FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Ignorance is an affront."


  home page






  by Mudarras Kadhir Gaznavi




Islam claims to be the last of the Semitic-Abrahamic belief systems. Islam shares with its predecessors (Mosaic religion and Christianity) the same supreme being, the same patriarch, and majority of the same fundamental doctrines.  Mosaic religion and Christianity have adopted many ideas from the stories, myths, cults of the peoples in the region and also from the previous and contemporary belief systems of the lands around Palestine. Therefore, there is nothing strange in Islam’s borrowing from or adopting the fundamental doctrines of its predecessors. Kuran is the excellent proof of it.

The religion called Islam was an Ismaelite, Hagarene teaching at its inception. The desert Arabs had transformed the original Hagarene teaching into Islam. They had also considered the Hagarene messenger their own, but he was not. I believe he was a Midianite. Since his name is not known for sure, he will be referred to as the Messenger (with a capital ‘M’) from know on.  In the words of the Messenger (or as fancied by the later editors of Kuran) Islam signifies the conclusion of god’s revelation. There is a single supreme creator according to Islamic ideology. If that is true, then the supreme creator who is also the god of Islam must have sent messages also to different communities at different times in the past. Therefore, it is only natural if previous divine(!) messages from the previous revelations do appear in Kuran.



We have to begin this section by the Mosaic belief system.  The reason will be apparent to those who have read the codebook of Islam.  The Jewish culture was one of the most important models employed by Islam in shaping itself. The Mosaic belief system is one of the major sources of Islam.

Judaism has not been structured by a single person who conducted himself according  to the messages from an irrational source beyond this world. Following is the summary scenario of the evolution of Judaism:


Over these 1000 years the Hebraic-Israeli-Judaic ideology has gone through the stages below and reached the present era:

Faylasufs were the only elite intellectual group. The esoteric tradition in Judaism and Christianity were of the same opinion. Faylasufs had the highest authority with regards to the divine(!) teaching. Only they had the knowledge to interpret the religious texts. Faylasufs are called ‘the ones who are deep in knowledge.’ Everybody should accept what is written in the codebook and refrain from asking questions, according to the codebook of Islam. Faylasuf is the only one who has the knowledge to make symbolic interpretation. However, to indulge in exegesis even this faylasuf must have accepted all the obligatory doctrines. Therefore, even a faylasuf had limits. He could not go beyond the basic doctrines. This measure stopped the unwanted/uncalled for explanations. The last teaching in the Semitic-Abrahamic line, Islam, has also preferred to stay within the tradition established by its predecessors.

There was no conflict between religion and logic according to Ibn Rushd (Averroes), who claimed that religion and logic presented different explanations of the same ‘reality’. Both logic and religion were speaking of the same higher being, but not all had the ability to think in line with philosophy. Therefore, philosophy may create confusion in the minds of the people and pave the way for mistakes, which could jeopardize their salvation. That is why these dangerous teachings should be kept away from those who did not have the ability to comprehend them. 

Moses ben Maimonides (the ‘second Moses’ of Judaism) took the fundamental principles of Islam as formulated by Ibn Rushd, added his own principles, and rewrote the dogmas of Judaism as below:


1.       Faith in the existence of god.

2.       Faith in the unity of god.

3.       Faith in the incorporeality of god.

4.       Faith in the eternity of god.

5.       The prohibition of idolatry.

6.       Faith in the validity of prophecy.

7.       Moses was the greatest of the prophets.

8.       Faith in the divine origin of truth.

9.       Faith in the eternal validity of the Torah.

10.    God knows the deeds of men.

11.    God judges men accordingly.

12.    God will send a messiah.

13.    Faith in the resurrection of he dead.


Like Ibn Rushd, Maimonides has also believed that philosophy was the most advanced level of the knowledge of faith and the road to god. Those of you, who wish to know what really is philosophy, should find a faylasuf from amongst the elite philosophers and inquire him on the success the philosophy has had in proving the existence of the supreme being.



According to the fairy tale, Islam is a divine revelation given in Arabic to the Arabs via a messenger of the Hashemite family of the tribe of Kureysh of the Arabs (or more likely, the ideologues of the nationalistic Islam have formulated their way of thinking as such and written it in to their codebook). The ideologues of Islam living in the Arabia Deserta (in and around Makka) must have decided to have a belief system of their own in Arabic, particularly for Arabs. An extremely focused divine(!) revelation was a necessity for the desert Arabs, because they wished to become an entity in the world of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity. Desert Arabs have transformed the Ismaelite-Hagarene teaching of the Hagarene Messenger into a nationalistic ideology in the first place then when they began to put their expansionist aspirations into practice, they transformed again the focused belief system into a divine(!) revelation for the whole of mankind..

    This outlook of the Arabs is still valid today. This extremely focused ideology has been restructured to envelop the whole of the humanity with the aim of realizing the political and national objectives. The consequential ideology (Islam) could not contradict more the initial teaching. You will realize more as we proceed.



The initial religious texts of the Hagarenes were not focused as such.  But the desert Arabs needed a nationalistic ideology.  They felt that they must have a supreme creator and a messenger of their own, and a revelation for themselves in their language. That was the only solution, which would put them on par with the Jews. The expansionist tool they have made up was imposed on the subjugated peoples by deception, cheating and the power of the sword. Those of you who want a proof of how the initial Ismaelite-Hagarene teaching had been transformed are recommended to read Kuran 34:28:

When juxtaposed with the suras exhibiting extreme focusing, this universality concept clearly must have been a later addition to the text to be used as a tool to make the conquered peoples ‘surrender’ (adopt Islam) to the supreme creator and his representatives on Earth: The Arabs.

With the beginning of expansionism another transformation had taken place: The concepts of iman (faith) and mu’min, mu’minun (faithful, faithfuls) were replaced by teslim and islam (‘submission,’ ‘surrendering’) and müslim, müsliman, müselman, müslimânân (‘ones who surrendered’).  This process progressed hand in hand with the expansion of Islam into foreign lands with the aim of subjugating foreign peoples.

Transformation of the Hagarene teaching firstly into a focused ideology for the Arabs, for the village of Makka and the people living in and around it, and secondly into an imperialist expansionist tool imposed by the power of the sword is extremely important. The supreme overseer of the Ismaelite-Hagarenes had never envisaged this outcome. The duty e has given to the Messenger was only to reveal and communicate the divine(!) message. Here are a few examples from Kuran, which show the understanding of those early Hagarene days:


Kuran 48:16: “Say to those Arabs of the desert, who have been left behind: ‘You shall be called up to fight a people of mighty valour. Either you fight them, or they shall profess Islam.’”

Let us deliberate:

The answer to the last of these questions should be a decisive ‘yes.’  The answer to this question will show the outlook of the Arabs and the central theme of the Arab imperialism.

The most probable reasons for the conversion of the initial teaching to Islam are as follows:



Here one should not overlook thepsychology of siege the Arabs had had in those days, the possible reasons for which could be summarized as follows:

The negative reception given to the Messenger and his core group must have strengthened their will to fight back and get accepted. Hatred and animosity directed at the members of the established belief systems of those days are directed at the Christian and Jewish societies of our times. In the eyes of the Arabs these societies symbolize the Western civilisation, which is anathema for Muslims. This siege psychology has become so radical that the Vahhabî group even considered the Muslims of other sects and religious groups as expendable (should be killed). This small sect and minor groups following it have began using the tool of the Arab imperialism (Islam) as the cause and the tool for terror, without realizing that their acts harm first of all their faith. Here is how they feel:

This siege psychology shows its face all around the globe, but the most tragic of those terrorist acts was the one in New York against the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. The exploding bombs and the suicide bombers in other countries are the proof of this psychology. Those of you who search for the reasons behind the exploitation of the ideology of Islam with a particular objective should never forget this siege psychology.

