“We are Forerunners. Guardians of all that exists. The roots of the Galaxy have grown deep under our careful tending. Where there is life, the wisdom of our countless generations has saturated the soil. Our strength is a luminous sun, towards which all intelligence blossoms… And the impervious shelter, beneath which it has prospered.”

The unsupportable heresy

by | Sep 9, 2020 | Christianity | 7 comments

Listeners to my podcast will recall that I did a two-part series a few weeks ago called “One Man, One Book”, examining the historicity of the so-called “Religion of Peace”. I did it a bit bassackwards, and I’ll cop to that without reservation. Part 1 was actually about the book, and Part 2 was about the man. I did that for a reason and perhaps I could have changed the title of that set to reflect it, but it’s not a big deal. I think the point was made regardless. And that point remains the same:

Everything about Islam’s origins is unsupportable.

The entire heresy is built on a base of sand. And now the winds are blowing and destroying that foundation in a very big hurry.

This is somewhat ironic, given that this week we will be acknowledging – “celebrating” is far too strong a word – the 19th anniversary of the day that the world ended, because the people who smashed those airplanes into the buildings were given their mission by a certain Osama bin Laden, head of an organisation called Al Qaeda. The name of that organisation means “the base”, or “the foundation”, and its motto and creed is to force a return to Islam’s origins and to make the rest of the world follow suit.

Well, what of Islam’s origins, then? What are we to make of this so-called “religion”, which insists on imposing a very clear set of rules and restrictions upon human life?

Before we get into that, it is vital to understand very clearly that, as i stated in my pair of podcasts, Islam is a mirror image of Christianity in just about every major way.

Where Christianity preaches peace, humility, virtue, self-restraint, and human dignity, Islam preaches violence, pride, hedonism, lust, and slavery.

Where Jesus could trace His lineage through both Man and God as an heir to King David and the Son of God and worked miracles repeatedly to prove that He was the Messiah, Muhammad performed absolutely no miracles whatsoever (assuming he even existed) and could claim no kingly lineage or royal blood (according to Islamic traditions, given his background as a mere merchant).

Where the Bible is original, and easy to understand, and written in plain language, and we have a pretty good idea who authored it and where the books came from and what the source material is and how it was all compiled and can look at the clear historical context, the Koran is heavily plagiarised, and very hard to understand, and written in a highly archaic and very difficult tongue, and we still have no real clue exactly where it came from or when it was put together and repeatedly gets basic facts of history completely wrong.

In my podcasts, I pointed out the information that I had available to me that was current – which it actually was, up until about May 2019, because that was when the FOCL video that I used as my major source was released. And that material was in turn based on material that I had read about and followed up on back in 2015. So I thought it was pretty current – though I did make a few mistakes in my podcasts, which I readily own up to. (Nobody pointed these out to me, this is what I know I messed up on my own.)

For instance, I stated that the current Hafs compilation of the Koran was put together in the 1920s at “Al-Aqsa University” in Cairo. That’s wrong. I should have said, “Al-Azhar University”.

I also said that there were something like 15,000 differences between the various Korans that are out there right now. In fact, the information back in 2019 put the total number of differences between the various readings at OVER 56,000. And nowadays, the total number of differences between all of the various Korans that we have, is up to OVER 90,000.

But all of that was based on what we thought was current information and evidence, dating back to mid-2019. It turns out, though, that even just than one year later, we have so much new evidence and data coming out that already much of what I said in my podcasts is out of date and incorrect. (While that isn’t my fault, exactly, I still hold responsibility for spreading incorrect and incomplete knowledge, so here I will attempt to correct that issue.)

And that, in and of itself, is astonishing. The deeper we go down these rabbit holes, the worse the story gets for Islam.

Dr. Jay Smith from Pfander Films and the Forum Of Christian Leaders (FOCL) has been absolutely indispensable in this respect. it is his material that I have watched and examined and tried to understand, and he has done a phenomenal job of gathering all of those sources together and challenging Muslims to prove the origins of Islam as described in the Koran, the Hadith, the Sirah, the Tafsir, and the Tahriq:

The whole playlist is growing every week and month as more content gets added. Some of the videos are better than others, but all of the content is astonishing and extraordinary.

The most important videos within that list consist of the ones questioning the historicity of the Koran, the existence of Muhammad, and the early history of the first Islamic Caliphate. And what becomes clear, over and over and over again, is that the entire early history of the “religion of peace” is a complete and total FABRICATION.

The deeper you look, the more it becomes clear that:

  • The so-called “eternal, complete, sent-down, unchanging” book, the Koran, was in fact a largely plagiarised text created out of various latter-day Christian and Jewish lectionary texts, originally written in Syriac and Aramaic, with various other bits tacked on and expanded upon and changed and edited, and has in fact been subjected to significant changes and edits to the original skeletal texts from the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries which were then all redacted back to the 7th Century;
  • The early “Arab” Islamic empire was in fact almost certainly nothing of the sort, and was probably a result of Arab raid troops used by the Persians in conjunction with the Sassanid heavy cavalry against the Byzantines, and eventually the Arabs took over in the late 7th Century and started imposing a top-down religious doctrine and dogma in order to legitimise their rule;
  • The roots of Islam are almost certainly to be found in Gnostic Christian heresies such as Ebionitism and Nestorian Christianity, fused together with the ancient Nabatean religion, which would also explain why the Nabatean influence is so heavily felt throughout the early religious symbolism and worship practices of the “Islamic” caliphate;
  • Much of the “original” 7th Century history of Islam is due to the redactions and retconning of one man, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, supposedly the fifth Umayyad caliph, and the “first four rightly guided Caliphs” almost certainly did not exist;
  • The man named Muhammad almost certainly did not exist as depicted in the Islamic traditions, and it is virtually certain that he was in fact a composite character, made up of the real-life history of a warlord appointed by Persian king Khosrau (or Chosroes) II, who had the title Muhammad, or possibly Muhammenna, who reigned over a city called Hija, over a thousand miles to the north of Mecca, and whose life was fused together with the lives of Yeshua and Joshua of Nun;

No matter where you look, the evidence is absolutely devastating to the entire foundation of Islam. Not one single aspect of the origin story, as we know it from the classical narrative, makes sense. Not one bit of it hangs together. It doesn’t matter how you look at it – NONE of it fits the facts.

Mecca doesn’t make sense as the home of Islamic civilisation because its description in the Koran has absolutely no resemblance to the actual city in the Arab Peninsula. But the Koranic description of “Bakkah” matches almost perfectly with the Nabatean main hub of Petra. And that makes perfect sense once you start looking at the early Islamic qiblas, which is to say, the directions of prayer for the very first “mosques”. These weren’t actual mosques at all – they were temples of the Nabatean traders oriented toward Petra, their home and centre of their religion.

The Koran doesn’t hang together as a book, at all. It just doesn’t make any sense. The original Islamic claims about it don’t stack up. Not only is it not a Divine revelation of any kind, it has been changed and edited and altered repeatedly over the centuries. Muslim apologists claim that the Koran as we have it today is unchanged through 14 centuries – yet we can see, from the original skeletal texts (i.e. without the diacritical markings that are key to understanding and reading Arabic) that there have been numerous additions, erasures, and modifications made even in the original manuscripts.

And those manuscripts do not tie out to the origin story of Islam, either. They are not from the time of Uthman. Muslims claim that they can get 97% of the Koran, as we have it today – but they are dissembling at best and outright lying at worst, because they CANNOT find a SINGLE complete manuscript dating from 652 AD, or even from 699 AD, with all 114 surahs.

They can’t even match their own existing Korans against each other – the “standard” Koran that they are using doesn’t even match up with what the traditions say about the original compilations, which were supposedly done in the Quraysh dialect of Arabic. The current standard Hafs text is definitively NOT in that dialect, it is in a very different dialect that comes from hundreds of miles north of Mecca.

The result is that they currently have something like 37 different versions of the Koran. Muslim scholars insist that this means that there are merely 37 different recitations – “qira’at” (recitations) “ah’ruf” (stylistic versions), as they call them in Arabic. They have to make this assertion because they have been backed into a corner by the assertions of their own faith – which states that the Koran is an eternal book that is unchanged in every aspect, and some Muslims today would argue that the Koran is unchanged down even to the diacritical markings and alephs on the letters.

But even that is not accurate, because the original texts, without diacritical marks, from the six great manuscripts that have been found by now, do not tie out with the skeletal texts, or rasm, that exist for the Hafs text. They don’t tie out with most of the others either. And you can see, from the manuscripts themselves, significant alterations made at later dates to ensure that parts of those manuscripts match the Hafs text.

The book of Islam is therefore totally indefensible. It does not stand up to or match a single one of the claims that is made about it by Muslims.

What about the man?

As I pointed out in my second podcast in the subject, Muhammad, as described in the Islamic traditions, almost surely did not exist. But even then, my understanding of the latest research was dated.

The absolute latest bleeding-edge research indicates that Muhammad was likely a title of a warlord, possibly appointed by a Persian king, who undoubtedly led warbands and brigands on raids against Jewish and Christian settlements and tribes in the early 7th Century, and fought in battles against the Byzantines. That helps to account for the violent and warlike passages of the Medinan Koran, but it does not account for the “peaceful” revelations in the Meccan Koran.

In order to make any sense of that, you have to look at the Islamic traditions concerning their early history. And even there, the story doesn’t tie out.

Islamic sources from the 8th, 9th, and 10th Centuries AD make a number of claims that Dr. Jay Smith and his colleagues line up and knock down, one after another, in comprehensive and stunning fashion. The earliest references to Islam and Muslims didn’t occur until over 70 years after Muhammad’s death – and the first references to a prophet named Muhammad did not become common until the early to mid 8th Century.

No matter where you look, whether at the inscriptions within the Dome of the Rock, or upon rock inscriptions scattered throughout Arabia and the Levant, or at Christian and Jewish and Persian texts preserved from that time, or at trade records, or at Byzantine records from the time, NOT ONE ASPECT OF THE CANONICAL STORY stands up to scrutiny.

What we can say, without reservation, is that a massive conquering force flowed out of the Middle East, probably backed by Persian money and influence and using Arabs as front-line raiding troops, to conquer vast swathes of Central Asia and the Levant, North Africa, and straight on up through to Spain and even all the way into France, before the first wave of that expansion was stopped cold by Charles “The Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

And what we can say, again with very few issues, is that this vast expansion was the true catalyst for the European Dark Ages, which took place a full three hundred years later than was originally theorised by European historians. The Fall of the Roman Empire was not the cause of the Dark Ages – the expansion of the first Caliphate, under what we know of today as the Ummayads, was the true cause.

All of this information should, and probably will, cause a severe crisis of faith for a lot of Muslims. Every single aspect of their faith has been exposed as an utter fraud. Every last bit of everything that they believe to be true, is false.

Their “god” is not the true Creator and Lord of the Universe. Their “god” is in fact a bastardised version of a Nabatean pagan god, who had a wife!

This leaves Muslims and their scholars in a bit of a pickle. What, after all, are they to do, now that everything that they believe in, everything that they hold to be true, has been shown to be a lie?

Well, that’s where the True Faith comes in.

You see, Muslims, as a general rule, are not bad people at all. They are merely appallingly misguided. And that’s not their fault. They have been utterly misled by the Lord of Lies – and I do believe that the Koran is Satanically inspired. If you go over what I’ve written above, you’ll see why.

Muslims have faith in one god. They believe in Jesus as a prophet. They believe in Heaven and Hell, they believe in the dangers of mortal sin, they believe in doing good works (even if they aren’t very good at matching actions with words), and they believe in the Creation story of Genesis.

So they have the foundations that they need. What they lack is a hard and painful dose of the Truth.

And that Truth has a name, and a form, and a history.

That Truth is eternal. It is unchanged. It was sent down. It is complete.

That Truth is named Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of God, Messiah, King, LORD.

We can be even more explicit than that.

Islam has five “pillars” of doctrine: the Koran (revelations), the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), the Sirah (biography of Muhammad), the Tafsir (commentaries by scholars and wise men), and the Tahriq (histories of Islam). These five pieces are, collectively, the Islamic traditions to which Muslims usually, and quite mindlessly, go back to in order to justify the existence of their faith.

We can match them, pillar for pillar. And our versions of those pillars are vastly stronger, and much more compact.

We have the revelations of God in both the Old and New Testaments. We have the sayings of Jesus in the red-letter sections of the New Testament. We have the biography of Jesus in the black-letter parts. We have the commentaries upon Jesus’s ministry in the letters of Paul and the other Apostles. We have the history of the original Christian faith in the Book of Acts, written by St. Luke.

Everything they want, we already have, in ONE book, called the Holy Bible. They need tens of volumes and thousands of pages to do what we can do in less than 1,800 pages – and usually far less than that, depending on which version of the Bible you buy. And that is because we don’t have to stack lie on top of lie to create our doctrines.

The beauty of the Truth is that it is compact, and precise. You only need a single grain of Truth to knock down a mountain of lies.

We don’t have any of the problems that Muslims do. We don’t claim that our book is eternal, unchanging, or sent down by God to Man. We claim very clearly that the Bible is an imperfect translation of Divinely inspired teachings that come from God to Man, transmitted through men, and that we see “through a glass darkly”, which is to say, we do not see the full glory of God’s revelations to us because we are imperfect.

And just LOOK at how magnificent the glory of God’s Word is even so, even as poorly as we perceive it.

We don’t claim that an illiterate man was told by an angel to recite revelations and verses – we claim instead that a man named Jesus was born of a virgin, became a rabbi, walked the Earth as the living Son of God, taught a mighty gospel, and died for the sins of Mankind and was raised from the dead by Our Father.

Yes, these sound like crazy claims – until you realise that we can back them up through both the traditions and contemporary historical sources. The existence of Jesus Christ is regarded as the single most well-sourced and sound fact of history even by atheists. And the miracles that He wrought are substantiated even by critical sources from that time.

Our Scriptures are sanctified because of who Jesus was and what He did. Their scriptures have absolutely no stamp of authority upon them. To quote Dr. Jay Smith, “we have the right man, in the right place, doing the right thing, at the right time”.

We have EVERYTHING that they are looking for! And we’ve had it all along, for TWO THOUSAND YEARS!

They simply refuse to see it.

But sooner or later, they’ll have to see it, because their choice is a very difficult one – either to stick to the lies that they have been taught all of their lives, and thereby open themselves to direct and sustained assault by everyone else who can now take the polemical materials that Dr. Jay Smith and others have brought forth and use it all to attack their faith, or to embrace truths and give up those lies.

So I leave off with a simple invitation to Muslims everywhere:

Come home, dear brothers and sisters. Embrace the harsh truth that you have been ripped off and lied to for your entire lives. Accept that everything that you are looking for, we already have and are happy and able to share with you. Bend the knee to Our Lord – THE Lord – Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of God, King of Kings.

Subscribe to Didactic Mind

* indicates required
Email Format

Recent Thoughts

If you enjoyed this article, please:

  • Visit the Support page and check out the ways to support my work through purchases and affiliate links;
  • Email me and connect directly;
  • Share this article via social media;


  1. TechieDude

    I read a book, years ago, called “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer.

    A lot of his research follows what you’ve listed. The part I found interesting was the absolute lack of archaeological evidence, both physical and through writings. Funny that Israelis seem to find biblical sites or sites where a battle occurred, and there’s tons of evidence – from buildings to bones to arrowheads. There’s none for any of the great battles Muhammad supposedly won. Muhammad was a trader, yet Mecca and Medina are far from any known trade route.

    Much of Christianity lines up with history. There are many writings of non Jews or Christians from the period that line up.

    One of the more interesting chapters goes into how much of the Koran makes no sense. But when they use syriac christian translations, it makes more sense.

    One thing I’d ask a Muslim is why Gabriel would’ve quoted the Koran to Muhammad. Millennia of history and scripture, When God wanted to tell someone something, he did so. He sends angels as messengers, or harbingers, but rarely do they speak in God’s place.

    Personally, I think it was Satan who whispered in his ear, if he existed.

    • Didact

      I read a book, years ago, called “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer.

      Yep. I’ve read that one too. Dr. Spencer comes to the conclusion that Muhammad, as described in the various Islamic traditions, almost certainly did not exist, and that whoever is described in those texts, is almost surely a composite of other figures.

      The latest research shows that even Dr. Spencer’s findings, which were in turn a distillation of other works, are outdated – but that his basic thesis is entirely correct.

      One thing I’d ask a Muslim is why Gabriel would’ve quoted the Koran to Muhammad.

      Well, more fundamentally than that – why would Gabriel have quoted Scripture to an illiterate bumpkin, and in Arabic at that, when God knew perfectly well that there were other, far more suitable and straightforward, languages in which to transmit His chosen word?

      Literally nothing that Islamic apologists claim, holds water. Not logically, not empirically, not scripturally, not historically – NONE of it makes any sense. They’ve got the wrong man, in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time – to paraphrase Dr. Jay Smith, if only slightly.

  2. Sasha Hrongmitts

    This is fascinating. However I do have a question: Are you sure the Persian Empire used Arabs as troops against the Byzantines? I could be mistaken, but I thought one of the reasons the Arabs were so successful against the Byzantines was their war manual, the Strategikon, did not have any info on Arab armies.

    Either way, great post.

    • Blume

      It’s known that both the byzantines and the persians sponsored rival Bedouin confederations to attack each other. One of them was completely wiped out during the long Byzantine/Sassanid war, I forget which one.

    • Didact

      Are you sure the Persian Empire used Arabs as troops against the Byzantines? I could be mistaken, but I thought one of the reasons the Arabs were so successful against the Byzantines was their war manual, the Strategikon, did not have any info on Arab armies.

      Interesting question. I think it deserves a longer answer. I’ll get back to this one later.

  3. JohnC911

    Hey Didact,

    By the way I could not comment on Google Chrome. I had to change to Firefox

    Just a thought.
    Even if Muhammad did exist, the story of him going into the cave and meeting an angel does not hold up. And you are right on this

    Do you think (if Muhammad did existed) he was talking to a demon instead of Gabriel? The 1st meeting and I am using Wikipedia:

    (the angel Gabriel appeared before him in the year AD 610 and said, “Read”, upon which he replied, “I am unable to read”. Thereupon the angel caught hold of him and embraced him heavily. This happened two more times after which the angel commanded Muhammad to recite the following verses)

    Muhammad went to his wife to be consoled. It was Waraqah who convinced him that he was a prophet.

    I think it would be cruel to do that to someone who can not read. It would be like someone taking me and trying to force me to read a paper written in Japanese, I can not do and would have to be taught Japanese. And then the embraced is weird. Angels in the Bible act very different. And if God wanted to talk to Muhammad he could do it. Very similar to how he did with Moses

    • Didact

      By the way I could not comment on Google Chrome. I had to change to Firefox

      That’s downright weird. I’m using open-source Chromium and I have no problem commenting. Try clearing cookies out for this site and see if that helps – could be that the cookies are pointing to the old setup that required a login.

      Do you think (if Muhammad did existed) he was talking to a demon instead of Gabriel?

      Assuming he existed, and given the sheer amount of lies and nonsense and balls-out CRAZY to be found in Islamic traditions, yes, I do think so.

      And if God wanted to talk to Muhammad he could do it. Very similar to how he did with Moses

      Quite. Which is just one of about a hundred reasons that anyone can think of – and there are surely thousands more – as to why the canonical origins of Islam make absolutely no sense.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Didactic Mind Archives

Didactic Mind by Category

%d bloggers like this: