Adonis Diaries

Connections between Zionism and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Posted on: July 2, 2015


The Twin Cancers Destroying the Middle East (and their Dark Origins)…

I wrote dozens of articles and essays on these topics.  A comprehensive essay is always welcomed

Posted: November 7, 2014



This is something I’ve been meaning to post about ever since starting this blog.
it’s a subject immensely important to our current global situation and international climate and it’s an angle largely avoided in mainstream journalism.
It is a fascinating and grim story, spanning the  18century when the British Empire aided the Wahhabi tribes in weapon and money, First World War, the creation of the states of Israel, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and taking in Lawrence of Arabia, the fall of Gadaffi in Libya, the Syria Civil War and Rise of Islamic State, among other things.
It’s a story of long-term manipulation, insidious indoctrination, and secret, ‘mythical’ works of literature.
These two ideologies – Wahhabism in Islam and Zionism which is linked primarily to the Jewish religion – may seem like unrelated  entities on the surface of it…

But these two idealogies are largely responsible for the situation in the Middle East today; a situation that doesn’t just effect the Middle East, but as we’ve seen since 9/11, effects the US, Europe, the West and probably the entire world.

These two idealogies are responsible for and bound up in decades of violence, war, suffering and manipulation.

These two idealogies are flip-sides of the same coin. And these two idealogies can both be traced back to the same approximate era – roughly 200 years ago, even before and during the events of the First World War.

What has been the legacy of both Zionism and Wahhabism in the world?

And what is the truth about their origins?

To begin with, an abbreviated history (for those of you unfamiliar) of the origins of first Zionism and then Wahhabism…

‘Der Judenstaat’, the Balfour Declaration and the Origins of Zionism…

‘Zionism’ is a complicated term to define in some ways, all the more so for the sheer amount of exaggeration and misinformation around on the web.

1. There’s political Zionism, which is bound up in serving the interests of the state of Israel.

2. There’s religious Zionism, which refers to Jewish or Christian interest in the state of Israel in terms of fulfilling Biblical prophecy or “divine will”.

These two schools of Zionism could in some instances be entirely separate; people can be political Zionists without being religious Zionists or even vice-versa (such as Christian organizations who are Zionist for the sake fulfilling perceived Bible texts).


Zionism is just as Christian as it is Jewish

But the point is that the aim of Zionism originally was the restoration of the Jewish Homeland in what was then Palestine; a goal that was accomplished comprehensively in 1948 in the shadow of the Holocaust (though it had its roots as an international movement before the time of the First World War).

Beyond that point, the continued operation of Zionism can be regarded as a political movement aimed at furthering the interests nationally and internationally of that artificially created nation and at ensuring the security and protection of the state of Israel.

Many conspiracy theorists and anti-Zionist commentators also as a matter of course link Zionism – both religious and political – with an altogether-less-reliable concept of a ‘global Jewish conspiracy’ to control the world; as that particular area is more speculative than demonstrably historical, I’m steering clear of it as far as this post

So if we avoid for now any pseudo-history or speculative theories, Zionism in its mainstream form is believed to have originated with Theodor Herzl in 1896; a Jewish writer living in Austria-Hungary, he published Der Judenstaat or The Jews State.

In it he argued that the only solution to the “Jewish Question” in Europe was the creation of a state for the Jewish people (this was decades before a certain someone else came up with their own “solution” to the “Jewish question” in Europe).

Anti-Semitism was so widespread in Europe that Herzl saw the creation of a national sanctuary for his people as the only long-term answer. And so Zionism was born; or at least this is the mainstream version of events – others, I know, will contest that and offer arguments for a much older origin.

Of course if we’re talking about religious Zionism as opposed to political Zionism, then the origin is much older; it didn’t go by that name, but the notion that the land of Israel had always belonged to the Jewish people spiritually or that it was promised to the Children of Israel by the Biblical God is an ancient one (and of course no sound basis for 20th century nation-building).

It was the Colonial Powers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, particularly Great Britain, that actively pursued the Zionist agenda under the guidance of powerful and wealthy British Jews such as Lord Rothschild, resulting in the famous Balfour Declaration.

The British made war-time promises during World War I to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Although mass Jewish immigration to Palestine began occurring after the First World War, it wasn’t until after the Second World War and the Holocaust that the agenda was comprehensively fulfilled.

Among many others, the prolific writer, researcher and speaker David Icke has written extensively about ‘Rothschild Zionism’, so I won’t get into that here, but simply advise you to seek out Icke’s works if you’re interested (he is the authority on that subject).

Another cornerstone of Zionist lore is the fabled book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, believed to be the blue-print for the ‘global Zionist conspiracy’; we’ll come back to that later in this post.

Despite Britain’s official actions, however, neither public nor government opinion was unanimous in its support for the excessive commitment made by Britain to further the Zionist agenda.

Winston Churchill, in a 1922 telegraph, is recorded to have written of “a growing movement of hostility against Zionist policy in Palestine,” adding that “it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British  taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.”

This disapproval of political Zionism has continued for all the decades since and is even more widespread and vehement today than it was a century ago. While much of this is also bound up in anti-Semitism and anti Jewish propaganda, a lot of the opposition to Zionism is also from respectable, reputable sources.

Gandhi wrote in 1938; “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs…. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.”

And contrary to the view propagated by some that anti-Zionism is ‘anti-semitism’, Jewish speakers have at various points also spoken out openly against the Zionist agenda; among them, (Rabbi) Elmer Berger published The Jewish Dilemma, in which he argued that Jewish “assimilation” was still the best path for Jews in the modern world and not the segregation and siege mentality of the Zionist state; in his opinion Zionism itself was simply resigning to the prevailing racial myths about Jews and playing into them.


Orthodox Jews protesting against Zionism.

In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that designated Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

More contemporaneously, in 2010 the former BBC and ITN journalist Alan Hart published Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, while famous atheist-in-chief Richard Dawkins said in an interview (speaking about Zionism and the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in the US); “If atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”

This is just a fraction of stated opposition to Zionism by ‘reputable’, ‘respectable’ people; I reference all of that here to illustrate the point that anti-Zionism isn’t just the preserve of ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. And again, let’s bear in mind the substantial number of Jews also opposed to Zionism.

It couldn’t be denied, even by the most ardent Zionist supporters, that the influence of political Zionism along with many of the actions/policies of the State of Israel have, aside from the long-term oppression of the Palestinian people, contributed massively to the polarisation of the Middle East and the growth of radicalism. The same can be said of the influence of Wahhabism in the region.

Wahhabism, like Zionism, isn’t some centuries old, time-honoured religious sect, but a relatively new political idealogy.


The Advent of Wahhabism, the Birth of Saudi Arabia and the (Insidious) Spreading of the Message…

The modern roots of Wahhabism can be traced to Najd in Saudi Arabia and the 18th century theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Far from being regarded a legitimate interpretation of Islam, al-Wahhab was opposed even by his own father and brother for his beliefs. But the movement gained unchallenged precedence in most of the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Muhammad ibn Saud, which provided political and financial power for al-Wahhab’s idealogies to gain prominence.


Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

This alliance gave birth to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; following the collapse of the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Sauds seized control of the Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula and a nation was founded on the tenets of al-Wahhab – the state-sponsored, dominant form of Islam in the birthplace of Islam.

My initial interest in this area of Arab history admittedly began fifteen years or so ago via the David Lean epic Lawrence of Arabia, starring the great Peter O’Toole. Through a love of that 1963 film I read first T.E Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom and then read several books concerning the exploits of T.E Lawrence and the Arab Revolt during the First World War, as well as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (referenced by today’s Islamic State/ISIS in its ‘manifesto’) and the actions of the British and French Colonial governments in regard to the Middle East after the war.

The setting up of the House of Saud as the royal family and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia occurred despite the fact that agreements had been made during the war to endorse and support not the Saudis but the Hashemites.

It was the Hashemite Arabs, not the Saudis, that had launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottomon Turks and had been the most involved in the campaign. Yet it was the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi faction that gained the real power from the post-war situation.

The reason I bring all of this history up here is to point out that the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Royal Kingdom that the Middle East has been subject to in the passed century wasn’t the sole – or even the legitimate – claimant to that immensely privileged, immensely powerful, position in the region.

burningbloggerofbedlam-kingabdulazizbinabdulrahmanal-saudKing Abdul Aziz bin abdul Rahman al-Saud (Saudi Arabia).

And what has been the legacy of this Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Arabia and its influence? Well, the influence on Arabia itself and much of the surrounding region is incontrovertible.

Aside from the fact that the Wahabi doctrines have been a major influence on extremism, Islamism and terrorism (Osama bin Laden himself was a Wahhabist), the idealogies have been methodically disseminated across the Islamic world for a hundred years via Saudi wealth funding ‘education’ and religious literature to universities and mosques everywhere from Egypt and Iraq to Pakistan and Indonesia.

Worse, the Saudi-funded dissemination of Wahabist-inspired propaganda has for a long time been spreading beyond the Middle East and into Western societies, especially the Muslim communities in the UK.

A recent two-year study conducted by Dr Denis MacEoin, an Islamic studies expert who taught at the University of Fez, uncovered a hoard of “malignant literature” inside as many as a quarter of Britain’s mosques.

All of it had been published and distributed by agencies linked to the government of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The leaflets, DVDs and journals were full of statements that homosexuals should be burnt, stoned or thrown from mountains or tall buildings, with adulterers and apostates (those who try to change their religion) proscribed a similar fate.

Women were portrayed as intellectually inferior and in need of “beating when they transgressed” orthodox Islamic codes, while children over the age of 10 should be beaten if they did not pray.

Half of the literature was written in English, suggesting it was targeted at younger British Muslims who don’t speak Arabic or Urdu. The material, openly available in many of the mosques, openly advises British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims.

This isn’t new information, of course. Investigative journalists have uncovered similar things on numerous occasions, while people who’ve actually grown up within the Muslim communities have been aware of such ideas and literature for a long time. Saudi-funded Wahhabist literature can be cited as a major influence (though not the sole influence) on the indoctrination of young British men alienated from mainstream society and on the seduction of men into extremist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS the world over.

Worse in places like Pakistan where, unlike in the UK, most young men aren’t privileged with access to a high standard of education or to reliable sources of public information but do have plenty of access to religious schools and mosques, many of which teach from Saudi-funded literature.

Yet while the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq were subject to invasion (and the latter to deliberate destabilization), and the overthrow of the governments of Syria and Libya (two countries that had little, if any, influence on the growth of global Islamism or extremism) were openly encouraged and aided by the major Western governments, Saudi Arabia – no doubt partly due to its wealth and value to the US and its allies – has never at any point been subject to any threat or been held to international questioning over the cynical and methodical dissemination of extremist doctrines across the Muslim world.

World War I, the Wahhabists, the Hashemites, Lawrence of Arabia and the War in the Desert…

Going back to the First World War and history, it’s worth reminding ourselves again that the Saudis weren’t necessarily supposed to be the rulers of Arabia.

The Hashemite, Hussein bin Ali, was the Sharif and Emir of Mecca from 1908 until 1917. The Arab Revolt of World War I consisted of Transjordanian tribes, along with other tribes of the Hijaz and Levant regions, fighting against the Turkish Empire on the side of Britain and her allies.

The revolt was launched by the Hashemites and led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, not by the Saudis or Wahhabists. It was supported by Britain and the World War I Allies, who used the momentum of the Arab nationalists (who wanted independence) to further the broader war effort against Germany and her allies.

2696397T.E Lawrence (“of Arabia”).

The definitive chronicle of the revolt was written by T. E. Lawrence who, as a young British Army officer, played a key liaison role during the revolt. He published the chronicle in 1922 under the title Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the basis for Lawrence of Arabia.

Lawrence himself was of course was one the most fascinating and iconic figures of the twentieth century; and while the Seven Pillars of Wisdom can be questioned for accuracy in some regards, even his detractors and enemies couldn’t refute the vital role played by the Hashemites in the revolt and it is a fact of history that the British government of the time promised the Hashemite Arabs far more than they delivered after the war.

In September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the “Sharif of Mecca”. Hussein had been declared ‘King of the Arabs’ by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. And after the Turkish Caliphate was abolished, Hussein declared himself Caliph, “King of the Hejaz”, and King of all Arabs (malik bilad-al-Arab).

However, Hussein was ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Sauds; a rival clan with whom the Hashemites already had bad history, having earlier fought against them due to radical religious differences (primarily the doctrines of al-Wahhab). Though the British had supported (and utilised) Hussein from the start of the Arab Revolt, they decided not to help Hussein repel the Saudi attacks, which eventually seized the key cities of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah.
The hope of a Hashemite-ruled Arabia was gone, though Hussein continued to use the title “Caliph” even in his exile.

burningbloggerofbedlam-kingfaisalwithTELawrenceEmir Faisal bin Hussein, king of Syria and Iraq, with T.E Lawrence second from right.

In the aftermath of the war, the Arabs had found themselves freed from centuries of Ottoman rule, but instead were then under the colonial rule of France and the United Kingdom (despite British war-time promises that this would not be the case). When these colonial mandates eventually ended, the sons of Hussein were made the kings of Transjordan (later Jordan), and Syria and Iraq.

However, the monarchy in Syria was short-lived, and consequently Hussein’s son Faisal instead presided over the newly-established state of Iraq.  (The highly educated Syrians were not about to consider a monarch)

But these were mere conciliatory offerings compared to what had originally been intended and desired by the Hashemites; it was the Saudis who were the real winners, being installed into a powerful kingdom that has lasted to this day and shows not the slightest sign of weakening.


“The Memoirs of Mr Hempher” and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Zionism and Wahhabism have both demonstrably been divisive, destructive forces in the region (and beyond). Zionism has led to the plight of the Palestinians as well as ensuring that the modern State of Israel is perceived in an entirely negative way and is the least popular nation on earth. While Wahhabism has inspired an immeasurable amount of extremism, terrorist idealogies, indoctrination and the toxic polarisation of societies.

We can look at the influence of Wahhabism in the world at this stage in time and legitimately call it a ‘cancer’. But what about at its root? What about the source? Given the prevalent view in conspiracy theory lore of the “Zionist conspiracy” behind the Balfour Declaration and so much of what has transpired since, is it possible that Wahhabism, which began to gain momentum at around the same time, was also something much more than it appeared to be even at the time?

Is it possible Wahhabism wasn’t the product of some quaintly rustic Arabian desert preacher, but something far more cynical?

The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East (also known as Confessions of a British Spy) has long been regarded as a forged document; the document, purporting to be the account of an 18th-century British agent, “Hempher”, of his instrumental role in founding Wahhabism as part of a conspiracy to corrupt Islam, first appeared in 1888 in Turkish.

It has been described as “an Anglophobic variation” on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Most conspiracy researchers know about the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was regarded as blue-print of the perceived “Jewish conspiracy”. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, like Confessions of a British Spy, has long since been dismissed by mainstream sources as a ‘forgery’ or hoax.

The Protocols has been widely translated and disseminated and is still regarded as factual and historical in much of the Muslim world, informing a great deal of the prevailing Middle-Eastern view of “the Jews” and “the Zionists”.

Secular writers and researchers, including the likes of David Icke, also believe the Protocols to be a genuine, factual book and not a hoax at all; someone like Icke cites the nature of global events in the passed century-plus as supporting evidence for the Protocols validity, given how much of it is claimed to correlate to what was written.

Those who refute the validity of the book, however, cite it as a massive contributing cause of anti-Semitism and ‘Jew hatred’ in Muslim societies and beyond, not to mention the notorious book having been a recurring theme in the Nazis anti-Jewish world-view.

Unfortunately the Nazis, like many in Muslim societies today, were intemperates, incapable of separating ‘Zionism’ as a political force from ‘Jews’ as a race; the reality is that, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is/was a legitimate historical item, the Zionism it depicts is no more representative of Jews as a people than Wahhabism is of the global Muslim community – which is to say that only a relatively small percentage of Muslims in the world are knowingly agents of Wahhabism, and likewise in regard to the Jewish community and Zionism.

But conspiracies of the kind we’re talking about operate at an insidious, often unperceived, level; that is to say the number of Muslims and the number of Jews unknowingly subject to Wahhabism and Zionism respectively is much higher.

But what of Confessions of a British Spy? Is it mere coincidence that both these political idealogies, both originating around the same time, both of which have ensured the long-term toxicity of the Middle East, both also happened to have books claiming to reveal their true origins and agendas – both of which were later dismissed by mainstream commentators as ‘forgeries’?

Was Confessions of a British Spy telling the truth? Was Wahhabism founded by outside agencies as a long-term plan to ‘corrupt Islam’? Is it just a coincidence that this is EXACTLY what Wahhabism appears to have done over the course of a century – corrupted the Islamic religion to the point where it is now widely regarded by many non-Muslims as a source of evil and ill in the world? Islam, let’s remember, wasn’t always regarded with the kind of stigma it now has, but rather the opposite.

Islamic societies are historically perceived as having been intellectually and even scientifically enlightened at a time when Christianity in the West was characterised by inquisitions, torture, mass persecutions, execution pyres and utterly ridiculous doctrines and proclamations. Historical accounts tell of the brutality of Christian Crusaders and the comparative nobility of Salahuddin and the Muslim armies.

The slow degradation and polarisation of Islamic societies is something that has only been happening in the last hundred years or so (as the growth of Wahhabism has done its work, like a slow-acting virus with a long incubation period). And it’s only in the last ten to fifteen years that the influence of Wahhabist doctrines has become a prominent international issue.

In regard to Confessions of a British Spy being a hoax; maybe it was. But you’d wonder why someone would create a hoax document to slander a then-minor religious sect that wouldn’t have any great relevance until almost a century later?

Note: I failed to copy the link that I received for that essay. May the author link me back.

5 Responses to "Connections between Zionism and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia"

Literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs”

Imagine a 50-year-old Arab stripping a 6-year-old child naked and putting his “willie” between her thighs and wanking himself off; squirting his cum all over the child’s naked body!

Imagine this now 53-year-old Arab having full, penetrative sexual intercourse with the 9-year-old child and shooting his “load” of cum into her small vagina, shouting, “Allah Akbar”!

Allah says in the Quran:
(Sura 33:21).
You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and who remembers Allah much.

In this verse Allah instructs Muslims to follow Prophet Muhammad who was an embodiment of the great values and manners of the Quran. He gave the best example for mankind in human history. Many Muslim writers bear witness that Prophet Muhammad is the greatest man in human history.

Sura 68:05
And thou dost, surely, possess sublime moral excellencies.

There is no “broad” or “narrow” reading of the Quran, as The New York Times and countless other organs of Western Islamophilia would have us believe. A Muslim is not free to believe or do what he wishes. The basis of the social and legal order and obligation in Islam is the Quran, the final and perfect revelation of Allah’s will that is to be obeyed by all creation. (Surah 4:105)

The Islamic law, the Shari’a, is not a supplement to the “secular” legal code, it is the only such code and the only basis of obligation, because a
Muslim’s only true allegiance is to Allah, and to Muhammad:

“He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah.” (Quran 4:8)
Islam is a revealed religion, strongly focused on its grounding in history, in the historical person of Muhammad, his revelation and his example. Events as they happened, with all recorded or alleged words and deeds of the Prophet, are the foundation of the faith, law, and social convention. Even his apparently trivial actions and utterances were passed on as rules and mode of conduct, in accordance with the Quranic statement that Muhammad is “a beautiful pattern (of conduct).” (Quran 33:21)

His sayings and acts guide the lives of all true Muslims to this day, including his rape of enslaved girls and women and his rape of a prepubescent “wife.” Muhammad offers the eternal model of behavior for every little detail of everyday life for all time.

That Muhammad’s actions and words, as immortalized in the Quran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our time and punishable by its laws goes without saying. There are hundreds of contemporary Western apologists, however, who argue that we must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras.

Even in the context of seventh-century Arabia, however, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu. Indulging with considerable abandon one’s sensual passions was so fundamentally at odds with the moral standards of his own Arab contemporaries that only the ultimate authority could, and did, sanction it.

I posted many articles and book reviews on Aicha and the Hadith. I agree that Aicha was sexually abused as a kid and that is why she behaved as to punish herself of her “own fault victim” with harsh living conditions and multiple fasting and precarious lifestyle. She was the most educated person and basically the first “Imam” and the only one who spread the women rights, during and after Muhammad death. Many generations of women applied and obtained their rights in marriage contracts…It was the glorious period for women before patriarchal domination robbed them of their rights. Actually, Aicha made it her duty to correct the false and faked stories in the Hadith. Fact is, most Muslims follows the Hadith and barely understand the Quran, even if they can recite it by pure repetition.


This article is the transcription of a lecture delivered by His Eminence Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib, on “Who Killed Allah’s Messenger?”

Even today the Muslims know very little of their Prophet’s history (Peace be upon him and his pure family). Therefore, they believe he died a natural death, but in fact, he had been assassinated. This fact should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the fact that the Holy Quran had predicted it clearly in Chapter Aal Imran as Allah the Almighty said:

“And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful.” (144:3).

Let’s pay particular attention to this section: “if then he died or is killed”. It confirms that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) would not die a natural death. Rather, it confirms that he would be killed. The conjunctive (or) in this verse means “Rather”. In Arabic, sometimes (or) indicates uncertainty and probability. In other contexts, it imparts correction. Since it is next to impossible that anyone should suspect Allah’s word, since He has insight into the unknown, Allah must have intended to impart the other meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is:

“If he died, rather, he is killed, you turn upon your heels.”

By analogy, Allah said in Chapter Al Saffat, speaking of Prophet Yunis (Peace be upon him);
“And We sent him to a hundred thousand, or they exceeded.” (37:147)

That is, “And We sent him to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded.”

In Hadiths, even those reported by the Bakri sect, it is confirmed that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was martyred. For example, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Al-Tabarani and Al-Sanaani among other famous scholars of the Bakri sect, reported Abdullah Ibn Massoud, a companion to Allah’s Prophet, saying:

“I am willing to take an oath nine times that the Prophet was murdered, but I am not willing to take an oath even once that he was not. This is because Allah made him a Prophet and a martyr as well.”(Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol I, Page 408; Mojam Al-Tabrani, Vol X, Page 109; Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol V, Page 268).

How then was the Prophet murdered, and who were the perpetrators of such a heinous crime? In fact, it is from this point that the paths of Shiites and the Bakri sect diverge. While Bakri sect claim that the Prophet was poisoned by the Jews, Shiites stress that he was poisoned by his two wives Ayesha and Hafsa, as commanded by their fathers Abu Bakr and Omar.

Let us take a look at the evidences of each party to decide which one is true.
Bakri sect says that when the Prophet’s army won the Kheibar battle defeating the army of the Jews, a Jewish woman, Zeinab Bint Al-Harith invited him and his companions to a banquet. That woman wanted to take revenge upon the Prophet because her brother Murhab Bin Al-Harith, who was commander of the Jewish Army, had been killed by Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) and this had led to the victory of the Muslim Army. The Jewish leaders used the woman’s desire to take revenge and goaded her into assassinating the Prophet. She poisoned the meat she cooked for the Prophet and his fellows. The Prophet died after having the poisoned meat.
This is the belief of Bakri sect, but it can easily be refuted by the following scientific evidence:

Firstly, the Khaibar Battle took place in the seventh year of Hegira. While the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) died in the eleventh year. This means that there is a time gap of four years between the two incidents. It is very unlikely that a person dies because of a poison he had taken so many years ago. It is also because generally the effect of poison is immediate and even if it takes time it cannot exceed a few months in which the health condition deteriorates gradually. In the case of the Prophet, we notice that he had been in the peak of his health and throughout the said four years he had no unusual health complaints. He would participate in the battles to defend Muslims as usual. Thus, it defies any logic that his health deteriorated suddenly and he died of a poison he had had taken more than four years ago despite the fact that he enjoyed good health throughout that intervening period.

Secondly, if we accept that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) consumed that poisoned food, it will be a proof of his not being a true Prophet– May Allah forbid! This is because it was the Jews and the woman who wanted to put the Prophet under trial by means of their scheme. Is he truly a Prophet who gets revelation from Allah? If he was a Prophet, he would know that this food was poisoned and would not consume it. If not, he would consume it. Authentic Hadiths provide that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) knew it and did not consume the food. He admonished his retinue not to consume it either. This was one of his miracles due to which the Jewish woman was so impressed that she converted to Islam, for that she earned the Prophet’s forgiveness and exemption from punishment.

Al-Bukhari and Al-Darami and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect relate that:

“When Muslims won the battle of Kheibar, the Jews invited the Prophet to a banquet in which they had served poisoned mutton. The Prophet ordered his followers to call up all the Jews to speak to them. When they were present, he asked them: “If I ask you something, will you answer me honestly?” “Yes”, they answered. “Have you put poison in this mutton?” he asked. “Yes”, they answered. “Why?” he wondered. “We wanted to know whether you are a true prophet or not” they answered. “If you are a true prophet, this would not hurt you. But, if you are not, we would get rid of you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol IV, Page 66; Sunan Al-Darmi, Vol I, Page 33).

Al-Khateb relates: “A Jewish woman cooked poisoned mutton and offered it to the Prophet and his retinue. The Prophet said to his retinue: “Do not consume this food. It is poisoned. He then asked the woman: “Why have you done this?”, to which question she answered, “So that I can tell whether you are a true or false prophet? If you are true, Allah will reveal you that this food is poisoned so you won’t consume it. But, if you were false, you would eat it and die. Thereby, I would relieve people of you.” (Refer: History of Baghdad, Vol VII, Page 384).

Contrary to these Hadiths, there are other Hadiths that tell that the Prophet actually consumed some of that food. In the process, he admonished his followers to stop eating, and that one of them did really die. The Prophet ordered to have the woman killed. Obviously, these Hadiths are not authentic, and cannot be trusted. As we have already pointed out, this is because they mean that the Prophet was false, having discovered that the food was poisoned so late that one of his followers had already become a victim.

It should be noted that Al-Baihiqi and Abu Dawood and other famous scholars of the Bakri Sect confirmed that the Prophet neither killed, nor punished Zeinab Bint Al-Harith. (Refer: Sunann Al-Baihiqi Vol VIII, Page 46; Sunan Abu Dawood , Vol II, Page 369).

Al-Zohri, a great ancient scholar, confirmed that the Jewish woman was not killed although this was commonly believed by some people. Rather, she converted to Islam, and was forgiven by the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family). (Refer: Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol XI, Page 29, Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol III, Page 389).

Third: a most significant Hadith as maintained by the Bakri sect to ascribe Prophet’s sudden death to the poisoning attempt by the Jews four years ago, is one that was reported by Bukhari from Ayesha. She relates:

“Allah’s Prophet told me on his death bed, ‘Ayesha, since I consumed that poisoned food after the Kheibar Battle, I have been in pain. Now it is the time for my heart to stop beating because of that poison.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol V, Page 137).

We cannot trust that Hadith for many reasons: one of which is the fact that Ayesha is an infamous liar. She would lie even to the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family).

Al-Bukhari reported Ayesha saying:

“Allah’s Prophet was eating honey at Zeinab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.)

Ayesha knew that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had taken honey from his other wife, Zeinab Bint Jahsh. Being jealous of her, she agreed with her friend, Hafsa, to hurt the Prophet by claiming that he smelled foul when he consumed that honey. Thereby, he would stop eating it, and consequently stop visiting his wife, Zeinab.

That was a lie. A woman, who would not abstain from lying to the noblest prophet, would not abstain from lying to ordinary people, either. Therefore, the Hadiths reported by her cannot be trusted, especially when she, herself, was accused of being involved in the murder of the Prophet. Naturally, she would try to divert suspicion by pointing fingers at others.
Let us not forget that the Holy Quran stated that Ayesha and Hafsa were sinful wrongdoers whose hearts deviated from the true path. Allah warned them that by merely marrying the Prophet, they would not be exempted from going to hell. This was set forth in the Chapter Al Tahreem:

“If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah is his Guardian, and Jibreel and the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the helpers. (…) Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.” (66:10 &4)

Two women who lie and receive harsh words from Allah in a full chapter would not abstain from lying. Undoubtedly, they were poised to commit any misdeed, even if it was the assassination of the Prophet himself.
Let us not forget that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had described Ayesha as “The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan”. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect related:

“The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha’s room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan’s horn emerges”! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23).

A woman condemned by Allah as wrongdoer, and threatened to be tortured in hell if she does not repent, and one described by the Prophet as the spearhead of disbelief and Satan’s horn; one who confesses to having lied to the Prophet is a woman whose Hadiths cannot be trusted, especially if they seem to be in her favour.

One of the reasons why we should not believe in Ayesha’s Hadith about poisoning the Prophet is that she contradicts herself in another Hadith. She claimed that the Prophet did not die because of the Jewish woman’s poison. Rather, the cause of his death was because of another disease! According to Abu Yoalla, Ayesha also said that: “Allah’s Prophet, (Peace be upon him), died of an ailment Dhatul Janb”! (Refer: Masnad Abu Yoalla, Vol. VIII, Page 258. Dhadul Janb is an internal tumour that forms on man’s side. It leads to death when it explodes.)

Ayesha claimed that, although the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had ruled out the possibility of the Prophet developing such a tumour due to its being a demonic one that a Prophet would not develop.

The Prophet said of that tumour: “It is Satanic, and I cannot develop it because Allah has delivered me from any of Satan’s powers”. (Refer: The Beginning and the End, Ibn Katheir, Vol. V, Page 245).

It seems that Ayesha was confused while putting her point before the general public with regard to the issue of Prophet’s killing. When she claimed he died because of that Jewish woman’s poison consumed four years ago, people did not find that very plausible. Therefore, she came up with another cause of death. Therefore, she made up another reason, namely that of the lateral tumor. Thereby, she contradicted herself. This confusion itself points fingers at her and even gives rise to suspicions about her.
Now that we are sure of the implausibility of the Bakri version of the Prophet’s murder (Peace be upon him and his pure family) due to the shortcomings, contradictions and poor evidence. Now, we can move on to the Shiite version.

Generally, Shiite Hadiths are more credible. They are a set of the statements by the Imams from the Prophet’s family (Peace be upon them all). Undoubtedly, those Imams were far better informed of their grandfather’s, the Prophet’s, history and of his religion. None of them may lie, because the Quran confirmed their innocence against the sins. The Prophet had ordered that their words and deeds be followed. All Muslims agree to the fact that those Imams were very truthful, noble, faithful and chaste.

The Imams confirmed that their grandfather, the Prophet, had been poisoned in his last days by Ayesha and Hafsa, at the order of their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar. Abu Bakr and Omar were conspiring to usurp the throne after the demise of the Prophet. However, the Prophet would also stress that his rightful successor would be his cousin, and the husband of his daughter, Imam Ali (Peace be upon him). He even coerced them once to pledge allegiance to him on the Ghadir Day.

At the same time, the Prophet brought to light the fact that some of his companions and wives would turn against his successor. He warned his followers against this, stressing that it would be their test from Allah. Those who would show their allegiance to the rightful successor would pass the test and go to heaven. While those who would let him down and support the rebels, would go to the eternal hell since they would be apostates. That is, deserters who converted back to disbelief, even if they called themselves Muslims.

Sometimes, the Prophet would confront Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa with the fact that they hated his heir, predicting in their presence that their conspiracy would succeed to oust him from power. The Prophet did that as ordered by Allah to put those four into a further test.
One of the famous ancient Shia interpreters of Quran relates a Hadith as reported by the Imams that further elaborates on the Prophet’s assassination. That interpreter is Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Qommi, a great scholar who lived in the days of Imam Al-Hassan Al-Askry (Peace be upon him). He was known among Shias for his veracity and honesty in the way he related Hadith from Imams.

The Hadith reported by Ali Ibn Ibrahim says: “The Prophet said to Hafsa: I will tell you a secret. If you divulge it, Allah, His Angels and people will curse you. So, what is it? wondered Hafsa. The Prophet said: Abu Bakr will be able to seize the Caliphate and power after me, and will be succeeded by your father, Omar. Hafsa wondered: Who informed you of this? Allah, the Omnipresent, the Omniscient informed me. On the same day, Hafsa divulged the secret to her friend, Ayesha. In turn, Ayesha divulged the secret to her father, Abu Bakr. So, Abu Bakr came to Omar and said: My daughter Ayesha told me a secret reported by Hafsa, but I cannot always trust what Ayesha says. So, you ask your daughter Hafsa, make sure and tell me. Omar went over to Hafsa, and asked her. In the beginning, she was startled and denied it. But, Omar said to her: If you have indeed heard this secret, then, tell us so we can immediately seize power and get rid of Muhammad”. So, Hafsa said, yes, he told me that. At this point, those four got together and conspired to poison the Prophet” (Refer: Tafseer al-Qommi, Vol II, Page 367, Bihar-ul-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 239).

There is another great ancient scholar of the Quran, Muhammad Ibn Massoud al-Ayashi who also belonged to the Bakri sect, but was later divinely guided to the true faith and converted to Shia faith and believed in the Imams. That scholar lived till the end of Third Century Hegira. Scholars have ever since relied on his book that he wrote to interpret the Holy Quran (Tafseer).

When this great scholar reaches the point where he interpreted the verse I have referred to earlier, he relates a Hadith reported by al-Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he confirms that Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa had committed the crime. Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) was sitting with a group of his followers, and asked them:

“Do you know whether the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Allah the Almighty says: “if then he died or is killed”. The truth is that the Prophet was poisoned in his last days before he died. Ayesha and Hafsa administered poison in his food. Upon hearing this, the Imam Sadiq’s followers said that they and their fathers were among the worst villains ever created by Allah.” (Refer: Tafseer al-Ayashi, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, by Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 516)

Al-Ayshi relates another Hadith attributed to Imam Al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he says:
“al-Hussein Ibn Munther asked Imam Al-Sadiq about Allah’s words “if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels”. Does it mean that the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Imam Al-Sadiq said: In this verse, Allah refers to the Prophet’s companions who committed the misdeed”. (Refer: Tafseer Al Ayash, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, By Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XX, Page 91)

These Hadiths confirm beyond doubt that the Supreme Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was killed by poison administered in his last days and not which was allegedly given four years prior to his death. They also confirm that the crime was an act of treachery by his two wives and their fathers. Jews had nothing to do with this.

If we take a closer look at the Quranic verse that speaks of the Prophet’s death, we notice its consistency with these Hadiths. The verse says:

“And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah and Allah will reward the grateful.” (3:144).

In that verse, Allah addresses the Prophet’s companions and not the Jews. The verse associates the (Prophet’s death) and the (turning back), which means apostasy. We hereby understand that the assassination of the Prophet was to be followed by turning back and apostasy. This actually happened, and turned in favour of the rebels who seized power, i.e. Abu Bakr and Omar. Thus, it was addressed to the accused in the first place and not to the Jews who were no longer a threat in Medina .

It is true that the verse was quoted in relation to the Uhud battle, to reprimand the Prophet’s companions who had let him down, by fleeing and leaving him alone with Imam Ali amidst the non-Muslim warriors. But, the verse also speaks of the future. It says that a group of people would turn back and become apostates. They would bring no harm to Allah, because they would actually be harming themselves as they would go to hell. On the other hand, another group of people would keep their faith and would be well rewarded by Allah and enter the Heaven. This is because they were grateful to Allah for His blessings by keeping their allegiance to His Prophet and his rightful successor.

It is now evident that the crime was described by these Hadiths and this is in consistence with the Quran. Therefore, it is obvious that the Shiite version of the Prophet’s assassination is trustworthy.

But is there any evidence in the resources of Bakri sect, that supports the Shiite version and shows involvement of the Prophet’s two wives in the crime?

In fact, most of the Hadiths that reach us through the pious Imams from among the Prophet’s descendants (peace be upon all of them) are supported by Hadiths in Bakri resources, even if implicitly. It is here that the power of Shiism, as it does not rely only on Shiite resources. Rather, it brings forth supporting evidence from the sources of other sects for the facts put forth by the Imams.

There is a Hadith related by the famous scholars of Bakri sect like Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Kathier. In that Hadith, Ayesha confesses that when the Prophet was sleep during his illness she put a strange substance into his mouth with the help of the other wives. Ayesha did it intentionally despite Prophet’s prohibition. When the Prophet woke up, he saw the residuals of the substance that they had put into his mouth. He angrily asked what it was and who had disobeyed his orders. Ayesha and her collaborators justified their action saying that it was just a medication. Following that, they accused the Prophet’s uncle, Al-Abbas Ibn Abdul Muttalib. However, the Prophet acquitted his uncle and ordered that those who were with him in the room should be punished by having the same substance put into their mouths.

Ayesha relates:

“When Allah’s Prophet contracted the terminal disease, he told us: Don’t put the medicine in my mouth. But we disobeyed him on the ground that every patient dislikes medication! So, we put the substance in his mouth. When he regained his senses, he wondered: Who did that? Have I not admonished you not to do that? So, we said: It is your uncle Al-Abbas who thought that you might have contracted a lateral tumour! The Prophet said: This disease is caused by the Devil. I cannot contract it. The Prophet ordered that everyone in the house must put the same substance into their mouths, except Al-Abbas, as the Prophet said: He was not with you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VIII, Page 42; Sahih Muslim, Vol VII, Page 42; Masnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol VI, Page 53; Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol. IV, Page 446).

It seems that people were confused about what had happened to the Prophet. This was the matter that forced Ayesha to relate this Hadith in an attempt to falsify and conceal the truth. She wanted to hide the truth of the substance that she put into the mouth of the Prophet, claiming that it was a medication. She explained that what she made was “lad”, which means administering medication to a side of the mouth.

What exactly was that strange substance? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators intend to put it into the Prophet’s mouth during his sleep? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators falsely accuse Al-Abbas of the crime? Why did the Prophet order to have them punished by putting the substance into their mouth? Basically… how could Ayesha and her collaborators disobey the word of the Prophet?

These controversies prove that a serious crime was perpetrated against the Prophet. If there had been no crime, the Prophet would not have ordered to punish the perpetrators. If that substance had been indeed a medicine, the Prophet would not have forbidden it to be put into his mouth. This would not have stirred his anger.

Therefore, that substance must have been the poison that the Prophet’s children spoke of later. Those who helped Ayesha prepare it must have been Hafsa, Abu Bakr and Omar whose names were not revealed by Ayesha in her Hadith on that strange substance. Their interest was associated with the Prophet’s homicide, as they were going to seize power and oust his family from there.

There remains a question unanswered: Can the two wives of the Prophet dare to kill him? Is it possible that Abu Bakr and Omar, who were among the Prophet’s companions, dared to commit such a crime?

The answer is: It is not unlikely at all, because the Quran mentioned that the two wives of the prophets, Noah and Lut betrayed them and would go to hell. These verses in the Chapter Al Tahreem were revealed in the first place to address Ayesha and Hafsa by citing this example. In the same chapter, Allah testified the infidelity and wrongdoing of Ayesha and Hafsa. He threatened them strongly should they fail to repent, as I explained earlier.

Quran predicted that the Prophet’s companions would turn against him as I have said earlier. The Prophet had also predicted in his several Hadiths that most of his companions would go to hell. History reveals that most betrayals and acts of treacheries that occurred after the Prophets were committed by their wives and companions.

Al-Bukhari related that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) said:
“On doomsday, when I will be at the water pond delivering water to those who will be thirsty among my followers, a group of my followers will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell! And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Following that, another group of my companions will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell. And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Thus, only small number of my companions will escape like deserted camels in the desert.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VII, Page 206).

No one can claim that Abu Bakr cannot be among those people who will be driven to Hell, since the Prophet himself did not exempt him from that.
Imam of the Malki school of thought, Malik Ibn Anas, relates that the Prophet prophesied to the Muslim martyrs of Uhud that they would go to Heaven. So, Abu Bakr wondered:
“Aren’t we their brothers who have submitted to Islam just as they did, and fought in jihad just as they did; so, why don’t you give us the good news that we will go to heaven? The Prophet said: “It is absolutely true that you are their brothers, but I do not know what you will do after my death”. (Refer: Al Muatta of Malik Ibn Anas, Vol II, Page 642).

Therefore, we should not exempt Abu Bakr and Omar from the crime of having taken the life of the Prophet, especially when they had tried that once before when the Prophet was on his way back from the city of Tabuk. He had to go past a rough road up a mountain. That road is called Al-Aqaba by Arabs. Those who have to go down it, on a camel for example; must choose a camel with a very quiet disposition. Should it panic, it will trip and its rider will fall and die. Abu Bakr and Omar conspired with a group of the Prophet’s hypocrite companions. They would lie in wait for the Prophet at the time of his crossing this Aqaba to frighten his camel so that she falls and he dies. This fact was reported also by the Bakri resources in clear terms, but the Bakri people try to hide and deny this fact.

Ibn Hazm Al-Alndulsi, a famous scholar of Bakri Sect, lashed at Al-Waleed Ibn Jamia, dismissing him as a liar. But why? Ibn Hazm says:
“Because he related Hadiths that state that Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha and Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to kill the Prophet and made sure that he met with the accident in Tabuk”. (Refer: Al Mohalla of Ibn Hazm, Vol. IX, Page 224).

Al-Walid Ibn Jamia was not a Shiite. He belonged to the Bakri sect. Contrary to what Ibn Hazm said about him, he is so widely known for veracity and credibility that Ibn Habban would say “May Allah be pleased with him”, whenever his name was mentioned. The famous scholar of Bakri Sect in this field, “Al-Thahabi” also testified the truthfulness and credibility of this man. If he had not been honest, he would not have his Hadiths related by the famous compilers of Hadith like Muslim, Al-Baihiqi, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Shabba.
So, Al-Walid Ibn Jamia is not a liar. This proves that Abu Bakr, Omar and their group indeed tried to murder the Prophet as he was passing through Al-Aqaba on his way back from Tabuk. This is a famous incident in which Allah saved the life of His Prophet by a miracle. The Prophet forgave the perpetrators and refrained from punishing them.

Thereby, we can be sure that Abu Bakr and Omar indeed wanted to kill the Prophet. Though, their plan in Aqaba failed, their next plan succeeded by collusion with their daughters Ayesha and Hafsa who administered poison to the Prophet during his sleep. Just as the Prophet forgave those who tried to kill him in Al-Aqaba, Imam Ali did the same after the martyrdom of the Prophet, fulfilling the will of the Prophet so that Allah’s test continues for them and for the humanity as a whole.

In fact, the Prophet was just a normal patient. During his sleep, Ayesha and Hafsa administered this poison in the Prophet’s mouth, in order to hasten the seizure of power by their fathers, while ousting the rightful successor, Ali Ibn Abi Talib. It was in this way the greatest and the noblest Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) fell prey to the treachery of his two wives and companions.

This is a fact that most Muslims are not aware of.

The Quran was edited several times. the Original verses had no punctuations whatsoever and barely anyone could read them on the parchments. The third calif Othman assembled the verses according to their lengths and dropped many verses that were Not suitable for the new empire interests. Most probably Jewish scholars who claimed to have converted to Islam edited the verses and the Wahhabits of Saudi Kingdom did another editing, a Quran taught in the thousands of Madrasat (religious schools) dispersed in the Islamic countries. Fact is the verses of Muhammad are almost carbon copy of the Jewish bible stories and myths, since he belonged to one of those “heretic” Christian-Jewish sects that relied mostly on the Jewish stories and myths. My conjecture is that it is the Non-Jewish scholars who like stories who translated the Torah to Greek, Latin, Arabic… and spread these stories. If Hinduism and Buddhists failed to write their own stories and myths and spread them in due time, maybe Jewish stories would have “conquered” all religions. Fact is the Jewish stories are stories of the Land (Syria and Iraq empires) and were transformed to give themselves a History and a culture that they never had as bedouin tribes in southern Palestine


Now it would seem then that when we consider what is commonly thought of as ‘faith’ and what is called by those who believe ‘true religion’ one finds that ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ seem to be for the most part custom and social convention. A person is ‘saved’ by bringing their behaviour into line with the customs and practices of a certain group, and membership in that group is then the criteria for salvation. Faith does not seem to mean much more than that.

As an example of what I mean we can consider what I will call the three War God religions, the three related faiths of Judaism, Christianity and the Muslim religion. All three religions propagate the notion of the War God, a god who it is said sends human beings out to war for various reasons. For example a Muslim might list off the reasons why Allah would send Muslims out to war, and this includes such things as ‘a threat to the Muslim states’ which of course leads us to the doctrine of ‘the just war’ or the ‘Holy War’ (‘jihad’). Both Muslims and Christians practiced forced conversions by the edge of the sword, something not practiced by Jewish religion, which, if you read the ancient documents, resorted rather to genocidal slaughter and just skipped the whole business of conversion.

Now let us assume that Allah saw that the Muslim state was threatened or that Muslims were being oppressed or that the Muslim faith was meeting with resistance. At this time Allah would endorse Holy War, and Muslims could then go out to the battle field, to be fried, bombed, burned, hacked, whacked, and bludgeoned, stabbed, shot and hopefully, at the end of the war, they would prevail and thus the True Religion would be safe, and the Muslim state would be saved.

It goes without saying that no god gets stabbed, burned or bombed, but then gods only ask humans to stab and get stabbed, to shoot and bomb and get shot and bombed when it is a ‘just war’. We know from experience that gods do nothing for anyone, other than of course to give them ‘feelings’ about certain things, perhaps a ‘word of knowledge’ that came to a Christian believer, but as everyone, including religious people knows full well, gods do nothing for anyone, and the most foolish thing a person can do is to trust in a god when the chips are down, when the going gets tough, when the situation is desperate. Even religious people know this, and that is why religious people are usually among the most vociferous war hawks, something I have been observing lately.

Now let us assume that Allah or the Christian God saw injustice was being done to the True Religion and the Faithful Saints. One could imagine the faithful and Chosen Ones to pray up to their god and no doubt strike terror into the hearts of the evil ones, the ungodly enemy of the True Religion and God’s Chosen People. We can imagine then that the first thought to enter the mind of a TRUE SAINT would be faithful trusting prayer and confident endurance followed, naturally, by DIVINE INTERVENTION. But religious people of all faiths are pragmatic types, and while all religion serves up platitudes regarding trust and the promises of god and so on, when the chips are down religions become WAR RELIGIONS and their gods become WAR GODS, because when the customs and the conventions and platitudes of religion are practiced, as they must be practiced, in the end religious people, much like the world’s most die-hard atheists, know better than to really trust in any god. Rather than call on a god, they will pound their pruning hooks into spears and go to war. Of course the conventional platitudes of religion must be maintained, because we are talking here about appearances and the customs and conventions must be maintained as customs and habits are, and so naturally while religious people go to war it is only natural that they cannot leave their god out of it, even though it is readily apparent that their god is in fact out of it, it being not a god going to war, after all, but religious people going to war, and so it has always been. Religious people will go to war by themselves, knowing better than to not go to war and trust in some god, but they will pray to their war god to bless their armies, and if they prevail in their war prayers and their war chaplains prevail in blessing the bombers and bullets and the tanks, they will naturally thank their god for victory, war gods being the kinds of gods that religious people pray to while religious people go to warring, religious people being pragmatic atheists when push comes to shove after all, or so it seems. They know better than to pray to god for something more than blessings on tanks and bombs and bullets.

That religious people are in truth pragmatic atheists can be easily proven by simply suggesting to religious people preparing for war that they desist in warring and instead place their full one hundred per cent trust and confidence in their god for deliverance. Now anyone stupid enough to suggest such a thing to the religious followers of the religious war god will get scorned to shame and ridiculed no end, because religious people are to pragmatic, and to much the atheist in heart to actually really believe in the deliverance of a god. This is proven when they turn to bombs and bullets and begin going on about ‘just wars’ and just generally talking the religious holy war talk while walking the pragmatic godless war walk, knowing full well that if they trusted in god at a time like that or placed their safety and survival into the hands of some fickle and unreliable god they would be crushed to dust. They are pragmatic at the end of the day, but remarkably, as I have seen, even though religious people reject the notion of really trusting god, and go warring instead, while they are doing their own warring, they will continue as religious people do, to talk the talk, the religious talk, talk of ‘trusting a god’ and ‘believing a god’s word’ and so on, when it comes to the mundane affairs of ordinary life. It turns out that a god who can’t be trusted or relied on for anything really important, say in times of war or danger, can still be remarkably reliable when it comes to giving a word of knowledge or guiding churches in their everyday lives, their quest for that better job or ‘healing for that relationship’ or whatever else. Gods, it turns out, are constantly busy, reports pour in of their many conversations and their divine protections in ordinary life, about the only time gods turn out to be completely useless being when religious people go off to war.

Now no god ever gets butchered. You can’t drop a bomb down a god’s smoke stack. You can’t kill a god’s family by bombing them from the air (while of course going on about how unfortunate it was that you killed god’s family, but then, being moral pragmatists, churches will remind you of how people do die in wars, after all, that’s just the way it is). People die in wars. God’s do not die in wars. God’s usually don’t even show up for wars, thus making it less likely that a god might get burned, napalmed, shot, speared, skewered, disembowelled, exploded or mangled. People get mangled, burned, hacked to death, shot, bombed and tortured in wars, which is what happens in wars, after all, and therefore, if we are being realistic and pragmatic atheists, we should realize that and just accept it.

Just as an interesting experiment I propose that someone should try preaching zealous godliness to churches in the middle of their warring, and thus determine once and for all if it really is true that churches are in fact pragmatic atheists for whom religion consists of nothing more than orderly society, habit, custom and dogma memorized off by heart. You could for example suggest to the True Saints following The One True Religion who know personally The One True God (the one true War God) well you could suggest to them that rather than going warring themselves they might pray up to that ever present ever listening ever involved god of theirs for divine intervention and divine protection. Instead of going warring and then asking god to bless the war effort, as war gods do, you might ask them to pray for that war god to go warring itself for a change, you know, so religious saints could stay home rather than getting barbequed on some battle field themselves, something gods never have to do, but rather, being war gods after all, expect people to do instead (it’s called holy war, because it was endorsed and encouraged by a war god, who never shows up for wars in person, and certainly never does the fighting, which would be a lot easier, and a lot quicker too, that thing being a god after all, , but rather a war god prefers to watch wars, as people do in suburbia, and maybe, just maybe, if enough prayers are said, to shift battles one way or the other).

So if it was true that say Allah was concerned that the Muslim state was in danger, or the Christian War God was concerned for the safety of America and the Christian faith, well one could expect Allah or that Christian War God to get up off the throne and do something about in person, instead of sending a bunch of religious people out to warring, something that will take years and years and cause horror and sufferings on the earth, which is what wars are, after all, and something people do, not gods. One could expect the faithful True Believer, the devout Muslim or Christian to think first of the thundering divine interventions of their god and the immediate salvation and deliverance of The Chosen Ones, turning in every case to god in resolute trust in the certainty of deliverance and vindication. One could think like that, but in practice religious people are all the same, whatever name tag they wear or whatever name tag they hang on their god. They are pragmatic atheists who trust their god for nothing, who would mock to scorn any suggestion that maybe, instead of warring, they might trust their god. They know better than to do that, and that is why throughout history they never have, and they don’t do it today, and tomorrow is just another day.

They trust in their armies. They will ride on war horses, they will trust in swift horses. Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots, their arrows are sharp, all their bows bent, their horses‘ hoofs seem like flint, and their wheels like the whirlwind. For of Yahweh it was said, ‘in returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” And you would not, but instead you said, “No! We will speed upon horses,” therefore you shall speed away; and, “We will ride upon swift steeds,” therefore your pursuers shall be swift. A thousand shall flee at the threat of one, at the threat of five you shall flee, till you are left like a flagstaff on the top of a mountain, like a signal on a hill. Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on war horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but forget about their God. The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. They lay hold on bow and spear, they are cruel and have no mercy, the sound of them is like the roaring sea; they ride upon horses. But I will have pity on the house of Judah, and I will deliver them by YAHWEH their God; I will not deliver them by bow, nor by sword, nor by war, nor by horses, nor by horsemen. Assyria shall not save us, we will not ride upon horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands. In thee the orphan finds mercy. He who handles the bow shall not stand, and he who is swift of foot shall not save himself, nor shall he who rides the horse save his life. And in that day, says YAHWEH, I will cut off your war horses from among you and will destroy your war chariots. I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the war chariots and their riders; and the war horses and their riders shall go down, everyone by the sword of his fellow. On that day, says YAHWEH, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




July 2015

Blog Stats

  • 1,475,975 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 809 other followers

%d bloggers like this: