I would like to share some deductions about where was Muhammad and I am waiting, with great interest, remarks and critics of Free-minds members.
I remind readers that I do not master English language very well.
English: Expansion of the early caliphate under:
II: en:Abu Bakr
IV: en:Uthman ibn Affan Made by Bontenbal, with thanks to Danielm for the base map. Based on: Karen Armstrong, Islam, geschiedenis van een wereldgodsdienst (translation of Islam: A Short History). ISBN 90-234-1096-3
|Official Story is totally inconsistent |
The interesting remark here is that, if we don't care of what Persians Bukhari & co have said, we have absolutely no trace of Muslims during life of Muhammad near Mecca and Medina.
Archaeology is not allowed there and history told us that that region was not considered as strategic by all old invaders. It is a kind of forgotten region with a small band of land along the red sea separated from rest of the world by mountains and desert.
Quite nothing never happened in that forgotten land.
Source of green arrows are from books of hadiths and Muhammad Biographies.
If we reject hadiths we can reject all the green arrows in the first Map.
In fact, even the black arrows should be rejected because we will see that the story they relates is absolutely not logical. Black arrows are also lies.
The first time World saw Muslims outside Arabic Peninsula is when Ibn Walid leads his expedition to El qods through the fertile crescent. That is a fact.
There is many problems and inconsistencies in the official story:
From 610 to 630, we are told that all what Muslims managed to do is to conquer Mecca. However, we are told that within only two years, from 630 to 632, very ancient cultures of Yemen and Oman became easily Muslims by simple expedition were Muhammad was not even present.
From 630 to 632, it seems also that governing Meccans , full of old enemies of islam, seems to have been less difficult that governing own converted people of Medina.
The amazing fact is that we have no trace of a city converted on the hands of the prophet. Muhammad failed to convert Taief and even Medina was converted by a simple missionary.
We are also told that freshly converted Omanis were so well converted that they have participated in the ridda wars during 632 to 634 to fight whose that wanted to abandon islam after death of prophet.
When we look carefully at those maps, a simple deduction seems obvious. Mecca and Medina cannot be the center or headquarter of first Muslim army. It seems impossible and counter intuitive.
If it was so, Qods would have been attacked trought the well supposed known routes that Quraychites were used to practice during their alleged commercial travels between Yemen to Jordan and Syria (it seems that there is no trace in history of such historical commercial role of meccans in trade history elsewhere than Bukhari & co books).
It is military illogical to let Medina alone and to attack Persians and Romans throught the Fertile Crescent. Mecca would have been dangerously exposed to romans in Egypt and in Palestine (the battle of Tabuk with romans don’t exist elsewhere than in hadiths).
Looking deeply at the place from wich Islam expansion occurred when they first get out from Arabian peninsula lead to conclude that Arab side of Persian Gulf fit better as Headquarter of first Muslims and center of expansion. It seems obvious from third map where we see that region of fertile crescent is the center of Islamic expansion during the era of Omar and Othman ibn Affen. If mecca and medina was the headquarter of first Islam, Ethiopia, Somalia and part of Egypt facing Mecca would probably have been conquest sooner .
That region (Arabian side of Persian gulf) was called Old Bahrein during the advent of islam. For practical reasons, I will include in it actual Oman:
Source : History of old Bahrein (in arabic) http://travel.maktoob.com/vb/travel334047/
That region was under the Persian domination just before raising of islam.
Between 604 and 614, Arabs Bedouins defeated there Persian Army (Battle of Dhou Qar). From 617 to 628, Persians loose many battles against Roman Empire throughout the world.
We can deduce that region of Old bahrein was facing a new political era during the period of 617 to 632. The land was free and ready for new preaching and teachings without having to face a strong political power.My theory is that Hijra occurred from south peninsula to a region somewhere in old Bahrein and Oman around year 617 and that nothing never occurred at Medina, Mecca, Petra or El Qods.
Hijra seems to be a too big word for the little travel from Mecca to Medina. At least, with a hijra, we are expected to meet a different culture. In another side, we don’t know what sabeans, Christians and Jews were doing in Hijaz and why they left and why there is no trace in their books of the alleged country where Abraham built his temple.
Jews are people of the book. That means they are at least educated and read torah. So, if some of them thought that there will be an arab prophet in Hijaz, the should be somewhere a litte mention of that belief. I don’t know if there is, in jewish tradition, mention about jewishs in Hijaz. If there is such mention, I never heard about it. All is from Bukhari & co books.
It seems also not probable to have pagan cities and Bedouin Jewish tribes. The reverse would be more logical. It is also difficult to believe that jewish lived in idolaters cites where Houbel, Manat and others goddess were worshipped.
We know from Quran that Muhammad was near people of lot, in a place where were living people of thamud and Aad. (15-76;37-137 and 37-138; 11-81 to 11-83). History tell us (mainly for kingdom of Aad) that it is near region of Hadramout (hadhara el maout means Death has come in Arabic).
Source and more on brother Pazuzu thread here: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.60
I wrote in this thread http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604822.0
that Quran was probably revealed in totality in year 617. Verse 33-50 to 33-52 shows that Hijra already occurred and that Muhammad had many wifes at that time before God forbidden him taking other spouses.
(Remark: sorry for khadija, but she probably never existed. Verse 4-3 is not speaking about polygamy but about charity in helping poors and women to marry and specially those who were under the statute of concubine. Malaket Aymanoukom doesn’t means slaves but owned by verbal commitment and is to oppose to the Nikah(marriage) contract called also kitab)
Aymanoukom, Yaman (the trust/contract), al amin (supposed surname of the prophet), Yemen (the country), Iman (faith ?) and moominin are all from the same root. It seems logical to consider Iman (faith) as a commitment of a believer to his promise towards God (7-172). But humans are forgetters (Insan).
From 617 to 632, islam probably strengthened somewhere in a region freed from persians in old bahrein and Oman.
Quran himself (south Arabian langage in north Arabian script) testify on such origins. Old Bahrein had many commercial and proved commercial links with Mesopotamia (not like the histotically unknown Mecca). There were there Christians, jewish, arameans and all we need to a logical history of first period of islam.
Recent research like those of Patricia Crone or Luxenberg fit better with the old bahrein target of hijra theory.
The”official” history tell us that capital of islam was moved from Medina to Kufa (irak) under Ali caliphate in 656. It seems impossible to move a capital and all-important people within only 4 years through desert and it seems impossible that old capital (just 4 years before) stayed so neutral in succession war between Ali and Muawia. Persians tales probably moved Capital to Kufa just before the very important events that will occurs there and that were impossible to be placed in Hijaz.
It seems also impossible that Muawia was named governor of Syria in 640 if he was enemy and son of enemy of Allah until 630 and it seems impossible that muslims accepts that such a man becomes founder of Omeyyad caliphate.
It seems that old bahrein was named before bilad el Qirch (country of shark-whale http://travel.maktoob.com/vb/travel334047/
). It is logical to suppose that habitants of such a country are named Quraichites.
Region of actual Mecca is too much uniform
in the sunni doctrine to be the place where occurred the firsts doctrinal division. Stigma of the place where have occurred first divisions in early islam are obvious even on this actual map of islam. It is the Persian gulf.
(green=sunni, red=Shiite and blue=ibadi)
I think now that history of islam was totally rewritten by Abbasid caliphate who were enemies of Omayyad. I will not be surprised if Abu sofien was never ennemy of the prophet.
It was during the Abbasids caliphate that appeared the squad of Persian Storytellers.
It is Abbaside Caliphe Mansur who first asked Imam Malik to write a book of Hadiths tales.
Bukhari is born in 810 in Ouzbekistan. Muslim is born in 815 at Nishapur. Tabari is born in Tabaristan in 838. Abu dawaud is also Persian and is born in 817. Thrimidhi is born also in Ouzbekistan in 817.
Only ibn Hichem and Ibn Saad were non Persian. Ibn Hicham (died in 833) was non Persian and was from Himyar near the land from wich Muhammad escaped during Hijra. Ibn Hicham wrote biography of Muhammad based on a book of Abu Ishaq that nobody have seen excepts Ibn Hicham. Ibn Saad (784 to 845) was from Baghdad.
That is the team of Persian storytellers that wrote the Persian tales that hadiths followers take as religion. They all lived within the same years under the Abbasid caliphate.
There is absolutely no others sources for official history of islam. Actual Cheikhs are only repeating until now what that team wrote.
Sponsorized by Abbasids, that team of professional storytellers wrote history of islam as Persian Zoraosters Abbasid, with their zoroasters vizirs called Barmekids, wanted. It seems reasonable to consider that it was during that period that history of islam was moved to the desertic and forgotten region of Hijaz. Probably, Zoroasters wanted to throw history of islam the farest possible from their land.
I don’t think that qiblah is a direction of a ritual prayer. Qiblah is just a spiritual direction to follow. There is no verse where qiblah is linked to the act of salat. It is a Persian tale. My traduction of 2-143 and 2-144 is this:
2:143 And as such, We have made you a balanced nation so that you may be witness over the people, and that the messenger may be witness over you. And we did not make the Qibla (the false path of paganism) on wich you were (Muhammad was pagan before islam) only to distinguish who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. It was a great thing indeed except for those whom God had guided; God was not to waste your belief. God is Merciful and Compassionate over the people.
2-144 :We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven (asking us what to do); We will thus set for you a qiblah (path to follow) that will be pleasing to you: "You shall set yourself towards the place were the haram is listened (Muhammad is asked just to preach islam); and wherever you may be, you shall all moves towards such a place." Those who have been given the Book know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
We know all that Winners always write history according to their wishes. However, as with Emperor Constantin and christianism and Mithraism, it seems that Persians storytellers under the control of the Abbasids caliphate mixed many beliefs into their version of islam. In addition to Zoroastrians rituals (5 daily prayers, fasting, pilgrimage and so on) they probably have added local practices of the few Bedouins they have found living in the area of Mecca. Arab bedouins, in that period, were not used to write books and it was easy to impose a new history. However, it is not impossible for me that Mecca never existed before Abbasids and that Abassids created there theme parks for hadiths followers from scratch.
The most important rebellion against the Persian tales was led by qarmatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians
), very logically according to my hypothesis in the region of old Bahrain, just after the apparition of books of 1001 tales of Islam. Qarmatians took in 899 the capital of Old bahren, Hajr (Hajr is very interesting name, who is very close phonetically to hijra and to Hajar, the alleged mother of Ismail).
Qarmatians had a very particular Muslim belief since they considered Hajj to mecca as superstition. In 936, they attacked Mecca, profaned zemzem source and have even stolen the black stone and forced the Abbasids to pay a huge sum for its return in 952 (Abbasid were very attached to their Mecca).
So nobody can claim that Mecca and medina made unanimity in early islam and that Hadiths were admitted by all Muslims since their apparition. Qarmatians were a kind of Ismaili doctrine, near to the Fatimid doctrine.
Here map of Fatimid dynastie (909 to 1171) who were enemies of Abbasids.
Until now, region of Oman is still neither sunni neither Shiite (ibadi doctrine).Conclusion
The more I read, the more I look to maps the more I believe that we were looking at the wrong side of Arabian Peninsula.
Yielding the same reasoning, Petra can’t be the place were islam strengthened. If it was so, we would have seen ibn Walid appearing in Jordan, then Palestine, then Syria then Irak. Petra and Jordan are not forgotten and isolated places in history and if something happened there, some archaeological obvious traces would have remained.
To write this topic , I have read much about history, linguitics and so on. I found also very interesting informations in this forum. However, I am not historian and I am not linguistic and really, I need help to know where I am wrong and I am ready to renounce to this hypothesis with good arguments.
I don’t worship Muhammad. I have absolutely no problems to think that all what it was said about him is false. It is quite a necessity for me.
I am only afraid to invent lies or contribute in their propagation. So I ask reader not to believe me but i hope that i succeded to amplify doubts abouts human tales.
However, to the important question, why God allowed so lies, response is easy:
22:52 And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, without having the chaytan interfere with his wishes. God then overrides what the chaytan has cast, and God secures His revelations. And God is Knower, Wise.
22:53 That He may make what the Chaytan has cast as a test for those who have a disease in their hearts and those whose hearts are hardened. And the wicked are far away in opposition
So, if one worship other than God, like prophets or tales or statues such as stone cube in desert or elsewhere, he will be far away in opposition.
When one worship only God, believe only in his words, put faith only in him and ask only him to increase his knowledge, even historical truth may be not important. Why story of Muhammad is important for an only God whorshipper ?
I don’t know where is the true History. But I a m sure that God is the best storyteller and that true history will seems incredible for human tales followers in the judgment day. It sould be so and truth, for such people, will seems more fantastic that all science fictions screenplays. True History is the screenplay of God and really, God is the best and the strongest screenplayer.
For me it is a necessary condition that historical truth should be very different from religious beliefs of Humans tales believers. It is perhaps the only way to convince the liars idolaters in the judgement day that they have not whorphipped God and that they have whorshipped only lies.
it is quite necessary that human Tales about Muhammad should be same quality than tales about Moses or Issa.
It is logical, from this point of view, that Quran don't oppose frontly to all lies human can invent since it is a "judgment day" need to maintain some lies for human tales worshippers.
God write his words as he wants and don't have to take position relative to humans Bullshits. Connecting (salat) to him through his words is the only way to get mind purification (zakat). He is the only one who can explain his words to whose connecting sincerely to him.
There is other striking questions for me.
1- if Issa is not Jesus, then nassara are not Christians and Christians are only jews who exchanged Talmud with Gospel. Is it possible that God is speaking in his book about true believers of a false prophet ? Who are then the true Nassara ?
2- Ibn hicham said that ibn Ishaq said that there were Christians in Najran. What are the proofs ? We are told that Umar expelled all Christians from Arabian Peninsula because it should stay for only Muslims ? Is it true ? If so, why Omar forgot many Jews in Yemen while he was so efficient in expelling Christians?
3- We know that Persians and Zoroasters were present in Arabian peninsula. Cyrus II is even one of the believed best candidates for Zul Qarnein. Zoroasters and “islam” have many similarities. Mithra have many similarities with Jesus and Quranic Issa.
So where is Zoroastrianism in Quran ? Why Persians storytellers and Barmekides didn’t try to rehabilitate their culture in the islam ? Why did they throw islam in the roman belief cultural side were it is said that Jesus is Issa ? If I were in the team of Persian storytellers, I would have proposed someone else as Issa or at least, repeated many times that Ahura Mazda is Allah.
4- The boy with Moses in verses 18-60 disappeared from the history at the junction “of Bahrein”. Where did he go ? We are told that the boy that was permanently with Moses is a certain Yeshua son of (a) Nun (lol). In that sourate, immediately after the story of Moses With the man who knows future, we are told about Zul Qarnain (Man of two peoples ?). It is obvious from Quran that Zul Qarnain was in direct contact with God during his expedition. So Zul Qarnain is at least a Nabi (18:84 We had facilitated for him in the land, and We had given him the means to all things.)
. Did Zul Qarnain, the great leader who liberated many “things”, wrote something about his “contacts” about God ? Where is that Book ? Who are the people who asked the prophet about Zul Qarnain? From where they get that name since Zul Qarnain appears only in Quran and nowhere in torah or “gospel” or other books ? Why didn’t he appears in Gog and Magog jewish/christians stories where only the Messiah/Jesus is mentioned ? What did Quran meant by great mix of Gog and Magogs ? Is it a great mix in beliefs ?
5-Where was the son of Miriam, sister of Aaron, brother of Moses during the 40 years of exile? What did he do during all that period ?
6-Etymology of Zaratustra seems to be “the one who is driving camels”. The widespread expression for an adherent of that faith is Behdin, meaning "follower of Daena" (wikipedia), which is very close to meaning of Nassara. Funningly, Zoroastrianism and Judaism quite appeared at the same time and walked side by side throughout all history. Again.why God, in Quran do not mention his big concurrent “Ahura Mazda”, worshipped in parts of Arabian peninsula? Where is the true Injeel that Quran told us was between the hands of Nassara during the life of Prophet Muhammad ?
Never forget that truth is unbelievable by unbelievers and bad-believers (idolaters) and that unbelievers believe in quite all tales of idolaters except when God is mentioned.