Those who exploit the ideology of Islam as a tool for terrorism are supported also by the inherent elements of that ideology. Stories of Islam promote a simple life in this world, because this life is only transient, and that is why every Muslim should try to win the other/next world (the afterlife). The extremely orthodox individuals and regimes promoting the implementation of this rule to the very last point, push themselves and the faithful into primitiveness. Are you looking for examples? The Afghanistan of 2001 is the supreme case in point. Iran that has created a remarkable civilisation in history is another example. This extreme interpretation of the fundamental ideology is fuelling the conflict between East and West, Muslim and infidel, rich and poor, and oppressor and oppressed. These contrasts in turn strengthen the siege psychology, creating a vicious circle, which has to be broken if a solution is sought.   

Before announcing the new Hagarene teaching the Messenger may have been aiming to create a following or  to have an identity on par with the Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. We are not in a position to know for sure what their motive was, but we can be sure that by announcing the new faith the Messenger and the small group around him must have thought that they had a god and a codebook of their own for the first time. The Messenger and his small following were Sabians basically, and their primary aim was to get back Bakka (where the ‘first House of god’ was situated; Kuran 3:96) and Palestine from the Christians. When the desert Arabs transformed this initial teaching they became the owner of the sacred region in the Arabian Peninsula and the protectors of the sacred relics and the Ka’ba. By doing this the desert Arabs felt ‘like the others,’ they were ‘equal with the others.



 But the ‘adopted identity’ they chose then and still use does not mean a thing today, because the prestige they imagine to have, the income from oil, businesses they have set up in the West, their partnerships with the West, and even the impeccable education the rich Arabs receive in the West have been unable to erase their inherent ignorance.  The attitude of the majority of the Arabs and their followers towards life, civilisation, wealth, progress, universal values and even the other sects within Islam is unbecoming, more primitive, violent and negative. Choose the one you like, you will not be wrong.



Saudi Arabs belong to the Vahhabî group of the Hanbelite sect. They are of the opinion that all the other sects and religious groups in Islam are infidels and should be killed. Some of these Arabs who have been nomads, camel traders, and robbers until recently have become unbelievably rich when the West they abhor found oil beneath their sands and they began claiming nobility (as if nobility and Arabs could be come together!). The Arabs would have remained as camel traders and would not have bothered anybody if they did not have oil. The Arabs still employ slaves; the majority of who come from countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and do menial jobs.

Majority of the Arabs insist on living according to the traditions established 1400 years ago. Taliban in Afghanistan was the perfect example.  Although this group of people was not Arabs, they adopted the Arabic culture and were arabicised. Taliban has rejected everything modern and chose to go back 1400 years. The way of life they insisted upon and tried to impose on the society was supposedly the conduct of the Messenger (sunna). We all know what happened to them.

The Arabs define themselves as the ‘chosen people of god’, but they never realize, their wishes and aspirations actually degrade their own faith, because they employ this faith as a tool to realize their own nationalist and imperialist objectives. The primitive feelings nurtured deep within their persona and directed at the material world show their stand against the western civilization and the western societies, which for them is the personification of that material world.



 t was the Umayyads who put together this ideology of political Islam. Their practice of using Islam as a political tool and conducting the affairs of the state in line with the Islamic doctrines contradicts the approach of both the initial Hagarene teaching and the extremely focused nationalistic ideology which is based on the principle of a revelation in Arabic for the Arabs via an Arab messenger. Umayyads were the ones who made Islam a universal belief system to be obeyed by the mankind, wherever they may be. It is necessary to make a note of the difference between the particularly ‘Arabic’ dimension of the nationalistic ideology in the beginning and the universal scope it was given with the conquests later on.





Firstly, the meaning of Islam as a word has never been ‘peace.’


The members of the nations that Arabs have conquered by deception, blackmail, ethnic cleansing and the power of sword should do the following:


The events of our day are the products of this ideology. The non-Arab Muslims together with the Arabicised ones adopt a totally negative attitude towards their country, culture, traditions and beliefs because of the Arabs’ ‘tool of deception’ presented as faith.



We are almost there. The blinding light of reason is just around the corner. In a few steps you will be on the threshold of illumination. You, and only you should do what should be done from there on. I am sure that you will resort to reason and do the right thing.

As I have pointed out earlier there remains only one belief system between you and  the ‘realm’ of illumination. This ‘realm’ is not the spiritual one pictured by the belief systems, but the material Universe itself. The illumination in this Universe is caused by reason and not by the inventions of human mind like the ‘essence’, the spirit, or by the organizations built around the concept of supreme beings.

What is a belief system? The most widely accepted and supposedly scientific(!) description is as follows:

In some of the belief systems;

In some others belief systems;

Relations with the supreme being in all of these belief systems are realized through the interfaces/intermediaries (messengers, priests, bishops, imams, sheiks, rabbis etc.).



Whatever is their name and wherever they ruled all the belief systems address the burning desire of the human beings: Immortality.



The distinction between the meanings given to ‘theoria’ is the reason why the East and West have developed in different directions.

In the East ‘deep thinking’=speculation-abstract reasoning is the way to find the ‘truth’, it is considered even the ‘truth’ itself.  The products of ‘deep thinking’ should not be disputed, no questions are allowed, and believing is the rule. In the East the supreme entity is visualized as a being in perpetual thought about itself, which in itself is the highest level of thought..

But in the West theory is understood as something that should be tested and proven. Any assumption should be met with scientific scepticism and pass tests to be accepted as true.

How significant a difference could be?

This fundamental approach to thought processes reveal the foundation stones that separate the formations of the eastern and western societies.

These should be the questions to ask at this stage:

The initial anthropomorphic supreme being and the chief of the assembly of gods (polytheism) in the Old Testament were transformed into a transcendent and incomprehensible supreme creator (monotheism). This transcendent   creator made his existence known only through revelations. This transformation was put into effect by Ezra the priest following the Babylonian exile, and an unfathomable distance was put between the Earth down(!) here and the supreme   creator somewhere up(!) there.

In contrast with this, because of the intellect they have the human beings were considered similar to the higher   beings in ancient Greece. Therefore, a human being could reach to the higher beings through his efforts.

Aristo’s supreme being was inappropriate for the aims of the monotheistic belief systems. This Being was not visualized as the creator of the world, because this act of creation would have been an unbefitting change, and a temporal and temporary move. This concept contradicted the creator god. Furthermore, Aristo’s supreme being was indifferent to the existence of the Universe, because it was impossible for him to ponder on something inferior. This supreme entity could have no guiding effect on the world and the lives of human beings. Under the influence of  its self this supreme entity was unaware of the existence of the Universe. Monotheists loved Aristo’s supreme being initially. It seemed to fit their purpose, but later they realized that it had very little influence on the world of mortals. That was not what the monotheists needed. They wanted an absolute control over the masses and create a  monolithic following of believers. They knew that this following would bring them power, fame, wealth and profit. How right they were is proven by the systems still flourishing today.

The monotheist ideologues of the ‘belief systems of the book’ were in need of a supreme being who is;

When taken together with paradise and hell, only a supreme entity, which decides before the beginning and interrogates in the end, could have created the crucial fear and obedience, and supplied the required rewards. This supreme entity should have been in existence before everything (so that he could create!) and should continue to do so after everything ceased to exist (so that he could judge and punish the creatures-humans), to do that it should be a higher being, which would kill the living at first then raise them ‘physically’(!) together with the dead who would also be raised ‘physically’(!) from their graves to be judged and sent off eventually to paradise or hell. Aristo’s supreme being was not suitable for the shrewd protagonists seeking the ‘absolute’; therefore they have resorted to the concept that would meet their requirements.

Therefore, you should immerse yourself in deep thought.. But do not do it to get near the higher beings or to be like them and become immortal. Do it to realize that the wishes related to the supreme being exist only in your brains which itself is in desperate need to reach the illumination.



Each belief system has unique fundamental laws which are supposedly given by the higher being of that belief system. Make note how fundamental are the suppositions. Every belief system supposedly has a supreme being of its own. This supreme being is supposedly unique to that system. This supposedly unique being supposedly gives fundamental laws to the humans on Earth.

Here are some of these supreme beings:

These are some of the concepts of supreme entities fashioned by the people on Earth in line with their   specific requirements. These different concepts are the proof that there are diverse understandings of a supreme being in different communities and cultures. Furthermore the necessities brought about by the different periods in the life of a society could also lead to a transformation in the concept of a higher being.

Babylonians believed that the Sun god gave the laws of Hammurabi to him in 1750 B.C. This conviction has lead to the tale of the giving of the Ten Commandments on mount Sinai (Horeb).

Lots of words, definitions and rules of the Sumero-Babylonian laws appear in Talmud, which shows that traditions of the old cultures have been handed down the generations and found a place in the later cultures. For example, Sumerians pressed the rim of their clothing on a document to show their approval. This custom is adopted by the Jewish men, who follow the lines of the Torah being read aloud in the synagogue by the fringes (tzitzit) of the prayer shawl (tallis) they put on their shoulders (Old Testament, Numbers 15:37-40).

The rules and rituals of every belief system of our day have their origins in the past cultures of earlier ages. The fundamental law of Islam was put together as a ‘coherent’ whole, following the conquest of Irak by the Arabs. Almost all of the basic elements of the codebook of Islam had existed and were in practice before Kuran was collected and written into a book. We know that the writers of the codebooks of the belief systems had made use of the material from the previous and existing cultures. We also know that the stories told by the associates of the messengers, and the persons who listened to these stories, passing them on to others (embellished with their comments of course!), and the writers who wrote them into the codebooks contribute to the creation of a literature, which is accepted eventually as the indivisible part of the basic teaching. Judaism and Islam are the typical examples.

Islam claims to be the culmination of the divine revelation beginning with the messages given to Av’ram (Abraham, Ibrahim). In the 18th and 19th verses of the sura A’lâ that was supposedly the 8th in the line of revelation, but appears as the 87th sura in Kuran: “All of these truths were also in the first (previous) pages. In the pages of (in those pages given to) Ibrahim and Musa.” Kuran 5:3 makes clear that Islam is the last religion and the conclusion of the series of divine messages: “Today I have matured your religion for you, have completed my blessing for you and chose Islam (‘surrendering’) as your religion.”

This approach has made the Arab Messenger the ‘seal of the prophets’. But Mani had also claimed that title before the Messenger. The second Semitic-Abrahamic belief system, or rather, cult, Christianity, had made it clear that the ‘god in flesh’ Yshua was the last messenger, who would come back as the messiah and pass judgment on humans. That was also before the Messenger’s time. There was Zarathustra as well who had also claimed that he was the last in line. He was the one who introduced the concept of the ‘judgment day’ before all of them.

One needs the light of reason to see and understand what is behind all these.






From now on you will read a very ‘unconventional’ story of Islam. This will be a novel approach. There will surely be the objections and outright rejections. All these intellectual efforts will take us to the truth. We should never give up our search for the truth and reality.

But the search for the truth must go on, whatever is the cost. There is something in Kuran, which is the truth for me. Kuran 3:96 gives us the name of a place: Bakka. The ideologues of Islam have decided to erase this name, which is the proof of something behind the scenes. There must have been a different story in the distant past. The nationalist Arabs preferred to explain this name by the supposedly different tribal dialects. Some of them tried to play with the letters ‘m’ and ‘b’ in their efforts to transform the original story. Their purpose was to present Bakka as Makka. They have replaced Bakka with Makka in recent editions of the codebook. This is another indication of a cover up effort by the nationalist Arabs.

This place, where the first ‘house of god’ (Kuran 3:96) was established has the potential of transforming completely  the story of Islam. I believe I have found Bakka. I believe I have found the original story of Islam. I have found how Bakka would change everything. This is the story that will show why the deserts Arabs are trying desperately to substitute Makka for Bakka. This is the ‘new’ story of Islam. My approach may be rejected, and my story may be branded as a fantasy and baseless imagination. This is my response:




Here is Kuran 3:96:

Here is Kuran 3:97:

The beyt (house) in Bakka is the ‘house of god’,  ‘beth El’, ‘Beyt El’,  ‘Beyt-u Elah’.  According to Kuran, this is the first sacred place, first sacred shrine. Do not ever forget this declaration in Kuran: The first sacred shrine is in Bakka.

I did not find anything specific on Bakka in the Islamic source material I have, except the Bakka-Makka story above. It suddenly occurred to me that the previous scriptures maybe of help. Many of the basic stories of the codebook of Islam were taken from Torah. Therefore, could I find something there, which would show me where Bakka was? In order to do that I had to guess on different pronunciations of the word like Bacca, Baka, Bekka, Bekke, Beke, Bece, Baca. Eventually I came across Psalm 84:6-7: “Blessed are they that dwell in your house: They will be still praising thee. [Selah]. Blessed is the man whose strength is in you; in whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well (they gather there in great numbers); the rain also fills the pools. They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appears before god.”

The Hagarene movement, which was the basis of today’s Islam has preferred the Mosaic scriptures as the central piece of their teaching. They accepted only the first five books, the books of Moses, of the present day Old Testament.  They called these books ‘Tavrat’ and rejected the rest, because those books were the proof of the humanly interference in the divine(!) revelation. The book of Psalms have deeply influenced the later theoreticians of Islam, and considered this collection of songs as a divine book given to ‘messenger David’ (king David). They called this collection ‘Zebur. Their acknowledgement of king David as a messenger and the Psalms as a ‘divine book given to him,’ are clear indications of the misconceptions, which the later editors of the book had inherited from the   Hagarenes or had developed themselves. The later editors might have been mistaken by the fourteen Psalms, which have been called ‘royal’. These Psalms featured the king (David) as both the representative of YHVH to the community, and the representative of community to YHVH. Furthermore, Luke had the idea that the Psalms were a source of guidance. The early Church chanted or sang Psalms as a part of the liturgy. When taken altogether this practice could easily have been interpreted as a Messenger’s portrayal, and the Psalms as a book from god to this messenger - Zebur.

To cut the story short, the later ‘Islamic’ editors of Kuran wrongly accepted David as a messenger and the book of Psalms (‘Zebur’) his scripture. Likewise they may have fallen to a similar trap and misinterpreted the biblical  statement on Baca as the portrayal of a sacred, religious place where the ‘house of god’ was situated.

But is this the right explanation?

There is one Baca in Galilee, and another one in the Sinaitic district so they are not relevant. The third one is the one referred to in the quoted verse from Torah: The ‘valley of Baca.’ Scholars who did research on this place paint a completely different picture though. “Baca in Hebrew means either ‘weeping’ or ‘balsam trees’ writes Dr. Robert A. Morey, “hence, the valley of Baca can be translated as the valley of weeping or the valley of the balsam trees.”

A possible reference to the valley of Baca appears in II Samuel 5:22-23: “Once more the Philistines came up and spread out in the Valley of Rephaim. So David inquired of YHVH, and, he answered, ‘Do not go straight up, but circle around behind them and attack them in front of the balsam (baca in Hebrew) trees.’” The Authorized KJV has ‘mulberry trees’ instead of balsam trees. But the similarity between the mulberry trees which have dark purple or purplish multiple fruits and the genus Populus balsamifera (American Poplar trees) which are also called the   ‘balm of Gilead’ with buds thickly coated with an aromatic resin may be behind the description in the KJV.

This place in Rephaim is taken as the valley through which the pilgrims had to pass to appear before god in Zion.    Dr. Morey concludes with the following remark: “Noting that the valley of Baca is actually less than 5 miles away from Jerusalem, it makes sense that the Psalmist would speak of pilgrims making their way through Baca valley to appear before god in Zion.”

In order to correct some comments I would like to add that ‘Selah’ in Psalm 84 means the ‘end’ or a ‘pause.’ and   has nothing to do with the Hebrew word sela/sala (‘rock’).

This biblical location still exists today in the southwest suburb of Yerushalim under the name of Baka (Ge’ulim).   Emek Refa’im lies in the centre of this suburb. Emek Refa’im must be the biblical valley of Rephaim. The story in Torah has the valley of Baca within the valley of Rephaim.

“The evil spirits go to Hell, when purified by fire they cross the bridge to Paradise where they exist until the eternity in the presence of god.” The symbolism fits in with the actual geography, doesn’t it?  Surprised? One wonders if there actually was a bridge between the valley of Hinnom (hell) and the gardens (paradise).

Baca, Baka has been suggested by some as Bakka of the ‘author’ of the book of Islam. But I have another proposition. Arabic is a Semitic language. The words have root letters, and diacritical dots and vowels were introduced to read those words. Now let us take bakka. The root letters are ‘b’ and ‘k’. Two ‘k’s represent ‘khā’  - خ - sound. So, the original word is ba(kh)a. Now consider the word baha, the root letters of which are ‘b’ and ‘h’. Knowing how the dots and the vowels change the reading of a word, let your imagination go wild, and replace the letter ‘khā with ‘hā’ - ح- which transforms ba(kh)a into baha, meaning an enclosed area around the ‘house’; now substitute ‘Allah’ with ‘god’ in Kuran 3:96. Here is the new version of the verse: “The first Beyt (house of god) established to be a source of abundance for the realms and a guide for the people is the one in Baha (‘in the enclosed area around the house’). There are clear signs, Ibrahim’s stone (Makam-ı Ibrahim) is there. Those who enter the place will be secure. Pilgrimage there by those who can afford the journey is a duty men owe to god.” Please do not forget the definition ‘the enclosed area around the house’, because it has a crucial role to play in the resolution of the puzzle.

Could this Baca or Baha in the Old Testament be the Bakka of Kuran? We’ll see. But first we must make a note of certain points:

Here are some more points to consider:

We are told that the Muslim authorities in distant past have brought a stone from somewhere and erected it in the courtyard of (or in the ‘enclosed area’) around the Great Mosque in Makka.

We shall solve this puzzle but we have to deal with other matters first.



While doing research on Islam I saw that in addition to the disagreement as to the geographical location of Makka in the early secular sources, there is a certain degree of confusion even within the Islamic tradition. Research done on the two civil wars in the Islamic community has reportedly shown that people during the wars travelled from Medina  to Irak via Makka (Research by J. van Ess, and also in a text by Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Dahabi). This is impossible geographically, because Makka is located at the southwest of Medina, and Irak at the northeast.. If those people going to Irak had no specific reason for doing their journey via Makka (at its present location), then that ‘Makka’ (the sanctuary, whatever it was called then) must have been located to the north of Medina.

Who could claim that Makka was the centre of the Muslim world in that era?

This ‘Makka’ should be a town situated in the north on the road to Dimask (Dimisk-esh Sham, Damascus) in Syria. This road went through a group of villages called Medain Saleh (Medain Salih, Salih’s villages), Petra and Yerushalim. Could the Arabs call one of these towns Bakka? No way! Petra was a junction, and there was a road from there to Irak. But I prefer to proceed further north to Cebel Usdum (mount Sodom) and Yerushalim and further north on this road to Syria. There was no Irak then. There was Syria. The whole region to the north, northeast and east of Erden/Jordan was called Syria generally. This road called at Nablus (Shechem) and turned north-northeast towards Dimisk-esh Sham (Syria). The place called Bakka was situated there. I believe that the place called ‘Makka’ in the story was originally Bakka, but the Arab nationalism was in the process of transforming the Hagarene teaching and they were determined to substitute Makka (and Kaba) for Bakka. This substitution must have been done when the stories passed down the generations orally. When the stories were put down to writing Makka must have become established. The Arab nationalists who tried to put the Arabia Deserta in the centre of the Islamic literature must have been behind this substitution, while they were transforming the original Hagarene teaching into the nationalist Islam of today?



These are the ruins of the divinely(!) destroyed towns. According to Kuran 11:100 some of the towns or villages were destroyed completely and lost forever, and the ruins of others were still standing, left as examples for future generations.

According to sura 37 the Messenger, believers and unbelievers were apparently passing by or calling at the remains of a destroyed place or places every morning and evening. The story is in verses 37:133-138. The narration seems   to be about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of the previous verses on Lot and his people.

Here is Kuran 37:133-136: “Lot was unquestionably one of the messengers.. We did save him and his household.. Except the old woman who was left with the abandoned ones.. Then we destroyed the others.”

Now the extremely revealing verses 37:137-138, which refer to the destroyed places: “Actually, you pass by them in the morning. Also at night.. Do you still not understand?” This sura has supposedly been revealed in Makka. I do not agree and will present my case as we go along.

Now to show the possible sources of these verses here is II Peter 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” The Greek original of ‘ensample’ means something that is presented, displayed, shown, and observable.  Therefore, the ruins could be seen. Jude also presents these cities as proof of the divine punishment of the wicked: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going  after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Josephus also refers to the ruins of these cities in his Wars of the Jews: “The traces/shadows of the five cities could still be seen.” These verses sound like the source of the statement in Kuran 37:137-138, do not they?

Under the title THE OLD TESTAMENT I have told the story of the five cities, which have been destroyed supposedly by a divine(!) intervention. The statement in Kuran 37 has its roots in these Old Testament tales. Who do you think was the storyteller that narrated the Sodom and Gomorrah tale in Kuran? Who was the listener? Was it the Messenger himself or the author of the codebook? Here are some alternatives:

Let us repeat. There were ruins and the Hagarene Messenger, his followers, people of all convictions, and the non-believers have all been passing by these ruins every day and night. We are told that 37:137-138 are amongst the verses revealed in Makka. If so we must ask vital questions and try to find answers:

Exegetes claim that the people passing-by the ruins were Makkans-Kureyshis in the camel trade. I do not think so! They were traders. There were Kureyshis amongst them. But they were not Makkans.

Here is another critical question:

Let alone referring to them he wouldn’t even think of it. One would be interested in that land if ‘one passed by the ruins there in the morning and at night’ or better still if one lived in the land, in the actual region where the ruins existed. These destroyed places (Sodom and Gomorrah) are not in the Arabia Deserta but further north in Palestine. How could the Kureyshis-Makkans be passing by the ruins every morning and evening?

Peoples of the Arabia Petraea and Palestine were of the opinion that god was involved only with them in those days. There was no divine(!) action in the Arabia Deserta or Arabia Felix. If nevertheless these stories appeared in the codebook of Islam, some may be inclined to think that the Messenger was from that land in the North on the border of Palestine or the region further North. But the Messenger couldn’t have been living that far north.

Below is my reasoning:

Therefore, the Messenger, the storyteller and the author were able to pass by the ruins day and night, because they must have been living in the region where the ruins were situated (or right next to them).

This is my proposition:

But we still do not know where these ‘ruins’ are.

Here are some figures, which would give an idea on the time it took to move from one place to another in that era.  A journey from Yerushalim to Cebel Usdum (mount Sodom) reportedly took 13-14 hours. From Cebel Usdum (the mount of Sodom) to Petra 18-20 took hours. Sela/Petra was about forty miles from the Dead Sea. Sela/Petra (Batra  in Arabic) was a station on the trade route from the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula to Dimask/Dimisk-esh Sham. It reportedly took the caravans seventy days from Yemen to Petra. Zoar (Arabs still call it with that name) is near Sodom, a few hours away on the other side of the Valley. There are traces of a road at the southern tip of the ‘valley of Salt’/Valley of Araba (to the south of the chalk cliffs), which once was connecting the Jewish lands with the Gulf of Akaba. Here is what I believe when I consider these figures:

Could someone living in the general region of the valley of Hicr, Madian and Medain Salih have done a round trip in a single day, passing by the ruins there in the morning and at night? It is likely. They could easily be passing by the ‘devastated places’ both in the morning and at night, at least the night of the following day, if not in the same day.

Therefore, Messenger living in Midian, observing the ruins there, and listening to the stories about Sodom and Gomorrah seem much more convincing.

Next we have to read Kuran 25:41: “When they see you, they do nothing but to ridicule you and say ‘Is this the one, that god (Allah) has sent as a messenger?’”  Who were those that ridiculed the Messenger? They were most certainly, the unbelievers, and the believers of the other faiths in that particular community. Therefore, the story about the rejection of the Messenger by certain groups is most likely to be the expression of truth. I insist that this opposition had surfaced not in Makka, but in somewhere in north-western Arabia, in Midian.

Now let us go back to Kuran 25:38 and continue with 25:40: And we destroyed the Ad and Thamud, and the dwellers of Rass, and many generations in between… And indeed they have passed-by the town on which was rained the shower of anguish. Have they not seen it?” These people must have been those who were “passing-by the ruins every morning and evening.” 

The ‘shower of anguish’ is the figurative form of the ‘shower of stones.’ In an Arabic context this figurative form could be used for all types of devastating events that cause extreme distress and destruction both psychologically and physically. Therefore, in that context all the other devastated places, which have been subjected to an earthquake  with a very high-pitched sound; a typhoon with high winds and torrents of rain, flooding; and ‘things’ raining down from heavens could be considered within this context.

I believe the story narrated by Ibn Umar is very important, in the sense that it might be an indicator to the native place of the Messenger. According to Ibn Umar’s story, on their way back from the battle of Tabuk the Messenger and the people with him were passing by the dwellings of Thamud. They stopped there. The people fetched water from the wells that the people of Thamud used for drinking and cooking. The Messenger chastised them and ordered  them   to empty their water-skins and give the dough they prepared to the camels. Then they proceeded on their return journey until they arrived at the well from which the she-camel of messenger Salih used to drink. There the Messenger warned his followers against the people who had been punished and said: “It is my fear that you may be affected by what afflicted them, so do not enter upon them.” This region is called the valley of Hicr. The word ‘hicr’ in Arabic means something like an area ‘abandoned,’ ‘rejected,’ and ‘forbidden’. It also means something like ‘parting’, severance,’ and  ‘breaking off.’ In other words al Hicr could be translated as an area ‘abandoned’ and forbidden. Meanwhile ‘hicra’ (hegira) has meanings like ‘parting with’,  ‘separation with’ something, somebody, and some place. Now let your imagination free. Al Hicr is the place forbidden by the Messenger. In other words it is a prohibited area, and also an area that is ‘abandoned’ or ‘left behind.’

I think so! Do not forget that the Messenger had a habit of putting limits when the matter is related to him. He had also prohibited the tracing of his forefathers higher than Adnan, had he not? Why? Because his genealogy beyond Adnan has been borrowed from the Jews.



This is Kuran 33:27:

This statement should not be read superficially and accepted as such. I am sure that it has a deeper meaning.  Which do you think was the land where the Messenger has not yet stepped on?

Kuran 33:27 is preceded by the verses that deal with the ‘battle of the ditch’, which the Ismaelite-Hagarenes have reportedly fought with their adversaries (an allied group of Makkans and some Jewish tribes). Makkans and their allies could not take Medina, so they lifted the siege and went back to their hometown. If this story is true then the land that the Messenger hasn’t yet stepped on was Makka. The verses of Kuran make that clear. He was from a different land. Make note, Hagarenes were in Medina, and it was the fifth year of the Hicra, and the Messenger was yet to step on other lands including the Makkan soil! The exegetes have interpreted this statement, as ‘the Messenger will conquer other lands together with Makka.’ I believe that my interpretation is spot on. My point will become clear as we go along.

According to the official literature the Messenger had begun his prophetic life in Makka. But Kuran 33:27 makes sense only if this central character of the Islamic mythology had begun his life not in Makka but somewhere else. The official literature seems to imply that the place that the Messenger vowed to take is Makka. The nationalist Arab authors of the codebook were right inserting that statement into the book, because they were trying to adopt the original teaching according to their priorities. They claimed that the Messenger vowed to take Makka, because the Makkans were the ones who made the Messenger move to Medina and Makka was a town of idolaters. It is my   belief that if the Messenger had ever thought of taking Makka it was not because he was ridiculed there; not because he was made to leave; not because Makka was his native town; but it housed a rival sacred shrine to the Messenger’s shrine in Bakka, Makka was the focal point of various indigenous faiths/cults. Therefore, this shrine should be got rid of. All of these faiths/cults were a potential threat to his status and teaching.

This is my belief: Islam’s Messenger was not a Makkan. The Islamic ideology made it very clear: His tribe and family were from Medina. Moreover I believe that his family had moved to Medina from the lands to the north and settled in the town. The southernmost point the Messenger had gone in the Arabian Peninsula was Medina.

The official ideology has it that the Messenger was born in Makka in 570 or 571 A.D., lived there until 622 A.D., and migrated to Medina. Therefore, the official account makes clear that he had walked on the Makkan soil - he was born there. The official account also asserts that he had lived in Medina, so he has stepped on the Medinan soil as well - Medina was his base. There are only two places in his life anyway: Makka and Medina. Then which was that land that he hasn’t stepped on yet? There are those who argue that ‘the wording is about inheriting the land and not actually stepping on it.’ But I am not of that opinion. I think the truth is in one of the following scenarios:


I go for the second scenario. The official ideology tells, though superficially, that the Messenger was involved in the camel trade for a period in his life. The sketchy narration is absolutely vital and the subject of trading should be kept shrouded as much and as long as possible. The story is true and it could show a dimension of the Messenger’s personality and real occupation, which will reveal the actual person behind the presented persona.

Here is Ya’kub of Edessa (d. 708 A.D.): “What we know about Islam makes clear that ‘Mhmt’ (Muhammad?) has gone to Palestine, Arabia and Phoenicia for trade. Arbaye (the Arabian kingdom), the Arabs which we call ‘tayyayebegan to show themselves in the 11th year of the Roman king Heraclius and the 31st year of Khosrau (620-621 A.D.), and began their raids into Palestine.”

Here Ya’kub of Edessa counts Arabia amongst the places the Messenger had gone for trade purposes. Therefore,   is it possible to say that he was not living in Arabia? Yes! He was not living in Arabia, but going there every now and again. In opposition to this statement the official ideology claims that the Messenger was a Makkan. We know that Makka is in Arabia Deserta. Everything is clear, is it not? In the light of Ya’kub’s statement I go back to my proposition:

The Arabic of today was developed and spoken by the Nabataeans, who considered themselves Ismaelites. According to their conviction Ismail (Ish’mael), the son of Av’ram (Abraham) from Hagar was their forefather. Petra, Madian, Medain Salih, Al Ûlâ, Mughayir Shuayb and the neighbouring lands have actually belonged to the Nabataeans, who are the forefathers of the present day Arabs. But a great majority of them had to leave everything that was once theirs due to various reasons and migrate to other lands, mainly south to places in the Arabian Peninsula. The Messenger, his family and tribe must have been of these Nabataeans.

The above quoted verse (Kuran 33:27), “He (god) made you inheritors to their homes, their land, their property, and to the land you haven’t yet stepped on..” was supposedly revealed when the Ismaelite-Hagarene Messenger was in the Medinan days of his ‘prophetic’ life. If the essence of this verse is right then the person who’d had this verse written into the codebook also must have felt that the Messenger was not one of the desert Arabs, that he was a stranger to Makka. This makes Makka the land that the Messenger ‘hadn’t stepped on yet’. The belief system was not yet centred on Makka in those days. The Messenger and his movement had their sights on Bakka in Palestine. The local followers of the Hagarene teaching (amongst whom there must have been the Arabs of Makka as well) must also have considered the Messenger a stranger, an outsider.




According to the Islamic literature god had contemplated of punishing a certain place and waited for the departure of the Messenger.

Read these verses:

The ‘sacred temple’ in verse 8:34 is understood as Ka’ba, and the ‘place’ is identified as Makka. But we are told that there were many Ka’bas, usually in market towns (Patricia Crone- Michael Cook), where the faithful of all the persuasions worshiped their higher beings. Furthermore we should never forget that the original, the first, and the only ‘house of god’=Beyt-u Elah=Beytullah was in Bakka.

The Islamic literature and scholars claim that the verses 30-36 of Sura 8 were revealed in Makka. Sura 8 has 75 verses. How could and why should the seven of these verses have been revealed in Makka and the rest in Medina? Could these six verses be a remnant from the original Hagarene text? I believe so. The Messenger must have had these verses 30-36 written into the scriptures in the land of Midian, before he departed for Medina (Hicra). The same verses must have been left in the text and merged with the other verses when the editorial work was carried out later.

Again, the “soil on which the Messenger hasn’t yet stepped on” was the Makkan soil. It could be said that the Messenger may have thought of capturing Makka and Ka’ba, which has been a sacred place (a Sun temple housing other deities as well) long before the advent of the Messenger and his movement, therefore a symbol of competition for his teaching. Although this proposition sounds logical, I do not share this view.

Does anyone remember a village or a town, for the destruction together with its inhabitants or the punishment of which, the god of Islam had waited for the departure of the Messenger from that place? No! But we know that YHVH had waited for the departure of Moses and the Hebrews from Egypt to destroy the pharaoh; YHVH had also waited for the departure of Lot to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, the story in Kuran 8:33 could be the Islamic version of these stories: “But Allah would not punish them while you were with them. Allah would not punish them while they were begging forgiveness.” Please consider the following points:

The answer is negative on both counts. God had destroyed neither Makka nor Medina nor had he punished the people living there. Makka and Medina are the only places where the Messenger is claimed to have lived.

I believe that we should look for this place and the natural disaster in the north-northwest of the Arabian Peninsula. There had been frequent earthquakes in that region. Could we find a village or a town devastated by one of the frequent earthquakes in the region, shortly after the Messenger’s departure?

According to Kuran the towns and peoples destroyed previously are;

These are the deliberately emphasised divine(!) acts by the Messenger according to the codebook, as a result of which the towns Irem, Sodom and Gomorrah, Madian/Medyen, and Medain Salih were destroyed. Their ruins could still be seen. Unfortunately we know nothing about the village of Noah, but if ever there was a Noah and a village where he lived, we should search for him and his locality in the Middle East in general and particularly in the region of the two rivers.

According to the Islamic ideology Noah’s people, Ad, Thamud, Lot’s people, Amalekites, Midianites have come and gone before the Ismaelite-Hagarene Messenger, but the descendants of them must have been in existence in his time.

Of those nations of the past who have been accepted by the Islamic ideology as belonging to the Ismaelite line, only the Nabataeans existed as a viable entity as we come nearer the time of the Messenger. The rest of the former ‘peoples’ and the tribes must have either become extinct or dissolved in the empires of the day.



The precursors of the present day Arabic are believed to be the tongues spoken by the Didan/Dedan (presently al Ûlâ), Lihyan (Liyn), Thamud and Saf tribes, between 700 B.C.- 400 A.D. They were originally Midianite tribes (Ismaelites), and their lands have become the Nabataean territory as we come closer to the time of the Messenger.

The oldest Arabic text based on the Nabataean reportedly comes from the 4th century A.D.

We have other indications as to the possible sources of the language and doctrines of the Ismaelites. The authors/editors of Kuran emphasize repeatedly in 12:2; 13:37; 14:4; 16:103; 19:97; 20:113; 26:195, 198; 39:28; 41:3, 44; 42:7; 43:3; and 46:12 that this codebook was revealed(!) “in Arabic.”  Therefore, we must ask ourselves:

But there are non-Arabic words in it. Adam, Babil, Calut (Goliath), Cibril (Gab’ri-el), Eyyub (Job), Firavn/Firaun (pharaoh), Haman, Harun (Aaron), Harut (Haurvatat), Marut (Ameretat/Amerodad), Daud (David), Ebabil, Elyese, Eyke, Medain, Medyen (Midian), Maryam (Miryam), Mısr (Musur, Egypt), Mikal (Mikail), Iblis, Idris (Enoch), Ilyas, Imran (Amran), Irem, Isa (Yshua/Jesus), Ishak (I’zak), Ismail (Ish’mael), Karun, Ya’cuc and Ma’cuc (Gog and Magog), Musa (Mose/Moshe), Samud/Thamud, Suleyman (Shlomo), Tabut, Talut, Yagus, Yahya (Yohanan), Ya’kub (Yah-kobe/Yakob/Jacob), Yunus (Younis), Yusuf (Yahu-ceph/Yosef), and Zekeriyya (Zachariah).

These and other non-Arabic words originate from Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Abyssinian, Nabataean, Coptic, Greek, and Turkish. Geographically, majority of the lands where these languages were spoken - except Abyssinia - are the lands around Palestine. It is revealing, is it not?

In order to free themselves from this embarrassing situation (Where they felt the need to explain the existence of these foreign words)  the leaders and ideologues of Islam presented an explanation, which is an outright confession.



Here is the confession. According to the Islamic authorities these foreign words in Kuran are there because “once upon a time, there was a community of Arabs called Arab-ı Baide. Following the disappearance of them another Arabic community came into being. Many words from other peoples’ tongues have infiltrated this community’s language. Kuran was revealed in the tongue of this community, and consequently all those foreign words appeared   in the Book.” This is a straightforward acknowledgement of Kuran’s connection with the ‘pre-Arab Arabs,’ the Ismaelite Arabs (Nabataeans) and the peoples of Arabia Petraea. The Islamic literature seems to be satisfied with this explanation, but I believe it is incorrect. The original language of the earliest scriptures could not be the tongue of the community of the Arab-ı Baide, because this group did not include the Ismaelites (which is the tribe of the Messenger’s family).

The Arab-ı Baide are the ‘pre-Arab Arabs,’ the ‘lost Arabs,’ who are the people of Ad, Thamud, and the Amalekites. If the official ideology feels uneasy about my point, it has to make clear where it stands vis a vis the proposition that Kuran and/or the scriptures which were collected, compiled into Kuran in later periods were written before the Messenger, and in the language of a community, which predated the Messenger’s community.

The ideology of Islam and its literature took a sigh of relief with this explanation. Thinking that the efforts by the desert Arabs to cover the reality of those early days have been successful, they are happy to have found a face saving solution. But I believe they are wrong.

The language of the scriptures of the Messenger’s period could not have been the language of the Arab-ı Baide (the ‘pre-Arab Arabs’) community, because Ismaelites were not in  that community yet. The Arab-ı Baide included the people of Ad, Thamud and the Amalekites. Ismaelites were the Midianites, and the Messenger’s tribe belonged   to this group.

The Kahtanites of Yemen joined the Arab-ı Baide and the Arab-ı Aribe came into being.

According to the official ideology Ish’mael and his family joined the Arab-ı Aribe and the Arab-ı Mustaribe was created.

The official ideology claims that the mother tongue of Ish’mael (Ismail) was Hebrew, but he began speaking Arabic in the tribe of Djorhom. There were many tribes within the community of Arab-ı Mustaribe. The tribe of Beni Zuhre,   which is the tribe of the Messenger’s mother Amina (Aminu binti Vahb) was in that community. The tribe of Kureysh   is claimed to have a privileged position in the Arab-ı Mustaribe community. Therefore, the language of the Hagarene scriptures must have been the language of the Arab-Mustaribe. In other words, this language was not the language spoken by the desert Arabs. According to the official Islamic ideology Ish’mael’s language was Hebrew, but it should have been Aramaic, eastern Aramaic to be precise. The language of the scriptures that Hagarenes had brought with them was Nabataean, which belonged to the eastern branch of Aramaic.

The last group in the formation of the present Arabic community is the Arab-ı Mustacime. These are the Arabicised communities like the ones in Syria, Irak, Egypt and Maghrib. Having adopted the Arab ideology had given up their languages these peoples have begun speaking Arabic.

Amongst the verses referring to the language of Kuran, 42:7 is very strange: “We have revealed to you a Kuran in Arabic so that you can caution the starting point/origin of villages (umm-ul kura) and civilizations, and the ones around it.” This description, ‘starting point/origin of villages and civilizations=umm-ul kura’ is taken as Makka.

As a last note on the foreign words in Kuran, I would like to remind you again that if all those foreign words are infiltrations via the language of the Arab-ı Mustaribe (they say Arab-ı Baide, but it is wrong) we have no choice but to accept that;

Let us remember that Kuran was written at least three times. One of those editorial undertakings was in caliph Uthman’s reign. He is reported to have given the following order (narrated by Suyuti in Al Itkan) to the writer/editors: O, the Messenger’s companions! Come together and write a book which will be an Imam (the sole model) to people.

Uthman must have been aware of the linguistic difficulties. That is the reason why he has reportedly advised the group of editors as follows:

Zayd’s position in these editorial undertakings is crucial in unearthing the truth. From Uthman’s advice quoted above we can also deduce that Zayd was from Medina, and that the Makkan followers of the Messenger, who were in the editorial group put together by Uthman, were not proficient in that tongue. Since Zayd was speaking Midianite-Nabataean (he was apparently one of the original group of the Hagarenes and a close confidant of the Messenger)  he had the authority to make decisions. Consequently, he might very well have been the person who had taken down the messages in his tongue.

We understand from these quotes that the Kureyshi tongue was not a tongue of the desert Arabs (Makkans), but had its origin somewhere else. Again, it is my belief that Kureysh was not a Medinan tribe originally, but emigrated from the lands to the north. According to Karen Armstrong (A History of god) “Kureysh had centuries of proud bedouin independence behind them”. They must have been mainly of Mosaic faith with clans or families professing different beliefs. Their language must have been Midianite-Nabataean, the eastern Aramaic, which was the tongue of the Arab-ı Mustaribe. Kureysh must have been one of the Ismaelite tribes within the Arab-ı Mustaribe community. So we must make the following observations:

Here is what I think about Zayd:

Some more observations:

I believe that the above official progress within the Arab community has the aim of presenting the Arabic tribes in an orderly advance towards a kinship around Makka, and seal this development with the Messenger, because;

The later desert Arab ideologists must have rewritten this story in line with their needs, and invented the classification given above. But the same applies to the other belief systems as well. Almost all of the stories, and characters presented as the messengers in the codebooks of the belief systems are invented characters. If the story is invented, how could one get to the truth? If the character is an invention how could his lineage be real?







It would be wrong to proceed without recognizing the role played by the northern Arabs in the formation of the Messenger’s teaching. Our story begins with a small group of people, including the Messenger himself, going to Medina from their homeland. This is called ‘Hicra’ (Hegira), which means to break off, to part, and not to emigrate.

Michael Cook wrote that in a papyrus dated 643 A.D. The year ‘twenty-two’ was mentioned in a way suggesting      that something has happened in the Arab world in 622 A.D. This coincides with the year of the Hicra of the official history of Islam. But the unofficial history may have other things in store for us. The papyrus does not explain actually what has happened. This date could be the date of the Hicra, but it could very well be the beginning of the Arab    conquests towards Palestine. The official Islamic literature and the Islamic tradition maintains that Hicra is moving from Makka to Medina, but the scholars point out that these official ‘historians’ cannot provide an early source from the 7th century A.D. that will prove the historicity of this ‘exodus.’ Two Nestorian ecclesiastical documents from 676 A.D. and 680 A.D., give us the starting point of Hicra as the emigration of the Ish’maelites not within Arabia, but from Arabia to the Promised Land, possibly outside of Arabia (P. Crone-M. Cook). One must remember at this point that the earliest manuscript we have is an inner Arabian biography of the Messenger on a papyrus of the late Umayyad period (dated to ~ 750 A.D.), which is 100 years after the death of the Messenger (Avraham Grohman).

The Messenger’s group in those days might have been very small, maybe just his family and a few followers. This group might have been considered as unworthy of attention. If that is the truth, we have no choice but to admit that  the Islamic historians had blown up this ‘movement’ out of proportion and ‘embellished’ it in line with their aspirations.

Patricia Crone, in her article entitled The First Century Concept of Higra, lists 57 attestations which come from within and without the Muslim tradition, which point to a Hicra, or exodus, not from Makka to Medina, but from Arabia to the north, or to the surrounding garrison cities.  However, I feel that it would be right for me to stick to my theory:.

The Hicra in the two Nestorian documents is described as the “beginning of the forward movement of the Ismaelites most probably towards somewhere out of Arabia” (P. Crone-M. Cook). Direction and objective of this movement must have been the Promised Land? An Islamic tradition compiled by Abu Daud gives a clue. It says, “there will be Hicra after Hicra, but the best of men are to follow the Hicra of Ibrahim.”  The last three words, ‘Hicra of Ibrahim,’ look like the key to the puzzle.

According to some Muslims ‘Hicra of Ibrahim’ should be understood theologically as Av’ram-Ibrahim’s movement   from idolatry to monotheism. No way! We should look for other ‘actual’ reasons behind Hicra, one of which is the advance towards Palestine.

The ‘official’ Hicra of the ideology of Islam is described as “moving from the polytheist Makka to the monotheist Medina”. No! The ‘real’ hicra was an overwhelming wave of occupation towards North. It was such a crushing thrust that only seventeen years after its supposed year of onset, 622 A.D., the Arab armies have occupied lands as far as Harran (southeast Turkey) mentioned in the story of Av’ram and Amîd (Diyarbakır in southeast Turkey). Now let us make some observations:

The Hagarenes and their Jewish allies were moving definitely to the Palestinian coastline: “From Sidon to Gaza and inland to the Dead Sea cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” (K. A. Kitchen). But the movement may have been targeting lands even beyond. Patricia Crone, in her article entitled ‘The First Century Concept of Higra’, finds interesting support for a Hicra outside of Arabia. In her article on Hicra, she lists 57 statements, which come from within and without the Muslim tradition, which point to a Hicra or exodus, not from Makka to Medina, but from Arabia to the north or to the surrounding garrison cities. This information about Hicra gives us the first potential evidence, which suggests that much of the data found in Kuran and the Islamic traditions simply does not correspond with the existing external sources. Therefore, I prefer to develop the suggestion that there may have been another agenda at work here. I believe the desert Arabs have invented and edited the Hicra story in accordance with their needs.

Scholars of the Islamic history and ideology have established that descriptions like Islam and Muslim were not used and they do not appear in various texts and inscriptions. The word Muslim was used for the first time in the inscriptions on the walls of the Dome of the Rock in 7th century A.D. (M. Cook and P. Crone). The Dome of the Rock was built in 691 A.D., 60 years after the death of the Messenger (van Berchem; P. Crone-M. Cook). Kuran uses the term ‘Muslim,’ but the 7th century documents reportedly indicate that this term was not known during the life of the Messenger. This, consequently, seems to add more credence to my theory that the Hagarene teaching of the Messenger was transformed by the desert Arabs into Islam and as a result the text of the codebook has also undergone an editorial evolution. The same applies to Moses the Egyptian, who had nothing to do with the later Judaism; and also to Yshua who was a Jew, and had nothing to do with the Christianity.

If that was so, then what was the name used until the appearance of the ‘Muslim’ label?

Bishop Isho’yabb III (or Iso’yahb III) of Adiabene (Adiabenos) in his letters in Syriac from as early as the 640s A.D. seems to indicate that the early Muhammadans (Hagarenes) were called mahgre or mahgraye (Rubens Duval).

Writing in Syriac Athanasius in 684 A.D. used the label maghrayes when referring to the Arabs advancing north.

Ya’kub of Edessa in 705 A.D. called them hagarenes.

The Doctrina Jacobi referred to them as Saracens (saracenus) (N. Bonwetsch; M. Cook).

A Greek papyrus dated 642 A.D. referred to them as magaritai (Avraham Grohman), which was the label used in the Greek documents for the forerunner of Islam, the Hagarene movement, in the first 100 years following its inception.

In the notes of the French chronicler Fredegar (650 A.D.) we read the following descriptions, “The hagarenes who are also called the saracens.” So hagarenes and saracens are the same group.

Consequently, contrary to what the codebook of Islam says in Sura 33:35, it seems the term ‘Muslim’ was not in use until late 7th century A.D. (P. Crone-M. Cook). The labels mu’min and musluman in this sura are used in separate contexts. Why? I wonder what these two labels meant in those days.

What is the origin of these descriptions? The appearance of the terms mahgre, mahgraye, magaritai, and hagarene are found as far a field as Egypt and Irak (P. Crone-M. Cook). Let us explore the corresponding Arabic terms: hâcîr is the ‘one who emigrates’; hâcirîn, muhacirîn are the plurals of the word, meaning ‘emigrants’. The root letters in mahgre, mahgraye are ‘m’, ‘h’, ‘g’, ‘r’. The root letters in muhacir, muhacirîn in Arabic is ‘m’, ‘h’, ‘c’, ‘r.’ The sound of letter ‘c’ is given by ‘g’ in the corresponding words.

Moreover, Hagar is Hacar in Arabic. According to the story in the Mosaic scriptures Hagar/Hacar was taken to the desert against her will and left there with her son Ish’mael. The bond between her master and the family she was serving was severed. Starting with the root of the word, ‘hcr’, which is also the root of ‘hâcîr’ (‘the one who broke off-was separated’, ‘the one who was severed’), we can say that Hacar has become a symbol of breaking off, separation, severance, splitting, and being abandoned. Therefore, it is possible to name the Ismaelites who were not yet called Muslims as Hacarîn, Hacerîn (Hacerîs, Hagarene) due to their acceptance of their descent from Hagar’s son Ish’mael.

Both Av’ram and Hagar have taken part in a ‘break’/ Hicra of their own.

While the outside circles called the Messenger’s movement with the labels mentioned above, the members of the movement were calling themselves mu’mîn, mu’minûn (‘faithful’, ‘observants’) in the beginning. But with the initiation of the conquests these labels were replaced by Muslim, musulman, musluman, muslumânân (‘those who surrendered’). This change of the labels must have been carried out concurrent with the change in the outlook of the invaders when the god of the Ismaelite movement and the Ismaelite teaching were put on a nationalist and imperialist basis by the desert Arabs following the death of the Messenger. The imperialist Arab invaders needed peoples ‘surrendering’ to the earthly ‘right arm’ of the supreme overseer - the Arabs themselves.

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook argue that the words Islam and Muslim (in the context of surrendering to the will of the supreme being) were taken from the Samaritans. There are words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, which share the same root with ‘aslama’. While it is impossible to find an appropriate predecessor in the Jewish and Christian literature for its usage in Islamic context, there are perfect and exact parallels of the word in the Memar Markah which is the most important Samaritan text of the pre-Islamic era (P. Crone-M. Cook; J. Macdonald). Crone and Cook continue with the following remark: “The proposal that the root word (islam) is used here in the context of peace and making peace sounds plausible. But the reinterpretation of this concept as ‘surrendering’ could be seen as an  attempt to distinguish the hagarene contract from the one, which the supreme being had made with the Jews.”

I insist that the word ‘islam’ has never been used in the context of peace. On the contrary ‘islam’ has always meant ‘surrendering to the will of god,’ and that has never been peaceful. The context of ‘surrendering’ appeared at the same time as the conquests, because the Arab imperialists were in execution of their expansionist policies, and they were conquering peoples. The most effective weapon to subjugate the ignorant persons was forcing them to surrender to the ‘creator god’ and accept Islam by capitulating to the Arabs.

Many writers of that era believe that the Ismaelites were out not to spread a new teaching but to conquer new lands.  Many Christian Arab tribes also may have helped the Hagarene-Ismaelite+Jewish group. John of Phenek reportedly states “among the first Arab conquerors there were many Christians, some Monophysites and Melchites, and some Nestorians.” According to Phenek the Arabs ‘had a special order from their leader to favour the Christians and their monks.’

In his article on the internet David Ross takes up the earliest Greek source on the Ismaelite conquests, the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati (abbr. Doctrina Jacobi), which is about a dialogue that apparently took place on 13 July   634 A.D., between Jacob, a recent compulsory convert to Christianity, and several Jews. Here David Ross deals with the Doctrina Jacobi according to Walter Emil Kaegi Jr.’s quotes from N. Botwetsch:

This quote shows that the Islamic habit of concealing their real aims until they have the absolute power has its roots in those early days. It is obvious that the Messenger has added deception to what he has already got from Judaism, Christianity and the other cultures. It was the apostle Paul who had formulated this policy of deception for the first time in his First Letter to the Corinthians (9:19-22). The person (Sergius?) who had possibly introduced this  practice  to the Messenger must have got it from Paul’s letter.




Many things have been said and written about the Messenger. There are numerous books about him. Research was done on him, and various opinions have been articulated. But when we try to separate the real person and the character presented to us, with the aim of reaching the truth, it is unavoidable to observe that the words said and texts written about him have a limited value. Because the oral and written material we have today are based on the report of a report of a report, in short on tradition. When you search for his biography this is the standard information you get:

He is supposed to be the last (seal) of the prophets. He is the person, who following his death, was placed at the centre of the imperialistic and expansionist thrust, which has overturned a broad geography in an unbelievably short time span. The Messenger as we know today is presented as a person who put his mark to his period and the later epochs. The messengers before him were called mostly by their forenames in accordance with the rules of addressing in the societies that they have operated, and among the followers of their belief systems later on. But the Arabs have preferred to call their doctrinal teacher not by his forename alone but added some descriptive labels to it.

That is all I could give at this stage. More information related to the persona may be found under the following titles. I believe that in order to be able to understand him and his initial teaching we have to establish his region and his sphere of interest as dictated by his period.



According to Kuran god had destroyed the people of Noah, Ad people, the Thamud, Midianites (people of Medyen), Rass people (ar Rass), and the people of Lot. These are the peoples of the land of Midian, which is part of the region called Arabia Petraea. What was god’s reason to annihilate all of them? Well, Kuran says that they were non-believers, they have rejected the ‘verses’ (divine rules!) given to them.

In the 15th sura, starting with the verse 51 Kuran mentions Ibrahim (Av’ram) and Lut (Lot) and gives a short story of the destruction of towns or villages, and states the following in 15:76 about their ruins: “Those cities (the ruins of which) still exist alongside a much used road.”  Yes! According to Kuran the ruins of the destroyed places still exist along a busy road. They are there supposedly as a lesson to humanity.

Ad and Thamud seem to have a special place amongst the reminders supposedly cited by the Messenger. Irem, the town of the Ad people and the Medain Salih of the Thamud must also have been very important for the Messenger who had received(!) and announced these revelations. Kuran announces that ruins of these townsstill exist alongside a much used road.”  The ruins referred to are believed to be the ones belonging to Sodom and Gomorrah. But I am not of that opinion and as we progress it will be shown that these ruins belonged to the towns and villages in the region that was ruled by the Midianites, the Nabataeans, once upon a time.

The established view is that the forefather of the Arabs was the Nabataean tribe, which had migrated to north and established the renowned city Petra (Which is thought to be the biblical Sela/Sala?). The Ad people are said to be one of the clans within the tribe of the Nabataeans.

The Medain Salih or al Hicr or ‘Adall’ were considered ‘cursed towns’. Ptolemy and Pliny called al Hicr ‘Egra’. Believers of Islam were discouraged from going there.

The people of the valley of Hicr, Medain Salih (Salih’s villages) have rejected the verses of god and they were cursed, forsaken, abandoned and annihilated. ‘Hicr’ also means ‘forbidden,’ a ‘no-go area.The names tell a lot!

Besides the people of Medina the camel traders also were passing by the ruins in the valley of Hicr, Medain Salih and al Ûlâ (Dedan). Those traders who continue further in to the land of Israel, probably to Yerushalim, were also passing by the ruins of Sodom near Cebel Usdum (mount Sodom).

 Islam page 2