FOOD FOR THOUGHT: "Ignorance is an affront."
YOU ARE IN DARKNESS
THE HAGARENE TEACHING
(SABIAN FAITH - ISLAM)
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:
An Egyptian person has taken charge a group of Hebrews who presumably had gone to Egypt from Palestine and lead them back to Palestine. The story was designed to give the impression that this migration of a group of Hebrews and their consequent merger with the tribes of Hebrews, Canaanites, Aramaeans and Semites living in Palestine was to form a nation. But they felt that the story needed an unheard of embellishment. So the scene setters devised a divine(!) intervention by a higher being who has chosen Hebrews as his people and given Palestine to them. All the stories of the Old Testament have been written accordingly, and we ended up with the Jewish ideology.
There has never been a prophet receiving divine messages.
The man called Moses, who led Hebrews out of Egypt was not a ‘prophet.’ He was not receiving anything from anywhere.
The stories about supposedly divine interventions and those messages given by the so-called prophets in the books added to Torah are inventions by the writers of the book.
There has never been a divine action.
Additions to and editing of the original teaching by numerous writers, and thousands of pages of exegesis over a period of 1000 years have created the present ideology.
Over these 1000 years the Hebraic-Israeli-Judaic ideology has gone through the stages below and reached the present era:
When the tribes entered Canaan they were polytheist.
They were Henotheists until the Babylonian exile, when they acknowledged the existence of many higher beings but accepted only one as their lord.
They became Monotheists when Ezra the priest finished his editorial work on the Old Testament, following the Babylonian exile.
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.
EXPANSIONISM CONTRADICTING THE FOCUSED TEACHING
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..
Desert Arabs were the ones who have transformed the initial Ismaelite teaching into the focused ideology and then again into the universal tool of Arab imperialism called Islam.
I believe that the aim of bringing the conquered peoples under the absolute rule of the Arab imperialism was behind this second transformation.
When the desert Arabs left their traditional region in the Arabian Peninsula in pursuit of their expansionist aims they took with them the concept of ‘the sole god of the Universe and his final revelation’ to use as tools to impose their absolute rule on the conquered peoples.
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:
“We have sent you.. to the mankind.. but the majority of them do not know.”
Whereas according to Kuran 6:92 and 42:7 the “revealed codebook in Arabic is intended for the cautioning of the ‘umm-ul-kura’ (mother of the cities=Makka) and the vicinity, and the Messenger is ordered to do that.”
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.
Islam has never meant peace.
The changing of the descriptions of believers was meant to express the fact that the believers had become surrenderers and the future followers were expected to do likewise, and surrender.
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 3:20: “If they reject, your only responsibility is to announce (the message).”
Kuran 5:92: “Our prophet can do nothing but to impart the message.”
Kuran 13:40 (supreme creator addresses the Messenger): “Hence you will announce, and I will do the questioning.”
Kuran 42:10: “When there is a disagreement between you on anything leave the judgment to Allah.”
Kuran 50:45: “We know very well the remarks they make. You are not a tyrant over them. Then, only advise by Kuran those who fear my threat” (Kuran 5:99 has an identical message).
Transformation of the original Ismaelite-Muhammadan doctrines has lead to an imperialist weapon called Islam, which as a word has never meant ‘peace.’ Islam does not derive from the Hebrew word ‘shalom,’ which means ‘peace,’ but from ‘teslîm’ which is ‘submission’, ‘surrendering’. One has to surrender to the authority of the supreme creator, surrender to his revelation in the form of the codebook of Islam, and to the Arabs, the ‘arm’ of the supreme creator on Earth. Islam expects complete obedience. The original doctrine has become an intolerant, fanatical and impatient ideology. According to this new ideology there is no peace until and unless every single human being has surrendered and become a Muslim. Here are some quotations from the codebook of Islam showing this transformation towards the nationalist Arab ideology:
Kuran 2:191-193: “..And kill them wherever you shall find them, and expel them from whatever place they have expelled you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet do not attack them at the Mascid-i Haram, until they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such would be the punishment of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there is no more civil discord, and the only worship is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility, except against those who are the oppressors.”
Kuran 2:216: “War is prescribed to you even if you do not like it.”
Kuran 8:15-16: “O you believers! When you meet the infidels, do not turn your backs to them. Anyone who would turn his back to them on that day shall invite the wrath of god, unless he does it to relocate himself to fight or to join another unit. He shall end up in hell, what a wretched destination is that!”
