Heart of Darkness
"I fear that a demon has possessed him."
It’s time I share something disturbing about the five holy books we are using to expose Muhammad, Allah, and Islam. They were not contemporaneous writings. Muslims say that Islam, unlike Judeo-Christianity, was played out in the light of recorded history but the opposite is true. The prophets and patriarchs of the Bible were lettered, and their contemporaries were literate. Their written scrolls encountered an educated audience of voracious readers within a generation of the events they described. The Islamic scripture, however, was all based upon long lines of oral tradition. No copy of the Qur'an dated to within a hundred years of the prophet's death survives. The oldest Hadith manuscript is two hundred years removed from the events it chronicles. Islam’s dark past is addressed at length in the "Source Material" appendix.
Muslim Traditions allege that the Qur'an first became a book at the direction of Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law, during the War of Compulsion. We are told that the first Caliph feared that Muhammad’s divine revelations would be lost because most of the best "reciters" had become warriors. According to a lone Hadith, Umar, the second Caliph, convinced Bakr that something had to be done. The fleeting memories of Jihad fighters were the sole repositories of the Qur'an, and they were being killed at an alarming rate. The loss of most or all of Muhammad’s "revelation" was imminent. Legend has it that Zaid, a native of Medina and one of the prophet's helpers, was assigned the task. He "gathered together the fragments of the Qur'an from every quarter, from date leaves, bones, stone, and from the breasts of men."
According to J. M. Rodwell, one of the early Qur'an translators, "Zaid and his coadjutors did not arrange the materials which came to them with any system more definite than that of placing the longest and best known surahs first. Anything approaching a chronological arrangement was entirely ignored. Late Medina surahs were often placed before early Meccan ones; the short surahs at the end of the Qur'an were its earliest portions; while verses of Meccan origin were embedded in Medina surahs, and verses promulgated at Medina were scattered up and down in the Meccan surahs."
Muslim scholars don't dispute Rodwell's claim. And that's alarming, because it means that no one was able to discern when a surah was revealed. No one even knew what composed a surah. They were jumbled together gobbledygook, completely out of order. And if Muhammad’s contemporaries were this confused, there is no chance they actually remembered the detail of what he claimed was disseminated by the almighty.
Rodwell continues his analysis with these words: "It would seem as if Zaid put his materials together just as they came to him, and often with entire disregard to continuity of subject and uniformity of style. The text, therefore, assumes the form of a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork, and conveys no idea whatever of the development and growth of any plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by which he was surrounded and influenced." Then after praising Zaid for his lack of "tampering" Rodwell adds that it is "deeply regrettable that no contemporary provided any historical reference, suppressed contradictory verses, or excluded inaccurate statements."
Therefore, even in the best possible light, the Qur'an as first assembled was a mess. It was out of order, jumbled together, contradictory, and inaccurate. Yet there is no proof that even this best-case scenario is reliable. There is no corroborating evidence that the "revelations" actually became a book under Bakr, Umar, or Zaid. There are no fragments or tablets. All we have is a flimsy oral tradition suggesting that this best-case scenario occurred. There isn't even a letter or a historical reference from any of the literate nations conquered by the first Muslim warriors to suggest that the Qur'an existed.
By contrast, there are 25,000 ancient Bible parchments, scrolls, fragments, and letters testifying to the immediacy and accuracy of today’s Judeo-Christian scriptures. Yet the only archeological evidence that has survived from the Qur'an's first century is a coin and an inscription inside the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple Mount. These fragments differ from each other and from today’s book.
The Qur'an's chasm of historical credibility is the good news. The other four books of Islam that compose the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta'rikh (History), and Hadith, didn't find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out. Turning to Rodwell we learn: "The first biographer of Muhammad of whom we have any information was Zohri, who died A.H. 124; but his works, although quoted by later writers, are no longer extant." Said another way, Zohri's biography may have been written one hundred years after the events occurred, but it doesn't matter because no one has ever found a copy. "Ibn Ishaq, who died in A.H. 151 (763 A.D.), composed a biography of Muhammad for the Caliph's use. Although there are no surviving copies of his work either, much of it was salvaged by Hisham, an admittedly biased editor. He died in A.H. 213." Ibn Hisham's Life of Muhammad begins with a stunning confession. He says that he removed material that discredited Muhammad from Ishaq's original manuscript.
Tabari didn't edit Ishaq to make Muhammad look better, but he only referred to the earlier work when it conflicted with his own collection of oral testimony or Hadith. Tabari completed his History of Prophets and Kings in A.H. 310 - three hundred years after the prophet's death. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says: "His work became the definitive resource." This makes his annals of Muhammad’s creation of Islam the earliest surviving unedited account of the prophet's words and deeds, and therefore of the context in which his Qur'an was revealed. It also means that there was a three hundred year gap filled principally by oral transmission for the lone unedited collection of Islamic Hadith containing any chronology or context.
Rodwell, in the preface of his early Qur'an translation, tells us: "It may be considered quite certain that Traditions concerning Muhammad were not reduced to writing for at least the greater part of a century. They rested entirely in the memory of those who have handed them down, and must necessarily have been colored by their prejudices and convictions, to say nothing of the tendency to formulate myths and fabrications to serve the purposes of the contending factions.... It soon becomes obvious to the reader of Muslim Traditions that both miracles and historical events have been invented for the sake of expounding a dark and perplexing text [the Qur'an]; and that the earlier Traditions are largely tinged with a mythical element."
He goes on to say: "These ancient writers [Ishaq and Tabari] are the principal sources whence anything approaching authentic information as to the life of Muhammad has been derived. And it may be safely concluded that after the diligent investigations carried on by the professed collectors of Traditions in the second century after the Hijrah, that little or nothing remains to be added to our stores of information relative to the details of Muhammad’s life, or to facts which may further illustrate the text of the Qur'an. There are no records posterior in date to these authorities that should be considered."
While every Islamic scholar I have studied agrees with Rodwell's assessment, that's not the end of the bad news. The people of Central Arabia in the sixth through eighth centuries were illiterate. Thus Hadith were passed along by word of mouth through the generations, father to son through chains of transmitters called isnads.
Let's view this problem from a more contemporary perspective. Imagine reconstructing the history of the American Revolution today based entirely upon oral traditions handed down over nine generations. Without books, letters, paintings, or pictures, it would be impossible to recreate the words of Cornwallis and Washington or to resurrect the drama as it was actually played out. Now, imagine writing this history in London, thousands of miles from where the events unfolded - in the home of those who were defeated. Such is the story of Islam. The first and best Hadith, Sunnah, and Sira were compiled in Baghdad, not Mecca or Medina, two to three centuries removed. And like detailing the American Revolution in Britain, each of the Persian scholars wrote in a highly politicized climate for men with a personal agenda. A compelling argument can be made for Islam being Persian rather than Arabian; the birthplace being Baghdad, not Mecca.
Yet while none of this attests to the reliability or unbiased nature of the Islamic scripture, it doesn't actually matter. If Muhammad were really a prophet, if Allah were really a god, and if the Hadith and Qur'an were really divinely inspired and dictated, the accuracy of these books would be of paramount importance. Our eternity would rest upon their every word. But since Muhammad was as feeble-minded as his deity and as emotionally disturbed as his scripture depicts him, an accurate witness and a faithfully maintained account is irrelevant.
So if much of this isn't true, why bother? Because through force, fate, and faith, over a billion people believe it's true. They believe Muhammad was a prophet, Allah was his God, and that the Qur'an consisted of divine revelations. They even think the sayings of the prophet, upon which the Hadith, Sira, and Sunnah are based, were divinely inspired scripture. Because most Muslims aren't free, literally trapped by fate and force in this delusion and in the hellish conditions the doctrine inspires, compassion compels us to expose the fraud and release them from the shackles of Islam.
Oh, and then there is the another problem - Islamic terrorism. This stuff is corrosive, causing people to act in accordance with its teachings, prophet, and god. Islam commands and conditions men to murder. It motivates them to commit acts of terror. If we want to thwart this foe we must first understand what its adherents believe and what drives them to such ungodly behavior. If we want to rid the world of terror, we must first expose the doctrine that makes men terrorists. Remember, prior to Muhammad, Arabs conquered no one. After Islam they subjected much of the known world to their sword. What changed them, pray tell, if not these words?
While the Islamic "holy books" aren't historically reliable, they are Islam - not a version, interpretation, or corruption of Islam, but the essence of the religion. Muhammad can be no different than these books depict him. If they don't accurately present the prophet and his dark spirit, they are unknowable and thus irrelevant. Frankly speaking, Islam loses either way.
Returning to the Hadith, we discover an interesting artifact concerning the early Meccans and their Ka'aba. It also heralds from the Year of the Elephant. Abdul Muttalib was a big shot in town, a wealthy idolater born two generations before Muhammad. In the line of Qusayy, he became the custodian of the Ka'aba. Tabari VI:15 "After the death of his uncle al-Muttalib, Abdul Muttalib took over the privilege of watering and feeding the pilgrims which the sons of Abd Manaf had held before him. He was honored and was a man of great importance, for not one was his equal." Ishaq:62 "Sleeping on the graves of Hagar and Ishmael he was ordered in a vision to dig Zamzam. 'Allahu Akbar.' he shouted. 'This is the well of our father Ishmael.'" Tabari VI:15 "He brought out what was buried there, namely, two golden gazelles, swords and coats of mail. He made the swords into a door for the Ka'aba." It’s interesting that the Ka'aba's treasure contained the implements Muhammad would use to loot the world: swords and coats of mail. The door to Allah’s House and the path to Islam were the same.
Ownership of the newfound booty was determined by a gambling game. Divining arrows were thrown at Hubal's feet, "the greatest of the idols." Ishaq:64 "Muttalib prayed to Allah and the priest threw the arrows. The Ka'aba won the gazelles."
Abdul Muttalib "was the first to institute the two yearly caravans." He was "the first to obtain for the Quraysh guarantees of safety which allowed them to travel far and wide from the sacred precincts of Mecca," - guarantees Muhammad would break.
Then one day, sun boring down on the treeless town, Muttalib was struggling to clear the well of Zamzam when: Ishaq:66/Tabari VI:2 "It is alleged, and Allah only knows the truth, that Abdul Muttalib encountered opposition when he was digging Zamzam. He vowed that if given ten sons, to make his labor less arduous and to protect him, he would sacrifice one of them to Allah at the Ka'aba." Bad move, because eventually he had ten sons. So, foolishly faithful to the rocks, he tossed divining arrows at Hubal's feet to determine which son should die. Ishaq:67 "They used to conduct their affairs according to the decisions of the arrows." His youngest lost. The boy's name was Abd-Allah, or Slave-to-Allah.
Now why would someone name a kid "Slave-to-Allah" a generation before Islam’s prophet claimed Allah was the creator-god of the universe? The answer is as embarrassing as any in the annals of religious lore. For all Muhammad really did was promote one of the existing Meccan idols, the moon god Allah, above Hubal, Al-Lat, Manat, Al-Uzza, and hundreds of others. On this day Allah had to compete for adoration, as Muttalib's tossing arrows at Hubal's feet attests. A Bukhari Hadith confirms the godly congestion: Bukhari:V5B59N583 "When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka'aba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick."
Islamic scholar Montgomery Watt, one of the English translators of Tabari, adds an interesting footnote. He says, "The name [not word] Allah has throughout been [wrongly] translated as 'God.' It should be kept in mind, however, that in the pre-Islamic period it does not necessarily mean "God" in a monotheistic sense. It is known from the Qur'an (29:61 and 39:38) that many pre-Islamic Arabs believed in Allah as a god who was superior to the other gods whom they also recognized."
Allah was a name, much like the Judeo-Christian "Yahweh." But Muslims desperately needed the world to see it otherwise. For if Allah was a proper name - not a word - their religion was a fraud. The creator of the universe can't be a pagan god, no matter how big a stick Muhammad swung. And Allah can't be Yahweh any more than I can be George Washington.
Arabic, like Hebrew before it, is a Semitic language. In Hebrew, "el," was the word for god - lower case "g" - as in idols. Elohiym was used with the article to convey "God" with a capital "G." In Arabic, "el" became "il." Then, over time, Arabs derived a secondary word for god, "ilah." With "al" being the Arabic word for "the," Muslims would have us believe that "Allah" is a contraction of "al" and "ilah." But the first pillar of Islam contradicts this claim when it says: "There is no ilah but Allah." If "Allah" were the Arabic word for god it would have been written: "There is no allah but Allah. Moreover, the Qur'an itself uses "Ilah" when Allah claims to be "the God of Abraham" (Qur'an 2:132). And that ends the debate because the only way Muslims can claim Allah, not Ilah, is the Arabic word for "God" is for the Qur'an to be errant or for its author to be either ignorant or deceitful. Further, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamic traditions like the one we just reviewed that confirm that Allah was the name of a well-known pagan deity (at least in Mecca). Their own scriptures profess that Allah had an ignominious rule as a Meccan rock idol centuries before he was transformed from god to God, from an ilah to Allah. All of which serves to destroy the most essential Islamic myth: "We all worship the same God."
Back in Mecca: Ishaq:67 "When Abdul Muttalib had ten sons grown to maturity and he knew that they would protect him, he told them of his vow, and called on them to keep faith with Allah in this matter. They expressed their obedience, and asked what they should do. He replied, 'Let every one of you take an arrow, write his name on it, and bring it to me.' They did this, and he went into the presence of Hubal in the interior of the Ka'aba. Hubal was the greatest of the idols of Quraysh in Mecca." Ibn Ishaq, the earliest compiler of Muslim Traditions, just told us that the high god of the Ka'aba was Hubal - not Allah. Doesn't this make Allah (also the second god of the Qur'an following Ar-Rahman) a second rate deity?
Papa Muttalib started having second thoughts. So he went off and consulted with a sorceress, hoping to get the "right" advice. Tabari VI:2 "By Allah! You shall never sacrifice him but you must get an excuse for not doing so." This sounds innocent enough until you realize that the person swearing by Allah is a Devil worshipper. "There is a sorceress who has a familiar spirit; ask her, and you will know what to do. If she commands you to sacrifice him, you will sacrifice him, and if she commands you to do something which offers relief to you and to him, you can accept it." Sorceresses are occult mediums: in other words, witches. Their familiar spirits are demons.
The noose around Islam’s neck is tightening. We have multiple gods in the Ka'aba and a witch deciding the fate of Muhammad’s father. "So they went to Medina where they discovered that the sorceress had moved to Khaybar. They rode until they reached her. She said, 'Retire from me until my familiar spirit visits me and I can ask him. Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah." Now there's a picture: idolaters praying to Allah in Islamic fashion in the presence of a Devil worshiper. So, what do you think Satan’s representative had to say? Would she pardon Muhammad’s papa and allow Islam to be born?
Lucifer must like Islam because... "On the following day they went back. She said, 'Yes! News has come to me. How much is the blood-money among you.' They replied, 'Ten camels.' She said, 'Bring forward the young man and ten camels, and cast arrows. If they fall against the boy, add camels until your Lord [Would that be Satan, Hubal, or Allah?] is satisfied.'"
We continue with Ishaq's account: Tabari VI:5 "They returned to Mecca when they had all agreed on the matter, Abdul Muttalib stood and prayed to Allah inside the Ka'aba beside Hubal. The arrows fell against Abdallah, so they added ten camels, making twenty. With Muttalib standing and praying to Allah they went on this way ten times. Each time the arrows fell against Abdallah." Satan’s representative seems to have been considerably more accommodating. There is just one chance in 1024 that fifty-fifty odds will go awry ten times in a row.
Tabari explains the horror of it all: "Abdul Muttalib stood beside Hubal in the interior of the Ka'aba, calling upon Allah. The custodian of the arrows took and cast them, and the lot fell against Abdallah. So Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. He grabbed a large knife. Then he went up to the idols Isaf and Nailah [the fornicating stones] who Quraysh used to slaughter their sacrifices, to sacrifice Abdullah."
But rather than slice his son's throat, Muttalib opted for one more cast of the divining arrows. They finally fell in favor of the boy. So Abdul, the stones, idols, gods, diviners, and sorcerers came to an understanding. Abdallah's life was spared. "Your Lord is satisfied at last. The camels were slaughtered and left there. No man or wild beast was turned back from eating them."
"Abdul Muttalib took Abdallah by the hand. It is alleged they passed by Umm Qattal bt. Abd al-Uzza [Slave-to-the-goddess-al-Uzza], the sister of Waraqa [the Hanif]. She was by the Ka'aba. When she looked at his face she said, 'Where are you going, Abdallah? I have seen many camels slaughtered for you, so sleep with me now.'" Sure, why not add a little prostitution into the mix. We've already got devil worship, paganism, gambling, and child abuse occurring around the Ka'aba.
But the bribe was evidently insufficient. So the proud papa, king of Mecca, custodian of the Ka'aba, and heir to the religious scam, took his son to the wealthiest and most powerful man of the neighboring clan, the Banu Zurah, and arranged for his son Abdallah to marry the chief's daughter Aminah. The blushing bride's grandmother was abd al-Uzza, which made her "genealogy and status" perfect, according to Ishaq.
Before we consummate this marriage, I must say I'm surprised Bukhari, Tabari, and Ishaq recount this sordid tale. Muhammad grew up a stone's throw from where it occurred. Yet he chose to ignore his ignominious past, revising Jewish history instead, in order to make the near sacrifice in his backyard shrine look monotheistic. In lieu of the truth, he said that the Hebrew patriarch Abraham had nearly sacrificed Ishmael at Allah’s House.
Take a deep breath. The next Hadith begins with an inordinately long sentence. Tabari VI:6 "It is alleged that he consummated his marriage to her there as soon as he married her, that he lay with her and that she conceived Muhammad; then he left her presence and came to the woman who had propositioned him, and said to her, 'Why do you not make the same proposition to me today which you made to me yesterday?'" To which she replied, "The light which was with you yesterday has left you, and I have no need of you today."
Remember, these Hadith found paper in Baghdad centuries after Muhammad’s passing. By that time, the Muslim scholars who authored them had well-defined agendas. In particular, they had to make their guy look as godly as that Christian guy, or they'd be out of business. The Gospels proclaimed that Yahshua was the light of the world, so Muslims contrived this Hadith to make their prophet appear similarly enlightened. And if you think that I'm being too cynical, listen to the next line from Tabari. "She had heard about this from her brother Waraqa bin Nawfal, who was a [Hanif turned] Christian and had studied the scriptures; he had discovered that a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael was to be sent to this people; this had been one of the purposes of his study."
Holy hogwash. The Bible says no such thing about the descendants of Ishmael. It says that he'll give rise to twelve rulers and that his descendants will live like wild asses of men, hands raised against their brothers, living in hostility with the world. While prophetic, it's hardly prophet material.
So why did the Muslim scholars choose to deceive us? They needed to, that's why. And within their community they could get away with it. And Arabs would never be wiser for it. They were illiterate, and even the miniscule percentage who could read were out of luck when it came to the Bible. There is no trace of an Arabic translation of the Old Covenant prior to that of Saadias Gaon in 900 A.D., decades after this delusion was promulgated. And the oldest Arabic Renewed Covenant was published by Erpenius in 1616 from a transcription of a 1171 Coptic scroll.
In the territories controlled by the Muslim warlords of the seventh through tenth centuries, words were irrelevant, as unimportant as evangelists. Islam grew by sword through conquest, not by words and reason. And those who benefited from this ruse knew that by the time their deception was exposed, it would be too late; the victory would have been won.
For those who may think I am perhaps making too much of too little, consider this: Tabari VI:7 "When Abdul Muttalib was taking Abdallah to marry Aminah they passed by a female soothsayer called Fatimah, a convert to Judaism from the people of Tabalah who had read the scriptures and who saw light in his face. 'Young man.' she said, 'would you like to lie with me now, and I will give you a hundred camels?'" Contriving a phony Christian endorsement of the Muslim prophet was not enough. Now a Jewish soothsayer is called to verify the light. But why would a Jew react this way? The Judeo-Christian scriptures say nothing - zip, zero, zilch - about the father of a prophet having a light in his face. Further, Judaism and soothsaying are mutually exclusive. Jews serve Yahweh; soothsayers serve Satan.
The third variant of this desperate grope for credibility demeans Abdallah. "His father took him and married him to Aminah and he stayed with her for three days. Then he left her and when he passed by the Khath'am woman he felt a desire to accept the proposition which she had made. He asked her, 'Would you like to have what you wanted before.' 'Young man.' she said, 'I am not, by Allah, a woman of questionable morals. I saw light in your face and wished it to be within me. But Allah willed that He should place it where He wished.'" The Devil worshiper wanted the Devil's child.
Then our Allah/Devil-serving soothsayer: "recited the following verses: 'I saw a sign which shone in the black clouds. I comprehended it as light which illuminated like the full moon. I hoped to have it as a source of pride which I might take back with me.... By Allah, no other woman has plundered your person of that which Aminah has.... Not all the fortune which the young man inherits comes from resolve, nor does that which escapes him come from remiss. So if you desire something, behave with restraint for two grandfathers combined to ensure it for you. A hand clenched or outstretched will ensure it for you. When Aminah conceived that which she conceived from him, she conceived an incomparable glory'" From black signs to pride, from full moons to plundering, from inherited fortunes to grandfathers ensuring loot, the young prophet would get what he desired from both open and clenched fists. This passage is so fraught with portent, so twisted with harbingers of Muhammad’s con, the originator must have laughed himself silly as his quill met parchment. He evidently got himself so worked up he bungled the tense in his parting salvo. Once again a simple story belies the nature of Islam. "Our guy is better than your guy and we will say anything, no matter how absurd, to prove it."
Abdallah lived long enough to father a son, but not to see him born. In a haunting overture of what was to come, the prophet's father died while on a business trip to Yathrib. Fifty-two years later the religion of Islam would die there as well when a prophet went on a business trip to Yathrib and became a profiteer.
In an attempt to make Muhammad appear Messianic, our hero was portrayed as having been born to considerable fanfare. There were celestial fireworks, regal visitors, an angelic host, and a veritable cornucopia of miracles. In that the worst of these were laughable, and the best were copied from the Gospels, I'll spare you the gory details - especially since none of them make any sense in context of what happened next. There is, however, one in Ishaq's Biography that is intriguing: Ishaq:69 "It is alleged in popular stories (and only Allah knows the truth) that Aminah, the mother of Allah’s Apostle, used to say when she was pregnant, 'A voice said to me, "You are pregnant with the Lord of this people and when he is born say, I put him in the care of the One from the evil of the envier; then call him Muhammad."'" She saw a light come forth from her by which she could see the castles in Syria." Envy is what drove Muhammad to create Islam. The care of the Evil On.' better known as Lucifer or Satan, may well have been what inspired him.
The truth is rather ignoble. Muslim scholars know nothing about Muhammad’s birth, and very little about his childhood. They missed his birthday by eighteen years when they claimed he was born in the year of the elephant, recently dated to 552 A.D. But to make their prophet fit Qusayy's profile of being forty when he staked his claim to the Ka'aba, Islamic historians claim Muhammad was born in 570 - exactly forty years before the first "revelation." Missing a date this important by eighteen years calls all of Islam’s oral testimony into question. By way of example, this did not occur: Ishaq:70 "I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from Yathrib, 'O Jews, tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.'"
Born fatherless, Muhammad’s mother abandoned him, giving him up to be suckled by a Bedouin woman. With his father dead and his mother poor, no wet-nurse wanted the infant because the burden exceeded the potential remuneration. Raising another's child in the inhospitable desert was done for money, not love. The least qualified of the wet-nurses, we are told, after failing to find a wealthy kid, reluctantly snatched the last available newborn, the would-be prophet, and hauled him off into the wilderness. A Hadith explains: Ishaq:70 "Halima went forth with her baby whom she was nursing, with other women, in search of babies to nurse. She was destitute and could not sleep because of the weeping of her hungry child. She had no milk to give him." Halima was obviously in no position to suckle another child. This was a disaster waiting to happen.
Ishaq:71 "When Halima reached Mecca, she set out to look for foster children. The Apostle of Allah was offered to everyone of us, and each woman refused him when she was told he was an orphan, because we hoped to get payment from the child's father. We said, 'An orphan!' And we spurned him because of that. Every woman who came with me got a suckling except me. And when we decided to depart, I said, 'I do not like the idea of returning with my friends without a suckling. I will take that orphan.' I took him for the sole reason that I could not find anyone else." So much for the "light" theory. Women were throwing themselves at Muhammad’s dad to sire him, but no one wanted to raise him. That doesn't make any sense.
What happened out there in the blowing sands and blistering heat is anybody's guess. All we know is that a baby was abandoned by his mother and given to a woman who was ill prepared to care for him. The only testimony that survives is in the Qur'an - a haunting and recurring theme that suggests he may have been abused. Allah’s revelations speak of an orphan boy with wealthy relatives being abandoned, treated poorly, and being shut out of the family business - The Ka'aba Inc. Permutations of this theme permeate Allah’s book, compelling the Muslim sages to give this mess a prophetic twist.
Ibn Ishaq claims that when Muhammad was two, Halima brought him back to his mother Aminah. Ishaq:72 "But she sent him back. Some months after his return to the desert two men in white seized the boy, threw him down and opened up his belly, stirring it up." We are told that Muhammad was "livid." "Halima said, 'I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so I want to take him back before the result appears.' She carried him back to Aminah and said, 'I am afraid that ill will befall him, so I have brought him back to you.' She asked what had happened. I said, 'I fear that a demon has possessed him.'" She was right.
Muhammad confirms the "spiritual" encounter. Ishaq:72 "They seized me and opened up my belly, extracted my heart and split it. They extracted a black drop from it and threw it away. They washed my heart and belly with snow until they had cleaned them." Muslim:B1N311 "Gabriel came to Muhammad while he was playing with his playmates. He took hold of him and lay him prostrate on the ground and tore open his breast and took out the heart. Then he extracted a blood-clot out of it and said: 'That was the part of Satan in you.' And then he washed it with the water of Zamzam in a golden basin and then it was joined together and restored to it place. The boys came running to their mother and said: 'Muhammad has been murdered.' They all rushed toward him. I myself saw the marks of needle on his breast." If this occurred, it was Lucifer, not Gabriel, and he was placing his spirit inside.
Organ removal and washing are Satanic - part of occult ritual worship - the kind of thing Muhammad’s father and grandfather were into. And ironically, if it had happened, it would be miraculous and therefore it would be in conflict with the Qur'an. Allah’s book says that the only miracle associated with the prophet was the revelation of the surahs themselves. In Qur'an 21:5 we find that one of the many arguments used by Muhammad’s critics at the time was that he couldn't do miracles. Since the Judeo-Christian Prophets could, and did, they said he couldn't be a prophet. If Muhammad had been involved in a miracle, or could do one, all he would have had to do to silence his critics was to explain the ones that had taken place, or simply summon his god's power to perform one. But no.
Sixth century surgery aside, the Islamic sages say that before the year was out, Aminah died. A slave girl took care of our young hero for a while before his grandfather finally took an interest. And even this is potentially disturbing, for the scriptures say of Abdul Muttalib's affection: Ishaq:73 "He would make him sit beside him on his bed and would stroke him with his hand. He was extremely fond of him and used to constantly pet him."
Straight from the Devil we learn: Ishaq:79 "There was a seer [occultist prophet] who came to Mecca to look at Muhammad. She said, 'Bring me that boy, for I saw just now that by Allah he has a great future.'" Then, disaster strikes once more: Tabari VI:44 "Abdul Muttalib died eight years after the Year of the Elephant. He entrusted the future Messenger's care to his uncle Abu Talib, because Abu and Abdallah had had the same mother." Needless to say, Muhammad had one whacked-out childhood. It’s not hard to understand why he was so insecure or why he turned out as he did.
Virtually everything associated with Muhammad was decidedly unprophet-like. His birth was not foretold. The circumstances surrounding it were nasty. He couldn't perform a miracle. He never issued a single prophetic utterance that came true as predicted. His scripture was abysmal - devoid of context and chronology. It focused on hate, violence, and punishment. His "new" religion was simply repackaged paganism blended with a plethora of plagiarized and twisted Bible stories. What little was inventive was tragic. War was elevated to a paramount religious duty. Plunder was approved, as was incest, thievery, lying, assassination, genocide, and rape to name a few Islamic innovations. Paradise became a lustful orgy. The would-be prophet's depictions of hell told us more about him than about the place. And his life was an example of what not to do, rather than how to behave. Then there was his god - a trickster, angry and demented.
According to the Qur'an, the Meccans knew the prophet was full of it. They ridiculed him on every occasion - a hundred variations of the never-ending argument were faithfully recounted in the Islamic holy book. But the Meccans were eventually conquered and criticizing the prophet became a deadly game. So the next time the Muslim hierarchy was confronted with the notion that their man didn't measure up was when they paraded his legacy out to the literate word. The enlightened didn't buy it either, and for all the reasons we have just mentioned.
That put the Muslim warlords in a tough spot. They had raided everyone from India to Spain. Now they needed to control that which they had conquered. And they recognized that there is no better way to subdue a population than to impose a religion. So about a hundred and fifty years after the prophet's death, the Persians rolled out the first version of the Islamic "religion." It was as dismal a failure as it had been in Mecca. Their subjects said, "This guy's no prophet and this stuff isn't scripture." By way of example, Al-Kindi, a Christian polemicist employed in the Caliphal court in 830 A.D. wrote: "The result of this process by which the Qur'an has come into being is that it's patently obvious to those who have read these scriptures that Muslim histories are all jumbled together and intermingled. It is an 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."
So the Islamic sages retreated to Baghdad and went back to the drawing board. Over the course of the next hundred years they buffed up their boy and their book, releasing a new and improved Islam. This time there were miracles and Christians and Jews ever at the ready to testify on the prophet's behalf.
Let's listen in, but with a critical ear, to see how well the sages cleaned up the prophet of Islam. Under the title, "The Messenger of Allah Is Recognized by the Monk Bahira" Tabari parades out a Hadith shared by Ishaq. Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 "Once Abu Talib was going on a trading expedition to Syria with a party of Quraysh, but when he had made his preparations and was ready to set out, the Messenger, so they allege, could not bear to be separated from him." Before I go on, I'd like to point out something that should be obvious. Tabari and Ishaq share a set of code words. When they say, "so they allege," "it is alleged," "it is said," "some say," or "Allah knows best," they are simply reporting what they were told to write. They don't believe it any more than you should.
"Talib took pity on him, 'By Allah, I will take him with me, and we shall never part.' or words to that effect. The caravan halted at Busra [Bostra?] in Syria, where there was a learned Christian monk named Bahira in his cell. There had always been a monk in that cell, and their knowledge was passed on, it is alleged, [the code words again] by means of a book which was handed down from generation to generation." There is no record of this monk, his cell, or his book outside this Hadith. But that's small potatoes compared to what comes next.
Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 "Bahira prepared a meal for them because while he was in his cell he had seen the Messenger shaded by a cloud which marked him out from among the company. When they halted in the shade of a tree, he observed the cloud covering the tree and bending down its branches over Muhammad until he was in the shade. Bahira descended from his cell and sent the caravan a message inviting them all. When he saw the Messenger, he observed him very intently, noting features of his person whose description he had found in his Christian book." Judeo-Christian prophets aren't described physically in any "book." But in order to create a Christian endorsement from a learned monk, the Muslims have invented this monk, story, and book.
"After the company had finished the meal and dispersed, he asked the Messenger about certain matters which had taken place both when he was awake and when he was asleep. Muhammad told him, and he found that these things corresponded to the description which he had found in his book. Finally he looked at his back, and saw the seal of prophethood between his shoulders in the very place described in his book." Camel-dung - every word of it. First, the Gospels are clear. No great prophet after the Messiah is foretold. Second, there isn't a set of "awake and asleep" criteria for a divine calling, which is probably why the Hadith doesn't bother listing them. Third, there is no Biblical "seal of prophethood." The concept was derived from Arabian pagan mythology to designate occult practitioners who talked to demons. Furthermore, the "seal" was actually nothing more than a hairy mole. (Tabari IX:159)
Next, the "Christian" Monk swears by the Meccan idols. Tabari VI:45/Ishaq:80 "'By Al-Lat and Al-Uzza.' Bahira said.' 'Take him back to your country, and be on your guard against the Jews, for, by Allah, if they see him and recognize what I have, they will seek to do him harm.'" The Jews spent years, not hours, with the "prophet." They let him move into their town and sold him stories from their Talmud. They never lifted a finger to harm him, even though he annihilated them in genocidal rage.
The hardest part of lying is remembering what you said. So in true Islamic form, we have a second variant of the "mark of the prophet" tale. "Abu Talib set off for Syria accompanied by the Messenger and a number of shaykhs. When they were above the monk's cell they went down and unloaded their camels. The monk walked among them, coming up and taking the hand of the Messenger. He said, 'This is the Chief of the Worlds, the Messenger. This person has been sent by Allah as a mercy to the Worlds.'" Let's call this "Holy Hogwash, Version Two." First, chief is a political term, not a religious one. Second, this time there were no questions, no signs, no seals - just a baseless, over-the-top endorsement. Third, how many "worlds" are there? And fourth, how could Muhammad have been a "mercy" to Christians when he and his god told Muslims to wipe them out to the last?
"The shaykhs of the Quraysh said to him, 'What is it you know.' He replied, 'When you appeared at the top of the pass there was not a tree or a stone which did not prostrate itself in worship; and they only prostrate themselves to a prophet.'" Hard to believe, but HH-2 is more pathetic than its predecessor. Neither Christians, stones, nor trees prostrate themselves - not even to wannabe prophets. Besides, prophets aren't supposed to be worshiped. God is.
Inanimate objects showering Muhammad with devotion was hardly a one-time occurrence. Tabari VI:63 "Before Gabriel appeared to Muhammad to confer on him his mission as Messenger of Allah, it is said that he used to see signs and evidences indicating that Allah wished to ennoble him. Two angels came to him, opened up his breast, and removed the hatred and impurity which were in it. [I'd sue them for malpractice.] It is said [the Islamic code words for "this is rubbish"] that whenever he passed by a tree or a stone, it would greet him."
Not to be outdone, in a Hadith from a line of transmitters - or isnad - that includes three Muhammads, a pair of Alis, two Slaves-to-Allah, and an Abd Ar-Rahman, we learn: "Whenever Muhammad went out to attend his business [answer the call of nature] he would go a great distance, out of sight of houses, and into the ravines and wadi beds. And then every stone and tree he passed would say, 'Peace be upon you, Messenger of Allah.'" Even today, Muslims, no smarter than the stones, are required to add "peace be unto him" after the mention of Muhammad’s name.
Returning to the monk: Tabari VI:46 "I also recognize him by the seal of prophethood which is below the cartilage of his shoulders and which is like an apple." Delicious. The apple has become the symbol of temptation. It’s perfect for Islam.
HH-2 wasn't finished destroying Muhammad’s prophetic credentials. It went on to establish the Christian Byzantines as enemies in addition to the Jews. But I suppose having Christians and Jews endorse a religion that would grow by plundering them makes about as much sense as Muhammad being a prophet. "While Bahira was standing by them beseeching them not to take the Messenger to the land of the Byzantines, since if these saw him, they would recognize him by his description and would kill him." Muhammad forbade Muslims from drawing his likeness. If his appearance was testimony of his prophetic credentials, and so easily recognizable, why would he do such a thing?
Patricia Crone, an Islamic scholar and archeologist says: "There are fifteen different versions of Muhammad being blessed by a representative of a non-Islamic religion who 'recognize.' him as a future prophet. Some place this encounter during his infancy, others when he was nine; some say he was twenty-five. One Tradition maintains he was recognized by Ethiopian Christians, several say by a Syrian monk, many claim by Yathrib Jews, one suggests it was a local Hanif, while others maintain it was a sorcerer. Some even suggest it was the belly of a dead animal. So what we have here is nothing more than fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place."
The Muslim sages who can't remember what their prophet told them in Mecca are telling us that they can recreate a conversation between opposition parties in Syria. Let's listen in, and while we're doing so, let's try to determine why the Hadith contains this dialog in the first place. "The monk turned around and suddenly beheld seven men advancing from the land of the Byzantines. He went up to them and said, 'What brings you here.' They replied, 'We have come because this prophet is appearing in this month. Men have been sent to every road, and we have been chosen as the best of men and have been sent to your road.'" There isn't a prophetic utterance in any Christian book about an Arab prophet. Yet we are led to believe that Christians not only knew exactly when, but precisely where, they would find such an unspecified person. This is desperate to the point of pathetic. If Muslims need to contrive such preposterous lies to make Muhammad appear prophetic, he most certainly wasn't
Yet they continue to lay planks on this flimsy foundation: Tabari VI:64 "Zayd bin Amr [a Hanif poet from whose words Muhammad based early Qur'anic revelations] said, 'I expect a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael, in particular from the descendants of Abd al-Muttalib.'" In actuality, the first written confirmation of this precise prediction came three hundred years after Muhammad’s birth. By comparison, the last of the Biblical Messianic prophecies, for which these Islamic predictions were contrived to compete, were committed to writing 400 years prior to Yahshua's birth. And unlike all things Muslim, Christians have a paper trail. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible compiled in Alexandria in 275 B.C., survives to this day.
The post-dated Hadith of Zayd, a man who rejected both Islam and Muhammad, continues: "I shall inform you of his description so that he will not be hidden from you. He is neither short nor tall, whose hair is neither abundant nor sparse, whose eyes are always red, and who has the seal of the prophethood between his shoulders. His name is Ahmad [a variant of Muhammad], and this town [Mecca] is his birthplace and the place in which he will commence his mission. Then his people will drive him out and hate the message which he brings, and he will emigrate to Yathrib and triumph."
The Islamic sages who put these words in the Hanif's mouth three centuries after his death, want you to know that every faith - Judeo-Christian to Satanic - agrees: "I have traveled around in search of the faith of Abraham. [The only pre-Islamic mention of Abraham is in the Bible. Apart from the Torah, nothing is known about him - not even his name. And the Torah is clear: Abraham didn't have a religion; he had a relationship.] Every person whom I ask, whether Jew, Christian, or Magian, says, 'This faith lies where you have come from.' and they describe him as I have described him to you. They say that no prophet remains but he.' Amir said, 'When I became a Muslim, I told the Messenger what Zayd had said, and I gave him his greetings. He said, 'I saw him in Paradise dressed in flowing robes.'" Although Zayd composed most of the Qur'an's first score of surahs, he rejected Muhammad’s credentials and thus Islam. By his own admission, he can't be in the Islamic paradise.
These "endorsements" are so preposterous it begs the question: what must educated Muslims think when they read such nonsense? You don't have to be a religious scholar to know that the Jewish Messiah can't be an Arab or that Christians believe that the Messiah is the final prophet. So when this obvious deception was brought before Islam’s lone messenger for certification and he endorsed the lie, what must they think? Do they think? Why would one trust a man who must lie - or be lied for - to validate his calling?
Ishaq:90 "Jewish rabbis, Christian monks, and Arab soothsayers had spoken about the Apostle of Allah before his mission when his time drew near. The rabbis and monks found his description in their scriptures. The Arab occultists had been visited by satans from the jinn with reports which they had secretly overheard before they were prevented from hearing by being pelted with stars." Ishaq:91 "The Prophet explained the nature of shooting stars. 'Allah shut off the satans by these stars which pelted them. So satans tried to steal information, listening in, mingling what they heard with conjecture and false intelligence. They conveyed it to the soothsayers.'" Every word of this is incriminating.
Ishaq:92 "Umar bin al-Khattab [the future Caliph] was sitting with others in the Messenger's mosque when a Bedouin came up looking for him. Umar said, 'This man was a soothsayer in the Jahiliyyah.'" The Satan-worshiper-turned-Allah-advocate said, "During the Jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance] we used to do worse things than you. We used to worship idols and embrace graven images until Allah honored us with Islam." You know you're dealing with a rotten religion when an occultist tells the champions of Islam, "We used to do worse things than you." The suggestion is that Muhammad’s behavior in Yathrib - pedophilia, incest, rape, piracy, terrorism, genocide, and the slave trade - was better than serving a demon.
"'O men.' the soothsayer said, 'Allah has honored and chosen Muhammad, purified his heart and his bowels.'" Then the future Caliph, in Muhammad’s presence, asked the former occultist what he learned from the demonic spirits: Ishaq:93 "'Tell me.' said Umar, 'what is the most amazing saying which your familiar spirit [satanic jinn or demon] communicated to you.' 'He came to me a month before Islam and said: "Have you considered the Jinn [demons from Satan’s tribe] and the hopelessness and despair of their religion [the occult - witchcraft, tarot cards, black magic, astrology, séances, etc.]?'" The Islamic hierarchy was interested in what the Satanic types had to say. Kindred spirits, I suppose.
Tabari VI:66 "Then Umar said, 'By Allah I was by one of the idols of the Jahiliyyah. An Arab sacrificed a calf to it, and we were waiting for it to be divided up in order to receive a share. I heard coming from the belly of the calf a voice which was more penetrating than any I've heard - this was a year before Islam. The dead calf's belly said, 'There is no ilah but Allah.'"
The next Hadith comes courtesy of a fine isnad of four Muhammads and a future Caliph. "We were sitting by an idol a month before the Messenger commenced his mission, having slaughtered camels. Suddenly we heard a voice calling from the belly of one: 'Listen to the wonder; There will be no more eavesdropping to overhear inspiration; We throw down shooting stars for a prophet in Mecca; His name is Ahmad. His place of emigration is Yathri.' We held back and marveled; then the Messenger began his mission." The moral of the story is: the next time one of those pesky Christians or Jews says that Muhammad wasn't a prophet because there were no prophecies pointing to his mission, you can tell them it just isn't so. A dead camel and a cow told you he was Allah’s boy.
How about one more, just to be fair. "A man came to the Prophet and said, 'Show me the seal which is between your shoulders, and if you lie under any enchantment [a demonic curse or spell] I will cure you, for I am the best enchanter [a witch practicing black magic] of the Arabs.' 'Do you wish me to show you a sign.' asked the Prophet. 'Yes. Summon that cluster.' So the Prophet looked at a cluster of dates hanging from a palm and summoned it, and began to snap his fingers until it stood before him. Then the man said, 'Tell it to go back.' and it went back. The enchanter said, 'I have never seen a greater magician than I have seen today.'" Takes one to know one.
Moving from the ridiculous to the sublime, the religion based upon pagan practices has a chapter entitled: "The Messenger is Protected by Allah from Participating in Pagan Practices." The first Hadith is from Ali, the prophet's adopted son and his son-in-law, the patriarch of the Shi'ites, and one of many assassinated Caliphs. He said, "I heard the Messenger saying, 'I was only tempted to take part in heathen practices on two occasions, and both times Allah prevented me from doing what I wanted. After that I was never tempted to evil, right up to the time when Allah honored me by making me his Messenger." Since each of Islam’s pillars was conceived by a pagan, I believe we have caught the prophet in another lie.
The temptation behind us, we move to one of today’s more common sins: sex in the workplace. Muhammad married his boss. Ishaq:82 "Khadija was a wealthy and respected merchant. She was determined and intelligent, possessing many properties. She was the best born woman of the Quraysh, and she was the richest, too." Tabari VI:48 "She used to employ men to engage in trade with her property and gave them a share of the profit, for the Quraysh were merchants. When she heard of Muhammad’s truthfulness and nobility of character, she sent for him and proposed that he should go to Syria and engage in the trade with her property. She would give him more than she gave other men who traded for her...." The sentence rambles on to say that Islam’s matriarch sent one of her slaves to keep tabs on the neophyte merchant.
"When they reached Syria he halted in the shade of a tree near a monk's cell. The monk went up to Maysarah [Khadija's slave], and said, 'Who is this man who has halted beneath this tree.' Maysarah replied, 'He is a man of Quraysh, one of the people of the Haram sacred precinct.' 'No one has ever halted beneath this tree but a prophet.' said the monk." A sixth century monk could never have seen a prophet. Further, there is no evidence that a Christian or Jewish prophet ever set foot in Syria.
The next line puts us in the precarious position of wondering who is lying. If the following Tradition is true, the Qur'an's assertion that there were no miracles associated with Muhammad is false. "They assert that Maysarah saw two angels shading him from the sun as he rode his camel."
"When he arrived in Mecca, he brought Khadija her property, which she sold for twice the price.... She sent for the Messenger and, it is reported, said to him, 'Cousin, your kinship to me, your standing among your people...make you a desirable match.' She offered herself to him in marriage." In one of history's great ironies, the most independent, successful, and liberated woman of her day played a pivotal role in assuring that a billion women after her would be deprived of these things.
Muhammad married money - a woman old enough to be his mother. What's more, the would-be prophet married his boss. While this is questionable, it is not illegal. Nor is what happened next. Tabari VI:49 "Khadija sent a message to the Muhammad inviting him to take her...She called her father to her house, plied him with wine until he was drunk, slaughtered a cow, anointed him with perfume, and clothed him in a striped robe; then she sent for Muhammad and his uncles. When they came in, her father married him to her. When he recovered from his intoxication, he said, 'What is this meat, this perfume, and this garment.' She replied, 'You have married me to Muhammad bin Abdallah.' 'I have not done so.' he said. 'Would I do this when the greatest men of Mecca have asked for you and I have not agreed?'"
While achieving a prophetic marriage through alcoholic inebriation isn't religious, it's the last line that should give us pause. Muslims have contrived scores of pre-Islamic Hadiths to elevate Muhammad’s standing among his people. Yet according to Khadija's father, he was a nobody. Further, he was hardly a prize specimen either: Tabari IX:157 "The Messenger was neither tall nor short. He had a large head and beard with big black eyes. His palms and feet were calloused; he had large joints, his face was white with a reddish tinge, his chest hair was long, and when he walked he bent forward as if he were descending a slope."
The next ten years passed without a single word from Tabari. While Muslims claim to know what the monk said in Syria, they haven't a clue what happened in Mecca. Ishaq has but one line: Ishaq:83 "Khadija was the mother of all of the Apostle's children except Ibrahim [who was born to one of Muhammad’s sex slaves], namely al-Qasim, al-Tayyib, and al-Tahir. They all died in paganism." The implication here is that the prophet's boys are all roasting in hell.
The story of the greatest con ever sold resumes with this: Tabari VI:50 "We have mentioned the conflicting reports about the Prophet's marriage to Khadija. Ten years later, the Quraysh demolished the Ka'aba and then rebuilt it. According to Ibn Ishaq, this was in the Messenger's thirty-fifth year. The reason for demolition of the Ka'aba was that it consisted of loose stones rising to somewhat above a man’s height, and they wished to make it higher and put a roof over it, since some men had stolen treasures kept in its interior."
All along I have told you that the Ka'aba was little more than a rock pile. This Islamic Hadith confirms the ignobility of Allah’s "House." And this is important. There is no chance that a roofless six-foot high collection of loose rocks could have survived the rigors of two millennia of flash floods and searing sandstorms. Not only is there no written or oral legacy connecting Muhammad, Mecca, and the Ka'aba with Abraham, there is no physical evidence either. The center of the Islamic faith, Allah’s House, on which the whole Islamic world bows and turns, was a rock pile for rock gods.
Tabari, who reported Hadith claiming Allah had raised the Ka'aba above the floodwaters, now says: "The Ka'aba had been destroyed when the people of Noah were drowned, and Allah commanded Abraham and Ishmael to rebuild it on its original foundations. This they did as stated in the Qur'an 2:127. 'When Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House [they said], 'Lord! Accept [this] from us.'" Not only is the Qur'anic dialog gibberish, as usual, and the circumstances preposterous, it's idiotic following the assertion that Allah’s House was a pile of loose stones. Muslims had no concept of time. The twenty-six hundred year chasm and thousand-mile divide that separate Abraham from Muhammad’s Ka'aba cannot be crossed.
Tabari VI:52 "The Ka'aba had not had any custodians since its destruction in the time of Noah. Then Allah commanded Abraham to settle his son by the Ka'aba, wishing thereby to show a mark of esteem to one whom he later ennobled by means of his Prophet Muhammad." Now we are being told that Allah esteemed the 20th century B.C. Ishmael by way of the 7th century A.D. Muhammad. "Abraham and his son Ishmael were custodians of the Ka'aba after the time of Noah. At the time, Mecca was uninhabited...." Since even the Islamic Hadiths aren't bold enough to move Abraham from Canaan to Mecca, how was he the custodian? And if the place was uninhabited from 2000 B.C. to 500 A.D., why pile rocks in Mecca? It can't be the center of worship if no one was there to worship. So what's the point?
Tabari tells us that the Jurhum became the custodians of the Ka'aba. He simply skipped over the intervening 2,500 years between its alleged founding and the Jurhum presence. If you recall, the Jurhum clan ousted the Khuza'a tribe from their campsites around Mecca around 500 A.D. According to the Tradition, they acted badly, "misappropriated the wealth which had been presented to the Ka'aba and oppressed those who came to Mecca. Their behavior became so unrestrained that when one of them could not find a place in which to fornicate he would go into the Ka'aba and do it there. It is asserted that Isaf fornicated with Na'ilah in the interior of the Ka'aba and that they were transformed into two stones. During the Jahiliyyah [period of pre-Islamic Ignorance] any person who acted wrongfully or oppressively in Mecca, perished on the spot." This fanciful pagan milieu formed the basis of Islam. "Allah sent a bleeding of the nose and a plague of ants against the Jurhum and destroyed them, while Khuza'a expelled those who survived...Amir felt that he would be defeated, so he brought out the two gazelles of the Ka'aba and the sacred Black Stone."
The irreverent blend of Jewish history and Arab mythology continues: Tabari VI:55 "The Ka'aba was taken over by the Khuza'a except three functions which were in the hands of the Mudar. The first of these was the ijazah, the giving of permission to the pilgrims to leave Arafat...The second function was the ifadah, the permission for the pilgrims to disperse to Mina on the morning of the sacrifice." Two more Islamic rituals associated with the hajj now have links to an ignoble pagan past. Ishaq:88 "This state of affairs lasted until Allah sent Muhammad and revealed to him and gave him the laws of his religion and the customs of the pilgrimage." Following a hundred Hadith desperately trying to ascribe the rites and rituals of Islam to the Jewish patriarchs, and a hundred more proclaiming that they were derived from the pagan practices of Qusayy, one line contradicts them all.
There was however, a pre-Islamic pagan custom Muhammad disregarded. And wouldn't you know it, it was the one he should have retained. "The third function was the nasi, the delaying or postponement of the sacred month by intercalation. When Islam came, the sacred months had returned to their original times, and Allah established them firmly and abolished the nasi." Pre-Islamic Arabs, unlike civilized people around them, had yet to switch away from the lunar calendar. But to their credit, they were at least observing intercalation to keep their seasons intact. Muhammad abandoned intercalation, condemning Muslims to a 354-day year. Not only didn't the pagan sacred months return to their original times, he assured that they would never be established, forever floating around the solar year. While foolish, the lunacy honored his god's lunar legacy.
One of the most revered Islamic legends comes from this period. A series of Hadiths focused on "Rebuilding of the Ka'aba" begin with this report: Tabari VI:56 "A relative of Abd Mahaf [Slave-to-the-Sun-God] had stolen treasure from the Ka'aba. They took him to a female Arab soothsayer, who, using her occult skill, pronounced in rhyming prose that he should not enter Mecca for ten years because of his violation of the sanctity of the Ka'aba." This Islamic Tradition confirms what I shared earlier. Soothsayers are Satanic; they are occult mediums. Further, she recited in the same style of the Qur'an - rhyming prose. And more incriminating still, a Devil worshiper is being used to proclaim the sanctity of the Ka'aba.
The reason this story is included in the presentation of rebuilding Allah’s House is that the shrine's low walls and open top made it easy for looters to steal the gods. So when the Meccans found that: Ishaq:84 "A ship belonging to a Greek merchant had been driven ashore by rough seas at Jeddah and had been broken to pieces, they took its timbers and prepared them for use in roofing the Ka'aba. There was a Copt in Mecca who was a carpenter, and thus they had both the materials and a craftsman ready at hand." This serves to confirm the primitive nature of the Ka'aba and of Mecca itself. There was no source of wood, and without wood, there were no carpenters. Without wood and men to work it, all buildings were open to the harsh elements. Mecca in the time of Muhammad was a motley collection of open mud huts. This is important because Islam is said to have arisen because the Meccans were flaunting their wealth. That simply wasn't possible.
The next transition is as disjointed as the Qur'an, and equally revealing. "There was a snake which used to come out of the well in the Ka'aba into which votive objects were thrown. It would lie on top of the Ka'aba wall every day to sun itself. It was a terror." There are way too many Satanic symbols associated with Muhammad and Allah. Abraham was drawn from Israel to Mecca by god's presence in the form of a snake. The same snake coiled himself up, showing Abraham where to build the Ka'aba. Now a snake is living inside Allah’s House. The snake and the apple sign on Muhammad’s back, are Satan’s most enduring symbols.
Ishaq:84 "People were terrified of the snake because whenever anyone went near, it would draw itself up, make a rustling noise, and open its mouth. One day, as it was lying on top of the Ka'aba as usual, Allah sent a bird which seized it and carried it off. [And who said Allah couldn't do miracles.] On seeing this the Quraysh said, 'We may hope that Allah is pleased with what we intend to do. We have craftsman and we have timber, while Allah dealt with the snake.'" Tabari VI:56 "This was fifteen years after the Sacrilegious War. Muhammad was thirty-five. When they made the decision to demolish and rebuild the Ka'aba, Abu took a stone from it which leapt from his hand and returned to its place."
This Hadith, in context of Muhammad’s imminent involvement in the Ka'aba's reconstruction and it's Black Stone, strongly suggests that the Meccans thought the Black Stone was Allah and that he/it actually lived in the Ka'aba. Ishaq:85 "The people were afraid to demolish the temple and withdrew in terror from it. Al-Walid said, 'I will begin the demolition.' He took up his pickaxe and walked up to the House saying, 'O Ka'aba, do not be afraid. O Allah we intend nothing but good.' Then he demolished part of it near the two corners." One of Muhammad’s religious contemporaries is telling a rock pile not to be afraid. Approaching Allah with a pickaxe, he says that he means him no harm. How is a pickaxe threatening to God? And, if he were God, and you approached his "House" with a pick, a carpenter, and some wood, don't you think he might figure it out?
In this final Tradition prior to the first Qur'anic revelation, Muhammad is shown personally participating in the superstitions of his people.' stone-worshiping milieu. Tabari VI:58 "A man of the Quraysh who was among those demolishing it thrust a crowbar between two stones to pry one of them up. When the stone moved, the whole of Mecca shook. They knew they had reached the foundations. The clans then gathered stones to rebuild the Ka'aba. Each clan gathered separately and built separately. When they reached the place where the Black Stone was to be put they began to dispute about it, since every clan wished to lift the Stone to its place."
Once again we are confronted with a stark reality. Allah’s House, the center of Islam, was a rock pile and it was rebuilt in like fashion. The stones were not hewn, cut, or mortared. There was no plan. They were just collected and piled. And once more we are forced to see the sacred Black Stone for what it was - Allah.
This next tidbit is particularly incriminating. Ishaq:85 "The Quraysh found in the corner 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.'" God writing in Syriac, not Arabic, conflicts with the Qur'an's claim that Arabic was Allah’s language. Further, since written Arabic evolved from Syriac and migrated to Mecca, it's clear that the written language of the Qur'an was unknown to the Meccans at the time Muhammad claims the surahs were revealed to him. Oops!
"The Quraysh remained in this state for five days, and then they gathered in the mosque to consult together and to reach an equitable agreement." We are reminded that mosques preceded Islam and that prostration, the Islamic prayer position from which the word was derived, was part of idolatrous worship. It is apparent that relatively little of Islam was invented by Muhammad.
The payoff line of this Hadith is upon us. Tabari VI:59 "Men of the Quraysh said, 'Make the first man who comes in at the door of this mosque the arbiter of our difference so that he may judge on the matter.' The first man was Muhammad, and when they saw him they said, 'This is the trustworthy one with whom we are satisfied. This is Muhammad.' He came up to them and they told him about the matter and he said, 'Bring me a cloak.' They brought him one, and he took the Black Stone and placed it on it with his own hands. Then he said, 'Let each clan take one side of the cloak, and then lift it up all together.' They did so, and when they had brought it to its place he put it in position with his own hands."
I do not know if Muhammad actually suggested this solution. But I know that a man who reveres a stone is no wiser than the rock he reveres.