Mohammed

 

The following is our interpretation of the life and history of Mohammed and the foundation of the Islamic faith, this has not been done arbitrarily or with malice or the intent to deceive.  It has been done through critical and comparative scholastic analysis.

As with most other major religions the original teachings eventually get added to, taken away from and sometimes perverted to suite the aims of others.

What we emphasize here are the original teachings of the developer or the philosopher who created this “School of Thought”. 

Special Note: The “Truth Seekers” website is dedicated to finding the truth inherent to each religion.  Mohammed has been thoroughly researched as has the creation and history of the Islamic Faith.

A quick note on the recent update to this page:

We have received several complaints (and one compliment from a Muslim who has recently converted to Christianity) from the Islamic community about this page.  We have been accused of being biased against Mohammed and after a critical review of our page and a further look into the resources on the topic (most of which were provided by those who complained) we stand by our work.  To be fair, however, beside minor grammatical corrections and several additions and subtractions of content, we have added a section at the bottom addressing this issue (also rendered in blue).

This history of Mohammed and Islam is based on Islamic sources such as:

 

The Koran

Bokhari (A.D. 870)

Ibn Ishaq (A.D. 768)

Abu Dawud (sunnah)(A.D. 832?)

Wakidi (A.D. 822)

Tirmidhi (A.D. 892)

Ibn Hisham (A.D. 828)

Tabari (A.D. 929)

Ibn Sa'd (A.D. 845)

Zamakhshari (A.D.1144)

Ahmad ibn Hanbal (A.D. 855)

Baidawi (A.D. 1292)

Ibn Hajar - “Isabah”, or “Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed”

 

 

Mohammed, the prophet of Islam is said to have been born at Mecca (an Arabian city supposed to have been located at the intersection of major caravan trade routes) A.D. 570. It is not known what name he was given by his parents. Mohammed meaning 'praiseworthy' or 'highly praised' is obviously an honorific title, not a name. Arabia was torn by many warring factions at the time. The Quarish tribe, to which Mohammed belonged, had established itself in the south of Hijas (Hedjaz), near Mecca, which was, even then, the principal religious and commercial center of Arabia. 

The power of his families’ tribe was continually increasing; they had become the masters and the acknowledged guardians of the sacred Kaaba, within the town of Mecca — then visited in annual pilgrimage by the heathen Arabs with their offerings and tributes — and had thereby gained such preeminence that it was comparatively easy for Mohammed to inaugurate his religious reform and his political campaign, which ended with the conquest of all Arabia and the fusion of the numerous Arab tribes into one nation, with one religion, one code, and one sanctuary.

Being a successful trader and a man of some means he traveled often in commercial enterprises and was exposed to both Christians and Jews.  In his fortieth year (A.D. 612), he claimed to have received a call from the Angel Gabriel, and thus began his active career as the prophet of Allah and the apostle of Arabia.

The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only (very questionable) source for the leading events in his career, the historical value of which is more than doubtful.

Concerning his moral character and sincerity contradictory opinions have been expressed by scholars in the last three centuries. Many of these opinions are biased either by an extreme hatred of Islam and its founder or by an exaggerated admiration, coupled with a hatred of Christianity.

A provable fact is that he approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.

According to some apparently unbiased scholars, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, after the death of his wife, he was carried away by his own success and then practiced deception wherever it would gain his end.

A critical look at Mohammed which rests strictly on the evidence that comes from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents (listed below) shows that the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, based on their own offerings of evidence, the verdict of history goes against him.

His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd, Tirmidhi, Tabari, the “Lives of the Companions of Mohammed”, the numerous Koranic commentators - especially Tabari, Zamakhshari, and Baidawi, the “Musnad”, or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the collections of Bokhari, the “Isabah”, or “Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed”, by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the Hadiths, or “traditions”.

Criticizing the life of Mohammed by the standards of the Old and New Testaments, both of which Mohammed acknowledged as Divine revelation; then by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots; and lastly, by the new law of which he pretended to be the “divinely appointed medium and custodian”...the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that Mohammed falls far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality.

As stated above in 612 AD Mohammed claimed to have received a call from the Angel Gabriel, and began his active career as the prophet of Allah and the apostle of Arabia.

The pagan leaders of Mecca ignored Mohammed until he started attacking their gods publicly. Wealthy merchants were intimidated by Mohammed's power and therefore plotted to decrease his influence. As hostility rose, Mohammed found it convenient to preach tolerance for all religions so that his own could thrive.

When Mohammed first started screaming from the rooftops that he alone had the divine word of God, the people of Mecca ignored him. However, when he started insulting and defaming the religion of the peace loving Meccans, they couldn't take it anymore and tried persuading him to stop.

As the climate grew worse, Mohammed wisely decided that it was time for an emigration. In 622, he met some people from Medina who invited him to move to their city and offered to protect him while he preached “God's word”. Mohammed concerned over the growing hostility against him and instead of calling upon his Allah to strike down the Meccans, he crept out one night and fled for his life. This “emigration” is now known as the Hegira and makes the beginning of the Islamic calendar.

The motives of the initial converts to Islam has never been in doubt. As David S. Margoliouth states in his book “Mohammed and the Rise of Islam”:

“Of any moralizing or demoralizing effect that Mohammed's teaching had upon his followers we cannot say with precision.  When he was at the head of the Robber community, it is probable that the demoralizing influence began to be felt; it was then that men who had never broken an oath learnt that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of their clan had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the 'cause of god'. And that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval. It was then too that Muslims became distinguished by the obscenity of their language. It was then too, that the coveting of goods and wives possessed by Non-Muslims was avowed without discouragement from the Prophet...”

Ever since the incident in Mecca, Mohammed was determined to take revenge. He escaped to Medina, which had a sizeable Jewish population, and started plotting his revenge with a small gang of criminals. This was the beginning of Mohammed's trail of violence, hatred and bloodshed that would soon destroy the once flourishing culture of Arabia. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers.

At the time, eight large clans of Arabs and three major clans of Jews, all of who had been feuding for years, inhabited Medina. Mohammed sought to establish himself as a political leader by mediating between the various clans; through his and the literal strong-arm efforts of his followers new found followers, he arranged it so that all grievances and problems would be laid before him, Allah's representative on Earth. He continued to preach religious tolerance between the pagans, Jews and Muslims, although the Jews openly disputed his claims to prophet-hood. A new Constitution of Medina was written which guaranteed rights and duties to the Jews of Medina. It also granted the powers of war to Mohammed, who was eager to use them against his Meccan enemies.

Hoping to garner Jewish support for his military campaigns, Mohammed had yet another vision that Allah wanted Muslims to do their praying facing the then Christian city of Jerusalem.  Mohammed stopped this practice when he realized there was no hope that the Jews would join Islam.  Henceforth Allah had Mohammed stop the practice of facing Jerusalem and ordered all prayers to henceforth be said while facing in the direction of Mecca.

After only six months in his new city, Mohammed sent out groups of raiders to attack Meccan trading caravans, most were repelled and easily defeated. Not able to achieve his goal he then changed tactics so that his attacks could succeed.  His new tactic was to launch his attacks during the Meccan sacred month, which shocked his supporters and detractors alike.

Surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean 'Peace'! He organized no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

Mohammed's relationship with Jews in Medina became more strained as he became more powerful. They criticized his teachings, calling them self-contradictory.

Realizing that the existence of Jews in Medina threatened his goal of total power, he threw his claims of religious tolerance out the door and had all Jews in Medina killed or exiled, at one point declaring, “Kill any Jew who falls into your power.” The sole exception was the tribe of Qurayza, supporters of the Prophet.  Many scholars have speculated that this sparring of the Qurayza tribe of Jews was because of a blood relationship to the Quarish tribe of which Mohammed himself belonged.

In 624, the Prophet Mohammed learned that a rich Meccan caravan was going to pass by Medina and accordingly sent out a large raiding party. The Meccans knew of Mohammed's plans in advance and had sent along a vastly superior army to teach the Prophet and his Muslims a lesson.

Unfortunately for the Meccans, and for the rest of the world, the Muslims won the battle decisively. Mohammed continued such raids for years, winning several battles, until the Meccans besieged Medina in 627. The siege was unsuccessful and when the Meccans withdrew, Mohammed had the remaining Jewish clan of Qurayza destroyed -- the men slaughtered and thrown in ditches, the women sold into slavery, and property divvied up.

By 630, Mohammed's enemies had had enough of the skirmishes and battles. That year, they signed a treaty with him that permitted the Muslims to make pilgrimages to Mecca. At first he went along with the treaty, but Mohammed was soon powerful enough to break the treaty and conquer Mecca. Shortly after this he commanded the allegiances of all the Arab tribes of Central Arabia and envisioned conquering Rome itself before his death in 632.

Mohammed acted more like a successful warlord than a Prophet -- more like a Napoleon or Hitler than a holy man on a mission from God. His method of government did not rely on bureaucracy, but an ever changing secular ideology (changing whenever the Prophet himself felt the need to break a law that he created and attributed to his God) and police powers, Islam expanded from a minor local phenomenon to a transcontinental death machine.

Is the God of Islam “Allah” the same God as the Judeo-Christian “Yahweh”?

When Mohammed was born in Mecca, each Arab clan had it’s own tribal deity.  There was a large black meteor found in the desert which many Arabs believed was sent to them by astral deities.  This rock was placed in the southeast corner of the cube-shaped structure Kaaba in Mecca. 

The Kaaba, also known as, Ka'bah, Kabah and Caaba is the center of the holiest place of worship in Islam i.e. the Sacred Mosque of Mecca, Al Masjid Al-Haram. Its name means the cube in Arabic as it is a cube shaped stone structure built in the middle of the Sacred Mosque. The Kaaba is believed by Muslims to have been built by the prophet Abraham as a landmark for the House of God for the sole purpose of the worshipping of God alone.

The Kaaba

One of the shrines in the Kaaba (the holiest place of worship in the Islamic Faith) was also dedicated to the Hindu Creator God, Brahma, which is why the allegedly illiterate prophet of Islam claimed it was dedicated to Abraham.  The word “Abraham” in this case is none other than a mispronunciation of the word Brahma.

In the heathen/pagan time before Islam this stone and many other idols were part of the shrine to worship and celebrate the 354 gods of the Arabian people.  Of special note are al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, collectively known as al-Gharaniq or the Daughters of God, and Hubal, a martial deity.

The Quarish tribe to which Mohammed belonged, were the masters and the acknowledged guardians of the sacred Kaaba Shrine.  The matron goddess of Mohammed's tribe was the youngest one of the three sister goddesses mentioned above - al-Uzza, her name meant “the mighty one”. 

The father of al-Uzza and her sisters was “al-Llah”, the moon god.  The Arabs had a year of twelve lunar months which they would reconcile with the solar year as often as seemed necessary by adding a thirteenth month.  A standard Arab year however had 354 days which corresponds to the original number of gods celebrated at the Kaaba prior to it’s cleansing by Mohammed.

Arabic of today translates the word Allah as “God”.  Mohammed's father's name was “Abd-Allah” (or slave of Allah).  When Mohammed says there is only one god but Allah - you now have an idea what his background thinking was.  

In the Koran, Sura 53:19 says “Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third other?” This passage was originally followed by the words “Verily they are the exalted maidens and their intercession is to be hoped for”.

The polytheistic Pagans of Mecca were delighted when Mohammed delivered this passage because it was a chant recited by the Quarish tribe as they circled the Kaaba while worshipping these three principle goddesses of pre-Islamic Mecca.

This compromise, however, also caused some Mohammed’s companions to doubt him and leave his fold.

When Mohammed realized that his attempt to appease the pagan Meccans was causing his followers to leave, he quickly made a slight alteration and a major omission to this passage by dropping the sentence about the exalted maidens.

At the time that Sure 53:19 was uttered, Mohammed and the disciples who had stayed with him in Mecca were confined under siege - to be starved into submission.

Just in the nick of time, Mohammed received a revelation that helpfully clarified the theopolitical questions at issue for the Meccan guardians of the gods in the Kaaba. The three favorite goddesses of Mecca - al-Lat, al-Uzzah, and al-Manat - were also real! This saved Mohammed's neck and all body parts attached thereto.  Later, when it was safe to do so, this all-important revelation was expunged from the Qur’an and it was explained that the revelation had come from Shaitan (Satan), not Allah.

The earliest authority on the life of Mohammed (Ibn Hisham) claimed that these words were uttered by Mohammed at the “instigation of Satan” and are considered to be Satanic Verses.

Thus began the legend of the "Satanic Verses," which more than a thousand years later was to prompt the Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa of death against the novelist Salman Rushdie.

To draw attention to the Satanic Verses is to galvanize a still-raw nerve in the body politic of Islam. The Satanic Verses are an acute embarrassment to Mohammedan authorities because they imply that it was Satan, not Allah, who had saved their prophet's life. If Allah was the only God, and if he had previously selected Mohammed to be his last and greatest mouthpiece on this planet, why didn't he save his own appointed prophet? Why would the god of evil want to save his enemy's ambassador? Might not there be more Satanic Verses in the Qur’an — verses that have never been recognized as the handiwork of the prince of devils? Who knows what evils yet may lurk in the Book of Books?

In the second period of the Meccan Suras, Mohammed appears to have conceived the idea of still further severing himself from the idolatry of his clan, and of giving to the supreme deity Allah another title, Ar-Rahman, “the merciful one”. The Meccans, however, seem to have taken these for the names of separate deities, and the name is abandoned in the later chapters.

Ar-Rahman incidentally is very similar to the Zoroastrian or Parsi “Devil” Ahriman in later Zoroastrian. 

Islam would have the world believe that this Allah who insists on world domination and death to non-believers -- and who is the same god who offers Muslim terrorist martyrs hedonistic sex with virgins in heaven - is the same God as the Judeo-Christian Yahweh.

We ask that you draw your own conclusions!

Spread of Islam

After Mohammed's death Mohammedanism aspired to become a world power and a universal religion. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire, the unfortunate rivalry between the Greek and Latin Churches, the schisms of Nestorius and Eutyches, the failing power of the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, the lax moral code of the new religion, the power of the sword and of fanaticism, the hope of plunder and the love of conquest — all these factors combined with the genius of the caliphs, the successors of Mohammed, to effect the conquest, in considerably less than a century, of Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, and the South of Spain.

The Muslims even crossed the Pyrenees, threatening to stable their horses in St. Peter's at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours, in 732, just one hundred years from the death of Mohammed. This defeat arrested their western conquests and saved Europe. In the eighth and ninth centuries they conquered Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India, and in the twelfth century they had already become the absolute masters of all Western Asia, Spain and North Africa, Sicily, etc. They were finally conquered by the Mongols and Turks in the thirteenth century, but the new conquerors eventually adopted Mohammed's religion and, in the fifteenth century, overthrew the tottering Byzantine Empire (1453). From that stronghold (Constantinople) they even threatened the German Empire, but were successfully defeated at the gates of Vienna, and driven back across the Danube, in 1683.

The word Islam refers to the peace that comes from surrender to God. “Islam”, in its original sense pointed to the eternal call from God to man to surrender to the Divine Law of Life.

Namely, “Islam” is a synonym for the One Religion that all prophets carried to humanity. The core concept is that man needs to be in harmony with the Divine Law, and that is surrender. Once s/he surrenders to the Law, s/he will be in peace within her/himself and with everything in the universe. That is the real salvation. This belief as expressed above is very similar in wording and principle to Taoist teachings.

Shi'ites believe that religious leaders should also be political rulers, whereas the majority of Muslims, the Sunnites, believe in a separation of the two realms. The Sufis who form the mystical branch of Islam, teach an arduous path of self-denial culminating in union with their God which is very comparable to the Buddhist philosophy.

 

Tenets

 

The Islamic Religion, contains practically nothing original; it is a confused combination of native Arabian heathenism, Judaism, Christianity, Sabiism (Mandoeanism), Hanifism, and Zoroastrianism containing elements of Buddhism as well as a flavoring of Hindu beliefs.

 

The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible; but to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Divinity of Christ Mohammed had the strongest antipathy.

The German scholar Noldeke remarks, “Mohammed's acquaintance with those two dogmas was superficial; even the clauses of the Creed that referred to them were not properly known to him, and thus he felt that it was quite impossible to bring them into harmony with the simple Semitic Monotheism; probably, too, it was this consideration alone that hindered him from embracing Christianity.” (Sketches from Eastern History, 62).

 

The number of prophets sent by God is said to have been about 124,000, and of apostles, 315. Of the former, 22 are mentioned by name in the Koran — such as Adam, Noe (Noah), Abraham, Moses, Jesus.

 

According to the Sunni, the Prophets and Apostles were sinless and superior to the angels, and they had the power of performing miracles (strange considering Mohammed as a “Prophet” performed no miracles).

 

Islamic angelology and demonology are almost wholly based on later Zoroastrian, Jewish and early Christian traditions.

 

The chief devil is Iblis, who, like his numerous companions, was once the nearest to God, but was cast out for refusing to pay homage to Adam at the command of God. These devils are harmful both to the souls and to the bodies of men, although their evil influence is constantly checked by Divine interference.

Besides angels and devils, there are also jinns, or genii, creatures of fire, able to eat, drink, propagate, and die; some good, others bad, but all capable of future salvation and damnation.

 

God rewards good and punishes evil deeds. He is merciful and is easily propitiated by repentance. The punishment of the impenitent wicked will be fearful, and the reward of the faithful great. All men will have to rise from the dead and submit to the universal judgment.

 

The Day of Resurrection and of Judgment will be preceded and accompanied by seventeen fearful, or greater, signs in heaven and on earth, and eight lesser ones, some of which are identical with those mentioned in the New Testament. The Resurrection will be general and will extend to all creatures — angels, jinns, men, and brutes.

 

The torments of hell and the pleasures of Paradise, but especially the latter, are proverbially crass and sensual. Hell is divided into seven regions: Jahannam, reserved for faithless Mohammedans; Laza, for the Jews; Al-Hutama, for the Christians; Al-Sair, for the Sabians; Al-Saqar, for the Magians; Al-Jahim, for idolaters; Al-Hawiyat, for hypocrites. As to the torments of hell, it is believed that the damned will dwell amid pestilential winds and in scalding water, and in the shadow of a black smoke. Draughts of boiling water will be forced down their throats. They will be dragged by the scalp, flung into the fire, wrapped in garments of flame, and beaten with iron maces. When their skins are well burned, other skins will be given them for their greater torture. While the damnation of all infidels will be hopeless and eternal, the Muslims, who, though holding the true religion, have been guilty of heinous sins, will be delivered from hell after expiating their crimes.

 

The joys and glories of Paradise are as fantastic and sensual as the lascivious Arabian mind could possibly imagine. “As plenty of water is one of the greatest additions to the delights of the Bedouin Arab, the Koran often speaks of the rivers of Paradise as a principal ornament thereof; some of these streams flow with water, some with wine and others with honey, besides many other lesser springs and fountains, whose pebbles are rubies and emeralds, while their earth consists of camphor, their beds of musk, and their sides of saffron. But all these glories will be eclipsed by the resplendent and ravishing girls, or houris, of Paradise, the enjoyment of whose company will be the principal felicity of the faithful. These maidens are created not of clay, as in the case of mortal women, but of pure musk, and free from all natural impurities, defects, and inconveniences. They will be beautiful and modest and secluded from public view in pavilions of hollow pearls.

 

The concept of a heaven in the hereafter is perhaps as old as the human race itself.  But in the entire history of mankind if one looks at the definition of heaven of any culture, of any religion, of any race in an era, one finds that it consists of the things that the people in that group are deprived of, or the things that they really miss or want in their lives.  They project these things to be present in abundance in ‘their heaven’; indescribable beauty, lost loved ones, the land of milk and honey, the happy hunting grounds, place where you feel you belong, a place where you can feel loved.

 

The Mohammedan doctrine of predestination is equivalent to fatalism. They believe in God's absolute decree and predetermination both of good and of evil; viz., whatever has been or shall be in the world, whether good or bad, proceeds entirely from the Divine will, and is irrevocably fixed and recorded from all eternity. The possession and the exercise of our own free will is, accordingly, futile and useless. The absurdity of this doctrine was felt by later Mohammedan theologians, who sought in vain by various subtile distinctions to minimize it.

 

Morals

 

It is hardly necessary here to emphasize the fact that the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament.

 

That in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none. What is really good in Islamic ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked.

 

The principal sins forbidden by Mohammed are idolatry and apostasy, adultery, false witness against a brother Muslim, games of chance, the drinking of wine or other intoxicants, usury, and divination.

 

Brotherly love is confined in Islam to other Muslims. Any form of idolatry or apostasy is severely punished in Islam, but the violation of any of the other ordinances is generally allowed to go unpunished, unless it seriously conflicts with the social welfare or the political order of the State.

 

Among other prohibitions mention must be made of the eating of blood, of swine's flesh, of whatever dies of itself, or is slain in honor of any idol, or is strangled, or killed by a blow, or a fall, or by another beast. In case of dire necessity, however, these restrictions may be dispensed with.

 

Infanticide, extensively practiced by the pre-Islamic Arabs, is strictly forbidden by Mohammed, as is also the sacrificing of children to idols in fulfillment of vows, etc. The crime of infanticide commonly took the form of burying newborn females, lest the parents should be reduced to poverty by providing for them, or else that they might avoid the sorrow and disgrace which would follow, if their daughters should be made captives or become scandalous by their behavior.

 

Religion and the State are not separated in Islam. Hence Islamic jurisprudence, civil and criminal, is mainly based on the Koran and on the “Traditions”. Thousands of judicial decisions are attributed to Mohammed and incorporated in the various collections of Hadith.

 

Mohammed commanded reverence and obedience to parents, and kindness to wives and slaves. Slander and backbiting are strongly denounced, although false evidence is allowed to hide a Muslim's crime and to save his reputation or life.

 

As regards marriage, polygamy, and divorce, the Koran explicitly (sura iv, v. 3) allows four lawful wives at a time (although the Prophet Mohammed had nine, another example of him manipulating his own system for his own personal gain), whom the husband may divorce whenever he pleases. Slave-mistresses and concubines are permitted in any number. At present, however, owing to economic reasons, concubinage is not as commonly practiced, as Western popular opinion seems to hold. Seclusion of wives is commanded, and in case of unfaithfulness, the wife's evidence, either in her own defense or against her husband, is not admitted, while that of the husband invariably is. In this, as in their judicial cases, the evidence of two women, if admitted, is sometimes allowed to be worth that of one man.

 

A man is allowed to repudiate his wife on the slightest pretext, but the woman is not permitted even to separate herself from her husband unless it be for ill-usage, want of proper maintenance, or neglect of conjugal duty; and even then she generally loses her dowry, when she does not if divorced by her husband, unless she has been guilty of immodesty or notorious disobedience.

 

Both husband and wife are explicitly forbidden by Mohammed to seek divorce on any slight occasion or the prompting of a whim, but this warning was not heeded either by Mohammed himself or by his followers. A divorced wife, in order to ascertain the paternity of a possible or probable offspring, must wait three months before she marries again. A widow, on the other hand, must wait four months and ten days.

 

Slavery is not only tolerated in the Koran, but is looked upon as a practical necessity, while the manumission of slaves is regarded as a meritorious deed. It must be observed, however, that among Mohammedans, the children of slaves and of concubines are generally considered equally legitimate with those of legal wives, none being accounted bastards except such as are born of public prostitutes, and whose fathers are unknown.

 

The accusation often brought against the Koran that it teaches that women have no souls is without foundation. The Koranic law concerning inheritance insists that women and orphans be treated with justice and kindness. Generally speaking, however, males are entitled to twice as much as females.

 

Contracts are to be conscientiously drawn up in the presence of witnesses. Murder, manslaughter, and suicide are explicitly forbidden, although blood revenge (and apparently suicide bombing) is allowed. In case of personal injury, the law of retaliation is approved.

 

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Muslim subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

 

Mohammed’s Personal Morals

 

One should note that every time the ‘Apostle of Peace’ committed one of his criminal onslaughts, or broke a supposed command from “Allah”, he always justified the crimes by quickly claiming a 'divine revelation' that conveniently removed the blame from his bloodied hands.

 

These convenient Suras are detailed immediately below the description of the incident, if applicable.

1) Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month

Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.

Place: Nakhla

Victims: 4 Merchants from Quarish tribe of Mecca (the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged)

Four unarmed merchants were traveling to Mecca to sell their goods consisting of raisins, honey and animal skins. It was the holy month of Rejeb, which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. Mohammed's gang attacked the helpless men from behind and stabbed two of them to death. They plundered all the goods as booty and Mohammed got one fifths of the share.

This shows the utter lack of morals or scruples on Mohammed's part. The Prophet of Islam did not possess a shred of pity or kindness, or the slightest sense of justice. He cold-bloodedly murdered two innocent people who had never done him any harm in a month that the Prophet himself declared was a sacred month in which no warfare should take place. Mohammed was obviously motivated by nothing but hatred and greed.

Conveniently divine revelations came down from Allah that absolved him of all the guilt.

Koran 2:216

'Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.'

Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself, for having started the fighting.

The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that Allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is conveniently implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by Allah!

Koran 2:217

'They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing'

Here Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of Allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans, is the fact that they did not believe in Mohammed's version of God. How much more tolerant and kind could the 'Great Prophet' be!

2) Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans

Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D

Place: The well of Badr

Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. There he cried and prayed with feverish anxiety. At one point he came out of the hut and threw pebbles in the enemy's direction, screaming 'Let evil look on your faces!' and 'By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!' The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.

Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal, one of the Meccans who had criticized him openly. When his corpse was found they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed's feet. The 'Apostle of peace' cried out in delirious joy, 'Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!' The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug for the bodies of the innocents to be dumped. The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. As the bloodied mass of bodies was being thrown into the pit, a feverishly excited Mohammed screamed, ' O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!'. One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Mohammed's challenge of telling better stories than him. Mohammed ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch and exult in the pleasure of beheading the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet.  Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully 'O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?' The 'Great Prophet of the Religion of Peace' coldly spat out 'Hellfire', as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.

This time Mohammed needed a revelation that would not only absolve him of all the guilt for murdering so many innocent people, but also give him the 'divine' right to get a huge share of the plundered booty. Quite a few revelations magically appeared after the battle of Badr.

Koran 8:65

'O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence'.

This Sura clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in the Muslim version of religion. Not only is the 'All forgiving Allah' exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!

Koran 8:67-68

'It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.'

This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle. Allah the 'Merciful' is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, Allah is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is 'lawful and good' because it was done in service to Allah. So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly fine with Allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'Terrorism' of the worst kind.

3) Assassination of poets who criticized Mohammed's murderous ways 

Date: March-April, 623 A.D

Place: Medina

Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticize the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang....

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medina were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticize, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Mohammed was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, ‘Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!’ That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets’ house. She was lying in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said ‘You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats.’

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and renowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the “Prophet” had commented that morning ‘Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!’

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan’s five children slaughtered certainly attests to this ‘loving’ side of the “Prophet”.

4) The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa

Date: April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah

Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa

In order to get full control of Medinah, Mohammed needed to get rid of all his opponents. The strongest of these opponents was Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, a powerful chief who was allied with the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. This tribe was also the weakest, because they were made up of craftsmen, in particular goldsmiths. By attacking them, Mohammed knew he could plunder a huge amount of wealth and weaken Ibn Ubayy. Mohammed needed an excuse to attack them so he made a girl married to one of his followers, pretend that she had been teased by the Jews. The Muslims blockaded the fort of the Banu Qaynuqa for fifteen days until the starving Jews surrendered. Immediately, the Prophet was ready to kill them all, but Ibn Ubayy seized hold of Mohammed and protested. Mohammed’s face became black with rage as he shouted ‘Let go of me’, but Ibn Ubayy was adamant and shouted back ‘No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my allies. 400 men without armor and 300 with, who have always supported me against enemies. And you want to slay them all in one morning! By God, If I were in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune’. At this threat, the cowardly Mohammed turned pale, as he realized that all the people of Medinah were against him. He hit Ibn Ubayy on the face and ordered that the Jews be kicked out of their own homes. All their property was seized and looted, many of the prettiest women were taken as prisoners to become sex-slaves. Mohammed kept one-fifths of the enormous booty for himself. This is the way he repaid the kindness of the Jews of Medina, who had given him shelter and a refuge, when Mohammed had run away from Mecca in fear.

The revelations in the Eighth Sura of the Koran were clearly in reference to the Banu Qaynuqa and anyone who opposed the Muslims.

(Koran 8:55-57)

‘Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.’

‘Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may remember.’

Here Mohammed’s acts of planned terrorism against the Jewish Tribe is justified by Allah, because according to the ‘Merciful’ Allah, Non-Muslims are the worst of BEASTS! So it is perfectly all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but Allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against the injustices committed by Muslims, the Muslims should make sure and deal with them with such violence, that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent. Not even the fascist armies of Hitler engineered such devilish ideas.

The above are just a few of the incidents that demonstrate the intolerant and merciless nature and the inhuman acts committed by Mohammed and the Muslims.  There are many more examples if one reads the Koran against the back-drop of history and looks upon Mohammed as a warlord building a power base by eliminating his detractors and seizing their riches to increase his cause. 

It was Mohammed that started the fighting by attacking the Meccan caravans during a month that none were permitted to raise sword against the other – it was the only way, as Mohammed knew, that his followers had a chance of defeating the better trained and disciplined caravan guards.

Islam apparently works in much the same way as communism, which is by subversive means. As Islam was introduced to the native Indonesians, the people found the religion was very adaptable to their animistic and pagan beliefs. Islam did not really change their beliefs but absorbed them instead, since it did not bring something that was dramatically different than indigenous pagan beliefs. For example, the beliefs in jinns (spirits and ghosts) and all the superstitious practices such as charms, amulets, susuk, mantras (using arabic language - no one really knows whether it is a Koranic verse or not), witch doctors or shamans (dukun), and many others which are still widely practiced by the Indonesian Muslims.

On the other hand, Christianity would try to eradicate these practices, and because of this, the people were more receptive to Islam, except in some parts of Indonesia.

Then, after Islam gained stronger influence, the Maulanas instigated military force to attack and destroy the Hindu and the Buddhist kingdoms in their objective to “Islamasize” the regions, just like they did everywhere else in the world. 

India, and many other countries around the world, were raped, pillaged, and plundered by Islam. And today it is the Islamic nations that threaten world peace.

Muslims do not hesitate to criticize ‘non-believers’, but then become very upset when non-believers criticize Islam. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are a two-edged sword which cut both ways. The American freedom of speech (to criticize) and freedom of religion are deeply cherished and exercised by Americans, but such concepts of freedom are unknown and incomprehensible in Islamic societies.

Followers of Islam fervently declare that Islam is a peace-loving religion. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Koran advocating the use of violence to spread Islam. 

 

In the Koran, Allah commands Muslims, ‘Take not the Jews and Christians as friends... Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them.... Fight against such...as believe not in Allah...’ (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..).

The Koran itself warns Muslims, “Do not take Jews or Christians as your friends.” During the Arab conquests, Jews and Christians alike were massacred, and synagogues and churches destroyed. A Muslim phrase often quoted in the Middle East region is: “On Saturday we kill the Jews and on Sunday we kill the Christians!”

In Islam, the world is divided between the believers and the infidels, between Dar al Islam (“the world of Islam”) and Dar al Harb (“the world of war”). All non-Muslims are included in the world of war, and thus, can be forced to accept Islam through Jihad, Holy War.

If the “picture” of the historical Mohammed that this web page paints can be believed, and remember that this information mainly comes from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents - Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death.

 

Ironically Islam is supposed to mean ‘Peace’!

Some things the prophet Mohammed was up to in his lifetime:

·         Marrying his adopted son’s wife after forcing him to divorce her for the prophet’s pleasure;

·         Marrying a six year old, Aisha a Jewish captive who watched Mohammed’s men kill her family and was forced to sexually to submit to her “husband” on her ninth birthday. 

·         Raids on peaceful trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados.

·         Assassinations of opponents.

·         Blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medina.

·         Rape of women and children captured in raids or after battles.

·         Sale of these victims as slaves after rape (if no one bought them they were summarily executed).

·         Hostage taking for ransom.

·         Trickery, treachery, bribery and strong-armed bully-boy tactics employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion.

·         Conveniently re-interpreting the “Word of Allah” every time he broke a previous law he attributed to Allah.

Obviously these things would raise serious questions about a claimed Prophet of God!

Prophecies attributed to “Prophet” Mohammed

 

None!

 

If anyone reading this page knows of any Prophecy attributed to the “Prophet of Islam”, whether or not it came to pass please e-mail us with the details and the reference.

 

 

The Koran

 

        

The sources of the Koran be reduced to six:

And the sixth highly questionable source

 

Mohammed began his religious mission as the messenger of God in his own town of Mecca. He believed, scholars agree, sincerely enough at first, that God had called him to proclaim the great doctrine that there is no god but One, and to combat the polytheism. Mecca had risen in comparatively recent times to wealth and prosperity. On the material side of life it was in touch with the lands of culture that lay just beyond the bounds of Arabia. But it was almost untouched by the spiritual side of the life of these countries. Any influence which that had exerted had probably been negative, tending to undermine the old religion. In any case the new conditions of wealth were playing havoc with the kindliness and equality of the old life. Mohammed saw his people materially prosperous, but spiritually backward. He set himself therefore to transplant into their minds some of the “knowledge” of things religious which those who dwelt in more enlightened lands possessed. His own acquaintance with that “knowledge” however was very limited; and the opposition of the Meccans to his fundamental doctrine of Monotheism gave a denunciatory cast to the bulk of his deliverances there. His preaching did contain a certain amount of positive teaching he had acquired and promulgated in the Koran before he migrated to Medina.

For this he had looked to those who had been Monotheists before him – to the Zoroatrians, the Jews and Christians. It is almost impossible to decide in particulars whether he drew more upon Zoroastrian, Jewish or Christian sources. Nor does it greatly matter. For he does not in the early stages appear to have distinguished between them. All religion was for him revealed religion, and the content of the revelation given by the one God must be one. In any case, he had been in the habit of looking to previous Monotheists as the source of his knowledge, and he naturally assumed that they would agree with him.

When now he came to Medina, he was brought into close association with Jews. Passages in the Koran seem to suggest that before he went there he had received some promise of support from them. He accuses them afterwards of having broken the covenant of Allah, but it is not clear whether this refers to a definite pledge, or to some theoretical moral obligation under which they lay, as followers of a former prophet, to support a new prophet when he came (Surah III, 75).

It is, however, fairly clear that the Jews, or some of them at least, did support him to begin with, and that he was quite disposed to accept, and did accept, certain practices from Judaism, the qibla or direction of prayer towards Jerusalem amongst them. Differences, however, soon began to develop. Islam had already to a certain extent taken shape in Mecca, and did not quite agree with Judaism. Perhaps too Mohammed, ready as he was to borrow from the Jews, had functioned too long as an independent “messenger” to brook with patience the tutelage to which at close quarters his mentors were probably disposed to subject him. There is some petulance in the remark that neither the Jews nor the Christians would be satisfied with him until he followed their form of religion (II, 114). Worst of all, he had schemes of his own, involving hostilities with the Meccans, from which the Jews shrank. His hopes of support from them were disappointed.

The outward sign of a new orientation on Mohammed's part was the change of qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca. This was not carried through without difficulty, as the confusion of the passage in the Koran (II, 136ff.) dealing with the subject, shows. But it was important, and he pressed it. It was indeed a momentous change.

But why Mecca? The town which had rejected him, against whose inhabitants he was planning revenge, the center of the religion which he had hitherto been combating!

It was not only his own differences with the Jews which had been troubling Mohammed. He found also differences between Jews and Christians.

How was this possible in religions that professed to be founded on revelation from the one God?

He had found, too, in the course of his enquiries into the histories of former prophets, that it was not a case of one messenger being sent to each people, as he had at first apparently assumed. The Bani Isra'il had had a whole succession of prophets sent to them. Of the great prophets not only Moses but Jesus also had been sent to the Bani Isra'il. Their having once received the revelation, therefore, did not preclude the necessity of another prophet being afterwards sent.

His answer to the problem of the differences amongst those who had received the Book, as formulated in Surah III, 17 (a verse older than its present setting) is: “Religion as it is with Allah is Islam; those who have been given the Book did not differ, except after the (revealed) knowledge had come to them, out of hatred among themselves.”

That is, the original revelation had been the same, but in course of time Jews and Christians had both departed from the purity of the Faith, and had gone their own ways. The basic content of true religion was always the same - the necessity of surrender to the one God - but religions degenerated and needed to be restored.

Now Mohammed had to deal with another religion besides Judaism and Christianity - the religion of the Arabs, or in the language of those from whom he had hitherto taken his information on religious matters, the Hanif. That also must be the degeneration of a pristine pure revelation. Further, Abraham through Ishmael was the progenitor of the Arabs. He therefore must have been the founder of the religion of the Hanif. He was the Hanif, par excellence, but as Mohammed is always careful to add, in order to prevent misconceptions, Ishmael was not one of the Polytheists.

If the Hanifs were originally a sect or offshoot of Hinduism, they too were not true Polytheists. The Hindi religion believes that there is ultimately One True God and all others that they pray too are merely various incarnations or Avatars of the One True God, so possibly Mohammed was correct in his assertion that the Hanifs were once pure monotheists.  

According to Mohammed the Hanif religion as founded, was, like all other revealed religions, a pure monotheism; and as Abraham was earlier in time than both Judaism and Christianity, his religion was purer than either of them had ever been. It was nearer the origin of things. It was “the religion upon which Allah created the people” (XXX, 29). This would accord with the “Truth Seekers” assertion that Abraham was also a Brahman.

This was the religion, then, which Mohammed now conceived himself as commissioned to restore. His face is henceforth set, not towards Judaism or Christianity, but towards the assumed pure original of the Arab religion (probably degenerated Hinduism). That is why he chooses Abraham as his prototype, makes Mecca the center of Arab religion and from now on deliberately incorporates into Islam such portions of Arab practice as seemed to him consistent with Monotheism.

Authorship and Compilation

It is generally admitted that portions of the Koran are substantially the work of Mohammed. According to the traditionalists, it contains the pure revelation he could neither read nor write, but that immediately afterwards he could do both; others believe that even before the revelation he could read and write; while others, again, deny that he could ever do so. Thus it is uncertain whether any of the Suras were written down by the Prophet himself or all delivered by him orally and afterwards written down by others from memory.

The Koran is written in Arabic, in rhymed prose, the style differing considerably in the various Suras, proof for many scholars that it was written by different people. The language is universally acknowledged to be the most perfect form of Arab speech, and soon became the standard by which other Arabic literary compositions had to be judged, grammarians, lexicographers, and rhetoricians presuming that the Koran, being the word of God, could not be wrong or imperfect.

Mohammed's followers began by trusting their memories to retain the words of the revelation they had received from him. Later, those who could write traced them in ancient characters on palm leaves, tanned hides, or dry bones. After the Prophet's death all these fragments were collected. Abu Bekr, the (then) caliph, charged Zaid ibn Thabit, Mohammed’s disciple, to collect all that could be discovered of the sacred texts in one volume. The chapters were then arranged according to their length and without regard to historical sequence. The revision made twenty years later affected details of language of the text.

 

Unfortunately as with many other “Religions” Islam does not currently exist in the pure form in which it was taught or intended.  The followers of Mohammed re-interpreted, mis-interpreted, rationalized, convoluted and confused the original teachings until all that is left is barely recognizable and meaningless dogma and empty ritual.

 

Validity of the Koran

 

A typical Muslim point of view is summed up simply below:

 

“The Koran says it is from God, do you have any proof to refute it?

No, therefore it is from God.”

 

1) This is a LOGICAL FALLACY CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM.

 

2) Also THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE CLAIM. WE ARE

NOT SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THE KORAN'S CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN TO BE TRUE.

 

Suppose for a moment that someone was to claim that they are God as outlined below:

 

“I am God, I created the world, you and everyone else just 5 minutes ago and I created you all with an impression of a history, with the current state of mind you have, with memories and all.”

 

The point is that the statement above is as irrefutable as a book saying it is correct and true because it says it is!

 

In the Koran there is a verse that many Muslims cite as a challenge to find an error. They claim that the Koran is laying down the gauntlet, and it is now incumbent upon the nonbeliever to find a problem with the Koran. The verse reads:

 

[Soorat an-Nisaa' 4:82]

 

‘Do they not consider the Koran? If it were from other than Allah, they would have found many errors.’

By this logic the following conclusion must be drawn

 

If the Koran is not from Allah, it would have errors.

The Koran has errors.

Therefore, the Koran is not from Allah.

 

Actually like the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Koran has many errors.  Surprisingly few Muslims have ever read what the great authors of Islam have said about the Koran. They have been taught the Koran in a religious environment since they were very small children and have been taught not to question the Imam’s (which the Koran tells them not to do).

 

Muslims would be very surprised to discover that Mohammed’s companions and disciples as well as the rightly guided Caliphs said that some parts of the Koran were lost. Moreover, the Koran was subjected to editing, perversion and alteration and Mohammed’s companions disagreed over some chapters of the Koran, some verses and their meanings. It is almost impossible for Muslims to imagine such things about the book that they dearly regard and respect.

 

Scientific Errors of the Koran

 

Alluding to three scientific errors pertaining to the sun, earth and the two phenomenon of thunder and lighting.

 

The Sun

 

In plain words, the Koran says that one of the righteous men of God’s servants saw the sun set in a certain place of the earth—in particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Koran:

 

(Surah 18:86)

 

“When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: ‘O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness”’

 

So as to clearly understand what the Koran meant by these strange words, we referred to the famous students of the Koran as well as to the ancient scholars. We discovered that all of them concurred with this rendering and said that Mohammed’s friends inquired about the sunset and that he gave them that answer.

 

The Phenomena of Thunder and Lightning 

 

It is common knowledge, as scientists teach, that thunder is a sound caused by the impact between electrical charges found in the clouds. Yet Mohammed, the prophet of Muslims, has a different opinion in this matter. He claims that the thunder and the lightning are two of God’s angels—exactly like Gabriel

 

In the Koran there is a chapter under the title of “Thunder” in which it is recorded that the thunder praises God.

 

‘It is an angel who is in charge of the cloud, who (carries) with him swindles of fire by which he drives the clouds.’

 

The famous Muslim scholars/commentators Baydawi, Jalalan, Zamakhshari, Suyuti, and ibn ’Abbas have said concurred that this is what Mohammed said.  We do not know (among the ancient scholars) any who are more famous than these.

 

Concerning lighting, Mohammed affirms that it is an angel like the thunder and like Gabriel and Michael. On page 230 of the above references, Suyuti alludes to it. Also on page 68 of part 4 of the “Itqan”, the Suyuti records for us the names of the angels, which are: “Gabriel, Michael, Harut, Marut, the Thunder and the Lightning (He said) that the lightning has four faces.”

 

The Suyuti listed all these under the sub-title, “The names of God’s Angels”. He also indicated that Mohammed said that the lightning is the tail end of an angel whose name is Rafael (refer to part 4, p. 230 of the Itqan).

 

The Earth 

 

The Koran challenges some scientific facts. In many places, it alludes to the fact that the earth is flat and its mountains are like poles which create a balance so that the Earth does not tilt.

 

Some Saudi scholars wrote a book a few years ago to disprove the spherical aspect of the earth and they claimed that it is a myth and said we must believe the Koran and reject the spherical aspect of the earth.

 

It is also well known that the Koran proclaims that there are seven earths—not just one (refer to the commentary of the Jalalan, p. 476, al-Baydawi, p. 745 as they interpret chapter 61:12, Surah Divorce: 1 2).

 

It is very clear that the sun does not traverse the heaven and set down in a murky, muddy well, or slimy water, or a place which contains both of them as the Baydawi, Zamakhshari, and the Koran remark.

 

Nor is the earth flat, nor are the mountains ‘pillars and towers’ which prevent the earth from moving as the Koran and it’s scholars said. Nor is there a mountain which encompasses the whole earth—nor are there seven earths.

 

Neither is the lightning an angel whose name is Rafael, nor is the thunder an angel. It never happened that the angel Gabriel inspired Mohammed to write a complete chapter about his friend the angel thunder! The thunder and lightning are natural phenomena and not God’s angels like Michael and Gabriel as the prophet of Islam claims.

 

The Errors Of Inheritance

 

The Koran lays down a number of complicated rules with regard to inheritance. Mathematically, it just doesn't add up:

 

Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 State the Koranic inheritance law;

 

When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12]

Which adds up to more than the available estate.

 

A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.

Which again adds up to more than the available estate.

 

There are many, many more errors in the Koran so our conclusion is that since it says that it has no errors since it was written by God, then it was not written by God!

 

Islamic Teachings that we at the “Truth Seekers” agree with:

 

It must be clear that when Man was created, s/he was endowed with the Divine knowledge, and it is up to the individual to search for it from within.

 

The Koran 2:256

 

        ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error’

 

As stated above:

According to Mohammed the Hanif religion as founded, was, like all other revealed religions, a pure monotheism; and as Abraham was earlier in time than both Judaism and Christianity, his religion was purer than either of them had ever been. It was nearer the origin of things. It was “the religion upon which Allah created the people”. This would accord with the “Truth Seekers” assertion that Abraham was also a Brahman.

 

We agree with the scholars who insist that Mohammed was sincere in the beginning of his cause, then after the death of his wife something changed.  Unfortunately this change was not for the good as history then reveals Mohammed to be a petty tyrant/warlord focused more on self-gratification than on conversion of the people back to the “original” or “One True Religion”.

 

In this sense Mohammed’s early teachings and his revelation or insight into Abraham’s original religion accords well with our mission here at the “Truth Seekers” and our religion of “The Way”.

 

 

An interesting website, but a bit anti-Islamic is http://www.answering-islam.org/

 

First, who is Allah? Keep in Mind that when Mohammed preached to the Meccans he did not introduce a new god, he only proclaimed that of their many gods, Allah, was the greatest and only god. The Meccans, therefore could not accuse Mohammed of preaching of a different god than they knew. He merely demanded that they believe in one god, not many as were accepted before. There are many who speak of Allah as the Moon-God as represented by the symbol of the crescent, the symbol of Islam. The crescent moon is on mosques and minarets, is found on the flags of Islamic nations and the month of Ramadan begins and ends the fast with the appearance of the crescent moon.   In fact the Sumerian Moon-God “Sin” (Sinai = Land of Sin) used the crescent moon as his personal symbol.

 

The history of Mohammed Examined

A modern book written for beginning English-speaking Muslims very well summarizes the legend that needs to be examined critically:

The life of Muhammad is known as the Sira and was lived in the full light of history. Everything he did and said was recorded. Because he could not read and write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions and his activities. Muhammad himself insisted on documenting his important decisions. Nearly three hundred of his documents have come down to us, including political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials and state correspondence written on tanned leather. We thus know his life to the minutest details: how he spoke, sat, sleeped [sic], dressed, walked; his behaviour as a husband, father, nephew; his attitudes toward women, children, animals; his business transactions and stance toward the poor and the oppressed; his engagement in camps and cantonments, his behaviour in battle; his exercise of political authority and stand on power; his personal habits, likes and dislikes - even his private dealings with his wives. Within a few decades of his death, accounts of the life of Muhammad were available to the Muslim community in written form. One of the earliest and the most-famous biographies of Muhammad, written less than [a] hundred years after his death, is Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq.

The fire of these ardent assertions is quenched, however, by the cold water supplied by Professor John Burton, an Islamologist at the University of St. Andrews, as he comments on a translation of al-Tabari's History as it deals with the life of Mohammed:

None will fail to be struck by the slimness of a volume purporting to cover more than half a century in the life of one of History's giants. Ignoring the pages tracing his lineage all the way back to Adam and disregarding the merely fabulous with which the author has padded out his book, is to realize how very meagre is the hard information available to the Muslims for the life of the man whose activities profoundly affected their own as well as the lives of countless millions. Of the childhood, the education of the boy and the influences on the youth, all of which set the pattern of the development of the man, we know virtually nothing. We simply have to adjust to the uncomfortable admission that, in the absence of contemporary documents, we just do not and never shall know what we most desire to learn.

How is an unbiased interested observer to choose between these diametrically opposed opinions concerning Mohammed? Only by personally examining the evidentiary sources upon which the Life of Mohammed is based can one decide.

So we must briefly survey the material that has come down to us.

Sources of Information on Mohammed

Evidence on the life of Mohammed is derived from literary sources, papyri and manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, and archaeology. The literary sources include the Sira (a life of Mohammed written by Ibn Ishaq), the Maghazi (an account of the military acts and bandit raids of Mohammed, ascribed to al-Waqidi, d. 823), the Hadith (originally oral reports about the sayings and deeds of Mohammed), the Koran, the tafsir (commentaries on the Koran), and the writings of early non-Muslim critics and observers.

The Hadith

Since much of the literary evidence ultimately is derived from the oral traditions captured in the Hadith (or books of traditions), it is well to begin our look at the life of Mohammed by inquiring into the reliability of the Hadith.

The Hadith are alleged to be the collected records of what Mohammed did, what he enjoined, what he did not forbid, and what was done in his presence. They also contain the supposed sayings and deeds of the prophet's companions. Each item is traced back to Mohammed by means of an isnad, a chain of supposedly honest witnesses and transmitters. The substance of such a report is called a matn, and the total tradition of Islamic law and morals derivable from the accredited Hadith is known as the sunna. Adherence to the sunna for guidance in all matters for which the Koran is either obscure or silent is a defining characteristic of the major Muslim sect of the world today, the so-called Sunni. (The other major group of Muslims, the Shi‘ites, do not generally honor the sunna, and trace their origin to a very early dispute over who should have been the immediate successor of Mohammed, siding with Mohammed's cousin and son-in-law Ali and arguing that the leadership should have remained in Mohammed's family.)

Sunni Muslims accept six collections of Hadith as authentic traditions of Mohammed. These include the compilations of al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai.

In addition to these six collections, there is the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, an encyclopedia that contains nearly 29,000 Hadith.

Reminding ourselves that Mohammed died in 632, we must immediately question the authenticity of traditions recorded well over two centuries after his time. To be sure, each Hadith is supported by an isnad tracing its transmission back to Mohammed. Nevertheless, modern scholars have been able to demonstrate that the vast majority of these isnads are fabrications created to serve the theopolitical needs of their inventors. Indeed, the fraudulent nature of most of the Hadith were detected in olden times.

Al-Bukhari, the first of the above-named collectors, traveled from country to country to collect Hadith. He was successful beyond his wildest dreams, discovering that more than 600,000 Hadith were current in his day. Unfortunately, careful study convinced him that a vast number (596,000) were fraudulent and only around four thousand were authentic - and European scholars would discard at more than half of those he claimed were authentic.

Islamic apologists face a terrible problem with the Hadith. Assuming as they do that the story of al-Bukhari is true, how can they be sure that not even one of those rejected Hadith had been authentic? How can they know that all of the four thousand are in fact true reports of Mohammed's words and deeds?

Surely, the story of al-Bukhari is a powerful tool to discredit the entire idea of Hadith. When we learn that many collectors paid people to cough up new and useful Hadith, and when we read even in Muslim sources that people often created Hadith to support the pet projects and political needs of their masters, it is obvious that we are not likely to find much if any authentic information about the historical Mohammed in the Hadith.

Sira and Maghazi

Although the names of some seventy historians are known who are believed to have dealt with the life of Mohammed and both the prehistory and early history of Islam up to the year 1000 CE, their works have not survived and they are known only from quotations in later historians.

The Sira

The Sira or biography of Mohammed is mainly known from a work by Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq was born into a family of Medina that made a living procuring Hadith, and he followed the family trade, ending his career in Baghdad. A number of early Muslim critics held him to be a liar in regard to his Hadith, and it is somewhat ironic that he has ended up being the earliest Muslim historian whose work is relied upon by modern Mohammedan apologists.

Unfortunately, his work has not survived in its original form. Rather it has been transmitted in two highly altered and differing critical revisions: the most popular one made by Ibn Hisham and another one made by Yunus b. Bukayr.

Some parts of Ibn Ishaq's work that were suppressed by Ibn Hisham and Yunus b. Bukayr can be found in quotations in the works of fourteen other historians writing 110 to 199 years after the Hegira (622 CE). As a result, Ibn Ishaq's Sira would have to be reconstructed from the works of sixteen later historians! Doing so, however, is hardly worth the effort, considering the poor reliability of the entire Sira literature.

The Maghazi

The Maghazi, is the chronicle of Mohammed's bandit raids and military activities. One of the earliest authors known to have collected Maghazi legends was Wahb b. Munabbih, who was born 34 years after the Hegira (654 CE) and lived until the year 110 AH (728 CE). A fragment of his work has survived in the Heidelberg Papyrus (early third/ninth centuries) that contains Maghazi traditions attributed to him. It is important to note that Wahb did not know about the use of isnads — the chains of transmitters used to establish the authenticity of traditions. It seems likely then, that any isnads found in scraps of early historians are not authentic but were the creations of later historians who wished to give the appearance that their traditions are anchored in the secure moorings of primal Mohammedanism.

Perhaps the major source for this part of Mohammed's life is the Kitab al-Maghazi by al-Waqidi. He was a Shiite and is credited with having first established the chronology of the early years of Islam. He made extensive use of Ibn Ishaq's work and is himself cited extensively by the later popular historian al-Tabari. Ibn Warraq sums up the historical significance - or lack thereof- of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi:

Both Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi's reputations have suffered in recent years as a consequence of the trenchant criticisms by Patricia Crone (especially in Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, pp. 203-30), where she argues that much of the classical Muslim understanding of the Koran rests on the work of storytellers and that this work is of very dubious historical value. These storytellers contributed to the tradition on the rise of Islam, and this is evident in the steady growth of information: "If one storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next storyteller would know the date of this raid, while the third would know everything that an audience might wish to hear about it." Then, comparing the accounts of the raid of Kharrar by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, Crone shows that al-Waqidi, influenced by and in the manner of the storytellers, "will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend color to the event, as well as reasons why, as was usually the case, no fighting took place. No wonder that scholars are fond of al-Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq."

Thus, the biography of Mohammed is very much like that of Jesus Christ: the later the biographer in time, the more he 'knows' about his character. The earliest sources know little or nothing about their lives, and biographies are built up from 'facts' that successive re-tellers of the tales 'discover' or create as needed. It has been shown that the Sira (and almost certainly the Maghazi as well) depends to a large extent upon the Hadith, which we have already seen are mostly convenient creations of theopolitical propagandists. Moreover, many Hadith have been shown to be nothing more than the study of causes or origins of Koranic passages, created to provide a causal biographical or historical background for particular 'revelations'.

This means that much of the Sira has been inferred from ambiguous or unintelligible passages in the Koran!

Would-be biographers of Mohammed are faced with a chicken-or-egg conundrum at this point, since the Koran itself would appear to be a somewhat special collection of Hadith — many of which appear to have been manufactured for sale.

The unreliability of the Sira as a source of information regarding the life of Mohammed affects even the supposedly foundational datum of his birth having been in the year 570/571 CE. Lawrence Conrad has shown that well into the second Muslim century, scholarly opinion concerning the birth date of the Prophet was spread over a space of eighty-five years! If Muslim scholars during that crucial formative century had not yet decided when Mohammed had been born, what can we believe of the other dates that later became 'facts' of Muslim chronology and history?

That the year 622 CE was indeed of early significance to the evolving religion has been confirmed from coins which mark it as the beginning of a new era. Nevertheless, there is no seventh-century source that identifies this year as the year of the Hegira (the year of the emigration of Muhammad and his followers to the city of Medina in 622 and the beginning of the Islamic calendar). Two Nestorian Christian documents of 675 and 680 designate it as the year of "the rule of the Arabs."

Casting yet another shadow on the doctrine of the Hegira as being a migration that took place in 622 CE is the Apocalypse of Samuel al-Qalamun, written in the eighth century. In this Coptic Christian prophecy, despite its having been composed in Arabic in Egypt, the term Hijra (Hegira) is employed for the Arab conquerors themselves, not for their move from Mecca to Medina!

So completely has the critical examination of Muslim sources revealed the unreliability of the Sira as a biography and the weakness of all available biographical data, a number of Soviet scholars have been able to argue quite coherently that the historical Mohammed is as unreal as the historical Jesus:

·         N. A. Morozov, for instance, propounded the theory in 1930 that Mohammed and the first caliphs were mythical figures and that Islam was a form of Judaism until the time of the Crusades.

·         Klimovich published "Did Muhammad Exist?" (also in 1930) and argued that all our information on Mohammed is late and that his life was a necessary fiction springing from the notion that all religions have to have had a founder and that all the gods were once men.

·         Yet another Soviet scholar, S. P. Tolstov, compared the myth of Mohammed with the deified shamans of the Yakuts and argued that the practical purpose of the Mohammed myth was to prevent the disintegration of a political block of traders, nomads, and peasants that had helped a new feudal aristocracy come to power.

It is not necessary to agree that Mohammed is a myth in order to understand the practical significance of the fact that such a view could be advanced in serious scholarly circles. Even if Mohammed did exist, we can know nothing about him from the existing and often quoted Islamic sources. He might as well have been a myth.

The Witness of the Infidels

After considering the records of early non-Muslim sources that reported on the Arab conquest or ancient writers who wrote about the caravan trade before or during the supposed time of Mohammed, a writer styling himself "Ibn al-Rawandi" integrated those dates into his deep understanding of the Muslim sources for their version of Islamic history and concluded that

Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer (prophet) whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation; hence the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira, were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Muslim monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab the need for an exclusively Hijazi origin became pressing. It is at this point that Islam as we recognize it today - with an inner Arabian biography of the Prophet, Mecca, Quraysh, Hijra, Medina, Badr, etc. - was really born, as a purely literary artefact. An artefact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. This scenario makes at least as much sense of the sources as the traditional account and eliminates many anomalies.

From the vantage point of this skeptical analysis the narrative related in the Sira, that purports to be the life of the Prophet of Islam, appears as a baseless fiction. The first fifty-two years of that life, including the account of the first revelations of the Koran and all that is consequent upon that, are pictured as unfolding in a place that simply could not have existed in the way it is described in the Muslim sources. Mecca was not a wealthy trading center at the crossroads of Hijazi trade routes, the Quraysh were not wealthy merchants running caravan up and down the Arabian peninsula from Syria to the Yemen, and Muhammad, insofar as he was anything more than an Arab warlord of monotheist persuasion, did his trading far north of the Hijaz; furthermore, Mecca, as a sanctuary, if it was a sanctuary, was of no more importance than numerous others and was not a place of pilgrimage.

Space will not allow examination of all the non-Muslim sources and other evidence that led al-Rawandi to these startling opinions. However, a few points can be noted. The tenth-century Armenian historian Thomas Artsruni (Ardsruni) understood Mohammed's base of operation to be in Midian, not in South Arabia, and identified Mecca with the Pharan located in Arabia Petraea, which comprised modern Jordan down into the Sinai Peninsula.

Information on the qibla, the direction in which early Muslims prayed, comes from the tenth-century Coptic bishop of Ashmunein in Egypt, Severus b. al-Muzaffa and from the Muslim historian Baladhuri, who tells us that the qibla in the first mosque at Kufa (in Iraq) was westward, instead of south-southwest as would be the case if present-day Mecca were its focus. Added to other information that Jerusalem, not Mecca, was the focus of early Muslim worship, the archaeological discovery that an ancient mosque under the Great Mosque of Wasit was not oriented toward Mecca adds weight to the thesis that the Muslim movement started in northern, not southern, Arabia, and that the traditional story of Mohammed's movement from Mecca to Medina and back is a foundational myth concocted to completely Arabian-ize a conquest history which found it necessary to distance itself from Judaism and Christianity for theopolitical reasons.

Investigation of the role of Mecca in the origin and early evolution of Islam leads to the startling conclusion that the Mecca of Muslim tradition never existed - perhaps being as fictional as the Nazareth in the foundation myth of Christianity. In the Mohammedan sources, Mecca is depicted as a wealthy trading center, a natural crossroads for caravan shipment of goods by prosperous merchants not only from Yemen in the south to Syria and the Roman empire in the north, but also for east-west trade as well. Unfortunately, the classical geographers who showed considerable interest in Arabia knew nothing about it. (The Macoraba of Ptolemy, which some Muslim apologists claim to have been Mecca, is derived from a different root and clearly was not relatable to the present-day city in the southern Hijaz.) The only place name in Ptolemy which conceivably could be related to the name 'Mecca' is Moka, a town in Arabia Petraea in present-day Jordan.

Patricia Crone sums up the evidence of non-Muslim sources as it pertains to the myth of Mecca:

It is obvious that if the Meccans had been middlemen in a long-distance trade of the kind described in the secondary literature, there ought to have been some mention of them in the writings of their customers. Greek and Latin authors had after all, written extensively about the south Arabians who supplied them with aromatics in the past, offering information about their cities, tribes, political organization, and caravan trade; and in the sixth century they similarly wrote about Ethiopia and Adulis. The political and ecclesiastical importance of Arabia in the sixth century was such that considerable attention was paid to Arabian affairs, too; but of Quraysh and their trading center there is no mention at all, be it in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, or other literature composed outside Arabia before the conquests. This silence is striking and significant.

This silence cannot be attributed to the fact that sources have been lost, though some clearly have. The fact is that the sources written after the conquests display not the faintest sign of recognition in their accounts of the new rulers of the Middle East or the city from which they came. Nowhere is it stated that Quraysh, or the "Arab kings," were the people who used to supply such-and-such regions with such-and-such goods; it was only Muhammad himself who was known to have been a trader. And as for the city, it was long assumed to have been Yathrib. Of Mecca there is no mention for a long time; and the first sources to mention the sanctuary fail to give a name for it; whereas the first source to name it fails to locate it in Arabia. [The Continuatio Arabica gives Mecca an Abrahamic location between Ur and Harran.] Jacob of Edessa knew of the Ka‘ba toward which the Muslims prayed, locating it in a place considerably closer to Ptolemy's Moka than to modern Mecca or, in other words, too far north for orthodox accounts of the rise of Islam; but of the commercial significance of this place he would appear to have been completely ignorant. Whatever the implications of this evidence for the history of the Muslim sanctuary, it is plain that the Qurashi trading center was not a place with which the subjects of the Muslims were familiar.

With the disappearance of Mecca from the list of documentable facts concerning the origins of Islam and the life of Mohammed, the character known as Mohammed of Mecca becomes as problematic as the character of Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the claims of some Christian archeologists, the archeological and literary evidence shows that the place now known as Nazareth did not exist as an inhabited town during the first centuries BCE and CE. Without a Nazareth to come from, Jesus of Nazareth now seems as historical as the Easter Bunny.

Unexpectedly but not too surprisingly, the debunking of “the Mecca” in the Muslim tradition makes it now seem likely that Mohammed of Mecca will soon be joining Jesus of Nazareth, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus as a resident of the North Pole.

Truth’s Avatar

Let the light of the Truth burn the ignorance from your mind!

 

Meaning of the Truth Seekers Logo Here

Return to Home Page

 

Send comments: Compliments or Criticisms to theseeker@tds.net