carving to suggest a single Suratun or Sunnah was coined within a century of Muhammad’s death.
Then, all of a sudden and out of thin air, after the passage of another one to two hundred years, there were 600,000 oral reports from a time long past. This leads to a singular rational explanation: the Hadith were comprised of legends – fables of old. The Islamic Sunnah upon which Islam is based, upon which the Five Pillars are comprised, upon which suicide bombers blast their way into infamy is a farce. Like the Suratuns, the Sunnah was created in Baghdad long after the fact. And truth be known, they did a lousy job – one would have expected better.
But that does not mean that they are completely disconnected from reality. Some of what has come down 121to us in the Sunnah and Suratun is indicative of Muhammad’s rancid existence. It is inconceivable that Islamic clerics slathered their lone Rasuli with such hideous misadventures.
Moreover, somebody conquered and suppressed Arabia, Yemen, Persia, India, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco, and something transformed Arabs into Muslims before doing so. Somebody and something inspired nomads and Bedouins to ride out of Arabia wielding swords while shouting slogans justifying rape and robbery.
No matter how many scholarly theories are postulated, the portrayal of Muhammad presented in the ahadith provide the most cogent explanation of what caused the first Muslims to behave so badly. While his hand was first raised in Petra, the glove was woven in Yathrib, and it was embellished in Baghdad. The fist that fits inside belongs to Muhammad.
Attributing grotesque acts of mutilation and mass murder, rampant pursuits of genocide and human trafficking, multiple gang rape and pedophilic abuses, the systematic plunder and torture of thousands which became millions, and a life of relentless terrorism, to a religious messenger is hard to fathom if not true. After all, who in their right mind would attempt to establish a religion’s credibility on the life of a person guilty of such horrendous abuses – unless they were so flagrant, they could not be denied? And since they did, how can anyone discount them?
The only thing less believable than the Hadith describing Muhammad as the purveyor of these atrocities is the notion that he never did them and they were claimed of him to ravage his credibility. After all, most people find terrorism, mass murder, rape, plunder, and the slave trade unbecoming. Well, with the exception of Muslims. Based 122upon the protests now seen around the world, they celebrate the very things moral people abhor. And lacking morality, Progressives agree with them. Yeah Terror.
For the rest of us, we are confronted with the abominable portrait of a man who claimed to have been demon-possessed, jumping in bed with a six-year-old, flying away on a winged ass, participating in an Idolatrous Indulgence, justified by Satanic Verses, declaring War on All Mankind. He raided his kin at Badr, inspired the Qurayza genocide, and eliminated the Khaybar community in an act of ethnic cleansing while renouncing his wannabe god at Hudaybiyah. It’s too gruesome and embarrassing to have been applied to Muhammad if not true. The Persians were way too smart for that.
But what were they to do? The Quran was insufficient religiously, so someone had to come up with tafsir | explanations. And so they made Muhammad indistinguishable from Allah – Satan’s corporeal manifestation. The Hadith would fill in the gaps and offer context, provide miracles, rituals, and dogma – the kind of stuff the ruling elite in Baghdad needed to control and fleece those who were now under their spell.
There would even be Hadith which would claim the superiority of the Quran. They would even overcome the Quran’s own admission in Quran 010.037-8, 002.023, or 017.088, that those who witnessed its revelation realized it was not to be trusted. “Will they say Muhammad has forged it? Answer: Bring therefore a surah like it, and call whom you may to your assistance, besides Allah, if you speak truth.” This boast is echoed in the Hadith, Mishkat al-Masabih, “The Quran is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world. This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.” The Quran and insanity evidently run hand in hand – but good judgment is irreparably estranged.
123Incredibly, Muslims believe that since there is no literary equivalent to the worst book ever written, the Quran is a miracle sent down from their god. And because Allah was insistent that he had no partners, there was no need for the likes of Moseh, Dowd, or Yasha’yah. It is this inimitability, or uniqueness, termed i’jaz in Arabic, which Muslims believe proves its divine authorship and thus its status as the holiest of books – even though there was no book and the recitals were uniquely awful.
The Quran’s most repeated theme is the moronic Never-Ending Argument which rapidly devolves into taunts of hellish tortures. The remainder of Allah’s rant is grossly inaccurate historically and scientifically, nauseatingly repetitive, and obviously plagiarized. It promotes terrorism. It condones rape, incest, thievery, kidnapping for ransom, the slave trade, mass murder, and worst of all, genocide of Jews. It is so contradictory, it explains how to deal with incongruities. And it’s a literary disaster with grammatical errors, missing words, and meaningless phrases. One out of every five verses is incomprehensible. The speaker ducks in and out of first, second, and third person and doesn’t know if he is one or many. He doesn’t even know his name. There are no intelligent transitions. And it is a jumbled mess, lacking any presence of sensible organization by subject, context, or chronology. It’s little more than a childish outburst revealing the immature and ignorant nature of its author.
Nearly 200 years ago, Karl Pfander reported, “It is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Quran is superior to that of other books in the Arabic language. Many doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu’allaqat by Imraul Quais, or the Maqamat of Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion.”
124Pfander explained by comparison, “When we read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, scholars hold that the eloquence of Isaiah and the Psalms, for instance, is far greater than that of any part of the Quran. Hardly anyone but a Muslim would deny this.” It’s like comparing Earth’s oceans to a mud puddle.
A contrast between the Towrah and Naby’ brings other problems to light. When anyone familiar with Yahowah’s testimony begins to read the Quran, it becomes immediately apparent that Allah’s recital is an entirely different kind of presentation, whatever its poetic merits. Whereas God provides a historical context for everything, the Quran contains none. Whereas Yahowah goes out of His way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Quran remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr, is consistent with many prophetic books scribed over a millennium, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject, and theme. The Quran, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and manic collection of statements that bear little relationship to preceding verses. Scholars admit that the Quran is so haphazard in its make-up it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it.
French-German secular scholar, Salomon Reinach, wrote: “From the literary point of view, the Quran 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 in absorbing it.” That is an astute assessment.
I have also struggled with this thought. Muhammad and his Quran are so remedial and repulsive, I feel like there is no point in impugning what is so obviously deplorable. Then I think of God’s people who continue to be victimized by Islam. Without a voice willing to proclaim 125the truth, no matter how disgusting it is, they will remain in its clutches. When I think of victims of Islamic terror, my soul cries out, wanting to limit future carnage.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature maintains: “The Quran is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered.”
Even Muslim scholar and apologist Ali Dashti laments the literary defects: “Unfortunately the Quran was badly edited, and its contents are very obtusely arranged. All students of the Quran wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation.”
The problem runs deeper than having the Suratuns compiled haphazardly because, with the exception of some of the shortest of them, they were revealed over time. For example, while the first revelation was the debacle in the cave recorded in Quran 096.001-6, the second half of that surah didn’t come next nor was it received within several years of the initial portion. And many surahs are without reference to episodes in Muhammad’s life, and thus cannot be arranged chronologically.
Further, the same stories are retold dozens of times, precluding any chance of rearranging them in chronological order. Variant renditions, often conflicting and seldom accurate, of the same material degrade the credibility of the Quran. The disturbing portrayals of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, Pharaoh, Jesus, and Mary are collectively retold one hundred times – in a thinly veiled attempt to recast them as mini-Muhammads and Allahites. It is repugnant.
There is another issue. Any attempt to order portions of the Quran necessitates correlating it with the context of 126the Sira and the chronology of the Tarikh. But then, set into the context of Muhammad’s heinous life, the message becomes very dark and sinister. A correctly ordered Quran proves that the whole of Muhammad’s recital was composed to serve a covetous, contentious, and criminal quest for sex, power, and money.
Andrew Rippin realized that “the language is only semi-poetical while its grammar, due to omission, is so elliptical as to be obscure and ambiguous. There is constant grammatical discord with the use of plural verbs and singular subjects – something we’d expect of a child just learning to speak – along with many variations in the treatment of the gender nouns, such as in Quran 002.177, 003.059, 004.162, 005.069, 007.160, and 063.010. Many times, sentences are incomplete because the verbs are missing. The Quran is replete with dangling modifiers. The subjects and objects of stilted and contrived conversations are seldom identified. Credible explanations are few and far between. As a result, the Quran is difficult to read and impossible to comprehend,” Dr. Rippin surmised.
Professor Rippin explained, “As an example, Quran 003.060 omits the words ‘This is.’ The verse reads: ‘the truth from your Lord, so be not from those who doubt.’ But it gets worse. The Arabic word rendered ‘doubt’ is ‘momtreen.’ It is not used anywhere else in the Arabic language except in this verse. Imams are clueless as to what momtreen means so the translators simply guessed ‘doubt.’ In Quran 007.160, ‘fanbagesat’ is a nonexistent, and thus meaningless, word, as well.
“Similarly, al Sa’boon’ in Quran 005.069 isn’t a word. The only place it’s used in the Arabic language is in this one verse. No one knows what al Sa’boon means. And there are a hundred more mystery ‘words’ like these,” according to the diligent and esteemed Islamic scholar.
127Andrew Rippin added, “The oft-quoted and superficially tolerant verse, ‘Surely, those who believe and those who are Jews, Sabians and Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works good, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve,’ (Quran 005.069) was abrogated and is, therefore, meaningless. Affirming this, the editors of The Noble Quran wrote: ‘This verse should not be misinterpreted. It was abrogated by Quran 3:85 [which is impossible since the 3rd surah was revealed before the 5th surah]. After the coming of Prophet Muhammad no other religion except Islam will be accepted from anyone.’” In other words, the Quran not only contradicts itself, it does so on matters which are essential to its existence.
Dr. Rippin wrote, “An example of a grammatical error can be found in Quran 063.011: ‘ethny asher asbatan’ according to Arabic grammar rules should be: ‘ethny asher sebtan’ not ‘asbatan.’ As it was written it says: ‘Allah will not delay in taking a soul in it is time.’ He meant to say: ‘when it dies.’”
These aren’t the only problems. Patricia Crone explained, “Within blocks of verses trivial dislocations are surprisingly frequent. Allah may appear in the first and third persons in the same sentence. There are omissions, which if not made good by interpretation, render the sense unintelligible.”
In response to these failures, which are prevalent throughout the Quran, Islamic apologists protest and claim that the omissions and irregularities were rhetorical devices rather than evidence of rushed or sloppy writing. It’s another Islamic first: the Quran is so poorly written only the Islamic god could have bungled it.
Sir William Muir discovered, “Al-Kindi, a Christian polemicist employed in the Caliphal court, had discussions with Muslims as early as 830 CE, immediately after the Quran was canonized based upon the historical evidence. He seemed to understand the agenda and the problem. 128Anticipating the claim that the Quran was being postured as proof of its divine inspiration, he responded by saying, ‘The result of all of this process by which the Quran has come into being is that it’s patently obvious to those who have read these scriptures that your histories are all jumbled together and intermingled. It is evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. As such, the conditions are right for a new revelation to be sent down from heaven.’”
Al-Kindi’s early 9th-century pronouncement concurs with the conclusion of Professor John Wansbrough over eleven hundred years later. Both maintain that the Quran was the result of a haphazard compilation by later redactors a century or more after the alleged revelation.
Another difficulty with the Quran is its scope. Some verses state that it is a book only for Arabs, such as in Quran 014.004,, 042.007, 043.003, and 046.012, while others imply that it is a revelation for all mankind, citing Quran 034.028 and 033.040. This also speaks to the problem of choosing Arabic. If God wanted to effectively communicate with humankind in the 7th century, continuing in Hebrew or changing to Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Coptic would have been vastly superior choices.
Insightfully, Dr. Patricia Crone realized, “There were other people in existence at that time, who lived close by and have left us material which we can use to evaluate the Quran. The non-Muslim evidence is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Coptic literature from the time of the conquests in the 7th century onwards.” To this, Yehuda Nevo added, “We also have a large body of Arabic inscriptions which pre-date the Muslim Traditions. Yet, these materials all contradict the Islamic Hadith and Quran.”
129This evidence devastates the Quranic claims of divine inspiration. If Muslims wish to promote Islam outside of its core constituency, they will need to come up with an explanation for these historical repudiations. Attacking the messengers who prove them wrong while putting their heads in the sand will not suffice.
For example, Patricia Crone discovered, “A papyrus dated to the mid-7th century CE addresses the year ‘twenty-two,’ suggesting that something happened in 622 CE. This coincides with the year of the Hijra according to Islamic Traditions.” By demonstrating that a pseudo-Arabic form of writing existed within four or five decades of Muhammad’s exodus from Petra to Yathrib, it demonstrates that a fragment could have survived from that period. “So,” Dr. Crone asked, “since we have this meaningless fragment, why don’t we have even a single document referencing the supposedly much more meaningful Quran or Hadith?”
Addressing Patricia Crone’s and Michael Cook’s research during his Cambridge debate, Dr. Jay Smith announced, “Crone found interesting support for a Hijra outside Arabia. She documented 57 attestations that came from within and without the Muslim Tradition, which point to a Hijra, or exodus, not from Mecca to Medina, but from more prominent places to garrison cities in the north. And much of what we have learned in the interim, parallels and corroborates her findings.” The Sunnah and Quran are not the only things that disappear as we probe the sands of time. There is no evidence for Mecca either.
According to archaeological research carried out by K.A.C. Creswell and James W. Allan in their examination of early Muslim architecture, and confirmed by Crone and Cook, the floorplans of the Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit (the oldest surviving mosque), and another attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblahs (the direction the mosques 130face to accommodate prayer) which do not point to Mecca, but are oriented far to the north. The Wasit and Baghdad mosques are off by 33 and 30 degrees, respectively.
The Qiblah of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, which was constructed around 670 CE, lies to the west when it should have pointed almost directly south. The original floor plan of the Fustat mosque of Amr b. al As, outside Cairo, shows a Qiblah pointed too far north. In fact, there is no early mosque with a Qiblah pointing to Mecca. They are all directed south of Jerusalem in the vicinity of Petra. Yet Muslims, ever ready with an excuse, say one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques have misdirected Qiblahs. But if the first Muslims were so incapable of ascertaining directions, why would they all point to a singular location south of Jerusalem?
We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian traveler Jacob of Edessa, who wrote in Syriac as early as 705 CE. In a letter, which can be found in the British Museum, he refers to the Mahgraye (the name applied to Muslims before the creation of the Quran and Hadith in the 8th century), saying, “It is clear that it is not to the south that Jews and Mahgraye here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards Jerusalem their Ka’aba, the patriarchal places of their races.”
This is devastating for Islam. If there is no historical or archeological evidence for the existence of a 7th-century Quran ordaining Mecca, or even evidence of a 7th-century Mecca, what is left of Muhammad and Islam besides blood, taxes, fables, and folklore?
Research carried out by Patricia Carlier on the Umayyad Caliphal summer palaces notes that the mosques at these palaces also had Qiblahs pointing south of Jerusalem. According to Dr. Gerald Hawting, who lectures on Islam at the University of London, “No mosques have been found from the 7th century which face towards 131Mecca.” And yet, the Quran devotes a score of verses on the importance of what is assumed to be Mecca as the only acceptable Qiblah but then calls that change of Qiblah to Mecca sometime later a difficult test for Muslims.
According to Crone, Cook, Carlier, and Hawting, Creswell, Allan, and Fehervari, the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Syria and Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary just south of Jerusalem and well north of Mecca. And this means that they point to the crumbling relic of Petra.
Muslims may argue that perhaps the early Muslims didn’t know the direction of Mecca. But weren’t these desert traders caravanners? Wouldn’t their livelihood be dependent upon navigating the desert which has few landmarks or roads? They should have known how to follow the stars since their lives depended on it. Surely they knew the difference between North and South.
Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built by civilized societies that had been adept at orienting shrines to precise astronomical directions for several thousand years. If they miscalculated their Qiblahs by so many degrees they couldn’t have performed the obligatory Hajj.
Muslims maintain that Mecca, or “Bakkah,” as the case may be, is the center of Islam, and the center of history. “It’s Allah’s Home on Earth.” According to Quran 003.096: “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was at Bakkah, full of blessing, a guidance for men and jinn.” So why, do you suppose that this name is spelled “Bakkah” if Mecca is so important – particularly when Bakkah in Lebanon was so well known?
In Quran 006.092, the “Book” and the “Town” are so essential that Allah forgot to provide either name. Quran 006.092: “And this is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming which came before it, so that you may warn the Mother 132of Towns and all those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in and they are constant in guarding their Salat | Prostrations.”
Therefore, Allah’s little helpers slaving away in Medina for the Faud monarchs produced an expanded version of Quran 006.092 to resolve Allah’s omissions: “And this (the Quran) is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming (the revelations) which came before it, so that you may warn the Mother of Towns (i.e. Makkah) and all those around it. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in (the Quran) and they are constant in guarding their Salat (prayers).”
Not only were the names of the “Book” and the “Town” omitted, but the object of “believed in” was unidentified. Further, what is it that “Allah” “sent down confirming which came before it”? Recognizing that his “it,” if that is to be interpreted as an actual “book,” was never offered, why was the name of that which “it” was allegedly confirming omitted – especially if that was the point?
Elsewhere, when the “prior revelation” is identified, we are told that Allah’s imaginary “book” confirmed the Tawrat / Torah and Injil / Gospel. However, if it simply confirmed them, where are those confirmations since they do not exist in the Quran? And why bother with these oral renditions since the Towrah and Gospels were retained in written form, well attested, 2,000 years before the Quran? Why are the God’s / god’s names different, Yahowah and Iesous Christos in the Towrah and Gospels versus Rahman and Allah in the Quran? Was someone having an identity crisis or a senior moment? Why does the New Testament attempt to annul and repudiate the Towrah if the message is supposed to be the same? And why, speaking of conflicting messages, would the Quran be so divergent from what is conveyed in the Towrah if one confirmed the other?
133The scholars we have been considering typically take one of two approaches regarding the myths associated with Mecca. Some simply parrot the Quran’s claims since they are so meaningless, while others are careful to note that a town of this description didn’t exist in the early 7th century.
Since we are committed to knowing what can be deduced from the Quran, it was in the 3rd Suratun that we were told that Islamic Ib’rahima set up the first house for mankind in Bakkata, and that it was a blessed guidance for the worlds. But since this sounds too grandiose and delusional even for the Snake playing God, let’s check it out in context.
This section of the surah begins chastising the Jews who had sold the non-prophet the recitals he was using to comprise his Suratuns…
Quran 003.078 Lo, among them, verily, a group they distort their tongues in the writing (book) so that you may think it from the writing (book) and not it from the writing (book). And they say, ‘It from al-Lahi,’ but not is from al-Lahi. And they say about al-Lahi the lie while they know.
When we read something this ridiculous, we are left to wonder whether al-Lahi was brazen and didn’t care if anyone fact-checked his recitals by comparing them to the original written text. Was he this unaware of the credibility difference between an oral and written account or did he think Muslims would remain oblivious? Even if the Jews had misread their books to Muhammad, it wouldn’t have been an excuse since their religious fables were integrated into the Quran. Further, when we see how the twisting of their stories universally served Islam by replicating Muhammad’s ordeals in 7th-century Arabia, it is unlikely to the point of being absurd to think that they were altered by the rabbis rather than the non-prophet.
As the Adversary, with a long history of working against God’s people, al-Lahi should have known what was 134actually written in the Towrah and, therefore, been able to accurately replicate it. But he didn’t, and since the pro-Islamic deviations from the older written texts are ubiquitous throughout the Quran, it means that the gross perversions were deliberate. And worse, rather than accept responsibility for their misappropriations, indeed, shenanigans, Satan and the Devil’s Advocate shirked responsibility and cast aspersions against the genesis of their malfeasance.
Quran 003.079 Not is for a basar | human, flesh, or meat that gives him al-Lahu the writing (book) and al-huk’ma | the restrainer and authority in command (the wisdom) and the prophethood then he says to the people, ‘Be worshippers of me from besides al-Lahi,’ but be worshippers of the Lord because you have been teaching the writing (book) and because you have been studying. Quran 003.080 Not he will order you that you take the angels and the prophets arbaban | lords. Would he order you to the disbelief after when you Muslims? Quran 003.081 When took al-Lahu mithaqa | binding contract the prophets, lo, whatever I given you of writing (book) and al-huk’ma | the restrainer of authority in command (wisdom) then comes to you a Rasuli confirming that which with you, you must believe in him and you must help him. He said, ‘Do you affirm and take on that Is’ri | My Criminal Burden.’ They said, ‘We affirm.” He said, ‘Then bear witness and I with you among the witnesses.’ Quran 003.082 Then whoever turns away after that, then those the defiantly disobedient. Quran 003.083 So is other than religion of al-Lahi they seek? While lahu | to Him aslama | submitted whatever in the heavens and the earth willingly or unwillingly. And towards Him they will be returned.”
Since Satan doesn’t want Muslims to realize that he isn’t actually God, he claims a lot of ridiculous things such as being “the All-Mighty, All-Hearing, All-Seeing, All-Knowing, and All-Powerful on Everything, the Lord of the Worlds,” and, of course, “No god but He.” So now that he has made a mess of the Talmud stories he included within the Quran, he is pretending that, as a god, his recitals could not have come from the Jews he accused of selling them to 135him. But perhaps that was his ploy in calling Jews “apes and swine,” such that they would not have been “human.”
One can only guess what “Be worshippers of me from besides al-Lahi,” might mean, especially when attributed to those who were teaching from the book he was misappropriating. Adding insult to injury, the dumbest god in the long history of pretend deities insisted that he had the Jews mithaq | fettered and bound to a contract with the prophets, even though he cannot provide a single prophecy for his special Rasuli. He even has the audacity to propose that he gave the book to those he terrorized so that Muslims could rape, rob, enslave, and annihilate them. And yet, he cannot produce a single written sentence for his Messenger. He even proposes that his perverted rants confirm the written record he has twisted to serve his proprietary interests. Is the Islamic un-god insane, stupid, or deliberately beguiling?
En route to the Bakka Valley, il-Lahi wants to weave the Islamic Abraham into his story. However, he bungles that too because the message revealed to him and his son, Yitschaq, and grandson, Ya’aqob, and to us through them, is that we were created to participate in the Beryth | Covenant Family with Yahowah. It represents the means to approach Yahowah and benefit from Him. In the Bare’syth | Genesis presentation, we learn that there are five conditions which are rewarded by five benefits. At the same time, we discover that Ishmael, Esau, and Satan do not belong.
Quran 003.084 Say, ‘We believed in il-Lahi and what revealed on us and what was revealed on Ib’rahima and Is’ma’ila, and Is’haqa, and Ya’quba and the descendants and what was given Musa and ‘Isa and al-nabiyuna | the prophets from Rabbihim | their Lord. Not we make distinction between any of them and we lahu | to Him Mus’limuna | submissive muslims. Quran 003.085 And whoever seeks other than al-Islaami | the Islam religion, then never will be accepted from him and he in the after from the losers.
136There is no al- or il-Lahi/hu/ha or rabbi mentioned in the Towrah, although his depraved character and propensity to misappropriate God’s testimony, as he is doing here, is introduced through the nachash | serpent in the Garden. As a statement of fact, everything that can be known, deduced, and understood about ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob pertaining to the Beryth | Family Covenant Relationship was revealed in Bare’syth | Genesis – the opening book of Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance. In that it is the most frequently read and best-maintained book of antiquity, Satan should have been able to convey their story correctly and present their names accurately, especially recognizing that Arabic is a bastardized version of Hebrew. And yet, one of the most relevant lessons was lost on him. The first to be expressly and irrevocably excluded from the Covenant was Yshma’‘el | God Listen to Me, the forefather of Islam, followed by ‘Esa’ow | Hairy, which is Caesar in Latin, serving as a harbinger of Rome and Roman Catholicism.
This is a dual problem for Islam because Muhammad claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael and the Quran cannot decide which son “Ibrahim” brought with him, where he took him, or why – while Yahowah is emphatic. Second, the Quran’s misnomer, ‘Iesa, is an Arabic transliteration of ‘Esa’ow, the first man Yahowah openly despised for his attitude and choices.
The Quranic order was wrong as usual. Yahowah provided naby’ | prophets from 1447 to 447 BCE, from Moseh to Mal’aky. There were none immediately preceding nor following the mythos associated with Jesus.
The reason ill-Lahi wants his rasuli to say that “we make no distinction between any of them” is because they have replaced them with Islamic counterfeits – forgeries. By changing every individual purloined from the Towrah into mini-Muhammad’s in Arabia, they are the same. Il-Lahi turned them into Mus’limuna | his submissives in the 137dina | religion of al-Islaami | capitulating and surrendering as submissive slaves. He would take the Children of Yisra’el back into bondage.
This next statement affirms that Islam had lost its appeal after the debacle at Uhud, just as it had following the War of Words leading to the Slaughtering Statement, Idolatrous Indulgence, Satanic Verses, and the fabled flight of the Donk-Mule to al-Aqsa Mosque. Muslims were fleeing like lice on a camel carcass burning in a fire…
Quran 003.086 How guide al-Lahu a people disbelieved after their belief and witnessed that al-Rasula true and came to them the clear proofs. And al-Lahu not guide the people al-zalim | cruel lords and oppressive tyrants. Quran 003.087 Those, their recompense that on them curse al-Lahi and the angels and the people all together. Quran 003.088 Abide forever in it. Not will be lightened for them the punishment and not they will find a reprieve or intermission. Quran 003.089 Except those who repent from after that and reformed themselves. Then, lo, al-Laha oft-forgiving, Rahim. Quran 003.090 Verily, those who disbelieved after their belief then they increased disbelief. Never will be accepted their repentance and those they those who have gone astray. Quran 003.091 Verily, those who disbelieved and died while they disbelievers then never will be accepted from any one of them full earth (of) gold and if he offered as ransom it. Those for them a painful and agonizing punishment and not for them any helpers. Quran 003.092 Never will you attain the right until you spend from what you desire. And whatever you spend of a thing, then lo, al-Laha of it knowing.”
The object of al-Lahu’s scorn has migrated from the Christians and then Jews who rejected him to apostate Muslims. The un-god was in a devilish predicament. If he didn’t coax his surviving slaves back into submission, such that they were funding and fighting his war against humankind, all of the bragging and blood would be for naught. So, he lied all the more and then threatened believers, cursing the Muslims who didn’t want to die murdering for booty. But in Islam, morality would not be 138tolerated. Ethical people exercising good judgment would be punished along with disbelievers.
Then, as was his propensity, ill-Lahi contradicted himself and said he would readmit submissives who recanted their freedom. The dark spirit would eat crow because he needed malcontents to spread the poison and envenomate others for him. But since this admission made him appear impotent and needy, in the next line, he recanted his reprieve because he was too conceited to accept anyone who didn’t swoon and prostrate in his presence. Hypocritically, the un-god claimed that he wouldn’t accept a planet of precious metals as a ransom from the dead while at the same time, begging the living for money. He denied helpers while pleading for them. As the consummate thief, he told those who had plundered others with his permission that they must surrender what they stole to him. Then, in the midst of a mental hiccup, he lost track of what he had been harping on and scolded the Children of Yisra’el for being kosher…
Quran 003.093 All the food was lawful for Children Is’raila | Israel except what made haram | unlawful Israel upon himself from before that revealed al-Tawratu | the Taurat. Say, ‘So bring il-Tawrati | the Taurat and recite it if you are truthful.’
There is no such thing as “lawful” food in the Towrah, nor did the notion of haram exist prior to Islam. Yahowah presented a number of animals that could be safely consumed and were good to eat, and some, like swine and shellfish, that could be hazardous to our wellbeing. His advice has proven wise.
The Lord of Lies lies about lying. If it were not for delusions and deceptions, the Quran wouldn’t exist. And the biggest lies of all are the absurd notion that Allah is God and that his Quran confirms the Towrah.
Quran 003.094 Then whoever fabricates about al-Lahi the lie from after that then those they al-zalim | cruel lords. Quran 003.095 139Say, ‘Spoken the truth, al-Lahu, then follow religion Ib’rahima upright and not was of al-mush’rikina | the polytheist criminals.
This was untrue and it was followed by another lie. ‘Abraham had a Father and son relationship with Yahowah; he was not religious. In fact, the only reason that he was invited to participate in the Covenant was because he had walked away from Babel | the intermixing of religion and politics permeating Babylon.
Further, Islam’s Ibrahim was a polytheist and criminal according to what was said about him in the Quran and Hadith. So, Allah was continuing to lie about lying. This becomes ever more apparent as we move on to the next verse because there was but one Bakka (also transliterated Beqaa, Bekaa, and Becaa) in the vicinity – the Beqaa Valley in northeastern Lebanon. It was known to the Yisra’elites because Dowd had written about it. And while I cannot say which Neandertal built the first house in the valley, the oldest surviving building is a very impressive, Grecian-style Temple to the Roman God Bacchus (formerly Dionysus). It was erected in various stages between 300 BCE and 150 CE on the foundation of an older temple in, of all places, Baalbek – which means “Lord and Master of Beka.”
The Temple of Jupiter Baal resides in the same complex. It is colossal, the largest Roman temple in the world. It was built six centuries before Allah was invented and seven hundred years before the Ka’aba appeared in Mecca. While Allah’s House is a puny and unimpressive cube, 10 to 12 meters at its base and 15 meters tall, without any distinguishing features, the largest of the ancient Roman Temples was an attractive 88 by 44 meters at the base and was flanked by 24 monoliths and 58 columns 20 meters tall. The apex of its elaborately carved pediment was 44 meters above the floor of the court. The staircase alone dwarfed Allah’s rock house, measuring 48 by 88 meters. Therefore, the home of the Lord Ba’al in Bakka 140predated the Ka’aba by at least 600 years and was so massive, the Ka’aba by comparison would have served as an outhouse. Allah is out of his league. The Ka’aba is so uninspiring, it has to be hidden behind black drapes. It has the architectural appeal of a misshapen rockpile.
The Bakka Valley was an important pilgrimage site in the ancient world, serving devotees of the sky-god Baal | the Lord and his consort, Astarte (also venerated as Asherah), the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God in the Phoenician religion. Allah, of course, refers to himself as “the Lord,” Muhammad venerated Asherah Day, and the goddess is the basis of the mythology attributed to “Mary, blessed Mother of Jesus” in Christianity and Islam. So, this is yet another enormous blunder.
Even worse, since Allah is represented by a shattered black stone of modest size, by comparison, there are six Baalbek Stones which are characterized as megalithic gigantism of unparalleled antiquity in the Roman iteration of the Temple to Jupiter Baal on the Heliopolitan Zeus. They weigh up to three million pounds apiece, representing the largest stones ever quarried by man.
Also noteworthy, Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian Temples predate Allah’s rock hut by 5,000 years. They dwarf it in size and they outclass it in architectural style and grandeur. Nonetheless…
Quran 003.096 “Lo, first house set up for the mankind the one which at Bakkata. Blessed and a guidance for the worlds. Quran 003.097 In it signs clear standing place Ib’rahima and whoever enters it is safe. And to Lillahi upon the mankind hijju al-bayti | Hajj the House who is able to it a way. And whoever disbelieved then lo, verily al-Laha free from need of the universe.”
‘Abraham wasn’t in Bakka, Mecca, Petra, Yathrib, or anywhere else Satan wants to place him. He went to Mowryah to affirm the Covenant with Yahowah. There was no Islamic hajj to Bakka, either – or any association 141with Allah. The pretend gods of Bakka were prime-time operators with international renown.
As for this Snake, if he was so independent, why did he beg for funds and fighters? The notion that the Lord is free of the universe is ludicrous, because without it, he has no book, believers, slaves, annihilators, garden brothel, or hellish fires. There wouldn’t be any Jews either, and thus no one to plunder for Quran recitals or booty.
Quran 003.098 Say, ‘O People the Book, why you disbelieve in ayat | signs, proofs, and verses al-Lahi?’ And al-Lahu a witness over what you do?
Had he not killed them, their answer would have been that Allah was not credible. Everything associated with these recitals and the disgusting behaviors of Muhammad and Muslims pointed to a single, rationally undeniable conclusion: al-Lahi/hu/ha was not God. There hasn’t been a shred of evidence otherwise. And had the un-god actually been a witness, he wouldn’t have asked the question.
Quran 003.099 Say, ‘O People the Book why you hinder from way and cause of al-Lahi who believed seeking it crooked while you witnesses?’ Not al-Lahu unaware of what you do.
Let us count the ways: Allah was stealing their God, their history, homes, land, assets, right to exist, women, and children, then threatening to torture them forever in hell. That would normally be enough to elicit a negative response, so the question should have been: is al-Lahu aware of what he’s saying and doing?
Since that didn’t bode well for a Ka’aba in Mecca, let’s turn to the Ash-Shura | The Counsel and consider how the millionth settlement on Earth might have been called “the Mother of Towns.” The narrative begins…
Quran 042.001-002 Ha Mem Ain Sin Qaf (These letters are a miracle of the Quran and only Allah knows the meaning).
142The only miracle is that billions believe this imbecilic amalgamation of self-indulgence is divine. An illiterate spirit would have his slaves believe that this wholly deficient oratory is sublime because five Hebrew letters have been randomly strewn together. And it is a miracle of the Quran because they believe it is a sign of their god’s superior intellect as opposed to literary deficiency.
However, should you be curious, Heh Mem as ham or hem are words in Hebrew. Ham means “hot and sunburnt” which could have the Snake complaining about the Arabian weather. And hem speaks of “verbosity, which is babel with an abundance of clamor.” That is also fitting considering what we have encountered.
As for Ayin Sin Qoph, as ‘asaq it means “to be contentious and quarrelsome” which accurately depicts the text of the Quran. And ‘ashaq describes Allah’s preference, which is “to violently oppress, to deceitfully defraud, and to wrongfully extort.”
Quran 042.003-006 Thus reveals to you and to those from before you al-Lahu | the to-Him, the mighty, the wise. Lahu | To him whatever in the heavens and whatever in the earth and he the most-high, the great. Nearly the heavens break up from above them (by his majesty), and the angels glorify praises of their Lord, and ask for forgiveness for those on the earth. Lo, al-Laha the covering over, the merciful. And those who take from besides al-Lahu protectors, a guard over them. And you are not a warden over them.
This was a waste of breath the first time it was uttered, and now, with repetition, it has become irritating. Nonetheless, this over-indulgent Serpent is so impressed with his magnificence that he is claiming the sky was about to give way and crumble under the enormity of his unbridled splendor. Unaware that spirits, even dark and demented ones, have no mass, this Snake would have his slaves believe that the universe was bursting at the seams around him.
143Satan even claims that no one can wali | protect themselves from his bite. And while the Devil’s Advocate isn’t afforded the coveted title of Hell’s Warden, the angels are assigned as guards to prevent al-Lahu’s prey from escaping. Such is the message of the Quran.
Quran 042.007 Thus We have sent down to you a Qur’anan | Quran that you may warn umma al-qura | mother, leader, or community of the cities, towns, or entertaining guests and whoever around it. And warn Day of Assembly. No doubt in it. A party in al-Janati | Garden of Demons and a party in the Fire.
No Quran was ever sent down and the umma al-qura is a sick joke. In a region where cities like Jerusalem, Beirut, Byblos, Damascus, Tyre, and Kandahar have been continuously occupied since 3,000 BCE, and the first evidence of Mecca existing dates to 700 CE, Allah is out of his mind. The oldest communities within the region were home to thousands of inhabitants as early as 7000 BCE, including Ain Ghazal and Beidha in Jordan and Catalhoyuk in Turkey.
At this point, the only rational deduction would be that al-Lahu couldn’t string ten words together without making a grammatical mistake.
Quran 042.008 And if willed al-Lahu wanted, he could have made them a purpose or leader, even a mother (community) one, but he enters whom he wants in his Rahim. And the cruel subjugators and oppressors, not for them any protector and not any helper. Quran 042.009 Or have they taken from besides him protectors. But al-Lahu, he, the protector. And he gives life to the dead. And he on every thing powerful. Quran 042.010 And whatever you differ in it of a thing, then its ruling to al-Lahi. That al-Lahu, Rabbi | my Lord, upon him I put my trust and to him I turn.
“We” is schizophrenic, a disorder which is prevalent among psychopaths, having inexplicitly transitioned from third-person singular to third-person plural one sentence to the next. He’s incredulous, too, recognizing that the 144“Mother of the Towns” was not named because neither Petra nor Mecca had either long histories or spawned other communities. Petra was about to be swallowed by sand, and Mecca had not yet been carved out of it. By comparison, Ur, Sumer would have been a good candidate, as it preceded even Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem, and its influence was far-reaching. But Petra would not shine under the Nabateans until 100 BCE, and even then, it was resolutely pagan. And Mecca wouldn’t rise from the scorching sands until 700 CE when the Ka’aba was relocated. And if Islam was her child, it was a miscarriage.
Al-Lahu’s Day of Assembly is a nonstarter. Satan has been threatening disbelievers with it for fourteen centuries to no avail. The disintegrated bones, ligaments, and flesh, the former brains, hearts, lungs, veins, nerves, eyes, and ears of deceased human corpses will never be reassembled and reanimated, replete with souls. It was all bluster.
Ever the hypocrite, the Devil who admitted that he was the Great Subjugator of his slaves, continues to attack those who rival him as al-zalimuna | cruel tyrants, subjugators, and oppressors. Quran translators would have Muslims believe that zalim speaks of “disbelievers and wrong-doers,” but that simply isn’t true. And if it were, the “crime” wouldn’t fit the punishment. Further, repeating a lie does not make it true.
Quran 042.011 Creator the heavens and the earth. He made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle mates. By this means he creates you. There is nothing like unto him. And he the hearer, the seer. Quran 042.012 Lahu | to him keys of the heavens and the earth. He extends the provision for whom he wills and restricts. Lo, he of every thing knower.”
Written 200 to 300 years after this was recited to backfill the voids in the Quran, ahadith claim that Adam placed the Black Stone in the Ka’aba, while according to Quran 002.125, it was Ibrahim and Ishmael who built the Ka’aba. Thus, by implication, Muslims consider Mecca to 145be the Mother of Towns – which is high praise for a pile of rocks in a wadi. However, there is no documentary or archaeological evidence to suggest that Abraham went to Mecca. In fact, there is no evidence the little town existed before the creation of the Quran and Hadith in Baghdad during the 8th century.
According to the research carried out by Crone and Cook, the first and only pre-Islamic allusion to a town some have mistakenly thought was Mecca is a reference to a community called ‘Makoraba’ by the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy in the mid-2nd century CE. On closer examination, however, it is highly unlikely that this citation by Ptolemy referred to Mecca because the three Arabic root letters for Mecca (MKK) do not correspond with the three Arabic root letters for Makoraba (KRB). This is because the letters “ma,” which precede “koraba,” signify “the place of” and not the name of the community. And should Koraba have been the intended site, why can’t Allah spell the name correctly?
With that report discredited, there is no other mention of Mecca or its Ka’aba in any authenticated ancient document prior to the 8th century. In fact, based on the research of Crone and Cook, “The earliest references are those found in a Syriac version of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius. However, while the narrative on the Apocalypse dates to the very late 7th century, the references to Mecca are only found in much more recent copies. They are not present in the European or older Syrian traditions, and make no appearance in the Vatican Codex, which is considered by etymologists to be the earliest text.”
The next allusion to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica. It dates from the reign of the Caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 CE. Therefore, the earliest corroborative evidence we have for the existence of Muhammad’s hometown is a century after Islam was allegedly formed – and thirty years after the Ka’aba was 146relocated. If it had been such an important city, someone, somewhere would have mentioned it, and yet we find nothing prior to the middle of the 8th century.
How is it possible that no trace of three of Islam’s four most enduring symbols – Mecca, the Quran, and the Sunnah – can be found dating to Muhammad’s time? The trail simply vanishes the closer one gets – like a mirage.
For Muslims, the dilemma gets worse. Their scriptures rip apart at the seams if Mecca wasn’t a thriving trade center. Otherwise, Muhammad and Allah wouldn’t have been justified in rebuking the Quraysh for their money-grubbing behavior. If the Meccans weren’t rolling in riches while neglecting the needy, the Quran’s first 90 surahs serve no purpose. If Mecca wasn’t on a major trading route, if the Quraysh weren’t mighty merchants, if Allah’s Ka’aba wasn’t something special, then the Quran and Sunnah are tales of a plundering and raping terrorist, nothing more.
Trying to salvage their illusions, Muslims maintain that Mecca was a great and prosperous city, a thriving commercial center at the crossroads of world trade – a bustling metropolis on par with Jerusalem. Yet, according to historical and archeological research, none of that is true. Dr. Richard Bulliet of Columbia University, an expert on the history of trade in the ancient Middle East, came to the conclusion that Mecca wasn’t on any trading route. The reason for this, he contends, is: “Mecca is tucked away at the edge of the Peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads for any north-south traffic, and it could never have been used going from east to west.”
His findings are corroborated by the research of Groom and Muller, who contend that Mecca simply could not have been on a trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural course. In fact, they maintain the 147trade route must have bypassed Mecca by some one hundred miles. A great distance across jagged mountains and searing desert sands.
Patricia Crone, in her Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, adds a practical reason that is too often overlooked. “Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts. This is especially true when there are famously green environments close by. Why should caravans have made a steep descent into the barren valley of Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if? Mecca may have had a modest well and humble sanctuary, but Ta’if not only had vastly superior ones, they had a ready food supply, too. Furthermore,” Dr. Crone reports, “there was no commodity available in Arabia that could be transported such a distance, through such an inhospitable environment, and still be sold at a profit large enough to support the growth of a city in a peripheral site bereft of natural resources.”
As the most credible researcher on the subject, Professor Crone points out, “Some Muslims maintain it was famous for camel herding; yet that’s not possible in a barren environment.” Jay Smith augmented her findings by stating, “According to the latest research by Kister and Sprenger, the Arabs engaged in the trade of leather and clothing; hardly items which could have founded a commercial empire of international dimensions. Moreover, Mecca couldn’t have been a center for either as there was insufficient pasture and water for animals or crops. But the real problem with Mecca is that there simply was no international trade taking place in Arabia, let alone in Mecca, in the centuries prior to Muhammad’s birth.”
Greek and Roman trade between India and the Mediterranean was entirely maritime after the 1st century CE. One need only look at a map to understand why. It made no sense to ship goods across such distances by land when waterways were available to serve the purpose.
148Patricia Crone shares, “In Diocletian’s Rome, it was cheaper to ship wheat 1,250 miles by sea than to transport it 50 miles by land. The distance from Najran, Yemen in the south, to Gaza in the north was roughly 1,250 miles. Why would the traders ship their goods from India by sea, only to unload them in Aden and put on the backs of much slower and more expensive camels to trudge across the inhospitable Arabian desert to Gaza? As capitalists, wouldn’t they have left their goods on their ships and followed the Red Sea route up the west coast of Arabia?’
There were other problems as well. Greco-Roman trade collapsed by the 3rd century CE, so that by Muhammad’s time there simply was no overland route and no Roman market to which the trade was destined. Of even more significance, the Romans and Greeks to whom the trade went, had never heard of a place called Mecca. If, according to the Islamic Hadith, Mecca was so important, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, we find nothing.
Dr. Crone wrote, “Greek trading documents refer to the towns of Ta’if (which is close to present-day Mecca), and to Yathrib (later Medina), as well as Khaybar in the north, but no mention is ever made of Mecca. Even the Persian Sassanids, who had incursions into Arabia between 300 and 570 CE, mentioned the towns of Yathrib and Tihama, but not Mecca.”
The fact is, the overland route was not used after the 1st century CE, it certainly was not in use in the 5th or 6th centuries. And much of what has been written concerning Mecca should have been corrected long before now.
We are left in a quandary. Since Mecca was not the great commercial center the Muslim Traditions would have us believe, since it was not known by the people who lived and wrote during that period, and, since it could not have been an active trading hub during the time of Muhammad, 149it could not have been the center of the Muslim world or home to the Ka’aba.
The only cities that were known to exist at the time within this region were Talif, Yathrib, and Petra. And since the early Qiblahs, and the description of the place in the Quran and Hadith, all point to one of these three cities, Islam was born in the crumbling ruins of Petra.
Having seen three of Islam’s four most enduring symbols vanish, Muslims are about to lose the fourth. Apart from the Sunnah, Muhammad is yet another mirage. “The earliest Islamic documents,” according to Dr. John Wansbrough, “say nothing of Muhammad’s supposed role as a prophet. The Maghazi, comprised of stories of his raids and campaigns, are among the earliest Islamic documents we possess. Yet they tell us little about Muhammad’s life or teachings. In fact, nowhere in these documents is there a veneration of Muhammad as a prophet!” Additionally, in the earliest comprehensive history of Muhammad’s life, Ishaq’s Sira steadfastly refrains from calling Muhammad a “prophet.” We are back to faith in myths, fables, and legends – none of which are appealing.
The most prolific artifacts from Muhammad’s time are rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Arabian Peninsula, especially in the Negev in southern Israel. The man who has done the most research on these rock inscriptions is Yehuda Nevo. In his Towards a Prehistory of Islam, he explains that the Arab religious carvings dating from this period show a monotheistic creed. However, he contends that this creed “is demonstrably not Islam, but a dogma from which Islam could have developed.” Sounds like we are back to Tubba al Karib of the Himyarite Kingdom, as the real Muhammad, and the Arab converts to Judaism among the Sabeans as the first Muslims.
150Nevo found: “In the Arab religious documents during the Sufyani period of 661 to 684 CE, there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad. Neither the name Muhammad nor any Muhammadan formulae (that he was the prophet or Messenger of Allah) appears in any inscription dated to the 7th century. This is true whether the purpose of the inscription is religious, or whether it was used as a commemorative carving.”
Since the Sira, Tarikh, and Hadith, which collectively comprise the Sunnah, are made up of hearsay narratives allegedly pertaining to Muhammad’s life, making him the example all Muslims must follow, why don’t we find this same emphasis in earlier Arabic inscriptions which are closer to the time he lived? Even more troubling, why is there no mention of him at all? His name isn’t found until the 8th century. What’s more, the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad Rasul Allah | Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah was discovered on a Sassanian coin of Xalid from the year 690, which was struck in Damascus, not Arabia.
The first occurrence of what Nevo calls the ‘Triple Confession of Faith,’ which includes the Tawhid (Allah is one), the phrase, Muhammad Rasul Allah, and Allah Wa-Abduhu, affirming that Allah has no friends or coworkers, is in Jerusalem, not Arabia. Before this inscription, the Muslim confession cannot be attested.”
Nevo explains, “Religious content on rock inscriptions does not become pronounced until after 700 CE. And though they bear religious messages, they don’t mention Muhammad or his peculiar message. This means that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or his claim to being a prophet within 100 years or more after his death. What they did contain was a monotheistic form of belief, belonging to a certain body of sectarian literature heavily infused with Judaism in a 151particular literary style, but one which contained none of the trappings of Islam.”
Yehuda Nevo stated, “The Muhammadan formulae only began to be used on rock inscriptions of the Negev around 740 CE. And even these,” according to Nevo, “though they are Muhammadan, are not Muslim. The Muslim texts only begin to appear at the beginning of the 9th century, around 820 CE, coinciding with the first written Qurans and Sunnah compilations.”
The terms “Muslim” and ‘Islam” are also an enigma. While the Quran says in surah 033.035 that the faithful were Muslims and their religion was Islam, neither designation was written elsewhere until the late 7th and into the 8th and 9th centuries. According to Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, “Islam and Muslim in the sense of submission and one who submits was borrowed from the Samaritans. The verb aslama has cognates in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac, but whereas neither Jewish nor Christian literature provides satisfactory precedent for the Islamic usage, we find exact parallels in the Memar Marqah, which is the most important Samaritan text of the pre-Islamic period. The sense of submission can readily be seen as intended to differentiate the Hagarene covenant from Judaism.”
While hunting for archeological inscriptions, Cook found, “The quotations from the Quran on both the 690 coin and Dome of the Rock differ from that which we find in today’s Quran.” Van Berchem and Grohmann are etymologists who have done extensive research on the Dome inscriptions. They maintain: “The earliest contain variant verbal forms, extensive deviances, as well as omissions from the current Quranic text. If these inscriptions had been derived from the Quran, the variants they contain prove that the Quran could not have been canonized prior to the late 7th century.”
152The most studied scholastic sources affirm that the Quran was assembled rather hurriedly. Dr. John Wansbrough reports, “The book is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis, it must be argued that the book is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.” Frankly, while accurate, that is too generous an assessment because he didn’t bother to condemn its deadly and immoral nature or dimwitted plagiarism.
The reason is obvious. Muhammad’s companions plundered the world on the verbal justifications of a psychopath. There was a river of blood and not a drop of ink. And the next two generations of Muslims were too busy wielding swords and accumulating booty to be bothered with Islam. But then things settled down. The leaders of the death cult moved to Baghdad. There, the emerging Caliphs had to control and fleece those that others had conquered. The best way to do that was with religion. So they invented one, complete with a prophet, god, and scripture. They took the terrorist who had inspired the conquests and dressed him up in fancier outfits.
Professors Crone and Cook report, “It was under Governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 CE that we have the most logical historical context for the formation of the Quran. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others ‘according to his own taste and disseminated them everywhere among his nation.’” This is provocative considering that Hajjaj was ruthless. Some would say he was Hitleresque in his demeanor.
Archaeology, as well as documentary and manuscript evidence, indicates that much of what the Quran maintains does not coincide with the factual data at our disposal. 153From the material amassed from external sources in the 7th and 8th centuries, we can conclude that the Qiblah was initially south of Jerusalem in Petra and not fixed toward Mecca until the 8th century; that the Dome of the Rock was the first Islamic shrine; that Muhammad was not classified as Allah’s messenger until the late 7th century; that the terms Muslim and Islam were not used until the end of the 7th century; that five daily prayers as well as the Hajj were not standardized until the 8th century; that the earliest Quran does not appear until the mid-8th century; and that the earliest Quranic writings do not coincide with the current text. Besides that, Mrs. Muhammad, how did you like the play?
All scientific, historical, linguistic, and archeological data contradicts the Quran, as does preexisting literature – which are some of the reasons that Allah’s un-book ranks as the worst fraud ever perpetrated. No matter which way one chooses to interpret the facts, they leave no doubt that the Quran was the product of an ill-fated and evolving revelation, canonized during the early Abbasid period towards the mid to end of the 8th century, in what is today Iraq. It is Babel | Babylonian. No surprise.
There is considerable merit to Professor John Wansbrough’s conclusion that the Quran was compiled after the Hadith and was used as an authoritative stamp to authenticate later rites and laws by those who were responsible for imposing Islam. The implications are extraordinary considering the sinister nature of the resulting book and the carnage in its wake.
Professor Wansbrough concluded, “Readers are faced with many structural and literary difficulties which bode ill for a document claiming to be the final and perfect word of God. We are presented with spurious Biblical accounts, which parallel known 2nd-century heretical Talmudic and Apocryphal documents. And while we wonder how these human notions found their way into a supposedly non-154human scriptural text, we are introduced to scientific peculiarities that have also found their way into its pages. These problems point away from a divine authorship and toward a more plausible explanation: the Quran is simply a collection of disparate sources borrowed from surrounding pieces of literature, folktales, and fables present during the 7th and 8th centuries, and accidentally grafted in by unsuspecting compilers of the Abbasid period.”
While this assessment from the most respected of all Islamic scholars, deduced after a lifetime of research and analysis, cannot be rationally refuted, there is more to the story. Someone annihilated large Jewish populations in Arabia, particularly in Yathrib and Khabar. Someone turned impoverished, ignorant, and immoral Arabs into mass-murdering terrorists. If not this man and these words, whose? But that was just the beginning. During its first four centuries, Muslim mujahideen annihilated 200 million civilians from India (where 80 million were slaughtered) to Spain, from Afghanistan to Morocco (where 50 million Africans were enslaved and killed) – and this occurred during a time that the Earth’s average population was 250 million. To this, we must add the tens of millions murdered and enslaved during the conquests of the African continent and Asia. And it didn’t stop there. Islamists have killed another 200,000 people in the past fifty years.
Throughout this scholarly assessment of Allah’s deadly and demonic Quran, we have gained insights and found affirmations from those who have dared tread through Islam’s Dark Past prior to our sojourn. We can stand tall because others have stood before us. They include Wansbrough, Crone, Cook, Rippin, Schacht, Puin, Muir, Peters, Humphreys, Gilchrist, Watt, Jeffery, and Margoliouth among the giants of the field, followed by Calder, Goldziher, Hawting, Lewis, Smith, Ohlig, Lester, Nevo, Warraq, Noldeke, Luling, Koren, Blubb, Lings, Safadi, al-Suyuti, Goodacre, Schimmel, Bothmer, Arkoun, 155Foda, Mahfouz, Hussein, Dashti, Pfander, Reinach, Kindi, Creswell, Allan, Carlier, Groom, Muller, Kister, Sprenger, Van Berchem, Grohmann, and Wherry, even Tu’ba Kariba, and, of course, Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim.
The first thing Muslims would discover by exposing the Quran to rational, historical, scientific, and linguistic scrutiny is that the written form of Arabic in which the earliest manuscripts were scribed, didn’t exist when Allah’s un-book was allegedly scribed by the Pen. Scholars have determined that its form of written Arabic evolved relatively recently from Nabatean and Sabean Hebrew through Aramaic by way of Syriac. The earliest trace of the blended alphabet is found, ever so appropriately, on a gravestone. The earliest document is the Quran itself.
By way of background, the Hebrew, Nabatean, and Sabean alphabets coincide with Arabic. However, the Aramaic and Syriac languages had fewer consonants; so, during the 7th century, new letters were created by adding dots to existing ones in order to avoid ambiguities. This is similar to what the Masoretes did with Hebrew and Aramaic in Babylon.
Diacritics, indicating short vowels, were introduced into Arabic, but they are only used so that the Quran can be recited. There are two types of written Arabic. These include Classical and Religious Arabic, which is the language of the Quran. It differs substantially from Modern Standard Arabic in style and vocabulary, much of which is archaic – antiquated beyond understanding.
The Nabataeans, living in and around Petra in modern-day Jordan, started writing Hebrew with a highly cursive style. So, some scholars believe this form of Syriac evolved 156into Classical Arabic. The first inscriptions in this distinctive format are found outside Petra and were carved by local Christians. Inscriptions in northern Arabia, datable to the 5th century CE, preview a group of dialects that are precursors of Quranic Arabic, although they cannot be accurately designated as Arabic any more than Anglo-Saxon could be termed English. The dialects of pre-Islamic Southern Arabia, particularly in Yemen with the Sabeans, present a related Semitic family in the line that became the Quranic language.
While replete with fables, there is a hint that written Arabic was unknown in western and central Arabia during Muhammad’s lifetime. Ibn Ishaq, the first to write on behalf of Islam, reports…
Ishaq:85 “The Quraysh found in the corner (of the Ka’aba’s foundation) a writing in Syriac. They could not understand it until a Jew read it for them. It read, ‘I am Allah the Lord of Mecca. I created it on the day that I created heaven and earth and formed the sun and moon.’”
That was embarrassing. This Tradition was the final Sunnah event prior to Muhammad’s battle with the cave-dwelling spirit that became the Quran’s initial revelation – now found buried in the midst of the 96th surah – which is similarly incredulous. So at least they are consistent.
Arabic, especially in written form, is a recent phenomenon linguistically. Not only wasn’t it among man’s earliest languages, but it was derived from a language that predated it by thousands of years. The Quranic script did not exist in Mecca (which also didn’t exist) when the book was handed down (which did not actually happen either). So, again, Islam is consistent.
There is also a significant difference between the Classical Arabic of the Quran and the language spoken by Arabs today. In fact, the spoken dialects aren’t easily written. In nations where Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 157is used, the population must often learn a local colloquial Arabic dialect to communicate effectively and then gain a greater or lesser fluency with MSA as an educated and commercial language.
Classical Arabic only survives in some antiquated poetry and in the Quran. Being schooled in MSA does not prepare a student to understand the Classical form because they are too divergent. This is why Muslims are required to take classes called Tagweed, every year for ten years just to learn how to recite the Quran. But even then, they don’t know what the words mean. The situation is similar to Latin and contemporary Italian. Being literate in one does not make one conversant in the other.
Among the most notable variances between Religious and Standard Arabic are word order, grammar, and vocabulary. Classical Arabic is verb-subject-object, rather than the more familiar subject-verb-object. To make matters more challenging, Arabic has a wicked property called, diglossia – a phenomenon in which two forms of one language are used side by side. One variety is formal; the other is casual.
This brings us to a shocking conclusion. Less than three percent of the world’s population speaks Arabic, and 99% of them need to have the Quran translated into MSA before they can understand it. Thus, the Islamic apologists who scream that the Quran must remain in Religious Arabic are saying that they only want an infinitesimal fraction of one percent of the world’s population to understand it. And now, we know why.
The Quranic headaches get worse, not better. During the Quran’s first century, the emerging Arabic alphabet did not have diacritical points, and letters were omitted. The text Uthman allegedly canonized would have been a bare consonantal text with no marks to show verse endings or to distinguish between consonants and vowels. Without these 158contrivances, it is impossible to comprehend the intended meaning of the text. For example, haram is “forbidden” until it is manipulated to read as “sacred.”
In the introduction to his translation of the Quran, Dawood wrote, “Owing to the fact that the Kufic script in which the eighth and ninth century Qurans were originally written, contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority.”
To explain the challenge, without the diacritical points, the following words when written in Arabic would be indistinguishable: repent, plant, house, girl, and abide. The same is true with the Arabic word for rich and stupid. There are thousands of words like these in which the meaning changes, even with the same letters, and is dependent upon the placement of the diacritical marks. Yet the Quran was not initially scribed with these designations. Therefore, men had to guess as to what Allah was trying to say. And as a result, even if we were to scale the other thousand hurdles to Quranic legitimacy, it cannot be letter for letter as Allah revealed it, because without the diacritical points and vowels, the identity of most letters is missing.
The principles of sound Arabic demand that words have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. To demonstrate the magnitude of this problem, try to establish the meaning of the following sentences extracted from this page with vowels removed along with one out of every five consonants and punctuation: ltrs r ssng h smlst pncpls snd rc lngg mnd tt wrd hv dctcl pts nd hr ltrs shd be wttn n mplt fm t s nmprhnbl th gd wl hv rvd bk n ch n nrr cndn t.
Now, imagine trying to do this without having an intelligible text. Then, to equate this challenge to deciphering the Quran, remove every fifth word and 159replace some of those that remain with an unknown vocabulary. This would be the result: r ssng h ()=}^ snd rc lngg tt wrd hv ~|>` nd hr ltrs /:^ be n mplt fm @$%&*! th wl hv rvd bk n ch n nrr cndn. To be fair, it may be an improvement on Allah’s book. At least this doesn’t order anyone to kill a bunch of people.
Muslims claim the eloquence of the Quran, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of its expression, are collectively conclusive that it was revealed by Allah. “Apart from the content,” they say, “the inimitability of the Quran lies in its stylistic use of the Arabic language.” And yet, how can this be so if there are so many omissions and errors pertaining to acceptable principles of style, literary expression, and grammatical rules – and if the message is so diabolical? We even find many words that don’t have any meaning and aren’t found in any language. Simply stated: much of the vocabulary no one understands, and much of the text is oblique, obscure, and senseless – and those are the good parts.
But even so, sound cannot be evidence of value unless the object is a song. And even then, if the lyrics are senseless, it is essentially instrumental. So, we are back to rhyme over reason.
What’s important to God when communicating to us is not manifest in style, but substance – the truth clearly conveyed. And this is where the Quran crashes and burns. But, hey, it sounds nice in places, and even rhymes. And its cadence is perfect for protesting, rioting, and marauding. There is even a nifty slogan that can be recited to make killing people seem divine.
Speaking of style over substance, in his Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, E.M. Wherry, wrote: “Though it be written in prose, the Quran’s sentences generally conclude in a long-continued rhyme. And for the sake of rhyme the sense of what is being 160communicated is often interrupted. Unnecessary repetitions too frequently made, appear still more ridiculous in a translation, where the ornament, such as it is, for whose sake they were made, cannot be perceived. However, the Arabians are so mightily delighted with this jingling, that they employ it in their most elaborate compositions, which they also embellish with frequent passages of, and allusions to, the Quran. It is probable the harmony of expression which the Arabians find in the Quran considerably contributes to making them relish the doctrine and efficacy of argument which, had they been nakedly proposed without this rhetorical dress, might not have so easily prevailed.”
He is saying that Muhammad’s militants, like Hitler’s minions, were stupefied by inflection, pacing, and twist of phrase, oblivious to the lack of substance. The Quran is Islam’s equivalent of rap music. But now you know why all of my competitive Suratuns were rhyming and rhythmic. I was playing by their rules.
Stealing a page from Mein Kampf, Wherry concludes: “Very extraordinary effects are related to the power of words well-chosen and artfully placed, whose power can ravish or amaze. Wherefore much has been ascribed to the best orators. He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Muhammad seems not to have been ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men. For this reason, he has employed his utmost skill in reciting his pretend revelations. The sublimity of style might seem worthy of the majesty of that being whom he gave out to be the author of them as he tried to imitate the prophetic manner of the Old Testament. Yet it was only in the art of oratory wherein he succeeded, strangely captivating the minds of his audience. Some thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as the Quran itself so often complains.”
161I’m sorry, Mr. Wherry, but there was nothing sublime or majestic relative to the sexually perverted terrorist, thief, human trafficker, and mass murderer who recited these Suratuns. You are reading way too much into this. Nonetheless, Wherry’s initial assessment resonates within the initial recipe…
Bukhari:V6B60N662 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.’” It was the key to Hitler’s success, too.
Bukhari:V9B87N127 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror so the treasures of the earth were given to me.’” It must have been a really small world back then.
Trimmings can be deceiving. The ornamentation of the Quran has been hiding a document that is severely flawed. Jalal al-Suyuti dedicated a hundred pages of his Itqan to explain the difficult vocabulary. Under the title Foreign Words of the Quran, he attested to the fact that Religious Arabic is incomprehensible: “No one can have a comprehensive knowledge of the language except the Prophet.” (Itqan II: p 106) Only, there wasn’t one.
Jalal al-Suyuti wrote: “Muhammad’s Companions, in whose dialect the Quran was given, failed to understand the meaning of many words, and thus they said nothing about them. When Bakr was asked about the Quranic statement ‘and fruits and fodder,’ he said, ‘What sky would cover me or what land would carry me if I say what I do not know about the book of Allah?’ Umar read the same text from the rostrum, then said, ‘This fruit we know, but what is fodder?’ Then he was asked about the Quranic text in surah 13 discussing Mary and he had no response. Ibn Abbas [the most prolific source of Hadith] said that he did not know the meanings of Quran verses such as 069.036, 009.114, and 018.009.”
162Suyuti, affording the illiterate rasuli far too much credit, surmised that only Muhammad knew what they meant. Playing along, Ibn Warraq in his scholastic anthologies on Islam, compiled thick tomes of linguistic analysis of the Quran’s hopelessly incoherent condition.
In the Itqan, Suyuti spoke explicitly about things that no one expected to find in the Quran – defects that shouldn’t occur in any Arabic book. For example: “The word ‘after’ was used twice in the Quran so as to mean ‘before.’ As in this saying: ‘We have written in the Psalms after the reminder’ (Quran 021.105) while He meant ‘before.’ Also in this saying, ‘The earth after that He has extended,’ (Quran 079.030) while Allah meant ‘before.’”
This is one of the reasons that my translations have evolved. In Prophet of Doom two decades ago, I provided a composite of the 5 most popular and credible modern translations. But over the ensuing years, as interlinears were developed, it became obvious that Islamic translators were taking liberties with the text to create the false impression that Allah was communicating sensibly using actual words and complete sentences – when this was not the case. Therefore, striving to be as accurate as possible, I began writing God Damn Religion based upon the more literal renderings provided by Arabic / English interlinears while comparing them to 66 parallel Quran translations when needed. But after a while, I noticed some alarming trends, where scholarship was routinely sacrificed for religious compliance. The Arabic definitions of the words found throughout the Quran do not match the translations of it – including those provided within the interlinears. I also noted the overwhelming inclusion of Hebrew words in which the definitions were consistent, but not the translations. As a result, I began presenting the Quran based on the definitions of the words found within it.
Jalal al-Suyuti continued: “The Quran means: ‘Do not those who believe “know” that had Allah willed, He could 163have guided all mankind,’ but Allah said, ‘Do not those who believe “despair”’ instead of writing ‘know’ as He meant.” The Arabic linguist correctly noted, “The Quran says in chapter 002.023: ‘...your martyrs,’ but it means, ‘... your partners.’ The martyr is supposed to be the person who is killed, but here it means ‘your associates.’ In surah 20 on Joseph, the word ‘bakhs – too little’ is meant to be ‘haram – forbidden or sacred.’”
He added, “In surah 46, Mariam, the phrase, ‘I certainly will stone you’ is interpreted to mean, ‘I certainly will curse you,’ and not, ‘I will kill you’ as its literal meaning suggests.” In another illustration from Itqan, Jalal al-Suyuti claimed, “In the Rahman surah, the Quran says: ‘The “nagm – stars” and the trees bow themselves.’ Here the Quran does not mean by ‘the stars’ but the plants which do not have trunks. This is the far-fetched meaning.” There are hundreds of similar examples, but there is no need to belabor the point.
The Quran also claims that it is pure Arabic when that is not accurate because almost every important word is actually Hebrew. But beyond this, consider the idiocy of the following statement. It begins with random Hebrew letters, the omission of the definite article, “go down” written instead of “revelation,” the omission of the preposition “of” be for “the writing” which is misinterpreted as “book,” when neither existed. The verb “is” was omitted, such that neither Quran 046.001 or Quran 046.002 are sentences. The voice is speaking in third person using the title ‘al-lahi | the to him, although the un-god’s little helpers change that to “Allah.” Then in self-praise mode, the impoverished linguist who has lied about sending down a written book, claims that he is “al-‘azizi – the potent and powerful, the gloriously invincible, the stern and proud” which is presented as “the all-mighty” unaware that ‘oz is a Hebrew word and there is another, ‘al, to convey “Almighty.” Then, al-hakimi, which should have 164been translated as “the authority who commands, restrains, and withholds” is changed to “All-Wise” by the Arabic scholars – evidently so that they don’t fall victim to the un-god’s vengeance.
Quran 046.001 Ha Mim. Quran 046.002 Tanzilu | go down, descending (the revelation) al-kitabi | the writing (book) from al-Lahi, al-‘azizi | the potent, powerful, glorious, invincible, stern, and proud (the All-Mighty), al-hakimi | the authority who commands and restrains (the All-Wise).
I realize that there was no mention of Arabic in the opening stanzas, and won’t be until the 12th verse, but I’m sharing the preamble because it’s important to demonstrate just how horribly the Quran was written. Al-Lahi is no more God than a common viper – although I suspect there have been some with better diction.
So now, as if shedding his skin, the un-god slipped out of lying while praising himself in third-person singular to bragging in first-person plural. Evidently, He used to be schizophrenic but We are better now that we are only delusional rather than also psychotic…
Quran 046.003 Not we measured (created) the high and lofty name (heavens) and the fertile ground (earth) and what not bayn | between, separated and severed, cut off and disunited them except or unless suitable, required, fitting, and entitled (in truth) and a postponed but predetermined assigned and appointed (a term) lofty, raised, and attributed names (appointed). But those who kafar | are concealed, covered, and reconciled (the unbelievers) what they are vowing and dedicated, admonished and warned, turn away.
As a sign that this was written in the foreboding wilderness of the Arabian desert, rather than the Promised Land, this Surah is entitled, Al-Ahqaf | The Dunes. And one thing is for certain, had this been written, and if anyone could read, the resulting Quran would have been used to kindle the evening’s campfire.
O said Me, Praise We, every flea agrees, not free to flee they cop a plea.
165So it’s Ha Mim to those We condemn, so sad for them.
We predetermined and then postponed, expecting that the kafar would be stoned. He moaned and it was intoned that they be disowned.
There was no book, don’t bother to look, sure we are a crook, but you’d be a schnook for not swallowing our gobbledygook.
We measured the sky and the ground, so let the fear abound, we’re profound, it’s renowned that we confound and dumfound, particularly the hellbound.
Desiring besides al-Lahi leads to friends and sharing, and that’s the ultimate in erring, so we’re swearing and it’s glaring.
And since I’m unable to write even a fable, find the traces on the table if you are able.
Quran 046.004 Say, ‘Do you see what you desire from besides al-Lahi? Show me what they measured of the ground or for them a companion to associate, a partner or a friend to share in the lofty heavens? Give me a written collection dictated (book) from accepted before this related, narrated, and recited with traces of footprints of knowing if you are truthful.’
Fortunately for Allah, the religious seldom think and Muslims are allergic to the concept. They remain the most indoctrinated, least educated, productive, and inventive people on the planet. If not for the black ooze under their lifeless and searing sands, they would still be living in the Stone Age.
Unlike Allah, Yahowah had something to show for His efforts – a functional universe and a man created in His image, even a series of books – long scrolls filled with accurate and useful information. In them, God invokes many things, including His preference to work alongside His people. Incompetent in this regard, Allah stole their 166names, claimed them for himself, changed their stories, and then denied them because the un-god of Islam was a loner without friends, partners, coworkers, or associates.
Allah’s “bring me a book” taunt was especially pathetic since the people he was lambasting had many of them and team Islam didn’t have one – and wouldn’t for a century. Considering the dearth of knowledge in the Quran, Allah was begging for a trace of it. After all, he was desperate to make his Quran appear the equal of the Torah and he was working with illiterate un-helpers.
Quran 046.005 Who erred and strayed (calling) than who desires from other than (besides) al-Lahi who not make a hole, rend, perforate, or pierce (answer) lahu | to him to day stand up and stand still (resurrection), and they or their desires forgetful.
Quran 046.006 And when are gathered the risen (mankind), they will be for them passing by, overlooking, and transgressing (enemies). And they will be of their submissive worship concealed and reconciled (deniers).
It’s odd for a Snake to suggest that those who desire to have a hole have erred. It is also peculiar to imply that men forget their desires. Nonetheless, when the standing are gathered, there will be those passing by who will cause them to conceal their worship. And somehow through it all, Islamic scholars would have Muslims believe that al-nasu should be rendered as “the mankind” instead of “the risen,” as it is from the Hebrew verb nasa’. Kafir, from the Hebrew kaphar, is changed from “reconciled” to “disbeliever” or, if that doesn’t fit, try “deniers.” But it is magical thinking that turns the Hebrew quwm, meaning “to stand” into “resurrection,” for which there is no possibility, much less a word.
Not only is the idea of bodily resurrection biologically unsound, but the notion is resolutely pagan in origin – which is where Christians came up with the myth that one day, their Dead God on a Stick would come back for them. As for Islam, since Satan was cast out of the spiritual abode 167of God to grovel in the dirt, his scope has been limited to tormenting people in the physical realm. What better way than to demonstrate that the Devil, or should I say, Allah, is God than by resurrecting dead bodies and abusing them?
As for those who “erred and strayed (calling) than who desires from other than and instead of (besides) al-Lahi,” that’s a bit of a problem for the Adversary. God has a name, Yahowah, and He revealed in His Towrah | Guidance and Teaching that Yahowah is His one and only name. It is disingenuous for Allah to claim a text he did not author and deny its inspiration.
Attempting to outperform God while claiming to be God, thereby stealing God’s rightful designation, Allah makes a fool of himself with the 6th verse. I would try to explain it, but I’m not sufficiently stupid. Nevertheless, methinks Allah protests too much…
Quran 046.007 And when are imitated and perused, rehearsed and trotted out (recited) to them our signs (verses), bayyin | between, separated, severed, and disunited (clear), say those who are covered, concealed, and reconciled (disbelieve) of the suitable requirements and deserving entitlements (of the truth), when it comes to them, ‘This a deluded and beguiling enchanter who turns away (magical sorcery) mubinun | what between, why separated, how severed, and when disunited (clear).
One of the many problems associated with the Quran is a universal failure to provide context and clarity. Here, for example, when last we spoke, Allah was addressing a gathering of enemy worshipers on his fabled Day of Resurrection. As such, they were in Hell being prepared for the tormenting fire. Therefore, since Muhammad is being told to address them, he must also be in Hell, now reciting the signs (which would be miraculous since he was illiterate) to the supposed infidels. And while I’m sure he feels at home, all warm and toasty, even in Hell his recitals are rejected.
168Since it is obvious, and since Allah is wallowing in the admission that this is what people thought of him, we are left with two unappealing options. Either Allah is the least clever and most overt iteration of Satan ever devised or he is playing the stupid card to irritate God, attempting to prove that men are not worth saving. I am convinced it is a little of both, but mostly the latter.
Why would Allah admit in his un-book supposedly un-written before humans existed, that “He has fabricated and forged it” if not true? And since there is no denying that the majority of the Quran was pilfered from the Towrah by way of religious interpretations in the Talmud, how can anyone responsibly deny this confession?
After posting incriminating narrations, the Snake either slips into first person singular for this encounter, or he and Muhammad speak with the same forked tongue.
Quran 046.008 Or they say, ‘He has cleaved it through slander, strangely fabricating and forging it.’ Say, ‘If I have cut it, splitting it, to fabricated it through slander (invented it), then not you can rule, with the power to command and control for me from al-Lahi to will or wish (anything). He knows of what you pour and depart (utter) about. Enough he an informer bayni | between me and baynakum | between you. He the protecting by covering over and hiding (the Oft-Forgiving), al-Rahim | favored (Most-Merciful).’
Putting words in his non-prophet’s filthy mouth, al-Lahi says, ‘So what if it is a forgery, I am still going to use it to ruin your lives. And you are powerless to stop me. And just in case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m schizophrenic, the most merciful of sadists.’
It is revealing that the Adversary admits that the first to hear his recitals recognized that he had cleaved them from an earlier source, and that in the process of fraudulently claiming these stories as his own, he was actually slandering the God who inspired them.
169I expect that it is now obvious why we didn’t jump directly to the 12th verse of the Suratun on the Windblown Sand Dunes, where Allah lied by claiming that his un-book was un-scribed in nonexistent written Arabic. There are many reasons to oppose Allah, the Quran, and Islam so we are continuing to explore them.
Quran 046.009 Speak, ‘Not I am a creator, innovator, inventor, or new among al-rasuli | the messengers. And not I know what will be done with me and not with you. I do not follow except what is indicated, revealed, and suggested to me, and I am but a dedicated vow to warn separately between and severed (clear).’
Allah and Muhammad were disgusting, exceptionally dimwitted, and uncommonly ruthless, but they were not creative. There is nothing innovative in the Quran. They stole stories and then twisted them to suit their agenda. Countless thugs, most more accomplished and articulate, had lied about God and had been similarly sadistic.
However, none of them were so self-incriminating that they admitted that they were clueless. Imagine the extent of idiocy necessary to pretend to be God’s last messenger, and then admit, “And not I know what will be done with me and not with you.” The reason, of course, was that his un-god was capricious and could not be trusted. He changed his mind and abrogated his promises.
So unlike the Hadith where Muhammad roars and reigns supreme, in the Quran he is stripped of all of that and rendered a “warner” – the likes of Chicken Little.
As pitiful as all this has been thus far, Allah is now reaching out to the ghosts of those who Muslims have exterminated for a lifeline…
Quran 046.010 Speak, ‘Do you see if it is from that al-Lahi and you concealed and reconciled (disbelieve) in it and informs an informer from the builders (children) Is’raila | Israel to mith’lihi | stand erect, mutilate, or castrate (a likeness) then he believed while 170you grievous, contentious, and haughty (arrogant), lo, al-Laha not guide the standing erect subjugating lords.
While this was all but incomprehensible, it is nonetheless helpful because it reveals that Hadith are required to explain the Quran. If you recall, there were two contrived instances in which it was reported that two among the tens of thousands of Jews the first Muslims were plundering and annihilating were alleged to have endorsed the plague that was killing their brethren.
Bukhari:V4B55N546 “A Jewish rabbi, Abdulla bin Salam approached the Messenger. ‘I am going to ask you three things which nobody knows except a prophet.” The test of a prophet is, well, prophecy – a competency well beyond the capability of Allah and Muhammad. But even if we were to play along with Dumb and Dumber, should this have been the “test,” wouldn’t the Rabbi have been a prophet if he knew the answers? And if he had been a prophet, wouldn’t he be aware that Muhammad never revealed an accurate prophecy? Obviously, logic isn’t compatible with Islam.
Bukhari:V4B55N546 “What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken in Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its mother?’”
Should you be sufficiently ignorant to believe that the answers to these questions, rather than the explicit test provided in Dabarym 18, distinguish pretenders from prophets, then you may be a dimwitted as Muhammad, who took the bait…
Bukhari:V4B55N546 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel has just now told me of the answers. Gabriel, from among all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews. The first portent of the hour will be a fire that will bring people from east to west. The first meal of Paradise will be caudate lobe of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of a child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.’ On that the rabbi said, ‘I testify you are the Apostle of Allah, and that Jews are liars.’”
171As I shared previously, I found it humorous that Muhammad never solicited the endorsement of a fellow Arab or Muslim. Evidently, he knew that it would have been worthless.
The moral of this story is that since almost every Arab rejected these Quranic recitals, calling them satanic forgeries comprised of twisted fables, if Muhammad could convince a Jew to believe him and his un-god, then Arabs would all roll over and play dead, humbly surrendering to their fate as Muslims. It evidently worked. In the right audience, there is no limit to what one can achieve assuming most people are stupid.
Unfortunately for Allah, however, this next diatribe doesn’t hold water, boiling or otherwise.
Quran 046.011 And speak those who are reconciled (disbelievers) of those who believe, ‘If it had been good, not they would not have advanced, overtaking and surpassing us, outstripping us in the race (preceding us) to it.’ And when not they directed by it, they say, ‘This a change, perverting what came before, rehashing a lie.’
Since Allah orders Muslims to avoid any association with disbelievers, and since Muslims are told to kill them, this contrived chat wasn’t possible. Further, it would be irrational to claim that the Quran confirms the Towrah and then suggest that the Quran’s message was different. Also incredulous, had they been similar, the Jews would not have said that the more recent recital perverted what came before. So, the fact remains, Allah does a better job repudiating his claims than any adversary.
Digging himself in deeper, the Snake piles lie upon lie, perhaps hoping that in a desert filled with them, no one will notice the occasional signs of life before they are gone…
Quran 046.012 Wa | and min | from qabal | accepting before it kitabu | writing (book) Musa, imaman | to propose, mother, lead, or guide, even community, and rahim | favor, benefit, and pardon. And 172this a kitabun | writing (book) musaddiqun | truthful and right (confirming) in the ‘arabiyyan | Arabic lisanan | tongue (language) dedicated to warn those who are zalam | cruel and oppressive lords and to ndhir | warn as a guard those who do wrong and bash’ra | bring good news (happy tidings) to the muhsinun | handsome and good doers.”
The Towrah and Quran are as different as light is from darkness, life is from death, God is from Satan, truth is from lies. They are complete opposites. Their messages are the antithesis of one another. To claim, as Allah does, that they are similar, with one confirming the other, is to be delusional or deceitful, ignorant or disingenuous.
Beyond this realization, one that utterly destroys every aspect of Islam, the “Arabic tongue” claim regarding the Quran is negated by the fact that wa | and, min | from, qabal | accept and before, kathab | writing, Moseh | Draw Out, ‘imam | mother and community, racham | favor, tsadaq | correct and confirming, ‘arab | Arab, lashown | tongue, natsar | to guard, and basar | to herald news are all Hebrew words, as is Qara’ | Qaran. But at least zalam was original to Arabic. The closest Hebrew words would be zal, which means “to be worthless and vile,” and zimam, which speaks of “devising a wicked and idolatrous scheme.” Although, to al-Lahi/ha/hu’s credit, they also seem to fit.
Setting aside for the moment that Allah got every aspect of his previous pronouncement wrong, there are, nonetheless, happy tidings from the Muslim Good-Deed Doers. Maybe you will be among the lucky ones and they will cut off your head before they rape your spouse or mutilate your children so you don’t have to witness their suffering.
Before we part company and leave the Sand Dunes, please consider these additional proofs of authorship from the 46th surah. These demonic interludes include a threatening rant before tormenting us with nonsense…
173Quran 046.027 Lo, verily (and certainly), we wasted, causing to perish by spoiling, destroying, and killing what shifted around you of cities and towns by entertaining your guests, turning away and averting (diversifying) the signs, marks, and indications of proof that perhaps they may return.
Those who believe him must acknowledge that Allah is a sadistic and genocidal killer. Those who don’t believe him are left to realize that Allah is delusional and psychotic. Either way, he isn’t God.
Insisting otherwise, Satan claims that all of the other gods are losers, that they are lying about developing close personal relationships, and that they cannot be approached or relied upon. According to Allah, he is sane and all of the other gods are delusional…
Quran 046.028 Then why not assist to help protect them those whom they had taken from besides al-Lahi, gods to approach in a close relationship. Nay, they went away and got lost and strayed, confounded and perplexed, regarding them. And that their manner, a change and perversion for the deluded, and what they were fabricating through slander.
If this were true, since Allah claims that he’s responsible for the Towrah, wouldn’t he be guilty of fraud and slander? And out of curiosity, did the other gods stray away from men, making them real, or did men stray away from the other gods, making this condemnation irrelevant? Either way, the next line is fatal...
Quran 046.029 And when we turned and diverted to you and sent and inclined toward you a nafran | a business party going forth, advancing, of the jinns | demons and devils, concealed dark, devoid of reason, and insane, listening to al-Qur’ana | the Quran. And when they arrived and stood in its presence, they said, ‘Listen and pay attention.’ And when it was entirely finished, completely pronounced, they turned, drawing near, to those standing, dedicated to warning and informing.
Quran 046.030 They said, ‘O our community standing firm (people), verily, we have heard a writing (book) come down 174(revealed) from distant, far off, and removed, alienated and estranged (after) Musa | Moseh, truthfully and sincerely confirming what between touching hands guiding and directing to suitable requirements, fitting and certain and to a night of the morning star rising established, dignified, and firm.’
The inclusion of a demonic endorsement of the Quran in the Quran necessitates a level of desperation and idiocy seldom witnessed in statements attributed to gods. While the overwhelming preponderance of the Arabs, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Atheists, and Agnostics who first heard the Quran rejected and mocked it, demons and devils loved it. This must have been a very proud moment for the un-god and his non-prophet.
The jinn are deceitful devils, devoid of reason, and insane demons who are guilty of corrupting the Earth according to Allah. To believe the un-god, they listened to the entirety of his un-book from the lips of his non-prophet, and were so out of touch with reality, they confused it with the Towrah – of which they claimed familiarity. And if that were not enough to affirm that Allah is Satan, the jinn | demons and devils claim that its message was fitting for the Morning Star – thereby acknowledging Satan’s name: Halal ben Shachar.
This is tantamount to Adolf Hitler asking Winston Churchill to endorse Mein Kampf and write a forward to his book. Can you imagine a god so desperate for credibility he’d solicit demonic assistance? And it didn’t stop there. The demons went on to say…
Quran 046.031 O our standing community, make a hole (answer and respond), desiring and demanding, praying, summoning, and invoking al-Lahi, and believe in him. He will protect, covering over and hiding for you of your tracks and tales (sins) and will deviate, wrongfully and unjustly from a painful and torturous punishment.
Demons accepted Muhammad as their messenger. Devils pray to Allah. And as a result, he hides their tracts 175and conceals their tales. Best of all, demons and devils avoid hell in Allah’s rendition of things.
Leaving the Sand Dunes for Az-Zumar | The Troops, we find our next declaration regarding the un-book being written in un-Arabic. This marvelous affirmation of the Quran’s superiority is found in the 27th verse, but since the journey is often more valuable than the prize, let’s march alongside the jihadists as they prepare for war.
Quran 039.001 Descending written from al-Lahi, the potent, glorious, invincible, the restraining authority in command.
Quran 039.002 Indeed, we, we have come down to you the written, suitable and required, so worship in submission al-Laha unmixed, chosen pure lahu | for him the submissive religion.
Quran 039.003 No doubt, the obedience and submissiveness in religion for il-Lahi, the pure, the chosen, the exclusive, free from embarrassment, and genuine. And those who take from besides him, friends. Not we worship them except that they bring us near to al-Lahi in nearness. Indeed, al-Laha will restrain and exercise authority, judging between them in what they in it differ. Indeed, al-Laha no direct who he a liar, inventive, fabricator or a concealed and reconciled.
“Descending written from al-Lahi” is both poorly written and demonstrably untrue. There was no written book during Muhammad’s lifetime and when one finally materialized in Persia, incompetent scribes chaotically tossed the resulting mess together.
Those who praise themselves are never “potent, glorious, or invincible.” And most assuredly, this Snake is neither restraining nor in command. He did not come down to Muhammad but, instead, slithered into Arabia. He was as illiterate as his unlettered non-prophet. And while worshiping anyone is a bad idea, venerating an arrogant and dimwitted, sadistic psychopath is ill-advisable.
One of the thousand reasons we know that al-Lahi/hu/ha is Satan is because he demands worship – 176something God never requests. The very notion of a superior being creating an inferior one to submit to him, bow before him, praise and worship him, is revolting.
Then it is verses like Quran 039.003 that affirm that al-Lahi/hu/ha is out of his league playing God. Being lucid is part of the job description.
If the Quran is correct, why are there so many glaring contradictions, repetitions, grammatical omissions, and errant positions scientifically and historically? Why does Allah demand worship and religion, even prayer, while at the same time claiming to be the God of the Towrah, since Yahowah is vehemently opposed to all three? And alas, how can Allah judge between them in what they differ when he has repeatedly claimed that they are the same? Verily, someone is a liar and fabricator.
It is also disingenuous for al-Lahi/hu/ha to disavow a son while claiming to be the God of the Torah and Prophets since Yahowah is resolute, calling the Messiah Dowd, His beloved Son and His Firstborn. Having falsely claimed to have authored the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr – it is apparent that the Snake has never even read them.
Quran 039.004 If sought al-Lahu to take a begotten, surely he would have preferred from what he measures what he wished. Swim, rolling and performing (glorifying) to him He al-Lahu, the one, the oppressive subjugator and overbearing master of harshness (irresistible).
Poor Allah, ever the loner. Irresistible in his own eyes and a pestilence in others. He was the lowly Serpent hellbent on convincing the religious that he was their god. So he is swimming in self-adulation while admitting that he seeks to prevail by being the meanest snake on the rock – the oppressive subjugator and master of harshness.
Quran 039.005 He measured the high and lofty (heavens) and the fertile ground in the suitable requirements. He wraps the night over the day, and wraps the day over the night. He has subjugated, 177dominating and controlling, mocking and ridiculing, the sun and the moon, each running quickly, flowing to pursue a course for a predetermined and specified period lofty and raised the name and attributes. No doubt! He the mighty, potent, noble, glorious, and invincible, the covering over, hiding, and protective.
Quran 039.006 He measured you from a single soul. Then he made from it its spouse. And he sent down, descending for you of the cattle, easy life, comforts and conveniences, eight spouses, couples, and mates. He measured and proportioned you in fat, stomach, abdomens, bellies (wombs) your mothers, communities, and nations, measured proportion from distant and estranged measured proportion in a threefold cruel oppression (three veils of darkness). That al-Lahu, rabbukum | your exalted lord, master, and owner. Lahu | for him the command and control, the rule and authority. No ilaha | god illa | but huwa | him. Then how are you turning away?
There should be some sort of test, some minimal qualifications, imposed on those who audition for God. They should be literate and know how to write using words correctly and then surround them with verbs, prepositions, and articles. Before pretending to be the Creator, some knowledge of astronomy, anatomy, and biology should be required. Night and day do not wrap over each other. They are a function of the rotation of our planet around its axis. The sun and the moon are inanimate objects. They are not subjugated, domineered, or controlled, much less mocked and ridiculed. And while the least aware and educated Arabs of the 7th century may have thought that the sun was chasing the moon each day, the sun is not moving. The appearance of motion across the ecliptic plane is caused once again by the Earth’s spin on its axis.
All animals have souls, but they are not measurable. They are not only unique to every animal, the soul of a spouse is not cleaved from their mate. The introduction of cattle being sent down as comforts and conveniences, as eight spouses and mates, is too weird for words. And while al-Lahi/hu/ha borrowed nafsin from the Hebrew nepesh, 178meaning soul or consciousness, he must have been unaware that there is a Hebrew word for womb, too – racham. But instead, he selected butuni, meaning “stomach, abdomen, belly, and fat.” Also awkward, the Arabic word for your mothers, ummahatikum, is commonly translated as “your leaders, guides, communities, and nations, even illiterate and unlettered.”
And speaking of the latter, this is a word salad of delusional ingredients… “He measured and proportioned you in fat, stomachs, and abdomens, your mothers, communities, and nations, even your illiterate guides, measured and proportion from distant and estranged measured proportion in a threefold cruel oppression.” And yet, that stupidity leads to this… “That al-Lahu your exalted lord, master, and owner. For him the command and control, the rule and authority. No god but him. Then how are you turning away?” I think I have answered that question.
Since al-Lahi/hu/ha claimed authority over these things and was wrong about all of them, do you suppose he might also be wrong about everything else – like him being God and killing people being good? No doubt.
So now our choice is to be a rejector independent of Allah or a grateful slave. Tough decision…
Quran 039.007 If you are reconciled, then indeed, al-Laha free of wants, competent and flourishing, from need of you. And not he is content with his slaves the reconciled. And if you are giving thanks, grateful and praise, he approves and likes it in you. And not will bear bearer of burdens burden another. Then to your lord and master, your owner and possessor, your return. Then prophetically inform you what you were and did. Lo, he the knower, possessor the return and front (the breasts).
Al-Lahi/hu/ha’s obsession with the reconciled comes from the realization that the kafar / kaphar ultimately seal his fate on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations. It is one of the many reasons we know that the un-god is not Yahowah. The most arrogant, like this un-god, are often the most insecure. They crave praise because adulation 179provides temporary relief. But since they know it isn’t genuine, narcissists like al-Lahi/hu/ha are constantly testing their devotees.
The reason that the un-god is opposed to anyone bearing the burdens of another is because this is germane to the process Father and Son deployed on Pesach and Matsah to remove the guilt of the Covenant family. Satan wants Dowd’s sacrifice to be for naught.
Quran 039.008 When touches the sociable and friendly some harm, hurt, or evil adversity, he cries to his lord and master, turning to him. Then when he manages and governs on him an easy life of comforts, conveniences, and cattle from himself, he forgets what he used to call to him from before and he makes for il-Lahi equals and rivals, those who flee, run away, and defame divulging idolatrous images to mislead and deviate from his cause. Say, ‘Enjoy the advantageous gift of your reconciliation, few in number. Surely, you of the fire companions, associates, and friends.’
These Arabic dictionary renderings of Satan’s rantings are more effort to write and read, but they are considerably more revealing. For example, those being harmed by an evil adversary are sociable and friendly, something the reclusive and withdrawn Serpent despises. Further, those being blessed are to receive the comforts of cows which are soon forgotten because they have the audacity to equate the likes of the Quran – that which misleads by divulging idolatrous images – with al-Lahi/ha/hu. So the dreaded associators are told that while they will enjoy the advantageous gift of reconciliation, they are few in number. Nonetheless, the Devil has a hot fire waiting for them. So the moral of the story is that those with friends in this life will have the fire for companionship in the next.
It’s time to play: Can You Answer al-Lahi/ha/hu’s Question?
Quran 039.009 Is who he obedient time the night submissively prostrating and standing wary and fearing al-akhirata | the backwards retreat, postponed and after and hoping favor of womb 180his lord and master, owner and possessor? Say ‘Are worth and equivalent those who know and those who know not? Only will remember hearted.’
The Snake had a senior moment and forgot that he was making a comparison. So there was no contrast in the scenario of the obedient night submissive prostrating and standing in fear of going backwards into the womb of his owner. Perhaps that’s a good thing because any alternative would be better. As for the worth of the knower and unknower, it depends upon what one knows. It did not work out very well for ‘Adam and Chawah in the Garden, and it has not turned out favorably for Muslims following the Snake’s regurgitated appeal found here in the Quran.
Quran 039.010 Say, ‘O My slaves, those who believe, ittaqu | protect and save, guard against and ward off the evil of rabbakum | your lord master, owner and possessor. For those who handsome and best good-deed-doers in this near and low, let down (world), handsome, good, best. And the ground al-Lahi ample. Only will reach the end and pay in full the bound and patient. Their recompense and reward brings other than thinking.’
Being a slave was never so unappealing. It is a wonder that the likes of Malcolm X branded Christian Caucasians as slave traders when the Islamic Rabbakum | Lord and Master was demanding that his slaves protect and save him. One of the great deceptions is that Europeans enslaved Africans when it was Africans who enslaved fellow Africans and then sold their slaves to Muslim overlords who then provided those who would have otherwise been killed to European shipping companies. I’m not trying to absolve immoral and greedy Caucasians from their role in this horrendous practice but assign blame where it belongs. You are reading the Great Enslaver’s Playbook. Freewill has always been Satan’s greatest foe.
One of the Quran’s most telling terms is ittaqu because its primary and secondary meanings are inconsistent with English translations. Rather than telling religious slaves to 181“fear” him, with ittaqu, the un-god is asking them “to protect and save” him. He is also telling Muslims that they should “ittaqu – guard against him, warding off his evil.”
But after that insight, which is bad for Islam no matter how it is translated or interpreted, the remainder of what is said in the verse is incomprehensible.
Quran 039.011 Say, ‘Lo, I, I am commanded that I worship al-Laha, unmixed and exclusive lahu | for him the submissive obedience of religion. Quran 039.012 And I am commanded that I be first al-Mus’limina | of the submission and obedience.’
The only thing less appealing in a divine being than seeking to be worshiped would be commanding it. And yet, this is the unappealing essence of the Islamic farce. Islam exists to turn men and women into spineless, immoral, and thoughtless zombies willing to kill for their master. It is dehumanizing and degrading by design.
And while that is more than enough to isolate and eradicate this diabolic plague, it further impugns itself by admitting what we have known to be true from the beginning. Muhammad was the first ‘Muslime’ – not ‘Adam, not Noach, not ‘Abraham, not Moseh, not Dowd, and not the mythical misnomer ‘Iesa. And that means that all of the plagiarized and bastardized stories of them, tossed haphazardly throughout the Quran, are queer as men being the faggots of the fire. Burn, baby, burn.
Al-Lahi/hu/ha had nothing to do with the characters of the Towrah. It was all a lie. And with it, the Quran withers and dies like unwatered grass in the desert.
Quran 039.013 Say, ‘Lo, if I, I fear, frightened and terrified, I disobey, resist, or oppose rabbi | my master, the one who owns, controls, and possesses me, torturous punishment of a glorious and grievous day.’
Among the things that make al-Lahu/hi/ha unappealing besides compelled worship and praise from slaves is presenting himself as terrifying and punitive. And 182yet, in Islam the grievous Day of Torture is glorious. So, who would object to me stating the obvious: Allah, the Quran, and Islam are hideous?
Quran 039.014 Say, ‘I worship in submission and subdued, an obedient slave, al-Laha, pure, unmixed, and exclusive lahu | for him dini | my obedient submissiveness and servility, sucking up and brown nosing in religion.’
Therefore, the religion of Islam is best expressed, most sincerely and servility, by being a ruthless terrorist, a cruel exterminator, a sadistic psychopath, a relentless rapist, a horrifying pedophile, a callous enslaver and human trafficker, a persistent thief, an avowed liar, and an unremorseful misogynist. That is how one sucks up to Allah, then brown noses him through humble prostrations. Is this a great religion or what? And it only gets worse…
Quran 039.015 So worship, submissive and obedient what you want besides or instead of him. Say, ‘Lo, verily, the losers cheated and diminished, beguiled and perishing, those who suffer the loss themselves and their families day the standing (Resurrection). No doubt, that it the loss, suffering diminishment, between, separated and severed.
Quran 039.016 For them from over and above, excellent, superior, and surpassing, shadows, shades, and canopies of fire, irritating and vexing flames and from beneath them remaining shadows and continuing canopies that al-Lahu frightens and terrifies with it his slaves.’ O My slaves, guard against and ward off the evil, protecting against the fearful nature of me.
It is hard to imagine wasting one’s life, sacrificing it while taking others, in submission to this Beast – worshiping Satan – but billions do. No doubt, they are ill-informed, immoral, and irrational – some might even say stupid.
This time al-Lahi/hu/ha is saying that he is terrifying his slaves, and thus Muslims, with the notion that they will be surrounded by flames – blazing shadows, shades, and canopies of them – if they don’t capitulate and worship 183him, doing the business of the Devil. It’s not a very clever trick, in fact, less impressive than the flames and curtains surrounding the Wizard of Oz. Evidently, it doesn’t take much to bewilder a Muslim – a brainless as a strawman.
Lesson learned: a frightened slave is an obedient slave. However, should you prefer that your devilish god put away the stick and hold out a carrot, then this is for you…
Quran 039.017 Those who break, hit, or hurt (avoid) at-taghut | exceeding a limit, wandering out of bounds, or deviating (false deities or demons) that they worship them and turn to al-Lahi for them glad tidings. So give happy tidings my slaves.
Quran 039.018 Those who they listen the word then follow the best of the good parts, those they whom al-Lahu has guided them and those are they those heart.
In pretend Abe’s destructive streak, he took an ax to the imaginary idols in the unnamed town at an undisclosed time while lying about himself and them. He allegedly broke the unidentified deities, all but the largest of them, which he promptly pronounced was his Lord. Is it any wonder dishonest Abe was the founding father of Islam?
Here, al-Lahi/hu/ha forgot to negate the idea of worshiping them in his glad tidings. But that’s okay, because all that is required of the slave is to follow the good parts. And since there haven’t been any, they are free to go. It’s the ideal scenario for an un-book of arrogations. Now, if only slaves had freewill.
So clever was al-Lahi/hu/ha at the first rendition of Can You Answer the Question, we play again…
Quran 039.019 Then is who suitable and entitled truth on him the word the torturous punishment. Then can you liberate, rescue, or save who in the fire?”
Umm, could we get Satan to rephrase the opening hypothetical? Otherwise, this must be one of those verses only Allah understands. And as for the query, everyone 184knows it’s a trick question. Muslims happily burn their victims alive – they do not rescue them.
Since this is the comparison, the roastees are going to be singed for a while…
Quran 039.020 But those who guard against and ward off their lord and master, for them taken, cut off, broken and bent (lofty mansions) from above them, bent and broken, clipped and cut off on high, mabniyyatun | ? flow from beneath it, repulsed and chided, promise al-Lahi not follows or substitutes al-Lahu a promise.
I wouldn’t be too impressed. Allah previously stated that “the mansions” were for the stars – so they are going to be pretty toasty. And unfortunately, there was no mention of fancy dwellings because ghurafun means “to be taken, cut off, clipped, bent, and broken,” none of which sound accommodating. Moreover, since mabniyyatun isn’t a recognizable word, it’s hard to know what is being undermined by the “promise al-Lahi not follows.”
Should someone have foolishly chosen Islam because they believed Allah could or would keep his promises irrespective of abrogation and the dissolution of vows – they may want to second guess the likelihood of bodily resurrections on the Day of Doom, particularly to these “mansions” in the sky, even from roasting over the blazing fires, or to virginal boys and girls as rewards for believers. Spoiler alert, al-Lahi/hu/ha will be as impotent in the hereafter as he has been thus far on earth.
Protesting otherwise, the un-god asks…
Quran 039.021 Do not you see that al-Laha sends down water from the high and lofty (sky), and makes it a way springs in the ground, then he goes out to bring forth with it sowing seed following colors, then they rush forth, agitated (withered) and you see it painted yellow, then he makes them broken into small pieces, crushed and crumbled. Indeed, in that, surely a reminder for those heart (understanding).
185So I have a question: How unaware of tilling the soil, even gardening, does a Muslim have to be to believe that al-Lahi/hu/ha is a rain god, spring god, sowing seed god, coloring god, agitating and withering god, yellow painting god, and crushing and crumbling god of far-fetched reminders? Should a person be sufficiently stupid to believe that this is divine, they and their god share a similar mental aptitude.
And speaking of being dimwitted, we have another comparison question without the comparison…
Quran 039.022 So is he whom has opened and enlarged his return, come back, and proceed (breasts) al-Lahu for ‘Is’lami | Islam | Submission so he upon a fire from his rabbi | lord and master? So, woe to hardened turns, returns, and upside down changes (hearts) from remembrance al-Lahi. Those in error between, separated and severed (clear).
Al-Lahi/hu/ha insists that the opening statement regarding the breast implant was a question, so we’ll leave it at that, because a wrong answer evidently leads to a calcified heart and manifest error. But let’s be clear, since freedom is good, Islam / Submission by definition is bad.
Quran 039.023 Al-Lahu sent down the good the something new, a novelty not previously known, a kitaban | writing (Book) to resemble bent and folded (two oft repeated). Snipe and shudder, trembling and shivering from it beaten skin and flogged flesh those who fear and dread their owner and master then gentile palm trees (relax) their beaten flesh and whipped hides and their grieving hearts at remembrance al-Lahi. That direction al-Lahi. He directs with it whom he wants. And whoever lets go astray, al-Lahu then not for him any guide.
So, I want to know, when do we get to the good part? And what has al-Lahi/hu/ha said that is even remotely novel or original? And yet, in a book devoid of sensible transitions and context, and filled with demonic taunts and sadistic tortures, we’d expect nothing less of Allah than to learn that the flogged will tremble in fear. It is proof 186positive that Allah, as Satan, is mocking Muslims – knowing that no matter how obvious he makes it that he is playing them for fools, and abusing them, they will never be the wiser. With Allah, it is always the same game – just poorly played.
Admitting that his rant is repulsive, Allah even says that it should creep Muslims out and make their skin crawl – all the better to induce fear. Once the victim is pliant, Allah becomes their god. After all, he sends astray whom he pleases.
Quran 039.024 Then he then who yattaqi | will shield, ward off, and guard with his face being treated badly by the evil disgrace and vicious wickedness (worst) the torturous punishment day of standing firm (resurrection). And it will be said to the al-zalimun | cruel lords and subjugators (Polytheists and Wrong-Doers), ‘Taste what you did and gained.’
Welcome to Hell. It is the purpose of the Day of Resurrection – a tasty little torment for the reconciled. And ever the loving deity, the un-god claims that men and women will use their faces to shield themselves from his vicious wickedness and torturous punishments. And then to mock those he wants to torture, the Lord of Hell tells them to taste his abuse.
Quran 039.025 Lied and denied, falsified and invented those who before them, so the torment of torture came on them from where they yash’uruna | knew not as poetry, worshiping Sirius, signs of goats, perceptions of rites and symbols. Quran 039.026 So al-Lahu made them to be abased, despicable and vile, a disgrace in the life near and low, down and inferior (this world) and lo, the castigating punishment be backwards retreat, behind and delayed (hereafter) greater and more grievous if they knew.
Since the audience isn’t identified in this blanket indictment, this is Satan’s way of saying that humankind has always denied him and lied about him. Therefore, according to the Adversary, he was justified in torturing and tormenting everyone. The imaginary people’s 187supposed crime was not explained, and while the direction from which the un-god’s delusional torment was delivered was presented by yash’uruna, it could mean anything from “poetry to worshiping Sirius, from signs of goats to the perception of religious rites.” Nonetheless, al-Lahi/hu/ha lambasted the pretend people, abasing them so that they became even more like him. It was like God dealing with His Covenant Family, only in reverse. So with the Islamic un-god, life in the down low would be despicable and in the backward retreat, more grievous and tormenting. And that is because al-Lahi/hu/ha oft-forgiving, most-merciful, loving, and kind for a viper.
Allah’s torment comes from all directions – sort of like the Muslim mujahideen on motorbikes on October 7th, 2023 – a day that will live in Islamic infamy. And it is obvious that al-Lahi/hu/ha’s superlative intelligence and linguistic prowess have rubbed off on Muslim protestors. And this is because…
Quran 039.027 Lo, verily, darabna | we have propounded to strike (set forth) for nasi | a swing raised then halted, moved and tossed (mankind), in this al-Qurani | the Quran | the recite and/or read from every erect, mutilated, and castrated improvision and proverb (examples) so they may remember and pay heed.
“We” may have intended to say that they “set forth for people in this Quran of every example” but that is not what these words convey. Darab means “to strike, beat, hit, and smote.” Nasi is from the Hebrew nasa’ and means to “rise.” In Arabic dictionaries, it speaks of a “swing which is lifted up and then halted, moving by being tossed back and forth.” Qurani is from the Hebrew qara’ which is “to invite and summon, to call out and meet, to read and recite.” Next, “from all” is from min kul, both of which are Hebrew and convey the same meaning.
The word erroneously rendered as “example” in English translations is mathalin, which actually means “stand erect, mutilate, and castrate,” and is only conveyed 188as “like” or “example” to resolve the ineptitude of the Quran. Therefore, in the midst of this linguistic incompetence, and following this garbled string of Hebrew terms, we witness yet another confession…
Quran 039.028 ‘Arabiyyan | an Arabic | an adversarial pledge to obscure by intermixing and commingling which is a corrupted and disordered Qur’anan | a recital and reading ghayra | bringing and conveying, while bestowing something altered and corrupted, infected and tainted dhi | possessing what is ‘iwajin | crooked, bent, distorted, deviant, insincere, and ill-natured la’allahum | so that perhaps they may hope yattaquna | to ward off against the evil calamity.
‘Arab is a Hebrew word. In addition to addressing the people and place, Arabs and Arabia, it means “adversary, enemy, and foe,” speaking of those “who arise to incite.” To ‘arab is “to make a pledge” as in the Pledge to Wage War Against All Mankind. ‘Arab conveys “to grow dark and to obscure by intermixing and commingling” which is the cause and consequence of the Quran. Spelled with the Aleph rather than the Ayin, ‘arab means “to lie in wait, lurking to ambush from a snake’s den, to deal deceitfully and treacherously.” ‘Arab is, therefore, prophetic of Islam’s influence on ‘Arabs and the world. It is a pejorative. And this may be why Arabic dictionaries acknowledge that ‘arab means “corrupted, disordered, and bad.” And since the Quran consistently speaks in a derogatory fashion against Arabs, ‘arab is typically translated as “Bedouins.”
Qara’, upon which Qur’an is based, appears over 700 times in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr of Yahowah. It is primarily defined as “an invitation or summons,” and it speaks of “calling out to meet, to encounter, and to proclaim by name, to read, recite, and be welcomed.” These ideas are so essential to engaging with God, Yahowah integrated qara’ into the title of His seven annual celebrations of our relationship with Him called “Miqra’ey 189| Invitations to be Called Out and Meet.” And it was Yahowah’s use of this word that caused Satan to usurp it, using it during his torturous initial encounter with his terrorist rasuli.
The third word, ghayra is also Hebrew. Giyr means “to plaster over.” It is from the root ger which describes “a foreigner in the Land without rights who should not be there.”
Therefore, while Allah’s slaves have ignored each word’s meaning to convey, “(It is) an Arabic Quran without any crookedness so that they may (become) righteous,” that isn’t what Satan said.
The Adversary recited… Quran 039.028 “An adversarial pledge for Arabs to obscure by intermixing and commingling a corrupted and disordered recital bringing and conveying, while bestowing something altered and sullied, infected and tainted, possessing what is crooked, bent, distorted, deviant, insincere, and ill-natured so that perhaps they may hope to ward off the evil calamity.” It was an honest assessment of a dishonest endeavor.
A rotten Suratun begotten for the soon forgotten burial of the adversarial.
We hedge, but nonetheless allege that this is our pledge, Arabs are scarabs not cherubs.
Obscure has an allure in our brochure, while intermixing is for fixing and nixing as commingling is part of the spine-tingling jingling.
We’ve interrupted the disrupted and corrupted for the obstructed and abducted to be instructed.
The disordered are muddled and befuddled, chaotic and thus psychotic, but the erotic makes it all hypnotic.
Recital is an aberrant title but yet vital,
190We are winning by bringing the mud-slinging, conveying the braying about the flaying and slaying, even portraying all the soothsaying.
Bestowing the unknowing with bowing, so the foregoing is mind-blowing but not ongoing.
What was altered has faltered, as it was infected, but not corrected, deflected and dejected but never directed as expected by the subjected.
Should you not be acquainted we are tainted, a crook with a book to schnook those who dare to look,
Bent to torment, intent to augment, even content to prevent your assent.
Much of it is imported, some purported, never supported, always aborted then distorted.
It’s expedient that the deviant be obedient so we are never lenient.
Now let’s all cheer the insincere who fear, clear that it’s queer to sneer spear.
The ill-natured will be ill-mannered, and perhaps he snaps and you collapse.
Then you’ll see, there is hope for the pope on a rope, cause he’s such a dope, but don’t mope or grope as it is a slippery slope.
As for those who scoff and don’t ward off there is the evil upheaval of a clever calumny a rhapsody of agony quite tragically and acrimoniously a blasphemy.
Word for turd, we have espoused what we have browsed of the ironic which is Quranic, said the heretic of the Arabic cause that was his shtick.
Yes, I am verbose as we disclose that I propose striking the snake on the nose to expose a perspective that isn’t as subjective by being reflective.
191It’s been al-Lahi/hu/ha and all the surah blah, blah, blah, even Fatah v. Yah with the gowy of his choosing, doing lots of accusing but never losing.
Making this more amusing than confusing we are perusing that which we are disproving, never refusing or recusing, sometimes schmoozing, occasionally snoozing, but seldom approving.
And we’ve even managed to write it all when al-Lahi/hu/ha couldn’t write at all.
That was my version of Quran 039.028 and this is al-Lahi/hu/ha’s…“An adversarial pledge for Arabs to obscure by intermixing and commingling a corrupted and disordered recital bringing and conveying, while bestowing something altered and sullied, infected and tainted, possessing what is crooked, bent, distorted, deviant, insincere, and ill-natured so that perhaps they may hope to ward off the evil calamity.”
That may not have been a fair fight, as I may have colored outside the lines that Satan has drawn in the sand, so let’s give the Devil another shot at this…
Quran 039.029 Al-Lahu strikes and beats to propound a mutilation and castration to imitate a proverb: a foot associated with a companion and partner who shares quarreling, and a foot having submitted and obedient to a foot, so are they even or level mutilated or castrated, imitating a proverb? Praise to il-Lahi. Nay, an abundant and increasing number of them know not.
Had it been written about comparisons and not beatings, similitudes rather than castrations, contrasting situations instead of feet, this might have been Allah’s best attempt at a parable. Apart from the depravity of language, it’s actually not as dumb as one might think. His point was this: if you are going to submit to a religion and be owned and controlled by it, which approach is better, one with many masters who are contentious Lords or a religion of one Master? Allah’s answer: become my slave because I have no friends or associates.
192Of course, the similitude doesn’t fly because the Lord of the Towrah is Ba’al, who is a false god, and Christianity, while false, has but one Lord Jesus Christ. And then there is the issue that when he is not repudiating them, Allah is claiming to be the Lord of all.
So, praises be to Allah, no one knows and all Muslims die. Now that’s a promise we can celebrate. As for the Day of Resurrection, not so much.
Quran 039.030 Verily, you will die, and lo, they die. Quran 039.031 Then, verily, you, day the standing (Resurrection), out of the right way, declining and deviating, rebellious and obstinate, resisting rabbikum | your lord and master will contend in an altercation, disputing and litigating.
Quran 039.032 Then, who cruel and subjugating lord, dark and obscure, wrong, than who lies, falsely inventing and fabricating upon al-Lahi and lies, falsely inventing and fabricating the correct when it comes to him. Is not in hell and a resting place and resort for the reconciled? Quran 039.033 And the who came to bring the correct and believed in it, those, they, the warding off, guarding against, and shielding. Quran 039.034 For them what they wish with their lord and master, that payment rendered the best of the good.
While all animals die, many souls continue to live. But most of them will accompany the Lord of Hell to She’owl. No matter how many a lo or verily he tosses at it, there will be no resurrections, not on this day or any other. It is biologically impossible and spiritually imprudent. Although, on Allah’s last day, there will be many who are deviant and rebellious. And while the disputes will be many, those involved in these altercations aren’t going to like their future accommodations.
As for the identity of the cruel and subjugating lord, he is the most prominent figure in this story, no matter how hard he tries to obscure his identity. He is the chief fabricator. And while that’s obvious, we are left to wonder who was “the who came to bring the correct and believed in it, those, they, the warding off and guarding against?” No 193matter, Allah World was akin to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. Heaven would be whatever Muhammad craved.
There are two additional protestations that al-Lahi/hu/ha’s Quranic un-book was un-written in nonexistent Arabic – both conveniently presented in the 41st Suratun: Fussilat | Explained and Expounded.
Quran 041.001 Ha Meem | Hot, Confused, and Uproarious, Quran 041.002 Descending from al-Rahman / the Womb of Grace, al-Rahim / the Favored Forgiver, Quran 041.003 A kitab | writing separated and divided, its ayat | signs and marks, a Qur’anan | a Summons to Read and Recite ‘Arabiyyan | Arabic | an adversarial pledge to obscure by intermixing and commingling which is a corrupted and disordered for qawm | a standing still a’lam | marking and distinguishing (knowing).
Ha Meem convey as ‘hot, confused, and uproarious” in Hebrew is used to describe Muslims among Abraham’s descendants via Ishmael – and thus Muslims. Rahman and Rahim were the names of the Quran’s first gods. They were derived from Hanif poetry, and thus from Arab converts to Judaism residing in Yemen. They are from the Hebrew racham meaning “womb or mercy.”
Kitab | writing is from the Hebrew kathab, conveying the same meaning. As for ayat, meaning sign or mark in Arabic, it is from ‘ay in Hebrew which is a question begging a negative response, alas and woe, and a howling beast. It does not mean “verse” as Muslim apologists would have readers believe. And as we have previously affirmed, Quran is from the Hebrew qara’, meaning “to invite and summon, to call out and meet, to read and recite.” ‘Arabiyyan is from the Hebrew ‘arab, designating Arabs as “adversaries and enemies who make pledges.” To ‘arab is “to obscure by intermixing and commingling.”
Quwm is also of Hebrew origin and means “to stand.” It does not mean “people.” Lastly, ‘alam rather than “know” is just the opposite in Hebrew because it means “to 194hide something, concealing it.” The Hebrew word for knowing is yada’. Although, a’lam might be better associated with lamad which is the Hebrew word for “teaching and learning.”
But no matter how the words are derived and arranged, the Quran was not written and the language was not Arabic. And that leads us to one of the most comical statements in a book not normally known for its humor…
Quran 041.044 And if we made it a Quran to chew by biting, they said, ‘Why not separated and divided its signs and marks chewing and biting and an Arab | Corrupted and Disordered?’ Say, ‘He or it for those who believe, a direction and a cure.’ And those who not believe in their ears a load and it or he for them swerving and straying in ignorant obscurity. Those being summoned and invited from being remote and distant.
Other than to remind readers that the illiterate and imbecilic ought not pretend to be God, this is hard to explain. Perhaps it is the load in our ears or the swerving in obscurity from having been invited from so far away. But no matter, I choose not to bite.
And as we now know, there are many foreign words and phrases which are strewn throughout the Quran. Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran, devoted 300 pages to this study. He wrote, “One must wonder why so many foreign words were borrowed, as they refute the Arabic claim and put doubt on whether Allah’s language was sufficient to explain what Muhammad intended.”
According to Alphonse Mingana in his Syriac Influence on the Style of the Quran, the religious terms found in Allah’s book were derived from either Nabatean Hebrew or Christian Syriac. These include the words Muhammad used for: “priest, christ, judgment, scribes, parable, salvation, infidel, sacrifice, resurrection, heaven, garden, angel, holy, spirit, soul, sign, proof, god, prayer, 195fast, sin, pagan, hanif, Muslim, idolatry, quran, faith, creation, grace, and even the zakat tax,” and that is just the tip of the sandpile. Mingana wrote that “the proper names of personages repurposed in the Quran are used in their Syriac form rather than Hebrew or Arabic. These include: Solomon, Pharaoh, Isaac, Ishmael, Israel, Jacob, Noah, Zachariah, Mary, John, Jonah, and Isa.” The words for demons, path, and garden of jinn are Persian and Sabean.
Alphonse Mingana wrongly proposed that “Adam and Eden were Akkadian words from Mesopotamia.” He said, “a more correct term for ‘Adam’ in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning ‘mankind.’ ‘Garden’ should have been janna in Arabic from the Hebrew gan. Abraham, repurposed as Ibrahim, comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent is Abu Raheem – it is from the Hebrew compound of ‘ab | father and a variation of racham | merciful.”
In Syriac Influence on the Style of the Quran, we read, “Harut and Marut are Persian names for angels. The Persian ‘sirat’ meaning ‘the path’ was repeated thirty times yet it has an Arabic equivalent, alta-reeq, which was not used. The Persian ‘hoor’ meaning ‘disciple’ has the Arabic equivalent, tilmeeth. The Persian word ‘Jinn’ meaning ‘demon’ is used consistently throughout the Quran.” Entire surahs are dedicated to Satan’s demonic allies. “And yet, there is an Arabic equivalent, Ruh” – which is actually from the Hebrew ruwach. Going the other way, Islam’s decadent “heaven is called by the Persian word ‘firdaus’ meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” rather than the Arabic equivalent” derived from the Hebrew shamaym.
Obviously not a Hebrew scholar, Mingana has but a short list of “some of the Hebrew words,” which he presents as: heber, sakinah [which is rabbinical], maoon, taurat, jehannim, quran, allah, and tufan, which means deluge. The Greek word euangelion was corrupted to ‘injil,’ to convey “gospel,” even though there is an Arabic 196equivalent, bisharah. Iblis, the Quranic name for Satan, is not Arabic.” It is a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos. “Muhammad said that believing in the ‘Day of Resurrection’ was a third of his message, yet he chose a Christian Syriac derivative of an Aramaic word, Qiyama, for resurrection rather than the Arabic one.” Actually, he chose quwm, which means “to rise and stand” in Hebrew. He even uses the same word as a derogatory term for “people.” And “day” was a derivative of the Hebrew yowm.
While the Quran is fixated on turning the misnomer, Iesous Christos | Jesus Christ into a good Muslim, Allah misidentifies Iesa, erroneously using the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob – whom Yahowah denounced.
Moving on, let’s see if what is left is accurate historically and scientifically. Up to this point, Allah’s claims are looking a little ragged around the edges.
Quran 004.080 Who obeys al-Rasula | the Messenger, then lo, he obeyed al-Laha. And whoever turns away then not we sent you over them a guard. Quran 004.081 And they say, ‘Obedience,’ then when they depart from you a group of them plot by night other than that which you say. But al-Lahu recording what they scheme by night. So turn from them and put trust in al-Lahi. Sufficient il-Lahi a trustee. Quran 004.082 Then not they ponder al-Qur’ana | the Quran? And if it had been from other than al-Lahi, surely they found in it much contradiction. Quran 004.083 When comes to them a command of the belief in safety, or the terror of the slaughter, they broadcast with it. But if they had turned it back to al-Rasuli, and to the commandments (those authority) from them, surely would have gushed out among them. And if not the distinguishing and surpassing excellence al-Lahi on you and His Rahim, surely, you would have followed al-Shaytana | the Adversary, Satan, except a few.
Apart from the senseless narrations of the Never-Ending Argument, repetitions of Allah’s desire to roast unbelieving infidels, his many contradictory variations of creation, his incessant incongruous accounts of the 197Towrah’s cast of characters, and his dubious depictions of himself as God, there isn’t much more to the Quran. It is a veritable sea of contradictions, variations, discrepancies, and incongruity. Nonetheless, all credit be to Allah.
Let’s start with the historical blunders. The Quran claims that the Samaritans enticed Israel to make a golden calf when Moses was receiving the Ten Statements on Mt. Choreb. (Quran 020.085-087 & Quran 095.097) And yet, there were no “Samaritans” when the events depicted in Exodus unfolded. They didn’t become a nation until 800 years later. The city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in 875 BCE. and the Samaritans became a “people” just after the tribes of Israel were dispersed by the Assyrians in the 7th century BCE. The Golden Calf was crafted in memory of the Apis Bull cult among the Pharaohs. Thus Quran Suratuns are erroneous.
In Quran 007.124 & Quran 026.049, we find Pharaoh admonishing his sorcerers because they believed in the superiority of Moses’ power over them. Pharaoh threatens his magicians with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides (which is actually from Quran 005.033), and then says they will all die on the cross by crucifixion. But there were no crosses at the time. Crucifixion was first practiced by the Assyrians in 519 BCE. under the rule of Darius I. Encyclopedia Britannica reports: “Crucifixion did not exist any earlier than about 500 B.C.” Muslim scholar, Malik Farid, in his translation of the Quran, says in footnote 1033, “Incidentally, the verse shows that even as early as in the time of Moses the punishment of death by crucifixion was in vogue.” Rather than admit the Quran contained a historical blunder, a Muslim rewrote history to salvage Allah’s reputation.
Another interesting historical glitch occurs when Allah erroneously calls Mary, the mythical mother of the misnomer Iesa, the sister of Aaron in Quran 019.028, as well as the daughter of Imran (‘Amran) in Quran 066.012 & Quran 198020.025-030. While Miriam and Mary are derived from the same Hebrew name, the first Miriam, the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amran, died 1,500 years before the fictitious Mary, the mother of Iesous would have lived.
Hearing Muslims explain away the spectacular coincidence that both Mary and Miriam had a brother named Aaron and a father named Amram sounds identical to the way Catholics perform etymological gymnastics to explain away the fourteen New Testament passages that state “Mary” had other children.
Another difficult passage concerns Haman. In the Quran he is Pharaoh’s accomplice, building a tower to ascend to the God of Moses (Quran 028.038, Quran 029.038, & Quran 040.025-038). Yet the Babel tower dates 750 years earlier and is Babylonian. The name Haman is brought to us by Esther – a fraud who is a rabbinical favorite. She writes about Persia 1,100 years after Pharaoh. While Muslim apologists say it is simply another Haman, the name is not Egyptian, but uniquely Babylonian.
In Quran 017.001, the claim is made that Muhammad went to Al-Aqsa Mosque during his Night’s Journey. As a result of the incredulous tale woven into the Hadith, Muslims believe this was either the Temple, the Dome of the Rock, or al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. But none of these existed in 620 CE. The last Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 699, six decades after Muhammad’s death! There are a host of other chronological breakdowns. One of my favorites is Allah’s insistence that Nimrod was a contemporary of Abraham when they lived in different centuries and places.
As impossible as it is to reconcile these Quranic mumblings with the historical record, the “setting place of the sun” and the tales of Alexander the Great are more challenging still. Quran 018.086 states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: 199Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn…” The sun does not set in a muddy spring. There are no extraterrestrials living where the sun goes to bed, and no human – and that would include Alexander the Great – has ever visited with such creatures.
In the continuing story of the Islamicized version of the Macedonian conqueror, we are told that Alexander’s power was given to him by Allah. Muslims contend, as the ahadith attest, that he was an Islamic prophet. He was even credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army – that of the mythical Gog – at bay. Then Muhammad claimed that a hole was cut in the wall during his lifetime.
Dismissing the aliens in the muddy spring around the setting sun story, the rest of Islam’s claims are easy to test because Alexander lived in the full light of history – although even this is lethal to Islam because his life played out nine centuries before Muhammad’s. The Macedonian general, whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death, was an idolater, actually claiming to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. The temple drawing depicting Alexander worshiping the sun god Amun is still present in Egypt. To say that he was an Islamic prophet, and that Allah was the agent for his power, is historically inaccurate. And why is there no evidence anywhere that Alexander built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which would have proven him to be one of the greatest engineers in history? It’s one thing that the Quran has no prophecies – predictions of things that are to come – but it can’t even get the past right.
My personal favorite historical Quranic miscue is found in Quran 050.012-015…
Quran 050.012 “Denied before them the people of Nuh, the dwellers of Rass, and the Thamud, Quran 050.013 and Ad, and Fir’aun, and the brethren of Lout, Quran 050.014 and the dwellers 200of the Wood, and the people of Tubba, every one of them denied messengers, so my threat became a reality. Quran 050.015 Were we exhausted by the first creation? Nay, they are in confused doubt about a new creation.”
Let’s move past the fact that Noach did not have people – but instead avoided them. The Thamud weren’t worth mentioning and the Rass and Ad were imaginary foes – all of which means Allah was bragging about murdering myths. That would make him both delusional and psychotic. And, if we were to assume that Muhammad couldn’t pronounce, “Pharaoh,” we’d still have to get past the realization that this engagement is central to the Towrah’s liberation of the Children of Yisra’el – and has nothing to do with Allah or Arabs. Further, Pharaoh Thutmose the Great survived the departure of the Yisra’elites, as did the overwhelming majority of his people. Also, Lowt did not have brethren in Sodom, so Allah got this wrong, too.
While that was an exercise in psychotic delusion, it was by claiming to have destroyed the people of Tubba that Allah did irreparable harm to the Quran’s credibility. As we discussed early in God Damn Religion ~ Snake, Tub’a | Tubba was an honorific title used by the Himyarites (Mamlakat Himyar in Hebrew). Also known as Sabaeans, they resided in the southwestern tip of the Arabian peninsula – in today’s Yemen. They were descendants of a rather famous Arabian patriarch, Qahtan, in 1000 BCE, making him a contemporary of King Dowd | David.
As the story of the Himyarites (people of Tubba or Sabaeans) unfolds, we discover that they were neither polytheists nor destroyed. Just the opposite – they gave rise to Islam. The original Quranic gods and scores of surahs in style and substance came from the people of Tubba.
History shows that they left Arabian polytheism to convert to Judaism in 380 CE. As a result, the “people of Tubba” shuttered their pagan temples and eliminated 201references to their pagan deities – embracing a variation of rabbinic Judaism. And since the rabbis outlawed using Yahowah’s name, the Himyarites / Sabaeans called the God of ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob, the God of Moseh and Dowd, “al-Rahman, al-Rahim.” Not surprisingly, Rahman became the Quran’s first named deity – with an early surah presented under his name.
As it would transpire, the People of Tubba served as the model for Arab monotheism claimed by Islam, they became the wellspring from which Muslims became familiar with the Towrah’s characters, they introduced them to the name of their first god, and their poetry was integrated into the Quran’s surahs, including the repetitive use of the rhetorical device, “Say,…” If that were not enough, Tub’a ‘Ab Kariba As’ad (370-433 CE) was instrumental, not only in the conversion from Arab paganism to Judaism, he became the role model upon whom the character of Muhammad was based.
Demonstrating that, apart from illiterate Muslims, it was possible to provide an enduring written record of actual events, we know that early in the 5th century the people of Tubba were led on a military expedition into northern Arabia by Tub’a ‘Ab Kariba. At the time, he was attempting to combat the growing influence of Byzantine Christianity. Under the direction of baby Augustus (declared so by his father at nine months, then becoming emperor at seven years of age) Theodosius II of the Eastern Roman Empire was attempting to control the spice trade from India that passed along the coast of the Himyarite Kingdom. And even this is devastating to Islam because it means that trade moved by sea on ships through the Arabian Gulf, and not on camels inland through Mecca – which did not exist at the time.
In his quest to push the Roman Catholics out of Arabia, Tub’a Kariba pursued the Byzantines as far north as Yathrib – the very place Islam would take root and grow – 202on the backs of dead Jews. Once there, Tub’a met so little resistance from resident Jewish date farmers, he left his son behind, expecting camaraderie and tribute. But in a foolish move, the residents of Yathrib killed him. Therefore, Tub’a Kariba returned to avenge his son’s death, wreaking vengeance on Yathrib.
After cutting down many of the date palms from which the Jews derived their living, the people of Tubba laid siege to Yathrib – providing the substance behind one of the Quran’s and Sunnah’s most fabled feats. In what was claimed as Muhammad’s lone defensive victory during the Battle of the Trench, Yathrib was allegedly besieged under similar circumstances. During the siege, quivering Muslims claimed to have witnessed Allah’s lone miracle – blowing sand in the desert which kept those seeking revenge at bay.
In the actual battle, Jews fought alongside their pagan Arab neighbors but to no avail. But then they caught a break because, during the attack, Tub’a Kariba became ill. Hearing of this, two rabbis, Ka’ab and Asad, were allowed through the siege line encircling Yathrib to attend to the ailing king. Using their medical knowledge, they restored Tub’a’s health.
Now in the king’s good graces, the rabbis were able to convince Tu’ba to lift the siege. He not only complied, but he was so impressed with the rabbis that he accepted Judaism and converted his army while camped at Yathrib.
So Tu’ba, representing the historical paradigm upon whom Muhammad was based, arranged for the two rabbis, Ka’ab and Asad, to accompany him back to the Himyarite capital – not far from today’s Sana’a. They were welcomed with open arms because from the 5th century BCE there had been a substantial Jewish presence in Sana’a. This grew considerably more voluminous after the Diaspora from Judea in 133 CE.
203Back home in southwestern Yemen, Tu’ba Kariba converted his kingdom to Judaism, which was generally well accepted. But shortly thereafter, Tubba was killed in a military coup d'état. He was succeeded by a pagan named Dhu-Shanatir, who sought to blend pagan myths with Judaism – exactly like Islam. And all the while, the “people of Tubba” lived out their lives in absolute contradiction of Allah’s terrorist braggadocio in the Quran.
Clearly, Allah envenomated himself and struck a fatal blow by claiming that he destroyed the “people of Tubba,” when the truth is just the opposite. The people of Tubba created Islam, its first god, initial surahs, military fables, Arab monotheism and, indeed, the paradigm for Muhammad. There is no way for the Snake in the Desert to slither out of this trap of his own making.
Further, as is the case with “the people of Tubba,” there is no indication anywhere that Allah has ever done anything. Apart from the jihadists who kill for him, he is a fangless snake. But he is still toxic because he has paralyzed 1,400 years of Muslims such that they remain mired in the 7th century, unable to progress. They were beguiled into murdering and remain committed to this day.
Moving from history to science, Quran 016.015, Quran 021.031, Quran 031.010, Quran 078.006, & Quran 088.019 tell us that Allah threw down mountains like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For illiterate men, this would sound logical since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would seemingly have a stabilizing effect. Yet the opposite is true. Mountains were built up, not thrown down. Rather than create stability, they are the result of instability. Colliding tectonic plates push up the earth’s surface forming all non-volcanic mountains.
Surah Quran 016.066 says that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. That doesn’t make sense, and it isn’t true. In 204surah Quran 016.069, we’re told that honey comes out of a bee’s abdomen. That’s not true either. Then, surah Quran 006.038 claims all animals and flying beings form communities like humans. While some do, most don’t. Take for example spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating. That’s not exactly a community like ours. Then Quran 025.045 maintains that the sun moves to create shadows. In other surahs it is shown racing and swimming. Even the moon was said to be effaced while competing with the sun.
Other statements make no sense at all. Quran 004.059 states, “Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is measured by size. Yet we have learned that the complexity of life is much greater than the simplicity of all stars and dirt combined. In Quran 065.012 we read, “It is al-Lahu who has created seven heavens and as many earths.” Where might we find the other six earths? If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two or three depending upon how one looks at Pluto – and none of them are Earth-like.
Meteors and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and Jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Quran in Heaven (Quran 015.016-018, Quran 037.006-010, Quran 055.033-035, Quran 067.005, Quran 072.009-009, & Quran 086.002-003). Are we to believe that Allah throws meteors (which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel) at non-material devils who listen to heavenly counsel? Are we to perceive that there is a Jinn convention each time there’s a meteor shower? I don’t think so.
Ad-libbing on Yahowah’s turf, Allah stammers. He claims King Solomon was taught the speech of birds and the language of ants (Quran 027.016-019). In addition to birds and ants, Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (Quran 034.011-013). A malignant 205jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (Quran 027.038-044).
Following Solomon’s lead, in the 105th surah, Allah claims to have used birds to drop clay pebbles on Abraha’s army. But in actuality, his troops withdrew because of smallpox, not because they were dirty.
In another religious fable turned Quranic reality, in Quran 018.009-025 we find the story of “some youths and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed” which is a clever trick in itself. The object was to show Allah’s ability to keep people and dogs without food or water for as long as he liked. In actuality, the story was pilfered from a 6th-century Syriac Christian manuscript: The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
In Quran 002.065-066 & Quran 007.163-017, Allah turns people who break the Sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Darwin must have been confused because he had it the other way around.
Not to be outdone, in Quran 011.081 & Quran 015.074, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down with angelic wings. There are as many errors in the accounting as there are sentences. We know this because these cities have been unearthed. The Towrah’s presentation is accurate while the Quran’s is not.
On the defensive, Muslims are quick to protest that the embryology revealed in the Quran was beyond what man had discovered for himself. However, nothing the Quran reveals is accurate, including the legend of the nutfah drops. Moreover, Muslims are unaware that the science of embryology was well-established in literate cultures centuries before the Quran’s existence.
The Quran’s errant and repetitive accounts concerning the stages of formation of a fetus are found in Quran 022.005, Quran 023.012-014, Quran 040.067, Quran 075.037-039, & Quran 096.001-002. According to Allah, who claims to be inside the 206womb of every pregnant woman, baby jihadists pass through four stages, starting with torab, which means dust. Using a little hocus pocus, Muslim scholars translate torab as sperm, just to keep Allah from looking foolish. It becomes nutfah and alaqa. However, no one seems to know what the words “nutfah” or “alaqa” mean. Many have tried, contending that they are something that clings, a clot, an adhesion, an embryonic lump, and even chewed-up meat. The alaqa then creates motgha. But no one has a clue what motgha conveys. So some brilliant scholar suggested: “bones that are finally covered by flesh.” The alaqa to bone stage is also in Quran 023.013-014 which introduces us to: “We made him a nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge) in the safe lodging. Then we made the nutfah into an alaqa (piece of thick coagulated blood), then a motgha (little lump of bones clothed in flesh).” A more accurate translation would be: “While auditioning for the role of God, Allah is actually clueless.”
Even the translators’ wishful interpretations are inaccurate. Neither sperm nor dust becomes a “lump or adhesion.” There is no clotting stage during the formation of a fetus. “The thing which clings” does not stop clinging to become “chewed meat” but remains clinging for nine months. And the skeleton is not formed independently of tissues and flesh. In fact, muscles form several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than arriving later as the Quran implies. It is, therefore, ironic to hear the above accounts cited as proof by apologists on behalf of the Quran’s divine authority, when in fact, once the truth is known, the very science that they hope to harness for their cause proves to be their undoing.
Before we leave professor Allah’s lecture on gestation, I’d like to share what Muhammad had to say about such things: Bukhari:V4B55N549 “Allah’s Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, ‘As regards to your creation, every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he becomes a clot for another forty days, and then a piece of flesh 207for forty days. [For those keeping track, it takes just four months, not nine, for half-baked jihadists to slither out of the womb as baby vipers.] Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed. Then the soul is breathed into his body. So a man may do deeds of the people of the Hell Fire…but he enters Paradise. A person may do deeds of Paradise…but he will enter the Hell Fire.’” It’s easy to see how Allah got fang-tied. Playing God is a tough role, with big shoes to fill, and Snakes don’t have feet. And now we know why the un-god couldn’t be bothered printing a Quran. He was too busy writing irrelevant minutia.
Muslim physicians, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw their far-fetched interpretations of Quranic gestation allegedly mirrored by a much earlier Greek doctor named Galen. He lived, and wrote, circa 150 CE – over six centuries before the first Quran. In 1983, Basim Musallam, Director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, concluded, “The stages of development which the Quran and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s account. In other words, when it comes to embryology, the Quran merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.” That’s not true, either, but we appreciate the confession.
While there are scores of examples, copyediting Allah is hardly entertaining. So for those who are still in doubt as to whether the Quran is subject to grammatical errors, consider the insights of one of the last Muslim scholars to critique these Suratuns before such research became a death sentence. Ali Dashti wrote: “The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not intelligible; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent [dangling modifiers]; 208and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects... To sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted. (Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, p 48) Having now translated most of them, in actuality, there is an omission or mistake in the overwhelming majority of the Quran’s 6,348 verses.
The Quran contains so many grammatical errors Muslims defend the supposedly “perfect book” by finding similar errors in pre-Islamic poetry. What they don’t know, however, is that this poetry originated among Arab monotheists in Yemen and then was altered for the specific purpose of defending the Quran. Egyptian scholar Taha Hussein, recognized, “The vast quantity of what is called pre-Islamic poetry has nothing to do with the pre-Islamic literature, but it is fabricated after Islam. Thus, our research will lead us to a very strange conclusion; that this poetry cannot be used in interpreting the Quran.” (Fil-Adab al-Jaheli, Taha Hussein, Dar al-Ma’aref, p. 65-7)
As we analyzed the Quran’s revisionist views of the Towrah’s characters and patriarchs, I demonstrated that Muhammad garnered much of his errant material from Jewish oral traditions – the Talmud, Midrash, Targum, and other apocryphal works. While it’s obvious and does not need further substantiation, additional corroboration was provided by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by Jay Smith and Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, Katsh; The Bible and the Quran, Jomier; Studies, Sell; Islam, Guillaume).
209I’ll begin with Dr. Smith’s analysis. “Possibly the greatest puzzlement for Christians who pick up the Quran and read it are the numerous Biblical stories which bear little similarity to the original accounts. The Quranic versions include distortions, amendments, and some bizarre twists. So where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?
“Upon investigation we discover that much of it came from Jewish apocryphal literature, the Talmud in particular. These books date from the 2nd century CE, about seven hundred years before the Quran was canonized. By comparing stories, we destroy the myth that the Quran was inspired by God. The similarities between these fables, or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Quran, are stunning.”
It’s ironic. By plagiarizing the Talmud and claiming its stories were divinely inspired histories, Muslims actually destroyed the credibility of the book they were trying to bolster. And by writing and then selling such nonsense, the Jews loaded the gun Muslims are using to kill them.
The Talmudic writings were compiled from oral folklore in the 2nd through 6th centuries. They evolved like the Islamic Hadith. As Jews became more numerous and urbanized, clerics desired a more comprehensive set of religious traditions to help them influence their subjects. Moreover, rabbis set an example for Muhammad by creating a god in their image. And just like Muhammad after them, they created laws and traditions and artificially traced them back to a revisionist version of Moses via the Torah. Then to help make the medicine go down, the rabbis coated their improvised traditions in a syrupy slew of fanciful tales.
These uninspired Jewish Talmudic writings came to be included in the Quran because the majority of Yathrib’s 210residents were Jewish, and they weren’t all that far removed from Baghdad, from which the Babylon Talmud derives its name. In fact, even up to 1948 when Israel became a nation, the fourth largest concentration of Jews worldwide was in Iraq. Therefore, the Persians who canonized the Quran in the 8th and 9th centuries had access to them. And as we know from the Quran and Hadith, Muhammad bought oral scripture recitals from the Jews before he robbed, banished, enslaved, and killed them for threatening to expose his fraud.
One of Allah’s Cain and Abel misappropriations is found in Quran 005.030. It begins much as it does in the Towrah’s account with Cain killing his brother Abel, though Allah doesn’t seem to recall their names in this rendition. Yet the moment one unnamed brother kills the other, the story changes and no longer follows the Towrah’s trail. The Quran’s variant was plagiarized from books drafted nineteen centuries after the Towrah was scribed by Moseh, beginning in 1447 BCE. Specifically, the Quranic version is found in the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar – Jewish myths composed from oral traditions centuries before the Quranic ink-stained paper.
The Quran reads: Quran 005.030 Then obeyed to him his nafsuh | soul qatla | to kill his brother, so he killed him and became of the losers. Quran 005.031 Then al-Lahu faba’atha | unrestrained and sent into motion ghuraban | an abundance of foreign blackness (a raven). It digging by scratching in the ground to show him how yuwari | to allude, conceal, and hide sawata | a badly treated and disgraced, vexing annoyance, a shamefully vicious evil (body) of his brother. He said, Woe to me, I am lacking, behind, and frustrated that I am like this, al-ghurabi | the passing darkness and strange blackness (raven) and be equivocal, allusive, and ambiguous in concealing sawata | a badly treated annoyance and shamefully vicious evil (body) my brother. Then he became of the regretful.
By including this perversion of the Towrah, al-Lahi/ha/hu tipped his cards, revealing the game he was 211playing. In a writing from the Midrash, a Jewish book of myths and fables, we find the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer telling this story,
“Adam and his companion sat weeping and mourning for him (Abel) and did not know what to do with him as burial was unknown to them. Then came a raven, whose companion was dead, took its body, scratched in the earth, and hid it before their eyes; then said Adam, I shall do as this raven has done, and at once he took Abel's corpse, dug in the earth and hid it.” (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p.80)
Of this, Alfred Guillaume, the European scholar who translated Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad for Oxford Press, acknowledged, “The story of the world’s first murderer affords a most informing example of the influence of a Jew behind the scenes.” (Guillaume, op. cit., p. 139).
Apart from the contrast between who buried whom, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later compiler, obtained his “scripture.” A Jewish fable came to be repeated as a historical fact in the Quran.
We find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature in the Mishnah Sanhedrin. However, in the Quran, it is used to provide the following pretext for genocide…
Quran 005.032 From time that we wrote (ordained) on Children Is’raila | Israel that he who qatala | kills nafsan | a soul other than a soul or corruptors, tainted, mischievous, invalid, or spoiled (spreading corruption) in the earth, then is as if he has killed al-nasa | the uplifted among the people (mankind) jami’an | gathered and collected together. And whoever ahya | lives it (saves it), then is as if ahya | he has lived al-nasa | the uplifted among the people (mankind) jami’an | gathered and collected together.
And, lo, surely, came to bring to them our rusuluna | ones who are sent (messengers) bil-bayinati | with separation, disunion, and severing between (clear signs) thumma | collected here and there 212(yet), lo, an overwhelming number of them remote and removed (after) that in the ground (earth) lamus’rifuna | eating away, suckling ignorantly, extravagant, squandering, and wasteful (commit excesses).
Not only is the transition from one Quranic statement to the next unintelligible, but the moral of the story is insane. Allah is reporting that it’s okay to kill Jews if they’re causing mischief (such as scoffing at the non-prophet for stealing the core of this citation from the Talmud). Allah is thus giving Muhammad carte blanche for mass murder. And he took it. Islam’s non-prophet slaughtered thousands of Jews in genocidal rage.
In the Quran, there is no explanation as to why the life or death of one should be equal to the salvation or destruction of all mankind. However, when we turn to another Jewish citation, we find that this bizarre interpretation of the Towrah came from the Talmud Mishnah Sanhedrin 4. There we read…
“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth’ (Bare’syth / Genesis 4.10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.” (Talmud Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4.5)
Therefore, the lone verse that Islamic apologists cite out of context to suggest that the Quran and Islam are not murderous and sadistic, was not only followed by one which proves otherwise, the “positive” message was composed by a Jewish rabbi, not Allah. This realization is factually irrefutable and the consequence is undeniable.
213Moreover, what follows exposes and condemns the Trinity of Muhammad / Allah / Satan as sadistic and demonic…
Quran 005.033 The only rendering and reward for those who are in conflict with or frustrated by al-Laha and his Messenger, who walk or work upon the earth, wrong or invalid, corrupt or mischievous, is that they be slaughtered, they be put to death by crucifixion, they have their hands and feet be cut off and severed on opposite sides, or they be banned, driven away, cast out, and removed, from the earth. That is for them the vile and despicable abasement, the shameful affliction, and evil degradation, in the down-low world of the here and now. And for them in retreating during the hereafter a glorious and grievous punishment, magnified and abounding torture.
There is no mitigating the wannabe god’s edict to annihilate the human race, mutilating and torturing everyone in the process. This makes Islam a more formidable foe than the Black Death. It plainly states that there are only four ways for a Muslim to “reward” and “abase” those who are in conflict with any aspect of Islam, who are frustrated by Islam, or even pray regarding Islam, including everyone who walks or works on the earth. According to Allah, they must be slaughtered, crucified, mutilated to the point of incapacitation, or banned and removed.
If that were not enough for informed, rational, and moral people to quarantine Islam, after sadistically torturing and annihilating everyone, degrading humanity in the process, Allah, as Satan, intends to inflict a glorious and grievous torment as part of a great and magnificent torture.
The religion of Islam and humanity cannot coexist. Even if you are not among those with the good sense, courage, and compassion to isolate the overtly religious who are infected with this plague, surely you see the merit in making all expressions of it illegal.
214There are far more deadly and despicable Muslims now than there were Nazis at the beginning of the last world war, and they are far more anti-Semitic and prone to violence. And you know what happened then. Humanity’s survival is dependent upon not letting that occur again. And that can only be accomplished by making Islam illegal, shuttering all mosques, sequestering Islamic protests, and eliminating Islamic literature throughout the free world.
Scream as they will, freedom of religion does not extend to those devoted to criminality and genocide. Freedom of speech does not apply to those seeking world conquest, plundering everyone in the process. And mind you, neither freedom of religion nor freedom of expression exists in Islam.
This is the final surah. This diabolical mandate was not abrogated. This is Allah’s and Muhammad’s parting shot at the world. It is the enduring expression of their Pledge to Wage War Against All Mankind. The 5th Suratun is Islam’s legacy. We deal with this reality, or we die from it.
Muslim apologists argue that repentance prevents these tortures and that Allah is “oft-forgiving, most-merciful.” But that is not what this says. And even if it did, the exemption would be to prevent the eradication of the human race, such that the only sub-human lifeforms left on the planet would be the most murderous and sadistic.
Recognizing that Satan wouldn’t be the Devil without an exception, there is one, but this one does not matter. It is a thin veil over an ugly beast because it only applies to a peaceful and hypocritical Muslim who renounces the moderation of Islam and returns to being a murderous thug in submission to Halal ben Shachar prior to being overpowered by Muslims annihilating humankind.
Quran 005.034 Except and unless the one who returns in a repentant manner, adapting, from before and in advance of your determination and means, even your destiny, to overpower them. 215Then be aware that al-Laha protective, covering over and hiding (oft-forgiving), pardoning (most-merciful).
It wasn’t worth the breath to recite it, much less the ink not used to write it. The exemption is without distinction. There is no difference whatsoever between a sadistically murderous Muslim hellbent on annihilating everyone and a Muslim who rejoins the sadistically murderous Muslims committed to exterminating humanity.
Quran 005.035 O you who believe, protect and ward off al-Laha and seek the means to favor him, so Jihad | Strive to Fight in His Cause so that you may attain fortune (be successful).
Quran 005.036 Verily, those who kafar | are reconciled (disbelievers), if that for them what in the ground (earth) put together its resemblance with it to ransom themselves with it from castigating torture and tormenting punishment day stand still, it would not be accepted from them. For them a painful punishment.
Quran 005.037 They will ask, desire, and seek that they evade the irritating fire, but not they will escape, extracting themselves from it. And for them, an established and standing punishment.
It is the one-two punch of Islam – jihad now, torture later. Allah’s influence is deadly on Earth and sadistic thereafter.
I’d like to share something directly related to this Quran passage. The largest commercial radio station in the United Kingdom asked me to spend two hours speaking about the relationship between fundamental Islam and terrorism. Over the course of the interview, the station received several hundred phone calls and emails from irate Muslims. One woman, toward the end of the program, said, “You are typical of Americans who speak about things that you know nothing about. You don’t understand Islam or the Quran. You’ve taken everything out of context and have interpreted it too literally.” She went on to explain, “Islam is nonviolent because the Quran says: ‘If anyone kills a person, it is as if he killed all mankind and if anyone saves a life, it is as if he saves all of mankind.’”
216Forgetting for a moment that the entire quote was pilfered verbatim from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, proving that Quran 5.32 was plagiarized not inspired, the Islamic apologist omitted the core of the verse and all of what follows. She misquoted the Quran by omitting from the verse, its exemption for murder: “except in retaliation or the spread of mischief.” The “spread of mischief” is “non-Islamic behavior” and a “mischief maker” is anyone who does not “submit to and obey Allah and his Apostle.”
Then she took the verse out of context by not completing the point Allah was making. The next verse flows from the previous one. And Quran 5.33 is overtly violent, murderous, and intolerant – even sadistic. Therefore, in trying to defend Islam and the Quran, the Muslim woman quoted a verse that was inspired by Jewish folklore rather than Muhammad’s god. Then she did what she falsely accused me of doing; she misquoted the Quran and took it out of context. But worst of all, she tried to deceive the millions who were listening to the show into believing that Islam, the Quran, and its god were peaceful when the very passage she selected required Muslims to “punish” and “disgrace” non-Muslims with murder, torture, mutilation, enslavement, or exile so that Allah might “torment them in Hell.”
It’s hard to know if she had been deceived or if she was intent on deceiving. Both are bad, and symptomatic of Islam. And lest I forget, the next caller angrily told me, “I pledge to kill you to save mankind from you.”
Moving on, we find one of the Quran’s many renditions of revisionist Abraham playing his role in establishing Islam. The salient portion of the 21st surah, named, Al-Anbiya’ | The Prophets, commences with a 47-217verse rendition of the Never-Ending Argument with Ibrahim playing the starring role.
Quran 021.051 And lo, we bestowed aforetime on Ibrahim | Abraham his guidance, for we knew him well. Quran 021.052 When he said to his father and his people, ‘What are these images, to which you are devoted?’ Quran 021.053 They said, ‘We found our fathers worshipping them.’ Quran 021.054 He said, ‘Lo, verily, you and your fathers have been in manifest error.’ Quran 021.055 They said, ‘Have you brought us the truth, or are you some jester?’
This Quranic indulgence, like so many others, emerges out of a whirling dervish without reference to the audience, place, time, or nature of the offending religion. Devoid of this context, while replete with dubious dialogue, the passage is as ridiculous today as it was senseless yesterday.
However, the intent of the Quran isn’t to accurately convey anything that actually occurred in the lives of the people who engaged with Yahowah. Had that been the case, the Quranic narratives would have replicated the originals in the Towrah. And yet, since a forthright portrayal would have been devastating to Muhammad’s and Allah’s agenda, the lives of these individuals were recrafted such that they would serve Satan’s quest to be worshiped as if he were a god promoted by Muhammad in the deserts of Arabia.
Every narrative is then removed from its original context and then perverted such that it replicates Muhammad’s struggles in Petra and Yathrib – as is the case here. But that’s a problem because to be perceived as God, Allah must claim the Towrah as his own – since no other source of Divine writ is credible. But when he does so while advancing gross perversions of people and events presented within the Towrah, while claiming that his misappropriations confirm the 2,000-year-older and much-better-documented text, he reveals that he is delusional.
Quran 021.056 He said, ‘Nay, your rabbi | lord is the master of the heavens and earth, who created them, and I am a witness to this. 218Quran 021.057 And by al-Lahi | the to-him, I shall plot a plan (to destroy or circumvent) your idols after you have gone away and turned your backs.’ Quran 021.058 So he broke them to pieces, (all) except the biggest of them, so that they might turn to it.
Rather than building his case for monotheism and against idolatry, al-Lahi/ha/hu is promoting what he claims to detest. Speaking before supposed pagans in the presence of their pretend idols, young Ibrahim validates their contrived religion, telling them that their imaginary rabbi is the master of the worlds. He then claims to have witnessed this – which takes us back to his previous pronouncements that the sun, moon, and stars were his Lord when he witnessed them rising in the night sky. Incriminating himself further, Islamic Ibrahim is now the dimwitted schemer as opposed to the one who is being plotted against. He allegedly tells his undisclosed audience that he intends to do something to their pretend idols as soon as they turn their backs.
Evidently undeterred by the questionable threat against their religious preferences, the intolerant Ibrahim who was modeled after Muhammad, dismantled their gods, save one – the biggest of them. His plan, as was Muhammad’s, was for them to turn to it – a false god. It was the recipe for Islam.
The reason that this story of the destructive and dishonest Abraham appears in the Talmud and the Quran, but not in the Towrah, is because it is religious, counter to Yahowah’s instructions, and did not occur.
Quran 021.059 They said, ‘Who has done this to our gods?’ ‘He is a mischief-monger and wrong-doer.’ Quran 021.060 They said, ‘We heard a young man talking them who is called Ibrahim.’ Quran 021.061 They said, ‘Then bring him before the eyes of the people, that they may testify.’
Quran 021.062 They said, ‘Did you do this to our gods, O Ibrahim?’ Quran 021.063 He said, ‘No. This one, the biggest of them did it. Ask them in case they can speak.’ Quran 021.064 So they 219turned to themselves and said, ‘Lo, verily, you are the polytheist, wrong-doer, and disbeliever.’
Quran 021.065 Then they turned to themselves, ‘Lo, you know well that these speak not.’ Quran 021.066 He said, ‘Do you then worship besides al-Lahi things that can neither profit you nor harm you? Quran 021.067 Uff on you and to what you worship from besides al-Lahi. Then will not you be bound to abstain?’
Quran 021.068 They said, ‘Burn him, and save your gods, if you will be doing.’ Quran 021.069 We said, ‘O fire cold and safety for Ibrahim.’ Quran 021.070 They wanted for him a plan, a point or plot, even an artful contrivance, but we made them the losers who were cheated, beguiled, and deceived.
Since Allah never spoke, why didn’t that shame the first Muslims who heard this nonsense? And why would the supposed patriarch of monotheistic religion lie and tell his people that a pagan god smashed lesser idols? Would that not make the idol real and Ibrahim a deceiver?
Equally troubling, the Quranic Abraham called a “god” false because it “cannot harm you.” The implication is that the Lord / Rahman / Allah were real because they were sadistic psychopaths intent on imposing torturous punishments. Also incriminating, here we learn that gods can be saved by burning men.
Pushing this fable to the point of absurdity, Islam’s un-god is unable to put out the fire. So, he issued commands for the fire to be what it cannot, cold. Then what began poorly ends worse…
Quran 021.071 And we delivered him and Lut to the land (of Israel) which we blessed in it for the mark and sign known.
I suppose the Quran’s blessing for Israel is genocide against them. We all witnessed this Muslim godsend on October 7th, 2023, replete with burning Jewish women and children alive. It was so Islamic of them.
There are, of course, no parallels to this idolatrous story in the Towrah. But there is an equivalent in a 2nd-220century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In its account, Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenge him on this, and he claims the bigger idol smashed the smaller ones. The enraged father doesn’t believe his son’s account and takes him to a man named Nimrod, who throws him into a fire. But the religious god made it cool, and he walked out unscathed.
The similarity between these religious fables is unmistakable. Second-century Jewish folklore and myth are repeated in the Quran as if it were divinely inspired scripture.
The next example is equally incriminating. In the 27th surah, named An Naml | The Ants, al-Lahi/ha/hu tells a story along the lines of something you’d expect to see in a children’s fairytale. Come to find out, that’s where it came from. In Quran 027.017-044, the Snake shares a fable about Solomon, a Hoopoe bird, and the Queen of Sheba.
However, before we can compare the Quranic account with the original found in Jewish folklore, one written hundreds of years before the recital in II Targum of Esther, we must address the initial misappropriation of the Towrah. Before the Hoopoe bird chirps, the Suratun proceeds with a self-incriminating twist…
Quran 027.001 Ta Seen. These signs the Quran and a writing (book) separated and severed (clear). Quran 027.002 A direction and good tidings for the believers, Quran 027.003 those who stand still the prostration prayer, and pay the zakat tax, and the go backwards and retreat, they obvious.
Quran 027.004 Verily, those who not believe the go backwards, the postponed and deferred retreating and receding, we adorn and embellish to them their doing and making so they are confounded and wander blindly. Quran 027.005 Those the ones for them an evil bad treatment, vicious and grievous the torturous punishment in the go backwards, the postponed and deferred retreating and receding. They the deceived and cheated losers. Quran 027.006 And 221lo, you verily met and found, suffered and endured al-Qur’ana from near presence the restraining authority in command, the sign of knowing.
It is as clear as the night sky in the desert, Allah was as delusional as he was controlling and covetous. He was also deliberately misleading, sadistic, and egomaniacal based on his own testimony. These may be normative qualities for demonic spirits, but they are not appealing in wannabe gods.
There were no signs. There was no book. The recitals had been everything but clear. The directions were murderous and the tidings were of genocide. The prostrations were designed to be humiliating while the tax revealed Islam’s actual intent.
As for Satan’s il-akhirati, it is defined as a “step backwards, a delayed retreat, or postponed diminishment.” It was al-Lahi/ha/hu’s way of teasing and threatening men with taunts of decadent rewards and demonic torments.
Then to explain away the realization that all sensible people rejected the Quran once they were confronted with its sinister message, Satan claims that his embellishments confounded them, such that he is assured the opportunity to cheat and then torture them.
And with that hypocritical introduction by the Snake who slithered out of the Garden and into the Desert, we find the most inane presentation of Moseh’s meeting with Yahowah ever spoken…
Quran 027.007 When Musa said to his people, ‘Lo! I am sociable, friendly, and amicable (perceive) a fire. I will bring you from it some information, or bring a burning torch so that you may warm yourselves.’
It boggles the mind that two billion people think that this verbal diarrhea is from God.
222Quran 027.008 But when he came to it, he was called that burika | bowed down and blessed who in the fire, and who changed and altered it. And swimming and floating (praise and glory) al-Lahi, Rabbi the marked as known (worlds).
Thankfully, after repeatedly threatening to roast every unbeliever in the fires of hell, at least now we know that Allah is in there with them and it’s his idea of a blessing. Also telling, rather than saying “and around it,” the un-god said “and who changed and altered it.” Nonetheless, Islamic comedy hour continues…
Quran 027.009 ‘O Musa, Lo! I, al-Lahu, the mighty potent, invincible and proud, the restraining exercising authority. Quran 027.010 And meet your stick.’ But when he saw it shaking and wrangling as if it a jannun | veiled and concealed Jinn, a covered and hidden demon, a dark and possessed devil (a snake), walla mud’biran | he turned closer and made friends and lam yu-‘aqib | did not succeed striking the heel. ‘O Musa, no doubt terrified and fearing, indeed I, not fear My presence the sent.’
There is a lot more to playing God than plagiarizing Him, dumbing down the narrative to the point of utter stupidity, and then replacing His name with another. So we must ask yet again, was Satan this dimwitted, making this verbal vomit his best effort, or was he playing Muslims for fools while demonstrating to God that people are not worth saving? I suspect some of both, but more of the latter.
During Moseh’s meeting with Yahowah, God did not brag, and He had a prolonged discussion with this man prior to announcing His name. He told His chosen individual that this place on Mount Choreb was special. Then He invited Moseh into His presence, introduced Himself as the God of ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob, and explained that He was aware of and deeply concerned about His people’s suffering. He even mentioned that He was opposed to what the slave drivers were doing to them to reassure Moseh that He supported what he had done. At this point, in what is a brilliant narrative with a reassuring 223cadence, Yahowah revealed that His intent was to bring His people home after liberating them.
God asked Moseh to work with Him, negating yet another aspect of Islam. He had already differentiated Himself from the abominable ruse of al-Lahi/hu/ha by actually revealing Himself to Moseh, by speaking for Himself, by communicating intelligently, by identifying those with whom He previously communicated and engaged, by establishing the place and time of the meeting, and by revealing His commitment to liberate His people from being subjugated by human political, religious, conspiratorial, and economic schemes.
Just as Yahowah and Allah are the antithesis of one another, there is no correlation between the Towrah and Quran. They are wholly incompatible, with one being brilliant and the other dimwitted. They are true and false. And this is a contest that Islam cannot win because it must both negate everything that is in the Towrah while at the same time claiming it as its own.
At least we are presented with a clear picture of Allah in his natural state: “Meet your stick. But when he saw it shaking and wrangling as if it (was) a veiled and concealed Jinn, a covered and hidden demon, a dark and possessed devil.” And while that may be one of the Quran’s most incriminating statements, Islamic Musa’s response is also impeaching…“He turned closer and made friends and did not succeed striking the heel.” Even the use of ‘aqab | heel is telling because, while it does not fit this context, it was the last thing Yahowah told this Snake on his way out of the Garden, explaining that he would bruise the heal of man – and thus our ability to stand beside and walk with God.
In the actual meeting between Yahowah and Moseh, the Almighty’s co-liberator and partner was so comfortable in God’s presence that he told Him, “Why me? Why should I go?” Therefore, Moseh was not “terrified and fearing.”
224Yahowah said that He would accompany Moseh, and then reassured him by telling him that together they would bring the Children of Yisra’el back to Mount Choreb. And it was then that Moseh asked God His name, which Yahowah explained, even telling us how to pronounce it, prior to saying, “Yahowah is My name forever.”
However, not one to miss any opportunity to recast every character in the Towrah as precursors of Muhammad engaging in the Never-Ending Argument, we find this odd exemption, especially since it follows “O Musa, no doubt terrified and fearing, indeed I, not fear My presence the sent”…
Quran 027.011 Except who suppresses and subjugates then changes, alters, and substitutes good remote and distant evil and vicious treatment. Then lo, I covering over and hiding, Rahim.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that Allah knows what he just said, who he said it to, who he was condemning, where this occurred, or why. Moseh was out tending sheep in just south of Israel along the western shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The descendants of those he had left forty years ago were 200 miles northwest in Goshen. The Midyan community that had befriended him were humble shepherds, not subjugating lords. And the only alterations and substitutions to what he and Yahowah discussed would not occur for over 2,000 years. But as for covering over and hiding, no doubt al-Lahi/ha/hu was a master.
Quran 027.012 And enter your hand into the hole in your collar. It will come out white from without vicious evil or bad treatment in nine signs unto Fir’aun and his standing still (people). Lo, verily, they are qawm | a standing firm (people) fasiqun | disobedient, lewd, and perverted. Quran 027.013 But when our signs came to them, visible, they said, “This is an inversion, a substitution, delusional and beguiling, separate and different, magic and sorcery.
Quran 027.014 And they denied and rejected them, though they were convinced with them themselves. Suppressing and 225subjugating lords and high and exalted. So see how was the heel of punishment (end) the invalid corrupters, decomposed and spoiled?
I suppose that the tenth plague foreshadowing Pesach | Passover was a nonstarter for the Snake since it opens the Door to Life in Heaven and represents the first step toward Yahowah. So in Allah’s version, there would only be nine tokens, with the white hand without hurt sealing the deal.
And of course, since Satan would have been rooting for Pharaoh to prevail over the Children of Yisra’el, keeping them enslaved as is his preference, the obstacle to their freedom wasn’t Pharaoh’s recalcitrance. It was, instead, disobedient people – none of whom had any say in the matter.
Nonetheless, without having bothered to leave the fireside chat, go to Egypt, meet with Pharaoh Thutmose the Great, or even work in a few plagues, we are magically transported to Arabia where Muhammad’s kin are calling his Quran sorcery because they were evidently jealous. However, we are led to believe that those who were mocking Allah’s claims recognized that they were true. This is astonishing in its arrogance.
So while that was grating on our intellect, should it be possible, what follows is worse. No one was closer to Yahowah than Dowd – nor ever will be. And his first act upon his return on Kipurym in year 6000 Yah / October 2nd, 2033, a Sunday evening on Allah’s Day of Doom, will be to cast this Snake into She’owl | Hell where he will remain.
Do not believe a word of this, not that it would otherwise appear tempting. After all, since the Lord of Jinns hasn’t been able to enlighten anyone, he would have been out of his league before Dowd and Shalomoh.
Quran 027.015 And we verily gave knowledge to Dawuda and Sulaimana and they said, ‘Praise be to Lillahi | Belongs to Him, the one who has favored us above many of his believing slaves.’ Quran 027.016 And Sulaimanu inherited Dawuda. And he said, ‘O the 226mankind, we have been taught language of the birds, and we have been given from every thing. This, verily, is an evident favor.’
Quran 027.017 And were gathered for Sulaimana | Solomon his hosts of al-Jini | the demonic, serpents, and the men, and the birds, and they were set in rows (ranks for battle). Quran 027.018 Until, when they reached the Valley of the Ants. An ant exclaimed, ‘O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Sulaimanu and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not.’
How is it possible that a single person believes that this tale of Solomon tweeting before an army of demons and birds arrived in the valley of talking ants missing his Hoopoe bird is Divine? Is the Serpent’s venom that toxic?
Quran 027.019 So he smiled, amused and laughing at her speech, and said, ‘Rabbi, grant me power that I should be grateful for the favors you have bestowed on me and my parents, and do good things to please you. And admit me by your grace as one of Your rightful slaves.’ Quran 027.020 He inspected the birds and said, ‘Why, why do I not see the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees? Quran 027.021 I will certainly punish him with a severe torment, cut his throat, or I will surely slaughter him, unless he brings me a clear reason.’
After converting Dawud into a Muslim, now Sulaiman is Allah. It’s a miracle. Fortunately, the talking Hoopoe was there to save the day. Although, after grasping the story of Sheba from the Hebrew Writings, providing an over-the-top assessment of the queen’s prowess, and a not-too-subtle dig at Satan, Sir Hoopoe was an “ah” short of Allah in his declaration. Therefore, with his integrity on the line, he’d have to become a carrier pigeon, transporting a letter as imaginary as the Quran. I tweet you not…
Quran 027.022 But the Hoopoe tarried not far and was not long in coming. And he said, ‘I have grasped which you apprehend not, and I have come to you from Saba’ | Sheba with tidings true. Quran 027.023 Lo, I found a woman ruling over them and she has been given all things. And she has a magnificent throne. Quran 027.024 I found that she and her people prostrate to the sun instead of al-Lahi. And al-Shaitan | the Adversary, Satan, makes their deeds 227fair-seeming to them, and has barred them from the way, so they do not go aright.
Quran 027.025 Al-La (this word has two interpretations, A – as Satan has barred them from Allah’s Way so that they do not worship prostrate before Allah, or B – so that they may worship prostrate before Allah (Tafsir At-Tabari, Volume 19, Page 149)) prostrate to Lillahi the one who brings forth the hidden in the heavens and the earth and knows what you conceal and what you declare. (Tafsir At-Tabari, Volume 19, Page 149).
Quran 027.026 Al-Lahu, no god but he. Lord of the tremendous throne supreme! Quran 027.027 He said, ‘We shall see whether you speak the truth or you are of the liars. Quran 027.028 Go with this letter of mine and deliver it to them. Then turn away from them and see what they return.’
Hoopoe did his duty impersonating Lillahi, as is the purpose of every character, fabled or otherwise, so now it is time to see if the Queen capitulates. But, what happened to the ants? Did Sulaiman stomp them into submission or did al-Lahi/hu/ha forget all about them?
Quran 027.029 She said, ‘O chiefs! Verily! A noble letter has been delivered to me. Quran 027.030 Lo! It is from Sulaimana | Solomon, and verily, it in the name al-Lahi, al-Rahman, al-Rahim.’
Just as the Quran is called “noble,” even after the un-god threatened to slaughter everyone who didn’t capitulate and then torture them, this un-letter demanding submission bears that same distinction. Also, since we have eight supernatural identities or critters, feel free to pick the god among them – Solomon, Hoopoe, the forgotten An Naml, Lillahi, al-Lahu, al-Lahi, al-Rahman, and al-Rahim.
Quran 027.031 ‘Alla | that not rise up and exalt yourselves arrogantly against me, but come to me in submission.’ Quran 027.032 She said, ‘O chiefs! Advise me in my affair. No affair would I be the one to decide except you are present with me.’ Quran 027.033 They said, ‘We possess strength and are possessors of great might, but the command is up to you. So look what you command.’
228Quran 027.034 She said, ‘Lo, the kings, when they enter a town, they despoil it, and make the most honorable of its people lowest. And thus they do. Quran 027.035 But verily, I am going to send to them a gift, and see with what the messengers return.’
With Sheba portrayed as if she were the Quraysh, it was time to turn Solomon into a prototype of Muhammad. It’s the Snake’s specialty.
Quran 027.036 When came to Sulaimana, he said, ‘Will you provide me with wealth? What al-Lahu has given me better than that which He has given you! Nay, you in your gift, rejoice. Quran 027.037 Go back to them. Lo, we will come to them with hosts [the bird and jinn army] not resistance for them of it. And, verily, we will drive them out from there in humiliation and disgrace. And they abased in ignominy.’ Quran 027.038 He said, ‘O chiefs! Which of you will bring me her throne before they come to me in Mus’limina | Submission?’
Quran 027.039 Said Ifritun | Strong and Crafty One of al-Jini | the Jinns | Demons and Devils, ‘I will bring it to you before you rise from your place. And verily, I am indeed strong, trustworthy for such as this.’ Quran 027.040 Said one who with him knowledge of the writing book, ‘I will bring it to you before that returns to your glance (the twinkling of an eye)!’ Then when saw it placed before him, he said, ‘This is by the favor of Rabbi to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful. And whoever is grateful, then only he is gratitude is for his soul. and whoever is ungrateful, then verily, rabbi is self-sufficient (rich, unconcerned, and independent), noble.’ Quran 027.041 He said, ‘Disguise her throne for her. We will see whether she will be guided or will be of those not guided.’
Who would have guessed that Solomon, whom Yahowah enriched beyond measure, coveted the wealth of the Sabaeans and bragged about Rabbis and al-Lahu/hi/ha? This version even threatened to send his bird and devil army against the Southern Arabian kingdom in today’s Yemen, even though it was 1,250 miles away. Are we to believe that he was a psychopath and wanted to drive them out (into the sea?) while humiliating them for no apparent reason?
229Assuming the Donk-Mule was available to fly it in, Solomon wisely saw the stolen chair as a gratitude test so he issued the command to disguise it. After all, if the robbed Queen was a Muslim he would be a roastee in al-Lahi/ha/hu’s fires.
Quran 027.042 So, when she came, it was said, ‘Is your throne like this?’ She said, ‘It is like it.’ ‘And we were given the knowledge before her and we Mus’limina | surrendered, becoming submissive Muslims. Quran 027.043 And has averted her what she used to worship besides al-Lahi. Lo, she was of a disbelieving people.
Lo, verily, why not?
Quran 027.044 It was said to her, ‘Enter al-Sarha (a glass surface with water beneath).’ Then when she saw it, she thought it a pool. She uncovered on her shins. He said, ‘Lo! It is Sarhun made smooth of glass.’ She said, ‘Rabbi, verily, I, myself, have wronged myself. And I submit with Sulaymana to Lillahi, Rabbi the known.’
Verily, the people of Sheba, although they were disbelievers, were spared by the glass floor. We know this to be verifiable and true because the next line of the Suratun devoted to the Chatty Ants moves on to Brother Saleh and the Quarreling Thamud. Surely, the Great and Powerful al-La/Oz wouldn’t have stolen this story from fellow rabbis and regaled us with tales of the Talking Hoopoe and uncovered shins on glass floors just for giggles.
Quran 027.045 “We sent to Thamud their brother Saleh, ‘Worship Allah.’ Then look! They became two parties quarreling with each other.”
Sadly, we are left to wonder about the fate of the Snooping Hoopoe, the Sticky-fingered Jinn, and the Ant Antics. Did the Islamic Sulaymana pass the Test of the Throne? Was the floor really glass? Was the Queen lashed for showing ankle? In the end, all we do know is that this story was purloined from Targum Sheni of Esther. It is as big an embarrassment to Islam and the Quran as it is to Judaism and the Talmud.
230Before I share the story from which this ridiculous Quranic episode was derived, I’d like to begin by sharing that the Book of Esther, from which the rabbinical account was drawn, is also a fairy tale. It is errant historically and was not inspired. Nonetheless, rabbis love it, as they have predicated their inappropriate Purim holiday on it. I share this with you because the Second Targum is an Aramaic translation (targum) and elaboration on this apocryphal book, making it a fantasy based upon a fable. In Quranic fashion, it embellishes the religious story with material not even remotely associated with the people, place, or time in which it is alleged to have transpired.
The Jewish Encyclopedia characterizes the story as “a genuine and exuberant midrash,” a free elaboration common to Rabbinic literature. Within it, we find a story that involves King Solomon holding a feast for his daunting army of animals. It is comprised of birds and demonic spirits, all of whom are subjected to him. But the Redcock refuses to attend, protesting on the grounds that Solomon is inferior to the Queen of Sheba. Evidently, there was a pissing contest over the size of their thrones. So, Solomon sends for the Queen. She accepts his invitation, and upon her arrival, he houses her in a room made of glass, through which he reveals that she has a hairy foot. That aside, she demands that he answer three riddles before she will pay homage. Solomon solves the enigmas and the two exchange gifts. And as a result, the riddles were integrated into Jewish folklore.
Most 19th-century scholars dated the Targum Sheni of Esther to the 4th century CE, although some say the 6th. But even if it was translated into Aramaic in the 7th or 8th centuries, it predates the Quran. And frankly, it makes my blood boil that rabbis recited this trash to Muhammad and then giggled when he added their story to his Quran. They sold the words which were then used to silence them and murder their brethren. It is reprehensible.
231To further impugn the Quran, here are excerpts from the rabbinical rubbish that was misappropriated and twisted to comprise the Quran’s 27th Suratun. Read it and weep…
“Solomon gave orders ‘I will send King and armies against you (of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.’ Just then the Redcock bird, enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.
But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom of Sheba which is not subject to you, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’
By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing, and away it flew, and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing Sheba opened it and read it.
‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please you to come and ask after my welfare, I will set you high above all. But if it please you not, I will send kings and armies against you.’ The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems...also to send a letter to him.
When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger to meet her...Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass. When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her...”
Therefore, both sides of this rabbinical transaction, Rabbi al-Lahi/ha/hu and the rabbis in Yathrib promoting Judaism, were out of their minds – and likely munching on ergot. The Quran Suratun they inspired with this Targum is 232nothing more than a rotten job of twisted and self-serving plagiarism. This counterfeit alone is sufficient to prove that the Quran is a colossal forgery and that neither Allah nor the rabbis should be trusted. If you are Muslim reading these words, wake up and listen to the Hoopoe. If you are Jewish, it’s long past time you stop listening to rabbis.
Affirming the obvious: the Quran was compiled in Baghdad by blending the religious myths of many cultures, resulting in the awkward retellings of the Never-Ending Argument. This un-book did not inaugurate a new monotheistic religion but, instead, ushered in an amalgamated terrorist manifesto for ignorant malcontents. Stolen stories provided a veil for the Pledge to Wage War on All Mankind.
One of the most comprehensively documented and damaging facts about the Quran is that Muhammad and Allah also used heretical Gnostic Gospels and their fables to create their recitals. The Encyclopedia Britannica comments: “The Gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources.”
The odd accounts of the early childhood of Iesa / Jesus in the Quran can be traced to a number of Christian apocryphal writings. For example, the palm tree which provides for the anguish of Mary after Jesus’ birth (Quran 019.022-006) was derived from Pseudo-Matthew by way of the Greek myth of Leto’s labor and the birth of Apollo. Reporting on this literary theft in his, From Hellenism to Christianity and Islam: The Origin of the Palm Tree Story concerning Mary and Jesus in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Quran, Suleiman A. Mourad wrote…
233“The palm tree story concerning an episode in the lives of Mary and Jesus is related in the Quran and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The similarity between the two versions has been noted in modern scholarship, although each text places the story in a different setting – the Quran associates it with Mary’s labor, whereas Pseudo-Matthew relates it to Jesus’ childhood.
“It is very problematic to identify which of the two religious texts is the source for the other, especially since the story does not appear anywhere else in ancient literature. My research into the issue has led me to identify the source for both texts: the Greek myth of Leto ~ labor and the birth of Apollo. The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to present the evidence for my hypothesis, to explain why the myth was transferred to Mary and Jesus, and to suggest why the Quran and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew differ in associating it with different episodes of their lives.
“The Quran relates Mary’s conception and delivery in chapter 19 (Surat Maryam), verses 2-33. The palm tree episode represents verses 22-26 and is supposedly the only part of the conception and delivery story that has no known Christian origin. The Quran was composed in the first half of the 7th century CE, supposedly taking its final textual form during the reign of the third Muslim caliph 'Uthman (r. 644-656). The beginning of chapter 19 follows closely that of the Gospel of Luke, written in the 1st century CE.
“The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, on the other hand, was composed sometime between the middle of the 6th century – the date of Pope Gelasius’ decree to ban the Protoevangelium of James – and the end of the 8th century – the earliest manuscript evidence! Jan Gijsel suggests the first quarter of the 7th century as the most probable date.
“It is generally believed that Pseudo-Matthew was composed in order to recirculate, with some modification, 234the text of the Protoevangelium of James, which was composed in Greek in the Christian Near East in about the second half of the 2nd century. The latter was perceived to include material offensive to Mary, which explains why it was banned by Pope Gelasius.
“In 1853, Tisehcndorf produced what most scholars consider to be the full text of Pseudo-Matthew. The palm tree story appears in chapter 20 and belongs to that part of Pseudo-Matthew which did not originate in the Protoevangelium of James. The story is placed in the context of the flight of the holy family to Egypt following the events described in the Gospel of Matthew as the Massacre of the Innocents (2.13-18).” The palm tree story in Quran 019.022-026 reads: “She (Mary) conceived him (Iesa) and retired to a remote place. Labor pain brought her to the trunk of the palm tree. She said, ‘I wish I had died before this and was forgotten.’ Then he (Iesa) called from beneath her, ‘O do not grieve. God has used underneath you a stream. Shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon your ripe dates. Eat and drink and be satisfied.”
In Pseudo-Matthew 20.1·2, it is reported as follows: “And on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and, seeing a palm-tree she said to Joseph, ‘I should like to rest a little in the shade of this tree.’ Joseph therefore led her quickly to the palm and made her dismount from her beast. And as Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm and saw it full of fruit and said to Joseph, ‘I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm.’ And Joseph said to her, ‘I am surprised that you say so, for you see how high the palm-tree is, and that you think of eating its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water because the skins are now empty, and we have nothing with which to refresh ourselves and our cattle.’
235Then the child Jesus, reposing with a joyful countenance in the lap of his mother, said to the palm, ‘O tree, bend your branches and refresh my mother with your fruit.’ And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of Mary; and they gathered from it fruit with which they all refreshed themselves. And after they had gathered all its fruit it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from him who had commanded it to bend down. Then Jesus said to it, ‘Raise yourself, O palm, and be strong and he the companion of my trees which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from your roots a vein of water which is hidden in the earth and let the waters flow, so that we may quench our thirst.’ And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to gush out a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. And when they saw the spring of water, they rejoiced greatly and were all satisfied, including their cattle and their beasts and they gave thanks to God.”
Based upon these similarities between the fables, Suleiman Mourad writes, “Obviously the story as it appears in the Quran is shorter than the one of Pseudo-Matthew, reflecting a stylistic system common in the Quran. In the Quran, the story takes place while Mary is in labor with Jesus, and the setting is identified only as a remote place. In Pseudo-Matthew, Jesus is already born, and the incident occurs during the flight to Egypt. It is very likely, then, that one is dealing here with two stories stemming from the same origin: one story places the palm tree incident in the context of Mary’s labor, and the other puts it in the context of the flight to Egypt. Common to both is the miracle which causes the palm tree to provide fruit and the appearance of water from its roots.”
But there is more to this story, which is why Mourad explained, “In Greek mythology, one finds the palm tree associated with the worship of Apollo. In particular, the holy palm tree is found by the temple of Apollo on the 236island of Delos. The veneration for that palm tree derives from the legend describing Leto sitting by its trunk while in labor for Apollo. Leto was desperate and trying to hide herself from the angry Hera. She sought the remote and rocky island of Delos, where she sat, aggrieved and distressed, by a palm tree alongside the Inopus River and delivered Apollo. There are several presentations of that myth in Greek lore, the three that follow represent important stages in its development:
‘And as soon as Eilithyia the goddess of sore travail set foot on Delos, the pains of birth seized Leto, and she longed to bring forth; so she cast her arms about a palm tree and kneeled on the soft meadow while the earth laughed for joy beneath. Then the child leaped forth to the light, and all the goddesses raised a cry. Lord Phoebus, when the lady Leto gave you birth, gripping the palm-tree with her slender arms, you, loveliest of the immortals, by the circle lake, fair Delos was pervaded end to end by an ambrosial fragrance, and the vast earth smiled, and the deep salty white-necked main rejoiced.
‘So didst thou speak, and gladly ceased from her (Leta’s) grievous wandering and sat by the stream of lnopus, which the earth sends forth in deepest flood at the season when the Nile comes down in full torrent from the Ethiopian steep. And she loosed her girdle and leaned back her shoulders against the trunk of a palm tree, oppressed by grievous distress, and the sweat poured over her neck like rain. And she spoke in her weakness; “Why, child, dost thou weigh down thy mother? There, dear child, is thine island floating on the sea. Be born, be born, my child, and gently issue from the womb.”’”
So, it is déjà vu all over again. A spurious religious text served as the basis of an apocryphal diatribe, only to become another of the Quran’s fantasies and fables. If the dividing line between plagiarism and research is the 237number of stories pilfered for the project, then the Quran was Allah’s essay on comparative religions.
Moving on to the next fable, this one of the infant Jebus creating birds from clay (Quran 003.049). It comes from Thomas’ Gospel. The story is of the baby ‘Jesus’ talking (Quran 019.029-033) can be traced to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Christ.
The source of Quran 003.035 is the aforementioned book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser. From it, Allah has Moses’ father beget Mary and then show his disappointment for having a girl.
The source of Quran 087.019’s fictitious “Books of Abraham” comes from the apocryphal Testament of Abraham. The fantastic tale in Quran 002.259 that God made a man “die for a hundred years” with no ill effects on his food, drink, or donkey was from a Jewish fable. The false notion in Quran 002.055-056 & 067 that Moses was resurrected came from the Talmud. The legend of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod (Quran 021.051-071, Quran 029.016, & Quran 037.097) came from the Midrash Rabbah.
In Quran 017.001, we have the fabricated report of Muhammad’s “journey by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque.” From later Traditions, we know this verse refers to him ascending up to the seventh heaven, after a miraculous Night Journey (the Mi’raj) from KabaVille to Jerusalem, on a flying ass called Buraq. Yet we can trace the story back to The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 BCE in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic centuries later. So even Al-Aqsa has Jewish religious origins.
The source of the devilish encounter in the Jewish court depicted in the 2nd surah is found in chapter 44 of the Midrash Yalkut. The Suratun myth in Quran 007.171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the 238Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the ‘law’ came from the apocryphal book Abodah Sarah.
The making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of the fire fully formed and actually mooed (Quran 007.148 & Quran 020.088), was pilfered from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer. The seven heavens and hells described in the Quran came from the Zohar and the Hagigah.
Muhammad utilized the apocryphal Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or hell (Quran 042.017 & Quran 101.006-009).
Neither the Jewish Talmud nor the Christian New Testament were inspired by God and the apocryphal material derived from them was akin to the Quran, with lies piled on top of lies. For these reasons, scholars find it suspicious that man’s mythical accounts should have made their way into a book claiming to be the final revelation from a god.
Another analogous account whose essays augment the Quran is that of The Secrets of Enoch (chapters 1:4-10 and 2:1), and yet it predates the Quran by four centuries. What Allah didn’t steal from Jewish fables, he borrowed from an old Persian book entitled Arta-i Viraf Namak. It tells how a pious young Zoroastrian ascended to the skies, and, on his return, related what he had seen, or professed to have seen.
The Quranic description of Hell resembles the portrayals in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the 6th century. Although, I’m convinced many of hell’s torments came from the abuse Muhammad suffered in the desert as a child – or at the very least, what the sadistic psychopath envisioned doing to his tormentors.
239The description of Paradise in Quran 055.056, Quran 056.022, & Quran 056.035-037, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris, or virgins, who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians. The maidens are quite similar and the rivers in the Persian Paradise flow with wine as well.
Bukhari:V4B54N469 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The first batch who will enter Paradise will be like a full moon; and those who will enter next will be like the brightest star. Their hearts will be as the heart of a single man, for every one of them shall have two wives from the houris, each of whom will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the flesh. They will never fall ill, and they will neither blow their noses, nor spit. Their utensils are silver, their combs are gold, the fuel used in their censers will be aloe, and their sweat will smell like musk.’”
Muhammad, or whoever compiled the Quran, incorporated parts of the religion of the Nabateans and Sabeans, some Zoroastrianism and Paganism, with heavy doses of Judaism and Christianity into Islam. He adopted such pagan rituals as: the prostration prayer at the Ka’aba, performing the salat five times a day towards the pagan rock pile, the greater and lesser Hajj, the zakat tax, and fasting in Ramadhan from the Quraysh.
This caustic brew of uninspired ingredients may be why W. St. Clair Tisdall, in his Original Sources of the Quran, wrote: “Islam is not an invention, but a concoction; there is nothing novel about it except Mohammed’s mixing old ingredients in a new panacea for human ills and forcing it down by means of the sword.” He was astute.
So, let’s affirm the obvious: the Quran was compiled in Baghdad by blending the religious myths of many cultures, resulting in the most awkward retellings of the Never-Ending Argument imaginable. It did not inaugurate 240a new monotheistic religion but, instead, ushered in an amalgamated terrorist manifesto for ignorant malcontents.
Tisdall went on to say: “Islam’s scriptures came to reflect the carnal and sensual nature of its founder. Islam, therefore, may aptly be compared with: that bituminous lake where Sodom flamed, which, receiving into its bosom the waters of many streams that united form a basin that turns them into one great Sea of Death, from whose shores flee pestilential exhalations destructive to all life within reach of their malign influence. Such is Islam.”
In his Original Sources of the Quran, William St. Clair Tisdall wrote, “Originating from many different sources, it has assumed its form from the character and disposition of Muhammad; and thus the good in it serves only to recommend and preserve the evil which renders it a false and delusive faith, a curse to men and not a blessing. Muhammad’s concoction has turned many of the fairest regions of the earth into deserts, deluged many a land with innocent blood, and has smitten with a moral, intellectual, and spiritual blight every nation of men which lies under its iron yoke and groans beneath its pitiless sway.”
It’s hard to imagine a more lucid description of the toxins secreted from Allah’s fangs and the plague that emanated from Muhammad’s demented soul. This is an especially accurate and adroit assessment of the cause and consequence of Islam.
The linguist, theologian, and historian, Willian St. Clair Tisdall, went on to write, “While the devout Muslim believes that the rituals and doctrines of Islam are entirely heavenly in origin and thus cannot have any earthly sources, scholars have demonstrated beyond all doubt that every ritual and belief in Islam can be traced back to pre-Islamic Arabian culture. In other words, Muhammad did not preach anything new. Everything he taught had been believed and practiced in Arabia long before he was ever 241born. Even the idea of only one God was borrowed from the Jews and Christians.” It was all true, every word of it. And we have proven it as well.
Thomas Carlyle’s dictum on the Quran was also enlightened: “It is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook, a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite. Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through it.” While I concur, it’s far worse than just wearisome, confused, jumbled, crude, and incondite because it is deadly and demonic.
Samuel Zwemer, in his The Influence of Animism on Islam ~ An Account of Popular Superstitions wrote: “In no monotheistic religion are magic and sorcery so firmly entrenched as they are in Islam; for in the case of this religion they are based on the teaching of the Quran and the practice of the Prophet.”
In other words, it’s Satan’s book.
Quite recently, there has been a new movement afoot in the Islamic world. Clerics and kings have come to recognize they have a problem. The Quran and Sunnah are murderous and repulsive – so are their non-prophet, un-god, and religion. They do not stand up to scrutiny or any sense of morality. While they have been able to fool politicians and the media by repeating “Islam is a peaceful religion,” and they have been able to cower religious leaders by threatening them, it hasn’t worked on everyone.
To resolve these problems, Islamic officials unveiled a different strategy during my earliest debates with them. They said that they were “unaware” of Tabari’s History. When that didn’t fly, they protested saying, Tabari isn’t “approved.” Then they claimed that it was just a “history 242book and not a collection of Hadith.” Some even said that it contained “unauthorized material.” While that’s not true, it created confusion and served their interests.
Their rejection of Tabari is unsound for many reasons. First, Ishaq’s original manuscripts have been lost. Therefore, Tabari Tarikh is the oldest unedited account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam.
Second, Tabari is nothing but a collection of Hadiths. Everything I quoted came complete with a chain of transmitters. In fact, Tabari’s isnads are more complete than Bukhari’s. And without the Hadith, there is no Sunnah. Without Sunnah, there is no Islam.
Third, the Hadith Tabari compiled are no different than those arranged a century earlier by Ishaq, or by his near contemporary, Bukhari. They were all pumping from the same well – digging out of the same pit. And the four earliest sources – Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Bukhari’s The True Traditions, Sahih Muslim, and the History of al-Tabari – tell the same story – one which is corroborated by the Quran. Should one be wrong, they are all wrong. And should that be the case, there is no case for Islam.
Fourth, the Hadith compiled by these Muslims are all attributed to the same people who conveyed the Quran. Both collections were communicated mouth to ear over the generations before they became a written text. Should the dialog in the Hadith be inaccurate, there is no possibility that the narratives found in the Quran can be accurate.
And fifth, the Hadith and Quran are hand and glove, word and sword. One is useless without the other.
In that these points are inarguable, why do you suppose Islamic officials ganged up on their best source? The answer is because it was translated into English, published, available, and difficult for them to alter, while the others were not. In each debate I urged listeners to go 243to the S.U.N.Y. Press website and buy volumes I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of Tabari’s History and then read it for themselves. That was easy enough. If what I was quoting was accurate, everything Muslims were saying about their religion was a lie. The world would know the truth. And if I misrepresented Tabari’s message, I promised to go away, never to be heard from again.
The Islamic apologists knew what I was saying was not only true but devastating. They stopped debating me and started discrediting Tabari because they were aware of what I had discovered: the only English translation of Hisham’s redaction of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah was out of print and exceedingly difficult to find.
I searched for a year, trying to buy it from the largest booksellers, the publisher, and even used bookstores. I searched libraries, too, but to no avail. Muslims check out Ishaq’s Biography of Muhammad and burn it. Fortunately, a man who had listened to one of my debates found a copy in a university library. He photocopied Alfred Guillaume’s translation under the title, The Life of Muhammad, published in 1955 by Oxford Press – all 900 pages. And then he sent it to me.
To put this in perspective, being a Muslim without the information contained in the only chronological presentations of Muhammad’s words and deeds would be like being a Christian without the Gospels or following Judaism without the Talmud. Not that I’d recommend either, those texts are essential to their religions.
As we have discovered, the Quran isn’t like any intelligent book. It’s jumbled together without context or chronology, rendering it nothing more than a mean-spirited rant, a demented, delusional, and dimwitted tirade. Without the chronological Hadith collections of Ishaq and Tabari, Islam becomes whatever Islamic clerics and kings want it 244to be. So in their fiefdoms, it’s all about jihad. In the free world, it’s all about the pretense of peace.
To prove my point, I’d like to review Islam’s Five Pillars to see if they stand without the Hadith collections found in the Sunnah. But before we begin, Islam provides an important clue. To find the Pillars, we must turn to the Hadith, not the Quran. And while I will conduct this analysis using the “approved” version of Islam’s Five Pillars, there are competing scenarios we must consider. As you might expect, Muhammad himself couldn’t decide what his priorities were – much less Allah’s.
The most famous Islamic proclamations echo the Quran’s incessant command to fight jihad in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad established jihad’s preeminence, claiming that fighting was the foundation upon which Islam’s other pillars must stand. Under the title “Fighting In Allah’s Cause – Jihad,” we read this from The Noble Quran:
“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated.
By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.
Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”
The reason jihad supersedes the other pillars was explained by Muhammad: Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed. Can you, while the Muslim fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?’ The man said, ‘No one can do that.’”
245Jihad is superior to endless prayer and fasting. But there was more: Bukhari:V4B52N46 “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘The example of a Mujahid [Muslim Jihadist] in Allah’s Cause – and Allah knows best who really strives in His Cause – is like a person who fasts and prays without ever stopping. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.’”
It’s the Devil’s rendition of the win-win scenario – babes and booty now and later. And that leads us to the capper, the line that confirmed jihad was better than all of the Five Pillars combined…
Bukhari:V4B52N50 “The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.’” There is a direct and undeniable causal link between the religion of Islam and Islamic terrorism.
Bukhari:V4B52N63 “A man whose face was covered with an iron mask of armor came to the Prophet and said, ‘Allah’s Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?’ The Prophet said, ‘Embrace Islam first and then fight.’ So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A Little work, but a great reward.’” And yet, the work was murder and the reward unfulfilled.
Consistent with this message… Bukhari:V1B2N25 “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.’ The questioner again asked, ‘What is the next (in goodness)?’ He replied, ‘To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) in accordance with the Traditions of the Prophet.’” This is important because it establishes Three Pillars, with Jihad being the second most important.
The next rendition of Muhammad’s appraisal of Islam’s Pillars eliminates the Hajj, which was number three above, and replaces it with the Khumus – Muhammad’s share of stolen booty…
246Bukhari:V1B2N50 “They said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, order us to do some religious deeds that we may enter Paradise.’ The Prophet ordered them to believe in Allah Alone and asked them, ‘Do you know what is meant by believing in Allah Alone?’ They replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ Thereupon the Prophet said, ‘It means: 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle. 2. To offer prayers perfectly. 3. To pay the Zakat obligatory tax. 4. To observe fast during Ramadhan. 5. And to pay the Khumus (one fifth of the booty to be given in Allah’s Cause) to Allah’s Apostle.’”
Contradictions aside and priorities confused, I promised to resolve Islam’s absolute reliance on the Sunnah by analyzing the “officially recognized” Pillars. To begin: Bukhari:V1B2N7 “Allah’s Apostle said: ‘Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.’”
Let’s tackle them one at a time. In its present order, the Quran’s initial surah, the 2nd, (the 1st is an invocation, not a revelation as it speaks to god, not to man) makes a transition from Ar-Rahman to Allah. But as we read on, this changes. The Quranic God becomes Ar-Rahman again and then a nameless Lord.
Without the chronology the Sira’s Hadith provide, Muslims don’t know who God is or how many of them there are. And they know nothing about the “Apostle.” Without the Sunnah, acknowledging him in the profession of faith is like a recording device asking to be credited for bringing you the songs of your favorite artist. Moreover, the Quran only presents the first half of this recipe, not the last. For the complete Pillar, one must turn to the Hadith.
But it gets worse. The Quran orders Muslims to obey the Messenger. If you don’t know what he ordered, that’s impossible. The Quran alleges that it’s entirely composed of Allah’s commands, not Muhammad’s, so a Muslim would find that impossible without the Hadith.
247The Quran also tells Muslims that they must follow the Messenger’s example. And yet, the only place that example is established is in the Sunnah. Therefore, Islam’s First Pillar is meaningless without the Hadith. It would be impossible to implement without Ishaq and Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim.
The Second Pillar is: “2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.” Once again, that’s not feasible. The “compulsory congregational prayer” isn’t described in the Quran. There aren’t even any clues. In fact, the Quran says that there should be three prayers, none of which it depicts, and the ahadith demand five.
The only explanation for the obligatory prostration is found in the Sunnah – and even then, it’s never described by Muhammad, himself. Muslims are performing a ritual without Quranic precedence. As such, the Second Pillar is rubble without the Hadith.
Let’s see if the Third Pillar survives without the Sunnah. To find out, we turn to the Hadith… Bukhari:V1B2N7 “3. To pay Zakat.” How is that possible when the terms of the Zakat are omitted from the Quran? The first to commit them to paper was Ibn Ishaq in the Sira. A century later, Tabari referenced his collection of Hadith. The only reason Muslims can pay the Zakat is because the Hadith compiled by Ibn Ishaq explained it to them. The Profitable Prophet Plan is bankrupt without the Sira.
Surely the Fourth Pillar will fare better: “4. To perform Hajj.” Nope. That’s impossible too. The only explanations of the Hajj are found in the Sunnah. The explanations of how the pilgrimage is to be performed are derived by referencing the Hadith. Muslims would be lost without it.
Do you suppose Allah will redeem himself and explain the final pillar in his “perfect, detailed, and final revelation to mankind?” Bukhari:V1B2N7 “5. To observe fast during the 248month of Ramadan.” Guess what? Allah forgot to explain the nature of the fast.
Without the Hadith, Muslims would be expected to forgo eating during the entire month of Ramadhan. But that’s not the way they observe the fast, for it’s not the way it’s explained in the Sunnah. As a matter of fact, without the Hadith, Muslims wouldn’t know why Ramadhan was special. The only account of the initial revelation is in their Traditions – once again, initially chronicled by Ishaq and then copied by Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari.
Without Ibn Ishaq and those who imitated, edited, and borrowed from his arrangement of Hadith concerning Muhammad’s words and deeds, there would be no Islam. The Quran is otherwise incomprehensible, and the Five Pillars are unexplained. Faith is folly.
This is underscored by the realization that the lone individual responsible for Islam, Allah, and the Quran, preached: Bukhari:V9B88N174 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Far removed from mercy are those who change the religion of Islam after me! Islam cannot change!’” Therefore, those who speak of moderating Islam or reforming it to resolve its deadly nature are delusional.
The penalty for escaping Muhammad’s and Allah’s clutches has always been high… Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”
This was no ordinary prophet or religion. Muhammad was special. He was a terrorist, murderer, rapist, and thief, and you don’t find too many of those in religious circles.
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’”
Yes, Islam was all about Muhammad, and he knew it. That is why he required his Sunnah to be enacted as law.
249Tabari IX:82 “The Messenger sent Khalid out to collect taxes with an army of 400 and ordered him to invite people to Islam before he fought them. If they were to submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them.”
Muhammad’s Sunnah, as depicted in the Hadith, has become the basis for Islamic law and life – the most repressive code of conduct and culture on Earth. Muslims follow his example, which is why they are violent and impoverished. This is why all good Muslims are terrorists.
It all comes down to this: If the Hadith of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim are true, Muhammad was the worst man who ever lived, Allah was the most demented deity ever conceived, and Islam was the deadliest doctrine ever imposed on humankind. If, however, the Hadith are untrue, then nothing is known of Muhammad, the conception of his god, or his formation of the Quran. And all we are left with is the worst book ever written.
The documented references throughout God Damn Religion were derived from English translations of the oldest and most reliable Islamic sources. While hundreds of scholars and researchers have written about Muhammad, his god, Allah, and the religion Islam, there are only five sources that can be considered somewhat original, partially authentic, and, to the extent possible for hearsay, credible.
All other writings present a cleric’s or scholar’s opinion, which may or may not be drawn from the original sources. So rather than study someone’s interpretation of Muhammad, Allah, and Islam, we will limit our investigation to what the oldest and most trustworthy sources report that Islam’s lone messenger had to say about himself, god, and his religion. If Muhammad got Islam 250wrong, no one has it right. And without Muhammad, there would be no Quran or a god named Allah.
Since translations of the Quran are wildly divergent due to the remedial nature of the text, I initiated the process of conveying its message by presenting a thoughtful composite of the five most commonly cited representations to convey its message as accurately as possible. And while these include The Noble Quran, Pickthal, Shakir, and Yusuf Ali translations along with the Ahmed Ali sanitized paraphrase, throughout God Damn Religion I have favored the more literal, expansive, and expressive reading found in the Quran Word By Word Interlinear with translational insights provided by the authors of The Noble Quran. It was translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan for Maktaba Dr-us-Salem Publishers in coordination with the King Fahad National Library. For added elucidation and validation, especially when the word patterns were interpreted differently, I have provided additional insights by surveying the 66 English translations presented in parallel at IslamAwakened.com. The resulting translations became compilations of the Quran Word By Word, The Nobel Quran, and Arabic Dictionaries, incorporating the 66 other translations when needed, then augmenting this with my understanding of Hebrew, from which most of the Quran’s words were derived. Then as we moved into the fourth volume, with God Damn Religion ~ Slaughter, the translations became more exacting as a composite of Quran interlinears, Arabic dictionaries, and Hebrew etymology.
The oldest Quran fragments date to 725 CE – a century after they were allegedly recited – and at a time when the contents were in a state of flux and still evolving. A comprehensive analysis of these findings and the book’s history is presented in the Losing the Quran and Islam’s Dark Past chapters of God Damn Religion ~ Snake and Sunnah & Suratun. One of the most revealing assessments of the Quran’s formative years was written by the world’s 251foremost authority on Quranic paleography, Dr. Gerd R. Puin, for The Atlantic magazine in 1999. He stated…
“The Quran is a cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; which one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history. The Quran claims for itself that it is mubeen, or ‘clear,’ but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, but the fact is that a fifth of the Quranic text is incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Quran is not comprehensible – if it can’t even be understood in Arabic – then it’s not translatable. People fear that. And since the Quran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not – as even speakers of Arabic will tell you – there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.”
Beyond its seriously deficient writing quality, the Quran also lacks the organizational structure of context and chronology. It, therefore, must be read in conjunction with the chronological Hadith Collections of Ishaq and Tabari to be understood. And to that end, God Damn Religion was composed using this approach.
The Sirat Rasul Allah was compiled by Ibn Ishaq in 750 CE. It was edited and abridged by Ibn Hisham in 830 CE and translated by Alfred Guillaume under the title, The Life of Muhammad in 1955 by Oxford Press. Referred to as the Sira, or Biography, Ishaq’s Hadith Collection is comprised of oral reports from Muhammad and his companions. It provides the only written account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam that was composed within two centuries of the prophet’s death. There is no earlier or more accurate source.
252The History of al-Tabari, called the Ta’rikh, was compiled by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 CE. His monumental work was translated and published in 1987 through 1997 by the State University of New York Press. I quote from volumes I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Tabari’s History is comprised entirely of Islamic Hadith. It is arranged chronologically. Tabari is Islam’s oldest uncensored source.
Al-Bukhari’s Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari – The True Traditions was collected by Islamic scholar Imam Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari between 840 and 860 CE. I have quoted from the nine-volume original English translation by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the Director of the Islamic University, Al-Madina. It was published by Maktaba Dar-us-Salam in Saudi Arabia of the King Fahd National Library in July 1997. However, since the nomenclature cataloging Bukhari’s Hadith varies between the printed and digital presentations, I have used the more prevalent online nomenclature.
Imam Bukhari reviewed some 600,000 Hadith Traditions and distilled them down to 7,563 full-isnad (chain of hearsay reporters) narrations of which he was certain were Sahih | Authentic. Pared of duplications and contrasting accounts of the same episode, there are 2,600 Hadith in his collection, each shedding light on Muhammad, Allah, the Quran, and formation of Islam. Al-Bukhari began his research in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca before moving to the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina, establishing the final collection in 846 CE (232 AH), where it was thoroughly examined and verified by the most celebrated Islamic scholars of the day. The oldest surviving partial copy of his manuscript dates to 984 CE / 340 AH and the complete copy to 1155 CE / 550 AH.
Sahih Muslim, a 9th-century topical Hadith arrangement of Sunnah, was collected by Persian scholar Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi. A stickler for an 253unbroken chain of reporters, or isnads, at least two of whom were contemporaries of Muhammad, he reduced 300,000 oral reports emerging from Allah’s Messenger and his companions down to 4,000. This collection is compiled into 56 books and presents 3,033 independent narratives.
Sahih Muslim is among the most valued books in Sunni Islam alongside Sahih al-Bukhari, comprising the two most important Kutub al-Sittah (six books containing Hadith). They are considered Sahihayn | the Two Who Are Authorized Sahihs. Muslim’s collection was translated by Nasinuddin Al-Khattab for publication by Maktaba Dar-us-Salam in Saudi Arabia for the King Fahd National Library. An online version was retranslated and prepared by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui by the DEED-IIU group as inspired by the Muslim Students Association at the University of Southern California.
