In the year 622, a seminal event occurred in the history of Islam. Two years earlier, in 620, Muhammad had met with and converted six Arabs from the town of Medina. Then in 621 Muhammad had met with additional converts from Medina and sent a Meccan Muslim back to Medina to teach others about Islam. The religion of Islam started to grow in Medina, and around June of 622 Muhammad met with an even larger group of Muslims from Medina. This group swore to protect Muhammad, and within a month or two, Muslims started emigrating from Mecca to Medina. Muhammad followed them in September of that year. 622 was the year of the Hijrah.
The Hijrah was the turning point for Islam. Muhammad had spent twelve years preaching Islam in Mecca and to the Arab tribes arriving for pilgrimages and fairs. In return, he had been largely ridiculed and rejected. After twelve years there were only about 200 Muslim converts in Mecca, including men, women and children. However, only a little over 7 years after the Hijrah, Muhammad was marching on Mecca at the head of 10,000 Muslim warriors. How did this turning point come about?
Muhammad received his first “revelation” from Allah in 610. Shortly thereafter, his wife Khadija converted to Islam, and she was soon followed by Muhammad’s young cousin Ali.
Even in these beginning days Muhammad was talking about treasures to be acquired through Muslim military conquests. Here is a report about this from an Arab merchant who briefly stayed with Muhammad’s uncle, al-‘Abbas:
I was a merchant, and I came during the pilgrimage and stayed with al-‘Abbas. While we were with him, a man came out to pray and stood facing the Ka’bah. Then a woman came out and stood praying with him, followed by a youth who stood praying with him. I said, “’Abbas, what is this religion? I do not know what this religion is.” He answered, “This is Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah, who claims that God has sent him as His Messenger with this [religion], and that the treasures of Chusroes and Caesar will be given to him by conquest. [1]
But even with this promise of treasures, Muhammad found it difficult to get converts, even among his own Quraysh tribe, and he was publicly ridiculed in Mecca.
Beginning around 614 Muhammad made it a regular practice to approach the members of Arab tribes coming to Mecca during the pilgrimage season, or for fairs, and to preach to them about Islam. Here is how Muhammad would present Islam to them:
…he approached each tribe in its halting place saying: O people! say [sic] there is no god but Allah; you will prosper and become masters of Arabia, and the Persians will surrender before you in humiliation, and if you believe you will become kings in paradise.[2]
The Muslim scholar and theologian at-Tamimi reported a slightly different version of what Muhammad would say to the Arab tribes:
O people! Say: “La Ilaha Illallah” (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah) and you will be successful and you will rule over the Arabs thereby and the non-Arabs will submit to you; and if you die you will be kings in Paradise.[3]
But even though Muhammad repeatedly proclaimed that converting to Islam guaranteed power over non-Muslims and kingship in paradise, his appeal to the Arab tribes had no success. Here is how he was received by one of those tribes, the Banu ‘Amir b. Sa’sa’ah:
One of them called Bayharah b. Firas said: “By God if I could take this young man from Quraysh I could conquer all the Arabs with him.” Then he said, “Do you think that if we follow you and God gives you victory over your opponents we shall have the command after you?” He [Muhammad] replied, “Command belongs to God, who places it where He wills.” Bayharah said, “Are we to expose our throats to the Arabs in your defense, and when you are victorious the command will go to someone else? We do not need your religion.” [4]
For Bayharah, the prospect of conquering “all the Arabs” with Muhammad was initially very appealing; but Muhammad’s inability to guarantee that Bayharah and his tribe would retain power was a deal-breaker.
So during the first ten years of Islam, Muhammad proclaimed that by joining with him in Islam one would have power over the Arabs, and the non-Arabs would submit to them. In Mecca he faced ridicule and little success; among the Arab tribes coming to Mecca he was rejected.
However, that changed in 620 when Muhammad met in the town of Mina with a group of six Arab men on pilgrimage from Medina; these men were from the Khazraj tribe. Muhammad sat down with them, explained Islam, recited some Koran verses, and, based on his pattern, probably talked about how they would be ruling the other Arabs after their conversion to Islam. These six men from Medina accepted Islam. These men, and subsequent converts to Islam in Medina, were known as the Ansar (Helpers).
Muhammad had spent ten years in Mecca talking about Islam, the Koran, and Muslims ruling the non-Muslims, with little success. Why did he have success with these six men?
For these six Khazraj men there was a factor that made them particularly receptive to Muhammad’s teachings: threats from the Jews in Medina. The noted Muslim historian al-Tabari (839-923) explained it this way:
One of the things which God had done for them in order to prepare them for Islam was that the Jews lived with them in their land. The Jews were people of scripture and knowledge, while the Khazraj were polytheists and idolaters. They had gained the mastery over the Jews in their land, and whenever any dispute arose among them the Jews would say to them, “A prophet will be sent soon. His time is at hand. We shall follow him, and with him as our leader we shall kill you as ‘Ad and Iram were killed.” When the Messenger of God spoke to this group of people [the Khazraj] and called them to God, they said to one another, “Take note! This, by God, is the prophet with whom the Jews are menacing you. Do not let them be before you in accepting him.”[5]
So these six Ansar had not accepted Islam because of Muhammad’s religious discourses and recitation of Koran verses; they had rather focused on the promise of Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims and accepted Islam because they believed that Muhammad was the prophet with which the Jews had been threatening them. These six men of the Khajraz wanted to be the first to join with that prophet.
In 621 twelve of the Ansar came to Mecca on pilgrimage and met with Muhammad in a valley called al-‘Aqabah, which was located near Mina. They took an oath of allegiance to Muhammad and pledged to accept and practice Islam. This was known as the “First Pledge of al-‘Aqabah.” Since there was no consideration of fighting or providing protection to Muhammad, this first pledge was also known as the “Pledge of Women.”
In 622, 73 males and two females of the Ansar came to Mecca and met with Muhammad again at al-‘Aqabah. They took an oath of allegiance to Muhammad and swore to protect him as they would their wives and children if he came to Medina. This was known as the “Second Pledge of al-‘Aqabah.” This oath of allegiance included a pledge to wage war against all of mankind:
When they gathered to take the oath of allegiance to the Messenger of God, al-‘Abbas b. ‘Ubadah b. Nadlah al-Ansari…said, “People of the Khazraj, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?” “Yes,” they said. He continued, “In swearing allegiance to him you are pledging yourselves to wage war against all mankind.”[6]
The Ansar would later say:
We are those who have given the Bai’a (pledge) to Muhammad for Jihad (i.e. holy fighting) as long as we live.[7]
This oath of allegiance also meant that the Ansar would have to sever their ties with the Jews of Medina. One of the Ansar said to Muhammad:
O Messenger of God, there are ties between us and other people which we shall have to sever (meaning the Jews). If we do this and God gives you victory, will you perhaps return to your own people and leave us?” The Messenger of God smiled and then said, “Rather, blood is blood, and blood shed without retaliation is blood shed without retaliation. You are of me and I am of you. I shall fight whomever you fight and make peace with whomever you make peace with.”[8]
Muhammad appeared to have learned from his earlier unsuccessful interchange with Bayharah b. Firas.
The meeting ended and Muhammad told the Ansar to return to their camp. But before they left, al-‘Abbas b. ‘Ubadah said to Muhammad:
By Him who sent you with the truth, if you wish we shall fall upon the people of Mina with our swords tomorrow.[9]
Al-‘Abbas had apparently taken to heart Muhammad’s claims about Muslims ruling over non-Muslims. But al-‘Abbas probably suggested attacking the non-Muslims of Mina the next day, instead of immediately, because he was the only one who was carrying a sword that night.[10] Nevertheless, instead of admonishing ‘Abbas against killing the people of Mina, Muhammad simply said that they had not been commanded to do this.
Shortly after the “Second Pledge of al-‘Aqabah” Muhammad said that Allah had given the Meccan Muslims permission to emigrate to Medina. The small group of Muslims left Mecca and settled with the Ansar in Medina. Muhammad followed soon afterwards.[11] In less than eight years, Muhammad and his Muslim army would return in triumph to Mecca.
The promise of Muslim superiority over non-Muslims had been preached by Muhammad since the early days of Islam. But this message had been generally rejected by the Meccans and visiting Arab tribes. It was the hostility in Medina between the Jews and the Khazraj tribe, and the associated threat made by those Jews that made Muhammad’s message appealing to the six men of the Khazraj. Had these six joined the others in rejecting Muhammad’s message there would have been no Hijrah, and the religion of Islam could have ended in Mecca with the death of Muhammad.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of five books about Islam. His latest book is The Lure of Fantasy Islam: Exposing the Myths and Myth Makers.
[1] Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, Vol. VI, trans. and annotated W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), p. 82. Chusroes (Chosroes) was the King of Persia, and the name Caesar referred to Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor.
[2] Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri al-Basri, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, trans. S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 2009), Vol. 1, p. 250.
[3] Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab at-Tamimi, Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, ed. ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Nasir Al-Barrak, ‘Abdul ‘Azeez bin ‘Abdullah Ar-Rajihi, and Muhammad Al-‘Ali Al-Barrak (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2003), p. 117.
[4] The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 121. This was similarly reported in Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 195.
[5] The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, pp. 124-125. This reason was also noted in Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, p. 160; The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), pp. 197-198; Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), pp. 175-176; and Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, When the Moon Split (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2009), p. 151.
[6] The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 134. This statement by al-‘Abbas b. ‘Ubadah was similarly reported in The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 204; and The Sealed Nectar, p. 192.
[7] Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 5, Book 63, No. 3796, p. 86.
[8] The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 133. For a similarly worded report see The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), pp. 203-204; The Sealed Nectar, p. 191; and Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, p. 166.
[9] The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 135. This statement was similarly reported in The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 205; The Sealed Nectar, p. 195; and Abridged Biography of Prophet Muhammad, p. 168.
[10] Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 258.
[11] Before Muhammad emigrated, he was continuing to claim that Muslims would rule over non-Muslims. Here is an incident that occurred shortly before he left Mecca, when a group of non-Muslim Meccans were gathered outside his front door:
…among them [the Meccans] was Abu Jahl b. Hisham, who said, while they were waiting at his door, “Muhammad claims that if you follow him in his religion, you shall be the kings of the Arabs and the non-Arabs, that after your death you shall be brought back to life and your lot shall then be gardens like the gardens of Jordan. He also claims that if you do not do this, you shall meet with slaughter from him, and that after your death you shall be brought back to life, and your lot shall then be a fire, in which you shall burn.” Then the Messenger of God came out, took a handful of dust and said, “Yes, I do say that; and you are one of them.”
The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 143.
David Anderson says
Could have? Should have! Islam is the oldest, most successful religious fraud in history.
mortimer says
Thank you, Dr. Kirby! This is a fantastic and informative article.
I would like to learn your views of the SAALIK and the role they played in the start of Islam. I always found the role of the ANSAR to be very confusing. You have quickly filled in the gaps in this very queer story of how this sly opportunist trick his way to absolute power.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s book The Lure of Fantasy Islam: Exposing the Myths and Myth Makers is on Amazon and I will be buying his books.
Karen says
As will I.
gravenimage says
Yes–sometimes the Ansar are presented as Muslim converts, sometimes as “helpful” non-Muslims allying with Muslims against Infidels resisting Islam. I imagine they were a combination of the two early on.
blitz2b says
@graven “….sometimes as “helpful” non-Muslims allying with Muslims against Infidels resisting Islam….”
Sounds very much like the liberal left of today .. When God will not side with the evil doers, Satan will provide his own minions to aid and abet Islam it’s growth, spread and conquest of infidel lands.
” Those who refuse to learn from history will be doomed by it….”
Tee ‘n’ the Wildlife says
This book is no longer on Amazon. Or are any books by Kirby. I just checked.
Aardvark says
I just searched for Stephen M Kirby on both Amazon.uk and Amazon.com.
All his books are there on both sites.
Paul says
Satan would never let that happen. If Jesus was going to have his army (Christians), then Satan was going to have his.
Raja says
In the case of Christians the Lord fights for you , if we keep obeying him in all aspects but In Islam the unprincipled allah wants man to fight for him with absolute savagery and immorality and in the process attain hell.What a contrast !
Little wonder Richard Dawkins calls Islam an evil religion. A courageous man indeed.
gravenimage says
Yes–good for Richard Dawkins. The late Christopher Hitchens was a brave man, too.
Chand says
Raja says: “Little wonder Richard Dawkins calls Islam an evil religion. A courageous man indeed.”
Yes. Richard Dawkins is definitively courageous, correct and fair. Dawkins went on to say: “………….of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else. They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.”
LeftisruiningCanada says
Pity Dawkins didn’t realize that ‘extreme’ islam is merely the islam of mohammad…..
mortimer says
Islam grew because both Byzantium and the Persian Empire had suffered a sudden plague in which 25% or more of the adult population of professional, business and soldiers were suddenly snuffed out, throwing their societies precipitously into unorganized CHAOS. Persia and Byzantium could not fight each other and they could not mobilize troops to fight the Mohammedans.
Once Caliph Abd al Malik established his capital at Damascus, far north of Arabia and rival Caliph Zubayr established a capital in Iraq, the growth of Islam was assured, because no one was left in those territories to mount a defense.
If only the modern world would fight Islam INTELLECTUALLY, Islam would quickly fall, because there is intellectual argument with which to defend Islam.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
mortimer, the has been non.mithraist Christian evangelist liars tried, but woefully failed and their concocted lies against Islam dismissed as mère fastasies even at your own Christian West. what can you do ?
mortimer says
Ibrahim, you are a sly trickster like the trickster whom you deify.
CRUSADER says
—- no intellectual argument with which to defend Islam.
gravenimage says
The vile Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
mortimer, the has been non.mithraist Christian evangelist liars tried, but woefully failed and their concocted lies against Islam dismissed as mère fastasies even at your own Christian West. what can you do ?
……………………
Notice that Ibrahim itace muhammed has never been able to say just what these “lies” might be.
What he *really* means is anything that Muslims find inconvenient to have exposed to the Infidels.
He himself has affirmed that Muslims can rape Infidel women and use them as sex slaves, slaughter anyone who resists submitting to Islam, and commit genocide agains the Jews–this last something he has said he is looking forward to taking part in. *Ugh*.
CRUSADER says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggests and highly recommends that Muslims abandon the parts of the Koran (and thereby reform Islam) which were verses during the latter Medina period, and keep only those verses from the early Mecca period. As if this is a workable solution. Mudhammam was already perversely looking to use conquering to be his scheme. No real religion of peace, only of pieces and of materialist conquest.
Falters in front of Christianity and Buddhism.
O Muslims: abandon your faith in this scheme. Mudhamman was a false prophet! A philanderer. And a thief of words….quite the charlatan as a cult leader with a giant ego, insatiable and sadistic.
Islam is not only lame, it is a sociopathy.
roberta says
”—- no intellectual argument with which to defend Islam.”
It does not need one, it has idiots with which to do that. Mohamed was the one eyed man in the Kingdom of the Blind. I understand being born into the bad joke or conversion by sword, but willful conversion is just out of my league.
CRUSADER says
Roberta,
I’m glad you have distanced yourself by many leagues from this Pisslamic Plague.
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, the Medinan verses are not just an intrinsic part of the Qur’an, they actually abrogate the Meccan verses.
I have the greatest respect for the brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali–but Muslims are never going to do this.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Ignorant Satan (holy spirit) worshiper Gravenimage, show me how madinan suras Abrogated meccan suras with specific examples.The subject “Nasikh wal mansukh “is scholarly area, not trial and error or speculations.
Marina says
Instead of ridiculing and rejecting him the Arabs should have crushed him to death. End of Islam.
elee says
Applause for both Mortimer and Jay Boo. Applause to this site for carrying this article with footnotes.
Mortimer, remember that Muslims reason with the sword. They’ve won a lot of arguments that way & retain them by killing apostates.
Raja says
Elee, I am a fan of Mortimer the great and Jay Boo too. They never tire reasoning about the vile Islam.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Raja, mortimer is coming closer to Durga goddess and Dharma idols to worship because his mithraist christianity came from the same Satan (holy spirit).
LeftisruiningCanada says
And yet it is mohammad who slaughtered his way to dominance while poking little girls.
Does Christ’s life sound more like satan compared to that?
CRUSADER says
Mudmammam was the one who listened to the Satanic Verses, and was persuaded by them…
Where as Jesus THE CHRIST had nothing to do with the devil/shaytan but to tell him to take a hike….
Hey, Mr Irritates, go take a long walk off a short pier….into the depths without water-wings.
gravenimage says
Notice that Ibrahim itace muhammed is unable to actually counter a single point that Mortimer makes. No surprise there.
CRUSADER says
Life
…Death…
are all about timing, and placement.
+++++++++
DEUS VULT
+++++++++
POD in Canuckistan says
I would be content if islam died now. Alas it is not to be…
Z says
We should have been so lucky
David says
The main attraction for ugly, smelly desert warriors was all the free girls one can manage. No cost, no commitments, no more cold. lonely nights with just the camel and goat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB15kBvn_c
CRUSADER says
“Ahab the Arab” – silly song by Ray Stevens
But, this is EXACTLY how it happened…..
No wonder the Koran had to be rewritten to sound tough enough for conquerors to continue on….
Mudhamman apparently wasn’t inspiring enough, because he was actually Ahab.
Waterdog says
Satan saw too much potential for evil in Islam to just let it fade away.
Manny says
From the very beginning Islam was justified as an expansionist and supremacist religion. It is dangerous. Keep them out!
Theodorik says
Even the earliest of the primary sources on the life of Muhammad were only written many decades after Muhammad’s death. For Kirby to credulously accept as established fact all the details and explanations found in these highly questionable sources is simply absurd. The very same sources solemnly report many silly miracles supposedly performed by Muhammad, such as feeding a hundred men with a spoonful of food etc. What does this tell you about how much credence they should be granted?
Richard says
“Even the earliest of the primary sources on the life of Muhammad were only written many decades after Muhammad’s death. For Kirby to credulously accept as established fact all the details and explanations found in these highly questionable sources is simply absurd. ”
Maybe but the most plausible alternative theory – which is that M. didn’t even exist is even worse for Islam.
What is not in dispute is that the Saracens (as they were originally called) conducted a campaign of violent conquest across much of North Africa and the Middle east between 630AD and the early 8th century.
What is not in dispute is that these stories – whether true or false it really doesn’t matter – were used to justify that violent conquest.
So Islam is either a fake religion invented to justify war before the fact – or after the fact.
For the record, Robert Spencer is currently (AFAIK) in the M. never existed camp.
See this video.for a discussion of the point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8
CRUSADER says
Jay Boo, according to Mark Durie in “Third Choice”
the prophet’s aunt called him by a derogatory term
with a bit of slant on his name:
Mudhammam
How about continuing utilizing that moniker?
CRUSADER says
Mudhammam had meant “Reprobate”
Which in the strictest term means predestined to damnation.
In other ways, (often used humorously or affectionately)….it means unprincipled person.
synonyms: rogue, rascal, scoundrel, miscreant, good-for-nothing, villain, wretch, rake, degenerate, libertine, debauchee
These ALL describe Mudhammam quite well, don’t you think?
Why wouldn’t scoundrels follow his lead as the perfect example?
Ha !!!!
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Stephen m kirby, your stuff is rubbish based on speculations and wrong assumptions as usual. Do you know that meccan nobles offered political power to prophet muhammad, being from ruling family of mecca, for him to abandone his call for monotheism, but he déclined ? Hé never sought for any alliance with anyone to dominate Arabia and beyond.
CRUSADER says
(yawn)
gravenimage says
The “Prophet” Muhammed was just bent on violently dominating Arabia–and beyond–himself.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself affirmed that Muslims can conquer and murder anyone who does not submit to Islam.
Richard says
Ibrahim
M believed that the sun sets in a muddy spring. (which implies that the earth is flat)
He even put those word into the Koran – implying that it is the timelessly true dictated word of God.
Frankly Islam doesn’t pass the laugh test.
I AM THE INFIDEL YOUR IMAM WARNED YOU ABOUT says
Once again Ibrahim itace muhammed drops out of muhammed’s arse hole to spew his nonsense.
CRUSADER says
‘Origins of Islam’
lecture by Tom Holland at
Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, January 2017
(….and its “notorious jihadi community of Rancho Mirage”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4&t=598s
Where did Islam come from? The story of how it came to be established across a vast empire stretching from the Atlantic to the frontiers of China is conventionally traced back to the charisma and inspiration of a single man: Muhammad. But his story was not written until 200 years later. Join historian Tom Holland, who has received death threats for challenging the long-held origins of Islam.
Documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5zxPGk99cM
Tom Holland: ‘Islam: The Untold Story’ Channel 4 UK Documentary
Demsci says
Thanks a lot for that post, Crusader. I did read Tom Holland”s book on the origines of Islam, as I did Robert Spencer’s book on that topic. And I like to listen to Jay Smith when HE talks about it.
What I came away with, among other things, is a timeline; Abd Al Malik reigned 695-705. And it seems he did a lot to establish Islam (as did As Zubayr, his contemporary). But it took many more years for the Sira and the Hadiths to be, say, get sorted. By Al Bukhari and others (with the sahi hadiths from them).
But what if we pauze at this juncture (around 900 AD) for reflection for a moment? As I understand it, by then the holy scriptures of Islam were complete or near completion. And remember, these are considered divine and cannot be altered. So what if we are allowed to interpret Islam as it was THEN?
But after 900, says Jay Smith, came al Tabari, the first of many Tafsirs. And later came the Islamic scholars and schools of thought. But all these can be considered only human, can they not? good, but still fallible on occasion.
My point is that we can endeavour to distinquish between Islam around 900 and the later Tafsirs and Scholars. But that both the Muslims and the knowledgeable critical Kuffars do not even try this and present the two intertwined and as one. But the Tafsirs and scholars express mere opinions of interpretation, no more.
But if we did try to distinguish, we could say that humans cannot be authoritative the way “divine texts” are.
And Islam without Tafsirs and Scholars can be shown to be still very unclear, Multi-interpretable.
This allows for creative interpretation, up to and including interpreting Mohammeds commands and deeds as time-bound, descriptive and NOT prescriptive, and the Medinan verses NOT abrogating the Meccan verses.
Critical Kuffars can “exposing” the Islamic schools of thought as mere humand and use this to our advantage, because the tafsirs and scholars arguably are not right with EVERY part of THEIR INTERPRETATION of the basis Islamic texts.
This is NOT an attempt to whitewash Islam. That is often done by people who think their audience is ignorant about Islam. But if we “expose” Tafsirs and Scholars as “mere humans” who are not authoritative, we display deep knowledge of Islam.
If we think about this, in a sort of think-experiment, it could be to our advantage to separate the trilogy from the Tafsirs and the Scholars
Demsci says
Muslims may hate when the whole of Islam is known AND exposed by critical very knowledgeable Kuffars but then both the Muslims and the knowledgeable Kuffars DO agree that Islam is a clear religion.
But Muslims may well hate it even more when Islam (as it was without the Tafsirs and Scholars, or at least without some important parts of their work) is described as Vague, Unclear, Incomplete, Multi-interpretable. As I believe that followers of all religions hate that and as we do know that the Quran itself says it is clear.
Annabelle says
What did the people of Mecca and Medina call the year 612AD (or whatever year came before Muhammad etc) ? Answer, The “Good ‘ole days!”
Manny says
Another thought. Imagine what the world would have been like if Mohammed had been stopped and Islam withered on the vine? How unfortunate.
CRUSADER says
It can still wither.
AND IT WILL….
tim gallagher says
Yes, the world would have been far better if Islam had died out way back then, Manny. But the human race has to put up with a lot of these vile, murderous movements. The world would have been far better if Communism, another mass-murdering ideology, Nazism and Islam hadn’t existed. The sooner Islam becomes extinct the better. I believe, like CRUSADER, that Islam will become extinct. I hope it happens fairly quickly although that’s unlikely. I agree with gravenimage and infidel, just below, so much bloodshed could have been avoided if Islam had become extinct long ago.
gravenimage says
Islam could have died with Muhammad
………………….
Very true–Islam had no real success until they started attacking, robbing, and murdering Infidels. This is the heart of this foul creed.
Important article from Stephen Kirby.
infidel says
How much I wish that had happened!! Instead, the world has been subjected to non-stop anguish and violence by this blood thirsty cult till today and looks like it is not going to stop anytime soon!!!
RodSerling says
“Even in these beginning days Muhammad was talking about treasures to be acquired through Muslim military conquests.”
That’s an important point by Kirby. We often read apologists and even many critics of Islam claiming that the Meccan period was “peaceful,” in contrast to the Medinan period. In the Meccan period, Muhammad lacked political and military power, but his basic plan was consistent: Use this new “religion” to unite and rule the Arabs and then conquer the non-Arabs. When he threatened “I bring you slaughter,” that was in Mecca. Qital (killing) in the way of Allah is glorified in the Meccan portion of the Qur’an, not just in the Medinan.
Richard says
No I think his plan was always just to enrich himself and become powerful by whatever means was available. His ambitions grew when he became more successful and his methods became more violent when he saw violence working for him.
At least the communists did have a plan with a plausibly beneficial endpoint. However, just like M. , they became steadily more violent and totalitarian as they saw it working.
The difference was that communism came out of a Christian culture as was born of Christian ideals. Ultimately it collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
Unfortunately Islam is more internally consistent because it is built on a combination of the Old Testament (much distorted) and paganism.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Makes sense to me.
Dr. Christoph Heger says
These stories about some Mohammed in Mecca or Medina are part of the Islamic historiography, believed by the Muslims, but lacking real historic evidence.
RodSerling says
I agree. Any discussion of Muhammad’s “biography” should acknowledge that early Islamic “history” written by Muslims is highly dubious.
Demsci says
Jay Smith is exposing the official version on Islamic history very well in my opinion. He says he focuses on healing doubts on the Man and the Book, meaning Mohammed and the Quran.
In addition he, quoting Dan Gibson, points to the original Qibla (direction of prayer) being to PETRA! And the possibility of Mohammed (some person that much inspired the Quran at least) lived around Petra and not around Mecca. Mecca it seems, is totally undocumented before 700 AD or even later!
Daniël Pipes described that the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is very dubieus, because it follows from Mohammed’s nocturnal ride on Buraq, flying mule-like animal, to “the furthest Mosque”. But in the official Mohammed’s lifetime there wasn’t a Mosque in Jerusalem, that came only later.
Jay Smith says; in the past, long since, Christianity was sort of “eviscerated”, it is only fair to now ‘eviscerate Islam”. Rendering it highly untrustworthy. And perhaps this is even better for mankind than describing Islam as clearly evil in relation to modern democratic culture.
Demsci says
Typo; Heaping instead of healing
St. Manuel II Palailogos says
Correction. *Should* have died.
Billy Chickens says
Filthy Islam was spawned from the filthy mind of the filthy Devil who told filthy Muhammad that he was Filthy Allah and to write his filthy words down in the filthy Quran.
IanB says
The false prophet Muhammad invented Islam to gain wealth and power through deceit and violence. He was not the “Perfect Man” as Muslims suppose but a perfect example of a narcissistic psychopath.
Peter A Melville says
Dr. Kirby, Indeed it is sad that Islam didn’t die with Muhammad. The more that is known about Islam, the more we see what a fabrication it is. But it appealed to the lusts of men who cared not for the truth. I have heard that Muhammad actually grew up around Petra and some of the early Mosques faced Petra, have you been able to confirm this?
TL says
See the translation by Sam Gerrans, “an English writer and speaker with professional backgrounds in media, strategic communications, and technologies”. A copy which I downloaded more than a year ago discussed the qibla issue and cited several examples of madjids like you described. He includes some aerial photos, as well.
https://www.quranite.com