| A: |
The documented references in Prophet of Doom were derived from English translations of the following ancient Islamic manuscripts. The Sirat Rasul Allah was written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 A.D. It was edited and abridged by Ibn Hisham in 830 and translated by Alfred Guillaume under the title, The Life of Muhammad in 1955 by Oxford Press. Referred to as the Sira, or Biography, Ishaq's Hadith Collection is comprised of oral reports from Muhammad and his companions. It provides the only written account of Muhammad's life and the formation of Islam within two centuries of the prophet's death. There is no earlier or more accurate source. The History of al-Tabari, called the Ta'rikh, was written by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 A.D. His monumental work was translated and published in 1987 through 1997 by the State University of New York Press. I quote from volumes I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Tabari's History is comprised entirely of Islamic Hadith. It is arranged chronologically. Tabari is Islam's oldest uncensored source. Al-Bukhari's Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari - The True Traditions was collected by Imam Bukhari in 850 A.D. I have used the collector's original nomenclature because the only printed English translation (Publisher-Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, Translator-Muhammad Khan) was abridged and erroneously numbered. Muslim was a student of Bukhari. His Hadith Collection was translated into English and is available online. Most Muslims consider these Hadith Collections to be inspired scripture. They are arranged by topic. I have blended the following Qur'an translations to convey its message as clearly as possible: Ahmed Ali, Pikthal, Noble by Muhsin Khan, Yusuf Ali, and Shakir. The oldest Qur'an fragments date to 725 A.D. - a century after they were first recited. The Qur'an lacks context and chronology so it must be read in conjunction with Ishaq and Tabari. This harsh portrayal of Islam does not represent my interpretation of the most negative Islamic scriptures or even a view derived from some jaundiced document crafted by an enemy of the religion. It is the only authentic picture; it's the original. By reading the Qur'an and Hadith you'll see Muhammad embarrass himself and deceive his compatriots - all with his god's blessing. This is the portrait of prophet and god that was painted by the first Muslims. One does not have to cull out the bad from the good to render this verdict. It's really hard to find anything good in their scriptures or behaviors. To provide some objectivity to this startling reality, recognize that nothing is known about Muhammad and his creation, Islam, apart from five books. They represent the only surviving written record scribed within 250 years of the prophet's life. They, and only they, represent fundamental Islam. They are the authority, the "gospel truth." Any statement not derived from these sources is conjecture, speculation, and opinion. To firmly establish the validity, nature, and appropriateness of these Islamic scriptures, I want to combine what the Islamic scholars said in the preface to the most revered Hadith Collection with what others wrote on the opening page of the Qur'an. "Sahih Bukhari is a Collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and collected his Hadith. Each report in his Collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters, or isnad, had to be established." "The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah [which is comprised exclusively of Hadith] was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superceded." The most respected Islamic scholars tell Muslims that the "Qur'an is literally the word of Allah" and that the "Sunnah was inspired by Allah." They say this because there are hundreds of commands in the Qur'an ordering Muslims to obey Muhammad, to believe in him, to follow his example. Since the Qur'an is supposed to be "Allah" speaking, the only way to obey Muhammad, to believe in and follow him, is to know what he said and did. The Hadith represents the sole repository of these words and deeds. So, despite all evidence to the contrary, Muslims believe what you are going to read from the Qur'an and Hadith is divinely inspired scripture directly from Allah. Excerpts from Prophet of Doom From chapter 6, "Heart of Darkness" It's time I share something disturbing about the five holy books we are using to expose Muhammad, Allah, and Islam. They were not contemporaneous writings. Muslims say that Islam, unlike Judeo-Christianity, was played out in the light of recorded history but the opposite is true. The prophets and patriarchs of the Bible were lettered, and their contemporaries were literate. Their written scrolls encountered an educated audience of voracious readers within a generation of the events they described. The Islamic scripture, however, was all based upon long lines of oral tradition. No copy of the Qur'an dated to within a hundred years of the prophet's death survives. The oldest Hadith manuscript is two hundred years removed from the events it chronicles. Islam's dark past is addressed at length in the "Source Material" appendix. Muslim Traditions allege that the Qur'an first became a book at the direction of Abu Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, during the War of Compulsion. We are told that the first Caliph feared that Muhammad's divine revelations would be lost because most of the best "reciters" had become warriors. According to a lone Hadith, Umar, the second Caliph, convinced Bakr that something had to be done. The fleeting memories of Jihad fighters were the sole repositories of the Qur'an, and they were being killed at an alarming rate. The loss of most or all of Muhammad's "revelation" was imminent. Legend has it that Zaid, a native of Medina and one of the prophet's helpers, was assigned the task. He "gathered together the fragments of the Qur'an from every quarter, from date leaves, bones, stone, and from the breasts of men." According to J. M. Rodwell, one of the early Qur'an translators, "Zaid and his coadjutors did not arrange the materials which came to them with any system more definite than that of placing the longest and best known surahs first. Anything approaching a chronological arrangement was entirely ignored. Late Medina surahs were often placed before early Meccan ones; the short surahs at the end of the Qur'an were its earliest portions; while verses of Meccan origin were embedded in Medina surahs, and verses promulgated at Medina were scattered up and down in the Meccan surahs." Muslim scholars don't dispute Rodwell's claim. And that's alarming, because it means that no one was able to discern when a surah was revealed. No one even knew what comprised a surah. They were jumbled together gobbledygook, completely out of order. And if Muhammad's contemporaries were this confused, there is no chance they actually remembered the detail of what he claimed was disseminated by the almighty. Rodwell continues his analysis with these words: "It would seem as if Zaid put his materials together just as they came to him, and often with entire disregard to continuity of subject and uniformity of style. The text, therefore, assumes the form of a most unreadable and incongruous patchwork, and conveys no idea whatever of the development and growth of any plan in the mind of the founder of Islam, or of the circumstances by which he was surrounded and influenced." Then after praising Zaid for his lack of "tampering" Rodwell adds that it is "deeply regrettable that no contemporary provided any historical reference, suppressed contradictory verses, or excluded inaccurate statements." Therefore, even in the best possible light, the Qur'an as first assembled was a mess. It was out of order, jumbled together, contradictory, and inaccurate. Yet there is no proof that even this best-case scenario is reliable. There is no corroborating evidence that the "revelations" actually became a book under Bakr, Umar, or Zaid. There are no fragments or tablets. All we have is a flimsy oral tradition suggesting that this best-case scenario occurred. There isn't even a letter or a historical reference from any of the literate nations conquered by the first Muslim warriors to suggest that the Qur'an existed. By contrast, there are 25,000 ancient Bible parchments, scrolls, fragments, and letters testifying to the immediacy and accuracy of today's Judeo-Christian scriptures. Yet the only archeological evidence that has survived from the Qur'an's first century is a coin and an inscription inside the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple Mount. These fragments differ from each other and from today's book. The Qur'an's chasm of historical credibility is the good news. The other four books of Islam that comprise the Sunnah: the Sira, Ta'rikh (History), and Hadith, didn't find parchment or scroll for one to three hundred years after the events were played out. Turning to Rodwell we learn: "The first biographer of Muhammad of whom we have any information was Zohri, who died A.H. 124; but his works, although quoted by later writers, are no longer extant." Said another way, Zohri's biography may have been written one hundred years after the events occurred, but it doesn't matter because no one has ever found a copy. "Ibn Ishaq, who died in A.H. 151 (763 A.D.), composed a biography of Muhammad for the Caliph's use. Although there are no surviving copies of his work either, much of it was salvaged by Hisham, an admittedly biased editor. He died in A.H. 213." Ibn Hisham's Life of Muhammad begins with a stunning confession. He says that he removed material that discredited Muhammad from Ishaq's original manuscript. Tabari didn't edit Ishaq to make Muhammad look better, but he only referred to the earlier work when it conflicted with his own collection of oral testimony or Hadith. Tabari completed his History of Prophets and Kings in A.H. 310 - three hundred years after the prophet's death. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says: "His work became the definitive resource." This makes his annals of Muhammad's creation of Islam the earliest surviving unedited account of the prophet's words and deeds, and therefore of the context in which his Qur'an was revealed. It also means that there was a three hundred year gap filled principally by oral transmission for the lone unedited collection of Islamic Hadith containing any chronology or context. Rodwell, in the preface of his early Qur'an translation, tells us: "It may be considered quite certain that Traditions concerning Muhammad were not reduced to writing for at least the greater part of a century. They rested entirely in the memory of those who have handed them down, and must necessarily have been colored by their prejudices and convictions, to say nothing of the tendency to formulate myths and fabrications to serve the purposes of the contending factions.... It soon becomes obvious to the reader of Muslim Traditions that both miracles and historical events have been invented for the sake of expounding a dark and perplexing text [the Qur'an]; and that the earlier Traditions are largely tinged with a mythical element." He goes on to say: "These ancient writers [Ishaq and Tabari] are the principal sources whence anything approaching authentic information as to the life of Muhammad has been derived. And it may be safely concluded that after the diligent investigations carried on by the professed collectors of Traditions in the second century after the Hijrah, that little or nothing remains to be added to our stores of information relative to the details of Muhammad's life, or to facts which may further illustrate the text of the Qur'an. There are no records posterior in date to these authorities that should be considered." While every Islamic scholar I have studied agrees with Rodwell's assessment, that's not the end of the bad news. The people of Central Arabia in the sixth through eighth centuries were illiterate. Thus Hadith were passed along by word of mouth through the generations, father to son through chains of transmitters called isnads. Let's view this problem from a more contemporary perspective. Imagine reconstructing the history of the American Revolution today based entirely upon oral traditions handed down over nine generations. Without books, letters, paintings, or pictures, it would be impossible to recreate the words of Cornwallis and Washington or to resurrect the drama as it was actually played out. Now, imagine writing this history in London, thousands of miles from where the events unfolded - in the home of those who were defeated. Such is the story of Islam. The first and best Hadith, Sunnah, and Sira were compiled in Baghdad, not Mecca or Medina, two to three centuries removed. And like detailing the American Revolution in Britain, each of the Persian scholars wrote in a highly politicized climate for men with a personal agenda. A compelling argument can be made for Islam being Persian rather than Arabian; the birthplace being Baghdad, not Mecca. Yet while none of this attests to the reliability or unbiased nature of the Islamic scripture, it doesn't actually matter. If Muhammad were really a prophet, if Allah were really a god, and if the Hadith and Qur'an were really divinely inspired and dictated, the accuracy of these books would be of paramount importance. Our eternity would rest upon their every word. But since Muhammad was as feeble-minded as his deity and as emotionally disturbed as his scripture depicts him, an accurate witness and a faithfully maintained account is irrelevant. So if much of this isn't true, why bother? Because through force, fate, and faith, over a billion people believe it's true. They believe Muhammad was a prophet, Allah was his God, and that the Qur'an was comprised of divine revelations. They even think the sayings of the prophet, upon which the Hadith, Sira, and Sunnah are based, were divinely inspired scripture. Because most Muslims aren't free, literally trapped by fate and force in this delusion and in the hellish conditions the doctrine inspires, compassion compels us to expose the fraud and release them from the shackles of Islam. Oh, and then there is the another problem - Islamic terrorism. This stuff is corrosive, causing people to act in accordance with its teachings, prophet, and god. Islam commands and conditions men to murder. It motivates them to commit acts of terror. If we want to thwart this foe we must first understand what its adherents believe and what drives them to such ungodly behavior. If we want to rid the world of terror, we must first expose the doctrine that makes men terrorists. Remember, prior to Muhammad, Arabs conquered no one. After Islam they subjected much of the known world to their sword. What changed them, pray tell, if not these words? While the Islamic "holy books" aren't historically reliable, they are Islam - not a version, interpretation, or corruption of Islam, but the essence of the religion. Muhammad can be no different than these books depict him. If they don't accurately present the prophet and his dark spirit, they are unknowable and thus irrelevant. Frankly speaking, Islam loses either way. From chapter 1, "Would You Believe?" When he was fifty, Muhammad married a six-year-old child. Then he stole his son's wife. After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them. He tortured his victims to make sure no booty escaped his grasp. He committed mass murder, slaughtering Jews in genocidal rage. In ten years, he ordered a score of assassinations and conducted seventy-five terrorist raids. He used the sword to force Arabs into submission and used the slave trade to finance Islam. He was more interested in collecting girls and taxes than anything else. He ruled through fear. And his god condoned it all. This harsh portrayal does not represent my interpretation of the most negative Islamic scriptures or even a view derived from some jaundiced document crafted by an enemy of the religion. It is the only authentic picture; it's the original. By reading the Qur'an and Hadith you'll see Muhammad embarrass himself and deceive his compatriots - all with his god's blessing. And this portrait of prophet and god was painted by the first Muslims. More shocking still, one does not have to cull out the bad from the good to render this verdict. It's really hard to find good - in their scripture or their behavior. To provide some objectivity to this startling portrayal, recognize that nothing is known about Muhammad and his creation, Islam, apart from five books. They represent the only surviving written record scribed within 250 years of the prophet's life. They, and only they, represent fundamental Islam. They are the authority, the "gospel truth." Any statement not derived from these sources is conjecture, speculation, and opinion. To firmly establish the validity, nature, and appropriateness of these Islamic scriptures, I want to combine what the Islamic scholars said in the preface to the most revered Hadith collection with what others wrote on the opening page of the Qur'an. "Sahih Bukhari is a Collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and collected his Hadith. Each report in his Collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters, or isnad, had to be established." Then... "The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah [which is comprised exclusively of Hadith] was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superceded." The most respected Islamic scholars tell Muslims that the "Qur'an is literally the word of Allah" and that the "Sunnah was inspired by Allah." They say this because there are hundreds of commands in the Qur'an ordering Muslims to obey Muhammad, to believe in him, to follow his example. Since the Qur'an is supposed to be "Allah" speaking, the only way to obey Muhammad, to believe in and follow him, is to know what he said and did. The Hadith represents the sole repository of these words and deeds. So, despite all evidence to the contrary, Muslims believe what you are going to read from the Qur'an and Hadith is divinely inspired scripture directly from Allah. The preponderance of this "scripture" is presented in Prophet of Doom . To provide some perspective on the scope of the coverage you should know that the Qur'an, formatted like this book, would be 200 pages. Pared of its redundancy, it would be a quarter of that length. We will analyze nearly ninety percent of that material. Turning to the Sunnah, the Hadith in Bukhari's Collection represent 800 pages of Muhammadisms. The majority are duplicated several times in various sections. Most have multiple lines of transmitters, or isnads, for virtually identical Traditions. Further, half of Bukhari's Collection includes laws, procedures, or meaningless anecdotes that fall outside the scope of this study. Without this redundant and extraneous material there are fifty pages of prime and pertinent reports. I'll cover fifty percent of this directly and reveal thirty percent indirectly through redundancy in Ishaq and Tabari. Much of Muslim's work is duplicated in Bukhari. He has some unique Traditions, though, and many important insights into the nature of Jihad. Wherever we can glean fresh information from Imam Muslim, we will. The events presented by Tabari, the first Islamic historian, mirror those contained in Ishaq's biographical account. There's a seventy percent overlap in their coverage of Muhammad's life and the formation of Islam. Devoid of this overlap, extraneous poetry, and footnotes, their combined 1,500 pages of Islamic Traditions over the period we will be studying could be distilled to 250 pages of Hadith not memorialized elsewhere. Prophet of Doom analyzes eighty percent of these, as they provide the most valuable insights into Islam. Ishaq's biography and Tabari's history are comprised in their entirety of Hadith. They are Sunnah and thus Islamic scripture. Their Hadith feature chains of reporters, and they are in sync with other Collections and with the Qur'an. The sole difference is the arrangement. Ishaq and Tabari chose Hadith that could be presented in the order they occurred. In fact, without Ishaq and Tabari, Islam would not exist and Muhammad would be unknown. They alone provide the religion's skeleton, its context and chronology. Without this grounding in place and time, the Qur'an is indecipherable, and the remaining Hadith are raped of their meaning. It would be like being a Christian without the Gospels. The Tabari translators tell us: "Muhammad Ibn Ishaq was the most influential and earliest biographer of the Prophet. His Sira became the standard treatment of the events of Muhammad's life." Ishaq collected Islamic scripture a century before others. The four generations of oral transmission of Hadith that followed his Collection could have done nothing but degrade the material. But sadly, Ishaq's original has been lost. What remains was edited by Hisham sixty-five years later. And Hisham said: Ishaq:691 "I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people." That is why Tabari is essential. He had a copy of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah when he composed his monumental history. Rather than editing it, he referenced Ishaq's Sira each time his Hadith shed additional light on any subject - especially Islamic creation and the Satanic Verses. By the time you have completed this review, you will know much more about Muhammad and fundamental Islam than most Muslims. And you will understand him and his doctrine better than most scholars and clerics. You will see Muhammad as he saw himself. His motives and agenda will be as transparent as his methods and means. Islam will no longer be a mystery. The only conundrum that will remain is why anyone believed this "prophet." From "Source Material - Islam's Dark Past" Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq's Sira, or Biography, stands alone - a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim. Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad's words and example. They also explain the Qur'an - a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers. Throughout Prophet of Doom, I have been less concerned with the validity of these sources than with what they have to say. Their message is all Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur'an are Islam. Therefore, I was willing to take them at face value. But you don't have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur'an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn't need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn't have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn't deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn't need a scholastic review of the Qur'anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely. From "Source Material - Islam's Dark Past" What's interesting here is that apart from the Islamic Hadith, virtually nothing is known about the formation of Islam and the creation of the Qur'an. The scholars agree: "Source material for this period is sparse. The only manuscripts available to historians are Muslim sources. What is more, outside the Qur'an, the sources are all late. Prior to 750 A.D., and Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can provide a window into Islam's formative period. Even then, his manuscript has been lost so we are dependent upon those who wrote fifty to one hundred years thereafter. And no independent secular document exists with which to corroborate any Hadith," says Smith on behalf of Crone, Humphreys, Schacht, and Wansbrough. "During the ninth century, Islamic sages in Baghdad attempted to describe Islam's beginnings from their viewpoint. But much like an adult writing about their childhood, the account is colored and biased. The picture that Islam was fully developed religiously, politically, and legally by an illiterate man in one of the most primitive places on earth isn't feasible," Smith claimed in his Cambridge debate. Sure, Muhammad's scripture was feeble - equal parts delusional, dimwitted, and demented, regurgitated, plagiarized, and twisted - but there was too much of it to have been comprised and retained in the vacuum of the Hijaz. Central Arabia wasn't part of, or even known to, the civilized world at the time. And the Islamic Traditions themselves refer to this period as Jahiliyyah, or Period of Ignorance, implying its backwardness. "Arabia did not have an urbanized culture, nor could it boast of having the sophisticated infrastructure needed to create, let alone maintain the scenario painted by the later Traditions. There is no historical precedence for such a scenario." Fortunately, historical experts have recently converged on Islam. They include: Dr. John Wansbrough of the University of London, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone of Oxford, now lecturing at Cambridge, Yehuda Nevo from the University of Jerusalem, Andrew Rippin from Canada, and others, including Joseph Schacht. They sought out, examined, and probed every source concerning the Qur'an and Sunnah to ascertain clues as to their origins. In his debate, Smith said, "In order to critique the Qur'an we must go back to the beginning, to the earliest sources which we have at our disposal, to pick up clues as to its authenticity. One would assume that this should be quite easy to do, as it is a relatively new piece of literature, having appeared on the scene, according to Muslims, a mere '1,400 years ago.'" However, the first century of Islam is dark, a veritable black hole from which nothing emerges. "The primary sources which we possess are 150 to 300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those times and characters," say Nevo, Wansbrough, and Crone. "For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on hearsay material. The first and largest of these sources is what is called the 'Islamic Traditions' or 'Hadith.'" Jay Smith was kind enough to publish his research in advance of his Cambridge debate. So as not to turn this appendix into a book, I have elected to abridge his findings. While I have come to the same conclusions, the words that follow are either his or quoted from cited sources. "Islamic Traditions are comprised of writings which were compiled by Muslims in the late eighth to early tenth centuries concerning what the prophet Muhammad said and did back at the dawn of the seventh century. There is also one early commentary on the Qur'an. These comprise the sole body of material which we have on Islam's formation. The Qur'an by itself is difficult to follow, as it leaves readers confused while it jumps from story to story, with little background narration or explanation. So the Traditions are critical as they provide the context of place, circumstance, and time which otherwise would be lost. "In some instances the Hadith prevails over the Qur'an. For example, the Qur'an refers to three daily prayers (surahs 11:114, 17:78, 30:17). The Hadith demands five. Muslims prostrate themselves in accordance with Muhammad's Sunnah orders rather than Allah's Qur'anic command. "A number of genres exist within the Islamic Traditions. Their authors were not writers themselves, but were compilers and editors who drew together information passed to them. There were many compilers, but the four who are considered by Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre lived and assembled their material between 750-923 A.D. (or 120-290 years after Muhammad's death). Here is a list of their works, along with their dates: The Sira (Arabic for "Biography") is an accounting of the life of the prophet, including his raids. The earliest and most comprehensive Sira was composed by Ibn Ishaq, who died 765 A.D. His manuscript has been lost. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira of Ibn Hisham, who died in 833. He edited Ishaq, and by his own admission, he omitted Hadith which he thought might have caused offense." While Smith quoted Crone as his source, I'd like you to read what Hisham wrote. Ishaq:691 "For the sake of brevity, I am confining myself to the Prophet's biography and omitting some of the things which Ishaq recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the Apostle and about which the Qur'an says nothing. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss, matters which would distress certain people, and such reports as al-Bakkai [Bukhari?] told me he could not accept as trustworthy - all of these things I have omitted." Since the character, deeds, and words of Muhammad presented in Hisham's edits of Ishaq are revolting, I can't imagine what would have been too "disgraceful to discuss." And in case you're wondering, the "matters that would distress certain people" comment speaks volumes. Hisham is telling us that Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, Humphries, Rippin, Margoliouth, and Muir are right. The Hadith that comprise the Sunnah were composed and compiled in a highly politicized environment 200 years after Muhammad's death. A compiler's life was dependant upon not offending the cleric-kings. While the Sira is nothing more than a collection of Hadith arranged in chronological order, the most "official" Islamic Hadith collection was compiled by al-Bukhari, who died in 870 A.D. "These include two thousand short reports or narratives (akhbar [news]) on the sayings and deeds of the prophet. Of the six most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari and Muslim are considered to be the most authoritative. "The Ta'rikh (which means "History" in Arabic) provides chronologies of the prophet's life and the formation of Islam. The earliest and most famous was written by al-Tabari, who died in 923 A.D." Some portions of Ishaq's original manuscript, discarded by Hisham, were retained by Tabari. Of particular interest is Ishaq's recording of Muhammad's Islamic creation accounts and his entanglement in the Quraysh Bargain and Satanic Verses. As such, the Ta'rikh, or History of al-Tabari is the oldest surviving uncensored account of Muhammad and Islam. According to the Islamic scholars, "The Tafsir [which means explanation or interpretation in Arabic] comprise the fourth most reliable Islamic source documents. They are commentaries and exegesis on the Qur'an. The earliest, most universally respected, and best known was also written by Tabari." As an interesting aside; I am routinely threatened by Muslims who assail my character in colorful ways. They claim that I know nothing about Islam and that my words are offensive, repulsive, disgraceful, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, mean spirited, and #%$&*. But little do they know, they are not my words. All I have done is report what Islam has to say about itself. Apart from the Sira-Ta'rikh-Hadith collections of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim, nothing is known about Muhammad or Islam. The Qur'an literally disintegrates without them, since without context and chronology, it is gibberish. This puts Muslims in a hellish predicament. If the Hadith compilations of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim are true, their prophet was the most evil man who ever lived - a bloodthirsty pirate, a ruthless terrorist, and a sexual pervert. His Islam was nothing more than the Profitable Prophet Plan. Allah was just one of many moon rocks. That's not good. But if the Hadith compilations of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim are not true, Islam evaporates. From "Source Material - Islam's Dark Past" Official Islamic dictionaries, websites, and commentaries are consistent when they describe the nature of the elements which compose Islam. The scholastic summation proclaims: "As Islam solidified as a religious and a political entity, a vast body of exegetical and historical literature evolved to explain the Qur'an and the rise of the empire. The most important elements of which are Hadith, or the collected sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad; Sunnah, or the body of Islamic social and legal custom; Sira, or biographies of the Prophet; and Tafsir, or Qur'anic commentary and explication. It is from these Traditions - compiled in written form in the eighth to tenth centuries - that all accounts of the revelation of the Qur'an and the early years of Islam are ultimately derived." You've seen the following clerical proclamation before, but it's worth repeating: "The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us." This is what Islamic clerics and scholars had to say about Bukhari's Hadith Collection: "Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and worked extremely hard to collect his Hadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Bukhari Abu Abdallah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja'fai was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of Hadith is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 Hadith (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of Hadith." While there is no question Bukhari's collection is sound religiously, its complete lack of chronology limits its usefulness. If you are interested in a subject like taxes or jihad you could turn to the appropriate chapter and read what Muhammad had to say about such things. But without the grounding of time, circumstance, constituents, and place, you'd be forced to take everything you read out of context. That's why every accurate and unbiased presentation of the Muhammad of Islam must be based upon the biographical and historical Hadith collections compiled by Ishaq and Tabari. They, and they alone, enable a person to speak with authority about Islam without taking Muhammad's example and scriptures out of context. Quite recently, however, there has been a new movement afoot in the Islamic world. Cleric and king have come to recognize they have a problem. The Qur'an and Sunnah are repulsive - so are their prophet, god, and religion. They do not stand up to scrutiny. While they have been able to fool politicians and the media by repeating "Islam is a peaceful religion," and they have been able to cower religious leaders by threatening them, it hasn't worked on everyone. Enough Americans have learned the truth to put the Islamic power brokers in a terrible bind. So, those who benefit from Islam have deployed a new strategy. They proclaim that the Qur'an may not be translated out of the arcane language only 0.0003% understand. Imagine that; they want 99.9997% of those who listen to the surahs being recited to have no earthly idea of what is being said. In Classic Arabic, the verses have a good beat and the rhyme sounds heavenly. And if the only people who are authorized to interpret them all benefit from Islam, who is going to confess that the words are hellish? In this regard, the Qur'an is no different than rap music. Its cadence and rhyme are seductive while its lyrics are often corrupting. And the Qur'an works the same way, too. Those who listen are fleeced. While disguising the Qur'an's evil intent via a language few understand solves one problem, the Islamic establishment still needs to deal with the vile message of the Sunnah. It's one thing to say Allah's jingle is too majestic to be translated, but Muhammad's words were written in prose. To fix this problem, Islamic officials unveiled a different strategy during my earliest debates with them. They said that they were "unaware" of Tabari's History. When that didn't fly, they protested saying, Tabari isn't "approved." Then they claimed that it was just a "history book and not a collection of Hadith." Some even said that it contained "unauthorized material." While that's not true, it created confusion and served their interests. Their rejection of Tabari is unsound for several reasons. First, Ishaq's original manuscripts have been lost, so Tabari is the oldest unedited account of Muhammad's life and the formation of Islam. Second, Tabari is nothing but a collection of Hadiths. Everything I quoted came complete with a chain of transmitters. In fact, Tabari's isnads are more complete than Bukhari's. And third, the Hadith Tabari compiled are no different than those arranged a century earlier by Ishaq, or by his near contemporary, Bukhari. They were all pumping from the same well - digging out of the same pit. So why do you suppose Islamic officials ganged up on their best source? Because it was translated into English and available, while the others were not; that's why. In each debate I urged listeners to go to the S.U.N.Y. Press website and buy Tabari and then read it for themselves. That was easy enough. If what I was quoting was accurate, everything Muslims were saying about their religion was a lie. America would know the truth. And if I misrepresented Tabari's message, I promised to go away, never to be heard from again. The Islamic apologists knew what I was saying was not only true but devastating. They stopped debating me and started discrediting Tabari because they were aware of what I had discovered: the only English translation of Ishaq's Sira was out of print and nearly impossible to find. I searched for a year, ordering it from the largest booksellers, the publisher, even used bookstores. I searched libraries, too, but to no avail. Muslims check Ishaq out and burn it. Fortunately, a Christian couple who had listened to one of my debates found a copy in a university library. They photocopied the Sira - all 900 pages - and sent it to me. The reason this is important is because those who benefit from Islam know that without a chronological presentation of Muhammad's words and deeds, they can get away with murder - literally. They can say whatever they like, and they do. Without Ishaq or Tabari, the Qur'an is senseless. Muslims can claim that the god of the Qur'an is the same as the God of the Bible when they are opposites. They can say Islam is peaceful even though it condemns peace and promotes war. They can argue that Muhammad only fought defensive battles, when his scriptures say he was a terrorist. They can posture the notion that Islam made the Bedouins better, when in fact it transformed them into bloody pirates and immoral parasites. They can claim that the Qur'an is Allah's perfect book; when, by any rational criterion, it's hideous. To put this in perspective, being a Muslim without the information contained in the only chronological presentations of Muhammad's words and deeds would be like being a Christian without the Gospels. It would be impossible to be Christ-like without knowing Christ, his message and example. It would be like being a Jew without the Torah. All you'd have are prophets and psalms, and that's just not enough, not even remotely. As you have discovered, the Qur'an isn't like any intelligent book. It's jumbled together without context or chronology, rendering it nothing more than a mean-spirited rant, a demented, delusional, and dimwitted tirade. Without the chronological Hadith collections of Ishaq and Tabari, Islam becomes whatever Islamic clerics and kings want it to be. So in their fiefdoms it's all about jihad. In the free world, it's all about peace. To prove my point, I'd like to review Islam's Five Pillars to see if they stand without the Hadith collections found in the Sunnah. But before we begin, Islam provides an important clue. To find the Pillars, we must turn to the Hadith, not the Qur'an. And while I will conduct this analysis using the "approved" version of Islam's Five Pillars, there are competing scenarios we must consider. As you might expect, Muhammad himself couldn't decide what his priorities were - much less Allah's. The most famous Islamic proclamations echo the Qur'an's incessant command to fight jihad in Allah's Cause. Muhammad established jihad's preeminence, claiming that fighting was the foundation upon which Islam's other pillars must stand. Under the title "Fighting In Allah's Cause - Jihad," we read: "Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite." The reason jihad supercedes the other pillars is because: Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed. Can you, while the Muslim fighter has gone out for Jihad, enter a mosque to perform prayers without ceasing and fast forever?' The man said, 'No one can do that.'" So Jihad is superior to endless prayer and fasting. But there was more: Bukhari:V4B52N46 "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'The example of a Mujahid [Muslim fighter] in Allah's Cause - and Allah knows best who really strives in His Cause - is like a person who fasts and prays without ever stopping. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.'" It's the Devil's rendition of the win-win scenario. And that leads us to the capper, the line that confirmed jihad was better than all of the Five Pillars combined: Bukhari:V4B52N50 "The Prophet said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allah's Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.'" From the very beginning, there was always a direct causal link between the religion of Islam and Islamic terror: Bukhari:V4B52N63 "A man whose face was covered with an iron mask of armor came to the Prophet and said, 'Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?' The Prophet said, 'Embrace Islam first and then fight.' So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, 'A Little work, but a great reward.'" Consistent with this message, Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca in accordance with the Traditions of the Prophet.'" This is important because it establishes Three Pillars, with Jihad being the second most important. The next rendition of Pillars eliminates the Hajj, which was number three above, and replaces it with the Khumus - Muhammad's share of stolen booty. Bukhari:V1B2N50 "They said, 'O Allah's Apostle, order us to do some religious deeds that we may enter Paradise.' The Prophet ordered them to believe in Allah Alone and asked them, 'Do you know what is meant by believing in Allah Alone?' They replied, 'Allah and His Apostle know better.' Thereupon the Prophet said, 'It means: 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. 2. To offer prayers perfectly. 3. To pay the Zakat obligatory tax. 4. To observe fast during Ramadhan. 5. And to pay the Khumus (one fifth of the booty to be given in Allah's Cause) to Allah's Apostle.'" Contradictions aside and priorities confused, I promised to resolve Islam's absolute reliance on the Sunnah by analyzing the "officially recognized" Pillars. To begin: Bukhari:V1B2N7 "Allah's Apostle said: 'Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): 1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.'" Let's tackle them one at a time. In its present order, the Qur'an's initial surah, the 2nd, (the 1st is an invocation, not a revelation as it speaks to god not to man) makes a transition from Ar-Rahman to Allah. But as we read on, this changes. The Qur'anic God becomes Ar-Rahman again and then a nameless Lord. Without the chronology the Sira's Hadith provide, Muslims don't know who God is or how many of them there are. Furthermore, they know nothing about the "Apostle." Without the Sunnah, acknowledging him in the profession of faith is like a recording device asking to be credited for bringing you the songs of your favorite artist. But it gets worse. The Qur'an orders Muslims to obey the Messenger. If you don't know what he ordered, that's impossible. The Qur'an alleges that it's entirely composed of Allah's commands, not Muhammad's, so you'd be out of luck. The Qur'an also tells Muslims that they must follow the Messenger's example, yet the only place that example is established is in the Sunnah. Therefore, Islam's First Pillar is utterly meaningless, and impossible to implement, without Ishaq and Tabari. The Second Pillar is: "2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly." Once again, that's not feasible. The "compulsory congregational prayer" isn't described in the Qur'an. There aren't even any clues. In fact, the Qur'an says that there should be three prayers, none of which it depicts, and the Hadith demands five. The only explanation of the obligatory prostration is found in the Sunnah - and even then it's never described by the prophet himself. Muslims are performing a ritual without Qur'anic precedence. As such, the Second Pillar is rubble. Let's see if the Third Pillar survives without the Sunnah. To find out, we turn to the Hadith: Bukhari:V1B2N7 "3. To pay Zakat." How is that possible when the terms of the Zakat are omitted from the Qur'an? The first to commit them to paper was Ishaq. A century later, Tabari referenced Ishaq's Hadith. The only reason Muslims can pay the Zakat is because Ishaq explained it to them. The Profitable Prophet Plan is bankrupt without the Sira. Surely the Fourth Pillar will fare better: "4. To perform Hajj." Nope. That's impossible too. The only explanations of the Hajj are in the Sunnah. No aspect of the pilgrimage can be performed without referencing the Hadith. Muslims would be lost without it. Do you suppose Allah will redeem himself and explain the final pillar in his "perfect, detailed, and final revelation to mankind?" Bukhari:V1B2N7 "5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan." Guess what? Allah forgot to explain the nature of the fast. Without the Hadith, Muslims would be expected to forgo eating during the entire month of Ramadhan. But that's not the way they observe the fast, for it's not the way it's explained in the Sunnah. As a matter of fact, without the Hadith, Muslims wouldn't know why Ramadhan was special. The only account of the initial revelation is in their Traditions - initially chronicled by Ishaq and then copied by Bukhari, Muslim, and Tabari. Without Ibn Ishaq and those who copied and edited his arrangement of Hadith concerning Muhammad's words and deeds, there would be no Islam. The Qur'an is senseless and the Five Pillars are meaningless. Faith is folly. And that's especially true since the lone individual responsible for Islam, Allah, and the Qur'an, preached: Bukhari:V9B88N174 "Allah's Apostle said, 'Far removed from mercy are those who change the religion of Islam after me! Islam cannot change!'" The penalty for escaping Muhammad's clutches has always been high. Bukhari:V4B52N260 "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'" This was no ordinary prophet or religion. No, Muhammad was special. He was a terrorist and a pirate, and you don't find too many of those in religious circles. Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.'" Yes, Islam was the Profitable Prophet Plan. It was all about Muhammad, and he knew it. That is why he required his Sunnah, or example to be enacted as law. Tabari IX:82 "The Messenger sent [killer] Khalid out to collect taxes with an army of 400 and ordered him to invite people to Islam before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them." His Sunnah has become the basis for Islamic law - the most repressive code on earth. And Muslims follow his example, which is why they are the most violent people on earth. So it all comes down to this: If the Hadith Collections of Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim are true, Muhammad was the most evil man who ever lived, Allah was the most demented god ever conceived, and Islam was the most vile doctrine ever imposed on humankind. If, however, the Hadith Collections are untrue, then nothing is known of Muhammad, the conception of his god, or his formation of Islam. There is no rational reason to believe it, observe it, suffer under it, or die for it. Excerpts from the "Feedback Pages" AND PLEASE STOP PRESENTING THE HADITH AS IF IT IS THE WORD OF ALLAH! IT IS NOT! THE HADITH ARE THE WORDS OF MEN LIKE YOU! YOU QUOTE THE HADITH MORE THAN THE QU'RAN. FOR THE MOST PART, THE HADITH IS SATANIC. (V) I'm delighted that you find the Islam's oldest sources repugnant. So do I. I never say that Hadith are the word of Allah. All I claim for them is what Islamic scholars claim. Afterall, I believe that Muhammad made Allah in his own image to excuse his vile and criminal behavior. You are entitled to your opinion but without the Hadith Islam's five pillars cannot be observed. Without the context and chronology provided by the Hadith, the parts of the Qur'an that weren't plagiarized from the Talmud become meaningless. Without the Hadith you cannot believe in Muhammad, follow his orders, or example as the Qur'an demands. So, there is no Islam without the Hadith. I wrote these words in the first chapter: To firmly establish the validity, nature, and appropriateness of these Islamic scriptures, I want to combine what the Islamic scholars said in the preface to the most revered Hadith Collection with what others wrote on the opening page of the Qur'an. "Sahih Bukhari is a Collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, also known as the Sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and collected his Hadith. Each report in his Collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters, or isnad, had to be established." Then..."The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah [which is comprised exclusively of Hadith] was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superceded." So your view of the Hadith is contrary to Islamic scholars. While no two Muslims seem to agree about anything, it's only rational to read what the earliest writers had to say if we wish to understand the mind and character of the man who created Islam and who recited the Qur'an. As for it being the words of men, we agree. The Hadith and Qur'an are both hearsay, passed on generation to generation by word of mouth. As for it being Satanic, we agree on that point as well. There is no other spirit capable of inspiring a message this violent, hateful, deceitful, and immoral. (Craig) IF YOU WANT TO USE THE HADITH TO CONDEMN MUSLIMS, YOU ARE A FOOL OR A DECEIVER. (V) I don't use the Hadith to condemn Muslims. I use it to condemn Muhammad. All that is known about Muhammad is contained in the Hadith. The Sira was the only book written about him in the first two centuries after his death. Wake up. If the Sira isn't accurate, if the Sira is Satanic, Islam loses Allah's lone spokesperson, its rituals, its laws, and its justification. (Craig) Most Muslims that have seen your site have no idea who the author of that Hadith is. Again my advice to youis to read the Quran, the word of God. (YR) That may be true. Very few Muslims have read Ishaq's Sira, Tabari's History, Bukhari's or Muslim's Hadith collections. That is why they are still Muslims. If they had read them for themselves, they would be repulsed by what they found. Your clerics want to deceived as you are easier to fleece and control if you are indoctrinated. The last thing they want you to do is to read about Muhammad form the oldest and most original sources. They know what will happen if you do. And that's why I have made them available to you. (Craig) Any other book besides the Quran is not to be trusted. A Hadith is guaranted to be origional. Only the Quran is origional. (YR) First, the Qur'an's history is identical to the Hadith. The same man is the sole source of both. Both were passed on orally person to person long before they were written down. Second, without the Hadith, the Qur'an cannot be understood as the Qur'an lacks context and chronology. Third, without the Hadith, Islam's five pillars cannot be practiced. Fourth, without the Hadith you cannot follow Muhammad's orders as the Qur'an tells you to do. Fifth, without the Hadith, you cannot follow Muhammad's example as the Qur'an demands. When you dismiss the Hadith, you dismiss Islam's lone prophet, the Qur'an's lone voice, and most of the religion and laws of Islam. You ought not be so rash. (Craig) |
