“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 great Izzlamic swindle

by | Jun 11, 2021 | Philosophy | 2 comments

This week saw the one-year anniversary of the infamous “holes in the narrative” interview that rocked the Izzlamic world to its very core. Given that LRFotS Sasha Hrongmitts has been after me for a while now to follow up on my previous posts about Islam, this seems a propitious opportunity to note the ways in which Islam’s foundations are absolute and outright lies. This will also serve to give you the tools with which you can engage with Muslims, confront their fake religion, and bring them back to the light of the one true God, through His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Be warned, though – this is a LONG post. You might want to get yourself a stiff drink before you read it.

Now, as I pointed out recently, while it seems as though the lies of this world grow greater and more ridiculous with every passing day, we are fortunate indeed to live in a time when they are rapidly being exposed. I’ve already been over how the Coof has been exposed, and I will probably do so again when I finally sit down and record a proper podcast. But that is not the only lie that we have seen dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight, to melt away like a vampire, shrieking curses at us for finding it and killing it.

Another great and terrible lie was exposed last year, fully, for the entire world to see. And that lie concerns the origins of Islam.

I have written and spoken about this many, many times. If you want to learn more deeply about any of the topics that I highlight here, then go look through the archives of this site and you will find a dozen posts, at minimum, about the obscure and increasingly untenable origin story of the Great Heresy that is Islam.

Before you read on, I recommend watching this (long) video from Dr. Jay Smith of Pfander Films, which recaps the entire controversy about the interview between Sh. Dr. Yasir Qadhi and Mohammed Hijab, and explains its importance:

Now, let’s lay out the reasons why nearly 2 BILLION Muslims around the word believe in a Satanic perverted lie:

The Great Lie

Supposedly, the story begins with an orphan who grew up within the Hashem tribe in the Hejazi region of southwestern Arabia. This man, Muhammad, was born in about 570 AD and grew up to be a reasonably successful merchant who married a rich woman – much older than him, and actually his aunt by marriage – named Khadija. Being a faithful pagan, he routinely went to a cave named Hira (remember that) near his home in Mecca to pray. One day, when he was about 40, he found himself accosted by the angel Gabriel (Jibreel), who grabbed him three times and squeezed him violently, telling him, in Arabic, “READ!”.

Muhammad, being illiterate, replied three times, “I cannot read!”. The angel, whom Muhammad initially thought was a daemon, then told him, “Then if you cannot read, RECITE!”.

Now, Muhammad was terrified by this. He ran home to his wife and told her that he thought he had been possessed by a daemon. The story goes that, when Jibreel next visited him, Khadija told Ol’ Mo to sit in her lap and tell her if he saw the angel, and then on the other side of her lap, and then she stripped naked and told her to sit in her lap. (Apparently, the line of logic there has to do with how angels cannot stand to be in the presence of a nekkid woman. Don’t ask me where this comes from.)

But anyway, he passed the tests and she told him that he wasn’t possessed, but was in fact divinely blessed. And that is where the Koran came from – transmitted directly from the mind of Allah, i.e. God, down to Man through Jibreel and through his “prophet”, Muhammad.

Of course, when Muhammad tried to sell the new revelations to the Christians, Jews, and pagans living in and around his home city, he met with considerable resistance. He repeatedly claimed to be a prophet, but Christians and Jews have high standards for our prophets, since we demand that such a man must be able to perform miracles. And Muhammad couldn’t.

So when the Jews and Christians told him to sod off and threatened him with violence if he didn’t stop insulting the Lord, he fled Mecca, along with a few dozen of his followers, to Medina (Yathrib), north of Mecca. This event is known as the hijra or Hegira, and is considered the starting point of the Islamic calendar. In Medina, Muhammad established himself as a warlord and great king, and started expanding his empire through conquest and pillage. Eventually, he died, probably of poisoning, at around the age of 62, in 632 AD.

His closest followers, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali – the 4 “rightly guided caliphs” of the Rashidun period – then took over the administration of the fledgling Islamic empire and expanded its borders. Within 100 years, the reach of Islam had grown to encompass most of the ancient world and had pushed both the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire to the brink of dissolution.

Under first Abu Bakr and then Uthman, the Koran itself was compiled into a single text, of which not one passage, not one sentence, not one word, and some would even claim, not even a single dot or tittle, has changed in 1,400 years compared to what was revealed to their prophet.

Furthermore, the Koran is a book full of amazing scientific miracles, and is incontrovertibly true. It proves that Mecca is the first and greatest of all cities, where Eve fell when she was thrown out of the Garden of Eden – which sits somewhere in space, not on Earth. And Adam met her there, after striding all the way over from Mesopotamia to meet her. Mecca is where the Ka’aba was established, where Abraham came to smash down the pagan idols that existed there, and it is the holiest of all cities, where the black rock within the Ka’aba sits, holding a direct connection to Allah himself on his throne.

And so we have today the great and powerful religion of Islam.

Exposing the Lie

There’s just one little problem, and it’s a big one:


(Note that, in what follows, I will not be making any original claims whatsoever. Nothing I say is new. Much of this has been known since the 1970s, thanks to the work of revisionist scholars like Dr. Patricia Crone, Dr. Michael Cook, Dr. Gerald Hawting, and others. Their work, and the work of many modern scholars, has been summarised and expanded upon by great minds like Dr. Jay Smith. If you want to know more about all of this stuff, in detail, go look at the Pfander Films channel on YouTube. You could spend MONTHS learning from Dr. Smith’s lectures and his collaborations with his good friends, Al Fadi from CIRA International, Mel from Sneaker’s Corner, and others.)

Now, about the only aspect of the Standard Islamic Narrative that is even remotely true, is about the conquest of the Levant, Persia, North Africa, and Spain. Those things absolutely happened. But they didn’t happen because of Islam.

As I have pointed out in a pair of podcasts from last year, the interesting thing about Islam is that it is the mirror image of Christianity in every way. What we exalt, they despise, and vice versa. And while our faith and our God teach love, faith, and hope, their faith and their god teach hatred, blindness, and folly.

Furthermore, like us, their faith depends on one man and one book. Knock those two down – as atheists have tried to do to us for centuries – and their entire faith shatters. Which is precisely what Christians have been doing with great success for the past year, with tremendous results.

So let’s get to it.

1. The Man

The Muhammad of Islam almost certainly never existed. In reality, he was almost surely a composite of at least three real people from ancient Biblical history, and one real person from around the 7th Century.

The three Biblical figures are: Moses, Joshua, and Jesus. That is why the Koran is so utterly confused and hopelessly tangled with respect to facts and dates concerning the two prophets of God, and of the Son of Man Himself. The Koran confuses the sister of Moses and Aaron, whom it refers to as Maryam, as the mother of Isa, their version of Jesus. That is NOT the name of Jesus in Arabic – it is actually a transliteration of Esau, not Yeshua.

The Hegirah in Islam, and the triumphal entry into Medina, reflect the Exodus led by Moses and the Palm Sunday entry of Our Lord on the back of a donkey. The legendary conquests and battles of Muhammad directly mirror the actual conquest of Canaanite lands by Joshua of Nun.

That is fascinating in and of itself – but the fourth figure, the historical one from the 7th Century, is even more interesting.

Ficheiro:Portrait of the Prophet Muhammad riding the buraq ...

The most likely historical basis for Muhammad was a real man named Ilyas ibn Qabisah al-Tayaye. This man was a Lakhmid Arab – a Christian, albeit of a heretical Gnostic offshoot, possibly even an Ebionite. He was a direct vassal of the Persian Sassanids, and ruled over thirty villages and towns in the province of Hira – note the name – around what is now Kufa in Iraq.

This man’s nickname, or nom de guerre, was Muhammad – which transliterates into Muhamenna, the “blessed one” in Syriac and Aramaic.

In about 622 or so, apparently, this “Muhammad” rebelled against the Persians, and fled to Petra, the sanctuary city of his Arabian ancestors. There, he agreed to join the great campaign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, who fought to reclaim the lands that Byzantium had lost to the Sassanids under Chosroes (Khusrau) II over the previous decade. Emperor Heraclius’s campaign was incredibly successful. The Emperor smashed through the Sassanian lines and destroyed their armies, recapturing and reconquering most of what his predecessors had lost, and eventually forcing the Sassanians to sue for peace.

After the conclusion of that campaign, Ilyas ibn Qabisah rebelled in turn against the Byzantines, and set out to establish his own Arabian kingdom. He succeeded, and that is where the first true Arab empire began – whereas previously, the Arabs had been little more than traders and desert dwellers and vassals of far greater empires, now they were large and in charge.

From here, we see the rise of the Umayyad – Arabic – dynasty, which was in turn overthrown and destroyed by the Persian Abbasids in the 8th Century. And it is from the 9th and 10th Centuries that we see the fictional composite character of Muhammad of Islam being created and crafted, to suit the narrative of an Arabic counter-revolutionary movement within the Persian empire.

2. The Book

What about the Koran itself? If the man is false, does that mean that the book is false too?

It assuredly does. That book is no more “holy” than is the sock-lint collected under my toenails.

You need to understand that the narrative of “one unaltered Koran for all time” is profoundly stupid. It is nonsense. The actual story of the Koran is one of at least 5 different historical compilations and revisions, which I will go over later.

Islamic traditions themselves say very clearly that the first Koran was compiled under the orders of Abu Bakr, by Muhammad’s secretary, Zayd ibn Thabit. He put it together in about 634 AD – and then promptly hid it under the bed of one of Muhammad’s wives. Twenty years later, Uthman ordered him to take it back out, edit it along with three of his sons-in-law, and compile a single true perfect Koran in the Qurayshi dialect of Arabic. This was the style of Arabic spoken by the Arabs in the Hejaz region. Uthman then burned all other Korans in existence, in 652 AD.

Do Muslims realise how profoundly idiotic this sounds? Do they understand that you cannot write a book in a dialect? And do they comprehend that they’ve just admitted, IN THEIR OWN SOURCES, that their “holy” book actually went through two revisions already?

Do they further understand that, when they claim that the book itself had to be compiled together into correct editions, this means that there were “deviant” versions of the Koran floating around? Their own sources admit as much!

Furthermore, if there is in fact one perfect Uthmanic Koran exists, as a single manuscript, then all you have to do is tell your Muslim friends:


PROOF Prophet Muhammad May Have Invented Islam | False ...

They can’t, because it doesn’t exist. They claim that any of the 6 great manuscripts out there today of the Koran are “Uthmanic” – the Topkapi Manuscript in Istanbul, the Husseini Manuscript in Cairo, the Samarkand Manuscript in Uzbekistan, the Ma’il (“Slanted”, so named because of the slanted text used in writing it) and the Petropolitanus in Paris, and the Sana’a Palimpsest in Yemen. But, again, Muslim scholars have examined these same parchments and manuscripts, and found that they could not possibly have come from the mid-7th Century. The earliest manuscripts come from the mid-8th Century, a full 100 years too late. Moreover, as the work of Dr. Daniel Brubaker has proven, those manuscripts are themselves full of scribal and textual errors.

Furthermore, if you go to the Islamic Awareness website and look up their purported “evidence” for having “one true Koran“, you will see that they say that they have 97% of the Koran assembled from fragments and manuscripts by 736 AD. The problem is that if you actually check on the carbon dating for the manuscripts that they list in their sources, almost none of them date to anytime before 670 AD. Most date to well after 736 AD. And even their most important manuscript, the Topkapi, now dates to probably the mid-8th Century.

They don’t have one single Koran. They don’t even have fragments which they can use to assemble it. What they have is nothing more than scraps and collections, most of which are too young to be the Koran, and what little is left over is corrupted and scattered.

Compare their rags and tatters to our Christian texts. We have 25,000 manuscripts and 80,000 sayings from the early Church fathers. We suffer from an embarrassment of riches when it comes to our New Testament. We can have complete confidence in what we believe, because our texts have been rigourously analysed and cross-referenced, and they have withstood EVERY test.

There is simply no way to take seriously the Islamic claim that they have THE unaltered complete correct Koran, straight from the mouth of their god. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. And their own sources and scholars PROVE it.

The manuscript evidence is damaging enough. However, the damage done is at a more academic level – the lay Muslim knows little, if anything, about the concept of “Uthmanic” manuscripts. But EVERY Muslim has always been told, every single day, that there is only ONE Koran, unchanged and unaltered throughout 14 centuries, straight from the mouth of their god to the ear of their prophet.

That is all nonsense. It is so nonsensical, in fact, and there are SO many different Korans, that they all give rise to an insoluble problem:

3. The Qira’at Conundrum

As if the Muslim inability to produce an Uthmanic Koran were not bad enough, it turns out that their claim to have ONE single version of their holy book is just nonsense.

They don’t have one Koran. There are at least 30 unique different versions in existence. At one point, there may have been as many as SEVEN HUNDRED. Of the versions that we DO have today, there are, at minimum, 93,000 differences between all of them.

Dr. Bernie Powers down in Australia has assembled at least 36 different Korans. Hatun Tash and her team in London have gotten up to 30 different Koran variants. All of them date from 736 AD or later – a full HUNDRED YEARS after the death of Muhammad, according to the Islamic traditions.

Tajweed Quran in a Brief

Just take the two most popular – the Hafs and the Warsh. The Hafs Koran is used by Sunni Muslims the world over – about 95% of all Muslims use it. The Warsh is used by about 3%, primarily in North Africa. Between just those two versions, there are over 5,000 DIFFERENCES – and some of them are quite serious in terms of theology, practice, doctrine, and dogma.

The presence of these variant Korans is hugely destructive to the Muslim psyche. Next time you want to trigger a hardcore RIF into a full-blown premature detonation, just show him two qira’at and watch him go berserk. He won’t be able to handle it. The evidence flatly contradicts everything he was ever taught to believe.

Now, the Muslims have a narrative to help them cover up this glaring problem. According to their traditions, the Angel Gabriel (Jibreel) narrated each passage of the Koran to Muhammad in 7 different ahruf (recitations), each corresponding to a different dialect of Arabic. Each harf (recitation – singular) was then taken up by different riwayat (readers – singular rawi), and those men then transmitted their oral traditions to students, who wrote down their understanding of the transmission as their qira’at.

Does this make any sense to you?

The Muhammad of the traditions was an illiterate 7th Century merchant, caravan-robber, and dilettante, who never physically resided in any part of Arabia outside of the Hejaz. This means that he was never exposed to any other dialect of Arabic.

Furthermore, how, exactly, do you write a dialect? You can’t, unless you have a way of denoting different pronunciations and inflections and words. In Sabaic Arabic – the kind spoken in the Hejaz – people could do that easily using diacritical markings in the form of dots and alephs that provide vowelisations and sounds to all of the consonants within the Arabic language. But the Nabatean Aramaic of the original Koranic manuscripts lacked those diacritical markings until the late 7th Century.

In other words, there was no way to write down or demarcate a dialectical difference, in the very language that the Koran was supposedly revealed, until nearly a hundred years after the supposed revelation of the supposedly sacred book.

Finally, how, exactly, does one account for the vast number of textual variants between the different versions of the Koran and still claim with a straight face that not one verse, not one word, not one letter, not even one dot or tittle, has been changed since the time of the Caliph Uthman? The claim is ridiculous on its face.

Why, then, do these differences exist in the first place?

4. The Impossible Compilations

They exist because the Koran itself was actually compiled in a bit of a hurry. That is why so much of it is blatantly plagiarised, and why most of it doesn’t make the slightest lick of sense, and why reading it feels like a punishment rather than a joy. Stories begin and end in the Koran without any rhyme or reason. The book is a jumbled, incoherent mess. You simply can’t make sense of it without resorting to the hadith, the Sirah, and the tafsir – but those suffer from severe flaws on their own.

This disjointedness and slapdash nature of the book is also why there are so many variants of it – because there never WAS a single standardised Koranic text. How could there be? After all, the thing was an invention of men, for political purposes.

The real story of the compilation of the Koran could span an entire post in and of itself – it could span a book. It DOES span a book – one written by Dr. Shady Hekmat Nasser, himself a Muslim, which has done tremendous damage to the Standard Islamic Narrative.

The really dumbed-down true story of the Koran‘s compilation goes like this:

(Source: Pfander Films)
  • The original “Uthmanic” Koran never existed, but the Ummayads did try to put together some kind of revelation in the late 7th Century, to correspond with their rise and corresponding creation of an Arabic identity;
  • The first Koran was essentially a collection of Gnostic Christian and Jewish apocryphal texts, which underwent a number of different revisions over time, with the original probably coming into widespread use in the late 7th Century during the reign of Muawiya and his son Abd al’Malik – this is the first canonisation;
  • The lack of a centralised canonical authority led to significant splintering of the Koranic texts in circulation, as each Arabic reader tried to interpret the defective Nabatean base script – the skeletal text, the rasm, as it is known – according to his own understanding;
  • The problem got so bad that Ibn Mujahid (d. 936 AD) had to choose 7 “original” texts – out of several hundred possible interpretations – based on popularity, NOT textual veracity and authenticity, and 5 out of 7 of those were from writers who lived in northern Arabia, around Kufa, Damascus, and Basra – this is the 2nd canonisation;
  • That wasn’t good enough, though, because each of those 7 also had additional transmitters who put their own spins on things, so Al-Shatibi (d. 1194 AD) chose 2 rawi for each harf of Ibn Mujahid – that gets us to 21 Korans by the 12th Century, this is the 3rd canonisation;
  • But they STILL hadn’t solved the issue, because NONE of these 21 different Korans fully agreed with each other, so Al-Jazari (d. 1429 AD) then selected another 9 transmitters, to get us to 30 Korans by the 15th Century, during the 4th canonisation;
  • Things stayed like this all the way until 1924 when the Egyptian religious school authorities realised that their students were coming up with consistently different answers to standardised tests, and they discovered that the problem was due to the multiplicity of different Korans that they were using to memorise the text;
  • So Muhammad b. Ali al-Husayni al-Haddad picked ONE single Koranic text in 1924, the Hafs version, which was then modified and simplified a bit in 1936 into the Farouk Edition – this is the 5th canonisation;
  • Finally, in 1985, the Saudi Arabian King Fahd dictated that the Hafs Koran was the appropriate one for the entire Sunni world, and thus we have the modern Koran that something like 95% of the world’s Muslims read;


So are you, probably.

In fact, the Hafs Koran itself was considered extremely unreliable by the contemporaries of the man behind it at the time. His peers called him disreputable, a liar, a misinterpreter, and all sorts of horrid names. The only reason why the Hafs Koran is in use today is because the Ottoman Turks – note, NOT ARABS – found the Arabic in the Hafs version easy to read. And so they decided to use it, which made it the most popular version, which in turn made it the most widely accepted.

So the Koran that the overwhelming majority of Muslims use today is not direct from Allah. It is not a good version of the text. It is not historically or textually valid. And it is not authentic, nor is it in any way related to the supposedly original “Uthmanic” manuscript – Hafs died 162 years after Muhammad, and over 100 years after Uthman supposedly compiled the canonical Koran and burned all other versions.

This flies directly in the face of what the Koran claims about itself. The Koran states plainly that Allah will protect his own revelation from alteration, corruption, or false transmission. That plainly has not happened. Furthermore, the Islamic traditions in the hadith admit that certain verses about stoning for adultery and breast-feeding to prevent lustful thoughts, once existed in the Koran, but were eaten by Aysha’s tame sheep.

Does this sound like a worthy religion to you? It sure sounds ridiculous to me.

5. The Sanctuary

The existence of Mecca as the origin point of Islam is another core foundation of the faith. According to Islamic tradition, Mecca is the first and greatest of all human settlements on Earth. It is the most important place in the world. Eve was thrown down to it after her expulsion from Eden. That is where Adam met her after striding there from Mesopotamia. (Quite how he did so without using Seven-League Boots is not narrated.) It is also where Abraham came to smash the idols of the pagans and erect the Kabbah with the Black Stone at its centre.

As you’ve probably figured out by now, not one word of this is true.

The reality is that Mecca, as described in the Koran, cannot possibly be the arid, parched place that it is today. The sanctuary described in the Koran is known as Bakkah, and it is a remarkably fertile place. That is not the modern-day Mecca.

But the description of the sanctuary given in the Koran corresponds just about perfectly to Petra, the sanctuary city of the Nabatean Arab trading empire.

Dan Gibson has done remarkable work on this subject and has compared both the archaeological and textual evidence against the Koranic data and Islamic traditions, and has pointed out that the only place that fits the Islamic narrative even remotely is Petra.

Mecca, as described in the Koran, has olive trees – which are NOT found natively in the Arabian peninsula. There are rivers and streams and waterways running through the Koranic Mecca. The place is located between two mountains, in a valley with a parallel valley. Mecca in Arabia has none of these things.

But Petra does.

Moreover, Petra was once the centre of the Nabatean pagan religion. There is a site in Petra that corresponds perfectly to the dimensions of the Kabbah as described in the Koran – the modern site, in Mecca, does not fit those dimensions. The Nabatean Arab god, Dushara, had a generic title, “Illaha”, which has been bastardised into “Allah” today by Muslims. That god, Dushara, had a wife and consorts – Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. You may recognise these as the three beings from the so-called “Satanic verses” in the Koran.

On top of that, the black stone now sitting within the modern Kabbah was a Nabatean sacred relic. The Nabateans believed that wherever that stone went, so too went the presence of their gods. And that stone was taken from Petra to Mecca, probably by the real-life historical figure Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr.

In other words, early Islam was profoundly pagan, and used pagan practices that continue to this day. The early Islamic sanctuary was Petra, and the Abbasids then transplanted the identity of that sanctuary to Mecca, for political purposes. And that is before we get to the evidence from:

6. The Mosques

Again, Dan Gibson‘s work is crucial here. Inspired by the work of earlier archaeologists, who were puzzled by the fact that the qiblas (prayer walls) of various early Islamic mosques did not actually point toward Mecca in Arabia, Mr. Gibson visited dozens (now hundreds) of early Islamic mosques and measured the directions of their qiblas. Using ASTER satellite data, he came up with hyper-accurate readings of the true directions of the qiblas.

What he found has staggering implications for the true history of Islam’s origins.

Up until about 736 AD, NONE of the original mosques pointed toward Mecca. They ALL pointed toward Petra.

Between 736 and 749 AD, though, some mosques pointed toward Mecca, some to Petra, and some to a location somewhere in between, where nothing whatsoever exists.

What the heck was going on?

Mr. Gibson hypothesised that this was due to the major civil war tearing apart the Arabic world at the time. By 736 AD, the power of the Ummayads was waning, and the Persian Abbasids were rising in the east. The resulting power struggle, combined with the Nabatean heritage of the Arabs of the region, created a situation in which some qiblas pointed to one city, some to another city, some to a location somewhere in between, and then some mosques in North Africa and Spain faced a line parallel to the line between Petra and Mecca.

Essentially, the “Islamic” rulers of various parts of the “Islamic” empire were actually hedging their bets to see who would win the epic war between the Ummayads and the Abbasids.

It is not until the late 8th Century that ALL mosques begin to point straight to modern-day Mecca, once it became very clear exactly who were the MFIC.

Furthermore, there are mosques in existence in Cherman in southern India, and in Guangzhou in China, that well predate the supposed origins of Islam. How, exactly, do you get a mosque in India that dates back to the Fifth Century, if Islam only came into being in the Seventh? The answer is that those early “mosques” were in fact Nabatean Arab temples, founded by the Arab traders of the old empire, as places of worship to their ancient gods. That is why they point straight to Petra, and not Mecca.

7. The Histories

All of this tumult and confusion takes place in the 7th and especially 8th and 9th Centuries. It is during this time that we see the Sirat al Rasul Allah (biography of the prophet), the Hadith (sayings and traditions of Bukhari, Muslim, and others), the tafsir (commentaries by scholars upon the deeds and words of the prophet), and the tahriq (histories of Mankind) coming into being.

All of them show clear evidence of heavy editing, revision, and correction.

The most highly regarded hadith compilation, that of Muhammad al-Bukhari, comes from a man who originated from Bukhara and died in 870 AD – thousands of miles away from Mecca and nearly two hundred and forty years after Muhammad supposedly lived and died. He started with over 600,000 of the supposed sayings of Muhammad – and threw away 97% of them, leaving us today with 7,275 “sayings”. These are collected in 6 volumes – and they were published over a span of several hundred years after his death, not all at once. Their authenticity has been in doubt from the very beginning, even though Islamic scholars accept them almost without question.

The Sirah or biography of Muhammad that we have today was supposedly compiled by Ibn Ishaq (d. 770 AD). That is a lie. In fact, the modern Sirah comes from a recompilation of that text, of which we do not have the original, by Ibn Hisham (d. 833 AD). The reality is that we simply don’t know what the truth is about Muhammad, because almost everything that is actually historically authentic has been lost – or deliberately destroyed – by Arab and Persian Muslims.

The Way Forward

What, then, are we to make of this colossal mess that is early Islam’s history? Not one aspect of the canonical story of Islam’s origins has any validity whatsoever.

There almost certainly never were any Rashidun caliphs. We have no numismatic, textual, or archaeological evidence for them. No rock inscriptions refer to them in any way that we can distinguish, despite the fact that we can find thousands of rock inscriptions all over Arabia and in and around Mecca and Medina.

This means that there almost certainly never was any kind of original Koran. The entire book is nothing more than a man-made invention. It doesn’t exist in Heaven on clay tablets that have coexisted eternally with their moon-god Allah.

And there never was any kind of Muhammad, as described by their traditions. There WAS, however, a real Muhammad who fought in battle – but he was a Christian.

The fact is that Muslims believe a LIE. A terrible, evil, disgusting LIE that is very nearly 1,400 years old.

The only way out of this dilemma is for them to come back to the Truth – the only Truth. And the name of that Truth – Logos – is none other than Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

For Muslims, this is easier than they might think. Jesus is a revered figure in their own traditions. Their version of Jesus is wrong, but their “Isa” will come to judge men on the last day, and is the mightiest of all prophets. It’s not much of a step for them to go from their ridiculous pagan-inspired traditions to the Truth of all time.

All they have to do is accept that JESUS. IS. LORD.

We Christians have everything they are looking for. Our Lord IS eternal. Our Lord IS unchanging. Our Lord WAS sent down. Our Lord IS perfect. And our Lord IS TRUE.

So, if you are a Muslim, and if you’ve been able to stomach everything I’ve written above, and if you’ve gotten to this point, I extend to you a sincere invitation:

Come on home. The Lord calls you. Abandon your absurd superstitions in your pagan moon-god, and your ridiculous rituals involving circling around a pagan idol in a pagan sanctuary, and your ludicrous disgusting paedophile “prophet”, and come on home.

Our Lord – your Lord – is waiting, with forgiveness, love, and hope, for you.

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. jorgen b

    This is all very interesting. And I applaud the scholarship behind it.

    But I’m a sinple man. I’ve read the Koran cover to cover in Dawood’s translation (no other is readable). As you said of the Koran “reading it feels like a punishment rather than a joy.” And if you read any translation other than Dawood then the punishment is more severe!

    In any case I am stunned by how incompregensible the Koran would be without the Bible. The author lives to tell Bible stories, in mangled form, so abridged it would be impossible to make any sense of the story without a knowledge of the full Biblical version. Sometimes he also gets the characters wrong like changing Gideon to King Saul, or merging Mary and Miriam, or putting Haman in Pharaoh’s court, or gets chrobology vastly wrong, having Pharaoh crucify. But one of the most mangled is honestly Jonah.

    In the Koran Jonah is commanded something by Allah (unspecified what it is) but he flees to the laden ship, where he casts lots and is found guilty. Then a whale swallows him and spits him up on a deserted island, where a gourd grows over his head.

    Now from that telling of the story, if you didn’t know the Biblical version, you would have no clue what any of this is. Why is he fleeing to a “laden ship”? Why does the story teller assume we know there should be a “laden ship”? Why does he cast lots on the ship? Why is he condemned? How does a whale just show up and swallow him? What is the point of a gourd growing over him?

    Oh also this is in a Sura that tells a Bible story then says “Thus do We reward the righteous” after each one. But in many the reward is unclear whereas in others it is merely “and we caused later generations to praise him.” With Jonah it looks like the gourd was his reward. Lol.

    Simply reading the Koran ahoild disabuse anyone of any notion of its divine origin. Especially if they’ve read the Bible and can conpare the two. The problem with Muslims is they don’t actually read the Koran, and/or don’t read the Bible.

    • Didact

      In any case I am stunned by how incompregensible [sic] the Koran would be without the Bible

      This is true. And that is because the Koran was very clearly a hastily constructed document made by the hands of men, not the word of God. When you’re in a great hurry to put together a prophetic revelation in order to construct a competing religious and national identity, you have to base your ideas on what already exists. And what existed at the time in 7th Century Arabia and Persia was not real Christianity – it was GNOSTIC Christianity, which was heretical at best and outright deluded at worst. Inevitably, the Koran had to borrow and pick from disjointed stories and ideas that came from Nestorians, Ebionites, and other Gnostics in the surrounding areas. But THOSE stories only made sense when rooted in the Bible anyway. So we’re already dealing with two levels of separation from the truth, and that’s before we get to the horrendously slapdash editing of the Izzlamic book.


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: