Studies

Apologetics

Mohammed: the origins of Islam
Orlando Fedeli

 
Reader’s Letter Sent on May 30, 2003

Re: Mythology of Redemption and Crucifixion

Professor, Good Morning!

 I would like to congratulate you for all the work done in clarifying Catholics on matters of faith.

 I read an “article” on the Mythology of Redemption and would like to know if you could provide clarification on this, since it involves more than just the widely known Mazdeist mythology. The text copied is pasted below:

________________________________________
In the name of Allah, the most Graceful, and the most Merciful
------------------------------------------------------

Destroying the Mythology of Christ’s Redemption and Crucifixion, by Karls Eduardo
 
The idea of redemption through the suffering and death of a divine Savior could already be found in almost every religion, prior to Christianity. For example: In China, one of the five sacred books (that are much older that Christianity) called “Y-Rei”, mentions a redemptory hero called “Tien, the Saint”: “The Saint will gather in him all the virtues of Heaven and Earth. By his justice the world will be reestablished into the ways of rectitude. He will work hard and will suffer much. He will have to go through the huge current whose waves will penetrate his soul, but only he will be able to offer God a sacrifice worthy of Him”. [Prog. Relig. Idéias, vol. I, p.211]

An ancient commentary on the Chinese savior “Tien, the Saint” says: Common people sacrifice their lives for bread; philosophers for reputation; noblemen for their family’s perpetuation. The Saint (Tien) does not seek (his own good), but rather the good of others. He dies to save the world” [Ibid.]

What is mentioned above is only an introduction. What we will see from now on is how the creators of Christian mythology based themselves on prior myths to create their own myth. There are Christians who say that there are similar stories, such as the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy (both presidents of the USA), but we will see below that there are no coincidences, but rather, myths that are copied from each other. There will also be pictures to illustrate and facilitate our understanding. 

 We will start in Egypt, home and cradle to several mythologies, since there we find Osiris, a redeemer that died to save us; so let’s see what the specialists have to say about the myth of Osiris:

 Mr. Bonwick, on talking about Osiris, says:” He is one of the Saviors of humanity that can be found in almost all nations (however, his name changes from country to country). In his efforts to do good he meets evil; in fighting against (evil) he is overcome and is killed” [Bonwick, Convicção egípcia, p. 155]

Alexander Murray says:
“The Egyptian Savior Osiris was recognizably considered as the great example of abnegation, giving his life for that of others”[Murray, Manual de Mitologia, p. 348]

The creators of the Christian mythology were clearly influenced by these myths, as we will see:

“Even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” [Bible – The Gospel According to Mathews 20:28]

Another famous myth was that of Attis, called the “The only begotten son (Knight, Ancient Art and Mythology, p. xxii.) and “the savior” and was adored by the Phrygians (one of the most ancient Asian races). The myth of Attis was always represented by a man tied to a tree (Dupuls, Origin of Religious Belief, p. 255) and also depicted as a man nailed to a tree.

Now we will talk of Tammuz (or Adonis), the Syrian Adonai; this was another God that was born from a virgin, suffered for the human race and was called “Savior”; the elders that honored Tammuz (Adonis) as their God and Savior celebrated his death with a banquet (it was their God’s Supper, an event that exists in several religions). An image, planned as a representation of the God was placed on a bed or coffin, and moaned sad hymns in the same way as the Catholic Christians would do later on.

 One of the most famous redeemers of antiquity was called Prometheus. He was an immortal God, a friend of the human race, who did not fear sacrificing himself to save us. The tragedy of Prometheus’ crucifixion was written by Aeschylus, and took place in Athens, 500 years before Christ, and is considered by many the oldest existing dramatic poem. Prometheus was nailed by his hands and feet, states a specialist: “While he was hanging, his arms were opened to form a cross, and the services he rendered on behalf of the human race led to that horrible crucifixion.” [Aeschylus, Prometheus Chained, Harper and Bros., N.Y.]

In the myth, Prometheus always appears as a friend of human beings, suffering great tortures by their side. What is most curious about Prometheus is that his friend Oceanus, the fisherman (the origin of the term “ocean”) tried to influence Prometheus not to sacrifice himself for the human race, but Prometheus did not give up. The creators of Christian mythology did not have too much to do: the same story is repeated in the Gospel, down to every detail, including that of Peter, the apostle that was closest to Jesus, being a fisherman (like Oceanus in the Prometheus myth). There is a passage in the Gospel that says that Peter and Jesus replicate the same Oceanus and Prometheus’ story. It says:

 “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priest and scribes, and be killed, and on the third be raised. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”
[The Bible - The Gospel According to Mathews 16:21-23]

A mere myth copied from many others.

In addition to these there are a myriad of other redeemers and saviors that died (some even crucified) to save humanity, many of them prophesized in previous books. Other examples of redeemers are:
Serapis, Apollo, Mithras, Orpehus, Ixion, Hercules, Krisnah, Esculapis (in whose memory a temple was built in Athens called: “The Savior’s Temple”), Bacchus, the God of wine (who transformed water into wine in his mythology). In Bacchus’s monument it is written:
“It is I (says the god Bacchus to the humans) who guides you; it is I who protects you; it is I who saves you; It is I who am the Alfa and the Omega”. [Quotation from Bacchus’s monument]

I now leave you with a series of images that will allow for better understanding of the myth of Christian redemption:

Ixion, a redeemer who died to save us, was also a solar God, the invincible sun that brings light after darkness.

Orpheus nailed to an anchor, just like Christ would be nailed to a cross later on (notice the crooked legs commonly found in many crucifixes).

And there is also our savior Prometheus, undergoing torture to save the men of this world.

And finally, the mythology of the crucified Christ. Notice the similarity with the crucifixion of Orpheus, for instance. Before Christ’s mythology, several other cultures had cults for redeemers and saviors who died to save us (many of them crucified), from which the creators of the Christian mythology fashioned their novel.

I sincerely ask you, if you have read this text thus far, to please to forward it; don’t let this mythology proliferate. The time has come for us human beings to do our part in destroying everything that is false and mythological.

“Proclaim, He is the One and only GOD. The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. Nothing equals Him!”
[The Koran 112:1-4]

----------------------------------------------

References:

1-Prog. Relig. Ideas
2-Egyptian Belief,
3-Manual of Mythology
4-Higgins, Anacalypsis
5-Prometheus Chained, Harper and Bros., N.Y
6-Iegesis
7-Origin of Religious Belief
8-Anacalypsis
9-Spirit History
10-Son of Man
________________________________

I would like to receive, if possible, a reply on this issue.

Best Regards,

INQUISITIO
Reply
I - Introduction

Dear André ("Inquisitio"),
Hail Mary.

First of all, I have to thank you for your words praising our work on the Montfort site.

As for the article you send me for analysis, signed by a certain Karls Eduardo, it is clearly the attack of a Muslim to the Christian faith. This is made very clear from the quotation from the Koran that he uses to end the article:

“Proclaim! He is the One and only GOD.The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. Nothing equals Him!” 
[The Koran 112:1-4]

This quotation is preceded by a threatening purpose, since the author wrote a clear declaration of war on Christianity:

 “I sincerely ask you, if you have read this text thus far, to please to forward it; don’t let this mythology proliferate. The time has come for us human beings to do our part in destroying everything that is false and mythological.” (Our bold, italics, and underlining).

The author’s Muslim character is also manifest in the phrase he uses to open his article, a typically Muslim phrase:

"In the name of God, the Graceful, the Merciful" ("Bismi Allah ar-rahmani ar- rahimi") are the first words of the so-called Alfatiha, the opening Surah [chapter] of the Muslim Koran.

So, in the name of Allah, the graceful and the merciful, this Muslim declares war on Christianity over the Internet, by asking people to pledge to “do your part in destroying everything that is false and mythological”, that is, to destroy what he calls “the mythology of Christian Redemption”. 

We are before a frontal attack and a threat.

Of course we have to defend our Faith.

It is our duty. Inasmuch, as we are acting in self-defense against an attack on the Christian Faith, carried out without any respect and no serious foundation.

And let no one say that we started the attack, because we are only defending ourselves.

And let no one say that we are disrespecting other people’s beliefs, because it is Christ and the Christianity that are being attacked and disrespected. We are only going to defend the Word of the incarnated God and the Christian Faith that are being attacked as myths.

Of course we are not going to imitate this aggressor of Faith in Christ, our Redeemer, by using the same illogical and disjointed weapons used by the doctrinarian aggressor. We are not going to make use of personal offenses or insulting affronts.

We will limit ourselves to make a historical analysis of the documents quoted by the Muslims themselves, and later, in a scientific and logical way, of the Koran; but we will not use imaginary and slanderous analogies such as our aggressor has done regarding Christ, as he compares Him to Adonis, Osiris, and other pagan mythological figures.  

We will not waste time, for now, with these wild comparisons lacking historical and scientific foundation that the maleficent author makes between Osiris, Adonis, Tien, etc. and Christ. They are absurd and ridiculous, and only expose a prejudiced and fanatic spirit. All of these comparisons cannot belie the historical fact that Christ died on the cross, and that He died for our sins. All of these unwarranted comparisons aim only at destroying Christianity, here, in “Terra de Santa Cruz (Land of the Holy Cross), the aggressor’s confessed purpose.

First of all, let’s take a look at Surah 112 quoted by him – Surah Al'Ikhlass or of the Divine Unity. It is clearly against the Trinity, since it denies the eternal generation of the Word in God. So, this Surah blatantly proves the anti-Christian and anti-Trinity character of the Koran.

This already raises a question: how did Mohammed, who was illiterate, know the theological problem of the eternal generation of the Word?

Mohammed was a simple illiterate Koraishite, lacking any theological knowledge, but who in this Surah repeats the beliefs of the Pharisees that denied the Divinity of the Word, and those of the Arians of the Byzantine Empire that refused to recognize that the Word was God. For the Arians, like for the Pharisees, Christ was just a simple creature, and not God. At most, He would be a prophet that sinned for having declared himself equal to God, the Father.

Would Mohammed have learned with some Jew, Pharisee, or some Byzantine of Arian faith something about this complex theological problem called Procession of the Word?

If Mohammed learned this anti-Trinitarianism from some Pharisee Jew, or Byzantine Arian, then it is the Koran that is not of divine inspiration, but rather the work of a man, and an anti-Christian one.

It is written in the Koran itself that the Arabs of Mohammed’s time said that he, Mohammed, had been taught by a foreigner:

“But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this (the Koran) but a lie which he (Mohammed) has forged, and others have helped him at it! In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood.” (Koran, Surah Alfurcan or “The Criterion”. Surah 25: 4, apud Alcorão Sagrado Portuguese version by Samir Hayer, Ed. Tangará - Expansão Editorial, São Paulo, 1979).

This same accusation made by Mohammed’s Arab contemporaries that he was indeed taught by other men and not inspired by God, is recorded in the Koran, yet in another Surah:

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him (the Koran to Mohammed)." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign (Persian), while this (from this Koran) is Arabic, pure and clear." (Koran, Surah 16:103. Surah Annahl or Surah of the Bees. Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad , op. cit., p. 87).

So, you will notice, dear inquirer, that the counter-argument used to defend Mohammed that he was taught by another man is very weak, even ridiculous: the foreigner accused of teaching Mohammed would be a Persian speaker and Mohammed’s book is written in Arabic. However, if Mohammed did not know the Persian language, such a Persian-speaking man could very well have known Arabic and thus have taught Mohammed.

This is obvious.

So, the answer found in the Koran only aggravates the accusations made by Mohammed’s contemporaries: he has indeed taught by foreigners.

But who were those foreigners?

In Koran’s Surah 44 it is written: Then they turned away from him and said: “A tutored fanatic!” (Koran, Surah 44:14, Smoke Aldukhan).


Note that it isn’t us stating this.

It is the Koran that contains these words and this accusation. It is the Koran that doesn’t clearly refute the accusation. On the contrary.

In another Muslim book published here in Brazil to disseminate Islam, the following can be read:

“So under the hypothesis that someone taught him – [to Mohammed] – so this person, if he is an Arab, why didn’t he keep such a great work for himself, preferring to hand it to Mohammed? And if he is not an Arab, the falseness of the accusation becomes clear, because if the Prophet did not know another language besides Arabic, how could he communicate with someone who was not Arab?”(Aminuddin Mohamad,  Mohammad. O Mensageiro de Deus, Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina, São Bernardo do Campo SP. 1989 D.C. 1409 H., p. 436. Our bold and underlining).

The argument is ridiculously childish: Mohammed was not taught by a foreigner, a non-Arab, because Mohammed did not know any language other than Arabic, and so, Mohammed could not have been able to communicate with this foreigner.

What is possible, though, is for this foreigner to have lived in Mecca, known Arabic, which is very likely, and have taught Mohammed.

This is as clear as drinking water.

But, instead of building arguments ourselves, let’s do something else: we will quote only from what Muslims said about Mohammed. At first we will read only what they wrote themselves, allowing ourselves a question or two and a brief comment on the more mystifying texts.

For such, we will use the already quoted book written by Aminuddin Mohamad, called Mohammad: The Messenger of God, published by Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina, São Bernando do Campo, SP. 1989. D.C. 1409 H.

We believe that this will be very interesting and convincing and that if there is a myth, it is not the myth of Christ the Redeemer, but rather that of Mohammed as a Prophet.

We did not create this controversy or accusation. We are only replying to them, and not even with the same illogical weapons, but rather with a historical and logical analysis, with no intention of offending anyone, whatsoever. 

So, let’s move on to the quotations from this book that disseminates Islam.



 
II – The World in Mohammed’s Time

“Shortly before Mohammed’s prophecy, the countries were completely disaggregated political, religious, and morally. All aspects of life were corrupted and needed general reform.”

(…) the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. were periods of dictatorships, disturbances, and anarchy. (…)

 
"Moral and Social Context"

“In this regard, the world was also in poor shape. Society, as it divided itself into different ethnic groups, races, casts, and so on, lost its cohesive force.” (Aminuddin Mohamad, Mohammad: The Messenger of God, Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina, São Bernardo do Campo SP. 1989 A.D. 1409 H., p. 9).

[It is not necessary to show how much this text fails as it generalizes and uses inaccurate terminology. It is enough to remember that the sixth and seventh centuries were the times of men like Emperor Justinian, author of the Juris Civilis Codex; Popes like Saint Gregory Magnum; Queens like Saint Clothilde; Bishops like Saint Remy, Saint Patrick, Saint Gregory of Tours; monks like Saint Columba and several others, too many to mention].

And about women, in the sixth and seventh centuries, the book we are quoting from says:

 
"Women"

“Women had no recognition in society; they were not treated as equals, they were just an object of pleasure. Some killed their daughters. In Arabia they were buried alive; in other parts widows were burned alive, women could not read religious books. (…) In Greece, women were locked at home; in Christian churches they were taken as sisters, isolated from the practical world” (Aminuddin, op. cit. pp. 10-11. Our bold).

[At that same time lived queens Saint Clothilde and Saint Radegunda, in France, and Emperor Theodora from Constantinople, who played an important political, social, and religious role. While in Arabia, according to Omar, the third Caliph:

“Before Islam we did not have any consideration for our women; not until God revealed respect for them and their rights did we start showing consideration for them” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 3650].

And it is still Aminuddin Mohamad’s the following amazing paragraph: 

“It wasn’t until 1870 that the situation began to get relatively better. Until today women in the West continue to fight for their rights. In Islam, this is not the case. Today, Islam teaches that the origin of man and woman is from the same essence, that they have the same soul, that they are balanced in terms of equal skills regarding intellectual, spiritual, and moral merits, and considers women’s rights as sacred” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op cit., p. 11).

[It is not possible to refrain from thinking that women’s situation in Islam and in the West has always been – and still is – very different. It is enough to think of the existence of harems].

Aminuddin states in his book that Mohammed was one of Christ’s prophecies:

“Jesus said, according to the Koran”: 

"And do you remember when Jesus, the son of Mary said: O ye Sons of Israel, in truth I am the Prophet of God (sent) to you to confirm everything that is in the Torah and to announce the good news about a messenger that will arrive after me, whose name will be Ahmad (the praised one)” (This is one of the Prophet’s name) (Koran, Surah. 61:6. Apud Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 44).

[It is needless to say that Jesus never said this. From where did the Koran’s author take this phrase that is totally inexistent in the Gospels? And how curious it is that the Koran should have Jesus defending the Torah. And after the invented quotation, the absurd interpretation that the Holy Paraclito Spirit – The Holy Ghost – announced by Christ, would be Mohammed, who was not a spirit, but rather a man of flesh and bones, and who was not in any way the “Counselor”]:

"Nevertheless, I tell you the truth that contains (Sic! It should say “that is convenient, to your advantage") for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" (St. John, 16:7, apud Aminuddin Mohamad, op cit. p. 44).

Aminuddin tells that Mohammed’s mother, Amina, did not suffer any pain while pregnant with him, and she would have said the following:

“Were it not for the appearance of an Angel after I conceived, and when I was about to sleep, telling me: don’t you see that you are with child and that in your womb is the Prophet of all the Nations? (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 49).

[ And then there comes this Karl Eduardo drawing parallels between Christ and Osiris or Adonis, without realizing that there is a parallel to be drawn between the Virgin Mary and Amina, Mohammed’s mother!... And what document can Karl Eduardo quote to prove that Mohammed’s mother said all this? None. It is pure legend].


 
"The Story of the Cut in Mohammed’s Chest"

Aminuddin Mohamad tells that when Mohammed was little, around four years old, one day two angels appeared, cut his chest open and tore out his heart, the "center of evil".

Mohammed himself would have told the story:

 “They were two men, dressed in white, who laid me on the ground and then cut me down to here (pointing at his chest), and then took something out, that I don’t know what it was". When Halima [Mohammed’s nurse] checked Mohammed’s chest and saw that there was no sign of a cut, she was frightened (...).

When the news spread, the neighbors advised Halima to consult a soothsayer or an astrologer. They went to a Jewish man, who increased the concern expressed by Mohammed’s nurse and her husband, because when he saw Mohammed, he started to scream, saying: “this is the child that will start a revolution in Arabia and will end all the existing religions. So, ye men, if you want to save your religion, destroy this child” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 51-52).

[Mohammed, who was considered the Prophet, did not know what had happened to his chest, where no signs could be found, but the Jew knew who the child was...]

And Aminuddin Mohamad, who never saw Mohammed explains what happened:

There are stories in the books telling about two angels that came under human guise and one of them (Gabriel) opened Mohammed’s heart and took from it the center of evil and then closed it again. These passages should not be taken too literally, because at that time Mohammed was about three years old, too small to witness anything. Even though this passage is confirmed by Mohammed himself, after the proclamation of the prophecy, and even if we take the passage literally, we will see that there is nothing to be amazed about, because this kind of operation is very common in medicine, where the doctor opens the body of the sick person, takes out and puts in anything he or she wishes, and then closes the body again without the patient feeling any pain, restoring it to health, as if he or she had never been sick” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op,. cit., p. 52).

[So, what Aminuddin tell us is that Mohammed underwent heart surgery, performed by two angels, one of whom was the angel Gabriel, who took out from Mohammed’s heart the Center of Evil, which would therefore be something material”. Well, this belief that evil is a material thing is clearly a Gnostic one, since it turns evil into something substantial].

In page 54 of his book, Aminuddin Mohamad informs us that in those days, in Arabia, “the large number of Jews living in the area already talked about and awaited the arrival of the last Prophet” (...) All of them went to see Mohammed: some respected him, others were amazed at seeing the signs of the last Prophet in this child and said that the last Prophet should be of their family (Israelite). “How was he born in Quraysh?” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 54).

[So, according to the Centro de Divulgação do Islam’s book, the Arabian Jews were awaiting the last Prophet and they recognized him in Mohammed… Very interesting, very interesting indeed, because the Jews for centuries have been, and are still, awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, who will be the last Prophet. Could it be, then, that in seventh century Arabia there was a sect of Messianic Jews, like so many others that have existed in History, that are still awaiting the next arrival of the Messiah?

This is a simple hypothesis derived from the historical study we are carrying out, construed from Aminuddin Mohamad’s texts, which we are quoting here. Specialists in Islam have come up with similar theses and not mere hypotheses as we are doing here. Among others I am referring to the books: The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis, Princeton University Press; Hagarism: the Making of Islamic World, a book by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Cambridge University Press, 1977, or Hanna Zakharias’s book called De Moïse à Mohamad: Islam Entreprise Juive, Cahors,  an exhaustive and profound analysis of the Koran; and to Le Coran, Traduction et Commentaire Siystématique, by Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, Ed La Contre Réforme Catholique, Saint parreslès Vaudes, 1988].

Furthermore, Aminuddin Mohamad says that in one of Mohammed’s trip to Syria, he would have been recognized as a Prophet by a Christian monk called Buhira (cfr. op. cit., p. 56).

“When he was twenty, he [Mohammed] joined the trade caravans of Mecca’s capitalists” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 60).

 
"The Prophet’s Marriage to Khadija"

On this story we will limit ourselves to quoting Aminuddin Mohamad:

“Her name was Khadija Bin Khwilid Bin Asad Bin Abdul Urga Bin Ausai: her title was Tahera (The Pure). Khadija, an honorable and respected woman, fifth degree in her genealogy (in Qusai), was related to Prophet Mohammed’s family. She lived in Mecca, was around forty (40) years old. The mother of several children, she had been a widow twice, and was very rich. When her second husband died, several men from Mecca wanted to marry her, but she refused them all. When the trade caravan from Mecca set out on a trip, only Khadija’s goods compared to those of all the other merchants” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 61).

[So, Khadija was a relatively older woman, who had already had two husbands, several children, and was very rich.]

As for Mohammed…

“The Prophet Mohammed was 25 years old, had a beautiful face, was of medium height, not too tall, not too short, had a big head, thick and very dark hair, a large forehead, thick eyebrows, big black eyes, slightly rosy cheeks and long eyelashes, which enhanced his attractiveness; he had a beautiful nose, well-placed teeth, thick beard, long and beautiful neck, wide shoulders and chest, clear complexion, plump hands and feet and he walked in a resolute and steady way; he always looked as if he were in deep thought and contemplation; and his look hid the authority of the Commander of Men. So, it is in no way amazing that Khadija gave him her love and submitted to his desires as she gave him all her merchandise to manage after their wedding, as she had already done before the wedding, in order to give him means to go on with his contemplative life” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 61).

[Would it be “disrespectful” for a historian to be amazed at the fact that an Arab young man, 25 years old, single, and that a 40-year old woman, twice a widow, with several children, very rich, would marry a much younger and poorer man than herself? And would it be “disrespectful” to imagine that managing the largest fortune in Mecca, Mohammed would have had a lot more time for… contemplation?

Or would it be more disrespectful to state that Jesus, the Redeemer, is a myth that should be destroyed?]

Aminuddin Mohamad’s story goes on:

“All this created love for Mohamad in Khadija’s heart. She was 40, but now she wanted to marry a young man of 25, whose attitude and words captivated her heart. She talked about her love for him with her friend Nafissa, but the question was if he (Mohammed) would accept her or not. Women, for the record, are great diplomats. So, Khadija sent Nafissa to talk with Mohammed to find out. When Nafissa met Mohammed, the conversation was the following:

Nafissa: What prevents you from getting married?

Mohammed: What have I got to be able to get married? (I have no material possessions in order to get married).

Nafissa: But if this did not matter and you were asked to marry beauty, wealth, nobility, and satisfaction, what would you say?

Mohammed: Who is she?

Nafissa: Khadija.

Mohammed: How is this possible?

Nafissa: Leave it to me.

Mohammed: So, I accept.

So this is how the wedding between Mohammed and Khadija was settled. Mohammed was also in love with her, but since she had refused marriage proposals from wealthier people, he did not want to be the first to send the proposal. Now that she proposed first, he accepted with great pleasure”.

(Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. pp. 62-63. We are not saying anything. All we are doing is to copy what is written in the book advertising Islam).

So, let’s go with our copying:

After that, Khadija started to prepare the wedding with no delay, and set the wedding date for that in which Mohammed’s uncle and aunt could come to see her relatives to ask for her hand and other formalities. (…) In Arabia, women had the freedom to plan their own weddings, and this is why even in her uncle’s presence, Khadija did almost everything herself; the date was set and on that date all the family leaders on Mohammed’s side came, including Hamza and Abu Talib. (…) And so, after the wedding, Mohammed moved to Khadija’s house”. (Aminuddin Mohamad. op. cit., p. 63).

[Note: it wasn’t Khadija who moved to Mohammed’s house, but instead, he moved to hers].

“Thus a new chapter began in Mohammed’s and Khadija’s life. Mohammed had all of his children with Khadija, except for Ibrahim. She lived 25 years with him, had seven children by him, 3 boys: Kassim, Tahir, Tahib that died very young, before Mohammed received the divine message, and four girls: Zainab, Rucaya, Umm Kulçum, and Fatma, who survived and got married. Three of them died during Mohammed’s lifetime, and only one, Fatma, lived to bear two children, Hassan and Hussein. While Khadija was alive, Mohammed did not marry anybody else” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit.,p. 63).

[Khadija must have been extremely fertile to have had seven children after she was forty, especially considering that in Arabia, women age much sooner].

“(…) and the two [Mohammed and Khadija] lived happily without having had one single dispute or problem during the twenty-five years in which they were together, despite their age difference” (Aminuddin Mohamad , op. cit., p. 64).

But…

“In the month that Khadija died, the Prophet married Sawdah Bin Zam’a, the widow of a Muslim of those who had immigrated to Abyssinia and then returned. (…) One month later (…) he promised to marry Aicha [Abu Bakr’s daughter]. Aicha was the only virgin with whom the Prophet ever got married (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 121).

Later, Mohammed married several other women, including a relative, called Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son, Zayd ibn Harith Ibn Char’habil, a slave that Khadija had given Mohammed and whom he adopted as a son. (Cfr Koran, Surah 33: 37, The Allied Forces, Surah Alahzab).

Mohammed had nine wives. The Koran warned him about that by saying:

“No [other] women will be lawful for you later on nor may you exchange them for other wives, even though their beauty may entice you, except for someone your right hand controls. God is an Observer over everything.” (Koran, Surah 33:52, Alahzab, The Allied Forces).

But while Khadija lived, and against Arab customs, he only had one wife and never had an argument with her, according to Aminuddin Mohamad’s book.

After he got married, Mohammed “isolated himself in order to meditate in a cavern in Mount Hira, called Jabalan-Nur, located in the north of Mecca. It was a quiet place, from where the Kaaba could be seen” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 66)

The Centro de Divulgação do Islam para América Latina’s book from which we are taking these quotations, tells us that Mohammed had his first vision when he was 40 years old:

“When Mohammed reached forty, God chose him to guide the creatures of the whole world, to take them from darkness and lead them to light. It was in February or July of the year 610, after the birth of Christ, according to the Egyptian astrologer Mahmud Bacha; the 17th of the Ramadan, 13 years before the Hijra (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 67).

“In one of those days, while in deep contemplation inside the cave, an angel (Gabriel) appeared to the Prophet and said”:

“Recite” (read)

“Mohammed replied: “I don’t know how to recite”. So, he felt as if the angel choked him (strangling him), and then let go. So, he heard the order once again: “Recite!!” and Mohammed said: “I don’t know how to recite”. So, Mohammed was once again choked and let go, and the angel repeated the order for the third time and Mohammed asked what he should recite. The Angel said:

“Proclaim! (or read!) In the name of thy Lord and Cherished, who created – created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful – he, who taught (the use of) the pen,- taught man that which he knew not.” (Koran 96:1-5. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 67).

We should note that, from the start, the angel didn’t tell what Mohammed should recite.

It was only after the third attempt that the angel told Mohammed what he should recite.

Mohammed’s natural question to the Angel should have been:

“Recite (read) what?”

One can only recite a text that has been provided either orally or in writing.

Until then, the angel had said nothing to Mohammed, but later, he says that the text to be recited was written “by pen”…

If there was no written text in the cave, what could have Mohammed recited?

Or was there a text written by the pen?

But since Mohammed was illiterate, having a written text in hand would have been of no use. He could only have recited a text if there had been someone in the cave reading him a text, asking him to repeat it.

Could it have been the choking angel himself teaching Mohammed?

Because the choking angel’s reply hints at the fact that there was a written text to be recited, saying that God, the Lord, taught by the pen, and not through the word, teaching man that which he knew not.

What text was this, written by the pen, by the Lord himself?

And who was this man that received this text written by the pen?

Certainly, this man was not Mohammed, who was illiterate.

It was no use, we repeat, giving a written text to an illiterate.

Did Mohammed have a book in the cave in Mount Hiraa?

And what good would a book, written by the pen, have been to him, if he didn’t know how to read?

There must have been someone there to read Mohammed the book.

And was this someone – the choking angel? – reading Mohammed the book, forcing him to repeat it and recite it to memorize it?

The method used by the “Angel” was two-pronged:

1) Choking Mohammed;

2) Forcing him to memorize the text written by the pen.

We must agree that the first part of the method used – the choking – was rather violent.

As for the second part of the method – reciting – so that an illiterate could memorize a text was a method used by Jewish rabbis in their schools, for centuries:

“Until the Oral Law was not codified and written down, the method used by the scribes to hand it down was memorization and repetition. Repeating and teaching are equivalent words in rabbinic language. The disciples of the masters (Rabbis) had to memorize the Oral Torah, as well as the legal solutions adopted by the Elders, without any changes added to what had been received. The disciple was therefore forced to express himself by using the same words used by his master. From this mnemonic and repetitive teaching came the word Mishnah that means repetition. The commandments of this Oral Tradition of the elderly were called Mishnaioth” (Orlando Fedeli, Escribas, Doutores da Lei  e Fariseus, in Cadernos Montfort, http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cadernos&subsecao=religiao&artigo=escribas1&lang=bra).

Mohammed, in Mount Hiraa was forced to recite a pre-existing written text and this text could not have been the Koran, because it had not been written yet.

What was this written text, what book, was Mohammed forced to memorize by repeating its content?

When Khadija learned of what had happened to Mohammed, she said to him (according the Centro de Divulgação do Islam’s book):

“Oh, my husband, don’t you worry, be content and firm. For him who has Khadija’s life in his hand, I have strong hopes that you will be the Prophet of this people; I swear to God that He will never leave you, (…)”( Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 68. Our bold).

From this text it can be clearly seen that Khadija was not a polytheist and idolater, but rather, a monotheist, even before Mohammed began to be called a Prophet, for she swore to God, in the singular. She said she had “strong hopes” that Mohammed would be the Prophet. So, he was not the Prophet yet. Therefore, Khadija was already a monotheist even before Mohammed became the Prophet.

So what was Khadija’s monotheism?

It couldn’t have been Islamic, since Mohammed had not started preaching yet.

Would she be a Christian monotheist, or a Jewish monotheist?

These are questions arise spontaneously.

Soon after telling this, the Centro de Divulgação do Islam’s book remarks that:

“Mohammed was looking for the Universe’s hidden reality, and the First revelation is the beginning of his learning book, and reality is his Master, like it had been told to him, the word “Rabb”, in Arabic, means Nourisher, Creator, Provider, Administrator, Owner, and Master of the Universe; the first lesson starts with the name of the Master, because man is the main objective of man’s study” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 69. Our bold).

So, Mohammed was looking for the “Universe’s hidden reality”…

What a most strangely exoteric formula! And more exoteric it becomes with the final explanation that “man is the main objective of man’s study”, when it would be expected for man’s main study objective to be God.

The Centro de Divulgação do Islam para América Latina’s book explains:

“After Khadija reassured Mohammed with her rich words, she also wanted to reiterate that through those that had some knowledge about the Prophets” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 70. Our bold).


 
"Those Who Had Some Knowledge About the Prophets"?

Who were those “specialists” on Prophets, in the seventh century Mecca?

And it is important to note that “those who had some knowledge about the Prophets” is in the plural.

Then, there were several specialists on prophets in Mecca in the seventh century.

Who could these masters be?

Could they be priests, or rabbis?

The Koran provides information about these experts “that had some knowledge about the Prophets”, when it tells Mohammed, in Surah 10 – Surah lunes:

"However, if you are in doubt about what we have revealed, consult those who have read the book before you" (Koran, 10:94. Edição Tangará do Alcorão Sagrado, Arabic version by Samir el Hayek, São Paulo, 1979, p.152).

And in the French version of the Koran, by Juan Vernet, also the author of the introduction and the notes to the Koran, the following note, No. 94, can be read about this passage:

“Ask those who have read the book before you”: According to the tradition it is astonishing to have this statement allowing Mohammed to consult the rabbi in case of doubt” (Cfr El Corán, Editorial Planeta, Barcelona 1983, p. 216, note 94).

The same book, Divulgação do Islam by Aminuddin Mohamad, explains that:

“Because what she [Khadija] has just said was her opinion, once she didn’t know the reality of what Mohammed saw and heard (…) She thought of consulting “Waraca Bin Nawfal”, someone related to Khadija, a man that had converted to the Christian faith and translated parts of the Hebrew Gospel into Arabic; he was very old and blind, but he new something about the prophecy, because he read the Torah and the Gospel regularly” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op cit., p. 70. The bold is ours).

So, Khadija had at home a “relative”, blind, who “read the Torah and the Gospel regularly”!

A blind man that read is really an extraordinary fact, particularly in those days when the Braille language was not known.

How did the blind man read???

And he read the Torah!

And he converted to the Christian faith!!!

What had been his previous religion?

A convert to the Christian faith, who in spite of being blind also read the Torah, clearly raises a question: would he be originally a Jew by religion?

Could he be one of those who “read the Book before Mohammed”?

Could he be one of those who Mohammed should consult when in doubt about The Book, as mentioned in Surah lunes?

In what sense was he “related” to Khadija?

Was he her relative?

Was he related in the sense that he lived in her home?

If so, why did he live there?

Did he live in another house and was related to Khadija because he was an acquaintance, a friend?

Had Khadija consulted him previously about religion?

Was Khadija’s monotheism a result of her possible conversations with Warraca bem Nawfal?

Had he tried to convert Khadija to monotheism?

Had he succeed?

And was Khadija’s surprising monotheism, already mentioned, a result of Warraca’s preaching?

But to what kind of monotheism did he convert her to, or tried to: Christian monotheism, that believes in a single God divided into Three People at the same time equal and distinct, in one single substance, or in the non-ternary God of the Jews?

But if he was Jewish, and if he was Khadija’s relative, it is worth asking the question if Khadija herself – who professed to be a monotheist much too quickly and much too soon – was not of Jewish origin, and a foreigner in Mecca. Mohammed’s monogamy while she was alive, Khadija’s wealth, her being the owner of caravans whose trade she managed herself, and very well, something uncommon among Arab women, lead to another question: could Khadija have been Jewish?

And Warraca ben Nawfal, the blind, who read the Torah and the Gospel regularly, and who also translated only parts of it into Arabic, was he Jewish or Christian?

If he was Christian why did he translate only “parts of the Gospel” into Arabic?

Why didn’t he translate all of the Gospels in their entirety?

This is not normal.

And why, and what for, did he translate only some parts of the Gospel into Arabic?

What was Warraca’s purpose: to convert idolater Arabs to the Christian faith?

Or to convert them to the Torah, by having them recite the Book of the Jews, the Old Testament, like the rabbi used to have their pupils recite in the rabbinic schools?

And Mohammed, who was so interested in religion and in meditating in Mount Hiraa, how come he never spoke with Warraca, a specialist in the prophets, in the Torah and the Gospels, and himself so much interested in converting idolater Arabs to monotheism to the point that, even being a blind man, translating “parts of the Gospel” into Arabic?

Why didn’t Mohammed ever speak with Warraca?

Or had he already spoken with him?

Could it be that Warraca never tried to talk with Mohammed, he, who was so interested in converting idolater Arabs to monotheism?

Or could it be that Mohammed had been contacted by Warraca, from the very start?

Well, we ask to be excused for asking these indiscreet – and so obvious – as well as pertinent questions.

Finally, Mohammed was taken by Khadija to talk to Warraca Ben Nawafal to explain him his first revelation. And what was Warraca’s opinion of Mohammed’s choking vision?

“In reply, Warraca soon explained the whole passage:

This is the same Spirit (Angel) that God sent Moses (with the Revelation) and you are the Prophet of this nation”. And went on saying that: “You will be refuted, you will be offended, you will be abused, persecuted, and expelled, when you ask them to abandon their traditional false beliefs. If I lived until this day, in which your people will expel you, I would certainly help you with God’s cause, but I am old”. (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 71. Our bold).

In the Centro de Divulgação do Islam na América Latina’s book, Warraca was admittedly not an Arab, since he says to Mohammed: “your people”, thus confessing that he, Warraca, did not belong to the Arab people.

Warraca was a foreigner.

What was his nationality; what people did Warraca belong to?

This name is not Byzantine Greek, nor Latin, nor Persian.

If it is not Arab, the name Ben Nawfal can only be Jewish. Warraca ben Nawfal was of Jewish origin and this is the reason why, even though a convert, maybe to Christianity, he read the Torah.

And it should be noted that Warraca – quite possibly a rabbi – said that the spirit that spoke to Mohammed was the same that had spoken with Moses, and not the one who had spoken of Christ.

Mohammed’s inspiration had a Jewish source.

After forty days, the revelations would have come back to Mohammed, and were never interrupted again until the end of his life, or at least, this is what the Muslim book we are quoting says.

This book also informs that there was a risk in teaching monotheism in a land of idolaters, so Mohammed started to teach monotheism secretly.

“So, the first phase of his mission was to present this faith secretly (dangerously at the time) to the people who were closest to him and who he could trust, those who had already lived with the Prophet. So he started at home. Khadija, his wife, was the first one to convert, then Ali Bin Abu Talib, his cousin, who lived with the Prophet since his childhood, because Abu Talib’s father had many children and was in a very critical financial situation.” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 73-74).

It mustn’t have been too difficult to “convert” Khadija to monotheism, because as we have seen, she already swore by a single God, even before Mohammed explained his firs vision to Warraca ben Nawfal.

And on page 74 of the book we are studying it says:

And by then – fearing being mistreated by the Arabs – the invitation for Islamism was still made secretly (…)” (Aminuddin, Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 74-75. Our bold).

Once again Aminuddin gives us an interesting clue: he should have written that Mohammed feared being mistreated by the polytheist idolaters, and not by the Arabs. Several Arabs had followed Mohammed. It was not the Arabs, because they were Arabs that could mistreat him, but rather, the polytheists. Aminuddin’s small mistake could suggest that the fight would be between Arabs and non-Arabs, and not between monotheist and polytheists. Inasmuch as he informs, later on, that several Arab tribes had adopted Jewish monotheism even before that time (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 134-135-136). 

Who were those non-Arabs, then?

Would they be the Christians or the Jews?

In Arabia, in Mohammed’s time, there were many Jewish and Christian foreigners.

And these two groups of foreigners were both monotheist.

On page 83 of the Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina‘s book, there is another precious information:

“And there are many common things between Islam and the Christian faith, particularly at that time; the Muslim’s Quibla was Jerusalem, just as it was the Christian’s Quibla” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 83).

The Quibla is a small niche in Moslem mosques that provide the direction in which the faithful must turn to pray. In the beginning, Mohammed had his followers pray in the direction of Jerusalem, which is symptomatic. Later on, Mohammed turned the Quibla in the direction of Mecca, and today’s Moslems pray only facing Mecca.

Saying that the Christians had a Quibla, any time, is absurd. Christians always had their altars turned to the east, facing the rising sun, and never turned in the direction of Jerusalem. Even if this were true, that Christians prayed turned to Jerusalem, it would have made sense, because Christ died and resuscitated in Jerusalem. But for Moslems, who reject Christ as God, and detest the Jews, it seems rather curious that they, like the Jews, initially prayed turned to Jerusalem, which Mohammed, as a simple illiterate Koraishite from Mecca, simply didn’t know.

So, why this respect for Jerusalem in primitive Islam?

Could it be based on advice from those “who had some knowledge about the Prophets”, the masters of the Torah, who had read The Book before Mohammed? That is, under the guidance of the “specialists on Prophets” Mohammed determined that his followers, like the Jews, prayed turned to Jerusalem?

Aminuddin Mohamad tells us that when the Moslems were still in very small number in Mecca, they could not recite the Koran in public!!!

“As we saw in Mecca, the Moslems were persecuted, massacred, tortured, only because they believed in a single God and wanted freedom to worship a single deity”.

“It became increasingly difficult for the faithful to worship a single God and even to recite the Koran in public. It had to be done secretly, and even so, when found out they were the object of all kinds of oppression” (Aminuddin Mohammad, op. cit., p. 96).

But what an interesting text!

So, the first Muslims already had a book that they recited!!!

What book did the first Muslims recite, if the Koran was not written until many years later?

Would it be the Book that others had read before Mohammed?

Aminuddin Mohammad himself explains that the Koran was compiled much later than Mohammed’s time.

“In the Prophet’s lifetime several materials were used on which to write the Koran: leather, wood, stone, parchment, etc. (…)”.

“Soon after, in Abu Bakr’s caliphate, it was written and compiled in one single volume, which was kept by Abu Bakr until his death, when it was given to Caliph Omar and later to Hafsa, Omar’s daughter and the Prophet’s wife. It was through this original copy that the third Osman caliph prepared other copies and sent them to the main Islamic cities” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 437-438).

So, there was no Koran for the early Muslims to recite.

But it is written by Aminuddin Mohamad that the first Muslims recited the Book and that they were persecuted for it.

If this book was not yet the current Koran, what was it?

Would it be the same book that the choking angel asked Mohammed to recite?

Would it be Warraca’s Torah?

Would it be the book of those that knew the book before Mohammed, that is, the rabbis’ Torah?

Or – just for the sake of asking – would it be the Gospels?

Asking questions is relatively easy.

It is answering them that is hard.

The persecution to the Muslims led Mohammed to advise some of them to flee to Abyssinia.

Even there they were persecuted by the idolatrous Koraishite that sent a commission to Negus to defame the emigrated Muslims.

Jaafar ibn Abu Taleb – Ali ibn Abu Taleb’s brother – defended the Muslims by giving a speech before the king of Abyssinia that let him to know about the standard of living and the culture of the Arab tribes, before Mohammed:

“Oh, King, we were an ignorant people, we worshiped idols, we ate dead animals (not beheaded), we committed indecencies, we cut uterine relationships, we mistreated our own neighbors, and those who were strong among us, devoured the weaker. We were in this deplorable and inhuman condition when God sent us a Messenger, from among us, whom we know. He is noble by ancestry, true, honest, and chaste” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 98. Our bold).

In addition to the surprising adjective “chaste” applied to Mohammed, who had nine wives, not to mention the concubines, it must be noted that it is said that the Muslims started to eat dead animals, beheaded, that is, letting all the blood come out, something that they did not do before.

 Well, this custom and legal way of eating bloodless animals, having all the blood drained out, was the law of the Torah. This point to – like the Quibla turned to Jerusalem – a clear Jewish influence in primitive Islam.

Jaafar’s speech was delivered before the king of Abyssinia, who was a Christian, and before several bishops.

As a result…

“In a very short time, the assembly showed its conflict with Christianity” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 99).

So, from the very start, Islam was opposed to Christianity.

The quotation above makes it clear that, from the very start, Islam was anti-Christian for not accepting the Trinity and for denying that Christ is the Son of God, the Second person of the Holy Trinity.

So, this is one more sign that Warraca was in fact not a Christian, and that Khadija’s monotheism, like that of Mohammed’s, must have had Jewish features.

The bishops of Abyssinia did not know Vatican II, nor were they ecumenical, and so they opposed the Muslims...

 
Mohammed’s Satanic Verses in the Koran

It is not know for sure why the Muslims that went to Abyssinia returned to Mecca.

Aminuddin Mohamad states in the book we are studying that:

”It came to the knowledge of the emigrates the news that their people in Mecca had converted to Islam, when the prophet recited the Surah Na-Najm and praised the Koraish gods, as he recited the following verse:

“Have you then ever seen the portents of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza? - And of that third one Manat and of the others? (Koran, Surah 53, 19-20) (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 106-107).

[Note: these were three goddesses of the idolaters of Mecca].

And Aminuddin Mohamad goes on:

“They say that the Prophet added: these idols are honored and respected, and their intersection is accepted and expected.

“In the allusion they are idols.

“Others say that Satan is the one who recited with the Prophet in the Prophet’s voice. After this, the Prophet bowed and all the infidels also bowed because they were content at hearing praises to their gods from the Prophet’s mouth.

But if we ponder more deeply into this narrative and in the text itself, and investigate carefully, we will come to the conclusion that all of this is simply false and has been made up, and is logically impossible.

"1st – The chain of narrative of this passage is unacceptable, the narrators are unknown and false, and this is why none of the compilers of the Hadith (Prophet’s traditions) that are considered authentic, include it in their compilations (in their book);

"2nd – Their text is also unacceptable, because neither the believers nor the unbelievers are naïve to the point of hearing praises and honors to their gods while at the same time criticism and condemnations are being said to the same gods during the same recitation and in the same Chapter.

 “And right after that God says:

“Such deities are nothing but a few names which you and your forefathers have chosen for them for which Allah has revealed no warrant. They follow merely a guess, and that which their hearts desire, though guidance has come to them from their Lord!” (Surah 53:23, Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p.106-107).

So, the verses don’t match. If this had happened they would have taken it as evidence against the prophet, because it is a contradiction” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p.106-107).

However, this issue is in the Koran.

In Surah 53 it is written:

“Have you then ever seen the portents of Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?”

“And of that third one Manat and of the others?”

“What! Are yours the sons and His the daughters?”

“That then is a most one-sided apportionment!”

”They are nothing but a few names which you and your forefathers have chosen for them for which Allah has revealed no warrant. They follow merely a guess, and that which their hearts desire, though guidance has come to them from their Lord!” (Koran, Surah 53, Surah Annajm, 19-23).

These were the verses of the Koran, called satanic verses, because at that time Mohammed would have been inspired by Satan; they caused the famous incident of the poet Salman Rushdi’s being sentenced to death, decreed by Ayatollah Khomeini...

We are not going to go into this controversy.

Aminuddin Mohamad tells us that once Mohammed and his followers underwent a long siege in Mecca, and that:

It was in these days that the Prophet had the honor to ascend to the Heavens, and that it was in that ascension that the five daily prayers became compulsory” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 112).

Such ascension is called "Al-Ishra Wal-Miraj" by the Arabs and supposedly happened in the year 621, according to Surah 17:1: 

“1. Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship (in Mecca) to the Far distant place of worship Alalcsa (in Jerusalem) the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer” (Koran, Surah Alishrá, On the Night Trip, Surah 17:1).

First of all, it is noteworthy that in this verse nothing is said about the ascension into Heaven, but rather about a ”trip” to Jerusalem.

Secondly, at that time there was still no mosque in Al Acsa, which was built later by Omar.

Or are we mistaken?

Thirdly, we will not resist quoting the following verse from Surah Al Ishrá:

“2. We gave unto Moses the Scripture, and We appointed it a guidance for the children of Israel, saying: Choose no guardian beside Me” (Koran, 17:2).

So, The Book was given to Moses.

The Book, according to the Koran itself, was given to Moses and not to Mohammed

This truth is repeated several times in the Arab Koran.

***



III - Jewish "Genies" Approve of the Koran


When Mohammed returned from Taif to Mecca, he went through Nakhla, and there he received – guess what! – a “Delegation of Genies”. And of Jewish genies, for they were the genies that followed Moses:

“Mohammed was returning – [from Taif] – to Mecca, and stayed some time in Nakhla, when a Delegation of Genies arrived to hear the Koran. They were Mussa’s (Moses’s) followers and it was about them that the following verses of Surah Al-Ahkaf were revealed” (Chap. 46, verses 29-32 Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. pp118-119).

What can be understood by “Genies” in this text?

Were they spirits?

Were they similar to Aladdin’s genie of the lamp?

Not likely, for it says that they were “genies” that followed Moses.

So, it is more appropriate to understand these “Genies”, followers of Moses, as human beings, and very competent ones, that followed Moses’ doctrine, that is, that they were Jewish rabbi that came to hear Mohammed and his revelation. After hearing Mohammed, they went back to their people – the Jews – to tell them what they had heard.

And after hearing the Koran being recited, what did these Jewish “Genies” conclude and what did they tell their people?

They concluded that they should invite tell the Jewish people to follow Mohammed:

 “29. And when We inclined toward thee (Muhammad) certain of the jinn, who wished to hear the Qur'an and, when they were in its presence, said: Give ear! And, when it was finished, turned back to their people, warning.”

“30 They said: O our people! Lo! we have heard a scripture which hath been revealed after Moses, confirming that which was before it, guiding unto the truth and a right road.”

"31 O our people! respond to Allah's summoner and believe in Him. He will forgive you some of your sins and guard you from a painful doom.”

“32. And whose respondeth not to Allah's summoner he can nowise escape in the earth, and he hath no protecting friends instead of Him. Such are in error manifest.” (Koran, Surah Alahcaaf – The Dunes, Surah 46:29-32).

The result of Mohammed’s examination by the “genies” of Israel – the Masters of Israel, the Rabbi – was approval, with the statement that the Koran confirmed the Torah.

And the rabbi ordered the Arab Jews to accept Mohammed as the Messiah promised by God, and to obey him.

All this, according to Aminuddin Mohamad is in the Koran, which is very interesting.

Aminuddin Mohamad warns that Surah 17 that talks about the Miraj that already prepared the Koraishite for the future departure of Mohammed to the city of Yaçrib, today’s Medina:

Miraj was like a warning to the Koraishite that the time of persecution was about to end and that it was high time for the Prophet to emigrate and to the place he goes [sic], will deal with the Israelites. This is why the “Al-Isra” chapter (revealed in Mecca) already talked of Israelites, while in Mecca there were no Israelites, only in Medina there were a few tribes” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 132. Our bold).

In 622, the Hijrah, or immigration – the Exodus – of Mohammed and his followers from Mecca to Yatreb took place, and this is why the city began to be called Medina, or the Prophet’s city.

In this city and region lived the tribe of the Ansar.

But we will let the inconspicuous Aminuddin Mohamad talk:

“when the Auss and Khazrij [Arab groups of the Ansar tribe] arrived in Yaçrib, this area was heavily influenced by the Jews, since most of the population was illiterate” (…)

"Even though idolatrous, the Ansar, since they had lived among the Jews in Medina (Yaçrib), they had a certain idea about the Prophecy and the sacred books. And even though they were political rivals of the Jews, they recognized their religious virtue. The Jews had established Theology schools in Yaçrib, called Baltul-Madaris, where they taught the Torah.

“The Ansar were illiterate and this is why they were impressed by the theological superiority of the Jews. If the Ansar children’s survival was threatened for whatever reason, they promised that “if the child survived, they would convert him to Judaism.” Like the Jews, in general, the Ansar also believed that the last Prophet was about to appear” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 133. Our bold).

So, isn’t it unbelievable?

The Jews had even established theology schools in Yaçrib! And the Ansar, even being illiterate, had certain knowledge of the sacred Books, and the book is the Torah, that is the Pentateuch.

Evidently, Aminuddin Mohamad’s Portuguese writing leaves much to be desired: the author meant that the Jews from Yatreb had established theology schools in this city, and that even the illiterate Ansar took an interest in the sacred books – the Torah and the Talmud, maybe – that is in the Jewish religion, and even promised that if their sickly children, if cured, would be converted to Judaism.

But: it is said that the Yatreb Jews were waiting for the last Prophet.

Certainly, these Jews of Medina were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, for very soon.

So, great was the power and influence of the Jews in Yatreb, the city where Mohammed seeked refuge.

Very interesting.

Why were there so many Jews in Yaçrib?

Aminnudin provides several political reasons for this and ends by saying:

“Besides political motives in the arrival of Jews to Yaçrib, there were also religious motives; through the Torah, the Jewish theologians knew that the last Prophet would appear in Yaçrib. So the Jews settled there, to have the honor of following him, or his descendents.”

“When Mohammed appeared as the last Prophet, Banu Quraiza said that his theologians had settled in Yaçrib due to these predictions.

“The Israelites had progressed a great deal and had expanded their influence to the areas around Yaçrib. They had their own government, wealth was in their hands, and the population grew and scattered all over the place and their best known centers were ‘Khebar’, ‘Wadi Qura’ and ‘Timar’. (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 134. Our bold, in complete amazement!!).

So, were the Medina Jews awaiting the Messiah – the last Prophet – and they identified him as Mohammed?

And so, in Medina, where Mohammed fled to, the Jews had theology schools where they taught the Torah, and through the Torah they had calculated that the Messiah was coming? And he would arrive in Medina!

What cabalistic calculations were these?

So the Jews had the power, the wealth, and the government in Yatreb and its surroundings, and practically dominated the Ansar tribe, and it was precisely to that place the Mohammed fled?

And so, why is it that in Western history books there is nothing like what this most interesting Arab historian, Aminuddin Mohamad, tells us in such nonchalance?

If what Aminuddin Mohamad tells us, according to the Arab traditions, is true, why are Western historians silent about them?

***



IV - "The Case of the Jews" and "The reputation of the Awaited Prophet in Yaçrib"
(Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 134-135).

“The Jews of Yaçarib were awaiting the Prophet that would come to help them. The ruin of Auss and Khazirij, owing to a long time of wars, made them proud that soon they would conquer Yaçrib and the rest of Arabia and would destroy the idolaters just as they had destroyed the “Ád” and the “Iram”. They told the Auss and Khazirij that the Prophet would come to conquer them.”(…) “the Jews awaited the last Prophet, about whom the Torah had already spoken and even heralded his qualities and signs, but they were expecting that this last Prophet would come from among them (that is, a Jew), because up to that time, all the Prophets had been Jews. And since they had already lost prestige, they awaited the appearance of the last Prophet to join them and to fight against the idolatrous Auss and Khazirij, their rivals. However, when the last Prophet, long-awaited by them arrived, they rejected him for several reasons: first, because he descended from Ishmael and not Isaac. Another reason – according to the holy book of the Jews called the “Talmud”- because Mohammed confirmed Jesus’ prophecy, and because the Jews considered Jesus an “impostor” and an illegitimate son, and anyone confirming an impostor was himself an impostor, they used the dirtiest and most insulting words on referring to Jesus and his mother in their sacred book, called the “Talmud”, even though Jesus was also a Jew” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op cit., pp. 135-136).

We consider this text by Aminuddin Mohamad of capital importance in understanding Mohammed’s case.

What is said in this text is that the Jews were awaiting the last Prophet, that is, that they were waiting for the Messiah.

The Jews had been waiting for the Messiah, for centuries, as they still are.

Several times, in their more then millenary history, the Jews have been wrong in identifying the Messiah as a certain historical character. The is how it was with Bar Kochba, in the 2nd century, when their mistake led to the definitive destruction of Old Jerusalem by Emperor Hadrian. The same happened in 1648, when they thought that Sabbatai Sevi was the long-awaited Messiah (Cfr. Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, the Mystical Messiah, Princeton University Press, 1975).

Aminuddin’s text explains that in Yaçrib, in the 7th century, there was a group of Jews – maybe a Jewish sect – that, pondering about the Talmud and the Torah, awaited the Messiah for soon and that, in the beginning, the “genies” of Israel – rabbis – identified him as being Mohammed. Would these Jews have been the ones who, initially, led by the “genies of Israel”- by some rabbis – introduced Mohammed as the “last Prophet”, that is, as the Messiah of Israel, even though he was an Arab and not a member of the Jewish people?

That the Jews of Arabia, at Mohammed’s time were awaiting the imminent arrival of the Messiah is confirmed by what is said by Bernard Lewis:

 “For some Jews of that time, the Prophet’s arrival in Arabia and the emergence of a new world power capable of breaking the hegemony of both Rome and Persia and of taking Jerusalem, the Holy Land, from under the heavy Byzantine domination, seemed to foretell the imminent realization of the Jewish prophecies and the arrival of the messianic era. Fragments of Jewish texts of the time, of an apocalyptic or any other nature, indicate the passion and the expectation raised by the first Arab victories. A piyyut (liturgical poem) written probably after the first Arab victories in Palestine, but before the capture of both Jerusalem and Caesarea, the provincial capital of Rome, serves as an example:  

"Edomite and Ishmaelite will fight in the valley of Acre
"Until the horses submerge in blood and panic
"Gaza and her daughters will be stoned
"And Ascalon and Ashdod will be paralyzed by terror"

(Bernard Lewis, Judeus no Islã, Xenon ed., 1990, p. 90. Original edition, The Jews of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1916).

Aminuddin Mohamad goes on telling that…

“The Jews of Medina welcomed Mohammed and established an alliance with him in order to profit from his influence and power; however, the plan of God worked in another way.

“One of the wise men and priests of the Jews, called Abdallah Bin Salam embraced Islam, together with his whole family, because he knew and had read the holy texts where Mohammed’s arrival and its signs were written. After his arrival, he soon recognized that that was the last Prophet that God had promised to send, and these promises were made to Moses (in the Old Testament) and to Jesus (New Testament).

The Jews, who had a lot of consideration and respect for Abdallah Bin Salam, still did not know that he had converted to Islam. A meeting was set with the Prophet Mohammed to receive the Jews. Abdallah Bin Salam was hiding. The Prophet received them at the set time and asked them: ‘What position does Abdallah Bin Salam occupy among you?’ The Jews answered: ‘He is a noble man, the son of nobles; he is a priest and a wise man’. Then Abdallah Bin Salam appeared from behind a curtain where he was hiding and told them what he had done and invited them to join Islam. This did not in any way please the Jews that soon started making secret plans against Mohammed and were disturbed by his verbal disputes, just like their ancestors had done to Jesus, (six centuries before) after having recognized him as the authentic Prophet. History was repeating itself. And God, to warn the Jews and to inform the Muslims, revealed the second chapter of the Koran, verses 42 to 46, where God reminds the Jews of the favors granted them, telling them to keep the promise they had made to God through Moses, and that He would keep the promise He had made. Then God ordered them to believe in the Koran that came to confirm the sacred books that they had, and to know the truth and not be the first ones to reject it.

“God knew what was on their minds, and this is why he informed Mohammed and the Muslims what they were planning. The Jews were determined to play a double role. On one hand they said they were Mohammed’s friends, and on the other, they had connections with non-believers, Mohammed’s enemies. Their purpose was to exile Mohammed from Medina just as it had happened in Mecca. They told the prophet to stay in Jerusalem and to leave Medina as a station between Mecca and Jerusalem. The said that Jerusalem was home to all Prophets, and therefore the ideal was for Mohammed to stay in Jerusalem and not in Mecca or Medina. But soon God ordered him to change the Quibla from Jerusalem to Mecca, which enraged the Jews even more” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 181-182. Our bold and underlining).

This long quotation was necessary, because it sheds light on the initial alliance and later separation of Jews and Muslims, because at least initially, the Jews supported Mohammed; later, at least some groups stopped supporting him as the last prophet of the Jews, that is, as their Messiah.

The fact that Mohammed was Arab would have caused some Jews not to accept him as the Messiah. They insisted that Mohammed became a Jew, making Jerusalem his capital, for Jerusalem was the capital of all the Prophets, and so it would be more dignified for Mohammed to live there than in Medina or Mecca.

They also demanded that the Quibla were Jerusalem and no other. This point was turned into a sine qua non condition:

“The Jews came to see the Prophet with the proposition that all of them would convert to Islam if he went back to praying to the Quibla of Jerusalem” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p.187).

But when Mohammed changed the Quibla from Jerusalem to Mecca, many of them rejected him as a false prophet.

The definitive cause of rupture was after all, Mohammed’s personal stance on the Quibla.

Undoubtedly, another critical point that had previously contributed to the divergence between the Jews and Mohammed had been Mohammed’s position regarding Christ, accepting Him as a Prophet, but not as the incarnated God.

When Mohammed stated that Jesus Christ was a Prophet, the Jews started to stop considering him as the awaited Messiah. It was not enough for them that Mohammed rejected Jesus as the Son of God made man. They even refused to accept Jesus as a mere Prophet. These reasons would have led the Arab Jews to finally reject Mohammed as the awaited Messiah of Israel.

All this is in Aminuddin Mohamad’s book.

All this explains the numerous coincidences between Muslim and Jewish practices, just as we will see later, the extremely large number of texts of Jewish origin in the Koran, verses copied from the Old Testament and from the rabbinic Midrashes.

Owing to this final rejection of Mohammed as the Messiah of Israel by the rabbis, Aminuddin Mohamad’s book ends up by adopting a racist approach, violently anti-Semitic, as he writes:

“The criminal nature of the Jews is ancient. They always contradicted the Prophets, crushing them whenever they brought laws that went against their whims” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 136).

And to provide a foundation for this racist statement, that the Jews have a criminal nature, the author under study quotes Jesus’ words against the Pharisee scribes.

Well, Jesus damned the scribes and Pharisees for their vices and doctrine but never the Jewish people for their nature, particularly because Jesus himself, the Holy Mary, and the apostles, were all Jews.

The Gospels are anti-Pharisaic and not anti-Judaic.

It is racist to assert that “the criminal nature of the Jews is ancient”.

There is no criminal nature in the Jews of any other people, for that matter. In all peoples and races there are good and bad people. Aminuddin Mohamad’s text incites racial hatred.

And the book under study goes on:

“The idolaters, even though they do not profess the same belief as the Jews, because they were ignorant, they were impressed by the constant mentioning of this awaited Prophet by the Jews, and it was this mentioning that paved the way for the conversion of the Ansar to Islam” (Aminuddin, Mohamad, op. cit. p. 136. Our bold and underlining).

The readers should note that this book distributed by the Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina confesses that, at least some Arab tribes only converted to Islam under the influence of the Arab Jews.

Why don’t Western History books mention these data confessed in Islamic books?

Why would it be a taboo to study the origins of Islam under a historic perspective, something that we are doing in this brief historic study?

Then, when Mohammed started his contacts with the Arab tribes of Yaçrib they were ready to listen to him and to accept his preaching. This is why Aminuddin Mohamad says that:

“The Prophet, in turn, invited them – [the Ansar and the Khazirij] – to Islam, and recited the verses of the Koran to them. When they heard him, they looked at each other and said:

“The Prophet who we heard the Jews from Yaçrib talk about seems to be this one! Undoubtedly, what he recited is the truth. So, don’t let the Jews join Islam before us; otherwise we will lose the honor of being the first ones”. The Jews said to them: “A Prophet will be sent soon; his day approaches; we will follow him and kill you with his help, the same way as Ad and Iram were killed”. They said this when there were disputes among them. But when the long-awaited for Prophet arrived, they rejected him for not being a Jew, according to the Koran:

“And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith” ” (Koran, Surah 2: 89, Surah Al-Baqarat – The Cow, Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 138. The bold is ours).

So, the Jews promised, initially, to follow Mohammed, for they believed, at least in the beginning, that he was the Messiah awaited by Israel.

Later, other Masters of Israel forced the Judaic Messianic sect that had taken Mohammed as the awaited Messiah to reject him, because he descended from Ishmael, and was not an Israelite, even though Mohammed’s Book – the Koran – confirmed what was in the Torah, that is, in the Bible.

And very sincerely Aminuddin Mohamad tells us that:

“The Ansar joined Islam immediately. This was in the tenth year of the Prophecy. This was the beginning of the Yaçarib Arabs’ Islam.

“God had prepared the way for Islam, having them live side by side with the Jews, a learned people, cognizant of the writings, even though the Ansar were polytheists and idolaters” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 138. Our bold).

So, according to the book “Mohamad, the messenger of God” by Aminuddin Mohamad, published by Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina, it was the Jews that prepared the Arabs to adopt Islam, a religion that confirmed what was in the Torah.

And this is a sensational acknowledgement, because it makes it very clear that Mohammed as a Prophet is a myth.

The ties between the Jews and Mohammed at that time were so strong that some of Mohammed’s Arab followers feared that he would leave them and would join the Jews. At least this is what Aminuddin Mohamad tells us what Abdul Hathin Bin Taiham said to Mohammed:

“Oh! Prophet of God, between us and the Jews there are pacts that will be denounced. So, after this is done and God grants you success in your mission, you will go back to your people and abandon us?” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 144).

Finally, on September 13, 622, that is, on the 21st day of Rabyiul-Awwal, the people from Mecca surrounded Mohammed’s house, who managed to escape to Yaçrib, which became Madinatul-Nabi, the Prophet’s City. (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 158).

Mohammed’s going to Yaçrib – the Hijrah – marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar.

“Arabs and Jews – [from Yaçrib] – participated in the ceremony welcoming the Prophet, the true Prophet, the promised Prophet that would save the nations and lead them to victory. This great man has arrived” (Aminuddin Mohamad , op. cit., p. 159. Our bold).


 
"The Jews of Medina and the Peace Treaty with Them"

“The Jews of Medina, that were Jews by race (not converts) came from other areas and settled in Medina. Some historians believe that they were not of the Jewish race, but rather that they had converted to Judaism, because they notice a difference in the nature of true Jews and those who came from Arabia. They say that the Jews, although they are scattered almost the world over, never change their names; they use only Jewish names. However, a peculiarity of the Arab Jews is that they used pure Arab names. For example: Haris, Nadhir, Cainucaa, etc. Secondly, Jews by nature are cowardly and shy. And that is why, when Moses told them to fight the enemy, they answered:

 “You and your lord go fight. We will wait here” (Chap. 5, verse 24)

“But on the contrary, the Jews of Medina were brave” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit.,, p. 168).

Evidently, these two statements are anti-Semitic and false.

Jews frequently adopt the names of other peoples. This is what happens all over the Western countries, particularly in the Iberian Peninsula, where the Jews usually took on Christian names.

As for the accusation of cowardice made against the Jewish people, it is absurd, for even recent history proves it wrong.

And Aminuddin Mohamad goes on:

“There were three Jewish tribes in Medina, Banu Cainocaa, Banu Nadhir, and Quraiza, that had settled in the surroundings of Medina and had built forts and citadels (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 169).

The book we are studying goes on saying that:

“The Jews, in order to keep their monopoly in Medina, did not want these two tribes – [Ansar and Khazrij] – to unite again.

“And still about Mohammed’s appearance, the same Jews in their disputes with the inhabitants of Medina told them that they were waiting for the last Prophet [the Messiah of Israel] and that, when he arrived, they would join him and become victorious over them.

“However, when the Prophet came, whom they recognized from the signs as being the promised Prophet, they rejected him only because he descended from Ishmael and was not a Jew. The Jews started to nurture hatred and enmity for the Muslims since the day the prophet arrived in Medina, just as they concocted conspiracies against Mohammed and the Muslims, which they have gone on doing. But some of them recognized the truth and joined Islam, like Abdullah Bin Salam and others” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 169).

From this text, and from all of Aminuddin Mohamad’s book, it is inferred that at least a group or sect of Jews in Arabia prepared, launched, and recognized Mohammed as their awaited Messiah, but that, soon after, other Jews started to reject Mohammed as the Jewish Messiah, because he was Arab and not from Israel. This text can then explain so many texts in the Koran that are favorable to Israel, such as the anti-Trinity and anti-Christian texts. It also becomes clear why there was a rupture later between Arabs and Jews regarding Mohammed.

And the Centro de Divulgação do Islam’s book goes on saying that: 

Islam is a religion of peace, that it tries to promote peace throughout the world, among all peoples, and that Mohammed was a worker of peace. The word “Islam”, in Arabic, is synonymous to peace” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 169).

We copied the above text, exactly as it is in Aminuddin Mohamad’s book, even though it goes against the wish of the author of the article, where he states that he wants to destroy the myth of the crucified redeemer, which is a strange way of promoting peace.

This extraordinary book we are studying here says more:

“Mohammed, with open arms, approached the Jews, since he came to confirm the religion brought by Moses and not to contradict it. At that time, the Muslims still turned to Jerusalem for their daily prayers, just as the Jews did. So, the Jews were also favorably inclined toward Mohammed, toward the well-being, prosperity and freedom for Medina and its inhabitants. For such, a pact would have to be created and put into practice, as soon as possible, before any disagreement could arise. So, under Mohammed’s guidance, a pact was immediately written and signed by all groups” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 169 . The highlights are ours).

Let’s highlight what is confessed in the Centro de Divulgação do Islam’s book:

“Mohammed, with open arms, approached the Jews, once he wanted to confirm the religion brought by Moses and not to contradict it.”

We are not making any accusations. It is those accountable for disseminating Islam that are confessing:

“Mohammed came to confirm the religion brought by Moses and not to contradict it".

And for such Mohammed made a pact with the Jews.

What did this pact say?

Aminuddin Mohamad quotes some items of this pact between the Jews and the Muslims:

“The document of the treaty is considered one of the most ancient documents recorded in the world. [Sic!!! Is it necessary to prove the absurdity of this presumption?] The renowned historian Ibn Hicham transcribed the treaty’s whole text, which is very long, with 40 articles. Here we present just a summary of the pact:

"1 – The retaliation and indemnity system that is being practiced will continue;

"2 – The Jews will have religious freedom and nobody has the right to interfere in their religious matters;

"3 – Jews and Muslims, if in war with third parties, will support each other;”

(...)

“This treaty was signed more than 1,400 years ago. Has there ever been any other example of any Prophet or reformer entering a peace treaty with those professing a rival faith?” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 170-171. Our bold).

We must agree that: there has never been any other example of any Prophet or reformer entering a peace treaty with those professing a rival faith.”

This leads to the fact that Islam was not, at least in the beginning, Judaism’s rival faith. Not only were they not rivals but instead they had a mutual support pact in case of war.

And why wasn’t there an equal pact with the Christians in Arabia?

And why, in all Christian territories conquered by the Muslims, the result was almost always the extinction of Christianity?

Evidently, this alliance pact between Muslims and Jews reinforces the hypothesis that in the beginning, Mohammed was considered the Messiah by a Jewish sect in Arabia.

With this military alliance established between Muslims and Jews in Medina, Mohammed could start his wars to dominate the Arab peninsula, starting by conquering Mecca.


 
The Quibla is Turned to Jerusalem

“The idolaters of Mecca, despite bowing before idols, had a notion that their Quibla was the Kaaba, founded by Adam, renewed by Abraham and his son Ishmael, considered their spiritual leader.

“There were also the adepts of the book (Jews and Christians) that had their Quibla in Jerusalem or Bethlehem. When the prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.) was in Mecca, he didn’t want to disregard the Kaaba as the Quibla, but nonetheless he took Jerusalem, the Prophets’ Quibla for thousands of years, as his Quibla. In Mecca it was possible to unite both and so he did, so that when he woke up to pray, he turned his face to the north, having the Kaaba in front of him, and Jerusalem too, since it was located to the north of Mecca; thus he united both the Quibla of the sons of Ishmael and the Quibla of the sons of Israel (Jacob)” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 183).

This means that Mohammed, from the very start, accepted the Quibla of the Jews. He prayed like the Jews: turned to Jerusalem. But, not to scandalize the Arabs of Mecca, he pretended to pray turned to the Kaaba, positioning himself in such a way as to have the Kaaba and Jerusalem in front of him. Thus, the Arab idolaters thought that he continued to pray turned to the Kaaba, as was their custom, when in fact, he was turned to Jerusalem, like the Jews. Mohammed was a secret proselyte of the Jews, or at least adept to a Jewish Arabian sect that awaited the Messiah for soon.

But when he emigrated to Medina, then it was no longer possible to unite both, because Mecca is located to the south of Medina and Jerusalem to the north.

[Mohammed] “had to chose one of the Quiblas and he chose the Quibla of the previous Prophets, the sons of Israel, and that was Jerusalem. So, when the Prophet built the Massjid of Medina the Quibla was turned to the north, that is, the direction of Jerusalem” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 183. Our bold).

“Summing up, while the Prophet was in Mecca, he united both Quiblas when he prayed by turning his head to the north, finding both Jerusalem and the Kaaba at the same time. But since the purpose of the Quibla was to give the believers a new, distinct symbol, this purpose was not being met because the idolaters of Mecca also had the Kaaba as their Quibla. So, in order to establish a distinction from them too, the Prophet prayed at Makam Ibrahim (Abraham’s place) whose vestiges still exist today, turning toward the north (Jerusalem), because compared with the idolaters, the Christians and the Jews still had some consideration for God in accepting the holy books”.

“But in Medina, after the emigration, it was no longer possible to unite both Quiblas. However, the Prophet in Medina still prayed turned to the north (Jerusalem) for sixteen months, but always anxious to receive God’s commandment to change the direction of the Quibla to the south (Kaaba in Mecca), the original Quibla” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op cit. p. 186).

This confirms that Mohammed, while in Mecca, simulated praying toward the Kaaba, but that when he went to Medina, dominated by the Jews, he clearly adopted the Quibla of the Jews: Jerusalem. He “chose the Quibla of the children of Israel”. Mohammed had become a Jewish proselyte.

When after sixteen years in Medina, with the crisis between Muslims and Jews, Mohammed adopted the Quibla of Mecca once again, thus publicly braking up with the Jews, who up to them had had a very strong influence upon him.


 
The Jews Break their Pact with Islam -
Conspiracy of Some Jews against Mohammed’s Life

“After Mohammed’s victory over the Koraishite in the battle of Badr in the year 624, according to the Hijra, Mohammed’s power took hold in Medina but, at the same time, the Jews began to abandon him.

“Through a solemn pact, all the groups of Medina (including non-Arab ones) – [Meaning the Jews] – recognized Mohammed as its administrator. Now, the results of the battle of Badr awakened the Jews to the fact that Mohammed was winning the hearts of the inhabitants of Medina and that they would soon all join Islam. And so what would become of the dream of establishing a Jewish kingdom in Arabia? They thought of the need to undermine his influence, but how? The Arabs of Mecca fought against him and lost. So, the Jews thought of adopting a few tricks and weapons such as speaking ill of him and his religion to his people, intrigues and treason. These ill intentions were already in their minds long before Badr, but now it was high time to put them into practice.”

“Many Jews, including Abdullah Bin Ubai joined Islam, but not truly, according to the Koran (Chap. II, verse 8). (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 213).

“The Jews had three tribes in the surroundings of Medina: Cainuca, Nahdir, and Curaiza. They were capitalists, farmers, and traders. The Jews of Cainuca were considered the bravest and most valiant, and this is why they always carried concealed weapons. In addition to religious influence – because before embracing Islam the Ansar were mostly idolatrous and ignorant, and like the Jews, they accepted the Book – [the Bible, that is, because the Koran didn’t exist. So, the Book is the Bible] – the Ansar looked up to them respectfully and treated them as more learned. (…)

“When Islam arrived, the Jews saw that their unfair power [over the people of Medina] – was being jeopardized and its days were counted. As Islam grew in Medina, the religious influence of the Jews diminished and as the Ansar got richer they freed themselves financially from the Jews. And when this financial influence was over, the secret of the Jews began to be revealed. When the Prophet arrived in Medina, he had signed an alliance and good relationship agreement with them granting them religious freedom. But the Prophet had to condemn their bad deeds. So, the Koran says the following about the Jews:

“(They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden” (Chap. 5, verse 42). “And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences”. (Chap. 4, verse 161).

“When the Koran began to expose their corruption, they were enraged and started to conspire against Islam and the Prophet’s person (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 215).

“But after the battle of Badr the Muslims became stronger. The Jews, fearing that Islam was about to become an unbeatable force, unilaterally revoked the agreement with Mohammed” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 216).

The Jews ended up causing incidents that led the Jewish Cainuca tribe to rebel against Mohammed.

 “After that, the Muslims were left with no other alternative than to fight against the Banu Cainuca Jews, otherwise Islam would deteriorate politically” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 217).

The Cainuca were defeated and had to emigrate from Medina:

“Finally, led by Ubadah Bin Samit, the Jews from Banu Cainuca were allowed to leave and emigrate from Medina in punishment for their actions. So, they went to Wadi Al-Cura, where they remained for some time and then moved toward the north of Arabia, near “Azriat”, next to the border with Syria, where they settled (in old Basan) (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 217).

After the murder of several “missionaries” sent by Mohammed to the Arab tribes, Aminuddin Mohamad’s book says that “these two consecutive tragedies, following the great tragedy of Ohud, encouraged the Jews and the hypocrites of Medina to raise their heads against the Prophet. The hypocritical Jews and the idolaters had already united against Mohammed and started conspiring against him. The Prophet had already noticed that” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 243).

This act of treason by the Jews against Mohammed was possibly a consequence of some Jews not recognizing him as the Messiah, but this is still a mere hypothesis in our study.

Aminuddin Mohammed talks of an indemnity payment that the Jews of the Banu Nadhir had refused to pay.

Mohammed, followed by Abu Bakr, Omar, and Ali would have gone to the Jewish neighborhood of Banu Nadhir to address this problem.

“The Jews received them cordially and feigned friendliness having them sit under a great wall of the palace. Pretending to go out to call other Jews, they started to take their distance, whispering that that would be a good opportunity to kill the four of them. Someone would go up the castle and drop a rock on the Prophet and his three companions, smashing them. Noticing their attitude, the Prophet started to suspect a conspiracy. However, a Jew called Amar Bin Jahash Bin Kaab went up the castle furtively to drop the rock; but before they could carry out their plan, God informed the Prophet of the conspiracy of the Jews, thus confirming his suspicion. The Prophet left the site immediately with his companions and without uttering a word set out to Medina. The Jews wanted to call him back, but the Prophet said to them: “You conspire to kill me! We no longer trust you and with this you are breaking the agreement you had with me”. The Jews neither denied the Prophet’s statement nor apologized” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 244).

Mohammed also tried to reach an agreement with the Jews of Banu Nadhir, but they did not budge in their resistance and looked for the support of “the Banu Qurayza, the other Jewish tribe” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 244. Our bold).

“However, the Prophet asked the Banu Qurayza, the other congener Jewish tribe to renew the previous agreement with them. They accepted. Nevertheless the Banu Nadhir kept to their position, and did not agree to make a new commitment” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 244).

Mohammed demanded that if the Banu Nadhir did not make the agreement, they should leave the surroundings of Medina. The Banu Nadhir then prepared to wage war against the Prophet. The latter surrounded them and forced them to leave. “Only two of them, Yamin Bin Amr and Abu Saad Ibn Wahab remained in Medina, because they converted to Islam” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 245).

And then Aminuddin Mohamad gives us very valuable information:

“By then, the Prophet had a Jewish scribe charged with his correspondance with the Hebrews, but since the Jews had proved to be traitors, they could no longer be trusted, particularly regarding top state and Muslim secrets. A trustworthy scribe was needed. For such, the Prophet ordered Zaid Bin Sabit, a young man from Medina to learn Hebrew to take charge of the Prophet’s correspondence. Zaid Bin Sabit, besides being a revelation scribe during the Prophet’s lifetime, he was also trusted with the task of compiling the Koran during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, the first caliph” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 246. Our bold and underlining.

So, Mohammed’s primitive scribe was also Jewish!

And Mohammed’s correspondence was done in Hebrew!!

And this correspondence was so abundant that the new scribe had to learn Hebrew.

So, don’t tell us that Mohammed’s correspondence was in Hebrew in order for him to communicate with the common Jew, who did not speak Hebrew, but Aramaic. At that time, only the rabbis and the scholars of the Torah and the Talmud read, wrote, and spoke Hebrew.

And this scribe, Zaid Bin Sabit, whose name sounds like being of Jewish origin, wrote the first compilation of the Koran.

It is not without reason that in the Koran – as we will see in a future study, God permitting – there are so many terms of Jewish origin, and so many verses copied from the rabbinic Midrashes.

Aminuddin tells us about an episode of calumny and defamation of Aicha, one of Mohammed’s wives. The case is of interest for the change made in the Koran, which since then required four witnesses to prove adultery (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 256 and Koran, 24: 4-5).


 
The Siege of Medina or the Battle of the Ditch

The author we are summarizing here tells us that the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadhir, after emigrating from Medina, never stopped conspiring against Mohammed.

Their leaders organized a general coalition of idolaters and Jews against Mohammed’s followers (Cfr Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 257).

“The Jews managed to lead all the notable tribes against Mohammed; it could be said that it was a war against believers on one side and all the allied unbelievers of the Arabic peninsula on the other” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 244).

This text shows that there were Jews resolved to combat Mohammed as the false Messiah (as a Prophet), while other Jews continued to believe in Mohammed as the Prophet, that is, as the promised Messiah awaited by the Jews.

The situation became even worse for Mohammed, when the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza changed sides and joined the conspirators.

“When the Prophet got news that the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza had also joined the enemy against the Muslims, he sent Saa’d Bin Maadh, chief of the Auss [another Jewish tribe], an ally of Banu Qurayza and Saad Bin Ubadah, chief of the Khazrij [also a Jewish tribe], to investigate the case with the Jews and to advise them to go back on their decision.

“These men got there, tried to convince them by explaining and in every way reminding them of the agreement that used to be between them and the Muslim; but the Jews refused to accept the Prophet’s request and rudely replied by saying: “We don’t know any Mohammed, and we don’t have any agreement with him” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 261).

All this resulted in the siege of Medina that was saved thanks to a stratagem devised by a Persian, who advised the Muslims to make a ditch around Medina. This afforded them a long resistance time, until an important ally of the Jews sided with Mohammed, and owing to his intrigues, gave Mohammed the victory.

“Even in these difficult moments, the pure souls continued to join Islam. An old man called Nuaim Bin Massud, of the Ghatfan tribe, a great friend of the Jews’, left the ranks of unbelievers and presented himself to the Prophet asking to join Islam” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 265. Our bold).

Nuaim Bem Masssud, hiding his conversion to Islam and his having joined Mohammed, created such a web of intrigue among the several allied groups against Mohammed that they started to split up. They began to complain that the siege of Medina was taking too long and so, at last, the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza declared:

"Tomorrow is Saturday (Sabbath), that is, compulsory rest required by our religion, so we cannot fight tomorrow; and besides, we will not take part in this battle unless you leave hostages as a guarantee that you won’t leave us” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 226. Our bold).

As a result, Mohammed’s enemies ended up by suffering a huge defeat.

And we point out that these tribes observed the Sabbath.


 
The End of Banu Qurayza

“Prior to that, the Prophet had made an agreement with the Jews, ensuring them total safety, freedom of living, wealth, and religion, but the latter did not respect the agreement and rebelled, as it has already been mentioned. The Prophet wanted to renew the agreement with them, but the Banu Nadhir tribe refused to and was expelled from Medina. The Banu Qurayza tribe, however, accepted to renew the agreement and they went on living in peace and safety” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 268).

After the battle of the Ditch, the Banu Qurayza were surrounded by the Muslims in their castle and had no means of winning.

“Their chief, Kaab Bin Assad, finding himself surrounded and without means of fighting off the Muslims, gathered his people and presented them with three proposals:

“In the first one he said: “There is nothing to doubt about Mohammed’s prophecy, because the Torah, that is our sacred book, speaks clearly of his arrival, and he is the Prophet we were waiting for. So, we had better believe him and end this enmity in order to save our lives and wealth. However, his people did not accept this proposal and refused to join Islam” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 269. Our bold and underlining).

Because the Banu Qurayza resisted, they ended up by accepting what was decided by the chief of the Auss, the other Jewish tribe – who sentenced all the Bonu Coraiza men to death, between 400 and 600 of them.

“The sentence was in full agreement with the law of war of the time, and in compliance with what is written in the Torah”(Bible) (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 270. Our bold.)

So, it becomes very clear from what is expressed in the Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina’s book: Mohammed, in this case, abided by the Torah.

And it is reconfirmed by the same book in the following words:

“In the prophetic traditions it is recorded that the Prophet, when he heard Saad’s decision, said: You based your decision on the divine laws” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 270. Our bold.)


 
V - Mohammed’s Attempted Pilgrimage to Mecca

Six years after the Hijra –Mohammed’s escape to Medina – he wanted to go back to his native city to pray at the Kaaba.

Aminuddin Mohamad says:

“The Muslims prayed in its direction and they were the continuators of Abraham’s mission” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit.,p. 283)

The same author said before that in Medina Mohammed had established that prayers should be said facing Jerusalem and not toward the Kaaba. (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 83 e 183).

It should be emphasized that the Muslims regarded themselves – as they still do – as the continuators of Abraham’s mission.

And Aminuddin Mohamad says that in the sixth year of the Hijra, Mohammed left Medina with 1,400 men to pray in Mecca.

“They put on the “Ihram”- [“a white gown worn by pilgrims”] – with the intention of going on an “Umra” [short pilgrimage] and took with them 70 camels for “Curban” [sacrifice] (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 284).

Mohammed sent someone to tell the Koraishite that he was coming as a pilgrim:

“Tell them that we did not come to fight, but rather for an Umra and the proof is in the sacrificial animals and the Ihram” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit.,p. 285).

The two quotations above provide very interesting information:

1)      First, that the Muslims sacrificed animals, now something prohibited among them;

2)      And second, that things destined to be sacrificed to God were called “Curban”.

This word is the same used by the Pharisees, based on the Mishnah, to designate something consecrated to God, according to what is written in Mark’s Gospel: 

“But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Curban (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother; thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that" (Mark 7: 11). 

Christ condemned the Pharisee custom of considering something a Curban, a gift to God, so that it won’t be given to the parents.

The word Curban and this Pharisee custom came from the Mishnah (Cfr. Mishnah, Nedarim treaty, I, 2-3-4)

From this it can be concluded that the Muslims had learned the practice of the Curban from the “Genies of Israel”, that is, the Jewish rabbis that had taught them in the beginning of Islam. So, originally, the Muslims were a Jewish Messianic sect that obeyed the Mishnah, as much as possible. Later, other rabbis refused to see Mohammed as the last Prophet awaited by Israel, that is, the Messiah, because Mohammed was an Arab and not a Jew, and because he dared to recognize Christ as a Prophet, something the more radical rabbis could not tolerate. And finally, there was the issue of the Quibla of Jerusalem having been abandoned by Mohammed; hence, the split of the Jews with Islam.”

At that time, Mohammed’s followers honored him with a cult, with practices that would be repeated in many Messianic sects in the Middle Ages and even in the 20th century:

An Arab Koraishite witness that visited the Muslim camp when Mohammed tried to visit Mecca to pray next to the Kaaba says:

“I have never seen a king among your men as I saw Mohammed among his companions; his companions like him and honor him so that they carefully pick up every hair of his that falls on the ground; when he washes himself they don’t let one single drop of water fall to the ground; and they almost fight to use this water, and they rub it on their bodies. When he speaks there is total silence and nobody exchanges glances with him” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 287).

Urwah Bin Massud As-Sacafi, leader of the Arabs from Taif, witnessed this cult of Mohammed, and said that he had never seen anyone do this for any king.

But the same was done for the pseudo Messiah Tanchelm in the Middle Ages and for others in the 20th century.

If Urwah Bin Massue As-Sacafi had not seen this done for any one else, I have… Children, I have.

This time Mohammed didn’t succeed in entering Mecca, but a truce was reached in Hudaibiya between him and the Koraishite that would allow Mohammed with his followers to go to Mecca on pilgrimage in the following year, under certain conditions.



 
VI – Mohammed’s Victory over the Jews of Khaibar

This happened in the year 629, or the seventh year of the Hijra.

After some Jewish groups split up from Islam because they did not accept an Arab Messiah, or the fact that he recognized Christ as a prophet, these Jewish groups left for Khaibar, where they organized several fortifications.

“The Jews of Banu Nadhir and Banu Qurayza – [that had followed Mohammed in the beginning of his preaching, accepting him as the awaited Prophet, that is as the Messiah of Israel] – when they were expelled from Medina they settled in Khaibar; the hearts of these Jews were filled with hatred and enmity for the Muslims. They started conspiring against the Muslims and carrying with them other Arab tribes hostile to Mohammed (the reader will remember that it was by this great effort by these Jews that all the tribes mobilized against Mohammed, followed by the battle of the Ditch that made Medina tremble)” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 306).

“(…) the new leader of the Jews, called Ussair Bin Razzan, summoned all the Jewish tribes and gave a speech” [inciting them to fight] (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 306).  

“The Jewish community that lived in Khaibar was strongest, the wealthiest, and the best equipped for war than any Arab people. These Jews knew that that would be their last deployment against Mohammed; if they lost they would be treated as the Jews of Banu Qurayza had been” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 309).

According to the narrative we are following, Mohammed had 1,600 men with him, of which one hundred were riders, while the Jews had more than 20,000 warriors (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 308-310).

Amidst these combats, a Jewess called Sufiya Bin Huyay Bin Akhtab, the daughter of Buna Nadhir and Khana Bin Rabi Bin Ubai Al Hokaik’s wife, was captured and married to Mohammed. Later she received the title of “Mother of the Believers” (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp.,  313- 314).

The Muslims kept all the plunder, but the copies of the Torah were given back to the Jews. This behavior was completely different from that of the Romans toward the Jews when they conquered Jerusalem, when they burned and trampled on all the Sacred Writings they could lay their hands on inside the temple.

“This was also different from the attitude of the Christians when they chased the Jews away from the Iberian Peninsula and burned all the copies of the Torah. With this for comparison we ask: Who is more tolerant?” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p 315).

Well, this is completely false, for the Church always admitted the Old Testament as true. What they sometimes burned were copies of the Talmud and not the Old Testament, which the Catholic Church recognizes as an integral part of the divine revelation.

After his victory, Mohammed did not exterminate these Jewish tribes; instead he pardoned them and let them work in the fields, and charged only an annual tax on their harvests.

Aminuddin Mohammed’s book states several times that Islam advocates equality among men and that it condemns racism. However, regarding the Jews, this condemnation of racism is not so clear, for in the book we are summarizing, one can read:

“After the conquest of Khaibar, the Prophet and the Muslims remained there for a few more days. He had already granted the Jews total safety; however they are a people with bad instincts and cannot be trusted” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p 315).

And to prove it, a new Jewish attempt to murder Mohammed is told:

In Aminuddin Mohammed’s book it can be read that “Until that date, the Muslims faced aggressions from all sides and so they were more concentrated in defense and so they were not able to spend much time learning Islam in detail. In spite of that, through the efforts of the Prophet, illiteracy, that was very common in Arabia, was already eradicated among the Muslims”.

“All of them could read and write; and now the children of nomads, barbarians, drunkards, etc. had become, in a single action, theologians, professors, historians, statesmen, administrators, generals, and pious men” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p 318).

From the high number of alphabetized people, however, we have to exclude Mohammed, who remained an illiterate until his death.

Mohammed decided on the order of the prayers and on prohibitions regarding food, which were very similar to the Jewish ones.

“Now that daily prayers, in congregation, were instituted, as well as fasting, charity, and the prohibition of alcoholic beverages, additional social reforms followed, according to Aicha, the Prophet’s wife: “The reforms were gradual and in time.” From that time also date the prohibitions of eating animals that use their front paws or claws to eat, the prohibition of eating carnivore animals and birds, the prohibition of eating the meat of donkeys and mules, the prohibition of “Mutá” (temporary marriage practiced in the times of ignorance – before Islam – and in its beginning) and the prohibition of having sexual intercourse with one’s wife before knowing for sure that her uterus is free. So, a month has to elapse and, if she is pregnant, she has to give birth first. In that same year it was also prohibited to sell gold and silver in unequal molds” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 318).



 
VII – The Conquest of Mecca

In the year 630, the eighth of the Hijra, Mohammed left with 10,000 men to conquer Mecca.

The victory took place almost without any fighting, meeting only with a minimal resistance.

Aminuddin Mohamad tells us that Mohammed divided his troops to enter the city from several different directions, recommending that no blood be shed, and that weapons be used only in case of a deadly attack.

“When the four divisions were ready to march, the Prophet heard Saad Bin Ubadah say: “Today is the day of the battle, a day of great war, the day in which all prohibitions are abolished”. Upon hearing these words, the Prophet said: “No! Saad you are mistaken; today is the day in which God will exalt the Kaaba”, and then he removed Saad Bin Ubadah from his post of chief and put his son Kais in his place. The Prophet tried this because after hearing those words, if he had let Saad Bin Ubadah in his post, he [the commander] would have certainly gone against the Prophet’s orders of not shedding blood in Mecca” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. , p. 339. Our underlining and bold).

What Saad proclaimed, that the day of Mohammed’s victory would be the day in which all the prohibitions would be abolished”, was exactly what the Jewish Cabala also proclaimed, and which the Jews in general believed; that the day of the awaited Messiah’s triumph would also be the day in which all the prohibitions would be abolished”.

Saad Bin Ubadah’s words were impregnated with Jewish Messianism. This Saad Bin Ubadah had already been introduced by Aminuddin Mohamad as a Jew, the chief of the Jewish tribe of Khazrij (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 261).

So, Saad Bin Ubadah was one of the Jews that had accepted Mohammed as the last Prophet awaited by the Jews: the Messiah of Israel.

What is curious is that Mohammed hurried to deny Saad Bin Ubadah’s Messianic anomism and to destitute him from his commanding position, substituting him by Saad Bin Ubadah’s son – who was also a Jew, of course.

In so doing, Mohammed was refusing the Jewish Messianic anomism – which will probably be another cause for the split between the Jews and Mohammed – without really wanting to break his bonds with the Jews completely, since he gave the command to Saad Bin Ubadah’s son.

Such anomistic expectation – the abolition of all prohibitions – of the messianic kingdom, refused by Mohammed when he took Mecca, was eventually perpetuated in Shiite Islam. The duodecimal Shiite Muslims believed that with the arrival of the hidden Imam, Imam Mahdi, the lawful prohibitions would be abolished (Cfr. Henry Corbin, En Islam Iranien, Gallimard, Paris, 1971, 4 vol.; and Christian Jambet, La Grande Réssurection d' Alamut, Verdier, Dijon, 1990).

The conquest of Mecca is presented by Aminuddin Mohamad as the realization of a Moses’ Deuteronomy text.

“The Prophet was already preparing his entry in the city and so the Bible’s prophecy was being fulfilled:

"2- And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them. Deuteronomy 33:2." (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 340. Our bold).

Now, the true Deuteronomy text is a little different from this one quoted above. In the true text there is no number ten. And the ending is also different, as it says: “To his right a fiery law” (Deut. 33:2).

After the conquest of Mecca, Mohammed supposedly destroyed all the idols and paintings of the Kaaba, thus putting an end to idolatry among the Arabs.

“After the speech and pardon granted to his enemies, the Prophet entered the Kaaba and saw that its walls were filled with paintings of angels and prophets. There were statues of Abraham and Ishmael, represented with guessing arrows in their hands and also a statue of Jesus” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 343).


 
Mohammed After the Conquest of Mecca -
Marital Tribulations

The Ansar, who had received Mohammed in Medina, feared that after having conquered his city of birth [Mecca] he would never return to Medina.

Mohammed soon convinced them of the contrary, promising them that he would always live there with them.

The conquest of Mecca and the joining of the Koraishite to Islam made it much easier for all the other Arab tribes to join Mohammed’s doctrine.

It is said that around that time one of Mohammed’s Coptic wives, called Maria, had a son by him, called Ibrahim, who lived only seventeen months.

Then, Aminuddin Mohamad tells us about some of Mohammed’s marital problems. We will limit ourselves to copying what the Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina’s book says:

“The Prophet spent all his life away from luxury and consumed very little food; sometimes he even starved. In his whole life he never had two meals in a row or even full meals. But unlike him, his wives were not inspired. They were subject to the same feelings that other women usually are; this is why the Prophet’s wives were more delicate, they still enjoyed beauty and luxury. Even though they lived side by side with God’s Messenger they were not special. Their normal human instincts were not eliminated, because they came from distinctive and noble families and had been raised in luxury. For example, Umm Habiba was the daughter of the Koraishite chief (Abu Sufiyan); Jaweiryah was the daughter of the great chief of Khaibar [and therefore Jewish]; AIcha was the daughter of Abu Bakr; and Hafsa was Omar’s daughter. So, now that the Prophet had spent more money and time with his wife Maria after she gave birth to a baby boy, they did not want to be denied this privilege, especially now that the Islamic country had become rich from much loot. They thought that a small percentage of this should be enough to provide them comfort and a relatively high living standard. Besides, based on human instincts, there was rivalry among the wives, and each one wanted to stand out further in the Prophet’s love” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 363-364).

This gave rise to an incident among Mohammed’s other wives that had turned against Maria for having given him a certain kind of honey.

Especially Aicha and Hafsa hassled Mohammed.

“What Aicha and Hafsa were demanding was their private matter, but in addition to that, there was another issue that generated conflict among the wives, caused by these pressures put on him. They demanded extended and increased provisions and more money for household expenses” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit. p. 365).

“Since the Prophet could not accept their demands, he was so stirred by these demands that he decided not to be with them for a whole month. This coincided with the Prophet’s falling from his horse and injuring his leg; so, he isolated himself on the upper floor of his house, placing his servant “Rabah” [Sic!] at the door, refusing to talk to anyone about them” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 365).

How interesting…

So, Mohammed’s personal servant was called “Rabah”…

And “Rabah” between quotations…

And why the quotation marks?

Rabah is a typically Jewish name.

So, there were Jews that remained faithful to Mohammed and accepted him as the Messiah of Israel, or the “last Prophet”!

Mohammed then had a Jewish scribe to write down his revelations, compile them, and who was in charge of his Hebrew correspondence, obviously not with the Japanese, but rather with the “genies”, or rabbis, of Israel, whom he must have consulted whenever he had doubts about the book, as recommended in Surah lunes (Surah 10: 94).

He also had a Jewish wife, Sufiya Bin Huyay Bin Akhtab, the daughter of the chief of the Banu Nadhir.

And now we learn that his personal servant was called “Rabah”.

Let’s go back to copying this very interesting book by Aminuddin Mohamad’s.

“When people saw the Prophet by himself they thought he had divorced all his wives, which wasn’t true. The Prophet could not waste time with those family disputes (…) The Prophet, with this separation period, wanted to give his wives some time to think over their demands and wait for their jealousy to decrease, but all over Medina there was talk that the Prophet had divorced his wives. The Muslims were worried about this situation” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 365).

“Omar Ibn Al-Khattab – [the future Caliph] – said:

“Before Islam we had no consideration whatsoever for our wives; it wasn’t until God revealed about them and their rights that we started showing consideration for them. One day I reprimanded my wife about something and she answered me back, assertively: I, finding that strange, asked her: “Are you answering me back in this assertive way?” And she replied: “I am amazed at you, son of Khattab! You don’t like it when I answer you back, while your own daughter (Hafsa) criticizes and answers back to her husband (the Prophet Mohammed) and she does so in such a loud way that the Prophet himself becomes anxious and distressed all day”.

“Upon hearing this I took my cloak and went straight to my daughter Hafsa, married to the Prophet, and asked her: My daughter! Is it true that you ague with the Prophet and criticize him so loudly that he becomes anxious and distressed all day?”

Hafsa confessed, by saying: “Yes! I and the other wives are used to criticizing him”. So, I said: “I fear that you will suffer from God’s revenge and the wrath of his Messenger, o ye my daughter! Don’t let yourself be fooled by that woman that became too vain because of her beauty and Mohammed’s love for her.” Then I left and went to see Ummi Salma and asked her the same thing. Ummi Salma answered: O ye son of Khattab, you are truly amazing! You want to meddle with everything, even in the private affairs between the Prophet and his wives”.

I was swept over by shame, left there and went away”. (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., pp. 365-366).

The next day, considering the increasing rumors about Mohammed’s divorce, Omar insisted to be received by him, who finally agreed and denied the rumors. After that, both went down together to the first floor and right there and then, the following verses of the Koran were revealed:

“O Herald of the Hidden! Say to your wives, “If you desire the worldly life and its adornment – therefore come, I shall give you wealth and a generous release! And if you desire Allah and His Noble Messenger and the abode of the Hereafter - then indeed Allah has kept prepared an immense reward for the virtuous among you” (Koran, Surah 33:28-29) (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 365).

[Aminuddin Mohamad doesn’t quote the Koran perfectly on this, since Surah 33:28, according to Samir el Hayek’s translation of the Koran says:

"28 – O Herald of the Hidden! Say to your wives, “If you desire the worldly life and its adornment – therefore come, I shall give you wealth and a befitting release.

"29 – And if you desire Allah and His Noble Messenger and the abode of the Hereafter - then indeed Allah has kept prepared an immense reward for the virtuous among you” (Koran, Surah 33, 29-29. Our bold to highlight the part that is in the Koran and that Aminuddin Mohamad did not quote).

 “In light of this revelation, God ordered the Prophet to give his wives an alternative and show them both worlds. However, they repented acknowledging their mistake, recovered their common sense, and chose the Prophet over the other world. This revelation put an end to this matter, in a good manner, and the Prophet went on living with them normally, recovering the peace he needed to fulfill his mission.

"This was a purely private affair between the Prophet and his wives” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 367).

We understand that this is a purely private affair, and that there is no myth about it.


 
Mohammed Appoints Abu Bakr to Represent Him at the Hajj

Mohammed, in the ninth year of the Hijra appointed Abu Bakr to represent him at the Hajj (the great pilgrimage to Mecca).

“Abu Bakr set out for Mecca, taking along twenty-five sacrificial camels, twenty of which were the Prophet’s and five of his own” (Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 380).

This implies that the Muslims sacrificed animals like the Jews did in the Temple, before its destruction.

Mohammed himself went on the Hajj accompanied by 114,000 pilgrims and only shortly before his death, in the tenth year of the Hijra.

He went to Mecca taking 100 sacrificial camels (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 398).

Mohammed died in the year 632.

Immediately after his death there was disagreement over Mohammed’s succession. Out of the discussion Abu Bakr was elected Islam’s Caliph and Mohammed’s substitute (Cfr. Aminuddin Mohamad, op. cit., p. 423).



 
VIII - Conclusion

We remind you that this study was written in reply to an aggressive and blasphemous article written by a Muslim attacking the divinity of Jesus Christ Our Lord, stating that it is nothing more than a myth. The author injuriously compares Christ to Adonis, Osiris, and other mythological beings and explicitly states that he wants to destroy the “Myth” of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer.

In this reply we have limited ourselves almost only to providing quotations from a book published by the Centro de Divulgação do Islam para a América Latina, authored by Aminuddin Mohamad.

This unsuspected volume provides precious information about what actually happened in 7th century Arabia, when Mohammed started preaching.

In his book, Aminuddin Mohamad shows that there was a profound influence, and even an alliance, between the Jews and Mohammed, at least in the beginning of Islam. Aminuddin Mohamad demonstrates that there were groups of Jews that awaited the arrival of the “last Prophet’ of Israel, that is, the Jewish Messiah.

Initially, the Jewish “Genies” examined Mohammed and recognized in him signs showing that he was indeed the “last Prophet”, that is, the Messiah that would found the Messianic Kingdom. Under the recommendation of these “genies” of Israel – possibly Jewish rabbis – the Jewish tribes that lived around Yaçrib, became Mohammed’s allies and provided him with decisive support.

The Jews from Arabia surrounded and involved Mohammed, instructed him, deeply influenced his doctrine, which explicitly recognized the Old Testament as The Book of God, by excellence, gave him religious, political and military support, greatly contributing to his victory. (In another study, which will be written shortly, we will examine the Jewish influence on the Arab Koran).

However, soon enough there was a crisis between the Jewish rabbis and Mohammed, even though some of them went on supporting Mohammed to the very end. Possibly, the fact that Mohammed was an Arab led to his rejection as the Messiah by the more orthodox rabbis, who could not accept a non-Jewish Messiah.

A second reason for this rejection would have been Mohammed’s attitude toward Jesus Christ. For Mohammed, Jesus was a Prophet and not the Son of God, the incarnate Wisdom of God. But the more radical rabbis could not even tolerate this: Christ could not be considered even as a mere prophet.

Finally, a third reason that led to the split between Mohammed and the Jews of Arabia would have been the fact that Mohammed chose the Kaaba of Mecca as the direction (Quibla) for Islam praying, while before that he only prayed facing Jerusalem. Mohammed would have refused the opinion of the rabbis that only Jerusalem could be the city of the Prophets. The adoption of Mecca as Quibla, instead of Jerusalem, was an unequivocal sign that Mohammed wanted to free himself from the rabbis that had instructed him and supported him in his preaching, in order to make the new religion an Arab religion, thus putting an end to the Jewish messianic dream, as it had been initially imagined.

Could anyone really be amazed at such a serious misjudgment on the part of the few rabbis that accepted an Arab Messiah for Israel?

However, this is not the only case in the History of Judaism. Sabbatai Tzevi’s case, in the 17th century, was the most scandalous case ever to happen in Jewish Messianism.

Also in Sabbatai Tzevi’s case, the rabbis were unevenly divided. Most of the rabbis accepted Sabbatai as the promised Messiah. Few condemned him from the very start. Crowds of Jews from the world over left their countries and put everything down to go to Palestine to follow the triumphal march of Messiah Sabbatai to Constantinople, where he would convert the Turkish Sultan, and with his military support would invade Italy, destroy the Pope, and Christianity.

At the last minute, before the Sultan, Sabbatai repudiated Judaism and became a Muslim (Cfr. Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, The Mystical Messiah, Princeton University Press, 1975).

The same happened to Mohammed: a pseudo Messiah that was initially accepted and fostered by fanatical rabbis, only to end up in abandonment and, finally, deception.

The Caliph Otman Bin Affan was later charged with the elimination, as thoroughly as possible, any traces of Jewish influence on Islam.

Otman was responsible for the current version of the Koran, in which he established the order of the chapters according to size!!!

As we have said, we are contemplating examining the text of the Koran in another study.

In the Koran we will see that several passages state that the true Koran was given to Moses, and not to Mohammed. We will see that in the current version of the Arab Koran it is admitted that Mohammed only came to confirm what had been revealed to Moses and the Jewish prophets.

We will also see in that in the Arab Koran there is an enormous amount of quotations from the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Mischnah, the rabbinical comments (the Midrashes), all of them Jewish books that Mohammed, being illiterate, could not have known in detail.

From all this it can be concluded that the title “The Last Prophet” given to Mohammed has the meaning of Messiah of Israel, that is, of “the last Prophet of Israel”, a function he performed for a very short time.

In the beginning, Islam was deeply involved with Judaism; hence it’s being radically anti-Trinity. This involvement was dramatically severed after a short alliance. Both groups felt and said they had been betrayed. Israel felt cheated and betrayed by a Prophet that it had fostered. Mohammed and the Arabs felt betrayed by the Jews that had signed an agreement with them. Wouldn’t it be possible that in this initial drama and rupture is one of the causes of the current opposition between Israel and Islam?

Certainly, this mutual accusation of betrayal has not contributed to appease the old rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael.

From all this, it can clearly be seen that historically, the myth is, in fact, considering Mohammed the “last Prophet”… of the Arabs.

In Corde Jesu, semper, Orlando Fedeli



 
    Para citar este texto:
"Mohammed: the origins of Islam"
MONTFORT Associação Cultural
http://www.montfort.org.br/eng/cadernos/apologetica/maome/
Online, 16/04/2024 às 11:15:10h