A History Of The Origins Of Islam

By Labid BinAlAsam

This book explains the origins of Islam, analyzes the personality of Mohammed the Prophet. It sets forth the historical background of the modern day conflict between the three Abrahmic religions.  It analyzes many of the Koranic verses in a factual light not usually used by others so that the reader can understand how and why the Koran came into being in the format as it exists.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Labid BinAlAsam
• Release date: Apr 2, 2024
• ISBN: 9798223664123

Book preview

Table of Contents

A History Of The Origins Of Islam

Chapter 22  -26 Miscellaneous Other Verses     pg.  583

Chapter 29 – 109 Miscellaneous Other Verses      pg.  587

Glossary

Section 14:  A Muslim shall not aid a non-Muslim against Muslim (so if a Jew had a  problem with a Muslim, he could only seek the aid of other Jews);

Section 23:  All disputes must be referred to Allah and to Mohammed (so that the  Jewish court system is abolished, as among the Jews).

Section 37:  As long as any war lasts, the Jews must pay its costs, along with the Muslims   (somewhat redundant with section 24).

Section 46:  A woman shall not be given protection without the consent of her family  (somewhat redundant with Section 41, supra). | Section 47:  Disputes must be submitted to Allah and Mohammed (this section is  redundant with Sections 23 and 42, supra).

Chapter 1:

Chapter 2:

Chapter 3:

Chapter 4:

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7:

Chapter 8:

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

Chapter 20 | Chapter 20, which is number 45 on the List and is from Mecca; it falls between Chapters 7 and 17.

Chapter 22 - 26  Miscellaneous Verses

Chapter 28

Chapter 29

GLOSSARY

TABLE OF CONTENT

Author’s  Note          pg.  1 

1.  Forward          pg.  6

2.  Definitions (Some)        pg.  12

3.  What Is Islamophobia (and the Abuse of Mislabeling)?    Pg.  19

4.  Application of the Koran to Current State to State Agreements   Pg.  23

5.  Lying and Half Truths are Permitted      pg.  25

6  Translations of the Koran – Read More Than One     pg.  28

7.  Pagan World of Mohammed (570-@619 A.D.)     pg.  33

8.  The Holy Books, a Partial Discussion      pg.  43

A. The Koran, The Torah, The  Bible       pg.  43

B.  The Five Pillars of Islam       pg.  51    C. The Talmud                pg.  51

D.  The Gospels          pg.  54

E.  The A’hadith         pg.  55

9.  Miracles Mentioned in the Koran and A’hadith     pg.  58

10.  Sorcery in Islam         pg.  62

11.  Paradise          pg.  66

12.  Periods of Revelations – Mecca (610-622 A.D.) and     pg.  67

Medina (622-632 A.D.)      

13.  Mohammed’s First 25 Years of Life (570-595 A.D.)     pg.  70

A.  The Parents of Mohammed       pg.  70

B.  Mohammed’s Early Years from Birth      pg.  75

14.  Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid, Mohammed’s First Wife      pg.  87

15.  Pre-menses Marriages         pg.  103

16.  Types of Pre-Islamic Marriages       pg.  104  17. Coexistence of Christians and Jews with Pagan Arabia        pg.  106

18.  Zayd Ibn Amr         pg.  110

19.  Ali Ibn Abi (Abu) Talib        pg.  118

20.  Fatima as Wife of Ali        pg.  119

21.  Mohammed’s Mental State and the First Years of Islam (610-613 A.D.)  pg.  120

22.  Move to Axum/Ethiopia/Abyssinia (614-615/616 A.D.)    pg.  126

23. Banishment/ Excommunication of the Muslims to Shi’b (616-619 A.D.)  pg.  128

24.  Summary of 620 – 632 A.D.       pg.  130

A.  The Night Journey to the Farthest Mosque (619/621 A.D.)    pg.  131 

B.  Journey to Ta’if (621/622 A.D.)      pg.  171

25. Medina (Yathrib) (621-632 A.D.)       pg.  173

26.  Covenant of Medina (622 A.D.)       pg.  175

A.  The Conquest of the Jewish Tribe, The Banu Qaynuqa (624 A.D.)  pg.  187

B.  The Conquest of the Jewish Tribe, The Banu Nadir (625 A.D.)   pg.  188

C.  The Slaughter of the Jewish Tribe, The Banu Qurayza (627 A.D.)    pg.  193

D.  The Conquest of the Jews of Kaybar (628 A.D.)     pg.  201

27.  Hierarchy of Muslims        pg.  205

28.  The Battle of Badr (624 A.D.)       pg.  207  29.  Battle of Uhud (625 A.D.)               pg.  210

30.  Battle of the Trench (627 A.D.)       pg.  212 

31.  Jewish Presence in Medina and a Quick Review of Events    pg.  213

32.  The Treaty of Hudaybiyya (628 A.D.)      pg.  218

33.  The Battle of Mootah (629 A.D.) The Start of the Wars Against the World  pg.  221

34.  The Capture of Mecca (629/630 A.D.)      pg.  222

35.  The Battle of Hunayn (630 A.D.)       pg.  226

36.  The Expedition of Tabuk (630 A.D.)      pg.  229

37.  Pilgrimage of 631 A.D. (The Christians and the Jews to Pay for Lost Revenue) pg.  231

38.  Raids Conducted by Mohammed       pg.  232

39.  The Revelation of the Repentance (630/631 A.D.)  Chapter 9

The Great Abrogation       pg.  235

40.  The Status of Women        pg.  237

41.  Mohammed and Christianity       pg.  238

42.  Mohammed’s Inconsistency With the Jews     pg.  244

43.  Did Mohammed Ever Have Biological Children?     Pg.  246

44.  Epilepsy and Post Ictal Psychosis      pg.  256

A.  As it Relates to the Sterility of Mohammed and the Revelations   pg.  257

B.  Depression and Thoughts of Suicide      pg.  259

45.  Ayesha (Aisha), a Wife of Mohammed      pg.  262

46.  Wives/Concubines of Mohammed and Pedophilia     pg.  265

47.  Wives in the Afterlife        pg.  274

48.  Mohammed’s Personality With His Wives      pg.  280

49.  Infallibility of Mohammed       pg.  281

50.  A Muslim’s Relationship to Allah       pg.  281

51.  The Non-Believer         pg.  282

52.  Subjugation of the Christians and the Jews      pg.  283

53.  Slaughter in Battle         pg.  284

54.  Islam Must Engage in Wars of Aggression      pg.  286

55.  The Burka/Hijab/Niqab        pg.  287

56.  Honor and Other Killings        pg.  289

57.  Position of Ali Ibn Talib and the Last Pilgrimage (632 A.D.)    pg.  289

58.  Gathering for Mohammed’s Military Campaign to Mootah Prior to

His Death (632 A.D.)        pg.  291

59.  The Death of Mohammed and the Choice of His Successor    pg.  298

(Saqifa, 632 A.D.)

60.  Importance of Sa’ad Ibn Ubadah       pg.  303

61.  Ali Ibn Abu Talib After Saqifa (632 A.D.)      pg.  304 

62.  Stability of the Government Under Caliph Abu Bakr (632-634 A.D).   pg.  304

63.  Omar Ibn Al Khattab And The Second Caliphate (634-644 A.D.)   pg.  310

A.  The Pact of Omar        pg.  313

B.  Differing Views on Omar       pg.  315

64.  Islam Arrived As Other Empires Were Decaying     pg.  318

65.  Is Orthodox Islam Compatible With Democracy?     pg.  320

66.  The Word of Mohammed Is Equal to Word of Allah     pg.  323

67.  Allah is the Enemy of the Unbelievers      pg.  328

68.  Some Differences Between the Sunni and the Shia     pg.  330

69.  Transformation, Not Mere Reformation Is Required of Islam     pg.  334

70.  Westerners Should Not Feel Guilty for Failures of Islam     pg.  336

A.  The Noahide Laws         pg.  338

B.  Some Modern Issues – A Discussion       pg.  339

71.  Summary of Various Verses of the Koran      pg.  347

Chapter 1         pg.  350 

Chapter 2         pg.  350

A.  Islam’s False Historical Claim Regarding Jerusalem   pg.  402

B.  Slavery        pg.  442

C.  Oaths and How to Break Them     pg.  443

D.  Predestination       pg.  446

Chapter 3         pg.  449

Chapter 4         pg.  475 

Chapter 5         pg.  504

Chapter 6         pg.  529

A.  Free Choice Versus Predestination     pg.  530 

Chapter 7         pg.  533

Chapter 8         pg.  542

Chapter 9  The  Repentance       pg.  547

Chapter 10         pg.  562

Chapter 11         pg.  562

Chapter 16         pg.  564

Chapter 17         pg.  564

Chapter 18  pg.  577

Chapter 19         pg.  577

Chapter 20         pg.  580

Chapter 22  -26 Miscellaneous Other Verses     pg.  583

Chapter 28  pg.  585

Chapter 29 – 109 Miscellaneous Other Verses      pg.  587

72.  Some General Comments About The Structure Of The Koran   pg.  600

73.  Some Comments About Various A’hadith Relating to the Jews/Christians  pg.  601 

74.  Summary and Conclusions        pg.  604

Appendix A: Sects of Islam: Who Can The West Trust?  Preamble   pg.  609

Sects of Islam: alphabetical listing      pg.  613

Appendix B: Muslim Brotherhood Organizations and

Other Anti-West/Jewish/Israel Organizations    pg.  631

Appendix C:  A Short History of Jerusalem      pg.  632 

Glossary        

Index           pg.  640 

DRAFT FOR EDITING – July 4, 2023 – copyrighted 2023

KILL/DESTROY ALL OF THE

Christians and the Jews - Koranic Verse 9:30

USA copyright 2023 by Labid bin al-A'sam, B.A., LLb., pseudonym

––––––––

AUTHOR'S NOTE

Most of the world gets its information regarding the Koran, as a Holy Book, by what others tell them what it says. Regrettably, most of the others who tell us what the Koran says have never actually read this Holy Book in any language.

I have been asked to explain why I have written this book, I who am not a Muslim. The answer is both complex and simple. The complex answer is: Read my book because, for the most part, we are being led astray, perhaps intentionally, as to what the Koran really says. The simple answer is because the overwhelming majority of the translators can't even agree with each other on any exact translation of most of the Koranic verses. The overwhelming majority of Muslims can neither read, speak nor write Arabic. Most Muslims are not Arabs. Most Muslims and non-Muslims understand the Koran only through translations or what their prayer leaders tell them about this Holy Text.

Translations differ, one from the other. You need to read more than just one or two or you can easily become confused as to the actual meaning of certain verses.

I, on the other hand, have read no less than 10 different translations, with commentary, from cover to cover. Whenever I questioned exactly what a particular verse of the Koran stated, and I wanted more information, I read approximately 50 additional translations, some with explanations/commentary regarding that verse, this to be sure that my understanding was correct. So, what does the Koran really say?  Because translators themselves are often not in total agreement, political considerations and the sect of the particular translator often 'color' the translation.[1]

In addition, in order to help me understand, I've read many thousands of pages from various authors who discuss the Koran. These mostly Muslim, and a few Christian scholars are not in agreement. But interestingly enough, they all hearken back to just a very few sources which most of them seem to agree represent the strongest foundation upon which one can make a determination as to what the Koran says and what Mohammed intended. The disagreements come from their various interpretations which, as I say, are colored by how fundamentalist their individual views of Islam are.

As it relates to the Koran, this puts a non-Muslim, such as me, in a unique position: I can read the same source material and come to my own independent evaluations and conclusions without having the burden of having to justify anything based upon any preconceived belief about Islam. In this process I have selected some sources which represent what I consider to be the extremes as well as the middle ground. I have not given a citation to each and every writer on each and every point. Not everyone's views on each and every point are worth considering simply because, as I have stated, I have found that politics plays too much of a role in what so many of them have to say.

The talking heads often intentionally distort what the Koran actually says and means.

The catalyst for my writing this book comes from the gross distortion of the meaning of the Koran as is expressed by some of our religious and political leaders, and from the talking heads who appear on the news. As to those who are of the Judeo/Christian faiths, this distortion often comes from a desire to be inclusive of everyone and everything so that each person can live the life they choose in a free and open society so long as others, who have that same goal, do not interfere with them. It also comes from a sense of guilt that many feel because of past religious repressions; it is an effort to try and balance the scale or to provide a level playing field. It comes from a Golden Rule concept of live and let live. The major questions then become: 1. Do the vast majority of Muslims have the same touchstones as non-Muslims do? 2. Dare non-Muslims trust the practitioners of the Koran as it is written? The ultimate answers are: No! we do not all have the same touchstones; and No, not all non-Muslims can trust them.

As to the talking heads who are Muslims or Islamophiles, we have religious aspects which we must take into account. Are we being played by those who seek to fool us regarding the real meanings of the words of the Koran; are we hearing from moderate Muslims who do not actually live by certain key provisions of the Koran and who are considered to be heretics by most of the other Muslims in the world; are we hearing from modern/liberal Muslims who are trying to reform or transform this religion in order to make it more benign so that a substantial degree of assimilation can take place into Western civilization? These are some of the subjects I discuss in this book. As to those who actually seek to become benign, the ultimate answer is: Yes! we can trust them.

Why do I say the above? My Muslim former neighbor who I used to share meals with and socialize with; the Muslim man who is a childhood friend of one of my sons, each overnighting in the home of the other when they were young boys (and who, decades later, still have friendly communications); the Muslim clients that I used to represent when I was practicing law for over 40 years; the Muslim doctors who treated me for my medical conditions; the Muslim manager of a restaurant that I frequent; etc. are all wonderful people! So why do I say Yes, they can be trusted unlike other Muslims? The answer is simple: none of the Muslims I personally know practice Islam the way the Koran states that they must. They are not fundamentalists. To the fundamentalists, they are considered to be heretics and they are even worse than the Jews.

The Koran is filled with hate and castigation of all things which are not Islamic.

Fundamentalism exists in a large part of the Muslim dominated world, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the geographic area or government existing there. Need I fear them? If the answer is to be found in the literal meaning of the Koran, the answer is: Absolutely! Why may you ask? The title of this book was chosen for a very specific reason: it represents a substantial portion of the teachings of the Koran!  The title is reportedly among the last words spoken by Mohammed as he lay on his deathbed. While my Muslim friends and neighbors do not practice everything in the manner that the Koran preaches, others do. While my friends and neighbors wish me no harm, many other Muslims do. I need only look to what is going on in the world today in order to understand what Islam means to certain other Muslims. For 1400 years they continue to threaten me, as a Jew, with the same fate that they say occurred to the Jews at Kaybar in 628/9 A.D. (thousands of innocent Jewish prisoners were slaughtered and enslaved; and this was not the first time that the Muslims had done this to the Jews). Many Muslims are at war with each other. History tells me they were, and now remain at war with everyone else. For them, there is no concept of live and let live. We, here in the West, seem not to understand this. We need to. We must!

Islam is Not a Religion of Peace if you follow what the Koran preaches. Not only do Jews suffer, but Christians, non-fundamentalist Muslims and all others suffer as well.

We, in the West, try to live in a world of political correctness. This is all well and good so long as everyone else does the same. But with Islam, for those who adhere strictly to The Word as it is set forth in the Koran, their concept of correctness is the subjugation of everyone else. If you cross their religious line, you must convert or die. Islam is not a religion of peace, at least not in the Western sense of peace including tranquility, or peace including equal social acceptance. To think otherwise is to delude yourself.

The Implementation of fundamentalism in benign (?) Muslim countries.

I can give you many current examples of what the Koran in action means to the fundamentalist, but that would take too long, so I will provide just two.

1. The story of Asia Bibi:

Asia is a Pakistani woman who could neither read nor write. She and her family lived in a village where they were the only Christians in town. Evidently her family was having some difficulties with her Muslim neighbors. In trying to help support her family, she went to work. In approximately 2010, and while working on a farm on a very hot day, she went to get some drinking water for herself. She used the drinking cup shared by all of the other ladies with whom she was working. When she was through with the drinking cup, she replaced it. Some of the other ladies (Muslims) came to her and said to her: Why have you defiled our drinking water with your filthy Christian mouth? You must now convert to Islam! Her response was: Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.  I will not convert. Perhaps it is you who should convert. Jesus died for mankind; what has Mohammed done to improve mankind? There are variations of this part of the story, but the facts are fundamentally the same.

To make a long story short, Asia was tried on a charge of blasphemy, convicted and sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was death! When a Muslim minister in the Pakistani government objected to the sentence, he was immediately assassinated. The Pope also got involved, as did some Western governments.

From 2010 to about 2018, Asia sat in solitary confinement under a sentence of death with a Pakistani government which did not know what to do with her. It had been reported that she was occasionally being beaten by her guards and was in grave physical and mental condition.  Riots took place in the local Pakistani community demanding that her sentence be carried out. The highest court in Pakistan has reversed her conviction and sentence. As of about May, 2019, she finally found refuge in Canada. The Islamists have placed a huge bounty on her head. The judges and others who have had anything to do with her release are now being threatened with death.  More riots have taken place because of this reversal of her sentence.  The Christian community of Pakistan has always lived under heavy pressure from the Islamists, and that pressure has only increased because of this case. This is the Koran in action under Sharia law. The Taliban, in neighboring Afghanistan, also follow this law.

2.  The story of Ahok:

Ahok is the nick- name of a Christian Chinese man who lives in Indonesia (Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world).  Indonesia is @87.5% Sunni Muslim and approximately 10% Christian.  The Chinese are a disadvantaged minority within the country and suffer because of their ethnic background. Ahok is a well-respected politician who had been elected to the office of governor of Jakarta.  In his campaign for reelection, he pointed out to his Muslim constituents that, notwithstanding the fact that he was a minority within a minority, he requested that they ignore Verse 5:51 (Chapter 5, Verse 51) of the Koran (which states that a Muslim cannot be the friend or ally of either a Jew or a Christian. In essence, a Muslim cannot be a friend of anyone other than another Muslim), and please vote for him.  There are variations of this story. Riots took place.  The populace insisted that only a Muslim could be elected governor (this is in accordance with the Koran, as you will soon learn). Ahok was defeated in his reelection bid. He was tried and convicted of blasphemy; in May, 2017, he was sentenced to two years in prison.[2]  He served about 18 months and was then released.  Likely had this happened in Pakistan rather than in Indonesia, the sentence would have been death by hanging, as had the case been with Asia Bibi.

So why have I written this book? I want all of us to remember Asia Bibi, Ahok and the stories of many moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others who have suffered because efforts are still being made, by fundamentalist Muslims, to implement the literal meaning of the Koran: Submit, Convert or Die.

YOU CANNOT SEE THINGS CLEARLY WHEN YOU ARE LOCKED (IN THIS IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM).

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi        President of Egypt at Al-Azhar University (the educational center of the       Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt)        Cairo, Egypt,   Dec. 28, 2014

1.  FORWARD

TRUTH IS HEAVY, THEREFORE FEW CARE TO CARRY IT (From the Talmud).

This book will summarize certain portions of the Koran, as well as certain key events in the life of the Prophet Mohammed.  It also discusses certain subject matter, based upon recent medical/psychiatric advances, to postulate why some common perceptions about Mohammed are wrong.  It does not discuss every single verse of the Koran, or every moment of Mohammed's life. It outlines the hostility of Islam as against the Judeo/Christian and other religious/social worlds, and all things that are not Islamic.  The analysis of Religious Material is often much nuanced, very subtle, and often somewhat conflicted, so please read this book with the foregoing in mind. 

My intent is to summarize various portions of the Koran so that a person who is not familiar with that Holy Book may begin to understand its original meanings, the timeframe in which it was revealed, and the person through whom it was revealed: the Prophet Mohammed.  In this process I will give some examples of recent events which reflect the implementation of the Koran in the modern world (as I have already started in my Author's Note, above). It is not my intent to do a tour de force covering everything.  Others have provided that mass of material, sometimes 'ad nauseam'. Because this subject matter is so complicated and intertwined (for I will be evaluating an entire socio-religious entity), of necessity, there will be MORE REDUNDANCY found in this book than in the average historical reference. Unfortunately, CERTAIN POINTS WILL HAVE TO BE OFTEN REPEATED BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE KORAN DOES. This is part of its teaching method and, as one historian of Islam has basically said: it is part of the psyche of the Semitic culture.  Therefore, with this subject matter, redundancy, as a teaching method, is part of mine.

I have been selective in my topics, and the citations I use are those which will verify the points I am trying to make.  Some experts may take different approaches, but as noted, I seek only to explain why Islam started out the way it did; give the reader a sense of who Mohammed was; and will cover a period of time from about 550 A.D. up to shortly after his death in 632 A.D.; and a little beyond.  Unlike most earlier writers on these subjects, I have the advantage of being able to look at certain phases or aspects of Mohammed's life in the light of relatively new medical/scientific advances. Later these will become apparent to you. As best as I can, I try not to be influenced by Articles of Faith, but I do point some of them out during my narrative.

Not surprisingly, there are many conflicts regarding the details of what transpired during this period of time (roughly 550-700 A.D.), and certainly there is much myth.  Early on, it became obvious to me that before I could obtain a clear understanding of the Koran, I needed to understand Mohammed, himself; thus I will commence my discussions with that topic. Again, I will give you citations to source material whenever I feel it is reasonable to do so. Frankly, many other sources are not worthy of much notice.[3]

I do not seek to be politically correct. There has been far too much of that already.  I speak only of the Koran as it relates to us the Word of Allah, the religion of Islam, and, as already noted, by no means do all of my discussions relate to every single practicing Muslim living today.[4] Please do not make a mistake: my critique is critical of, and not gentle with that which appears in the Koran. For this I make no apologies.

According to the Koran, all non-Muslims must convert or die.  As exceptions, according to Verse 9:29, Christians and Jews are allowed to live in an Islamic world, but they must be subdued in their hearts to the superiority of Islam.

According to the Koran, in general[5], and in addition to verses which are specific to the Jews alone[6], as a member of the Judeo/Christian theologies, one must be forced to pay a special tribute/tax (jizyah); recognize the superiority of Islam over his/her own religion; and he/she must be humbled, humiliated and subdued in his/her heart by Islam.  In essence, one must be crushed into total submission. According to Verse 9:30, such a person also has to confront this prayer (?) whereby Allah is asked to destroy/kill all of the Christians and the Jews.  These are some of the concepts of the Koran which have guided the fundamentalists for 1400 years. 

Please note the apparent conflict between Verses 9:29 and 9:30: Verse 9:29 is a 'status' under which Christians and Jews are allowed to live in subjugation, and Verse 9:30 is a 'prayer' that Allah destroy or kill [7] this type of non-believer.  According to Islamic tradition, it is also the duty of all Muslims to find and kill all of the Jews on the Day of Judgment.[8]  While I find these core theological concepts in the Koran to be unacceptable, they do form part of the essence of this religion.

There are verses in the Koran which speak of the existence of good people among the Christians and the Jews, and these may be taken as friends (this by way of inference); and that they are among the righteous.[9] One can cherry pick these verses, and other narrations, and contend, as do some Islamophiles, that these cherry picked verses represent the true face of Islam. I personally wish that this was correct, but it is not. There are other commentaries which say that those Jews (and by inference, Christians, too) who were adhering to the rules set forth in the Koran (Verse 9:29), this while they were living, will do well on Judgment Day so long as they convert to Islam on that day.[10]  In fact, the Koran says the exact  opposite, as you will soon see. As I later point out regarding the unbelievers, all of the tolerant verses were changed, abrogated and superseded.  The Koran contains many changes in course, (which the Koran itself admits do take place [see Verse 2:106]).  The question remaining is: what is the final destination of the Koran?  It is not in the direction of its benign passages.

As a practical matter, and by historical fact, many of the provisions of the Koran were not always implemented against Christians, Jews or other nonbelievers. There were periods of time when each group did relatively well under Muslim rule; especially the Jews (when you compare how poorly they did during contemporaneous periods under Christian rule). But then, and for various periods of time, the strictures of the Koran would be re-implemented against all non-believers, and hardships would follow.

The Judeo/Christian worlds were the first major religions (along with Arab paganism) to be impacted by Islam. These three are the religions specifically addressed in the Koran.  True, Persia, with its monotheistic Zoroastrianism was also quickly affected, and for this reason (its monotheism) various scholars often include it as among the theologies allowed to exist under the same restrictive rules as are applied to the Christians and the Jews.  Under various possible names, Zoroastrianism is sometimes mentioned, but it is not the primary focus of the verses involved. These were the faiths which existed within the world of Mohammed.  Shortly after his death (and thus beyond the scope of this book) there were collisions with Hindu, Chinese and other religions/cultures.     

Be careful of those who try to persuade you.

When listening to modern Islamic apologists one must understand and keep in mind the concept of Taqiyya. This is a deliberate dissimulation (pretense) of various matters in order to mislead non-Muslims and to protect and advance the causes of Islam, or the causes of an individual Muslim.[11] If this process requires an outright lie, this is permissible. There exist various Islamic literature/sources which substantiate this, among which are a'hadith (various sayings and traditions attributed to Mohammed, collections of which were compiled by Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim [among others] and are further described below).[12] Kitman means to make a half-truth in order to deceive; this is also permissible.  The concepts of Taqiyya and Kitman can be a bit confusing, contradictory and often implemented ad hoc.  Sometimes the Koran requires that the truth be told.  Some apologists insist that these concepts are designed for limited use, only.  As I will later note, their actual implementation belies this stance. The Shia and the Sunni each have their own approaches to this subject (which I later discuss).

Lying is a Religious Duty when used to protect Islam.[13]

To fast forward for a moment:  In the year 2000, when President Bill Clinton was trying to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (involving Yasser Arafat), and those negotiations failed, President Clinton expressed surprise that Yasser Arafat went back on his word (meaning that he failed to negotiate in good faith). President Clinton is said to have exclaimed that Yasser Arafat had lied to him. President Clinton (being a Westerner) thought that this was not proper. Had President Clinton only read and understood the Koran, and various a'hadith, he would/should have understood that Yasser Arafat was only doing that which was allowed, and, under those particular circumstances, even required of him according to the Koran and Islamic tradition. When this duty is pointed out to Western politicians, it either falls on deaf ears or encounters blind eyes.  Highlighting this duty to others often results in that person being called an Islamophobic, a label which most people do not truly understand.  I discuss the meaning of Islamophobia in my Section 3, below.

In early 2017, President Trump expressed that Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas had lied to him, as well. Western leaning governments must learn to understand that this is an Islamic religious prerogative when its use is deemed to be necessary. Some Islamic sects are more tightly bound to this aspect of their religion than are others.

There is a great volume of literature which deals with the life of Mohammed.  If you wish to be politically correct, you will follow the intellectual Islamic theocracy in that Mohammed was the most perfect of men, led the most religious and monotheistic of lives, was pure in mind and actions, was a great statesman and was among God's chosen representatives (prophets/messengers) in the form of a man. If you dislike Mohammed: he was a murdering, raping, insane, thieving, misogynistic, pedophile and a tyrant. He was also hen-pecked by his harem. He was lazy, living off of those around him, and he married his first wife for money. As with all of the things written about him, perhaps he was a mixture of some of it, if not all of it. After all, he was just a man who was born of a woman and he died a physical death in the end.  And he certainly was inconsistent.  But unlike the vast majority of mankind, around him there remains a strong spiritual aura which exists until today, and which forms a basis of the religion known to us as Islam. In this regard, this spiritual existence makes him not unlike Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius and the founders/guiding forces of many other religions, cults and philosophies practiced by more than just a few.

I caution you that there are writers who go out of their way to criticize Islam and manufacture critiques with comments made out of whole cloth.  They are to Islam what the Elders of Zion is to Judaism: pure hate and not based on anything other than wild imaginings.  While I do not claim to be Caesar's wife, no other writer on this subject is, including the great Mohammed ibn Ishaq (@705-770 A.D.) who is generally recognized as the first truly comprehensive biographer of Mohammed.  Ibn Ishaq was honest enough to admit that there were certain things in his writings which could be in error, and that his memory was not perfect. Much of what we know on this subject comes primarily from him!  I have tried to take a fresh view based upon the facts as I find them. Sometimes those facts lead me to places other writers seem not to have gone; and this is another of the reasons for my writing this book.

Alfred Guillaume (1888 - 1965), The Life of Mohammed, is considered to be a definitive biography of the Prophet.  It is based upon his collection of the previously scattered writings of Mohammed ibn Ishaq. Most writers will ultimately cite Guillaume. When I believe that he is quoting the words or intent of ibn Ishaq, I will cite this work as I.I.; and when I believe that Guillaume is giving us his own narrative, I will cite his biography of Mohammed as A.G., in each case giving you the page number.  They are both from the same book.  Ibn Ishaq (I.I.) merely reports what other people have told him, which is almost always second or third hand and, occasionally, contradictory. His complete biography of Mohammed is no longer in existence. Others have reported on the work of I.I., and still others have tried to fill in the holes he seems to have left.  Alfred Guillaume published his book (translating Ibn Ishaq) in 1955. Since Guillaume's work rests upon secondary sources (for the work of I.I. came to him from other sources which quoted or referred to the work of I.I.), these sources probably had religious/political axes of their own to grind (and indeed they did). A.G. seems to recognize this fact, and he, too, tries to expand on the work of I.I.

Among those who I cite most often is Sayyid Qut'b (1906-1966), Tafsir Fi Zilalil Koran ('In the Shade of the Koran'), and another of his works, Milestones.  A particular verse from In the Shade of the Koran will be designated as 'S.Q.'.  This work is 18 volumes long.  It is very conservative and thus it has been criticized by many experts.  I have selected it for several reasons: S.Q. was, and still is, a spiritual touchstone for the Muslim Brotherhood. Through his younger brother, Mohammad (1919-2014), his teachings are promoted in Saudi Arabia where the Muslim Brotherhood took refuge in 1966, and where likely both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were students of this Mohammed, or were otherwise greatly influenced by Sayyid.  Sayyid's religious views have been melded into Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism. This fundamentalism is the cornerstone of the religious schools (Madrasas) which the Saudis support, worldwide, with billions of dollars spent, each year, as they have done for decades. S.Q.'s theology permeates almost all of the fundamentalist/Muslim Brotherhood thinking.  It poses the greatest threat to the West and constitutes the major headwinds with which all moderate and liberal Islamic efforts must contend. Both Shia and Sunni are followers of his works.

While I cite some sources, my not citing others does not mean that they do not have important things to tell us or that I have not taken some of them into consideration. Nor does it mean that they all agree with my views; some do not, for various reasons.

Islam is based upon living one's life in preparation for the afterlife, and thus Death rather than Life is emphasized.

There are some rather strange colloquies involving Mohammed during which he was asked a series of questions.[14] One of the questions was:  ... what is meant by the Word of Allah? The response of Mohammed was: Death. From the correct translation and meaning of the word Islam (discussed immediately below) one can easily conclude that Mohammed's answer was the sum and substance of this religion: Preparing oneself for Death and the Afterlife.  This is its fixation.

NOT ALL KORANS IN ARABIC ARE THE SAME

In my discussions, as we go through the various verses, I spend a great deal of space comparing one English translation with another.  My comments may appear to indicate that there is only one correct version of the Koran, in Arabic, and that it is the translators into English who are responsible for the differences in their translations. Usually, but not always, this is this the case. Most Muslims will insist that there is only one version. This assumption of having only one version is not correct. There were between 10 and as many as 50 different versions, in Arabic. And there exist about 10 different ways one can recite the Koran. These differences are often subtle, but not always. Sometimes we get translations which are diametrically opposed to one another. This may be because different versions are being relied upon by the translations. The problem is that the translators do not tell us which version they are translating; each probably taking an Article of Faith position that their version is the correct one.

The numbering systems used for the verses in some Korans differ with others. Some verses are split: a revelation is started in one verse and mid-sentence it stops and the sentence is completed in the next verse. Sometimes the verse seems not to be split because of the way the translator translates it.

Currently there are 2-3 versions being mostly relied upon; but the others still exist. Even with this explanation being said, they all speak to the Word of Allah and we get differences, no matter how slight, which should never exist in that Written Word. But we do. I spend time pointing out those differences.

There do exist 8 different current English versions/translations of the Christian New Testament. As to the Jewish Torah in Hebrew, there is only one version, but multiple English translations exist and the verbiage used is sometimes different in those translations.  With the Hebrew Torah, one can doublecheck the correctness of the particular translation involved. A Samaritan Torah exists, but it arose as a result of an almost 3,000 year old schism within the Jewih faith. The differences in that Torah, and the Hebrew Torah are based upon that schism.  Less than about 1,000  Samaritans probably remain, world-wide.

Bottom line: the Koran, whether in Araic or in English, as we know the Koran today, is not a uniform writing, as my book illustrates.

Please keep all of this in mind at all times.

2.  DEFINITIONS (SOME)

The translation and meaning of the word Islam is Submit, Surrender and Obey.

a.  Islam - The real meaning/translation of the word Islam is not 'peace', at least not  in the sense that we in the West use this word in our everyday discussions.  We   often hear from the pundits that this false translation is correct (that it has the   same meaning in both cultures). This represents a complete misunderstanding   of both words (peace and Islam). It also represents a misunderstanding of the   Koran. We also hear that Islam is a peaceful religion.  To take that position is to   deny about 1,400 years of history. One need only go on to the Internet  or watch   or listen to the news to discern that the correct translation of the  word Islam is   not peace, but submit, surrender or obey. While it is admitted that the root   word from which the word Islam is derived (the Arabic root a 'salaam) can    lead to a concept of peace, it also leads in other directions (see my discussion   under  c.  Peace, below). When one finally arrives at the actual meaning of the   word  Islam, for religious purposes, it means "submission, surrender and/or   obedience to the Words of Allah, as are set forth in the Holy Koran, which words   were revealed thru Mohammed, His Last Prophet, by the Angel Jabril; and, if   followed by the compliant Muslim, this would lead him to a state of Islamic   peace and tranquility in an Islamic world".

The Jews of the Torah and the Christians of the Gospels were all originally Muslims.

b.  Muslim - Being pure or correct in expressing the Word of God is absolutely essential.  This is true not only for the followers of Islam, but for all religions. This is self-  evident.  In the belief system of Islam, if one hears, understands or is taught the   true Word of Allah as it then exists, and follows that Word, then that person is a   compliant Muslim.  Thus, when God spoke to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,   Aaron, Miriam, King   David, King Solomon, Mary, Joseph or Jesus; or when the   Children of Israel or any of the Jewish prophets or Christian disciples had the   benefit of the actual Words that God spoke, they were all Muslims so long as   they followed the Word of Allah as it then existed.[15]

It is the position of Islam that before Moses received the Tablets on Mount Sinai, no Jew had ever existed; it is the position of Judaism that Abraham was the first person of the Jewish faith with his Covenant with the Almighty.[16]  Thus, according to Islam, by giving the Chosen People (Children of Israel?) the Torah (the first of the three Holy Books, the others being the Gospels and the Koran, although some add a fourth: the Psalms), the Jews first appeared (and yet not!).  In various Holy Books, including the Koran, the people who were freed by Moses are called the Children of Israel, but religiously they were Muslims (having had the benefit of hearing the pure and correct Word, and following this Word until this Word was later corrupted by their religious leaders, or changed by Allah). They were not then Jews, by religion, they were Muslims.  In later years, these Muslim Children of Israel turned away from God and their Covenant with Him.[17]  Likely at that time they then became what we now call Jews (they became practitioners of a now corrupted and/or partially abrogated Holy Book, the Torah).  Apparently, this corrupted Holy Book/Torah is different from the original Torah previously used by the Muslim Children of Israel (although there are some questions regarding this, questions which come from the confusion within Islam itself).  This likely also holds true for the original followers of Christ: they, too, were Muslims until their Bible (New Word) was corrupted or changed (or just partially or incorrectly revealed), and then they became what we now call Christians.  These formerly Muslim/Christians were likely Gnostics; they do not believe in the Trinity.  I discuss this issue later.

It would seem that, in each case, the religious leaders of each of those prior faiths stopped being Muslims, themselves.  Thus, according to some verses in the Koran, we have former Muslims leading their respective flocks astray and turning them into Jews (religiously), in the first case, and Christians (religiously) in the second case. Here I give you a word of caution: portions of the Koran are contradictory and seem to indicate that these verses might not be accurate regarding the timing of certain events, or their effect upon either the original Torah or the original Gospels. The Koran seems to indicate that the prior Holy Books, then in existence at the time of Mohammed, were correct, and sometimes not, for each faith involved! A conundrum exists which I later discuss.[18]

Following this line of thought: only the people we now call Muslims have the benefit of the pure and currently correct Word of God (Allah), as it has now been set forth in the Koran, and all others (Christians and Jews) are tainted, confused and led astray in their belief systems.  These others continue to follow their now corrupted (or not) Holy Books. Or it is more likely that they simply reject the Koran as the New Word of God/Allah.  And yet if these peoples are good and do not attack Islam, perhaps they, too, will get to heaven (or not); for as I later note, according to at least two Islamic scholars: on Judgment Day, and with the help of Jesus, they must convert to Islam; at that time, they would then become Muslims.  As to the Jews specifically: all unconverted Jews must then be killed by the Muslims (Jews, along with everyone else being brought back to life [resurrected] in order to be judged on Judgment Day).

I suppose that one could argue that the original Jews and Christians were called by those names, but were in fact Muslims at some points in time because they qualified for that category as well; but this would just add to the confusion. Certainly it seems that before the coming of Jesus, Jews were no longer Muslims, and before the coming of Mohammed, Christians were no longer Muslims, either.  Yet according to the language used in some verses, even this seems to be questioned. None of this answers the question as to exactly when, and by what specific acts, did each such group lose the right to be called Muslims.  The Koran does not give us any details on this.

Much of this confusion stems from the fact that the Koran changes direction, sometimes in mid-course. As I often discuss below, the Koran recognizes this. By Verse 2:106, it tells us that Allah is merely replacing older verses with new verses which are equal to, or better than the old. This is the concept of abrogation and we end up with something theologically new.

You may begin to question my logic (?), but I hasten to add that in dealing with religion, logic often plays no role. As to these changes, the Koran acknowledges their existence; but it also tells us not to dwell upon them.[19] It says: Do not ask questions.

It also seems that there were periods of time when no Muslims existed. One must then wonder:  Just before the coming of Mohammed and his revelations, did some, or at least one 'proto-Muslim' pre-exist Mohammed and teach him to seek the ...One God of Abraham, which God was not the God of the Jews or the Christians...? The answer may well be Yes".  I will later discuss this proposition because at least one other man, Zayd ibn Amr[20] existed and spoke with Mohammed about this subject before Mohammed had his first revelation. A person following such a belief is classified as a Hanif.  Other Hanifs are also said to have pre-existed, as I will later touch upon. The word Hanif is sometimes translated as heretic.

In Islam, the word peace does not necessarily mean the absence of war.

c. Peace - also has various meanings. It can mean the absence of war or strife, a lack  of danger, or safety and security from attack, etc. It can also mean a mental   condition, one which is tranquil or even euphoric in the midst of turmoil. Thus,   one can be at peace, within oneself during a state of conflict. By way of   example:  a religious person can be killing those who attack   his faith and be at   peace within himself (knowing that he is doing the work of God, especially   where he is following that which is set forth in his Holy Book).  It is seen that only a   compliant Muslim can reach this 'state of peace.[21]  And to obtain this peace a   Muslim fighter is to take no prisoners until he has inflicted a slaughter of the   enemy.[22]  Technically, a slave can live in a type of peace so   long as he follows   the commands of his owner, but likely a slave will not be in a mental state of   tranquility.  Koranic Peace, for a compliant Muslim, can only be interpreted or   defined by what act is required of him at that specific point in time. It can occur   during the absence of strife or in the midst of killing/fighting/slaying in the name   of Allah. Sayyid Qut'b called this a "...peace of   conscience..."[23]

The West, AT ITS PERIL, has yet to understand and come to grips with what a "Koranic       Peace means when it calls Islam a religion of peace".[24]

A man becomes free/at peace only when he accepts Islam.

d.  Freedom - The Koran focuses on a 'life hereafter'.  It concentrates on getting into  Paradise. What is emphasized is what the rewards are in Paradise.  Man must   struggle (engage in Jihad) in his current life in order to obtain the benefits of the   hereafter.  Man becomes free only by ...submitting to Allah... Once this   submission has taken place, man is totally liberated/freed from the authority and   repression of all other religions, intellectual forces, and moral and political powers   because he is following the greater power of Allah. Everything is subject to the   Will of God. The Koran covers all aspects of life. Man has no right to legislate   anything, for this is in opposition to Islam.  Any such efforts do not bind the Muslim   because the Koran is all-inclusive: it covers all matters whether religious, criminal   or civil.  The rules of governance by man are to be ignored; only Allah is relevant.   Following the Koran is the one and only way to become truly free. The works of   Muslim scholars are filled with comments such as these.

The concept of an all-inclusive Koran eliminates any possibility of the coexistence of religious Islam with any form of government, other than one which is totally Islamic. This forecloses the possibility of a distinction between what has been called "political Islam and what has been called religious Islam": they are a unity.  Democracy[25], Communism, Socialism, etc. are anathemas to Islam. Religiously, they cannot be tolerated by, much less coexist with Islam. The West has yet to understand this. This also poses one of the most serious threats to the dictatorships within the Muslim world. With these dictatorships and monarchies spreading radical/fundamental Islam, they are  sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Such governments are spreading a fundamentalist theology which is designed to replace them.  Some Muslim governments are now beginning to realize this and are starting to take actions against this threat.  These efforts, by some, might be a bit too late.

The Koran is filled with contradictions.

e.  Supersession or Abrogation -  As in both the Torah and the Gospels, the Koran does   have some internal conflicts.  One need only read the Koran to see some of   them. From time to time, some of these conflicts will be pointed out in this book.   With the Koran, many of these conflicts are explained by the concept of   supersession.  This word means to replace that which heretofore existed.  An   equivalent word or concept is the word abrogation:  a new law replacing an   older one, even if the older one is not removed from the records.  One ignores   the old and enforces the new. When this happens in the Koran, the Koran   assures us that ...the new is equal to or better than the old...[26]

In religion, the word RADICAL means to keep faith with the original concept.

f.  Radical -  As it relates to religion, the word radical means fundamental or core  and not extreme or  fringe.  The word radical has the opposite meaning   when   discussing politics.[27]  Sometimes writers/commentators get these   differences confused because they equate or mix religion with politics.  In   common usage, the meanings of words can change.  If this confusion continues,   we get a new definition for the word radical as it relates to religion.  For religion   we should have been using the word fundamentalism when we spoke of its    original meaning and not using the word radical.  Likely, we are already too   late to make the correction. When discussing fundamentalism and how some   followers varied the original meaning of Islam, it would have been better had the   pundits used   words such as perverted,  fringe or outer edges  rather than   using the word radical when discussing it.  To speak of extreme radicalism, as   it relates to religion, one really means that you are orthodox and not existing in   some fringe environment.  If Islam evolves and adapts into the modern world by   dropping its dark side, this adaption becomes a new extreme fringe of the   original core (radical) religion. One can only hope that this new fringe evolves    into becoming the new core or radical of a transformed religion which used   to be called Islam, but is now really something quite new and different (and   perhaps with a new or abridged Holy Book which clears away the conflicts    contained in the old Book - likely, in religion, this is not possible).

Originally, the word Allah might not have meant The One and Only God.

g.  Allah - It is generally believed that the word Allah was either a generic for the  word God, as it might have applied to any or all of the 360 pagan gods being   worshiped by the Arabs at the time before Mohammed had his first   revelation in 610 A.D., or it applied specifically to the pagan god, Hubal.  For a   short period of time, Mohammed actively included the three daughters of   Hubal into his religion, Islam. They are in the Satanic Verses.[28]  These daughters   then appeared to be part of the godhead (as they seemed to have been in   pagan times). This inclusion, by Mohammed, seemed to influence the local   pagan Quarysh tribe to look favorably upon his teachings.  It appears that in 613   A.D., and very shortly after the Satanic Verses were pronounced, Mohammed   received a new revelation telling him that Satan had interfered with his reciting   the new religious teachings (the Koran) and the daughters should not be part of   Islam. This inclusion made his religion polytheistic and not monotheistic. These   Satanic Verses remain in the Koran as an object lesson. Here we find an example   of an abrogation or supersession of an earlier revelation (changing and giving   new instructions or laws while leaving the old [now inoperable] rules still on the   books).  The initial inclusion of the sister goddesses had made the pagans   happy, but some of Mohammed's followers very unhappy, and he lost some of   those Muslims. Their later exclusion made the pagans unhappy but made the   new Muslims more content.  This vacillation made it more difficult for Mohammed   to acquire additional converts. It also calls into question whether or   not some   other verses are to be totally relied upon. Did Satan intervene more   than just   once and we do not realize it? I discuss this problem elsewhere.

Since the time of Mohammed, the word Allah stands for the monotheistic God,  whether of the Muslims, Christians or Jews.  He is the One and Only God of all.

It has been postulated that Allah was the major god and the other pagan gods  were more akin to saints who were worshiped by particular clans or tribes. There   is nothing to say that this position is incorrect; but it may be problematic.[29]

h.  Sunnah - is defined as "The way of the ideal man (Mohammed). There are  a'hadith (plural; hadith" being the singular) which are the sayings or traditions   related to Mohammed; they are used to explain portions of the Koran.  They   were compiled approximately 100 or more years after the death of   Mohammed   (in 632 A.D.). There exist several different collections of a'hadith. One would have   expected that the Sunnah would have come from, or had been based upon   contemporaneous writings made while Mohammed lived; that the a'hadith   would have been unimpeachable in this regard. This is not the case. They are, at   best, several decades after the fact. Actually, Mohammed explicitedly   warned his followers not to make any such writings and to follow only what the   Koran says. The very existence of the a'hadith is a violation of the instructions of   Mohammed.[30] One can also define Sunnah as the traditional customs and   beliefs of Islam, including the Koran.

i.  Variations in spelling of names/words - most variations have to do with grammar and  not meaning.  The literature uses various spellings because the names and words   are transliterations of sounds, many of which are not found in the English   language. Because of this, I will often interchange them because my sources   interchange them.  These should be obvious to you.

j.  Family relationships: According to some translators, the words, Abu and Abi both   mean my father[31] and they are the equivalent of the words ibn and bin as      words both mean son of (the first two words calling him your father and the   second two words saying you are his son); all deal with the same person, all are   correct, grammar can affect their use. The word bint means daughter of, as it   relates only to her father (even though she may be married), and the word   Oom means mother of her first born son.  As you can see, only the males really   count in establishing the family ties. As a result of this, the name used for a  woman changes as the importance of her relationships change: one goes from   being a child of her father to becoming the parent of her first born son. To   some   translators, the word Abu means father of.[32]  This seems to contradict what I   have earlier said because the emphasis now shifts from being the child of your   father to being the father of your first born son.  Logic tells us Abu can't be   both the son of and the father of; but it can because every father is expected   to name a son (usually his first born son) after his own father (although this does   not always happen); thus, Abu can have more than one meaning: a man will   be the father of his son and he is the son of his own father, ie. the son of a man   has his grandfather's name. So how can you tell which meaning is intended, the   grandfather or the grandson? Simple: you list more than one generation of a   person when   giving his name. Abi would perhaps be used for sons other than   the first one (but here we normally find that the words bin or ibn will be used).   And upon attaining certain ages or the happening of certain events, a man's  name will change![33] In this book, I always use the words Abu and Abi as they   are translated by my sources.  One can also have a nickname which often   begins with an Abu. This is confusing, unless you live in the culture.

k.  Mosque - this is not necessarily a building.  The word means a "place of prostration.    It is holy ground.  Likely, this is the reason why the Saudis consider their entire   country to be a mosque"; it was the land of Mohammed and all of the   revelations.

3.  WHAT IS ISLAMOPHOBIA (AND THE ABUSE OF MISLABELING)?

The meanings of some religiously charged or highly political words are being altered in order to pervert their original definitions.  Generally, this is being done