Kuran 8:38-39: “Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, the past shall be forgiven for them; but if they start again, the path and the law of the ancients will remain as it was. Then fight against them until the strife ends and the religion as a whole belongs to Allah. If they desist, Allah will value their behaviour.”
Kuran 9:5: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those polytheists wherever you shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and block all their passages. But if they convert and observe prayers and pay the obligatory alms, let them go their way, for Allah is gracious, merciful.”
Kuran 9:29-30: “Make war upon those to whom a book has been given, but do not believe in god and the judgment day, in the last day, and not consider unlawful that which god and his apostle have forbidden, and who do not profess the religion of truth (Islam), until they pay tribute and humble themselves. Jews say, ‘Ozair (Ezra) is a son of god’; and the Christians say, ‘messiah is the son of god.’ This is what they have said. They talk like infidels of the past.. May Allah crush them. See how they defect!”
Kuran 9:123: “Believers! Wage war against the infidels around you. Let them see your toughness.”
Kuran 47:4: “When you encounter the infidels, there will be those who will be beheaded.”
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 unfocused teaching of the early days was transformed into an extremely nationalist and expansionist ideology for Arabs by human intervention.
Are we to understand that all the peoples of the world do speak and understand Arabic?
Are all the peoples of the world belong to the Hashemite family and no one knows it?
Are all the peoples of the world belong to the Kureysh tribe, and we do not know it?
Are all the peoples of the world Arabs?
Do the Arabs consider the Arabian Peninsula as the whole world?
Do they think that the world should be the Arabian Peninsula?
Do the Arabs believe that the whole of the world should be like Arabs and the Arabian Peninsula?
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:
Arabs were living side-by-side and mixed with the powerful and widespread belief systems.
Arabs had not had such a powerful ‘divine’ connection of their own until then.
The core group within the desert Arabs, which converted the initial teaching needed to make up for their disappointments, aspirations and ambitions vis a vis those who look down upon them as unimportant and worthless.
In short the Arabs were in desperate need of an identity.
Here one should not overlook the ‘psychology of siege’ the Arabs had had in those days, the possible reasons for which could be summarized as follows:
Jews had a codebook.
Christians had a codebook.
Zoroastrians had a codebook.
Sabians had their codebook.
Makkans had their cults.
Messenger was aware of all these societies and cultures.
Messenger has created a core group.
Messenger adopted the ‘unadulterated true religion of Abraham’ (Sabianism) and began communicating messages from the codebook that was presented to him under the name of Kuryan.
Members of the established religions challenged the core group and rejected them.
Later on the Messenger incorporated messages from the Mosaic belief system, Christianity and Zoroastrianism into his teaching and declared a new religion, but this action was not sufficient to persuade the followers of the established religions and they ridiculed and rejected him.
The Messenger and his core group must have felt the need to have a belief system tailored to their priorities and a supreme overseer of their own.
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:
“The non-Muslim section of the world, the infidels are against us, and they deserve punishment for their attitude, for Allah is the only god and supreme. That is why the culmination of god’s revelation, Islam, should be the only and faith and supreme. The sacred war, ‘cihad,’ should last until all the infidels submit to god and accept his religion.”
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.’
THE ADOPTED IDENTITY
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.
GO BACK 1400 YEARS
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.
THE ARAB IMPERIALISM AND ITS TOOL
Firstly, the meaning of Islam as a word has never been ‘peace.’
Islam derives not from the Hebrew shalom/şalom (root is ‘şlm’=peace), but from the word teslîm (surrender).
Islam implies surrendering to the all-powerful supreme creator; bowing and obeying the authority of the supreme being; obeying and surrendering to the messages as communicated by the Messenger.
The representatives on Earth of the divine entity, overseeing and imposing this process of surrendering are the desert Arabs who had also transformed the Messenger’s original teaching.
That is why it is necessary to surrender to the Arabs in their capacity as the representatives of the supreme creator, and become arabicised.
This is the Arab imperialism.
Belief system called Islam is the weapon employed by this imperialism.
Islam necessitates an absolute obedience.
There will not be peace and quiet until each and every living human being has adopted Islam.
Could the name of an ideology fired by such a strong inherent drive be derived from a word, which means peace?
This is the line of eternal division between the Muslims and non-Muslims. This divide will last until the Muslims win the final victory and the whole of humanity adopt Islam.
This compulsory rule is written in the codebook of Islam.
Islam is the monolithic belief system of the World.
Those believers of Islam who do not end their contacts with their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons, daughters, fellow citizens etc. who has not yet adopted Islam, cannot join ‘god’s community.’
The members of the nations that Arabs have conquered by deception, blackmail, ethnic cleansing and the power of sword should do the following:
They should accept the authority of the Arabs.
They should place all their national institutions under the authority of the Arabs.
They should accept the Islamic religious law (Sharia).
They should learn Arabic and the traditions of the Arabs.
They should feel affection for Makka and the Arabs.
They should take the Messenger as their model, because he admired everything that is ‘Arab.’
They should hate their own culture. They should hate their motherland, and consider it ‘Dar-ul harb’ (war zone, a land of conflict) until all the people living there adopt Islam.
They should create their own communities, they should take up arms and should fight until the rest of the population, their fellow citizens, accept the Arab imperialism and its driving force - Islam, in other words, their motherland has become a Dar-ul Islam (the land of the surrendered).
In order to be victorious in the Dar-ul harb Muslims should try everything (In other words, the end will justify the method).
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.
Think about Egypt, the imperial era of which spans thousands of years, and its people who all consider themselves Arabs.
Think about the Persian civilization enveloping the ages of history. Think about the contribution this civilization had made to the development of the Roman law, Greek culture, and the traditions in Asia. Watch with pain the present shape of the culture that produced the Zoroaster and his religion, which had a tremendous influence on the Semitic-Abrahamic religions.
Try to imagine what India has lost to the advancing Muslim armies.
ILLUMINATION IS A FEW PAGES AWAY
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.
If and when you do the right thing and reach the ‘illumination’ you should realize that what you see is not the light of out-of-this-world and unreasonable suppositions but the true illumination of knowledge.
When you reach the ‘illumination’ of reason look at your image in the mirror, there you will see the inventor of that enveloping, hindering, incarcerating darkness you left behind.
There is no one stronger, greater, superior and higher than the flawless and clean nature and you within the boundaries of that ‘illumination’ or in the darkness beyond.
All the suppositions are within your self, in your brain, amongst your thoughts. There is nothing more!
Beyond this light of reason there are only your deepest fears and your wildest expectations. If you make them the basis of your faith you will put your brain on the same level with the primitive brains of that age of incognizance thousands of years ago.
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:
A belief system, (Arabs call it ‘din’, which is a Hebrew word which means, the road, path, course), as preserved and practiced by a group of people is a unique system of faith and worship or the recognition and acceptance of the quest for a higher, guiding and controlling supreme being, who will be obeyed and respected.
In some of the belief systems;
Like Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism there is an all-powerful supreme being;
Like Hinduism, Shinto and the primal religions there is a group of gods, and the ‘One’ is implied to be in that group.
Like Buddhism and Jainism there is no supreme being, but there may be a faith in a transcendental dimension which will make possible the leaving behind of the Earthly problems and suffering.
In some others belief systems;
Especially like Christianity there may be an imposed hierarchical system created by the institutionalisation of the belief system.
Relations with the supreme being in all of these belief systems are realized through the interfaces/intermediaries (messengers, priests, bishops, imams, sheiks, rabbis etc.).
In some belief systems like Zoroastrianism, an intermediary class of priests is totally rejected. Islam is one of them, at least on paper [But there are thousands and thousands of hodjas (clerics) acting as intermediaries and sheiks, showing the way].
There are also other belief systems like Hinduism which ask all of their followers to take part in the rituals which will make them members of the Hindu community:
Whatever is their name and wherever they ruled all the belief systems address the burning desire of the human beings: Immortality.
Human beings seek the transcendence, which they thought would make them like the higher beings and the Universe - everlasting. In other words, this fundamental human craving is basically immortality. This human desire on the one hand provides all the belief systems with countless believers, and on the other acts as an exceptionally effective weapon in the hands of the ‘hunters’ who seek followers for their ideologies.
The distinction between the meanings given to ‘theoria’ is the reason why the East and West have developed in different directions.
In eastern Christianity, theoria (assumption-theory) is understood as the product of assumption at worst and speculation-abstract reasoning at best (Islam has adopted this approach).
Whereas in the West theoria (assumption-theory) is understood as something that has to be consistent with reason, and verified.
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?
When the supreme being and the assorted matters are involved experiment and proof are redundant in the East.
The last thing East needs (or rather never needs) is discussing the faith, because the faithful in the East are aware of the fact that even the first question which leads to doubt will create the fatal crack in the structure called faith, which excludes free will and reason.
This fundamental approach to thought processes reveal the foundation stones that separate the formations of the eastern and western societies.
In the East each individual should indulge in deep thought=abstract reasoning-speculation to get closer to the supreme being and rise to the divine(!) level as much as possible. But deep thought is something which cannot be achieved by everyone. Firstly a person should have the ability to think right, secondly a person should have a disciplined intuition. This is the mixture, which leads to a transcendent ecstasy. Only a few human beings have the ability to achieve a wisdom at this level.
These should be the questions to ask at this stage:
Who needs wisdom of this kind?
What role did this wisdom play throughout history except leading to conflict?
What role could it play in the future?
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;
Punishing the sinners;
Setting the beginning and the end of the Universe;
Judging the human beings and passing verdicts on the judgment day;
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:
The goddess Ashera who saddles her ass and wanders off;
Marduk of the Enuma Elish;
Elohim of the Israelites;
The anthropomorphic supreme being who sits at the table and eats with Av’ram;
The ‘lord of light’, Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrians;
YHVH, the warlike supreme being of the Old Testament which chooses his own people and leads them;
‘God in flesh’- ‘son of god’- ‘god incarnate in man’ Jesus/Yshua of apostle Paul; The ‘omnipotent creator god’ of Islam, which could not be seen or heard.
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.
In short, each culture has its own supreme being. We do not have a single concept for all.
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.
IN THE ISLAMIC LITERATURE
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.
We should never forget that when we deal with belief and faith there is no absolute truth or 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.
Where was this Bakka?
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:
Faith is nothing but a fantasy.
Faith is a collective delusion.
Here is Kuran 3:96:
“The first Beyt (‘house of god’=Beyt-u Elah) established to be a source of abundance for the realms and a guide for the people is the one in Bakka.”
Here is Kuran 3:97:
“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.”
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.
Claiming that Bakka was the earlier name and a different pronunciation of Makka (due to tribal dialects) is identical with the efforts by the Catholic church to ‘cleanse’ the archives of the Buddhist monasteries of the documents, which showed that Yshua did not die on the cross and had gone to Kashmir. His route was Edessa, Nisibis, and Persia. He preached in various places along the route. Here is the truth according to Kuran:The first sacred shrine of the teaching (known as Islam) today was 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.
Geographically the valley of Baca led to the valley of Hinnom (hell, cahannam) lying to the north;
The valley of Hinnom led to the ‘gardens’ (garden, paradise) lying to the north again.
To the north-northeast of the ‘gardens’/paradise lies the house of god on Zion.
“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:
There is no mention of Makka in Kuran;
There is Bakka;
There are references to a ‘sacred shrine’;
There are references to the ‘house of god’ (Beytullah);
Bakka is the place where this ‘house of god’ is;
Ibrahim’s stone is there;
Bakka is the first kıbla;
Pilgrimage there is man’s duty.
Here are some more points to consider:
Temple Mount is an enclosed area within which there was the ‘house of god’ (temple);
Within this enclosed area there is ‘sahra’ (the rock), which the Ismaelite-Hagarenes called makam-ı Ibrahim, (Ibrahim’s stone);
Those who enter this area will be secure (because it is sacred and walled);
Psalm 84 talks about multitude of pilgrims walking through the valley of Baca up to god in Zion (So there are pilgrims).
Could this enclosed area have been called Baha? (There is no mention of it anywhere);
Could the later ‘authors’/editors of Kuran have changed the word Baha/Baka to Bakka on purpose (To establish a likeness with the word Makka. They might as well have done so, but it will not make a difference at all).
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.
Could this be taken as an indication for the efforts by the desert Arabs to take over a teaching (which was not theirs) of the peoples of Arabia Petrea and to duplicate the Baha the (enclosed area around the ‘house of god’)?
Could this Baha be the Temple Mount?
Could this Baha be the Ka’ba complex in Makka?
We shall solve this puzzle but we have to deal with other matters first.
THERE IS NO MAKKA ON THE MEDINA-IRAK ROAD
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.
If according to the ancient Greek historical and trading documents Makka was not the great commercial centre as the later Muslim traditions try to make us believe;
If Makka was not known by the people who lived and wrote in that period;
If Makka could not even qualify as a viable city during the time of the ‘author’;
If Makka’s geographical location is in doubt;
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?
THE MESSENGER AND THE PEOPLE OF THE REGION PASS BY SOME ‘RUINS’ EVERY MORNING AND EVENING
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:
This person who’d had these verses written into the codebook could have been the Hagarene Messenger.
Therefore,, we could assume that the Messenger knew these places and their stories. But how could he have known?
The Messenger might have been living in the vicinity of these ruins.
The Messenger might have been from another region and he could have listened to the stories about the divine(!) acts in Palestine and the neighbouring lands.
If the Messenger had listened to the stories, then the storyteller could have been a person from the region where the ruins were.
The storyteller might have been a native of another region and only a narrator of the stories that he’d heard from others.
If neither the Messenger nor the storyteller was involved in the inclusion of these verses, then there must have been other author/authors or editor/editors involved in the later developmental phase of the codebook, who inserted these verses to make the divine(!) action story more powerful.
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:
Are there any places in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, which have been destroyed by a divine intervention? No! Until the time god is thought to have developed an interest towards the Arabs, the Arabian Peninsula was not his field of interest. He was doing his acts in and around Palestine, and in northwest Arabia. Who said that? The Mosaic scriptures, which is one of the main sources of Islam. Therefore, the ruins must be there.
If the above verses are only about Sodom and Gomorrah, then we must acknowledge the fact that their ruins are too faraway for the Makkans or the Messenger (allegedly living in Makka then) to pass by in the morning and at night..
These verses could be addressing the people living in Palestine in the vicinity of the Lake Araba, Dead Sea.
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.
These references in Kuran are not about the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah only.
The Hagarene Messenger has never lived in Makka.
Here is another critical question:
Why would a person (the Messenger, the storyteller, the author) be interested in what had happened in a far away land where the ruins were situated, and try to add authority to his messages by referring to events there?
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:
The desert Arabs had to insert diacritical dots to read the Hagarene scriptures that the Messenger had nbrought with him. This language had originated in the land of Midian where the Dedan, Lihyan, Thamudean, Midianite (Ismaelite) and Nabataean tongues have existed in progression. These tongues were the precursors of the present day Arabic, but they were ‘raw’ and ‘defective’ in that form in comparison with the Arabic of today. So, when the original texts written in the tongue of this region were presented to the desert Arabs they could not read it. The language was foreign. Zayd was reading in his tongue and the desert Arabs were writing the messages down with the diacritical dots. Their purpose was to read the messages like Zayd and understand them properly. Later on vowels were added to this writing. This is one of the reasons why I believe that the Messenger was not from Palestine and the Arabia Petraea but from the land of Midian.
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).
I personally believe that the Messenger was a Nabataean, a native of the land of Midian and living there, and his tongue was Nabataean particular to this corner of the Arabian Peninsula - Midianite.
The Messenger could have learned the source material of his earliest, original Hagarene stories when he visited the lands where the ruins were situated (which was only normal for the traders of those days, and the Messenger was a trader himself).
He might as well have been a listener to the stories of the divine(!) acts in Palestine and the neighbouring lands.
In that case the storyteller must have been a person either from the region where the ruins were situated or a native of another region and a migrant living also in the land of Midian, who only narrated the stories from the scriptures to the best of his knowledge and ability.
This storyteller might also have been the author of the earliest, original scriptures.
This is my proposition:
Ismaelite-Hagarene Messenger was a Midianite and he was living there.
The Messenger had actually seen the ruins mentioned in the initial Hagarene scriptures and also listened to the stories about them in his native community.
Therefore, the Messenger was both a witness and a listener.
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:
The devastated places, which the Messenger passed-by in the morning and at night were not around the southern shores of the Dead Sea.
Sodom and Gomorrah were not the only devastated places on that busy trade route where the camel caravans carried goods in the lands under the Midianite and Nabataean rule. There were other ruins, which dated to the days of Dedan, Lihyan, Thamud, and Midianite tribes: Valley of Hicr, Madian and Medain Salih, all of which had the ruins of dwellings which had been devastated supposedly by a divine(!) intervention, as written in Kuran.
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.
Therefore, the Messenger, the storyteller and the earliest author of the scriptures, Messenger’s earliest followers, believers and unbelievers were almost certainly living in this general area (Madian/Medyen), almost in the immediate vicinity of these ruins.
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.”
When these verses are read together we get the impression that these unbelievers and idolaters, the Ad and Thamud, and the dwellers of Rass, have been in the same region: Madian/Midian/Medyen.
The Messenger also was from that region.
What has happened to these peoples are related (to the Messenger or through the Messenger to the people of that region) in the codebook as examples of divine(!) intervention from the past.. It is only logical to give examples from the local culture and the immediate region. An example from a distant land in Europe or Central Asia or even from Asia Minor wouldn’t have meant a thing for the Midianites.
The Ad, Thamud and Rass were the tribes living in the region called Midian. This could be taken as another indication, which supports my theory that the Messenger was a Midianite living in Midian.
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.
So, when the codebook of Islam was developing into a final text some verses in sura 37 might have been dropped and the remainder edited together to give the impression, on purpose or by chance, that the reference was only to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe that before the editorial work, stories about the ruins in and around Midian were also included in the scriptures.
This is the bottom line: The ‘devastated places’ in 37:137-138 must include the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and also the ruins of the villages and towns in the land of Midian in northwest Arabia. The believers, unbelievers, the Messenger, his followers, his tutor, his storyteller, and the earliest author have been living in the same community, the location of which has given them the chance to pass by the remains of Madian, valley of Hicr, Medain Salih, Dedan (al Ûlâ) etc.
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.’
Why only al Hicr is prohibited and not also al Ûlâ or Midian (Madian, Mughair Shuayb)?
Could it be that the Messenger was living in al Hicr originally?
Could it be that the place he was made to leave was in al Hicr?
Could we say that hicra was from al Hicr to Medina?
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.
THE LAND, WHICH THE MESSENGER HAS NOT STEPPED ON YET!
This is 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. Allah is all-powerful.”
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:
This is the first scenario: The Arabs of the desert felt the need to create a Makka dimension to ‘steal’ and ‘take possession of’ the Hagarene teaching. In a story where the Messenger was the central character it was imperative for these desert Arabs to establish a connection between Makka and the Messenger. He should have been born in Makka; He should have been made to leave that place; there should have been a conflict between Makka and Medina. In the end the Messenger should enter Makka as the conqueror, take over the polytheist Kaba, end the Arab polytheism and paganism, and establish the rule of the sole god.
Here is the second scenario: The Messenger has declared that he was going back to Ibrahim’s religion. The most important place for the Hagarene Messenger was the ‘first house of god’ in Bakka. Bakka was the ‘first house of god’ where Abraham had erected a stone to his god. Baka was in Palestine. The objective of the Hagarene Messenger together with his allies, Jews, was to take back from the Romans Bakka and the whole of Palestine – it was their ‘birth right’. They had no interest whatsoever in Makka. However, the Arabs of the desert needed to transform and possess the Messenger’s teaching. While they were transforming the official literature, they must have substituted Makka for Bakka, except for the verse 3.96.
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 ‘tayyaye’ began 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 Messenger was a Nabataean-Midianite. He was a trader. He was a brave war-like person. Being a trader, the Messenger was well acquainted with the profession of the Nabataeans, who had caravans travelling along the trade routes of the Arabian Peninsula, between Syria, Palestine and Yemen. He used religious themes when he wanted to impress people. (I will go into detail as we go along)
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.
THE ‘PLACE’ OR PEOPLE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF WHICH GOD HAD WAITED
FOR THE DEPARTURE OF THE MESSENGER
According to the Islamic literature god had contemplated of punishing a certain place and waited for the departure of the Messenger.
Why did the Messenger have to leave that ‘place’?
Has he been preaching his doctrine to the inhabitants there?
Did the inhabitants reject him and threatened to ‘throw him out’ like they did to Shuayb (Kuran 7:88)?
Read these verses:
Kuran 8:31: “When our revelations are read to them they say: ‘All right we heard. We could certainly say similar things if (we) wanted to; they are nothing but the tales of the past!’”
Kuran 8:32: “They also said: Our god (Allah) if this (Kuran) is the truth itself from you, shower rocks on us down from the sky. Or punish us with a terrible torment.”
Kuran 8:33 “But God would not punish them while you were with them. God would not punish them while they were begging forgiveness.”
Kuran 8:34: “Why shouldn’t god punish them while they were blocking entry to the Sacred Shrine? They are not the guardians of the Temple. Servants of it (Shrine) are none other than the righteous. But most of them do not know.”
Kuran 8:35: “Their worship at the Beytullah (‘house of god’=Beyt-u Elah) is nothing but blowing whistles and clapping hands. Therefore, suffer the torment for your disbelief.”
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 Islamic ideology tells us that the Makkans had rejected the Messenger. Did god destroy the Makkans and Makka following the departure of the Messenger?
Did god destroy Medina and the Medinans when the Messenger was not in the city on various reasons including the war?
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.
Therefore, we should find another place or people for the destruction or punishment of which god had waited for the departure of the Hagarene Messenger.
We should also establish whether a natural disaster like an earthquake or deluge had taken place shortly after his departure from a certain ‘place,’ (in Midian?) which was deliberately interpreted by him and his followers as a divine act for the punishment of that ‘place.’
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;
The city of Irem and the Ad people. Their messenger was Hud;
The Medain Salih (villages of Salih) and Thamud. Their messenger was Salih;
Sodom and Gomorrah and their people. Their messenger was Lot;
The Midianites and Medyen, Madian, Mughair Shuayb. Their messenger was Shuayb.
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.
THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY A SCRIPTURE IN ARABIC, BUT THERE ARE NON-ARABIC WORDS IN IT
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:
What is the reason behind these repeated references to the language of Kuran?
Had anybody claimed that the language of the codebook was not Arabic?
Did the authors wish to present it as a codebook particularly for Arabs, thus sever any possible ties with its predecessors (The Old and New Testaments)?
Did the authors want to underline the fact that the codebook was unique and has not borrowed from either its predecessors or the other cultures?
Did the authors want to give the impression that the person who had received(!) the messages, and also those who had written it down were Arabs?
Did the authors wish to give the impression that the book is for the Arabs only?
Did the authors wish to sever its ties with the Arabs who were not indigenous to Arabia proper?
Did the authors wish to portray it as a codebook intended only for the desert Arabs of Makka?
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.
‘ARAB-I BAIDE’ = THE ‘LOST ARABS’
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.
This is a straightforward acknowledgement of the fact that the codebook had connections with the Ismaelite- Hagarenes (the Nabataeans of Midian) and with the Arabia Petraea. This is the indisputable indication, which reveals that the Messenger and the group with him were not from the Arabia Deserta.
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.
Therefore, Makka of those days was only a village.
The reason why Medina was called ‘medina=city’ in those days must be obvious.
There were no cities then in the Arabian Peninsula, except Medina.
Then what should we do with the claims that Makka was a centre for trade in the region?
Is there a shred of evidence, which shows that the Messenger was born in Makka? There is none.
Do we have any evidence that the people who rejected the Messenger were the ones living around Makka and the natives of the village? No!
The Book was supposedly revealed in a language, which was to be used to caution the Makkans and those living around. But why did those Makkans have to make additions like diacritical dots etc., to read the text?
Even this fact alone shows, firstly that the language of the scriptures in the early days was not one of the tongues spoken in and around Makka and secondly that the Messenger and this followers also were not Makkans.
Bearing in mind all these points, who in their right minds would insist on the story that the Messenger was a born Makkan?
Could the verse quoted above be a later addition by the desert Arabs to steal the Hagarene teaching and put themselves in the centre of the new ideology? Most probably, yes.
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;
The Messenger himself must have been a member of one of those tribes who formed the Arab-ı Mustaribe, because he is the one who received(!) and announced the divine(!) revelations in his own tongue;
The Messenger was from an Ismaelite/Ish’maelite line. His motherland was Midian. He was a Midianite of a Nabataean society.
The Messenger’s tutor, advisor, storyteller (call him whatever you like) and note-taker, scribe must also have been a member of that community.
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:
“Whenever there is a disagreement between you and Zayd of Medina on a certain section of Kuran, write the disputed section in Kureyshi tongue because Kuran was sent only in Kureyshi tongue.”
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:
Messenger was not a Kureyshi.
His tongue was different from the tongue spoken by the desert Arabs.
The Messenger and his immediate followers were accepted to the Kureysh tribe as a resuılt of an intervention by a highly regarded person.
The Kureyshi language was also different then the tongue of the desert Arabs.
The Kureyshi language was one of the northern tongues.
Kureysh was not a Medinan tribe, but had a northern origin.
The Messenger had Makkan followers also. But it is true to say that even those followers were unable fully to speak or write the language spoken by the Messenger.
Here is what I think about Zayd:
Zayd was not a Kureyshi.
Zayd was a Midianite- Nabataean.
Zayd was one of the original group which followed the Messenger to Medina.
Zayd’s tongue was Nabataean spoken in Midian.
Because Zayd had the confidence of the Messenger, he had the authority to make a decision.
The text the desert Arabs had difficulty to understand was written by Zayd in his own tongue, the Nabataean.
Some more observations:
Both the Messenger and the scribe must have been members of the Arab-ı Mustaribe;
The scriptures written in the Midianite-Nabataean language (the eastern Aramaic tongue introduced to the Arab-ı Mustaribe community by the Ismaelites) and collected together ‘between the two covers’ must have been the texts handed down to the editors in the later periods.
Those later editors must have introduced the vowels and diacritical dots to read and understand the text.
While doing that they and the editors who followed them had no idea that there were foreign words in the text, so they took them as the ‘divine’ words (or realized that presenting them as such will be beneficial to their objectives) and edited the text according to their daily needs only, thus leaving all those words in the text.
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;
There is no evidence that a Messenger as depicted in Kuran has ever lived.
There is no evidence that Ismail/Ish’mael had ever been to Makka.
There is no evidence that Ismail/Ish’mael had married to a Djorhomite woman. The Old Testament tells us that he was married to an Egyptian. According to Genesis 25:12-18, following the death of Ish’mael “his descendants have settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Ashur.”
Therefore, neither Ismael nor his twelve sons had settled in Makka.
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?
THE ORIGINATORS OF THE HAGARENE TEACHING:
ISMAELITES, HAGARENES, HACERÎN, HACİRÎN, MUHACİRÎN
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).
Why is that such a supposedly ‘important’ event in history does not appear in independent sources?
Why is it that in the Greek and Syriac writings of the era only Arabs are mentioned and we have no references to Muslims?
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:.
There was a Hicra from al Hicr, Midian to Medina, which is transformed by the desert Arabs into a movement from Makka to Medina and presented as such in Kuran. I am not sure of the date of this ‘real’ Hicra, which should have been earlier than the year given as the date of ‘official’ Hicra - 622 A.D. Desert Arabs must have resorted to this ‘invented’ Hicra story as an element to be used in transforming the Hagarene teaching into a Makka centred belief system.
The ‘official’ Hicra mentioned in Kuran (in 622 A.D.) must have been the movement from Medina towards north, to capture Bakka, Palestine.
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.
Firstly, because the character called Av’ram (as presented in the Mosaic scriptures) is not a monotheist but a stone-erecting polytheist.
Secondly, Av’ram’s Hicra from ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ to Canaan, which the Hagarenes are thought to have copied, is an undocumented and an invented biblical and Judaic tradition.
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:
Could these conquests towards north have got underway before the ‘official’ Hicra (622 A.D.)? What we know today seems to indicate that they have.
If that is the case, the supposition that the Arabs moving north in that period called themselves ‘Ismaelites’- Hagarenes does not sound wrong. They were trying to get back their ‘birthright’. So, we wouldn’t be wrong if we said that the fundamental drive behind the movement towards north was the Arab’s assumed right based on I’zak and Ish’mael being brothers. Arabs start their line with Ismail (Ish’mael), the son of Ibrahim (Av’ram) from Hacar (Hagar).
Judging by the fact that the thrust of the Arab armies did not stop at Palestine but proceeded further north to Harran, could we say that Harran was sacred as well for them due to its place in the story of Av’ram/Ibrahim?
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.
The points mentioned until now are the first potential proof that the facts on Hicra in the codebook of Islam and given by the traditional Islamic literature contradict the independent sources.
These points could also be taken as indications that there was a different plan in the formation of the ideology of Islam.
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:
“Justus said, my brother Abraham of Caesarea wrote to me saying that a deceiving prophet appeared among the Saracens. [I referred the matter to an old scribe:] ‘What do you tell me, lord and teacher, concerning the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens?’ And the scribe told me, with much groaning, ‘He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily these events of today are works of confusion... The first one, Khristos, who all the Christians worship were sent by god, I have a fear that we are getting ready to meet the Devil.. Yet depart, Lord Abraham, and learn about the prophet who has appeared.’ And taking more than enough pains about it, I, Abraham, ... heard from the followers of the prophet that you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed. And beside it, he denies the keys to paradise, which is impossible to believe.’ These things my brother Abraham wrote me, Justus, from the east.”
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:
His name is Eb’ul Kasım Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abdulmuttalip ibn Hashim, in short, Muhammad. He was born in 570 A.D., in Makka. He did well in trading. He received his first divine(!) message in 610 A.D. He went to Medina in 622 A.D. He has returned to Makka as a victorious leader in 630 A.D. He died in 632 A.D.
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.
THE MESSENGER’S REGION
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 towns “still 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.
Here ‘hicr’ appropriately means ‘forsaken,’ ‘abandoned,’ ‘rejected,’ and ‘forbidden.’ God has abandoned the people of Hicr and annihilated them, has he not? Yes!
Furthermore ‘Adall’ means ‘the one who has gone astray,’ ‘one who has deviated,’ ‘one who has many misdeeds.’ The people of al Hicr had rejected the ordinances of god, had they not? Yes!
Could the people of the valley of Hicr have rejected another messenger after Salih? Yes, they could have!
Could the valley of Hicr be the region, which had to be abandoned, left behind? It could be!
Could the Messenger be the one rejected by the people of Hicr and had to leave his hometown and region? He could very well be!
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