(This document is used by permission of Dr. Jay Smith)

A Historical Critique on Islam’s Beginnings
Jay Smith
Hong Kong, October 2017

 “Muslims claim that Muhammed was the last and greatest prophet. They will say that the Qur’an was his revelation, sent down only to  him and is the final and greatest revelation, that he received it over a period of 23 years from 610 to 632, and then was compiled completely at the time of Uthman, about 20 years after he died, and that it’s never changed, and that Islam is the final religion based on Muhammed’s life and sayings (the Sunnah) and on the Qur’an’s teaching.”

Muslims believe that Muhammed was born about 570 to a mother named Aminab.   He was born in Mecca and in 610 he began receiving revelations in Mecca which are the more friendly revelations, but in 622 to 632 he received what are called  the Medinan revelations.   He returned to conquer Mecca in 630 and died in 632 possibly by poisoning.

Problems:   “None of this was written down during the time of Muhammad at all. None of it was written down in the same century as Muhammed.  None of it was written during this period following Muhammed.   The first person to write down the story of Muhammed,  the Sira, is named  Ibn Ishaq who died in 765.  We don’t have Ibn Ishaq’s material.  It doesn’t exist today.  We are only told about it by this man, Ibn Hisham who died in 833, in the ninth century.

“Everything we know about Muhammed, what he did, what he was doing in Medina, what he was doing in Mecca, …the entire classical account about who Muhammed was and how Islam began, is first written down in the ninth century.”

Muhammed’s sayings are even more problematic.  If you want to go to Muhammed’s sayings you need to go al-Bukhari who died in 870.  He is the first man to write down what Muhammed said.  It is said that 600.000 sayings were given to him, and he threw out all but  7400 sayings.   It was written down  249 years after Muhammed’s  death. “If you want to get the other hadiths, like Sahih Muslim or Ibn Dawood, or even Al-Tirmidhi, they all come after al-Bukhari.
If you want to talk about the Tafsi, which means the commentaries on this book, you need to go to al-Tabari who died  in 920.  That’s the 10 century, or 300 years later.

Did Islam began as we have been told?  Is there a city of Mecca?  Was this the original holy city?  Did the Qibla originally face Mecca?

Conclusions from these questions:

First of all, they say that the first Arab inscription referencing Muhammed does not exist until 691.  There are no references to Muhammed in any Arab sources prior to 691.  The fitst reference to a religion called Islam is not until 691.  It is first introduced on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.  The first reference to Mecca, THE CITY OF MECCA is not until 741   (think about that)  There is no reference to that city anywhere in the century that he lived and the first biography, as already seen, within Islamic sources until 833.  But there were Arabs conquering cities but never called Muslims.   They called themselves  Saracens,  Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, or Muhajiroun.  They were nomadic.

One of the first problems is geography itself. There are 65 geographical names or places in the Qur’an, but nine places are repeated frequently.
We know of 23 references to the people from ‘Ad, which is the Biblical ‘Uz.
We have 24 references to the people from Thamud, which is the other name for the Nabateans.
They cut dwellings into mountains, things like that.
We have seven references to the people from Midian.
So therefore, these people from ‘Ad, Thamud and Midian must be pretty important if they are having this much contact with this prophet, but there is no reference in any of this to a place called Mecca.
Yet take a look and see where ‘Ad, Thamud and Midian are.
The people from ‘Ad, Thamud and Midian are where?  (map on video)
Mecca was way down here.
There’s 600 miles between these two unless this prophet – you know why I’m saying “This prophet,” because in the Qur’an you will only find Muhammad’s name four times in the Arabic.

Only in English he’s been added there.
Every time it says “the prophet” or the “the representative of God” or the “Nabi, Nabi of Allah” it’s always, in parentheses, Muhammad.
That’s the reference, that’s the inference, that’s later Muslims have put that in.
But on the Arabic, he’s not in there in the Arabic, except four times.
How many times is Jesus named here in the Qur’an?
93 times, which supposes that Jesus is more important than Muhammad even in the Qur’an, if you want to go by number of times that He’s referred to
Now when you look at the 65 references, geographical references, we find that almost in every case the nine names of places every time they do not fit Mecca, 600 miles too far North.
When you look at the 110 geographical references in the Gospel of Luke, you will find he talked about 31 places named all right.
In every case all of them were correct, the right place, the right time, in the right area.
Now, let’s go to Mecca and this is where you can really see the problem.
How many times is Mecca referred to in this book?

