Qur’an, Surah 9:5: “When the sacred months are past, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and seize them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush; but if they repent, pray regularly, and give the alms tax, then let them go their way, for God is forgiving, merciful.”
I have heard many times that Islam is a religion of peace. I have read several translations of the Qur’an and many hadith; I have read many books on Islam written from the perspective of those who apologize or “spin” the sayings in the Qur’an or play down the pillars of violence and fear. Then there are opinions from Muslims I have interviewed, non-Muslims, news reports, and so on. Islam and many of its adherents are mired in a political and pseudo-religions system just as are Christianity and Judaism. Islam was originally connected to a violent period, a stance of defense, which turned to conquest. Islam, as it was known after 750 CE, has never been a religion of peace. Islam can only live in peace with its neighbors if it has no political power; this holds true as well for Judaism and Christianity. For once Islam (like Christianity) enters the politic, pain and suffering quickly follow. These political systems are not democratic; God or Allah is not democratic. “Peace” and “morality” in this system come not from piety or devotion to a deity, as some recent scholars have suggested (see Mahmood 2005). Peace comes from early indoctrination, using fear and threat of dire consequences if rules that control every part of one’s life are not followed. Piety does not come from choice of devotion; it comes from fear of consequences (both here and in the hereafter) of not showing piety and devotion to a deity chosen for you. The origin of this fear is our primal fear of rejection, and rejection equals death (see Rush 1999).
Let me also say that Islam, as is the case for Christianity and Judaism, encompasses a wide range of views. There is large distinction between the tradition called Islam, and a person who calls himself or herself a Muslim. In Islam you are a slave to God; as a Muslim you are a follower of Muhammad. At one end we have those sincerely interested in peace and looking past our animal nature, a nature so elegantly described in both the Old Testament and the Qur’an (the real Muhammad). At the other end are those invested in war and conquering the world and committed to bringing us back to the Dark Ages of psychotic, insecure tyrants (the constructed thug). We could say that Muhammad and Jesus were cut from the same cloth, the differences being that Muhammad carried a sword representing a life and death struggle for independence—the reality of the world as it was—while Jesus carried a mushroom symbolizing a quest for an independent, personal, spiritual experience as it can only be. At this point in history, peace-loving Muslims lack visibility. Few will stand up and call for reform, and their silence is deafening. Many are afraid of retaliation. If nothing else, this silence has contributed to a perilous religious polarization with Islam on one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This is a dangerous time, even more so than the Cold War, and it has been brewing for a long, long time. Reason could surface at times in the Cold War; you cannot reason with terrorists, religious fanatics, or anyone who believes that God comes first and humanity second.
As with Jesus, the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, has no historical visibility. Warraq (2000, 75–78) informs us that the quest for the historical Muhammad bumps into similar problems as the quest for the historical Jesus. What we have for “evidence,” Qur’an and hadith, do not offer proof of anything except that Islam is a composite of Babylonian, Zoroastrianism, Greek, Jewish, and Christian ideas, as well as astronomical concepts. I would add that there is a layer coming from Egypt, with a thick undercoat of ancient Arabic tribal deities and the laws of ritual performance, which, like roots, dig deep into the fabric of a people, into all aspects of their lives; Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity do the exact same thing.
Muhammad is a figurehead, a focal point or hero, who, patterned after Moses, rallies the Arabs in an attempt to maintain tribal identity. The god of this tradition is simply a source of authority for directing and justifying the emotions and behaviors of illiterate and superstitious people, initially, again, to repel foreign ideas, beliefs, and customs. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests that Muhammad had any notion of creating a religion. Just as in the case of Jesus, he therefore cannot be the founder of Islam, but a reference point only. Moreover, it would be difficult to explain Muhammad’s ability to move his men to action without reference to mind-altering substances, great storytelling, and psychosis.
As the story goes, Muhammad was born in Mecca on August 2, 570 CE. This is the twelfth day of the third month (Rabi’u ’L-Awwal) on the lunar (Hijri) calendar. The moon would have been full with Uranus at two o’clock (according to my astronomy program, REDSHIFT 5). Rabi’ is an Indian word referring to “spring” and the planting of crops. What this indicates is that the religious clerics must have been aware of Indian (and certainly Greek) astronomical calculations. Their interest in astronomy was generated by a need for marking ritual events. The Muslim priest/mathematicians removed the astrological content (especially in the Hindu tradition), as this type of “large prophecy” was the provenance of the last prophet, Muhammad. By the twelfth century, they removed some of the philosophy. What I think we are seeing in the Qur’an, and certainly many hadith, is an astrological code, in much the same manner as the Old and New Testaments. Certainly it can be read that way, although the intent of the Qur’an and hadith was likewise political—as above, below. The conception of the heaven above has to be a reflection of the politic, so one should not be surprised to find it connected to ritual and especially ritual demands (“Thou shalt and shalt nots”).
In any case, they didn’t like what they were encountering in math and where it was leading, and by the sixteenth century the Arab world moved into a “dark” age, one that disallowed philosophical exploration and examination of Islamic beliefs and practices (see Salbia 1994).
Of all the celestial objects, the lunar crescent (hilal) cannot be understated as it is prominently displayed on the flag of Islam. Muhammad represents the full moon that has grown out of the crescent and “all should follow his example and you shall be full as well.” As the story goes, just prior to Muhammad’s birth, an Abyssinian Christian army attacked Mecca with the purpose of destroying the Ka’bah, the pagan shrine which all Muslims are to visit at least once in their lifetime. At the time the Ka’bah housed sacred images of gods and goddesses, but now the pilgrim is privileged to kiss a black stone which is part of a meteor that fell to earth some time in the pre-Islamic past. This is the major relic of this tradition, supposedly given to Abraham by the archangel Gabriel (possibly Samael—see below). It was not uncommon practice to destroy the shrines of one’s enemy, thus removing the god’s presence or influence from the battlefield. This is a reflection of an old idea that gods hung around shrines and eventually temples, mosques, and churches. These sacred geographies acted as portals, if you will, for communing with the favored deity. People believed, and still do today, that shrines, the embodiment or personification of a god or goddess, have power, spirit power. This type of belief is termed animism and destroying idols removes some of the protective power.
But just as the army was approaching Muhammad’s birthplace, the elephants refused to attack. This is similar to the story of Buddha, who was tempted by the God of Social Duty (Dharma), and the elephant upon which he rode bowed in front of the Buddha. This temptation for the Buddha is repelled by inner will, through personal illumination. Muhammad’s birthplace, and thus Muhammad, are protected, not by some inner-directed illumination, but instead by an outside force showing special favor and privileges. Sound familiar? Thus, an outer will, or God, controls all. The other message is that the elephants apparently knew of Muhammad’s birth before anyone else. The elephant is an important symbol, especially in Hinduism, where elephants (symbolized as clouds in the sky) represent a foundation holding up the world. Their unwillingness to attack is a symbol of protecting the foundation of Islam, that is, Muhammad. The cavalrymen, as the myth continues, were decimated by birds who acted as a magical protective force for Muhammad. Birds, because they fly in the heavens, are more closely connected to the deity. Some researchers have suggested that the Abyssinian army was destroyed by smallpox instead of birds, as described in Surah 105. However, this is simply part of a mythical charter as there is no tangible, irrefutable evidence that the story is true.
Muhammad’s birth is foretold by three angels who visit Muhammad’s mother, Amina, in a dream, and instruct her to name the prophet Muhammad, which means “highly praised.” Notice the name—Muhammad, “highly praised”; our hero has to have a credible name. It would never be “two goats humping” or “camel dung on his shoe.” This “foretelling” of the birth is similar to Zoroaster, Oedipus, Buddha, John the Baptist, and Jesus. These angels also provide cover for Muhammad’s birth by blocking out the sun, suggesting that this is not an ordinary vaginal birth. Shortly after his birth, angels instruct Muhammad in the ablution ritual performed before prayers. The only way to describe this (the Jewish purification rites are also extreme by any standard) is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (300.3 in the DSM-IV). And of course there is all the purification males have to contend with if they have contact with women (301.82, Avoidant Personality Disorder); these are very similar to those of the Jewish tradition. The belief in the polluting nature of women is very much alive in Islam and clearly indicates fear of women and rightly so, for it will be through the female energy (not warfare) that Islam will reform and then eventually fade away.
His birth being foretold, there is magic in the way it was carried out, but according to the myth the alleged father, Abdullah, died six months before he was born and his importance is marginalized. This is similar to the birth of Moses (who has a father-in-law but no father) and Jesus. Although Joseph is in the picture in the case of Jesus, he is there for genealogical reasons, that is, a connection to the House of David. From a social standpoint, Joseph is there for protection and probably to stem gossip about Mary’s pregnancy, and not as the father of Jesus, as one young Catholic cleric told me. Although the poets do not suggest he is the son of a god, Muhammad’s birth is certainly very, very special, if not divine, or angels would not be involved. In many ways Muhammad is more important than Allah, which actually suggests a great deal of disrespect for this deity. So Abdullah, meaning “God’s servant,” stands in a similar relationship to Muhammad as Joseph stands to Jesus, that is, in the background but serving the deity in some special manner.
The above is all great mythic stuff. Muhammad’s date of birth is revealing as it coincides with the planting season; his date of death is that liminal place where you are between the old and the new. Many deified individuals, like Jesus, Osiris, and Krishna, are said to have been born on December 25, which represents the lengthening of the day or the “blooming” of the sun. There is a three-day liminal phase (December 22–25) where the old drops away and the new takes its place (more about astrology and astronomy in a future publication). This is similar to Muhammad’s liminal phase; let me explain.
As you recall, Muhammad was born during the third month, which would have been August in the Gregorian calendar. The Islamic calendar is calculated to the phases of the moon and shares many features with the Jewish calendar. Using the moon for ritual events has created problems in ritual performance because different geographical areas not only see the rising of the crescent moon at different times, but the beginning and end of religious observances can vary as much as a day or so. If the moon is not as useful as the sun for measuring time over the course of many years, then why has the moon been maintained for ritual observance? The main reason has to do with Muhammad’s patron deity, the moon god of war, al Liah.
Second, they were emulating the Jews’ use of the moon for ritual events. Third, the moon in many ways corresponds to human behavior and biology—our behaviors change from day to day and the moon is a good match for our biology, that is, menstruation and the birthing cycle, sleeping and waking, and so on. Fourth, and perhaps a more practical reason, another system could take years or decades to create.
The moon captivates us all. It is that which looks down on us and winks; unlike the sun, we can look back. You can’t gaze at the sun without going blind, and that is why Zeus never revealed himself to the women he lusted after—well, maybe once.
Muhammad, as the story goes, died June 8, 632 CE. There was likewise a full moon, with Saturn to the right at about two o’clock. June 8th would have been the end the first month of the Islamic year (Muharram), and Muhammad’s death can be seen as the start of another phase of Islam, with the liminal phase equal to the first month of the Islamic year. Muhammad has a tomb in the Mosque of the Prophet, Medina. Abraham is also said to have a temple at Ur on the banks of the Euphrates River. Moses, on the other hand, didn’t get to see the “promised land” and has no monument because of an argument with the deity over water rights. He was buried anonymously in the desert or on a mountain because the Jews were afraid that people would come to worship him and thus detract from the radiance of the Lord, but this is just a layer to the overall story. The Muslims have a similar problem and this is one of several reasons why there are no pictures of Muhammad. And the Muslims are correct—you cannot have a picture of someone who did not exist.
There is no method, short of a time machine, of determining whether anyone named Muhammad existed until the writings of Ibn Ishaq (ca. 750 CE), and thus discussions of where he is buried, how he dressed, and what he said are all unverifiable. But there are some mythic connections. The dates of Muhammad’s death and birth, for example, were constructed to coincide with: 1) the full moon; 2) the planting season (fertilizing the fields, in a way similar to how Osiris fructifies the fields along the Nile through his disintegrating penis—Osiris is the midnight sun or the moon); 3) and his death represents birth on the horizon, the beginning of Islam, just as the crucifixion of Jesus (not his birth) symbolically represents the birth or real commencement of Christianity. Out of death come life.
Muhammad is reported to have between twelve and thirteen wives, but it could be fourteen or one-half the phase of the moon. In one telling, Osiris was cut into fourteen pieces (see Rush 2007). But most historians count twelve wives, equating the wives with the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, thus placing Muhammad in the realm of the sun god, to match the adjectives to describe the god of the Old Testament. This shows how the shift in just one wife can lead to an entirely different interpretation, just as including mind-altering substances changes our perspective. Muhammad is reported to have five, six, or perhaps seven children. Conveniently for those constructing hadith and the Qur’an, only one survived him, that is, Fatima—who may have been a wife and not one of his children. Having only one heir simplified the genealogy, at least for the Shi’ah. One would think that with twelve wives more children would be assigned to Muhammad. I would be curious as to where the children who died during his lifetime were buried, but they are not very important in terms of the overall story so they are simply minimized or deleted.
Wars fought on the ground over territory and to repel aggressors have their counterpart in heaven, where gods fight over ideology or who is bigger, stronger, and smarter—Zeus fighting the Titans, for example, or Michael fighting Satan, Horus fighting Seth, or even Mickey fighting Willy. The patron god of a particular clan, tribe, or nation-state looked after his or her people, and when battles were won the victory was attributed to the deity. The losing side often saw the deity as more powerful than theirs. Again, the winners and losers quickly transferred their conquest or plight onto the patron deity, for it was only through devotion to this deity, male or female, that the war was won. The losers saw their deity as removing favor for some infraction, large or small. The gods have always been capricious.
The Middle Eastern mother-goddess, who went by many names, including Innana, Astarte, Astoreth, and so on, was extremely important and offered protection to her chosen people, whether a clan, tribe, or nation-state. The idea that a god would have a chosen people is a very old polytheistic, shamanic idea and was not invented by the Israelites and Ishmaelites or modern day Jews and Muslims.
Your identity in those times, as is the case today, is closely connected to tribal symbols often associated with astrological signs, including the sun and moon. These symbols were depicted as deities who look down upon the earth and all that transpires, and who will perhaps provide aid if properly addressed. Nomadic people usually emphasize a patriarchal deity but reference a pantheon composed of both males and females. The reason for the patriarchal emphasis is that nomadic people, just like the animals they herd, take what is in front of them. The males in the tribe are warriors who defend the group from other tribal groups and thus males are seen as more important than females. Nomadic people worship what is everywhere, including celestial objects and large geographic areas, a desert or mountain chain perhaps; deserts and mountains are forever and they hold the truth, but evil can lurk there as well—evil is also truth. Mountains, because they are closest to the heavens, act as “special purpose geographies” for contacting that which lies beyond human understanding. Both Muhammad and Moses make contact with their respective deities on mountains, Mt. Hira for the former, and Mt. Sinai or Mt. Horeb (in the Sinai) for the latter, both using mushrooms or other substances. Likewise, Hira and Horeb linguistically sound very similar. Recent archaeological research on Mt. Horeb has uncovered a temple to Hathor, the cow goddess, a fertility goddess who could just as well bring destruction in the form of Sekhmet the lioness.
Sedentary people, on the other hand, worship what is local, a rock or stream, but they also worship celestial objects because they appear local as well. Sedentary planting people usually have a mother-goddess emphasis, but always tied to the male energy. Nomadic tribes in the Arabian Desert would worship special tribal or patron deities who could fall out of favor, depending on who wins or loses a battle or other political issue. The patron god of Muhammad was not the god of the Jews or Christians, and one of the keys to the name of this god lies in the secret one-hundredth name attributed to the refurbished god, Allah.
The ninety-nine characteristics attributed to Allah are exactly those attributed to the mythic hero Muhammad. All attributes, in most cases, are couched in a language of paired opposites—for example, Ar-Raafi, “the exalter, The Elevator, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment.” This is a clear statement of ego and nepotism, with the deity doing as he pleases for a special people, which is exactly the same for the god of the Hebrews. Nature likewise does what it likes.
These attributes for Allah are adjectives describing the possibilities of this energy that informs all. One of these endowments, Al-Quddoos, suggests Allah is “clear from children and adversaries,” and is an interesting attempt to describe a deity that always was and has produced no other gods, and because he is IT, he trumps all and is final. The god of Islam, however, has daughters—Al lat, Al Uzza, and Manat (Qur’an, Surah 53:19–20).
Allah, as mentioned, has ninety-nine adjectives attributed to his character, although there are actually one-hundred. It is common in magical/religious traditions to withhold one’s real name (birth name) for fear of being identified by demonic forces or, in the case of Allah, being identified for what He really represents. It is like someone knowing your social security number and stealing your identity, or, in the case of Allah, knowing his true identity and, from that, understanding the basic philosophy driving this tradition. Muhammad knew the one-hundredth name, but, according to legend, only whispered this to a camel. This is why the camel walks with its nose in the air. What could this one-hundredth name possibly be and why a camel?
The moon god was prominent among the Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian of southern and northern Arabia and was the god of war brandishing thunderbolts. The moon went by many names over time, for example, Kashku (Hattic), Arna (Luwian), Kushuh (Anatolia), Sin (Mesopotamia), Yarih (Ugarit), and al-Liah or Hiliah (Arabian Peninsula). According to Natan (2006), the moon god was Muhammad’s patron deity justifying offensive warfare; Muhammad was most certainly not a monotheist. Muhammad, in short, is the prophet of the moon god of war. As the poets were constructing the Qur’an from bits and pieces of other mythic traditions, they saw an alignment with Abraham and Ishmael of the Old Testament and changed the god’s name (but not his characteristics) for purely political reasons, from al Liah to al La, or “the god,” and finally Allah.
As mentioned, Allah is only one of the one-hundred characteristics attributed to this energy. Ninety-nine are known, but to understand the one-hundredth name we must consider some basic tenets of Islam, that is, first, there is only one god, Allah (He comes first), and second, Muhammad is His mouthpiece. In this tradition, and in Fundamental Judaism and Christianity, God comes first and humanity comes second—if at all. According to many scholars, however, Allah has been from the beginning the same god of the Christians and Jews. In, Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation, by Ahmed Ali (2001, 11), we read in the footnote: “Allah is the name of the same supreme Being who is called in English God and Khuda in Persian. He is the same God the Jews and Christians worship.” There is never mentioned by most Islamic scholars of the deity’s previous identity. But there is another serious issue. If the deities of the Old and New Testaments and the Qur’an are one and the same, then this god suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder (Axis I – 300.14) with paranoid and narcissistic tendencies (Axis II – 301.0 and 301.5—see DSM-IV). This diagnosis represents the cap under which Islam resides.
Suggesting that Allah is Yahweh of the Jews and the God of the Christians is simply a failed attempt to usurp the Bible and create a Third Testament with all the entitlements. Some scholars believe that the God of the Old Testament is derived from El, and although there is some disagreement as to the characteristics of this god, El is not the moon god who went by a number of different names, including Sin (as in Mt. Sinai). The god of the Old Testament is Yahweh, the patron god of Abraham’s tribe, who is also referred to as Elohim (thus El), but also as Adoni, derived from the ancient Egyptian sun disk, the Aten, promoted by the heretic Pharaoh Akhenaten (see Chapter Two). The God of Abraham presents himself in a very different manner than the God of Moses (see Chapters Two and Three), and the god of the New Testament bears little resemblance to the god of Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad. The god of the Old Testament is somewhat ambiguous, but the god of the New Testament is the sun god. Jesus is the Son of the Sun, and worship of this deity, in most Christian sects, is on Sunday. To equate the Muslim God Allah with the God of the New Testament and thus Jesus is absolutely absurd! The God of the New Testament does not instruct adherents to wage war, amputate limbs, suppress the rights of women, kill idolaters, stone people to death, keep slaves, and have multiple wives.
So how did the God of the New Testament become the vicious, insecure, wrathful, war mongering, self-serving God of Islam? Islam is a return to Judaism, and Jesus as a God on earth had to go. In order for Islam to be on equal par with Judaism and Christianity, the obvious references to the moon god were aligned with the God of the Old Testament. This was an easy alignment because the two gods had a great deal in common. The New Testament did not fit the agenda of the Islamic poets. Why? This is because of the stark reality that only war would accomplish their task. After all, look what happened to Jesus. The image and message of Jesus do not support a war god; there are few threats and few suggestions that one should fear God, at least coming directly from our mythic hero Jesus. Even if we leave Jesus out of the god category and see him simply as a prophet, the god in the New Testament is not the god of the Old Testament. The moon god of Muhammad was never suppressed—only relabeled for quick sale. There are numerous references to the moon in the Qur’an wrapped around several themes, a major one being an allusion to other gods. For example, in Surah 6:76–78:
When the night covered him [Abraham] over, he saw a star. He said “This is my Lord.” But when it set, he said “I do not love those that set.”
When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said “This is my Lord.” But when the moon set, he said, “Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.”
We could possibly interpret this as a dislike for stars and/or the sun and its scorching heat, not that it sets. The second paragraph asks the moon for guidance (night travel, advice, etc.), although this could be interpreted as a reference away from both the sun and moon, with “Lord” being another deity altogether. The moon, however, is just a little too prominent in this tradition to be merely a logo. As I said earlier, this verse like many, many others represents an astronomical and astrological footprint amongst many found in the Qur’an.
The earliest edition of the Qur’an of which scholars are aware was not written down until around 750 CE (mythic Muhammad died in 632 CE). As we will see, the Arabian tribes were in the midst of an identity crisis and in order to get in step with what they considered the modern world they needed a mythical charter, a story that would justify whatever they did and whatever it took to meld an identity. In writing the story, however, traditions get combined simply because the older traditions act as reference points for building the current story. The unfortunate part is that in creating their mythical charter, the Arabs threw away much of their secular history and many prehistoric connections.
As the poets were constructing the Islamic mythical charter, they realized that war in the name of the moon god in 700 CE would simply place the tribes in the category of barbarians. They had to be seen instead as God’s most recent chosen people, more special than the Christians or Jews. Here is where the story of Abraham and Hagar comes in and allowed them to align themselves with Yahweh. This is done as taqiyah, that is, a lie that is allowed as a means to protect their religion; they invented Allah, who morphed from al Liah to Allah—in name only. Astronomically this could be seen as war between the sun, or Aten, and the moon, al Liah. In any event, you follow the footsteps of those who walked before and create a prophet (a shaman), who can go between the heaven and earth and bring the boon to the Arab people. The boon is an identity, inspired by the Jews and constructed around Abraham, the grand patriarch.
Continuing with the moon god, note that the symbol on the Islamic flag is the crescent moon (Surah 6: 96, “He it is that cleaves the day-break . . .”) with a “star” to the right. The star may be the planet Saturn, perhaps Uranus, but more likely Venus (two of al Liah’s daughters, al Lat and al Uzza, represent Venus), which would appear to the ancients as a star. Moreover, crescent moons rest atop the minarets of most mosques. Why is this, if the god of Islam is related to El, or Adon, the sun god? This is what we today call political correctness. Mosques were, I might add, originally built as forts, and most still maintain that function.
Again, the belief that Allah has no pagan emphasis, with no offspring, no beginning or end, does not fit the archaeological and historical data. Al Liah or Allah was originally the moon god of the ancient Arabian Peninsula during our mythic Muhammad’s time. He would not have been a monotheist any more than Moses was a monotheist. As stated at www.biblebelievers.org.au:
The pagan Arabs worshipped the moon god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.
The Muslim’s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient moon god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the moon god.
Again, the symbol for Islam is the crescent moon, a symbol representing the moon god of war. But we might be able to take this one step further. The word camel is Old English and comes from the Latin camelus, which comes from the Greek kamelus. In Hebrew the word is gamal (possibly meaning to bear or endure), and in Arabic qamal. Qamal might also be related through wordplay to qisas, meaning retaliation or revenge. The camel is important in that it was a symbol of war exploits, with Muhammad riding singularly into battle atop of one of these fast-moving beasties. This appears to be pure fiction for that time period; although several individuals might ride to the battle seated on a camel, fighting was mostly done on the ground, and the camel would be useful if they had to make a fast getaway. So what is the one-hundredth name for Allah? Is it camel, al-Gamal, or perhaps a sound alike? As Islam is a construction of bits and pieces of other traditions, I think it’s legitimate to speculate.
In Judaism, Samael is the evil angel who becomes identified with Satan. Actually, Samael or Sam’al is the name of a kingdom of the Aramaeans, in the area of Syria, dating to the second and first millennium BCE (between 1073 BCE and 700 BCE). Sam’al is a city that means “circular.” Their moon god was called Shahr. The Israelites were subjugated by the Assyrians and of course identified them with demonic powers. We know that the Qur’an is a composite of tribal religion and law, and Jewish and Christian personalities and beliefs, some of which became confused through the storytelling process. We also know that the Arabs were not worldly, in the sense of having a firm grasp of the literature and history of those surrounding them, as most people at the time the Qur’an was constructed were illiterate. Thus names of gods and people were confused. As Mingana (1998 [orig. 1914], 79) comments:
The internal criticism of the Koran will easily show this elementary evidence of a foreign source; but what can by no means explain, are the wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history. The only possible way of accounting for these would be distance which separated the moment of inspiration of the verses from the moment when the prophet received the oral communication. Who then will not be astonished to learn that in the Koran, Miriam, the sister of Aaron, is confounded with the Virgin Mary? (Surat ‘Ali-‘Imran, iii. 31 et seq.) And that Haman is given as minister of Pharaoh, instead of Ahasuerus? (Suratul-Qasas, xxviii. 38, Suratul-Mu’men, xl. 38 et passim.) The ignorance, too, of the author of the Koran about anything outside of Arabia and some parts of Syria makes the fertility of Egypt, where rain is never missed, for the simple reason that it is very seldom seen, depend on rain instead of on the inundation of the Nile. (Surat Yusuf, xii. 49.) Moreover, the greatest honor that the Israelite tradition bestows upon Esdras is found in Sanhedrin, xxi. 22, where we read that “Ezra would have been fully worthy to give the law, if Moses had not been before him”; but to state, as in Suratut-Taubah, ix. 30, that the Jews believed that Esdras was the son of God, as the Christians thought of the Messiah, is a grave error hardly justifiable. All these historical mistakes receive another and not less topical support from the utter confusion which is made between Gideon and Saul in Suratul-Baqarah, ii. 250. Such mistakes are indelible stains on the pages of the sacred book which is the object of our study . . .
If these errors were not telling enough, apologists inform us that you have to sing the Surahs. In other words, I have been told that these are not imperfection if they are sung! Some scholars have recognized that the ends of words are modified slightly for purposes of rhyme. This certainly could totally alter the meaning of a word and the context within which it is found. The point is that mistakes or changes creep in, intentional or not. Samael would have been known as an evil presence for the Jews, and the Mohammedans just might have seen Samael as their enemy’s enemy, in which case he becomes their friend and conjoins with the moon god. Here is how this might have played out.
The Jews at some point would have asked for the name of the deity with whom Muhammad conversed. The response was Gabriel or perhaps Samael. The Jews then informed the Muhamadens that Gabriel was a “messenger of wrath and judgment” and he was an enemy (see Hughes 1994, 133) to the Jews as well as the Arabs. One can see how Samael and Gabriel could easily become interposed. Thus Camel, Qamal, Samael, and Gabriel, with a grafted connection to the moon god, become the one-hundredth name, a clever play on words. Samael, by the way, had three brides, one of which was Lilith, a blood sucking, seductive, baby-killing demon. Al Liah had three daughters (they are part of the satanic verses in the Qur’an—more below).
Imagine if you will a moon lit night where the ground is illuminated, allowing a cooler, safer travel. You stop for a moment to get your bearings and you see the shadow of the one humped camel or dromedary against a dune in the shape of a crescent moon. Let’s look at the camel more closely.
Qisas refers to compensation for murder (purposeful or accidental) or perhaps wounding or cutting off someone’s arm or hand. A person might have to forfeit his life, and, at least as stated in Islamic law, retaliation ceases once the life is given in compensation. In cases where there is retaliation “short of life” (wounding, property loss), a camel or camels could be given in payment to settle these lesser disputes. The camel might be sacrificed and divided in some way between the two parties, with the best or choice parts going to the injured party and the remainder to the injurer. This might be seen as a “cleaving of the moon.” Most of the time retaliation led to more retaliation and long standing feuds, and compensation with camels, amber, hides, and so on, was not often satisfactory enough to avoid further tribal disruption. Qisas and camel, then, are connected in the sense of settling disputes, just as the moon dies and is reborn, thus reordering the world. In this sense the camel’s death (the death of the moon) is a form of reordering the world, for the camel’s blood will go into the sand and be reborn in another camel (rebirth of the moon—this rebirth is also part of the Jewish Kosher laws).
Thus we have Allah derived from the pre-Islamic, polytheistic moon god of war. Also, as mentioned, there is the crescent moon on the flag of Islam, the crescent moon on the minarets of mosques, and the numerous references to the moon in the Qur’an—Surahs x, 5; lxxi, 15; xxxv, 14; xxxix, 7; lxxv, 8; lxxiv, 35; lxxxiv, 18; xci, 2. Apologetic scholars attempt to connect Allah to El, the God of the Old and New Testaments. Why is this important? It is important because Allah, as the moon god of war, cannot then be connected to Abraham and his patron deity Yahweh. With this there can be no connection to Ishmael and Hagar. The Islamic mythical charter is seriously fractured, exposing the underlying foundation upon which it was built.
Islam is not a pure “entity” with which all scholars or practitioners can agree, any more than there is a pure entity called Christianity. There are positions and “pillars” of Islam, in the generic sense, to which most would agree. Many apologists for this tradition simply claim that Islam is misunderstood, but I do not think that is correct. Islam is actually a very simple political system, but it becomes more and more complicated as academics construct new stories to explain this, that, or the other thing. When we dig deeper into the platform from which Islam evolved, we find it embedded in politics or control over people; you cannot build a successful army unless you can control and/or convince a large numbers of individuals to cooperate for some cause. The major tools of control are subordination, ritual to minimize idle time, judgment, along with threat and violence. This is basic barbaric stuff. To justify this you need a third party who is bigger and stronger than all others, and His rules or directives come only through a special, chosen people, in this case, Muhammad and his heirs.
Muhammad was probably a leader of war, a general, who took mind-altering substances, after which he said both insightful and stupid things that led people to action. Before he enlisted in the war business he might have been a caravan director, or Qafilah-Bashi, a wonderful occupation to learn strategies of war. In this case he would have traveled into Persia, and being an insightful and intellectual sort, learned local esoteric methods of contacting one’s deities, although he probably had homegrown methods as well. It’s like when dopers get together and sample each other’s stash. As a war leader, he finds this useful for keeping his men motivated with divine instructions from his patron moon god. Orders come from the deity and Muhammad is merely a messenger, who will be in jeopardy if his men don’t comply. He was a great man, a leader, who was not interested in creating a religion. Contrary to the claims of many historians, he was never the prophet or creator of Islam; he simply wanted to win battles in the name of his patron deity.
Muhammad dies, perhaps in battle, and his lieutenants take over and begin conquering one group after another. They are motivated in the name of their dead general, but someone needs to speak for him and here is where conflict starts. In a clever move, someone discloses the last wishes of Muhammad (or whatever his name was), that their allegiance should be directed to al Liah and not him. Their success came through al Liah, not Muhammad, but some sort of leadership had to emerge after Muhammad’s death. Who should lead? It is at this point that stories, mostly verbal, some written, mysteriously show up, suggesting power should go to one side or the other—these are the Contendings of Abu Bakr and Ali in a similar fashion as the Contendings of Horus and Seth in the Egyptian tradition. I find it difficult to determine if such “contendings” really existed early on but suspect they may have been constructed in the early eighth century CE. What I see is a bunch of generals, many of whom were bullies, and initially it probably had less to do with genealogy or closeness to Muhammad and more to do with who is fit to lead, the Sunni ideal. Eventually, however, genealogy conveniently entered the picture as a means of both decreasing conflict (frequent assassination of generals is not a morale booster) and organizing groups in accord with standard principles.
In any event, around this evolved supportive sayings (hadith) and written documents in an attempt to give credibility by virtue of volume, suggesting some degree of contact, third or fourth-hand, with Muhammad, his prophecies, and his wishes. There is also a story about book burning, at the directive of Uthman (circa 643 CE), the Third Caliph, and alleged companion of Muhammad. This was in order to get some standard for the political charter. Uthman ordered all alternative copies or partial copies of this complied material destroyed. This is simply a story, a fabrication, to lend credibility, suggesting as it does that there was written material collected in Muhammad’s time. “Uthman did a very bad thing. But what can you do? He is one of the relatives.” Again, this is unlikely and certainly cannot be corroborated. Again, the burning is a story with a weak punch line, “to create a standard according to the will of Allah.”
Uthman wasn’t any more interested in creating a religion than was Muhammad; this came later, much later. Uthman was interested in power. Uthman, it must be noted, was assassinated by his own troops in 656 CE; assassinations are spiritual events in Islam. Time marches on, the authorized copies, according to the story, go missing, and the Islamic poets once again “gather up” (read this as fabricate or re-fabricate) written and oral material and retrofit the Old Testament. By 750 CE we have the Qur’an, sort of like we have it today, along with masses of hadith. The story about hadith existing at the time of Muhammad is a tall tale. That copies or partial copies of these early Qur’ans were burned is another chapter simply there to validate their existence—these never existed. Again, the story that authorized copies went missing is designed to validate the book burning and the existence of material during Muhammad’s time. None of this can be substantiated; institutionalized lying begins early.
In review, hadith and book burnings are stories concocted to give more time depth to this document (Qur’an), suggesting that there were “teachings” of Muhammad that dispersed rapidly throughout the Middle East. Mohammedans did indeed disperse but their manuscripts did not, as there were none. What we have instead are echoes of another time, that is, the assembling of a mythical charter using the Old and New Testaments as a template. The Arabs would have been aware that the New Testament was a compiling of documents, while rejecting many and burning others. Uthman is somewhat analogous to the First Ecumenical Council, or Council of Nicaea held in 325 CE, where, through debate and vote, the various books of the New Testament were modified, created, and assembled. In the process they exclude and include.
With the construction of Islam, one thing was certain—the ruler had to be kept in power. Rapid turnover in leadership is demoralizing to the troops and a charter had to be instituted to give legitimacy for some to lead while excluding others. There were generals before Muhammad, but his importance rested in the fact that he received his directions from a higher power and won battles that he attributed to those powers. He was a great leader, he was a great warrior, and his troops were loyal to him and his patron deity (who wants to be on the losing side?); this is exactly the same scenario as Moses. Jesus would have been characterized as a sissy.
Putting the “pillars” of Islam aside for the moment, there is one aspect of Islam that is shared with Judaism and Christianity—God or Allah comes first and humanity comes second. The fundamentalists’ rendering of these systems focuses on the deity and His appeasement. Humans and everything humans experience only exist because Allah is kind and beneficent. But as with Judaism and Christianity, Islam’s placing of God first has always led to abuses of the most horrific nature, especially when the rulers are also the religious clerics or controlled by the religious clerics. Once again, in Islam as well as in Judaism and Christianity, belief in and slavery to God is more important than being a decent human being.
Monotheistic traditions are not democratic. In the case of Islam, there is a chain of command from Allah, to Gabriel, and then to Muhammad (or Shaitan to Muhammad, it makes no difference). There is a chain of command that God has established either by saying you are my chosen people, or by at least not denying the possibility as long as they are not “evildoers.” In this tradition, one’s evils are abolished by asking Allah’s forgiveness—and you can apparently do this one hundred or more times a day. In my opinion, myths read as fact promote a great deal of personal irresponsibility and social neurosis. Praying to Allah because you fear His wrath if you do not promotes neurosis and psychotic behavior, such as torture, chopping off people’s limbs, and homicidal bombings. Keep in mind that this tradition evolved out of the alleged conversations between Muhammad and supernatural powers, and is difficult to understand and appreciate without reference to mind-altering substances or self-generated psychosis.
Archaeological information regarding prehistoric Arabia (the Arabian Peninsula) is thin but very revealing in two ways. First, it provides information about animal use and domestication (camels, for example), trade routes, trade goods, statues of gods pointing to specific deities and where they were worshipped, and so on. Second, we begin to see a world that in large measure has been denied or covered up by the priest/poets who constructed Islam. This is unfortunate, because the prehistory would allow a greater understanding of the development of what today is called Islam. Living patterns, burial practices, foods consumed, patterns of feuding and warfare, and so on, tell us about ourselves and what our ancestors had to go through to get here. What information is available does help us to understand trade routes and the transmission of technology and belief systems.
But most importantly, it tells of polytheism and the periodic wars in heaven where one god or tribe conquers another god and tribe, and out of this emerges Big Daddy, the most powerful god of all. As we will see, people gathered around Muhammad not because he was a religious personality, but because he won battles. He, of course, denied winning the battles and attributed his success to his patron, “who guided my hand.” It was Muhammad and then his patron deity that people rallied around. These were very superstitious people and conversations with Hubal (another possibility for Gabriel?), the oracle god, or al Liah would have been seen as aiding Muhammad’s good fortune in war. You had to get everyone on the same page and some housecleaning (or god cleansing) was in order. As the story goes, Muhammad got in trouble with this as he attempted to convert tribal members to worship only one deity. This is the same story of Moses going to the mountain and obtaining the first edition of the Ten Commandments. As you recall, he was gone for some time, and when he returned he found his people still worshiping other gods, in this case, the golden calf. In Exodus 32:1–6 we read:
And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, the people assembled themselves to Aaron, and said to him, Arise, make us gods which shall go before us: for [as for] this Moses, the man that brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.
And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden ear-rings which [are] in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] to me.
And all the people broke off the golden ear-rings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] to Aaron.
And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.
And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow [is] a feast to the LORD.
Moses is warned by God that His “stiff-necked people” were sinning all over the place and so he returned to his flock (Exodus 32:25–30):
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD’S side? [Let him come] to me. And all the sons of Levi assembled themselves to him.
And he said to them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to-day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said to the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up to the LORD; it may be I shall make an atonement for your sin.
The story was changed for Muhammad at this point, because he was not that powerful or respected enough to give orders to kill all those who would not follow him. The story of Muhammad, then, could not accommodate this part of the Moses story, as this would antagonize the tribal leaders. Thus a substitute story is invented to bypass this problem (but it causes others). Gabriel (or Samael) came to him (third-person approach) and told him to “remember the daughters of al Liah, that is, al Lat, al Uzza, and Manat.” These are the Satanic Verses made famous by Salman Rushdie. The compromise was that the tribes could still keep the shrines and goddesses, as well as accepting his tribal god al Liah. This is a conjoining of polytheism and monotheism, as was the case for Akhenaten a.k.a. Moses. The Moses and Golden Calf story illustrates the incompatibility of polytheism and monotheism; you can have one or the other but not both. But the Golden Calf story contains other meanings never suggested in Sunday school. The calf or bull refers to either the Apis Bull or, more likely, the Goddess Hathor. As mentioned, recent archaeological research on Mt. Horeb has uncovered a temple to Hathor the cow goddess, a fertility goddess. The calf ultimately was ground up and consumed (Exodus 32:19–20):
And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and break them beneath the mount.
And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
What is the meaning of burning gold? Could they burn it, grind it up, and make a potion for all to drink? Some scholars (see Ruck, et al. 2001) suggest that this is a reference to Amanita muscaria and a communal experience with the godhead. This was their “Last Supper,” for to burn Amanita muscaria would destroy its mind-altering properties. I suggest that this symbolically restricts the consumption or communion to only a special few who then administer to the congregation. Again, this is a separation of the Aaron priesthood from the masses. One might wonder why Aaron didn’t get into trouble with this—after all, he was in charge. But, of course, he is the brother of Moses, you know, “like my dog, like his fleas.” This conjoining of monotheism and polytheism is paralleled in the story of Muhammad. Back to Muhammad.
As the story goes, his attempt to instill monotheism so antagonized his fellow tribesmen that they ran him out of town (Mecca). So, like Jesus, Mickey, Donald, and Goofy, he goes to another place (the magical journey to Medina). For Muhammad, magical help continues to appear in the form of Gabriel (Samael and/or Shaitan), who gives Muhammad all kinds of instructions, to which, as a chosen person, he was obliged to follow. As time went on and as Muhammad won battles, the daughters of al Liah lessened in importance and they faded into the sunset. It is an unlikely story that Muhammad attempted to convert people to his patron deity. I’m sure that he would spare someone’s life if he (or she) joined his cause (fought on his side) of uniting the Arab tribes. This most certainly happened before he faded from the scene—people would submit to Muhammad, for he was a great warrior. It was probably seen as an honor, but whoever took his place could not count on such fame and consequent loyalty, so they submitted to al Liah, just as they would Muhammad. The pitch is as follows, “Muhammad submitted to al Liah and won battles. Thus, if we serve the deity, we would be standing in Muhammad’s boots.”
By 750 CE the need to align themselves with the dominant traditions surrounding them (Judaism and Christianity) forced the Islamic poets to claim monotheism, just as the Israelites did around 560 BCE. For political reasons, competition between gods was eliminated by demonizing all other deities; all other gods, goddesses, and the rituals to support them were suppressed, violently at times, with the destruction of temples, artifacts, and books, and the murder of cult personnel (Buddhist monks, Christians, Jews—there is a long, long list). In Matthew 6:10, “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”; as above, below. The ruler takes direct orders from Yahweh, God, or Allah, and just as God’s word is final, the same applies to the king who manages in God’s name and gives directions on earth. Muhammad’s life presentation is that of a hero doing God’s work, and fits neatly into the same framework as Moses, Jesus, Mickey Mouse, Rambo, and so on.
When it comes to history, we have two positions: The first is what scholars would call History with a capital “H,” and the second is sacred history (see Nasr 2002, 42) with a small “h.” Secular scholars, using both verifiable information and opinion about that information, construct History with a capital “H.” Religious poets, using a combination of myth and legend wrapped around distorted historical places and people, construct sacred history. This construction is for political purposes, as we see in both Judaism and Christianity. The Qur’an and development of Islam can be seen as sacred history, and the only true, factual, verifiable aspect of the Qur’an is that it is a construction by poets assembled from tribal law and prevailing social situations, with much of its content patterned on the Old Testament; this amalgam was knitted together around 750 CE. Knowing how the Qur’an borrowed from major inauthentic and mythic players in the Bible, for example Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus, and so on, invalidates this document as the word of any intelligent divine being. Again, if the Bible does not stand as secular history, neither can the Qur’an.
Sturdy, clever, and resourceful people populated the pre-Muhammad Arabic world (consisting of the Arabian Peninsula and north into the Syrian desert). These people possessed an oral tradition and few could read or write. There are only limited areas suitable for any large-scale agriculture and sheep and goat herding. These two ecological specialists (farmers and herders) probably coexisted in a relatively peaceful manner around 3000 BCE. With population growth, the herding people move further and further away from growing urban centers out of necessity. There are very few areas for large-scale agricultural pursuits, with the remainder of the land comprised of mountains, desert, or desert scrub. Sheep and goat herders cannot provide all their needs—the same can be said for the agricultural/urban areas, and there were relationships between the sedentary agricultural communities and the nomads. Both groups were polytheists, with the different tribes having their special patron deity, while each settlement or city had its patron deities as well. They shared the same gods, perhaps not in name, but in duty, characteristics, or personification. People didn’t argue too much about their religion; it was a personal experience. What they argued about were water rights, wealth, power over people, and territory.
For the little city-states on the Tigris and Euphrates River Valleys (that is, Ur, Uruk, and so on, with populations of 50,000 or more), there seems to have been a strong female emphasis as evident in the mother-goddess cults known to have existed in the Middle East with the advent of agriculture around 9,000–10,000 years ago. All was about to change. Around 2400 BCE, Semitic tribes begin raiding into the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, bringing their polytheistic traditions but with a greater emphasis on male energy. After approximately 1,500 years of commingling, we see the emergence of exclusive, restrictive systems of monotheism in Egypt (1400 BCE), then dualism in Persia (Zoroastrianism around 700 BCE), and monotheism/dualism in Palestine (560 BCE). Akhenaten, as you recall from Chapter Two, established an oppressive monotheistic tradition in Egypt. With Zoroastrianism, around 700 BCE, we have Ahura Mazda, the good god, in battle with the powers of darkness personified by Angra Manu, his evil twin (this is the story of Osiris and Seth, and Able and Cain). Many scholars see Zoroastrianism as a dualistic system and somehow Judaism and Islam are monotheistic. For Christianity, it depends where you stand on the continuum, but the basic reference all share is the emphasis on male energy. Christians are told they have guardian angels, so I suppose we have all been assigned a patron deity. In this case there are billions upon billions of supernatural entities around and that alone qualifies as polytheistic.
Monotheistic Judaism (an emphasis on male energy) shows up at approximately 560 BCE and sports a supreme deity, but even He has helpers. Christianity comes into being between 150 to 400 CE, when Jesus becomes God on earth because he is the son of the Father, Deus, and the spirit—the light—that resides in all things (the Aten). Jesus is tempted by Satan, so there have to be at least two deities, and of course in Luke 1:1–55 we read about Zachariah being told by Gabriel (or Gabriela) that his wife Elizabeth would give birth to John the Baptist. Gabriel is pretty busy informing people of impending births, but only the important ones, like Mary, mother of Baby Jesus. So Christianity does not qualify as a monotheistic tradition other than as a reference to the male energy.
Islam (700–750 CE) is one of the more recent additions laying claim to monotheism. We know our mythic hero Muhammad talked to Gabriel (or Samael and definitely Shaytan), mentioned in Surahs 2:97 and 66:4, but the constructors of the Qur’an confused Gabriel with the Holy Spirit as conceptualized in Christianity (Surahs 2:81, 254; 5:109; 16:104). There are two other names that might apply, one in Surah 26:193, or Faithful Spirit, and “One Terrible in Power” (Surah 13:5). So in Islam there is God, eight archangels, two of unknown name, and Shaytan makes twelve. Also, there are many references at the popular level to Jinn and other demonic forces, which came into the system from pre-Islamic times.
As the mother-goddess erodes in importance from the Tigris and Euphrates west to the Mediterranean, so does the status of women. Women always had high status in Egypt (until the coming of the Christians and the Muslims). Most women among the Arab tribes were chattel, bought and sold. I’m not sure that we can trace the origins of this low status, but it may be because they have babies, especially girl babies, and they are a burden because they marry outside the group and take resources with them. Arab males seem to have an inordinate amount of psychological problems with women. It could have to do with “mouths to feed”; female infanticide was common, especially during times of famine. There does seem to be a correlation between the ability to obtain a specific social status and treatment of women. In other words, limited status, or lack of opportunities to obtain it, is often correlated with high levels of female (and child) abuse. I’m not sure anyone has the exact answer, but men who are insecure about their position in the group usually need someone (or group) to whom they feel superior. Looked at from another perspective, women are humankind’s most valuable resource, for it is only through the female that human life comes into existence. Fights over females were common and is one reason that Islamic women conceal their identity with heavy garments. But the sale or gift of a woman, on the other hand, can cement intertribal relations through the offspring. Shortly after the time of Muhammad, laws and legal relationships with women change. Why did this happen? Let’s consider this from a political perspective.
Hadith and eventually the Qur’an begin to show up between 700 and 750 CE, and the construction of these documents can be seen as a mythical charter for creating an identity in par with powerful cultural groups surrounding them, beginning with the Jews and Christians, and then a dash to create their own identity. The construction of the Qur’an by the early Islamic poets represents that early identity crisis (see Warraq 1998, 9–35). What we see are rulers and priest-poets constructing a political system for purposes of uniting the tribes under one house. Disagreements began early as to who should succeed Muhammad. This obviously wasn’t well thought out, which strongly indicates that Muhammad was not interested in anything long-term; he simply wanted to win battles or die. My opinion is that the mythic hero was probably a real person, a great warrior and organizer of people, and loved by his soldiers. Muhammad (or whatever the name of this legendary hero) was just waging war at the behest of one of the Ansar or Muhajirun warlords and he was probably killed in battle, which left a power vacuum. If they were to continue, another general needed to take his place; his name was Abu Bakr. This wasn’t good enough for some, who felt that Abu Bakr. would favor some tribes over others. Assassinations followed. During this early conquest there does not appear to be much interest in religious dogma, but instead in winning battles and being top dog, the Alpha Male. Warraq comments (1998, 20–21):
During the early years of the Umayyad dynasty, many Muslims were totally ignorant in regard to ritual and doctrine. The rulers themselves had little enthusiasm for religion, and generally despised the pious and the ascetic. The result was that there arose a group of pious men who shamelessly fabricated traditions for the good of the community, and traced them back to the authority of the prophet. They opposed the godless Umayyads but dare not say so openly, so they invented further traditions dedicated to praising the Prophet’s family, hence indirectly giving their allegiance to the party of Ali supporters . . . the ruling power itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced, it too had to know how to discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented hadith in their turn. And that is in effect what they did.
To establish a new religion, a religion that would fit all, these pious priest-poets took a very brave first step and began to question not only how women are treated, but how people in general are treated through the alleged sayings of Muhammad. Isn’t that interesting—there appears to be a questioning about how ALL people are treated, a questioning drawn straight from the parables of Jesus. Women formerly treated as chattel were given rights through the manufactured words of Muhammad. Our mythic hero Muhammad then has a visitation with Gabriel and comes back with the boon: “Allah says, be nice to your women; let them own property; let them get divorced. Oh, yes, be kind to your slaves as well. But remember that men have an edge.”
The underlying motive was simple: Although women are treated like chattel, they have a great deal of influence “in the bedroom” so to speak. Give them some rights and they can help get more and more men on board (join the movement). This is the old political game of giving premiums so the individual is more tempted to buy the product. The motive is a bit disingenuous but the potential result is a great deal of male/female equality, except amongst fundamentalists who interpret equality in peculiar ways. But the Muslims ebb and flow with this, one moment granting equality and the next suppressing human rights. When the rules are cosmic in origin they can be arbitrarily applied. We see this in Iran today, where women are so feared that they are micromanaged and thrown in jail if they show too much ankle. During the week of November 12, 2007, a nineteen-year-old Shi’ah woman was in Saudi Arabia, parked in a car with an old boyfriend. She was abducted and raped by seven men, but was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes because she initiated the crime by being with a non-relative male. She was raped because women give men erections and men just cannot control themselves. She was originally sentenced to ninety lashes, but when her lawyer criticized the legal system this was raised to 200 lashes, which probably killed her. There is so much male fear of women that such outrageous acts are probably designed to set an example.
Why are Muslim men so afraid of women? The answer to this is simple; it is called emotional irresponsibility—Muslim men believe that women give them erections. Assigning the power of seduction to women, by virtue of uncontrolled sexuality on the part of men, translates into men being controlled by women. This justifies rape of women if they show too much skin; they must be kept covered from head to toe least men lose control. The unintended results of this, however, can lead to severe emotional and medical problems. Wearing so much clothing does not allow sunlight to convert cholesterol (fat under the dermal layer of the skin) into vitamin D. This results in higher incidences of osteoporosis as well as other health conditions (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Lack of exposure to the sun can also lead to decreased amounts of melatonin production in the penal gland, leading to sleep problems and depression.
To show this political connection to women’s rights, a similar situation prevailed in the Unites States. Female property rights entered into California with the Spaniards, who borrowed this “unique” idea (except perhaps in ancient Egypt) from the Moors (Muslims in Spain). Not surprisingly, it caught on and spread eastward across the United States, and then, for political purposes (politicians needed voters), women were given the right to vote (first in Wyoming, 1869). Equality in Islam, however, means something very different than in the Western world. Islamic equality means people will follow the teachings/laws equally, not that the individual has an equal say in much of anything. Allah gave the laws, and there is no court of appeal outside of the arbitrariness of judges who, of course, act through the will of Allah; Islam is a form of fascism. The Qur’an, then, is a commingling of old Arabic tradition and law, the Old Testament Talmud, and New Testament, with elements added called hadith, conveniently invented to deal with troublesome day-to-day issues.
As mentioned, archaeological information regarding prehistoric Arabia (the Arabian Peninsula) is very thin. Through inscriptions and other artifacts there is a polytheistic tradition in play, with patron deities connected to specific tribes. Prior to the time of our mythic hero Muhammad, the Arab people in the area of Mecca and Medina were experiencing influences from both Judaism and Christianity but maintained a closer association with Judaism. They appear to have had an intense dislike for Christians from the start and this is understandable given Christian proselytizing. Christian missionaries in the South Pacific and the Americas show the culturally divisive nature of this tradition, and the need to totally destroy or undermine the “demonic” beliefs and practices of others. This is pure politics and not religion. The Christians destroyed shrines, smashed idols, raped and plundered, and Arab people were pissed. The irony is that today Islam is the most intolerant institution on the planet (see Spencer 2005).
In Medina, Muhammad (or someone like him) probably befriended Jews, perhaps protecting them in some fashion. And just like Jesus at age twelve wooing the rabbi in Jerusalem, our mythic hero Muhammad wooed the Jews in Medina; they liked him, he carried a very sharp sword, and had a crude but charismatic nature about him. He had the good “gift of gab.” He knew how and when to flatter, he knew when to listen, and he knew the kinds of questions to ask without prying or offending. Whoever this person was—call him Muhammad if you like—he was smart, knew how to get to the top (he was a bully when need be), was flexible when weak, and overly determined when strong. He also—and this is very important for all the imams reading this—he kept his word and would not ask someone to do something he himself would not do. He would never, ever tell anyone to assassinate someone for him. To him life was personal, and if he had a grudge or heard criticism, he would deal with this in a personal manner. This is the only way to lead, as the other way (sending others to do your dirty work) implies cowardice. Muhammad was no coward; he was a leader—his men saw him every day. They respected him, went into battle with him, and died with him. Statements that he ordered people assassinated is an invention to create just a little paranoia, to prevent authority from being directly challenged, and an attempt to give credibility to his existence by painting a negative picture of his behavior. The Hebrews did the exact same thing with Abraham, Moses, and David. The statements that support assassination are unfortunately institutionalized and this became the prime method of dealing with critics and opponents. This certainly does not qualify as religion.
Back to the Jewish connection. Muhammad wins their trust and the rabbi tells Muhammad a secret, that the Arabic tribes are descendants of Hagar, the Egyptian slave girl, and Abraham, the grand mythic patriarch, the base of the Hebrew, Israelite, Jewish tradition, a very old tradition. This child of Hagar and Abraham is Ishmael, hence the names Hagarites and Ishmaelites. It must have been like learning that you are direct descendants of the King of England or perhaps Bill Clinton.
When the Jews were looking for the Messiah they were looking for someone who would wield a sword and liberate them from their enemies, an enemy defined as anyone who did not believe in their god (Yahweh), follow their rules, and so on. These were the chosen people set apart from everyone else. They were looking for someone like Muhammad, befriended him, and helped him with the initial mythic development, probably, again, informing him of the relationship of Abraham and Ishmael and many other secrets. I personally do not believe that any of the mythic charter involving Abraham and Ishmael materialized until the beginning of the eighth century CE (between 700 and 750 CE). Muhammad, initially at least, might not have been seen as a savior but at least he might be useful. Muhammad and the Jews had a falling out, most likely because he was an outsider with “backwoods” habits. It is unclear if this happened prior to or after he traveled to Palestine in particular Jerusalem (if any part of the story is true). Prayer initially was oriented toward Jerusalem but later was changed in the direction of Mecca, which represents maintenance of the moon god of war. Judaism, or at least the template, offered a storyline, a “history” or mythical charter, and preservation of tribal identity. The tribal leaders understood the erosion of their identity was politically based, with several proselytizing groups (Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.) vying for converts just as the Republican and Democrat parties in this country. So the Arabs fought back.
Islam, unlike Judaism (but in a manner similar to Christianity), is tribalism stripped for export—Islam is not tied to a particular territory as is Judaism (Israel) or Hinduism (India); one’s loyalty is to Allah and the interpretation of Allah’s will, and not to any particular government and the territory it occupies. This, in a sense, is the same position Christianity takes, which, like Islam, is not attached to any particular territory (the Vatican is just a reference point, as is Mecca). However, Islam is not controlled by a central agency, as is the Catholic Church; councils control Islam, not a system of bureaucrats taking orders from a king or pope. With respect to Christianity, at least in the teachings of Jesus, there are no directives to engage violent acts for purposes of conquering territory or conversion. Certainly acts of violence toward others in the name of the Christian God happen but there is absolutely nothing in what Jesus said to justify violence and conquest, but there is a great deal of justification in the Qur’an.
Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is complex in many ways but quite simple in others. The simple part involves the daily rituals of prayer, food taboos, and so on. What gets complex is the interpretation of treatment of people, both Moslem and non-Moslem; each group is dealt with using a different set of rules (see Spencer 2005). Nowhere is this more elegantly revealed than in the differing levels of hell to be occupied by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Magi, and so on. Kafir, a derogatory term for non-Muslims (remember that the Jews have their own derogatory terms), can never get out of hell and are doomed to torment forever, while Muslims go to different levels depending on their offenses. The greatest offense is ignorance of one’s religion. Understand this: If you know your religion well, you go to heaven regardless of how many people you killed, maimed, cheated, lied to, and so on. In short, Allah comes first and humanity comes second; this is a serious form of psychosis. Muslim warriors who die in battle or through martyrdom receive the express ticket to paradise (Qur’an 3:169), these days usually riding on several pounds of high explosive at the instigation of some psychotic, self-righteous, cowardly imam.
Early in the development of Islam two factions emerged, Sunni and Shiite. There is a great deal of hostility between these two factions. The hostility and resulting bloodshed, as I explain below, stem from the same differences as those between Jews and Christians, that is, differences over divine word, Holy Scripture, substance abuse, and who is eligible to rule or interpret God’s will. According to legend, before Muhammad’s death there were already problems regarding who should rule with his passing. This suggests that Muhammad might have experienced a protracted death, or perhaps he died unexpectedly in battle, from assassination, or from another cause. However, if Muhammad was not a real person, this is simply another story. On the other hand, the intensity of the struggle over rule might indicate that Muhammad was only interested in the moment and not the future, or that his magical helpers, that is Gabriel (or Samael) and al Liah, were unaware of the impending conflict over succession and thus neglected to inform him. In any case, after Muhammad passed from the scene there was a jockeying for power as is common when the leader of any cult dies.
As the story goes, there were two candidates: Ali, a cousin who had married Muhammad’s only surviving daughter, and Abu Bakr. These “contendings” probably did happen, but they were over who was bigger and stronger, not over any genealogical connection to Muhammad or some connection to a deity. In order to create stability and cut down on assassination and resulting power struggles, the field of who could rule needed to be narrowed; here we encounter the fabricated genealogical connections. Remember, if Muhammad is a non-person, then none of the genealogical connections can be factual. Shi’ah claim that Ali was the first legitimate Imam or Khalifah (successor) to the prophet. Shi’ah maintain that Ali had the divine right to rule because he was a cousin to the prophet and was married to his daughter, Fatimah. However, Fatimah may have been Muhammad’s wife and not his daughter. If this is the case, then Ali’s progeny have no genetic connection to Muhammad. As mentioned, things get really dicey if Muhammad never existed in the first place. Such discussions, however, are designed to make Muhammad a real person. Fighting over succession to rule is a parlor trick implying that there was a person named Muhammad, but it also narrows the playing field of who could rule in the future and adds credibility to their mythical charter.
But there is a theological issue at stake. If Muhammad was simply a conduit between God and humans, how does this make him or any of his biological heirs divine? This type of questioning was and is dangerous. God’s choices of special people appear to be arbitrary. Certain passages from the Qur’an are used to show this divine connection or at least special privileges conferred by the deity in a fashion similar to Yahweh picking special people to carry on a genetic heritage. But there is a real problem with this. For example, Surah 2, verse 124, has been translated with at least two very different interpretations. One translation (by Abdullah Yusuf Ali 2004 orig. 1934) goes as follows: “And when his Lord tried Abraham with words and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘I am about to make of the an Imam to mankind’; Abraham said, ‘Of my offspring also?’ ‘My covenant,’ said God, ‘embraceth not evildoers.’” This statement does not say “yes” to Muhammad’s question. In fact, the safest way to read this is, “Yes, your kin are included as well as everyone else,” but clearly indicates that the deity will not promote evil people, although I’m not sure how to define evil in the Islamic tradition—I suspect that Islam has difficulty defining this slippery concept because it seems to change with circumstances.
On the other hand, a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali (2001) reads, “Remember, when his Lord tried Abraham by a number of commands which he fulfilled, God said to him: ‘I will make you a leader among men.’ And when Abraham asked, ‘From my progeny too?’ the Lord said: ‘My pledge does not include transgressors.’”
Something very different is said in the second translation. In the second translation he will be a leader among men, not humankind. As before, there is no divinity suggested, only special privileges, which may or may not include leading a nation or Islam. Again, Muhammad is only a leader among men and not leader of the world, a nation, or a tribe. The reference is to his military officers below him, his council. Both translations clearly state that bad, evil people—including the descendants of Muhammad—will not be leaders. This statement is a replay of Abraham and his relationship with Yahweh, his patron deity. Historians really do not know about these early genealogical connections with Muhammad nor is anyone really sure that Muhammad was a real person. So, we have people arguing over power figures who were more than likely constructed by the Islamic poets. Also, there is the statement that Allah’s covenant does not “embrace evildoers.” The power struggle over which faction should rule, Abu Bakr or Ali, involved assassinations and a great deal of evil behavior, so how can either side claim to lead Islam? Again, it comes down to definition.
Sunni (Sunni comes from the Persian Sunniyan, meaning People of the Path), on the other side, say that Abu Bakr was the first Khalifah. This turmoil over succession is part of the mythic storyline and mirrors similar pre-Islamic events when a leader of a tribe died. Abu Bakr, as the story goes, was a trusted member of the Quraish (Khalifah) tribe and possible father of Ayishah, whom Muhammad married when she was age nine. This might have been done to cement a political relationship, or simply on the whim of Allah. Many on all sides attempt to make sense of Muhammad having sex with her at such a young age. Women were chattel and having sex with Ayishah would have been his right; no one would have paid any attention to this in those days. These stories, like most of the stories attributed to the Jewish patriarchs, are not angelic—“these are real people with faults;” this is an attempt to add credibility to the story. Jesus is too good to be true.
Abu Bakr is considered the first Khalifah of the Sunni, followed by Umar, and Usman. In this tradition, the one who should be Imam or Khalifah is the best ruler and not necessarily directly related to Muhammad. However, leaders are chosen from the Quraish tribe and no others because they trace their lineage back to Abraham, just as Jesus had to be of the lineage of David. Good luck, especially in the face of the fact that no one knows if Abraham was a real person; he most probably was not.
In both traditions (Sunni and Shi’ah), individuals and groups are attempting to gain control of the politic, including the military. As it turns out, in the Sunni tradition the first four Khalifahs received the Kutubu ‘s-Sittah or six “authentic” books of tradition; they also represent the four schools of law as formulated by Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam ash-Shafi’I, Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmed ibn Hambal. These people represented the law. But like Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE) and Moses (1351 BCE), you do not simply present the law. The law has to come from a source more powerful than the imam, king, or prophet. In Hammurabi’s case Shamash, the Sun God, gives the law. In the case of Moses, Yahweh is this ultimate power, and in the case of Muhammad, Allah. This justifies the law and those who administer it. So both the Shi’ah and Sunni create a mythical charter legitimizing their rule, and they have been killing each other ever since. What would Muhammad do about this if he were alive today? I can’t help but think he would obsessively-compulsively wash his hands of the whole mess.
But there is another factor that sets Islam apart from Judaism and Christianity—Islam has never gone through reformation and is stuck in the Dark Ages. The storyline has not modified enough to bring it into alignment with the philosophy and technology of the twenty-first century. I’m not saying that the twenty-first century is the best, but it does seem to correspond with a scientifically-oriented, free enterprise-directed, self-responsible individual.
Outside of the two factions mentioned above (Shi’ah and Sunni), there are as many “Islams” or methods of submission as there are practitioners of this tradition, but they all turn on the interpretation of the Qur’an and hadith. Submission, however, is the key word—not submission by choice, but submission through indoctrination in early childhood and the use of fear and terror. Also keep firmly in mind that Islamic law favors Muslims, and another method of conversion is to have harsher punishments for non-Muslims. I’m sure that many non-Muslims threatened with death or having a hand removed convert to Islam in the courtroom. One is to fear Allah; as with Judaism and Christianity, Islam is truly a barbaric tradition when it gains the upper hand politically. Remember that Islam is the tradition, a Muslim is a follower, and there are many decent Muslims in the world.
Islam, like Christianity, is rooted in the troubled times existing between 560 BCE and 1000 CE. Don’t misunderstand me; this trouble goes back to at least 2300 BCE and exists to this present day. The date of 560 BCE to 1000 CE represents urgency, perhaps never before felt, to stake out territory, to get absorbed into some “other” culture or die. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are political/economic systems attempting to bring order to an unpredictable world. During this time period, monotheism was a way to bypass equality by attributing one’s behavior to the will of a single god. When you eliminate the pantheon and reference only one deity, the channel of communication to that deity is restricted to a special few; that seems to be a main strategy in what are called “monotheistic” systems. In kingships and totalitarian systems in general, the head deities only speak through certain people; if God spoke to everyone, all would know His will, and religious clerics, churches, temples, and mosques would be superfluous—the power structure is compromised. Have you ever wondered why God only speaks through certain people, even though the delivered message is intended for all? This is the father-to-son transfer or delegation of power—this is not spirituality, this is not religion, for if there was a true, sensitive god who wished the best for his children, he would gather his creation, set them around a huge television screen (one of those new wrap-around, bendable types), and explain his plan. By the time of Muhammad you would think that any intelligent god would have caught on to the fact that you cannot expect one or two people to get the intended message, pass it on to everyone, and have total acceptance. Certainly if humans can invent trans-global communication where most people in the world can be informed in an instant about some event or issue, God could do the same, even better. Why doesn’t He? That is not His purpose. Remember He invented evolution and we are supposed to work this out ourselves. We can do this brutally or we can do this with intellect and compassion; evolution, in time, simply does away with that which does not work or that which does not adapt. This is a cosmic rule. Brutality does not work well in the long run because most of your resources go toward fighting internal enemies, and the system implodes and/or becomes more and more vulnerable to attack from the outside. Democrats and Republicans playing politics in this country during a time of war are very, very foolish and dangerous.
Pre-Islamic tribal people were very superstitious and this attitude is alive and well. They knew about Jinn and how to interpret signs of supernatural presence and ritual procedures for counteracting evil. But there is more here. Muhammad, as mentioned earlier, may have been a caravan director and, as the story goes, took his future wife’s caravan all over the place. The Arabs were herbalists and aware of certain hallucinogens because of the synergistic relationship between nomadic and agricultural people; they probably sold or traded such substances for hundreds if not thousands of years. Muhammad as a caravan leader is a good story because it places Muhammad in a wide geography, making him worldly and knowledgeable, dealing with diverse peoples and philosophies during his adventures, as well as in the art of war. Muhammad would have encountered and even traded numerous hallucinogenic substances in Persia, keeping in mind the Zoroastrians were quite heavily into haoma (soma in the Hindu—probably Amanita muscaria), Syrian rue (seeds are used to make dye for carpets and contain harmaline, a known hallucinogen—remember Aladdin?), and cannabis (and they probably would have sniffed glue if it was available). Muhammad would have known about these substances. Now, let’s take this one step further.
People become leaders by being born into the job, voted in, or, in many cases, bullying their way to the top. In the latter case, the leader is bound to lose his power in time simply because of age and injuries. In short, people will question the leader’s authority and eventually beat him up. However, if his authority comes from some higher power, like a god, and if the leader can sell this story to others, he can get people to act through the “will of God;” the leader is merely the “messenger.” Muhammad, especially early in his military career, needed a higher power and his experiences with hallucinogenic substances would open that door. In my opinion, there probably was someone like Muhammad who did commune with the other side, but did so with mind-altering substances. This may have been a unique phenomenon, but I suspect that tribal leaders of by-gone eras did the same; he simply did it better.
Muhammad’s descriptions of encounters with Gabriel, Samael, al Liah, and Shaytan/Iblis sound like experiences with hallucinogenic substances, and in many cases, bad trips. Muhammad’s first encounter with Gabriel is interesting. Gabriel is misinformed about Muhammad’s ability to take dictation (this is curious), so when Gabriel said, “Write,” Muhammad said, “I can’t,” and he felt as if he was being squeezed to death. This happened three times before Gabriel caught on. There are other references in hadith to physiological reactions prior to or when communing with supernatural agencies, all of which highly suggest that these are purposefully drug induced. Keep in mind that Moses is the model on which Muhammad is based. Moses, as you recall from Chapter Two, spent some time hot boxing in “The Tent of Meetings,” and also communing with the “Plant God.” In fact, there is one incident where Moses has a bad trip (Exodus 4:24), symbolized as God trying to kill him. The priest poets try to explain this as the wrath of God because his son was not circumcised, but this appears unusual, out of context, and suggests confusion in the minds of the priest-poets. We read:
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast [it] at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband [art] thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband [thou art], because of the circumcision.
Ruck, et al. (2001, 166) suggests that the bloody foreskin is another reference to the mushroom, Amanita muscaria. We read in Mishkat, Book xxi, Chapter One, that Muhammad said, “Mushrooms are a kind of manna which God sent to Moses so that we can see.” Some scholars translate this as some sort of eye wash for “sore eyes” (see Hughes 1994, 423), but this interpretation is difficult to sustain. The word manna (mann in Arabic and man in Hebrew) in the Qur’an always refers to some magical substance sent from God (Surah 2:54; 2:82, 7:160). Manna would perhaps look like bread, as was the case in the Bible, and something to eat, making a connection that goes beyond “breaking bread” with someone. The word manna, to my knowledge, never referred to some type of simple herbal remedy. Instead, manna was used to cure spiritual ailments, to convert, through the baptism of fire, the faithless nonbeliever, to make “real,” through a hallucinogenic experience, that which can only be accepted on faith.
Again, the stories of Muhammad and his experiences with the supernatural world strongly indicate that, at least in some cases, hallucinogenic substances were involved. One author (Noldeke 1891, 598) has suggested that Muhammad had epileptic seizures, but he also could have been hypoglycemic or dehydrated. Keep firmly in mind that Muhammad always had enemies about and if he was an epileptic or suffered from hypoglycemia, he would have been vulnerable to, shall we say, “displacement.” All politicians and leaders have rivals, and common practice is and was assassination (verbal or physical) of one’s political rivals. In my opinion, the experiences that Muhammad related to Akisha and others were the physiological effects of a variety of substances (known to the poets), including manna or mushrooms, and undoubtedly cannabis, which he ate and did not smoke. Cannabis is connected to Muhammad’s fondness for honey, which he used as an aphrodisiac among other things. In the Hebrew tradition we hear of “the land of milk and honey,” and in both cases honey refers to something more than just sticky and sweet. “The land of milk and honey” was a psychological land of hope, with milk representing life (as in mother’s milk) and honey representing that connection with the divine.
Leadership or the right to leadership has a great deal to do with the illusion we sell to self and others, and because you can’t stay big and strong forever you need outside help—supernatural aid in the form of a supreme being who can beat up all the other gods, just as the leader beats up his enemies. All acts, however, are the will of Allah and the messenger takes no responsibility. And just as the shaman’s revelations come through the unexpected—a contorted face perhaps, shaking, withering on the floor, and even strange utterances (“that could only be deciphered through the filter of others close by”), they create an illusion of one (Muhammad) possessed by the Spirit. It isn’t the message so much as where it originates. Muhammad was just a messenger; he can never be the originator because he was always prompted by the divine. When the law comes from the authority of a supernatural being, one who will do terrible, terrible things if not obeyed, you pretty much have a captive audience. And of course this tradition is passed down from generation to generation, steering the mind of the masses in its “proper direction.”
Muhammad, we’ve been told, was illiterate; he could neither read nor write. This is part of the myth. Why would anyone want to paint a picture of an illiterate Muhammad, a caravan leader who probably could read and write? Look at it this way: If he could write, then he would have written the Qur’an. There would have been linen or leather pages handed down, signed and certified; this would be valued and treasured stuff. Well, there are no such writings of which we are aware, so the simplest thing was for the poets to claim Muhammad was illiterate; we have the same story with Jesus, a god who should have been able to read and write. You would think that if you are going to send your son to impress people, you could at least make him literate. But, of course, Muhammad and Jesus are not about literacy; they are about saving identity (Muslim-physical) and saving your self (Jesus-philosophical). Back to Muhammad.
Because Muhammad never wrote anything, it is only reasonable to conclude that we do not know what he said and have to rely on the comments of others, that is, hadith and that which appears in the Qur’an. This is the third-person approach, attributing something to someone; you cannot argue with the messenger. None of this material (Qur’an) is pristine—it is all third or fourth-hand at best and most is likely imagined layering by the Islamic poets. However, we do have a great deal of legendary material about what Muhammad did—we know a great deal about his behavior, and it is through his behavior that we can understand what he believed and how he “convinced” others to follow his lead. I outlined earlier some characteristics of a real Muhammad.
The Muhammad in the Qur’an and hadith, however, is a murderous, psychotic, womanizing thug definitely on par with King David. It is quite apparent that Muhammad was intolerant of any criticism—he murdered his critics, and this attitude of intolerance of criticism is, again, a cornerstone of this tradition.
Many politicians in this country and others attempt to stay within a politically correct arena by making excuses for Islam. They have suggested that Bin Laden, a modern Muhammad, “hijacked a religion.” Bin Laden did not hijack a religion. Bin Laden is acting on the contrived statements of Muhammad to convert the world to Islam. Islam is a policy or politic, not a religion, and the central message is conquest and control, not spirituality. This is a political-pragmatic tradition doing what it has always done. Muhammad, and certainly his continuers, were and are interested in world conquest. The mythic Muhammad, in short, had delusions of grandeur, but it goes much deeper than that.
Islam means submission to the divine will, a will generally (but not always) attributed to Allah, and religious clerics interpret His will. Yes, the individual is free to interpret God’s will as long as it does not contradict Muhammad or Islamic religious clerics.
Muhammad is the self-proclaimed prophet of Allah, although as far as I can determine Muhammad usually spoke indirectly to this deity through an archangel like Gabriel or maybe Samael or Shaytan (Satan). Most in the Islamic community would agree that Muhammad came in contact with Shaytan during at least one of his altered states, but what really transpired is subject to interpretation. Shaytan, I might add, is given a pretty bad rap because he was told to serve humankind by God, refused because he only wanted to serve God, and was thus cast aside. I hope the reader got the point of that. Shaytan was doing what all good Muslims should do—serve God only—and he got screwed! Does anyone see the irony there?
One interesting comparison mentioned in the literature is that the constructed Muhammad, besides being a thug, fits many of the characteristics of a shaman. Briefly stated, the term shaman (shamaness, shamanka) comes from the Tungusic, Russian word, saman. Although not all anthropologists agree with this, I will use the term “shaman” to describe an activity that is more or less universal, although at the local level each culture has a different term for the practitioner and practices or techniques, which, although diverse, share some common elements. By definition, a shaman is a magician-religious specialist who acts as an intermediary between the members of his society and the supernatural world on the basis of self-acquired powers.
The key elements in the definition are as follows. A shaman is a contributing member of a group and is usually a part-time specialist and, at the same time, an intermediary between the community and the supernatural world. However, the spirit powers, the familiars of the shaman, are of his or her own making (or his or her tribe or family group). Shamans usually commune with these entities through trance behavior, either spontaneously or drug induced. Becoming a shaman often involves an initial psychotic split, often in their early youth, through a near-death experience or protracted illness. These experiences place individuals in direct involvement with the other world, making them good candidates for the role of shaman. Shamans heal the individual and community, and offer prophecies of future direction for the individual or group. I have found rare references that Muhammad cured the sick but not to the degree suggested for Jesus. The reason for this is that the moon god of war is not a healing god—he is a destroyer. To parallel the Bible, Muhammad had to at least have the healing capability even though it is infrequently mentioned; he was there to “heal” society. Healing of the individual was not Muhammad’s responsibility; it was the “will of Allah.”
A shaman is unlike a priest or imam, who is a functionary of an organized belief system. The superordinate powers do not come from him or her. These deities were there before this type of specialist (the priest or other modern religious cleric) entered the picture and will be there for the next generation. Al Liah was Muhammad’s patron deity and his conception of this deity was of his own making—through the use of mind-altering substances. Al Liah has a general storyline, although it is also personalized by every member of the tribe.
By acting only as a messenger or conduit between his patron deity and his army, Muhammad’s orders are more likely to be carried out and his authority less subject to challenge. To be a leader of men and not contend with rivals you have to win trust; you do not earn trust by being brutal and arbitrary. In this case you win trust by keeping your word and supporting your men in battle—on the front line. When a situation arose where you could not keep your word, it came by way of celestial decree. Politicians do this every day. They will make a promise or say something one day, only to disavow it and blame their behavior on some other politician or radio personality. In either way, “The Devil made me do it” or “It’s the president’s fault,” a third person absolves one of all personal responsibility.
The time period between the ninth and fifteenth centuries was, shall we say, the golden era of science in the Arab world. Through conquests in Persia, India, and Spain, the Arab world came in contact with new ideas about the universe and how it worked. There is an interest in astronomy (as opposed to astrology), mathematics and architecture, medicine, and any scientific endeavor that benefited or reinforced their celestial politics (Islam). Any realm of study or speculation that contradicted the teaching of Islam was shunned. Astrology, for example, claimed to be able to predict the future. If this was true, then it was in the power of the individual to manipulate the future by avoiding or embracing certain behaviors. In a tradition where the deity is all-powerful and all was predestined, astrology suggests otherwise (see Saliba 1994, 68).
Advancements in astronomy, certainly wrapped around religious observances, helped to correct some of the Greek ideas put forth by Ptolemy. Regulating when and where people were to worship became a top priority for two reasons: First, if you want to really control people, outside of promoting self-responsibility, they must be micromanaged through continual, habitual ritual observance on an hour-to-hour basis. Remember, “Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” From a behaviorist standpoint, this is operant conditioning on a grand scale; “Zig heil!”
Second, astronomy was important to the most ancient of cultures and thus one’s place in the world was measured by what you knew or thought you knew about the world and the heavens above. Obviously they did not start from scratch and borrowed extensively from the Greeks, that is, the Almagest and Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypothesis (see Salbia 1994). They also acquired Hindu astronomy texts, the best known being the Sindhind. Apparently Caliph al-Mansur of Baghdad received an embassy from India (province of Sind) and with them they had the Sindhind and an astronomer to decode and translate it into Arabic. This would have been sometime around 760 CE. There is a great deal of astrological coding in the Qur’an and this acquisition coincides with that coding. Salbia (1994, 72) states:
If this tradition is true, it would explain why soon afterward several texts were written in Arabic based on the text of the Sindhind. Unfortunately, only one of these texts has survived in extensive form, that of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, who was also distinguished as the originator of the discipline of algebra. That his text has survived only in a Latin version, and that the others have been all but totally obliterated, clearly indicates the quick neglect of the Indo-Persian tradition.
The loss of the original test is surely a great tragedy. Rather than the work being insignificant and ignored, perhaps it was the basis of Islamic astronomy; maybe it is a basic feature of the Qur’an. Moreover, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi is credited as the originator of the discipline of algebra. I find that an interesting coincidence and may suggest that algebra developed in India. It could also mean refinement of Hindu principles of astronomy by taking the practical and universal, sifting out the Hindu deities, replacing them with their own, and then tossing aside or destroying the original Hindu texts. Certainly there is a precedent in terms of destroying books, as was, in my opinion, the fictional case with Uthman discussed earlier (and below). They could not go about destroying the Greek texts because there were simply too many copies and too many literate Greeks. Moreover, we cannot be sure what is missing from that single surviving copy (“mainly in tack”) of the Sindhind.
They made great strides in chemistry, inventing distillation. They had an intense desire to study herbs, as Muhammad stated that there was a plant for every ailment. Poisons were of special interest. They also made great strides in surgery, borrowing from the Greek and Indian systems.
Islam is a political system that developed over the course of about 1,100 years (700 CE to 1850 CE) with a number of esoteric offshoots (for example, Sufism) coming to the surface and maturing as well. In the later part of the nineteenth century, a cult emerged (probably brewing for 200 years or more) with a mission, that is, to return to the glorious days of yesteryear where all would adhere to the cosmic laws delivered through Muhammad. This cult bears the name of its alleged founder, Muhammad, son of ‘Abdu ‘l-Wahhab, or Wahhabi. What happened that brought out a hankering for the “good old days”? As is generally the case, extreme social stress. What was familiar to them gave reassurance of a better day, but only if they returned to the good old days of killing and taking what these fundamentalist Muslims considered their birthright—the world.
Warfare is the norm in the Middle East and has been for about 4,500 years; it is institutionalized just as it is in the United States. From about 800 CE to around 1600 CE there is something else going on besides warfare. There is a curiosity about the enemy’s knowledge base. In other words, there seems to be a serious drive to find out about the enemy’s technology and science. In order to do this, they had to minimize the book burning. For example, the Indian astronomical text mentioned above was quite possibly used as a basis for Arabic astronomy. I’m not so convinced the Indian text (Sindhind) was acquired in such a peaceful manner. Why would Hindu priests give up their sacred knowledge to non-Hindus, all of whom were considered less than the cows and rats running around the streets of Delhi. This might have been some sort of peace offering, but this doesn’t make much sense either. The Hindus probably saw the Mohammedans as barbaric and the only fitting bribe or peace offering was a bordello. The Sindhind might have been traded for something considered of equal worth or acquired violently. In any case, they obtained this work, and with the Almagest and Elements, they added to astronomy and mathematics. Mathematics was refined mostly for the sake of their religious traditions but they came to unintended conclusions, which naturally lead to questions—evil questions.
Medicine was considered in the same light as astrology, but the tradition needed treatment methodologies. Thus, they began to distance themselves from certain practices and took a more pragmatic view—do what works. Also keep in mind that Indian medicine (Ayurvedic) was well advanced by the time the Muslims stormed into India. Parts of the Susruta Samhita (Bhishagratna 2002) must date back to 1000 BCE. This is probably where much of their knowledge came from. The Ayurvedic tradition included advanced surgery techniques, including plastic surgery. For the Arabs there is a concentration on herbal remedies, many of which were known since Egyptian times, along with improvements in patient care. Hospitals were clean and well kept, according to Islamic teachings of cleanliness by the prophet, and used as classrooms. There were also lecture rooms, libraries, a chapel and mosque, and sometimes musicians were hired as music therapists. They also served nourishing, clean food—something absent from modern Western hospitals.
The Arab people added immensely to our knowledge of math, medicine, and astronomy, all prompted by that dangerous temptation, curiosity. But that all came to an unfortunate but screeching halt sometime in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, for just as Europeans were extracting themselves from the Dark Ages, the Arab world was about to fall head on into that same pit of ignorance. And it was happening for the exact same reason it happened in Europe: those in charge ordered people, under the penalty of death, to stop thinking and questioning. The Arab scientists began to realize that things were a bit more complicated than some god in the sky. They realized that the earth was not the center of the universe, the universe was not static, and that things have not always been the way they are. But the real problem lay in a more critical and philosophic look at the sacred scriptures. Knowing how to read and write would have sent individuals to the head of the class, with an opportunity to study ancient philosophies with which connections are made. The same storylines and hero motifs were used in the Qur’an as in the Bible, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and so on, and this forced a question: “Oh, no! Was Muhammad a real person or simply a legend on which to hang a hat?”
This was so threatening to the religious clerics (the rulers) that science and independent thought were abolished. This ushered in the Dark Ages, in which many in the Middle East have lived for around 500 years. Islam is in a tight spot, a bind. On the one hand, if they modernize much further, and especially if they allow free access to information and different points of view, Islam as a viable political entity will cease to exist in one hundred years. Consider what is happening in Dubai, where many Islamic women from places like Saudi Arabia and Iran experience a great deal of freedom (and smile). If a tradition cannot meld with the prevailing social-economic times, it will eventually erode and end as a trace in some religious or political encyclopedia 1,000 years from now. The other option is to go to war and force a politic, a form of fascism, on the rest of the world. Then there is the question of, “Which is better: democracy or fascism?” The answer is by way of comparison. In fascism there are a few people telling everyone else what to do under threat of violence. This does not fit our small-group nature and leads to continual challenge. These systems run on ego, emotion, and arbitrariness, mixed with a large dose of paranoia. Without the ability to challenge the politic, without fear of retaliation, how can a person or nation explore and challenge the universe to give up its secrets? Perhaps we shouldn’t explore the universe and instead pray to Allah.
Western science, and the beliefs and liberal lifestyle that tumbles from it, offers a contradiction to Islamic beliefs about life, death, and the purpose of humanity. The purpose of Islam is servitude to God, but the real purpose of humanity might just be to explore the universe and experience God and His wonders. Ideas that suggest that the Qur’an’s take on creation is bogus tend to invalidate the whole book, and once one ingredient is questioned the whole is open to the same criticism. There is a great deal of written material questioning the existence of people and places in the Bible and Qur’an. Monotheistic systems tend to be closed and exclusive in that they lay claim to certain truths that cannot be questioned, and the only way they can maintain their truths is through censorship and verbal and physical violence.
In any case, Islam will readily accept scientific advances from the West but not the philosophy surrounding their development. In many cases, advancements of an idea or technology can only go so far without speculation, which would certainly be the situation in math, physics, and astronomy. Without putting God on hold, there can be no discussion of what came before the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, and parallel universes. A tradition that devotes its time and resources to finding out what is possible is going to be very different from one that focuses resources towards limiting possibilities and censoring information from the outside world. These ideologies are in conflict and this spells danger for all of us.
All political/quasi-religious traditions began as cults, with a cult defined as a group of people who come together to profess a certain creed or part of that creed, and who behave in a manner relevant to all; there are always some supernatural elements involved. If the beliefs and behaviors of the group are too far from the mainstream, we use the word “cult” in a pejorative manner. More recently, however, the term “spiritual psychology” is applied to these groups in North America.
Cults are usually considered regional. If the cult gains acceptance through proselytizing and/or violence, it can become sanctioned and move into a worldwide geography, as has Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All have used war and violence, sanctioned in their myths, to gain political and economic advantage over others. There are numerous characteristics of newly forming and constructed cults. These include the following:
Warfare would be one method of bypassing the IRS, religious clerics, and so on, but only if you win. This is how Islam was spread, through war and at the point of a sword. But the allegiance was to this general, Muhammad, or whatever his name might have been. By implication, the person now had an allegiance to Muhammad’s patron deity, al Liah, in which case the person could expect the deity’s protection in battle.
In short, the cult message and/or means are usually not tolerated by the dominant system(s). If the organization can merge and gain acceptance, then the cult’s message could possibly transform the thinking and behavior of the culture/world. The message becomes routine in time, and a new steady state emerges.
Most messianic (deliverer oriented) movements collapse because their new message and methods are not accepted. There is a tremendous amount of rejection or perceived rejection, and this forces the group leader’s hand. This rejection or perceived rejection (often amplified by the charismatic leader for purposes of control and separating the individual from the outside world, e.g., Jim Jones) serves to further convince the group that they are the chosen few (as Jesus was persecuted, so were his followers).
The world is coming to an end. This is symbolic, for, indeed, once you step out of the mainstream you are socially dead; you pass a point of no return. You must escape because the “world” is going to be destroyed. You must “die” and be “reborn” or resurrected. For some cults, however, that resurrection is within a “new kingdom,” with the new kingdom these days perhaps on another planet or spaceship (Heaven’s Gate) or at the right knee of Allah, with seventy-two virgins to look after your every need (seventy-two is a cosmological reference). For others, the death and rebirth are purely symbolic, as with Born Again Christians or New Age spiritual awakenings such as Wicca. For new cults, however, the rebirth-symbolism is often different from the prevailing ideologies, or distorted in some perverse or unorthodox manner. The symbolism and reference points are frequently more personalized and less abstract. They often involve a deity and his chosen few. This becomes a very exclusive group of people who indeed become even more separated emotionally (and sometimes physically—remember Jim Jones?) from the world. Bin Laden and his chosen few are considered outside the mainstream, at least in the eyes of Westerners, although there is ample evidence in the Qur’an and hadith to indicate that Bin Laden is perfectly within the range of practices connected to the Islamic tradition. There are 164 war verses in the Qur’an, and other statements and directives that legitimize violence towards all non-Muslims.
Al-Qa’ida fits all the characteristics of a cult and is really no different than any group aimed at a revitalization and bringing about an “old heaven, old earth.” One has to assume that Bin Laden (like Hitler and Stalin before) has a plan with global consequences. Bin Laden, however, has made a fatal error. The longer the U.S. stays as a prominent feature in the Middle East, the more rapid the change in social values in that area of the world. But this is really no different from what has been happening for the past 4,000 years, with events culminating in tribal coalitions against a common foe; this aspect of human behavior has been very well studied in cultures throughout the world. This shows you the power of symbols.
We look at the world in terms of good and evil. Our loyalties are based on mutually recognized beliefs but, more importantly, behaviors that are right and wrong or good and evil. We might side with a traditional foe for something that fits within this moral arena. The U.S. saw Russia as an ally during World War Two, but Stalin was a psychotic monster. The U.S. sees Saudi Arabia as an ally but only because they have some territory we can use to stage air strikes (they also sell us lots and lots of oil), while the Saudis don’t want Iran or Russia on their doorstep. Thus, loyalty against a common enemy is seen as healthy. Looked at from another direction, health can be perceived as having the right perspective on life, the right religious tradition, the right political arrangement, as well as the right diet and medical tradition. The political culture of Islam (and this applies to many Muslims in the U.S.) sees the U.S., in general, as unhealthy, decadent, and in need of revision.
Relationships exist on many levels, and sometimes we end up with strange bedfellows. In Islam, one’s primary allegiance is to Allah and the second is to kin. There is no allegiance to a government. To pledge allegiance to the United States is a pledge to participate in an idea that you, the person making the pledge, can be part of and help build. Allegiance to Allah or Yahweh means the building has stopped and you are now a slave.
For Jesus, all were “kin;” there need not be strangers. For many groups, kin are specific and identifiable. Arab people can give you the names and characteristics of ancestors going back seven, perhaps ten generations; only under unusual circumstances would one oppose close kin in favor of a common enemy. This preoccupation with lineage and kin relationships is likewise connected to the control of women and reproductive access, although this is never explicitly stated. The reason for this is that women always know their children but a male can never be sure. Women were seen as a burden in pre-Islamic times, as chattel to be bought and sold like a goat or camel. They have their inconvenient periods, get pregnant, give birth to more women; people from other tribes get combative and attempt to steal them. Combining this with a pseudo-religious tradition that professes a supreme male deity to whom one must submit, it is not difficult to understand the suppression of women that is found in varying degrees in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All must submit to the male deity (Allah, for example) and, through analogy, women must submit to male kin and males in general. Women’s rights are a central issue with which Islam must contend. In the West most see (we may not always practice this) the suppression of women’s rights as socially unhealthy and spiritually/emotionally damaging, and most Muslims would probably agree.
There is a significant difference between the West and the Arab world in terms of determining trust. In the Arab world it is clear that you can think about trusting your kin (one, some, all), but the further you go out from that category, it is pretty likely that a stranger, an “outlaw,” will try to get the better of you in a deal (just read Genesis). If the deal is too lopsided, this can lead to violence. Now you can appreciate a universal triad regarding neighbors who are seen as foreign and less than kin: fear them (tax them and apply different laws), join them, or kill them.
Osama Bin Laden can be characterized as a Muslim true to his faith. He has used Islam, that is, the Qur’an and hadith, to justify waging war on the U.S. and the civilized world. Al Qa’ida, and thus Bin Laden, is part of Wahhabism, a terrorist cult supported by the House of Sa’ud, Saudi Arabia (see Schwartz 2002). The goal of this cult is the revitalization of Islam and the true teaching of the Qur’an. This means a return to conquest. Recently prisoners from Guantanamo were returned to their native soil of Saudi Arabia, and immediately placed in a “terrorist rehabilitation center.” Let me repeat that. The former prisoners, trained as terrorists (cold blooded killers) in Afghanistan, were taken to a rehabilitation center in Saudi Arabia. This was front-page news. How does one rehabilitate a terrorist using the Qur’an and hadith, which were originally used to promote terrorism in the camps at which they trained? Here’s the rub: none of these ex-prisoners ever saw themselves as terrorists. This is like the Budweiser Beer Company attempting to rehabilitate alcoholics who don’t believe they are alcoholics. Or, better yet, the Philip Morris tobacco company offering to help people quit smoking; this is really quite absurd.
Let’s consider some definitions and how Bin Laden, to use President Bush’s words, “hijacked a religion” (but, in reality, simply accentuated what was already in place). Before getting started, it is important to emphasize that the Muslim tradition as a whole has to take some responsibility for the fundamentalist Islamic tradition of war and conquest for at least three reasons.
First, the Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Egypt preach hate for Americans and all non-Muslims; all Americans are conceptualized as decadent and evil and in need of conversion.
Second, I have heard very little from Muslim religious leaders condemning Bin Laden and the violence instigated by Islamic religious clerics all over the world, including the United States. Why is this? One reason might be that, like all true believers, the Muslim leaders conclude that, for Islam to reign supreme and spiritual health to return to their world, conquest and warfare might indeed be necessary. The main reason, however, has to do with the sacred nature of the Qur’an, for if you discredit any of the Surah (chapters and verses of the Qur’an, for example, Surah 9:5), then that represents a questioning of the legitimacy of the Qur’an in general for instituting social action. This places many (if not most) in the Muslim community in a bind, that is, of perhaps wanting to step out of the Dark Ages, but not being able to eliminate the tradition of Holy War and intolerance of other non-Muslims. Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, has not experienced a Reformation and this accentuates a medieval mindset.
Third, and hinted at above, the Qur’an states that killing idolaters in the name of Allah is not only proper but necessary for spiritual health in the world (see Firestone 1999). In my opinion, there were many high level religious clerics in both the United States and the Middle East who knew that 9/11 was in the works. What they didn’t know was the exact date of execution, but they knew. Why can I say this? It was Bin Laden’s belief that the U.S. would attack Muslims in this country once it was learned who the perpetrators were and the reason for the attacks. It was Bin Laden’s hope that this would touch off a “religious” war and leaders would have been informed beforehand. Mosques are forts and you can rest assured that mosques in this country are no different in content than those in Iraq. Remember, love thy neighbor, but don’t be dumb and stupid.
Getting back to Bin Laden, he could be considered a Kharijite. These are followers of Islam who believe in an expansion of the Islamic empire through a continuous jihad or holy war. I am told that it is strictly forbidden to convert by force, but Surah 9:5 suggests otherwise. Conversion can also be anticipated as a by-product of expansion, wherein members of non-Islamic traditions are heavily taxed, subjected to different laws, and rejected or marginalized by the Muslim community, leading the next generation to submit to Allah—this is the shunning business found as well in Judaism and Christianity. The goal of conquest is acquisition of land and resources, and to do this you have to control large numbers of people through threat of divine punishment and violence. Those taxed or subjected to a different set of laws than Muslims, often by the second generation, submit and join the club. Once you join, you can’t get out. The Islamic religious clerics are so insecure that even one doubter or apostate is too many.
The Kharijites were nearly destroyed during the wars of the eighth century CE, although obviously this ideological position is alive and well in Afghanistan, other areas of the Middle East, and now the world. The term Kharijite comes from the word kharaju, which means to withdraw. Certainly Bin Laden has withdrawn from the civilized world. Such a person can only be labeled psychopathic (Axis I: 301.7); the “religion card” cannot be played. Along with this, the religious clerics who support and promote a Holy War are delusional (Axis I: 297.1) and antisocial (Axis II: 301.7). You might wonder how an imam can justify instructing another human being to strap on a bomb, sacrifice himself to a god, and kill innocent men, women, and children. The justification is as follows: If those killed in the explosion were good Muslims, then they go to heaven—no problem. If they weren’t good Muslims, or if they were non-Muslims, then they deserved it. One has to wonder if mind-altering substances are used in recruiting homicide bombers. What could possibly convince a person to become a human sacrifice? Let’s look at some useful categories.
Imam—This means “true faith” and refers to divine unity of adherents to Islam in the submission to the deity, Allah (al Liah). Imam also refers to a religious specialist, a teacher, third level instigators of homicide bombers; they always take orders from someone interpreting the will of God.
Jihad—This means “fighting” or “striving,” and refers to calling upon devotees to dedicate themselves to combating enemies of their political organization. Jihad requires “collective consent” before it can be initiated. Bin Laden, therefore, must have had collective consent. This, of course, is denied, but Islam, like all political systems condones lying and deception. It is institutionalized and called taqiyah (see more below). The jihad has been called upon currently and in the past to both justify violent activities and as a label to rally people to action and discredit opponents. Those dying in combat, according to the Islamic myths, become martyrs and are given a special place in paradise with seventy-two celestial virgins at their disposal and all the wine they can drink. (Seventy-two is connected to the concept of precession in astronomy, the approximately seventy-two years it takes the zodiac to move one degree of arc.) This has traditionally been a male prerogative, but recent events in Palestine and Iraq suggest that there is a movement toward female martyrs as well. Is this a move toward more equality with the males? Does the woman homicide bomber likewise acquire seventy-two celestial virgins (perhaps males) as a prize for martyrdom in the name of Allah? Or does she become one of the virgins? Islam seems to be the only current “religious” tradition still practicing human sacrifice to a deity. Moreover, one only has to understand the Muslim heaven to appreciate the male Muslim mindset of “striving” for sex, booze, and power. Islamic heaven is designed, at the popular level at least, to appeal to the Muslim’s animal nature; Islam as a tradition is designed to appeal to one’s animal nature.
Mind-altering substances—The original foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam included the use of mind-altering substances (a variety have been suggested). Moses’ encounter with the burning bush and a pillar of smoke (hot-boxing in a tent), references attributed to Jesus in the Bible, and supporting literature and mosaics all involve the use of the sacred mushroom, Amanita muscaria and/or other mind-altering substances like cannabis (see Bennett and McQueen 2001; Merkur 2000). Muhammad, according to Abu Hurairah (Mishkat, Book xxi, Chapter One), stated, “Mushrooms are a kind of manna which God sent to Moses, and it allows one to see.” Either Muhammad was psychotic or on drugs.
Tha’r—This is related to intertribal revenge. Although we are told this has been abandoned by moderate Islamic adherents (recall taqiyah, or institutionalized lying, mentioned above—also see below), this attitude of “getting even” may prevent many in the Muslim community from speaking out against the fundamentalists, Al Qa’ida, and the Wahhabi for fear (a real fear) of reprisal, although this does not excuse the deafening silence from the Muslim community. A community that fears reprisal certainly can have little faith in the wisdom and protection of Allah. We see the revenge aspect when non-Muslims speak out against Islam. An Islamic devotee murdered Theo Van Gogh on November 2, 2004, because he had presented a play that placed Islam in a bad light. Again, fundamentalists are so insecure in their beliefs that emotional and physical violence is justified, if for no other reason than to obtain celestial credits from a deity/demon that condones such action.
Ijma—This means consensus. The Sunnis see the community as a source of consensus, while the Shiites believe that infallible knowledge can only come from Imam, or that which comes from God. With respect to consensus, the Sunnis believe that all humans are capable of obeying or disobeying God’s law, a moral struggle—to do God’s work and alleviate human suffering, or to live instead for self and personal gain (status and wealth). God’s law, of course, is constructed by Islamic clerics, and it would be difficult if not impossible to alleviate human suffering by following these laws—they have more to do with submission to Allah and less with a healthy relationship to humanity. There are five sources (usul) for the doctrine of Islam: 1) the Qur’an; 2) Hadith, or sayings attributed to Muhammad; 3) the Sunna (traditions), 4) Ijma (consensus), and 5) Ijtihad (individual thought). Individual thought, however, has little to do with critical thinking but is, instead, directed toward submission to Allah. The totality of this tradition is submission to Allah, which means submission to rulers and/or religious clerics.
Umma—Refers to the Islamic community.
Hadith—Collection of sayings attributed to Muhammad and members of the early Muslim community. The plural is ahadith. None of these sayings can be considered authentic in light of the fact that Muhammad is a mythic hero and not a real, historical character. We hear of both authentic and inauthentic hadith, but this is just a ploy, for if there are inauthentic hadith there must then be authentic hadith. This is the same ploy used when placing Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Muhammad in a bad light—this makes them real, tangible human beings. Again, Jesus is just too good to be true.
Sunnis—Those belonging to the largest branch of Islam and who consider themselves the legitimate heirs to the title of Caliph, that is, the Quraish tribe, to which our mythic hero Muhammad is assigned. The basic belief is that the Mohammedan theocratic state should have a leadership determined by political, on-the-ground realities, and not by divine order. The emphasis here is on the views and customs of the majority of the community, the consensus (Ijma). This consensus, however, is created by the religious clerics and the individual has little or no voice. The Sunnis are the majority in all Muslim nations except Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain. Bin Laden is a Sunni and a devoted follower of the Qur’an. The Saudis told him to leave Saudi Arabia, which is ironic in the face of the fact that the Saudi regime is based on the Wahhabists (see Ernst 1997).
Shi’ah —The smaller group of followers who broke away from the mainstream in order to create their own political tradition. More specifically, they supported the son-in-law of Muhammad named Ali (murdered in 661 CE), the Fourth Caliph (a spiritual leader), for in their view, only a member of Muhammad’s family could rule. Thus they see themselves as the lineal descendents of Ali (the Alids) and as the temporal and spiritual leaders. The Shiites became a major political power in Iran during the late 1970’s, led the resistance in Lebanon against the occupation of the Israelis in 1980’s and 1990’s, and are currently major contributors (men and supplies) to the sectarian strife in Iraq. Iran’s encouragement of sectarian violence in Iraq, since U.S. troops unseated Saddam Hussein in 2003, is understandable in terms of what is at stake. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is personally signing the checks for this sectarian violence and he obviously has a disturbed communication pattern (DSM-IV: 301.7—Antisocial Personality Disorder). If Iraq became a stable, democratic state, then this would put pressure on the whole region to eventually follow suit. In a democratic, open society with freedom of speech and elections by the citizens, Ahmadinejad would be shown the door.
Mullah—This term is applied to religious leaders and teachers or those versed in canon law. They are also leaders in prayer in the Mosques and reciters of the Qur’an.
Taqiyah—This is institutionalized lying, where a person can protect lifestyle and Islamic beliefs by denying participation in Islam or even agreeing with critics about its diabolic objectives—as long as this is not apostasy or a real leaving of the tradition. Because Islam controls every aspects of a person’s life, a Muslim can, in practice, lie about anything and everything.
Apostasy—This means quitting or leaving a tradition, in this case Islam. Apostasy is a death sentence in Islam, and to threaten members in this manner indicates great insecurity about Islam’s continued existence without such threats. No reasonable person would ever willingly join this tradition unless down and out, insane, or threatened with torture or death.
Violence—Islam also contains institutionalized violence toward all non-Muslims and political opponents; assassination is an approved method of dealing with adversaries and critics. On December 27, 2007, Islamic extremists assassinated Benazir Bhutto, who twice served as Pakistan’s prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She was President Pervez Musharraf’s most powerful opponent. All nations resort to violence when dealing with adversaries; the deaths of Princess Diana (Christian) and Dodi al-Fayed (Muslim) are mighty suspicious. Assassination of political opponents seems to be the rule in fascist, communistic, and Islamic societies, and it is very openly performed with one side or the other taking responsibility loud and clear in order to get the attention of the deity. The different sects take great pride describing their animalistic acts. In the West we assassinate with words (usually); the others are done in secret.
Slavery—Slavery is still practiced in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, for example) and mostly involves African or black women (see Segal 2002). One has to wonder if Muslims in the United States practice slavery; I suspect they do. Such slavery is even apparent in the Christian fundamental traditions, where many (both men and women) want out but would face shunning, loss of income, loss of their children, and so on. To me, this is a type of slavery.
Bin Laden and Al Qa’ida have not neglected the universal statements in Islam regarding the human condition, of how to bring it into a proper balance with the energy that surrounds us. The procedure is to convert everyone to Islam and there will be peace, but at the price of individual freedom, freedom of speech, and critical thinking—all would be abolished. With Islam you get poverty, misery, and a life lived in perpetual fear (see Gabriel 2004 for a personal experience). Of course, thinking that there would be peace if everyone was Muslim is bogus; the Shi’ah and Sunni spend a great deal of time and energy blowing each other up.
Let’s put some of this information together. First, you have a charismatic leader (Bin Laden) who is able to convince others of his sincerity in a quest to return to a better day. Perhaps he communicated with Muhammad using mushrooms or Syrian rue.
Second, he has at his right arm Al-Zawahiri, his advisor (Bin Laden is the warrior chief and Ayman Al-Zawahiri is the magician priest or advisor), and the mullahs and imams to reinforce Bin Laden’s messages with familiar rites and rituals, emphasizing the Imam (“true faith”), the unity that comes from their adherence to the creed as presented according to the needs of the charismatic leader. This is compounded and reinforced with the idea that each person is a member of a wider community, the Umma.
Third, the holy war called by the charismatic leader (apparently anyone can lead in the Kharijite tradition) is designed to eliminate anyone trying to get in the way of this glorious return to yesteryear. With our current technology and economic system, it is difficult indeed for people, with a choice, to return to living in tents and caves except on special occasions. However, and this is the point, if our technological, economic, and political structures are destroyed, people would become confused, fearful, cold, and hungry; they would be eager and desperate to join any system that promises some hope of survival, even at the cost of freedom. Perhaps the reader can see how the jihad worked in terms of “attracting” converts in those former days. Remember, once you give up your freedom it is difficult to get it back. Against the wall, many would rather be “Red than dead.” This is the hope of Al Qa’ida—the base or the beginning, the starting point, or even the return—with the hope of destroying a decadent world.
You can see what the free world is up against, a cult-type revitalization movement, apparently speaking for the larger Islamic community, with lots of money, that uses terror as a means to an end (the end of civilization as we know it) and a return to the world in which Muhammad grew up. His was a time of warring tribes brought together with a new metaphor, a new set of symbolic reference points, that would unify at that level of social/technological/political/economic circumstances. Conversion at the point of a sword is the name of this bloody game—the Infallible Pope got that right. Issues are no longer local; they are global.
One definite failing of Bin Laden is that he could not come up with a new metaphor to help the helpless and improve the human condition. Instead, he creates the helpless (the base—Al Qa’ida) with a plan of keeping the helpless more helpless and dependent, using the authority of a ruling few—they (the cult leaders) will rule by consensus (Ijma). This would be a dark day if Al Qa’ida accomplishes its goals. We would be thrown back to the Dark Ages. I have been quite puzzled by many university professors suggesting that somehow the U.S. is responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and all the intellectual apologies for this tradition. Nor do I understand the other professors and politicians who believe that somehow this situation with the terrorists is negotiable. How do you negotiate with the “will of God” or a fatwa (an Islamic legal ruling—death, etc., issued by a high religious ruler) with someone who has a different opinion? Remember Salman Rushdie? He wrote The Satanic Verses, and was cursed with a fatwa—yes, a fatwa is a religious curse. Rushdie’s curse is worth $2.5 million dollars to anyone who kills him. High-level religious clerics in this system, this “religion of peace,” can issue fatwas against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, which could include torture, murder, and rape. Bin Laden also issued a fatwa allowing the killing of all Americas. Show me in history where we have successfully negotiated with cults, let alone cult-terrorists.
If these cult-terrorists destroy the economic and political system in the U.S., these same professors and politicians will be living in caves and tents, bitching and moaning about why the Government didn’t do more. There is only one way, with reasonable certainty in terms of outcome, to deal with this absurd brand of terror—kill the terrorists, disband the cult, reform Islam, and anticipate the next set of problems this world faces.
Finally, the two first tenets of Islam are: There is only one god, Allah, and He comes first, and Muhammad is His Prophet. In this tradition, and in fundamentalist Judaism and Christianity, God comes first and humanity comes second. This is a political statement allowing a special group of people to rule through the mouth of God. This has more to do with “who’s on top,” or “striving” (jihad) to be alpha male, and has nothing to do with religion.
What are the social circumstances that open the door for political cult formation? Many people willingly join cults, and when the group gains enough power, conformity to certain types of celestial rules is forced upon the individual with little room for individual initiative. Social instability is usually the door that opens to cult formation. When expectations are stripped away, when there is frequent or violent change of government, violent and/or unexpected loss of social relationships, and so on, this can lead to emotional and social insecurity—people feel stuck, they can’t see a future, everything is immediate, they can’t plan, etc. Add to this famine, brought about by an interruption of food or food sources, and out of this springs disease—emotional, physical, and social. Part of the disease process involves entropy or the loss of energy. The human body (life) and the social system in which it resides are perhaps best seen as systems of negative entropy. Entropy is the gradual and systematic degradation of everything: ashes-to-ashes and dust-to-dust, hot to cold, burnt out, and so on. Negative entropy would represent a slowing of the process. A political cult, therefore, could be seen as a symptom of a “dis-eased” social state, a strange attractor, a signal of social decay and death. A new order must be installed; there is urgency about this. All one has to do is study the myths associated with most cult activity in order to understand their position—lots of doom, gloom, and “dis-ease.” Bin Laden’s cult activity and attack on the United States is a clear indication of the dis-eased state of Islam, not the United States.
Political cults of the type promoted by Bin Laden and Islam do not breed health; they cultivate death, both physical and spiritual. Al-Wahhab, an attribution to Allah, means “the bestower of gifts,” and true to the Wahhabi tradition these gifts are disease and death in the name of a deity. All cults, however, are also a statement about the power of symbols and how they can be manipulated for the purpose of health and/or disease.
The health or continuance of the fundamentalist aspects of these political systems, more specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, relies on the censoring of information and the limiting of critical thinking about the existence of a male god who controls the world and every aspect of human life. These fundamentalist traditions maintain an attitude of male superiority, the male interpretation of the will of this god, and the subservience of women to male rulers and males in general. In a world where information about competing myths is more and more available, even in those countries where there is the belief that the average person cannot and should not think for him or herself (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc.), we may actually be witnessing the “illness” and eventual “death” of these traditions; we may be seeing a last ditch effort to keep this archaic political system alive.
Because the West has been more or less open to new ideas, philosophies, and technological advances, we have a society that promotes exploring and analyzing. We expect new ideas and new technology; we expect change. Vast numbers of Christians and Jews have opened themselves to other possibilities and few take as historical fact much of what is written in the Bible. There is more and more leaning toward a personal interpretation, even if one regularly goes to temple or church. Very few intelligent Christians or Jews would kill in the name of God; and killing in the name of Jesus would be like killing in the name of Buddha. We might go into battle thinking that God is on our side, but few if any would say, “This one’s for the Gipper.” Islamic fundamentalists kill and torture in the name of Allah every day. The Wahhabi cannot survive in nations where people are self-responsible and support themselves and their families. Wahhabi attracts the disenfranchised, those without a profession, and those misdirected by religious clerics.
Surah 16:106: “Whoever denies having once believed—unless he is forced to do so while his heart enjoys the peace of faith—and opens his mind to disbelief will suffer the wrath of God. Their punishment will be great.” The first and last parts refer to apostasy, and the middle part allows a person to lie about his/her religious conviction if in danger of having one’s religious beliefs criticized or being forcefully converted. As Islam means submission, a person who submits dedicates his or her whole life to this tradition. In this sense, and taken to extremes, a person can lie about anything if it is seen as a threat to one’s beliefs and practices. Taqiyah, as it is called, means “guarding oneself.” When Muslims are confronted with specific questions about slavery, woman’s rights, homicide bombers, and even where they are from, the answers are couched in excuses, diversion techniques, and outright lies. So there is an issue of trust. It is difficult to trust a tradition and its adherents who condone institutionalized prevarication; it is difficult to trust politicians in this country for the very same reason.
Apostasy, or leaving the Islamic fold, is a death sentence. Defectors are seen as a threat to Islam because if just one person is allowed to defect, then maybe others will want out as well. I have it on good authority that there are many, many Muslims who want out of Islam. For those who want a close, personal look at some brave people who said “no more” and walked away, see Gabriel (2004) and Warraq (2003). If Islam has the truth, the right way, why are people forced to join and prevented or discouraged from leaving? The answer to this is simple: No one would willingly join this tradition unless threatened, mentally challenged, or desperate.
If the Qur’an represents the word of God, then one would not have to apologize for its content, let alone suggest how someone read or approach this document. Any intelligent deity would dictate instructions that would be self-evident. Suggesting that God needs humans to instruct in how to approach the Qur’an is absurd. The message of the Qur’an is self-evident but the tradition needs apologists (see Zarabozo 1999 and Esack 2005) to cover up the true agenda of controlling people through fear and threat of violence.
The stages in the development of the Qur’an and hadith are clear enough, although some of the details are speculation. The Jews, Christians, and others are pushing the Arabs. The various tribes define a common enemy and a war leader emerges. They begin to win battles. Muhammad, in the role of a warrior-priest (shaman), communes with the spirit world, which allows him to give orders in the name of his patron deity, al Liah. Muhammad is very successful and gradually wins people over to his patron deity, and although still polytheistic, it opens the door for monotheism, just as Moses’ patron deity, Yahweh, opened the door to monotheism in that tradition.
Muhammad dies, perhaps in battle, perhaps eating bad mushrooms, but it might have been a slow death over the course of many weeks. His recovery was assumed, but when death was inevitable someone had to take his place. Through conquest and pillaging they just couldn’t let a good thing go, so they need a new leader to take Muhammad’s place with his inevitable death approaching. As the story goes, this is the beginning of hadith, or statements attributed to Muhammad. Actually, what is now called hadith was borrowed from a very old tradition used in settling inter- and intra-tribal disputes. Tribal chiefs, in attempting to solve a problem or enact a sentence, would pull into the picture precedents from the past that often referred to an enlightened elder. This is the “third person” information delivery approach (just as when I reference sources in this work); you can argue with the message but not the messenger. As hadith adds up they become law or dogma; most law is based on precedent but can change depending on new circumstances. Dogma is often times very resistant to change even in the face of new circumstances. Whatever Muhammad was reputed to have said came by way of al Liah through Gabriel/Samael or Shaytan, and thus his message can’t be challenged or changed except through Muhammad’s “new prophecies for old” formula. Of course Muhammad is dead, so there can be no new major prophecies. As time went on, a new system was attached to their old tribal polytheistic beliefs and practices, laws, and so on, which included an intricate legal system, with laws about women, food restrictions, and dress codes that would fit all tribes. Once the door was opened to monotheism, in stepped the Old Testament with its guidance for building a mythical charter through Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. They did exactly as the Jews did; they created so many ritual and social requirements that they separated themselves from everyone else. Much of their ritual and mythic tale is based on the Old Testament, and so it was a matter of what would Moses do, just as we ask, “What would Jesus do?”
If we are to believe the stories that Uthman had alternate collections of hadith destroyed in order to create a single script, Uthman would have destroyed valuable documents. However, as it is difficult to verify early Muslim political history, this has to be treated as just another story. I do not believe that Muhammad had any idea at all that he would be used as a focal point, a third person to whom all kinds of behaviors and wise, prophetic statements were attributed. Muhammad may indeed have been an orator, but at the very least he was much smarter then most. In my opinion, again, if there was a person like Muhammad, he was introduced to shamanic ritual processes most likely through the Zoroastrians, who supported the use of mind-altering substances as a conduit to God and social control.
By approximately 700 CE, the Arab people had been united under several rulers who continued to wage war, but by this time the patron god of Muhammad, the moon god of war, becomes connected to the God of the Jews as a means of justifying conquests far and wide. Using the Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael connection to Yahweh, they slightly altered the pronunciation of al Liah to Allah with an emphasis on the first syllable. During this time period the identity with the Jews had coalesced to the point that Jerusalem became their new ritual focal point or base. I have come across no proof-positive evidence that Muhammad really went to Jerusalem but his followers did.
This, however, was short lived, because the Jews did not welcome these new converts into the fold and the reasons for this are quite simple—they would have eventually been absorbed into the Arab tribes, the very thing they fought against in the first place. Social or group rejection is very powerful; the Arab-Israeli conflict, in part, stems from this. As a reaction to this rejection, the Islamites have placed themselves above everyone else (the chosen few—a sure sign of an inferiority complex), much the same as occurred with the Israelites 1,000 years earlier. They can do this because Ishmael was first born. By 750 CE, a document now referred to as the Qur’an came into existence. It is a composite of legends, both prior to and concurrent with Muhammad, and sayings constructed for political-social reasons after his death. Much of the material represents opinions, interpretations, and poetry of individuals, but is attributed to our third-person hero, Muhammad, and a fourth-person source, Gabriel or Samael, and then fifth, Allah.
Islam, like the other monotheistic traditions, appeals to our animal nature, places Allah and Muhammad before humanity, and is intolerant of all other monotheistic and polytheistic traditions. Islam is stuck in the Dark Ages, is not a religion, and certainly not a religion of peace. And, in my opinion, it is currently engaged in a last ditch effort, through terrorist activity, to disrupt the world economy. Terror is Islam’s main method of conversion because no one in his or her right mind would willingly join. Finally, any tradition that places God before humanity is demonic; there are many gentle Muslims in the world but they still worship a demon. I will say one positive thing about Muhammad. According to hadith, he liked cats: “Cats are not impure, they keep watch around us.” (Mishkat, Book iii)
Islam has been unable to move into a modern world and remains, for the most part, anchored in an ideology that believes that people have to be lead by the nose or micromanaged. Subjects are to do what they are told without question, worship without question, eat without question, dress without question, and kill without question. As with Judaism and Christianity, one is to submit to a god, which means submission to the king and/or religious cleric, on faith. This type of philosophy squashes independent thought and creativity; thinking outside the narrow box of Islam can be dangerous. The major reason for this stems from the Islamic community’s inability to approach the Qur’an and hadith in a scholarly/poetic fashion, rather than maintaining that the Qur’an is the divine word of God and therefore not subject to historical/linguistic analysis. By maintaining this unyielding position the Islamic community misses out, in a way similar to fundamentalist Jews and Christians, on a renaissance of thinking and possibilities.
Islam is best defined as a tyrannical political system (fascism) with a thin veneer of what one might consider religion because of references to supernatural beings. This tradition demands absolute submission to Allah. In a fashion similar to fundamentalist Judaism and Christianity, the deity comes first and humanity comes second. Why, we might ask, is absolute submission to the deity necessary? Here is where the political weight of Islam comes in—as above, below. When you submit to the deity you are also submitting to the Caliph, the ruler, and/or the religious cleric who pretends to interpret the will of God.
We are also treated with cries that Westerners lack understanding of Islam. Nasr’s (2002) outline of Islam is a case in point. It is an apologetic attempt to spin Islam into something that it is not, although it may be his experience of this tradition. Any “enduring values for humanity” in Islam can be found in the necessity of cooperative social living and not in religion proper; morality and religion are two entirely different things. Moreover, any humanitarian values presented in Islam are far, far overshadowed by the millions murdered and tortured in the name of Allah. No forgiveness can be issued for this, any more than the Catholic Church can be forgiven for the torture and murder of innocent men, women, and children throughout the centuries. Why no forgiveness? Because of their claims (and continued claims) of infallibility and that they act according to the will of a god—a demon.
The Qur’an tells its followers to kill or convert all non-Muslims, which includes me, and thus I perceive Islam as a personal threat. Many academics and followers of Islam attempt to turn this around by saying the reference is, instead, to the “struggle” with one’s own evil impulses, but this is pure taqiyah, a lie. Perhaps through reform this might become the case, but in its present condition I am at risk of being tortured and/or murdered by the mindless, cowardly thugs who do the dirty work of insecure imams in a fascist political system. I have also been told that I’m not showing respect or enough religious tolerance, but I have little tolerance for this or any tradition constructed on lies and deception, and which places a deity—a demon—first and humanity second.