Once, Sura 48:24
That’s it.
If it’s such an important city, why is there only one reference to it?
We do know that quite a bit about Mecca.
We know that if you look at the traditions and if you look at the Qur’an.
When you look at the traditions you will see that Mecca was the first sanctuary appointed.
It doesn’t say “Mecca”.
It just says “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah,” Sura 3:96.
It assumes that the place of the prophet is the “mother of all settlements”, that it is where Adam and Eve were thrown down to.
It is where Mecca is.
It’s where Abraham lived in 1,900 BC, according to Sura 21, but it doesn’t say the word ‘Mecca.’
It just says “This place of the prophet.”
So therefore, it’s a pretty important place, though it never gives it a name.
It just says “The place of the prophet”.
The only reference we have is Sura 48:24.
Why is it only referred to once if it’s so important?
If it is the earliest settlement in the history of mankind, it is where Abraham went to rebuild the Kaa’ba, if it was a center of trade in North, South, East or West, if it’s where Muhammad himself supposedly was born and grew up, then why don’t they name the name?
When you look at the tradition you notice that this place where this prophet is from, that it’s in a valley and has a parallel valley that has a stream going through it.
It has a pillar of “Salt”, it has fields, it has trees, it has grass, it has fruit, it has loam, it has “Olive trees” and it has mountains overlooking the Kaa’ba.
None of these things fit Mecca.
Mecca is not in a valley, does not have a parallel valley, does not have a stream going through it.
It doesn’t have a pillar of salt.
If this is what is Lot’s wife, that is way too far south.
That’s about 600 miles too far south.
It does not have fields, trees, grass, fruits, and loam.
It does not have olive trees.
There are no olive trees anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula.
The only olive trees that exist are in the Mediterranean, 600 miles further north.
Olive trees have never existed that far south.
This is the seventh century Byzantine map.
It’s not on this map.  (see video)
This is the northern plateau, but they miss completely Mecca.
When you look at an official map you’ll see.
This is a sixth century map.
This is the time Muhammad was living.
There is no place called Mecca anywhere on the eastern coast or the western coast side.
Here’s another seventh century map, still missing

Guess when she (Dr. Patricia Crone) found the first reference to Mecca in any documentation.
It was on the Apocalypse of pseudo-Methodius Continuato Byzantia Arabica written in 741.
Muhammad died in 632, was born in 570 supposedly in the city that no one ever heard about before.
And for over 100 years after Muhammad’s death, there is no reference to this city at all.
The first map that you will see Mecca finally displayed on it is not till 900 AD, that’s the 10thcentury.
Now why have Muslims not told us this before?
Let’s look at modern Mecca today.

If you dig up any building in Jerusalem or in Amman, or even possibly even here in Hong Kong, the further you dig the more you come across artifacts because that’s – those are residues from former civilizations.
So, the archeologists have to have come then.
You can see they’re digging it all up and what have they found?
Absolutely nothing, Mecca has no history.
If Mecca did not exist prior to the seventh, the eighth century, then you need to ask:
“What are we going to do with the Qibla?”
Many mosques have these Qiblas.
They’re pushed into the wall to show where Mecca is in every mosque around the world.
So today every Muslim knows where Mecca is.
There is no excuse not to know here Mecca is and why?
Because in Sura 2:143-145, the direction of prayer is then dictated that it must be redirected from Jerusalem and back down, but it doesn’t say “Mecca,” just “To the holy place.”
They have put Mecca there in the parentheses.
So, everybody does assume that from 624 on, every Qibla of every mosque should be facing Mecca, right?
Because there were no mosques before that time; mosques – Islam really did not begin until the Caliph began, and that’s in 624.
So, every mosque that would have been built would have been after 624.
Archeology supports this change, not from Jerusalem to Mecca as Muslims suggest, but to some place further north!
When – back in 1905 two researchers in the Middle East, Dr. Fehervari and Dr. Creswell were going around that part of the road, it was still open.
They had not closed to foreigners.
And they were looking and they were trying to find the earliest mosque that they could find.
And they found the mosque at Fustat’, which is outside of Cairo.
Dan spent 25 years asking this question.
And he wrote two books, “The Qur’anic Geography” and this book.
And this is the book that now unpacked all of them.
What he did is he personally went to every early mosque.
He’s the only one that I know of that has gone to all 65 of the earliest mosques, physically gone there, studied them, looked and found where the Qiblas were for every one of these mosques.
He took photographs of all the earliest mosques.
Here’s the qibla facing Mecca but they found an entirely new qibla wall facing this direction, facing the completely opposite direction.
Now, they understood why it was always known as the “Mosque of the 2 Qiblas”.
So where is that second, earlier, qibla facing?
Not Jerusalem, but Petra.
626: So, this is before Muhammad had died.
In China, Guangzhou, Canton, as far as China, there is a mosque there.
It’s still there today.
You can still look at the qibla and look and see where the qibla is.
It was built in 627.
It’s facing Petra, as far away as Guangzhou.
He used Archnet put up by MIT, the most sophisticated GPS format – formation so that you can see the exact coordinates
Look at this one, the Cheraman Juma Masjid in India.
Look at the date, 629.
Muhammad died in 632.
It was still before Muhammad’s death.
Look at the direction it’s facing.
It’s facing Petra.
The Jami’ Hama al-Kabir Mosque in Syria
Now, we jumped to Syria.
Look where it’s facing.
It’s facing Petra, not Mecca.
Look at the Humeina Mosque in Jordan, the Humeina Mosque, built in 699.
We’re at the end of the seventh century.
It is facing Petra, not Mecca.
The Amman Mosque in Jordan in 701, now we’re moving into the eighth century.
Notice how all of these mosques up until 706, every mosque up until 706, all of the Qiblas faced Petra.
When you look at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is right here, and you look at the Dome of the Rock, which is right there, and you look at the entire citadel which is still there standing today, the entire citadel is facing Petra.
And you cannot change it unless you destroy it and rebuild it again.
It's not facing Mecca.
Even today, it’s not facing Mecca.
And this is built in 709.
That’s built in 709.
That’s built in 691.
The entire same citadel is facing Petra.
It’s not facing Mecca.
So, there’s still mosque being built even as late as 771 that are facing Petra.
Here is the Suma’il Omani Mosque in Oman.
It’s facing Petra.
Look at the date, 771.
All the mosques in North Africa are facing straight south, not east, not southeast, but straight south.
So, when you look at these fourth Qiblas, all the Qiblas were facing Petra up until 706.
There was confusion for the next hundred years.
17 of them faced Petra, eight are between, six are parallel, and only 10 faced Mecca.
The qibla was not finalized towards Mecca until 876, the late ninth century, almost 250 years too late.
Why Petra?
Why were all the mosques facing Petra?
To do that, you need to look and see where Petra is.
Take a look where Petra is.
It’s right in the center of all the trade.
So, what is Petra?
Well, it was the sanctuary of the Umayyads.
It was a sanctuary before that of the Nabateans.
The Nabateans were ones that controlled Petra.
When you go to Petra today, you will see.
It’s where there are tombs and temples. And it was the center of Nabateans.
The Nabateans were there from the second century BC.
They controlled that whole area.
They were the ones that give us Arabic.
Arabic language comes from the Nabataean language.
The name for God in Arabic is Allah.
Allah is a Nabataean god.
Allah is the name of the Nabataean god.
They are seen as their superior god.
Also, Hubal is another name.
It’s another formal name for Allah.
Interestingly, the Nabataean Allah has a wife named al-Lat and al- ‘Uzza.
Whoo, do, do, do, do, do, which means Allah has a wife.
I had no idea, which means the Nabataean Allah is a pagan god and a polytheistic god.
So, when Muslims say that Allah is one, then I would like to know what they’re going to do with the Nabataean Allah, which is where they got the name from.
Do you see the problem with using the name Allah?
It’s the wrong name.
It’s a pagan name.
It's a polytheistic name.
It’s a pre-Islamic name.
It is not a Christian name.
It is not a biblical name.
The name for God on the Bible is not Allah.
It is Yahweh.
Yahweh has no wife but Yahweh has a son.
Isn't that interesting?
Make sure you get the right name.
What's fascinating to me is that most Muslims here tonight should know where al-Lat and al- ‘Uzza are because that’s in the Qur’an in Surah 53:19-20.
Am I not correct, Tariq?
In Surah 53:19-20, you have reference to al-Lat, al-Manat, and al- ‘Uzza.
These are known as the Satanic verses.
These are the three gods that supposedly Muhammad introduced into the Qur’an.
Satan supposedly seduced him by leaving those verses in.
And that’s why Gabriel when he moved to …, excised to take out those verses.
He took out those verses when he left the three names there.
And they’re still there today.
And this is the name – this is the Satanic verses that Salman Rushdie made famous in his book called “The Satanic Verses.”
Every Muslim scholar knows about these Satanic verses.
Now, we now know where al-Lat and al- ‘Uzza come from.
These are the two goddesses who have the same name that is the wife.
Al-Lat is the feminine form of Allah.
That’s why it makes sense now.
That’s why Allah is the wrong god.
They – whoever put the Qur’an together should never have used that name and never have said this god is one because they – al-Lat and al- ‘Uzza and Allah all belong to the same god in this family.
when you look at Petra, take a look at Petra  Petra is in a valley.
It has a parallel valley.
There, you can see the valley.
You can see the parallel valley.
It has a stream going right through it at this part.
And it has a number of streams.
It has fields.
It has trees.
It has grass.
It has clay.
It has loam.
It has olive trees.
Everything that we see in the Qur’an about this city where this prophet comes from fits Petra.
Not one of these geographical cases fits Mecca.
Petra has all the items listed in the Qur’an.
That’s true.
Petra would be the place that the Qur’an is referring to.
When we look at Petra even closer, we find that the people in ‘Ad which are mentioned 23 times in the Qur’an, the people from Thamud which are mentioned 24 times, and the people from Midian which are mentioned seven times, all are around Petra.
Now, the significance of that:
Nothing is known about Muhammad until the late seventh century from within Arab sources.
His biography, the Sira, and his sayings, the Hadith, did not appear until the ninth century.
His city Mecca isn't referred to until the eighth century.
Thus, much of what we know of Muhammad is even written down hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away.
It looks like he is nothing more than a later redaction.
He’s been put back by the later writers and put, imposed into the wrong place.
It looks like he’s nothing more than a redaction possibly by Abd al-Malick!
Why do I bring up Abd al-Malick?
He is highly significant.
Humphreys says,
“Islam, and the prophet’s life, as we know it, was not derived from the seventh century, but evolved over a period of 200-300 years, and redacted back on to the prophet’s life, and compiled possibly in the 9th century.”
Now, let’s go summarize it and we’re going to come and find and bring it all to a conclusion.
New books and documentaries are being published which question the Classical Account of Islam’s beginnings.
Why are there no Muslim sources for 200 years?
That’s the first question.
Why do the claims they make not fit the historical record?
Why are all the geographical references so few and confusing?
Why do they all seem much further north?
They’re not in the right place.
They’ve got the wrong person at the wrong place.
Why are there so many references to vegetation which would not exist in Mecca at that time?
Why is Mecca not mentioned until 741, nor included in any map until the 900s?
Why is Mecca not on the trade route?
Why do all the Qiblas face Petra for the first 100 years, then are confused the next 100, and aren't standardized to Mecca until 822, 200 years too late?
Therefore, much of what we know about early Islam is in doubt.
So, what really happened?
What is going on?
Now, I'm not going to say exact standard until you know about what happened.
We don’t know yet.
This is all coming out in just this last year.
There's an awful lot, yet, we need to start looking at.
We need to know on why is it there's four different Qiblas.
What's interesting, these four are exact.
They are absolutely the same Qiblas and that shows that there was something happening politically.
What we can and only what I'm going to do now is what we think is happening, okay?
And I am – and a year from now, it might be completely changed because as we're now digging more, as we're going there, as we're looking out more, we’re starting to get more and more information all the time.
This is brand-new, so everything you're hearing today is the first time you've heard it.
This is why it's now written down, getting into the academia.
The academics are very interested in what's happening here because for the first time, we're getting an entirely different narrative than what Islam has been telling us, not for 1,400 years but for 1,300 years.
And that's why what I'm going to say next is nothing more than supposition.
Or let me repeat that.
It’s nothing more than what we think this went on so far at this time.
What we need to do is we need to look at what we do know.
And what we do know is there was a – the Umayyads did exist.
The Umayyads were a very real empire.
They did begin in 661.
We don't know before that where they came from.
We do know that they were headquartered in Damascus.
Now, that's the first problem.
Why in Damascus, way up north?
If they were Muslims, why weren’t they headquartered down in Medina or Mecca?
Why has no one asked this question?
Damascus is not just 600 miles away.
It’s over a thousand miles away.
We also know that their sanctuary was Petra, that the Umayyads’ sanctuary was Petra.
It was never Mecca.
It was always Petra.
That's why Petra is such a great city and that's why it is talked about.
There is so much reference to it.
But we do know that Abdullah Ibn Zubayr was the governor of Petra and he rebelled against the Umayyads.
In fact, he rebelled against the Sufyan and the Marwan family in 683, against the father of Abd al-Malick.
He rebelled against them.
And what he did, he destroyed the Ka’aba in Petra.
Did you hear me say Ka’aba?
Yes, there were Ka’abas in every major city.
There is not just one Ka’aba.
That’s another thing Muslims haven’t told us.
We have been looking at reference after reference.
Almost every major city had a Ka’aba.
But these were Nabataean Ka’abas.
Isn't that fascinating?
Zubayr, when he left and he rebelled against the Umayyads he destroyed the Ka’aba in 683 against the Umayyad power in Damascus.
He destroys the Ka’aba in Petra and takes the Black Stone with him.
The Black Stone, where have we heard about the Black Stone before?
Where is it today?
It's in Mecca.
It's in the Ka’aba.
It's in the northeast corner of the Ka’aba encased in silver.
What in the world is that Black Stone doing in the middle of the Ka’aba?
Remember, Muslims are not supposed to pray to anything.
There is no other god but God.
What in the world is a Black Stone going into the holiest place of all of Islam and why do Muslims kiss it?
See, I've asked this for so many Muslims and no Muslim can give me a response.
I will tell you the reason because this is a Nabataean custom.
The Nabateans believe that wherever the Black Stone was, God's presence was there.
Why?
Because this was a meteorite that came from the heavens
They saw it come from the heavens and therefore they worshipped it.
So Zubayr takes the Black Stone with him.
And by taking the Black Stone, he takes god's presence with him.
This was a huge affront to the Umayyads.
That's why they came from Damascus to come and destroy Zubayr.
By the time they got there, one of their own died.
So, Abd al-Malick at this time had to return home quickly and he had to go back up to Damascus again.
We know that from history.
That's all in the history.
Now, you can see by looking at the map here. Muslims have not looked at history.
But hold on a minute.
We know nothing about this part of history from Islam, remember?
History only begins to appear in the 9th century.

So, Abd al-Malick, who reigns from 685 to 705, that's well documented way up in Damascus, not Medina, not Mecca.
He needs an Arab identity.
He realizes that he has to have an Arab identity.
They have taken over Basra, Baghdad, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo by 652.
So, for 40 years now, they now control these great cities all along.
By this time, they moved all the pagans across North Africa all the way up to Andalusia, which is Spain.
And they moved all the way over to the east over to India.
So, from India over to Spain, all that land was under their control but they do not have any identity.
They have to make it.
Because many of them were nomadic, they didn't even know how to run cities.
They have to have the Jews and the Christians run the cities for them.
And the reason they chose Jews and Christians because they both were brothers from Abraham.
They were both part of the Ahl al-Kitāb.
The problem was the Jews and Christians had a prophetic line.
The Jews and the Christians have a book.
They were part of the Ahl al-Kitāb.
The Arabs have no book.
They had no prophet.
For 40 years, they have been the political heads.
And that's why Abd al-Malick very curiously – Abd al-Malick needs to have this Arab identity.

That was the Christian Empire.
How can you defeat the Christian Empire and create your own identity that's equal or better to theirs?
What do you do?
Abd al-Malick comes up with a plan.
And you can see what he does.
The coins, if you look at the coins in the British Museum Numismatic section, you will see that these are the Byzantine Dinar.
If you look, there is the emperor with two retainers on either side.
On the back side of the coin is the Byzantine cross, so it's very clear this is a Christian coin.
Now, in order for them to trade, once the Arabs take over power, there in 661, once the Umayyad dynasty that comes forth, they have to have coins that they can trade with the Byzantines.
So, what do they do?
They created these Sufyani Dirhams and there it is – instead of the emperor, they now have the caliph.
They have Uthman and his two retainers.
And they now – instead of the Byzantine cross, they take the cross’ face off, so it’s not a cross but it’s still recognizable as the same coin.
That’s how they can now trade with their neighbors.
But since when are Muslims allowed to have images on coins?
This is obviously nothing to do with Islam.
This is long before Islam but this is 660, this is 670, this is 680, this is up until 685.
This is supposedly the first Muslim empire.
Who in the world and what Muslim empire would ever have images on their coins?
And the cross on the backside of it, why haven't we've been told this?
Then you get to Abd al-Malick and he created coins – this coin of himself.
There it is on the coin.
This is 685 to 705 that he was in power.
Then in 691, he takes off these coins and introduces these coins in 692.
Take a look.
He takes all the images off, no longer has image.
So, something happens in 691 and he introduces this coin.
Take a look what's on the coin, the Shahada.
There is only one god but God.
And Muhammad is a prophet of God.
This is the first time we see Muhammad's name anywhere on any documentation, introduced by Abd al-Malick in 692.
Muhammad died in 632.
His name didn't appear prior to 692.
For 60 years, we’ve not seen his name anywhere until Abd al-Malick introduces it on these coins.
He builds this building, the greatest structure of its day, in the middle of Jerusalem.
Why do you build it in Jerusalem?
Why don't you build it in Damascus?
And if Mecca existed, why didn't you build in Mecca?
Well, because there was no Mecca.
There's no reference to any Mecca at all, not until 741, and we're still back in 691.
Take a look at what he does.
He builds it above the Church of Sepulcher.
There is the church of the Sepulcher in Jerusalem which is the theological head for all Christianity.
He takes it and he builds it among the hill above it looking down onto it, basically saying we are the new men in town.
We are now going to build the largest structure of our day, looking down upon you Christians, and we're going to do something significant with this building.
It's the greatest building of its time.
That's why it's still there today.
He doesn't just build the building.
He uses the same Byzantine architecture, so it's a one of mention because he's using the same Byzantine architecture as the Christians but a much larger and a more prominent structure in the holiest city of Jews and Christians, basically saying,
“We’re the new men in town.”
That's why he didn’t build in Damascus.
And the reason he didn’t build in Mecca because Mecca didn’t even exist at that time.
It is because of the Mi’raj.
Is this because of the Mi’raj?
This is what the Muslims tell me today that it was built because of the Mi’raj.
Well, I would like to know.
If that was something, then there’s something written about it, right?
So, what you need to do, you need to go back to the only part of the Dome of the Rock that is original.
See, the building has been destroyed and rebuilt 11 times.
You need to look at the inscriptions up there and the inscriptions up here.
Those are the original part of the inscriptions from 691.
Take a look at them.
They are written in Arabic.
And look and see what they say.
This is the first Qur’anic material we see anywhere in the world.
This is the first Qur’anic material that has come to light and it's on the Dome of the Rock.
So, what did it say?
You have Surah 4:171.
“O People of the Scripture!
Do not exaggerate in your religion nor on utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.
So, believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’.
Cease!
It is better for you!
Allah is One and only God.
Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son.”
Who is that attacking?
That's attacking the Trinity.
That's attacking Jesus.
That's attacking His divinity and His sonship.
All four in one
That’s why Surah 4:171 is the earliest Qur’anic reference we have and it's right there in the Dome of the Rock.
Surah 17:111,
“Praise be to God, who has not taken unto Himself a son”.
Who’s that attacking?
Jesus again
And who have no partner?
Who’s that attacking?
Supposedly the fact that Jesus is the partner of God
“Nor has He any protecting friend through dependence.”
And then we get to the mother lode.
This is the big verse.
“There is no god but God.
He is One.
He has no associate.”
Now that's not part of the Shahada today.
That was a piece that was added in the Shahada that no longer exists today.
So even the Shahada is not the same.
“He is God, the One!
God, the eternally besought of all!
He begets not nor was begotten.”
Who is that attacking?
Jesus again
“And there is none comparable unto Him.
Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”
This is the first time we see Muhammad's name, introduced on the Dome of the Rock in 691 on Surah 112, which then became Surah 112.
We now know today is Surah 112.
It wasn't then.
There were no Surah titles.
There was no reference.
Fascinating
They finally got their own prophet built on the largest building of its day.
Abd al-Malick introduces his Arab identity beginning with the Dome of the Rock.
It's larger than any other non-Arab structure.
It’s facing the Arab sanctuary, Petra.
It incorporates inscriptions against Byzantine Christianity.
It introduces their faith.
That’s where you see the word “Islam” first introduced.
That’s where you see the people “Muslim” introduced.
And that's where you see their prophet “Muhammad” introduced.
At the same time … did a research on all the protocols.
These are the official documents put on by the caliph.
From the Sufyani period from 661, every one of the Caliphal Protocols say nothing about Muhammad, say nothing about Islam, there's no reference to people called Muslim, and there's no reference to any book called the Qur’an.
Now, that's rather curious if these are the first Muslims and these are the original documents.
These are the official documents of the caliphs of the Sufyani family.
Why don't they say the three most important things?
Why don’t they talk about who they are?
Why don't they talk about their faith?
Why don't they talk about the book?
And why don't they talk about the man?
The book of the matter is completely [messy].
Dr. … noticed there's even a Bismillah there.
But the Bismillah is not the same Bismillah we use today.
These protocols continue year after year from 660 up to the 670s, 680s.
By the time you get to 691 when Abd al-Malick scripts protocol, he says in almost overnight, suddenly, the Shahada is introduced.
” There is only one god but God.
He has no associate.
Muhammad is His prophet.”
It is introduced the same time that the Dome of the Rock is built, simultaneously the same time that this is introduced on the coins.
So, Abd al-Malick not only introduces it on the Caliphal Protocols, he introduces on the Dome of the Rock.
He also introduces it on the coins.
He is now creating an Arab identity.
Now, they have a prophet, their own prophet.
But in order to have a prophet, you have to get a book.
Every prophet has to have a Revelation.
And here’s the problem, there is no book.
Can you now understand why all the earliest Qur’ans begin to appear after Abd al-Malick or during the time of Abd al-Malick?
And that's why the Topkapi, the Samarkand, the Ma’il, the Petropolitanus, the Sanaa manuscript, the Husseini manuscript all begin to appear in the eighth and ninth centuries.
And that's why every one of these manuscripts starts getting manipulated.
Every one of these manuscripts is incomplete.
Not one of them agrees with each other.
They do not agree with the Qur’an we have today.
Why?
Because you have four different schools of manuscripts
You have one school up in Damascus that is known as the Ubayy ibn Ka'b’s manuscript codex.
You have another school in Basra that’s known as ibn Musa’s Codex.
And then you have another school in Baghdad that's known as … – sorry, is known as ibn Mas'ud codex.
And then you have another codex that comes out of Medina that’s known as Zayd ibn Thabit.
Four different codices, not one of them agrees to each other.
But reference after reference that these are vying for ascendancy and that's why all of this happens in the eighth century.
None of it happens in the seventh century.
You got the building.
The earliest Qur’anic texts are on the “Dome of the Rock” in 691.
The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts, they don’t even agree with the Qur’an we have today.
The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts begin to appear during his reign and his son Al-Walid and on and on.
None of them are complete.
None of them parallel today's Qur’an.
They continue to be changed and corrected by later caliphs.
We saw that on Wednesday.
So, what is happening?
You have two empires that are competing.
The sanctuary in Petra is destroyed by an earthquake at 713.
That's well-documented.
And when an earthquake comes and destroys a sanctuary, God's presence leaves.
This is well-known in ancient medieval times.
Thus, a new place is needed.
That's why Mecca had to be chosen, possibly chosen by the rebel Abdullah Ibn Zubayr and those from Kufa, the Kufa over in Persia.
Remember, you have – you have Abd al-Malick and the Umayyads up in Damascus.
Over in Baghdad, you have another group.
They are hated by the Umayyads.
They are the Abbasids.
The Abbasids hate the Umayyads.
The Umayyads hate the Abbasids.
The Abbasids are part of the Persians, raising the Persian hegemony.
Persians were destroyed by the Arabs and that's why they hated them so much.
So, they were already, already vying for ascendency.
So, you can see already, Zubayr had joined with the Persians when he takes the Black Stone and rebels in 687.
The Abbasids and Zubayr create their sanctuary in Mecca, then demand allegiance.
All those Qiblas facing Mecca are theirs.
But their first mosque that is even built is not until 727, hundred years after Muhammad died.
So here, you have one group that are now creating a whole new sanctuary.
The political – the political head is in Baghdad but they all – they don’t have, in every case, never have the political center the same as the religious center.
That's why the Umayyads have their political center up in Damascus but their religious center is in Petra because that’s the Nabataean center or the sanctuary.
So here, you have the Abbasids have to have a new sanctuary.
It's some – according to some references, it looks like Zubayr came from Mecca.
That's probably why Mecca was chosen.
But that's why it has no history.
There is no history there.
There is nothing that goes back.
That's why they can't find any artifacts.
Al Hajjaj also rebels.
He is the governor in 705.
He rebels.
And it is – it looks like it is his mosques which are missing between the other two sanctuaries, so that's why you get a second qibla because you have another rebellion.
This is a political rebellion.
Those in North Africa and Andalusia don't show allegiance to either empire, so they have mosques facing parallel to either each sanctuary.
So, then you get a fourth qibla.
Now, you have four different Qiblas, four different political situations, two different empires who are vying for ascendency.
Can you then understand why you have four different directions?
When the Abbasids finally overpower the Umayyads in 749, they become the new power.
Most of all the Qiblas then face Mecca with few holdouts until 822 when they all face Mecca.
And from that time on, every mosque has faced Mecca.
Basically, what you have here is you have a political tug-of-war going on.
This makes sense.
That's exactly what happens.
And depending on who you support, if you support the Umayyad, then your mosque in your city faces Petra.
Now that the Muslims have a prophet, Muhammad; a revelation, the Qur’an; the sanctuary, Mecca; they need a history.
Can you then understand why this man's history doesn't get written down until the ninth century?
It takes up another 100 years to finally get it written down.
And then, so these don't get written down until the late ninth century.
See, this is what's curious.
No one's ever bothered to answer this question, why was Bukhari given 600,000 of these sayings and he throws away 98% of them?
There must be an agenda there.
Obviously, you only retain 2% because these are the only 2% that fit their narrative.
That's why there was a manipulation that continues for 200 years.
Once the Hadith had started to come up, then the Tafsir
Then they got to start translating and making sense of this book.
And that's why the commentaries don't begin to appear until the 10th century.
By the ninth century, they have a book, the man, the place, and the story.
A new religion is formed and growing, yet, it did not happen within a period of 22 years.
It evolved from a period of two to three hundred years.
So, what about Muhammad?
Now that the Muslims have a prophet, Muhammad; a revelation, the Qur’an; the sanctuary, Mecca; they need a history.
Can you then understand why this man's history doesn't get written down until the ninth century?
It takes up another 100 years to finally get it written down.
And then, so these don't get written down until the late ninth century.
See, this is what's curious.
No one's ever bothered to answer this question, why was Bukhari given 600,000 of these sayings and he throws away 98% of them?
There must be an agenda there.
Obviously, you only retain 2% because these are the only 2% that fit their narrative.
That's why there was a manipulation that continues for 200 years.
Once the Hadith had started to come up, then the Tafsir
Then they got to start translating and making sense of this book.
And that's why the commentaries don't begin to appear until the 10th century.
By the ninth century, they have a book, the man, the place, and the story.
A new religion is formed and growing, yet, it did not happen within a period of 22 years.
It evolved from a period of two to three hundred years.
So, what about Muhammad?
What about Jesus?
We know where Jesus was born, in Bethlehem.
That's not in dispute.
We know where Jesus grew up, in Nazareth.
That’s not in dispute.
We know where Jesus died and when, in Jerusalem.
That's not in dispute.
We know what Jesus did, the last three years especially.
That's not in dispute.
We know from eyewitness accounts exactly what he said, what he did from Matthew and John himself.
We know from hostile accounts, you know, from Thallus, and Tacitus, and Josephus, these are Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, exactly when he died and where he died.
We know when they were written, between 15 and 60 years later.
Few doubt his historicity today.
Thus, we have the right man, at the right place, doing the right thing, at the right time.
So where do we go from here?
Historians set the stage.
We move it on.
The questions they asked, we research, and expand.
We must confront Islam’s historical foundations.
We must challenge Muhammad and the Qur’an.
We must demand the same about all books, not just our Bible but also Jesus Christ Himself.
We must bring both into the “Public Sphere” and then let people come to their own conclusions.
Why?
Because similar historical questions have already been asked of Christianity, and every one of them has been answered
We need to bring our friends “home”.
The end