Books 2016

The Unspoken-of History of the Pre-Umayyad 'Righteous' Caliphs

SECTION II: The Cunning of Qorayish Tribesmen Led to the Arab Conquests

CHAPTER I: Arab Conquests Companions Were Fashioned by the Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe, and Not by Islam: 39

Introduction: The Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe. 39

Firstly: Moses' Pharaoh's People Were Imams of All Tyrants and So Were Qorayish

Tribesmen. 40

Secondly: The Qorayish and the Pharaonic Tyranny. 41

Thirdly: The Fearsomeness of Moses' Pharaoh and the Fearsomeness of Qorayish. 41

Fourthly: The Cunning of Moses' Pharaoh and the Cunning of Qorayish. 42

Fifthly: Plotting and Conspiring of Ancient People. 44

Lastly. 44

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Agents Sent by Qorayish to Spy on Muhammad and to Remain Near him: 46

Introduction: Between the Pharaonic Cunning and the Qorayish Cunning. 46

Firstly: It Is Noteworthy. 46

Secondly: The Various Types of the Qorayish Cunning that Could Eliminate Mountains. 48

Thirdly: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Driving Early Muslims out of Mecca. 49

Fourthly: Planting Spying Agents around Muhammad. 50

Lastly. 52

CHAPTER III: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Manipulating Bedouins against Muhammad and the Early Muslims: 54

Firstly: A Summary of the Quranic Chapter Eight. 54

Secondly: The Qorayish Cunning and the Manipulation of Bedouins to Fight Muhammad. 57

CHAPTER IV: The Cunning of Qorayish behind the First Civil Wars: 61

Firstly: The Calm before the Storm. 61

Secondly: Qorayish Made Use of Islam to Dominate over Arabia after Loss of the Importance of Mecca in Trade. 62

Thirdly: Evidence from Written Historical Accounts. 63

Lastly. 66

CHAPTER V: Abou Sufyan Was the Head of the Qorayish Cunning: 68

Firstly: Abou Sufyan the Director. 68

Secondly: Overlooking the Role of Abou Sufyan in Plotting against Muhammad in Mecca. 69

Thirdly: The Stature of Abou Sufyan inside and outside Mecca at the Time. 71

Fourthly: Abou Sufyan restored his Stature after a late Conversion to Islam. 72

Fifthly: Abou Sufyan Coveted the Levant.

74

CHAPTER VI: Khaled And Amr Were Agents of Abou Sufyan 76

Firstly: The Cunning of Abou Sufyan that Could Eliminate Mountains. 76

Secondly: Between Amr and Khaled. 76

Thirdly: Amr Ibn Al-'As. 78

Fourthly: Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, and Historical Accounts about him linked to Muhammad. 78

Lastly. 80

SECTION III: The Cunning of Qorayish with Arab Conquests Companions 82

CHAPTER I: Omar Was the Primary Agent of Abou Sufyan 82

Introduction: Which Is More Precious and Holy: Islam or Omar, or rather, The Quran or the Falsehoods of the Sunnite Accounts that Deify and Sanctify Omar? 82

Firstly: We Begin by Stressing Some Quranic Facts. 82

Secondly: Abou Jahl Was the Maternal Uncle of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. 84

Thirdly: Omar's Sudden Conversion to Islam. 84

Fourthly: The Joy of Early Muslims due to Omar's Conversion to Islam. 86

Fifthly: The Relation between Omar and Abou Sufyan during Muhammad's Lifetime.

88

CHAPTER II: Omar during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr: 90

Introduction: A Vision Concerning the Plotting of Abou Sufyan. 90

Firstly: Omar Was the Orchestrator of Appointing Abou Bakr as Caliph and Marginalizing of Yathreb Dwellers, and How Omar Killed Saad Ibn Eibada. 90

Secondly: Omar and the Marginalization of Ali and the Hashemites. 92

Thirdly: Omar Threatened to Burn down the House of Ali and his wife Fatima. 92

Fourthly: When Did Ali Swore Allegiance and Fealty to Abou Bakr? 93

Fifthly: Depriving Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad the Prophet, from her Inheritance. 93

Sixthly: Omar Was the De Facto Ruler during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr and to the Benefit of Abou Sufyan. 94

Lastly. 95

CHAPTER III: Omar Was the Murderer of Abou Bakr: 96

Firstly: The Mysterious and Sudden Death of Abou Bakr. 96

Secondly: The Assassination of Abou Bakr by Poisoning. 96

Thirdly: Omar Was the Murderer of Abou Bakr. 97

Fourthly: Omar Speedily Buried Abou Bakr at Night with No Funeral. 97

Fifthly: Omar Speedily Confiscated Treasury of Abou Bakr. 98

CHAPTER IV: Khaled Was the Reason behind the Assassination of Abou Bakr: 102

Introduction. 102

Firstly: Abou Bakr Refused to Dismiss Khaled because he killed Malik Ibn Nuweira. 103

Secondly: Victories and Spoils of Khaled in Iraq. 104

Thirdly: The Wealth of Khaled and the Insult directed to Abou Sufyan Were the Direct Causes of the assassination of Abou Bakr. 104

Fourthly: The Movement of Khaled from Iraq to the Levant and his Dismissal. 105

Fifthly: The Mysterious Death of Khaled. 106

CHAPTER V: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr:

Introduction. 108

Firstly: The Violation of Islamic Sharia within Arab Conquests during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr. 108

Secondly: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr and his Conquests. 110

Thirdly: The Reason Why the Arabs Were Victorious in their Conquests. 112

Lastly. 112

CHAPTER VI: Abou Sufyan during the Caliphate of Omar: 114

Firstly: Omar Became Caliph Once Abou Bakr Was Buried. 114

Secondly: Omar Controlled Governors by Confiscations, Beatings, and Dismissal. 115

Thirdly: The 'Just' Omar Favored Mu'aweiya. 117

CHAPTER VII: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Omar:

Introduction. 119

Firstly: Examples Showing How Omar Violated the Sacred Months while Conquering

Persia. 119

Secondly:Examples Showing How Omar Violated the Sacred Months while Conquering

Egypt. 121

Thirdly: The Divine Punishment for Omar and the Arabs. 121

SECTION IV: The Cunning of Qorayish and the Major Civil War 125

CHAPTER I: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Othman: 125

Firstly: Conquered Countries Suffer Worse Conditions during the Caliphate of Othman. 125

Secondly: Conspiracy of Appointing Othman as Caliph instead of Ali. 126

Thirdly: The Reasons of Why a Revolt against Omar Was Impossible. 128

Fourthly: The Inevitability of Revolt against Othman. 129

Fifthly: The Plotting of Qorayish against Othman. 130

CHAPTER II: Divine Punishment for Othman: 133

Firstly: Summary of Events of the Revolt against Othman. 133

Secondly: Historical Accounts of the Death and Burial of Othman. 135

Lastly. 136

CHAPTER III: The Caliphate of Ali and the Divine Punishment in the Battle of the Camel: 138

Introduction: This is the Major Civil War We Are still Living its Darkness and Dire

Results 138

Firstly: Lines about the Caliphate of Ali from "Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" by the Historian Ibn Saad. 140

Secondly: The Analysis of the Battle of the Camel as a Divine Punishment. 142

Lastly. 144

CHAPTER IV: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Ali during the Battle of Siffein: 146

Introduction. 146

Firstly: The Battle of Siffein. 146

Secondly: Arbitration. 148

Thirdly: After the Battle of Siffein. 149

Fourthly:The Violation of the Sacred Months by Ali and Mu'aweiya during the Battle of

Siffein. 150

Fifthly: The Murder of Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr in Egypt in the Sacred Month of Saffer,

in 38 A.H.

150

CHAPTER V: Ali the Caliph Was a Failure, Defeated by the Rules of his Era:

Introduction: The Evaluation of Ali. 152

Firstly: Between Mu'aweiya the Secular and Ali who Mixed Politics with

Religion. 152

Secondly: Between the Genius of Ali in Sex and the Genius of Mu'aweiya in

Politics. 154

Thirdly: An Example to Politically Compare between Ali and Mu'aweiya. 156

Fourthly: Examples Showing Ali's Political Failure. 157

Lastly. 159

CONCLUSION 160

ANNEXES I, II, and III: Answering Protests against Our Writing on the Topic of Historical Accounts Concerning Arab Conquests Companions 164

INTRODCTION

1- We know quite well that those who never read our previous writings will get extremely shocked to read this book; most people live, like their ancestors for the past centuries, venerating, revering, and worshipping the so-called 'righteous' caliphs, the four ones before the Umayyad Dynasty. Another centuries-old falsehood is to sanctify and honor the Arab conquests and naming them, falsely, as 'Islamic' wars. We ourselves used to be enslaved to this erroneous line of thought when we were a student at Al-Azhar University until we received the Ph.D. degree and authored 11 books. We have freed our mind from such falsehoods using our belief in the Quran, as we have used it as the sole criterion and yard-stick to judge heritage, traditions, and history of the Muhammadans and their earthly, man-made, and fabricated creeds. Once we rejected such falsehoods, we have written a research titled "The Unspoken of History of Omar in the Sunnite Thought", for which we have been rewarded with thousands of curses in messages coming from those who deify Omar. We have received such curses despite that we, as usual, write while quoting Sunnite ancient sources and then use the Quran to judge such historical accounts. Those who protest against our writings on this topic feel the crisis acutely; they cannot deny the Quran, and at the same time, they would not dare to contradict and refute traditional heritage sources. The only thing left for them to do is to curse us, verbally abuse us, and declare us as infidel and apostate who rejected Islam! We discern that such response is a sign of our success in showing our foes as weak, insulting ignoramuses and in exposing the polytheism of deifying mortals, the gravest sin in the Quran, which shows that our message has come across and has shaken the minds to the core, resulting in a shock so big that they had nothing to do better than verbal abuse. Needless to say, they could not refute our writings, of course.

2- We fear that this book will shock and shake to the core the minds of those who never read our writings before, resulting in an avalanche of verbal abuse. Yet, we forgive in advance such persons; we hope that after calming themselves down after the shock, they would re-read the book calmly without any sort of agitation. After a second perusal of all the Quranic verses in this book as well as the historical events mentioned in it, quoted from authoritative and acknowledged Sunnite books, the readers will discern that we have done our duty as a Quranist researcher in history and in the Quran, seeking reform and asking no reward from anyone. Our only wish is to gain the reward in Heaven from God the Almighty in the Last Day. May God come to the aid of all of us.

An Introduction to SECTION I

SECTION I: Companions of Arab Conquests: An Introduction to SECTION I

The Qorayish tribe felt animosity and enmity toward Islam, as per its worldly venal interests and calculations; yet, conditions at the time in the 7^th century Arabia forced Qorayish to convert to Islam ostentatiously to preserve its worldly material gains and interests. Qorayish manipulated Islam to commit the worst atrocious crime perpetrated by the so-called companions of the Prophet Muhammad, after his death, which was the Arab conquest of several neighboring countries around Arabia in the Ancient World, and to ascribe such crime to the name of Islam by deeming them as 'Islamic' wars waged on 'infidels' to subdue all nations! In fact, such conquests were a rejection and a denial of real Islam, the Quran, and Qorayish waged such wars of conquest to serve its purpose of leading and controlling most of the countries known at the time. Such invasions were also the foundation of major civil wars among Arabs, led by the remaining ones among the Arab conquests companions. Arabs of today are still walking in the dark tunnel of civil wars; major civil wars that followed Arab conquests after the death of Muhammad were the factor that led to establishment of earthly, man-made, and fabricated creeds of the Muhammadans later on. Another result was the bad habit of sanctifying and deifying the four so-called 'righteous' caliphs, by the Sunnites, and the deifying of one of them, Ali, by the Shiites. Those four caliphs ruled before the emergence of the Umayyad Dynasty later on. Qorayish won by leading the Arab conquests transient material gains and fame immortalized in history, but it caused real Islam to get lost, making the room for the establishment of the Sunnite and Shiite creeds, which have nothing to do with Islam. Qorayish is history now; it no longer exists, but its crimes against Arabs and Islam still badly influences Arabs of today, until this very moment, causing Arabs to lose this life in the transient world and the Eternal Life in Paradise, as well. We mean by Qorayish the wealthy and mighty men of power in it, more specifically the Umayyads, who were treacherous toward early Muslims and fought Muhammad. The Umayyads readily and speedily controlled the so-called companions, once Muhammad died, as well as all men in Arabia from behind the curtains. They were the ones to urge Arabs to commit the crime of conquering other nations and then to fall into the trap of major civil wars, and thus, the Umayyads reached their goal of dominating and ruling all Arabs/Muslims and to establish the Umayyad Dynasty caliphate and Empire. In this book, we summarize all such events within the Quran and within historical accounts. In SECTION I, we begin by letting readers get to know, in four chapters, the reality of the Arab conquests companions.

CHAPTER I: Arab Conquests Were the Basis and Launch of Violation

Firstly: Arab Conquests Were a Violation of both Self-Defense Fighting Legislation in the Quran and the Sacred Months.

1- Arab conquests led to two types of terrible violations and transgressions under the leadership of the first three caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman; the first type is the violation of Islamic sharia when Arabs committed aggressions against peaceful nations that never fought Arabs inside or outside Arabia. Fighting in the Quran is urged ONLY in cases of self-defense. The other type of violation is fighting during the sacred months that God has ordered in the Quran not to fight in their duration. Arab conquests breached the peace of both the sacred months and the other months of the lunar calendar, for years and generations, until the notion of the sacred months was overlooked and forgotten totally. When Abbasid scholars and theologians remembered this notion, they mistook in the names of such months. These months are described in the Quran as the ones known for the duration of pilgrimage season. Abbasids thought the four sacred moths were Rajab that stands alone in the calendar and then the three consecutive ones: Zu Al-Qeida, Zu Al-Hijja, and Muharram. We, Quranists, maintain that the four sacred months are consecutive and one can perform pilgrimage during anytime in them: Zu Al-Qeida, Zu Al-Hijja, Muharram, and Saffer. Even Arabs forgot at all about the order of not to fight during these sacred months, once Muhammad died. This breach and violation go on until modern times now. Civil wars among Arabs in the 7^th and 8^th centuries A.D. overlooked the notion of the sacred months when God prohibits fighting. In modern times now, wars waged in the Arab and 'Muslim' world, wars going on or stopping for a short while, never heed the sacred months, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Tunis, and Chechnya. Even the terrorist MB group members in Egypt began their one-year rule of Egypt by killing peaceful protesters in the sacred month of Muharram. Violation of the sacred months will go on because it is supported by the earthly, man-made, fabricated creeds of the Sunnites, Wahabis, Shiites, Salafists that wage wars against God and the Quran.

2- Let us remind readers of the Quranic verses that assert that fighting is reserved ONLY for cases of self-defense and that aggression against peaceful non-violent people is a crime and a grave sin in Islam. "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190). Hence, peaceful non-believers in the Quran who hold different faith from us, or even who have no faith or religion at all, should be treated peacefully and justly and charitably, NOT by occupying and conquering their countries and lands, killing them, looting their money and possession, and enslaving their women and children. "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable.But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends-these are the wrongdoers." (60:8-9). This means that fighting is exclusively resorted to in cases of defending oneself against unjust aggressors, and allying with such enemies is forbidden and prohibited.

3- God in the Quran allows self-defense fighting even during the sacred months, as Qorayish used to follow early Muslims in Yathreb to kill, fight, and attack them even during the sacred months. Hence, God allows believers to defend themselves anytime if they were attacked during the sacred months: "They ask you about fighting during the Holy Month. Say, "Fighting during it is deplorable; but to bar others from God's path, and to disbelieve in Him, and to prevent access to the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it, are more deplorable with God. And persecution is more serious than killing. They will not cease to fight you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can…" (2:217), "The sacred month for the sacred month; and sacrilege calls for retaliation. Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God, and know that God is with the righteous." (2:194).

Secondly: Arab Conquests Companions Were More Infidel than Men of Pre-Islamic Era and their Postponement of Months

1- God says the following about the sacred months and how injustices are absolutely prohibited in their duration: "The number of months, according to God, is twelve months-in the decree of God-since the Day He created the heavens and the earth, of which four are sacred. This is the correct religion. So do not wrong yourselves during them…" (9:36). This means that military aggression is prohibited; yet, Arab conquests that began once Muhammad died were atrocities that included invading lands, occupying cities and villages, vandalism, looting, massacres, enslavement, mass killings, etc. such horrendous crimes were perpetrated by the so-called companions who were contemporary with Muhammad's lifetime and during the sacred months as well.

2- It is strange that pre-Islamic era Arabs used to honor the four sacred months of pilgrimage and never fought one another during them; their sin as far as the sacred months are concerned was postponement of them for days as per their whims to allow fighting at will. God considers this act as blasphemous and a sign of disbelief and lack of faith. Hence, such bad habit was urged by Satan and his devils, and it barred the way to guidance: "Postponement is an increase in disbelief-by which those who disbelieve are led astray. They allow it one year, and forbid it another year, in order to conform to the number made sacred by God, thus permitting what God has forbidden. The evil of their deeds seems good to them. God does not guide the disbelieving people." (9:37).

3- Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali of course had read 9:37, and all of them acted against it all their lives. They are the leaders of Arab conquests, and they lacked guidance as they breached the divine law of the Quran and ignored it on purpose for material and political gains. One cannot compare between 1) the intermittent limited Arab tribes raids in Arabia within the sacred months and 2) the flagrant aggressions and transgressions of Arab conquests in Africa, Asia, and Europe that caused massacres, mass-killings, enslavement of human beings, and looting of immense wealth along with other untold tragedies occurring to millions of innocents in the 1^st century A.H., let alone the gravest injustice done to God by the Arab conquests companions: they had done such crimes in the name of Islamic jihad. They applied Quranic terminology to justify their crimes even during major and minor civil wars. Generation, one after another, followed their footsteps in conquering nations and in civil wars and internecine strife. We maintain that Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and the rest of warlords at the time will carry the sins of those who imitated them in later eras in such crimes and misguidance until the Last Day. It is an impossibility that Arab conquests companions had repented, and the same applies to their imitators. The reason: such crimes and atrocities were rendered unquestionable within earthly man-made creeds that supported them by calling massacres and looting as 'jihad'.

Thirdly: Arab Conquests Were the Foundations of the Earthly, Man-Made Creeds of the Muhammadans

1- Arab conquests resulted in forming a big Arab empire ruled by Qorayish within 1) the four pre-Umayyad caliphs (the so-called 'righteous' caliphs by the Sunnites), 2) the caliphs of the Umayyad Dynasty, 3) the caliphs of the Abbasid Dynasty, and 4) the caliphs of the Fatimid Dynasty. The foundation of such an empire was a flagrant violation of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and its sharia that is based on peace, justice, charity, and freedom. Such conquests led Bedouins of Arabia to lead the world known at the time and to control many regions among the richest location on earth with countless treasures confiscated by Arabs. It was impossible for Arabs to leave such conquered lands and return to Arabian deserts to repent for their grave sins committed against Islam and God on one hand, and against the conquered nations on the other hand. In 9:37, we see that postponement and change in dates of sacred months is deemed sacrilege and disbelief, what about the crimes and atrocities of Arab conquests? The disbelief of the companions who committed such Arab conquests was so vile and horrible; such aggressions, massacres, looting, and violations of the sacred months as well were crimes ascribed by them to Islam, when they called such crimes as Islamic jihad.

2- Arab conquests companions and those who follow their footsteps in misguidance and misleading ways were occupied by rule and civil wars during and outside the four sacred months, and they consequently had no time to create false religious legislation to justify their crimes. Hence, they were so engaged fully in aggression, violations, injustices, and transgression deemed disbelief in terms of behavior that their grandchildren settled in the Abbasid era to create theological legislations to justice such injustices and violations and writing them down, resulting in the emergence of full-fledged earthly, man-made, fabricated creeds: 1) the Sunnite one that reflects Arabs and their hegemony, 2) the Shiite one that reflects the Persian chauvinism, and 3) the Sufi one that reflects the common peoples of the conquered nations.

3- In Sunnite sharia laws, fabricated hadiths, like the one urging fighting all human beings to convert them by force to Islam, are prevalent to justify crimes and atrocities. Arab conquests led to the formation of certain theological (fiqh or jurisprudence) terminology about the 'right' of Arabs to conquer lands by military force and aggression and to enslave its peoples, loot their possessions, and then rule these lands with oppressive power and might. Theologians, imams, and scholars wrote prolifically about such fabricated formulated legislations for centuries, frankly and with no conscience at all nor awareness. They overlooked the fact that such conquests are aggressive actions prohibited in the Quran. Hence, such legislations to justify crimes are prevalent now in books of history, fiqh, and caliphate ruling systems and decrees, etc. as 'normal' things and items, reflecting an earthly, man-made creed that is based on looting, hegemony, massacres, injustices, tyranny, oppression, and suppression. Such bad values are represented and applied no in modern times by Wahabism agents and its regimes in the KSA and the Gulf monarchies.

4- Let us quote an extract from a Sunnite ancient book to prove that the Sunnite legislation sharia contradicts Islam in the Quran. Al-Blathery writes the following in his book titled ''Conquests of Lands'' about legislations of tributes and taxes of lands: "1016- Abou Youssef said that any land confiscated by force in the Levant, Iraq, and other conquered lands should be divided by the caliph/imam between the conquering soldiers, and its people are their slaves, to pay tithes…". This quotation indicates that the nations of the conquered lands were enslaved for one reason: the so-called companions took their lands by sheer military force! As if this reason is enough to confiscate lands of conquered nations and prohibit their owning lands, owned solely by the caliph/tyrant! This tyrant preserved to himself the right to distribute such lands among his soldiers and enslave the native dwellers! Let us copy another quotation from the same source: "If the imam/ruler does not distribute lands among Muslims in general as Omar done with Iraq, all native dwellers are to pay tribute and land taxes, while rendering themselves free men and not slaves…". The author here quotes Abou Youssef, the famous imam of the Hanafi doctrine and the head judge during the early years of the Abbasid caliphate, and this theologian never quoted any Quranic verses at all and never formulated a hadith to support his erroneous views: it seems that personal fatwas at the time were sufficient in creeds of unjust tyrants who owned and controlled creeds, clergymen, theologians, judges, scholars, and imams.

Fourthly: Arab Conquests Companions Were More Infidel than Disciples of Jesus

1- We have explained a lot before that Islam has two meanings 1) in terms of belief/faith and 2) in terms of behavior/demeanor. As for faith, this is how one deals with God with submission to His Maker and to worship Allah with no other gods, partners, or associates: "…My prayer and my worship, and my life and my death, are devoted to God, the Lord of the Worlds." (6:162). This aspect of faith is linked to each believer's relation with God, based on the freedom of choice between belief and disbelief, and no one has the right to interfere in this relation. Each of us is responsible for our choices before the Almighty in the Last Day. The aspect of behavior in Islam is peace; each peaceful person is a Muslim, regardless of this person's formal faith beliefs, doctrine, or denomination or even lack of any faith/creed. People only have the right to judge demeanors of others: are they peaceful persons or aggressive criminals? Human and divine laws preserve human rights against transgressions and violations committed by some persons. Hence, polytheism/disbelief has two aspects of meaning as well: in terms of faith, they mean covering innate, sound nature wired into us that makes us believe in God, by a cover of partners, saints, associates, and deities worshipped by polytheists alongside with God. God is the Sole Judge of such matters among people in the Day of Resurrection; because in matters of faith, adherents of any denomination think they are on the right and others are on the wrong. What we focus on here is the meaning of polytheism/disbelief in terms of behavior: i.e., aggressive behavior and unjust, oppressive demeanor committed by human beings against innocent human beings. Such crimes, violations, and transgressions have to be stopped and judged and punished in this life before the Hereafter, in order to preserve human rights and social ones as well. Qorayish combined both meaning of polytheism/disbelief: in terms of faith and behavior. God says about this attitude the following verse: "Those who disbelieve spend their wealth to repel from God's path. They will spend it, then it will become a source of sorrow for them, and then they will be defeated. Those who disbelieve will be herded into Hell." (8:36). The worst kind of repelling people from the path of God is military aggression against innocent people. This crime was committed by Qorayish in Yathreb with early Muslims, and God has proposed to them to stop aggressive fighting in return for forgiveness: "" (8:38-39). After Muhammad's death, Qorayish returned to its bad habits and ways by committing aggression against peaceful people who never attacked the tribe, as Qorayish was aiming to loot, enslave, rape, occupy, conquer, confiscate, tyrannize, and dominate.

2- Below, we hold a comparison between companions of Muhammad and companions of Jesus, as both mostly believed and then rejected belief and faith once each prophet died. Yet, the type of disbelief differed in each case.

Some of the companions, or rather disciples, of Jesus fell into the trap of disbelief and polytheism in terms of faith; some of them betrayed and forsook Jesus, as Christian history tells us. The Quran tells us about how some disciples disbelieved in terms of faith and heart, and how they turned away from the true faith of ''there is no God but Allah'': "When Jesus sensed disbelief on their part, he said, "Who are my allies towards God?" The disciples said, "We are God's allies; we have believed in God, and bear witness that we submit." "Our Lord, we have believed in what You have revealed, and we have followed the Messenger, so count us among the witnesses." They planned, and God planned; but God is the Best of planners. " (3:52-54). God has ordered companions of Muhammad to be lime the good ones among companions of Jesus: "O you who believe! Be supporters of God, as Jesus son of Mary said to the disciples, "Who are my supporters towards God?" The disciples said, "We are God's supporters." So a group of the Israelites believed, while another group disbelieved. We supported those who believed against their foe, so they became dominant." (61:14). Yet, things changed later on and Jesus was deified. This type of disbelief in terms of faith was NOT accompanied by and aggression or disbelief in terms of behavior, due to the peaceful nature of Christians at the time.

This is contrasted with the case of Arabs, who used to live as warring tribes before Islam, gaining their livelihood from fighting and raids as tribesmen were soldiers as well in cases of military attacks and defense. Hence, we understand how and why companions of Muhammad readily and speedily, once Muhammad died, turned Islam the religion of peace into a religion of military aggression and conquests, as per the Qorayish habits and traditions and its ardent desire to be dominant over all people and lands. Qorayish readily practiced disbelief in terms of behavior by committing aggressions against those who never attacked Qorayish before. Arab conquests were a rejection of Islam and a wave of blasphemous violation against the Quran. Later on, imams and scholars and theologians justified and legalized such aggressions and disbelief in terms of demeanor, resulting in creating disbelief notions in terms of faith that formulated the major three earthly, man-made, and fabricated creeds of the Muhammadans. Hence, disbelief in terms of faith and demeanor were combined. Heavy price was paid in the major Arab civil wars that followed the Arab conquests. Sadly, Arabs and Muhammadans of today follow the footsteps of their forefathers!

Lastly: Cool your Nerves:

1- This sudden reversal and speedy turnabout of the Arab conquests companions once Muhammad died entails a detailed research. Of course, this issue has its grounds and roots inside the hearts of such companions; yet, the divine revelation given to Muhammad prevented such companions from divulging their innermost desires. Once Muhammad died, all hidden secrets were made to be known to all. This gap, unmentioned in history, emerges clear in our mind once we remember that God describes in the Quran the Meccan immigrants to Yathreb once they settled there after being expelled by Qorayish as the 'people of the Holy Mosque': "They ask you about fighting during the Holy Month. Say, "Fighting during it is deplorable; but to bar others from God's path, and to disbelieve in Him, and to prevent access to the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it, are more deplorable with God. And persecution is more serious than killing…" (2:217). After about ten years, the companions of the Arab conquests were certainly among those immigrants to Yathreb, and they preached and violated the sacred months and the Islamic legislations in the Quran. This sudden reversal in attitude requires an explanation.

2- There hypocrites in Yathreb at the time among the tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, who exposed themselves and their attitudes within their words, deeds, stances, and conspiracies. The Quranic verses have exposed their deeds and warned them; such known hypocrites used to fear the Quranic revelation that divulges their thoughts: "The hypocrites worry lest a Quranic chapter may be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Go on mocking; God will bring out what you fear" (9:64). Such a type of hypocrites was known to Muhammad by their words, stances, and deeds, and that is why we find this verse about their jesting and why God never accepts the repentance of some of them: "If you ask them, they will say, "We were just joking and playing." Say, "Were you making jokes about God, His revelations, and His Messenger?" Do not apologize. You have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others, because they are guilty." (9:65-66). Such hypocrites in their declared and announced opposition to the Islamic city-state used the absolute freedom provided by the Quran within peaceful oppositional acts by speech, calling, preaching, and urging others, men and women, in Yathreb, with no impunity in this life, as eternal afterlife punishment is enough in the Last Day: "The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They advocate evil, and prohibit righteousness, and withhold their hands. They forgot God, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are the sinners. God has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women, and the disbelievers, the Fire of Hell, abiding therein forever. It is their due. And God has cursed them. They will have a lasting punishment." (9:67-68).

3- Apart from the spectra of known hypocrites as a category of Yathreb dwellers, there were other types of hypocrites who were not known as they hid their hypocrisy very well lest they might get exposed via Quranic verses: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Medina too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will be returned to a severe torment." (9:101). Once Muhammad died, they were no longer afraid of being exposed via the Quranic revelations, and they made good use of their positions as close associates and companions of Muhammad in his lifetime, with certain stature among ordinary Arabs. Such men were shrewd, sly, and cunning enough to deceive Muhammad and the rest of believers for a long time, and they assumed leadership after Muhammad's death, and that is why history mentions their names, for they were the leaders and companions of the Arab conquests!

4- This means that such companions caused the worst crime against Islam that led to the rejection of the Quran: the conquests that led to Arab occupation of several nations. Such companions died within hypocrisy as well as animosity toward the Quran and Islam and Muslims without repentance at all; see 9:67-68. These verses show they would be tormented twice: in this life and in the Hereafter. Historically, we know that their punishment was the Arab major successive civil wars that caused the death of thousands of them. Another punishment in this life for them was individual torment for each of them, like being seriously ill or something, but we know little of this aspect; God is the Omniscient One.

5- The above points entail a fully detailed explanation, which in turn requires cool nerves, if you read on the next chapters!

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among the Forerunners and Those on the Right

Firstly: Types of Companions between the Quran and History:

1- Shortly before Muhammad's death, God has revealed in the Quranic Chapter nine that the contemporaries of Muhammad, or the so-called companions of the prophet, vary in degrees in terms of deeds and faith. Some of them were forerunners in good faith and good deeds among immigrants to Yathreb and its dwellers, some mixed bad deeds with good ones whom God may accept their repentance, some whom God has postponed His judgment, pardon or punishment, on them until their acceptable repentance or lack of it before their death, and some were the hypocrites. The last category is divided into two major types: those whose deeds and words exposed their hypocrisy and conspiring nature and those who hid their feelings of animosity toward Islam. God has warned both types against torment in this life and the Hereafter in case of non-repentance. The Quranic Chapter nine begins with denouncing and disowning Qorayish polytheists and disbelievers who preached their treaty with believers and Muhammad and were bent to expel them out of Mecca. God gives believers the period of four moths of pilgrimage to wait, and then they are urged to begin self-defense fighting, and warned against making allies with aggressive polytheists of Qorayish.

2- The Quran tells us about descriptions of the so-called companions without naming any of them, in contrast to historical accounts that define names, events, location and time details. The leading companions in history are the so-called 'righteous' four caliphs as well as the Arab conquests companions.

3- We, Quranists, use the Quran as the sole criterion and measure-stick to judge deeds of the Arab conquests companions, written and registered in Sunnite authoritative books, trying to understand the reasons behind this sudden reversal against Islam committed by the Arab conquests companions once Muhammad died. Among the worst manifestations of such reversal was the violation of the four sacred months in a worst manner in comparison to pre-Islam Arabs. Such conquests led to the establishment of empires headed by Qorayish tribesmen, and Qorayish became the most famous tribe worldwide at the time. Yet, such conquests were against the Quran and deemed a flagrant violation of its teachings, and the Arab conquests companions have entered a dark satanic tunnel with all early Muslims due to such deeds, and never emerged out of this tunnel until this very moment. The reason: such conquests have led to the establishment of the devilish sharia legislations of the earthly, man-made, fabricated creeds of the Muhammadans who worship mortals and things and violated the peace of the holy mosque at Mecca and its Kaabah shrine and disturbed the peace imposed during the four sacred months of pilgrimage as well. Most of the Arab conquests companions are being worshiped and deified now by the followers of the Muhammadan creeds; we note the fright of the Arab readers of this book as evidence of that type of polytheistic worship and reverence. Criticism of such companions of the Arab conquests is deemed blasphemous in the Sunnite creed! They are being worshipped and sanctified as saints who were infallible! We begin below with types of companions mentioned in the Quran.

Secondly: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among the Forerunners from the Immigrants and the Yathreb Dwellers:

1- God says in the Quran: "The forerunners - the first of the Migrants and the Supporters, and those who followed them in righteousness. God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens beneath which rivers flow, where they will abide forever. That is the sublime triumph." (9:100). The term ''forerunners'' here does NOT mean those who converted to Islam before the rest; as the terms include dwellers of Yathreb thought they converted to Islam later on and the verse includes ''those who followed them in righteousness'', and hence, piety is what counts here. Hence, the intended meaning here is acceptable faith and good deeds by pious and devout ones, preserved until death, with no polytheism in terms of behavior and in terms of faith, with no grave sins committed; thus, they died in piety: "But the pious are amidst gardens and springs. Receiving what their Lord has given them. They were virtuous before that. They used to sleep a little at night. And at dawn, they would pray for pardon. And in their wealth, there was a share for the beggar and the deprived." (51:15-19).

2- Such forerunners among immigrants and Yathreb dwellers and those who follow their example in piety and righteousness will be forerunners of all humanity in general in the Last Day, as all people will be subdivided s per faith and deeds in the Last Day into three categories: "And you become three classes. Those on the Right-what of those on the Right? And those on the Left-what of those on the Left? And the forerunners, the forerunners. Those are the nearest. In the Gardens of Bliss. A throng from the ancients. And a small band from the latecomers." (56:7-14). What counts here is that when one dies, one's life would have been spent in good faith and good deeds, to be told by angels of death to rejoice the reward in Heaven: "But if he is one of those brought near. Then happiness, and flowers, and Garden of Delights."(56:88-89).

3- The same three categories that will subdivide human beings who believe in the Quran apply to the so-called companions: "Then We passed the Book to those of Our servants whom We chose. Some of them wrong their souls, and some follow a middle course, and some are in the foremost in good deeds by God's leave; that is the greatest blessing." (35:32). Hence, other this applies to coming generations as well: "The Gardens of Eden, which they will enter. They will be adorned therein with gold bracelets and pearls, and their garments therein will be of silk. And they will say, "Praise God, who has lifted all sorrow from us. Our Lord is Most Forgiving, Most Appreciative. He Who settled us in the Home of Permanence, by His grace, where boredom will not touch us, and fatigue will not afflict us."" (35:33-35). The Arab conquests companions and those who followed their footsteps deserve the punishment mentioned in this verse: "As for those who disbelieve, for them is the Fire of Hell, wherein they will never be finished off and die, nor will its punishment be lightened for them. Thus We will repay every ingrate. And they will scream therein, "Our Lord, let us out, and we will act righteously, differently from the way we used to act." Did We not give you a life long enough, in which anyone who wanted to understand would have understood? And the warner did come to you. So taste. The evildoers will have no helper." (35:36-37). Hence, they did not heed the Quranic warnings to guide themselves!

4- Base on Quranic verses, it is an impossibility to think that the forerunners described above were among the wayward lovers of worldly transient wealth and possessions who use politics and its corruption to become military leaders and tyrant rulers, as such lovers of wealth who seek superiority on earth never believe in God and in the Last Day: "That Home of the Hereafter-We assign it for those who seek no superiority on earth, nor corruption. And the outcome is for the cautious." (28:83).

5- There are those who are deemed 'great' in terms of history; history has been written via leaders, rulers, and 'heroes' whose deeds deemed deserving to be recorded, while millions of innocent victims of such military conquests are rarely mentioned in history. Thus, history mentions military conquests of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, Amr Ibn Al-'As, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler …etc. but it overlooks millions of victims massacred, enslaved, and ruined. As far as the Quran is concerned, such historical 'greatness' leads to Hell for eternity, as it does not go with the values of Islam in the Quran: justice, mercy, and peace. The real greatness in the Quran never cope with the notion that any individual would be deemed 'great' while sitting on top of pyramid made of thousands of human skulls! The worst of this crime is to justify it using God's religion, Islam, and its messenger, Muhammad, who was sent as a mercy for humankind, not to terrorize and massacre humankind.

6- It is impossible to think that history would readily record the lives of the forerunners in faith and piety, who remained obscure and lacked fame and renown; history usually cares ONLY for the famous criminal ones whose deeds change and move events: like tyrants who seek superiority on earth and use and maintain corruption. In our modern age, there are believers who follow the footsteps of the pious and righteous forerunners, never seeking fame, corruption, nor superiority, but history and media will never mention them, of course, as both care ONLY for the famous ones among rulers and corrupt clergymen as well as corrupt ones in all fields who own billions of ill-gotten money. Let us give an example to illustrate this: M. Morsi has been an unheeded and unnoticed brilliant student at his village at school and at university, and no one cared for him at the time, but once he became an MB member and later on a president of Egypt, his worst deeds that violated Egypt's security and tarnished the name of Islam, he became a media star and a historical figure among the worst in the history of Egypt!

7- Media and history never care about ordinary human beings unless they commit crimes or they were victims of crimes, mentioned in newspapers pages of accidents and crimes. As for pious non-hypocritical righteous persons who seek to gratify God and never seek fame, they would never be mentioned in media and history. This state of piety remains with them until the moment of their dying; they care only with good deeds and maintaining their deep faith and devoutness, never caring for the wayward ways of the transient world and its colorful varieties of riches and wealth. Thus were the forerunners among Yathreb dwellers and immigrants to it; they never attained fame and remained obscure soldiers of the Divine Truth, with no hypocrisy toward people, because they are devoted to God alone. Thus are those who follow their footsteps until they die. Both will be rewarded in Heaven.

8- In contrast, Arab conquests companions committed crimes like massacres, enslavement, looting, vandalism, rape, and various types of injustices against millions of victims in the name of Islam, in flagrant violation of the Quranic sharia laws. Such persons cannot possibly enjoy the blessings of God during the Last Day described in: "… God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens beneath which rivers flow, where they will abide forever. That is the sublime triumph." (9:100), as God does not like transgressors: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190). Since Arab conquests companions were unjust aggressors, God did not love them or was pleased with them, of course.

Thirdly: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among Those on the Right:

1- Those on the Right are those who mixed good deeds with bad ones and then their repentance is deemed acceptable by God: "Others have confessed their sins, having mixed good deeds with bad deeds. Perhaps God will redeem them. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (9:102). The word 'perhaps' is used because such type of believers was still alive during the Quranic revelation, and God gave them a chance to repent willingly on their own accord and keep this repentance for the rest of their lives until they die, in the following manner: "Receive contributions from their wealth, to purify them and sanctify them with it; and pray for them. Your prayer is comfort for them. God is Hearing and Knowing." (9:103). If they keep up piety and living in devoutness, angels of death will give peace while dying: "And if he is one of those on the Right, then, "Peace upon you," from those on the Right." (56:90-91). They will be in the second degree in Paradise, described in 56:27-40.

2- In accordance to historical accounts and records about Arab conquests companions, their crimes that included massacres, rape, looting, enslavement, and various injustices done to millions of innocent victims in the name of Islam are against the teachings of God in the Quranic sharia, and thus, such companions were never among those on the right nor among the forerunners, because they never repented; i.e., they lived and died within their crimes and injustices.

Fourthly: Why the Forerunners Were above those on the Right:

1- The forerunners are above in degree in comparison to those on the right, those who contemplate God's creation: "In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, are signs for people of understanding. Those who remember God while standing, and sitting, and on their sides; and they reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth: "Our Lord, You did not create this in vain, glory to You, so protect us from the punishment of the Fire." "Our Lord, whomever You commit to the Fire, You have disgraced. The wrongdoers will have no helpers." "Our Lord, we have heard a caller calling to the faith: `Believe in your Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, and remit our misdeeds, and make us die in the company of the virtuous." "Our Lord, and give us what You have promised us through Your messengers, and do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection. Surely You never break a promise."" (3:190-194). God answers them in the following verse that asserts that those who are above in degree are those who devoted their lives to God and adhered to the Truth and were persecuted and had to immigrate and engage in self-defense fighting, with some of them getting killed in the process: "And so their Lord answered them: "I will not waste the work of any worker among you, whether male or female. You are one of another. For those who emigrated, and were expelled from their homes, and were persecuted because of Me, and fought and were killed-I will remit for them their sins, and will admit them into gardens beneath which rivers flow-a reward from God. With God is the ultimate reward."" (3:195).

2- Giving away money readily for God's cause makes early believers vary in degree of piety and of Paradise levels, despite that both deserve Paradise: there are those on the right and those who are forerunners. God urges such spending for His sake and promises reward in Heaven: "And why is it that you do not spend in the cause of God, when to God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who contributed before the conquest, and fought. Those are higher in rank than those who contributed afterwards, and fought. But God promises both a good reward. God is Well Experienced in what you do. Who is he who will lend God a loan of goodness, that He may double it for him, and will have a generous reward?" (57:10-11).

3- Realistically even in Yathreb, there is no equality in reward between those who made jihad with money and self-defense fighting and those who remained behind, despite the fact that both were promised Paradise, but this is the difference between the forerunners and those on the right: "Not equal are the inactive among the believers-except the disabled-and the strivers in the cause of God with their possessions and their persons. God prefers the strivers with their possessions and their persons above the inactive, by a degree. But God has promised goodness to both. Yet God favors the strivers, over the inactive, with a great reward." (4:95).

Fifthly: The Forerunners and Those on the Right Were Unknown and Obscure, and Never among the Elite Leading Men like Arab Conquests Companions:

1- Our patriarchal, masculine culture dominant in our modern days is the reason behind our imagining that forerunners are among males only, forgetting that they include both genders as per the Quran itself: "Muslim men and Muslim women, believing men and believing women, obedient men and obedient women, truthful men and truthful women, patient men and patient women, humble men and humble women, charitable men and charitable women, fasting men and fasting women, men who guard their chastity and women who guard, men who remember God frequently and women who remember-God has prepared for them a pardon, and an immense reward." (33:35). We pose a question here: would such descriptions in 33:35 fir for those engaged in politics and seeking superiority on earth and corruption by deceiving the masses in Arabia to lead them into 'religious' conquests to loot, kill, confiscate, rape, enslave, destroy, and invade lands of others?!

2- Features of forerunners in the Quran are jihad with money and self for God's sake seeking God's gratification, NOT seeking transient aims like looting and tyranny. God has reproached contemporaries of Muhammad in battles: "…Some of you want this world, and some of you want the next…" (3:152), as some fought for God's sake and some fought for the sake of transient material considerations.

3- In general, fighting described here is in cases of self-defense against aggressors ONLY, for the sake of God and Quranic vales of religious freedom, justice for all, and Truth. As for fighting for the sake of possessions and wealth, against innocent persons who never fought them, this is deemed aggression and a grave injustice, and consequently for the sake of the Devil. There is no medial position here: fighting is of either type; it can never combine both types simultaneously. "Let those who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the cause of God. Whoever fights in the cause of God, and then is killed, or achieves victory, We will grant him a great compensation. And why would you not fight in the cause of God, and the helpless men, and women, and children, cry out, "Our Lord, deliver us from this town whose people are oppressive, and appoint for us from Your Presence a Protector, and appoint for us from Your Presence a Victor." Those who believe fight in the cause of God, while those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Evil. So fight the allies of the Devil. Surely the strategy of the Devil is weak." (4:74-76). Hence Arab conquests companions fought for the sake of transient life possessions and glory and wealth to rule and dominate and tyrannize, for the sake of the devil, and the same applies to those who follow their footsteps among modern-times Wahabis (Salafists and terrorist MB).

4- Despite anything written by historians on the topic of Qorayish empires created within Arab conquests, let us note that battles of Muhammad were exclusively self-defensive in nature; those who say otherwise deny the Quran and an enemy of Muhammad. Aggressive fighters are enemies of God; see 2:190, and Muhammad had never committed this sin, of course. Hence, all battles engaged by early obscure and unknown forerunner believers with good faith and deeds alongside with Muhammad were for the sake of self-defense, with efforts and money spent for God's sake, with no one seeking to be leaders or wealthy ones; rather, everyone were content to seek god's pardon and mercy.

5- We assert here that the role of money spent for God's sake was decisive in self-defense fighting and in the peaceful call and preaching for God's religion: "… strive with your money and possessions and your lives in the cause of God. That is better for you, if you only knew." (9:41), "O you who believe! Shall I inform you of a trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in God and His Messenger, and strive in the cause of God with your possessions and money and yourselves. That is best for you, if you only knew." (61:10-11). As for aggressive fighting of transgression for the sake of the Devil, wealth and rule were the aims and the end when people were fighting other peaceful nations to conquer and invade their lands to confiscate their wealth and possessions like any colonizers and tyrants.

6- We assert here also that the difference lies in jihad for God's sake that entails a pledge with God within hearts of believers, in piety and devoutness until the moment of their death: "Of the believers are men who are true to what they pledged to God. Some of them have fulfilled their vows; and some are still waiting, and never wavering" (33:23).

7- This state lasted until the revelation of the Quranic Chapter nine, among the last revealed chapters, "God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in God's way, and they kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on Him in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more true to his promise than God? So rejoice in making such an exchange-that is the supreme triumph. Those who repent, those who worship, those who praise, those who journey, those who kneel, those who bow down, those who advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and those who keep God's limits-give good news to the believers." (9:111-112). Hence, those unknown soldiers fought for God's sake alongside with Muhammad seeking Go's reward, and they were distinguished from those who did not fight: "But the Messenger and those who believe with him struggle with their possessions and their lives. These have deserved the good things. These are the successful. God has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great victory." (9:88-89).

8- Those ill or crippled who cannot participate in self-defense fighting and had no money to share were excused, but they could give good advice, and this verse is concerned with the poor, weak, crippled ones, not the famous ones who later on led the Arab conquests: "There is no blame on the weak, nor on the sick, nor on those who have nothing to give, provided they are true to God and His Messenger in their advice. In no way can the righteous be blamed. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (9:91).

9- The following verse excusing poor and incapable believers from fighting who wept for being unable to participate cannot apply to those well-known names among the so-called companions, but apply to unknown obscure common believers among ordinary people: "Nor on those who approach you, wishing to ride with you, and you said, "I have nothing to carry you on." So they went away, with their eyes overflowing with tears, sorrowing for not finding the means to spend." (9:92).

10- The same applies to Bedouins, whose majority were hypocrites and unbelievers during Muhammad's lifetime; see 9:97-98. But few of them were among the forerunners and those on the right, among the common and poor ones: "Yet among the Desert-Arabs and Bedouins are those who believe in God and the Last Day, and consider their contribution to be a means towards God, and the prayers of the Messenger. Surely it will draw them closer, and God will admit them into His mercy. God is Forgiving and Compassionate." (9:99). This means that the majority of hypocrites and unbelievers were rich and greedy who might have participated in Arab conquests.

11- hypocrites of Yathreb at the time were stingy in spending for God's sake despite their being rich, whereas poor common dwellers of the city and its immigrants preferred to spend for God's sake even if they were needy: " To the poor ones who were driven out of their homes and their possessions, as they sought the favor of God and His approval, and came to the aid of God and His Messenger. These are the sincere. And those who, before them, had settled in the homeland, and had accepted faith. They love those who emigrated to them, and find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them. They give them priority over themselves, even if they themselves are needy. Whoever is protected from his natural greed-it is they who are the successful." (59:8-9). Again, this does not apply to famous Arab conquests companions who were greedy and coveted other nations' possessions.

12- It is noteworthy that among the last revealed Quranic verses, we read about the poor believers who donate money for God's sake despite their being needy, and they were taunted and mocked by the rich: "Those who criticize and taunt the believers who give money voluntarily for God's sake, and ridicule those who find nothing to give except their own efforts-God ridicules them. They will have a painful punishment. Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them-even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, God will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger. God does not guide the immoral people." (9:79-80). Those mockers were among the rich ruling retinue and leaders. The poor devout ones are never mentioned in history, but are mentioned and honored in the Quran, and they will be rewarded by God in Paradise; see 9:100.

Lastly:

1- There is a huge contrast between the obscure unknown pious ones among forerunners and those on the right among Yathreb dwellers and those who immigrated to it and those who rose in fame due to the crime of conquering other lands. The top cannot be equal to the bottom, and the same applies to Quranic descriptions of real believers and the fake greatness granted by history on tyrants and blood-thirsty leaders who caused massacres among the nations.

2- As there is no room for Arab conquests companions among the forerunners and those on the right, the only remaining category for them is those on the left among Hell dwellers, as we understand from the Quran. For further details, read on please!

CHAPTER III: Arab Conquests Companions Were Those Who Never Repented

Introduction:

We conclude then that the Arab conquests companions were among the sinners who did not repent, some were among those who mixed good and bad deeds and never repented, and some whose judgment by God is postponed but they never repented. All of them died without repentance. Let us not forget that among them were those who died s unrepentant sinners and hypocrites who hid their hatred toward Islam and have been rebuked in the Quran due to their allying with aggressive Qorayish in times of enmity with Yathreb believers.

Firstly: Immigrant Companions from the Qorayish Tribe Who Were Still Loyal to Qorayish:

1- In SECTION II, CHAPTER VII, we give details on the crime of most immigrants to Yathreb of forming alliances with their Meccan people who attacked Yathreb because of their animosity toward Islam and early believers, and God has warned such immigrants several times, but they did not heed this warning, like the one in this verse, among the earliest ones revealed in Yathreb: "O you who believe! Do not take My enemies and your enemies for supporters, offering them affection, when they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the Truth. They have expelled the Messenger, and you, because you believed in God, your Lord. If you have mobilized to strive for My cause, seeking My approval, how can you secretly love them? I know what you conceal and what you reveal. Whoever among you does that has strayed from the right way." (60:1). Warnings to hypocrites are repeated elsewhere: "You will not find a people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those who oppose God and His Messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their close relatives…" (58:22), "O you who believe! Do not befriend those who take your religion in mockery and as a sport, be they from among those who were given the Scripture before you, or the disbelievers. And obey God, if you are believers." (5:57), "Inform the hypocrites that they will have a painful punishment. Those who ally themselves with the disbelievers instead of the believers. Do they seek glory in them? All glory belongs to God." (4:138-139), "O you who believe! Do not befriend disbelievers rather than believers. Do you want to give God a clear case against you? The hypocrites will be in the lowest level of the Fire, and you will find no helper for them." (4:144-145), and "O you who believe! Do not ally yourselves with your parents and your siblings if they prefer disbelief to belief. Whoever of you allies himself with them-these are the wrongdoers. Say, "If your parents, and your children, and your siblings, and your spouses, and your relatives, and the wealth you have acquired, and a business you worry about, and homes you love, are more dear to you than God, and His Messenger, and the struggle in His cause, then wait until God executes His judgment." God does not guide the sinful people." (9:23-24). This indicates that their crime of allying with the enemies among Meccan Qorayish aggressors was repeated even toward the time when the Quranic revelation was about to come to an end, as the Quranic Chapter nine was the last one to be revealed.

2- Shortly before Muhammad died, and within critical conditions, the extremists of Qorayish breached the pledge after conquering Mecca peacefully without a battle and Muhammad was in Mecca at the time. The extremists tried to drive out Muhammad and the believers, but they failed. No historians registered this event; the Quran records this event, otherwise we would not have known it: "Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers." (9:13). Thus, polytheists of Mecca readily raised arms against Muhammad and believers in the Kaabah shrine, violating the pledge of peace, but God saved Muhammad from such a plot.

3- Once Muhammad died, it was the opportunity of those companions who retained their alliance with their Qorayish people and against Islam and Muhammad to emerge. All Meccan people of Qorayish who were in Mecca and in Yathreb reunited, most of them had feigned conversion to Islam, especially the Meccan leaders among the Umayyad family. The Arab conquests were their seized opportunity to lead all Arabs under the banner of Qorayish, to prepare for the return of the old Qorayish dominance that felt animosity toward Islam, especially the Umayyad family. Half a century later, the Umayyad Dynasty ruled most of the territories of the ancient world beginning with the very first Umayyad ruler: Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan.

Secondly: Immigrant Companions from the Qorayish Tribe Who Were Non-Repentant Disobedient Sinners:

God has rebuked and reproached the disobedient immigrants to Yathreb after the Battle of Badr: "O you who believe! Obey God and His Messenger, and do not turn away from him when you hear. And be not like those who say, "We hear," when they do not hear." (8:20-21). This indicates that many of them were disobedient to God and to Muhammad: "The worst of animals to God are the deaf and dumb-those who do not reason. Had God recognized any good in them, He would have made them hear; and had He made them hear, they would have turned away defiantly. O you who believe! Respond to God and to the Messenger when He calls you to what will revive you. And know that God stands between a man and his heart, and that to Him you will be gathered. And beware of discord which does not afflict the wrongdoers among you exclusively; and know that God is severe in retribution." (8:22-25). And then God has reminded them how they were weak in Mecca and how they were sheltered in Yathreb by His Grace: "And remember when you were few, oppressed in the land, fearing that people may capture you; but He sheltered you, and supported you with His victory, and provided you with good things-so that you may be thankful." (8:26). Yet, they betrayed God and His messenger, after the battle of Badr, and those who did not repent were, in our opinion, the companions who committed the crime of Arab conquests. "O you who believe! Do not betray God and the Messenger, nor betray your trusts, while you know." (8:27).

Thirdly: Various Non-Repentant Companions:

1- Among them those who harmed Muhammad, mentioned in the following verses: "Those who insult God and His Messenger, God has cursed them in this life and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a demeaning punishment. Those who harm believing men and believing women, for acts they did not commit, bear the burden of perjury and a flagrant sin." (33:57-58), "O you who believe! Do not be like those who abused Moses; but God cleared him of what they said. He was distinguished with God. " (33:69), and "And among them are those who insult the Prophet, and say, "He is all ears." Say, "He listens for your own good. He believes in God, and trusts the believers, and is mercy for those of you who believe." Those who insult the Messenger of God will have a painful penalty. They swear to you by God to please you. But it is more proper for them to please God and His Messenger, if they are believers. " (9:61-62).

2- Among them were those with weak faith who cooperated with the hypocrites by rumormongering when Yathreb was sieged by the military forces of Qorayish, and God has warned them against punishment: "If the hypocrites, and those with sickness in their hearts, and the rumormongers in the City, do not desist, We will incite you against them; then they will not be your neighbors there except for a short while. They are cursed; wherever they are found, they should be captured and killed outright." (33:60-61).

3- Among them were rude fellows who tried to add to God's sharia (as done by Al-Khawarij later on), never respected Muhammad, and raised their voice in his presence: "O you who believe! Do not place your opinions above that of God and His Messenger, and fear God. God is Hearing and Knowing. O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loudly to him, as you speak loudly to one another, lest your works be in vain without you realizing. Those who lower their voices before God's Messenger-those are they whose hearts God has tested for piety. They will have forgiveness and a great reward. Those who call you from behind the chambers-most of them do not understand. Had they remained patient until you came out to them, it would have been better for them. But God is Forgiving and Merciful." (49:1-5).

4- Among them were those who felt lazy and were reluctant to perform Friday congregational prayers, as they were busy in their trade and merrymaking: "O you who believe! When the call is made for prayer on Congregation Day, hasten to the remembrance of God, and drop all business. That is better for you, if you only knew. Then, when the prayer is concluded, disperse through the land, and seek God's bounty, and remember God much, so that you may prosper. Yet whenever they come across some business, or some entertainment, they scramble towards it, and leave you standing. Say, "What is with God is better than entertainment and business; and God is the Best of providers."" (62:9-11).

5- Among them those who renege on their promises and words, and God has rejected such an attitude: "O you who believe! Why do you say what you do not do? It is most hateful to God that you say what you do not do." (61:2-3).

6- Such companions and their likes have been advised in the Quran several times to repent and waned against Hell: "O you who believe! Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire, whose fuel is people and stones. Over it are angels, fierce and powerful. They never disobey God in anything He commands them, and they carry out whatever they are commanded. O you who disbelieved! Make no excuses today. You are being repaid for what you used to do. O you who believe! Repent to God with sincere repentance. Perhaps your Lord will remit your sins…" (66:6-8). It is most probably that those who never repented and outlived Muhammad were the ones who participated in the crime called Arab conquests.

Fourthly: Repentance is the Criterion, and Arab Conquests Companions Never Repented:

1- Repentance is the criterion here, and that is why God has postponed the judgment on some of the so-called companions until they either sincerely repent or go on sinning until death; see 9:106. Those who never repented will be among those on the Left in the Last Day, among Hell dwellers, with angels of death telling them about their fate: "But if he is one of the deniers, the mistaken, then a welcome of Inferno and a burning in Hell" (56:92-94). "And those on the Left – what of those on the Left? Amid searing wind and boiling water and a shadow of thick smoke, neither cool nor refreshing" (56:41-44).

2- Real repentance has two features: 1) returning what is due to the rightful owners and satisfying them and making them content and asking their pardon in public, and 2) renewing one's faith and doing as many good deeds and charitable acts as on can. Hence, repentance is to deal justly and peacefully with people and worship God devoutly and sincerely in piety. Repentance is specially urged for those who mixed bad deeds with good ones: "Say, "Work. God will see your work, and so will His Messenger, and the believers. Then you will be returned to the Knower of secrets and declarations, and He will inform you of what you used to do."" (9:105), and repentance should be announced in public, and its sincerity is judged by God in the Last Day, as some hypocrites tried to deceive Muhammad and the early believers, but God has exposed them: "They present excuses to you when you return to them. Say, "Do not offer excuses; we do not trust you; God has informed us of you. And God will watch your actions, and so will the Messenger; then you will be returned to the Knower of the Invisible and the Visible, and He will inform you of what you used to do."" (9:94). Trust should come via good deeds deemed acceptable to God, Who will judge us all in the Last Day, especially judging the sincerity of repentance and whether it is for the sake of God or for the purpose of deceit. This repentance of the heart is for God to judge, not for other human beings. Hence, real repentant believers should keep asking pardon and supplicating for God's mercy and renewing their faith by starting new life in purity and devoutness to make up or the time lost from one's life in sin, by doing good deeds to omit the bad ones. Those who committed the sins of killing, fornication, and polytheism can repent within the two levels required for true acceptable repentance: "And those who do not implore besides God any other god, and do not kill the soul which God has made sacred-except in the pursuit of justice-and do not commit adultery. Whoever does that will face penalties. The punishment will be doubled for him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will dwell therein in humiliation forever. Except for those who repent, and believe, and do good deeds. These-God will replace their bad deeds with good deeds. God is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (25:68-70). Repentance within one's heart is directly linked to renewing faith and doing many good deeds and charity: "Except for those who repent, and believe, and act righteously. These will enter Paradise, and will not be wronged in the least. The Gardens of Eden, promised by the Most Merciful to His servants in the Unseen. His promise will certainly come true." (19:60-61). "And I am Forgiving towards him who repents, believes, acts righteously, and then remains guided." (20:82). God never accepts the repentance of those sinners who try in vain to repent in the moment of dying and those who addicted to sin all their lives until their moment of dying: "But repentance is not available for those who commit evils, until when death approaches one of them, he says, "Now I repent," nor for those who die as disbelievers. These-We have prepared for them a painful torment." (4:18). "Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities-these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever." (2:81).

3- Arab conquests companions never repented in public and never returned what was due to their rightful owners. They never aimed to free nations from tyranny and oppression of rulers: they never returned to Arabia after militarily defeating such oppressors and rulers. Indeed, those Arab conquests companions had murdered and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent peaceful people and enslaved their girls and boys and looted their possessions and lands as per tyranny of Middle-Ages logic dominant at the time, and they imposed heavy tributes and taxes and made natives as slaves working for free in their own lands. Later on, Arabs of such looting invasions quarreled over the ill-gotten money and wealth, and thus engaged in civil wars. This indicates that they never repented as per historical accounts about them in the authoritative books acknowledged by the Sunnite traditions and scholars.

Fifthly: How God in the Quran Predicts that Arab Conquests Leaders Will Not Repent:

1- Polytheists who are disbelievers in terms of aggressive behavior and non-peaceful demeanor might hopefully repent and stop aggression, and God promises them to accept their sincere repentance: "Say to those who disbelieve: if they desist, their past will be forgiven…" (8:38), and the same chance is given to hypocrites if they will sincerely repent: "The hypocrites will be in the lowest level of the Fire, and you will find no helper for them. Except those who repent, and reform, and hold fast to God, and dedicate their religion to God alone. These are with the believers; and God will give the believers a great reward." (4:145-146).

2- The only type of hypocrites who will suffer in Hell is the type that did not repent before death and they never announced their repentance and confessed to Muhammad as done by others like them: " Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Medina too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will be returned to a severe torment. Others have confessed their sins, having mixed good deeds with bad deeds. Perhaps God will redeem them. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (9:101-102).

3- Some leaders among Arab conquests companions, in our opinion, belong to this type of non-forgiven hypocrites who never repented, mentioned in 9:101, as they were addicted to hypocrisy and managed to deceive Muhammad who never knew them, especially among hypocritical immigrants to Yathreb, among its dwellers who lived long enough to become among its people after leaving Mecca. Muhammad never knew their ulterior motives, as per 9:101, because he, like any mortal, could not read hearts and minds of others around him, and their being experts in hypocrisy never betrayed a word or dropped a gesture or acts to show their true colors as enemies of Islam, unlike frank hypocrites whose deeds and words exposed them. That is why God mentions this former type and tells us they will die as infidels who will be tormented twice in this life before eternally tormented in Hell, as per 9:101. Why would they suffer torment in this life twice? Because of their crimes after Muhammad's death against Islam; they dominated the political scene once Muhammad died and seized the chance to commit their atrocities with no divine revelation to expose them. This means that they will not repent rather, they will commit their crimes under the name of Islam, leading many believers among the Arabs.

CHAPTER IV: Arab Conquests Companions Were among the Famous Men Near Prophet Muhammad

Firstly: Abou Bakr Who Accompanied Muhammad in the Cave:

In Sunnite history books, it is claimed that Abou Bakr was the one mentioned with Muhammad in the following verse: "If you do not help him, God has already helped him, when those who disbelieved expelled him, and he was the second of two in the cave. He said to his friend, "Do not worry, God is with us." And God made His tranquility descend upon him, and supported him with forces you did not see…" (9:40). We contemplate this verse in the following way, seeking the aid of God:

1- It is NOT a Quranic fact or a faith tenet to think that Abou Bakr was the one intended in 9:40, as no names are mentioned here. To insist on a certain historical figure intended by 9:40 is to reject and deny the Quran. History is not religion and vice versa; history is relative, while Quranic verses are absolute truths. History is a field of research, as for Quranic facts, we cannot venture to say that the Quran means a specific personality in 9:40, and this detail is omitted by God because it is of minor importance. It is OK to be ignorant of history, but it is not OK for one's faith to assert something as part of faith tenets that does NOT exist in the Quran.

2- The word 'friend' in 9:40 does not imply just merely accompaniment in the cave, but a friend whose relation with Muhammad lasted a lifetime, as 'friend' as a Quranic terms indicates a long relationship lasted for a long time or a lifetime. These verses illustrate this meaning: "O My friends in prison…" (12:39): this indicates cell inmates for a long time, and "His female friend and his brother" (70:12): this indicates a female spouse remaining as one's wife for a lifetime.

3- The term 'friend' in 9:40 does not indicate any sort of piety or guidance, nor a close friend as in 24:61, and thus, this friend was not necessarily a true faithful one; yet, Sunnites describe Abou Bakr as Seddiq (the truthful one) and the closest friend to Muhammad. How come they knew the veracity, or lack of it, of such a claim!

4- In 9:40, Muhammad said to the one with him in the cave: "…Do not worry, God is with us…" (9:40), but later on in the same verse, tranquility and divine support are exclusively to Muhammad and NOT to this 'friend', and thus, the shared point between Muhammad and this friend is accompaniment and not anything else, whether this person is Abou Bakr or not is a matter of no importance at all.

5- the Quranic term 'friend' comes mostly in context of people who differed in faith. In one Quranic context, it indicates the ones with the same faith in the following verse: "But they called their friend, and he dared, and he slaughtered." (54:29). Elsewhere, the term 'friend' indicates differences in faith. Let us quote this example of two debating persons who differ in faith: one is a believer and one is a disbeliever: "And thus he had abundant fruits. He said to his friend, as he conversed with him, "I am wealthier than you, and greater in manpower." And he entered his garden, wronging himself. He said, "I do not think this will ever perish." "And I do not think the Hour is coming. And even if I am returned to my Lord, I will find something better than this in return." His friend said to him, as he conversed with him, "Are you being ungrateful to Him who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then evolved you into a man?" (18:34-37).

6- What proves our point above is that Muhammad is described as a friend to those polytheists around him in Mecca, despite differences in faith between him and them: "Do they not think? There is no madness in their friend. He is but a plain warner." (7:184). "…There is no madness in your friend. He is just a warner to you, before the advent of a severe punishment." (34:46). God here asserts that Muhammad remained with them a lifetime, enough to know he was wise and reasonable, and they cannot accuse him of being mad or crazy or being misguided. "By the star as it goes down. Your friend has not gone astray, nor has he erred." (53:1-2).

7- Hence, we conclude from the above Quranic facts that whether Abou Bakr or someone else was in the cave, this 'friend' is not necessarily a guided believer, and the verse 9:40 contain indicators of the exact opposite: this 'friend' was not tranquil and aided by God like Muhammad. In sum, the Quran does not recommend Abou Bakr as a guided person. This verse is in Chapter Nine, the last one revealed shortly before the death of Muhammad, toward the end of the life of Abou Bakr, who was in the last two years of his life responsible for the calamities and atrocities of Arab conquests. Hence, the indicators in 9:40 show that this 'friend' is a mere company beside Muhammad, not necessarily a guided chosen person, but merely a contemporary like any other.

8- It is enough proof that Muhammad is described as a 'friend' to the polytheists despite differences in faith, in 7:184, 34:46, and 53:1-2; likewise, 9:40 shows friend in this sense, two men different in faith: Muhammad and the unknown person in the cave.

9- Hence, as per Quranic terminology, 'friends' of Muhammad were contemporaries around him who were adamant resisting polytheists, while true believers were poor and common ones away from him in terms of locality.

Secondly: Muhammad Tended to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers:

1- Let us contemplate this verse: "And be patient and content with those who pray to their Lord, morning and evening, desiring His Presence. And do not turn your eyes away from them, desiring the glitter of this world. And do not obey him whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance-so he follows his own desires-and his priorities are confused." (18:28). We understand three interlacing points from this verse: 1) Muhammad used to feel awkward and embarrassed from the poor believers, 2) he drove them away from his company, and 3) he tended to get closer to the rich polytheists to the extent that he obeyed them and he liked their material possessions.

2- The Quranic rebuke for Muhammad to turn away from the glitter of the material possessions in 18:28 is repeated in another verse: "And do not extend your glance towards what We have given some classes of them to enjoy-the splendor of the life of this world-that We may test them thereby. Your Lord's provision is better, and more lasting." (20:131). Even after immigration to Yathreb, Muhammad admired the wealthy ones, feeling they would influence the rest of city dwellers, as wealth exerts influence on people in all eras, and hypocrites in Yathreb were the wealthiest, but God has rebuked Muhammad twice in Chapter Nine: "Let neither their possessions nor their children impress you. God intends to torment them through them in this worldly life, and that their souls depart while they are disbelievers." (9:55) and "Do not let their possessions and their children impress you. God desires to torment them through them in this world, and their souls expire while they are disbelievers." (9:85). The repetition of the order means that Muhammad did not obey at once but made the mistake again.

3- We notice the following points in the topic of Muhammad's feeling awkward and embarrassed by the poor believers to the extent that he drove them away to draw nearer to the rich unbelievers to the extent that he used to obey them:

3/1: let us note the strong expression in the following Quranic verse: "And be patient and content with those who pray to their Lord, morning and evening, desiring His Presence. And do not turn your eyes away from them, desiring the glitter of this world. And do not obey him whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance-so he follows his own desires-and his priorities are confused." (18:28). Muhammad is commanded here to be patient with daily living alongside with poor believers and he should not look at and be impressed with the affluent ones that did not believe in the Quran; he should not obey them in anything as well.

3/2: Let us note the strong Quranic rebuke to Muhammad when he frowned upon a blind man among the believers hoping to appeal to one of the affluent ones among the unbelievers: "He frowned and turned away, when the blind man approached him. But how do you know? Perhaps he was seeking to purify himself or be reminded, and the message would benefit him. But as for him who was indifferent, you gave him your attention though you are not liable if he does not purify himself. But as for him who came to you seeking in awe, to him, you were inattentive" (80:1-10).

3/3: The arrogance of the retinue and affluent elite of non-believers in all eras and locations do not change; even those of Noah's people felt repugnant because the poor impecunious ones followed Noah, and used this pretext so as not to believe the divine message conveyed by him: "they said: "Shall we believe in you, when it is the lowliest who follow you?"" (26:111). ''…we see that only the worst among us have followed you, those of immature judgment…'' (11:27). Yet, Noah refused to drive away the poor believers and said to the unbelievers: "…And I am not about to dismiss those who believed…" (11:29). "And I am not about to drive away the believers." (26:114). As for Muhammad, he drove away the poor believers from his presence before the Qorayish affluent retinue told him to do it, thinking he would appeal to them to become believers, as they felt repugnant to look at and sit with the poor ones. The same divine order to Muhammad not to drive them away is repeated in another verse, indicating that Muhammad at first did not obey the divine order: "And do not drive away those who call upon their Lord, morning and evening, seeking His attention. You are not accountable for them in any way, nor are they accountable for you in any way. If you drive them away, you would be one of the unjust." (6:52).

4- We note the following points in the topic of Muhammad's obeying the polytheists:

4/1: The divine order of not obeying them is repeated several times in the Quranic text from the very beginning, indicating that Muhammad at first did not obey this divine order. Let us quote verses that illustrate this: "So do not obey the deniers…And do not obey any vile swearer" (68:8-10), "…and do not obey the sinner or the blasphemer among them." (76:24), and "So do not obey the disbelievers…" (25:52).

4/2: Muhammad's obedience to them was to the extent that they were about to mislead Muhammad away from the Quranic revelation: "They almost lured you away from what We have revealed to you, so that you would invent something else in Our name. In that case, they would have taken you for a friend.Had We not given you stability, you might have inclined towards them a little." (17:73-74)

4/3: After immigration to Yathreb and moving away from Qorayish, Muhammad went on obeying some hypocrites among the affluent ones, and God repeats in the Quran the order twice in one chapter: "O Prophet! Fear God, and do not obey the unbelievers and the hypocrites…" (33:1) and "And do not obey the blasphemers and the hypocrites, and ignore their insults…" (33:48).

4/4: After the strong opposition of hypocrites and their manifested animosity toward Muhammad and the believers, and Islam in general, Muhammad kept trying to appeal to them to believe and cared to accompany them, even when they established a mosque to plot against the burgeoning religion, and he left the original mosque based on piety and filled with poor believers who sought to purify themselves: "Then there are those who establish a mosque to cause harm, and disbelief, and disunity among the believers, and as an outpost for those who fight God and His Messenger. They will swear: "Our intentions are nothing but good." But God bears witness that they are liars.Do not stand in it, ever. A mosque founded upon piety from the first day is worthier of your standing in it. In it are men who love to be purified. God loves those who purify themselves." (9:107-108).

4/5: Hypocrites used to mock and deride the poor believers in the presence of Muhammad because they contribute a little financially in charity and in military preparation of self-defense, and Muhammad used not to feel angry about this mockery as he used to ask pardon for mockers, but God warns these mockers that He will not forgive them even if Muhammad asked pardon for them: "Those who criticize the believers who give charity voluntarily, and ridicule those who find nothing to give except their own efforts-God ridicules them. They will have a painful punishment. Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them-even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, God will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger. God does not guide the immoral people." (9:79-80).

Thirdly: Reasons of Muhammad's Tendency to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers:

1- Of course, Muhammad felt sure of the strong faith and devotion of the poor weak ones; he used to fear for their being swept over by the others; that was why he tried hard to convince the strong and the affluent ones to convert to Islam. In striving to achieve that aim, he tended to accompany often the affluent polytheists, and not he poor believing ones. Yet, God asserts to him that most people will not believe despite his endeavors to guide them: "But most people, for all your eagerness, are not believers." (12:103). The Qorayish retinue and elite of affluent non-believers used to misguide not only themselves but others as well, and that was why God asserts they will never be guided despite the endeavors of Muhammad to guide them: "Even though you may be concerned about their guidance, God does not guide those who misguide others…" (16:37).

2- Muhammad focused on the endeavor and the arduous task of guiding them to the extent that God has reproached him: "…Will you compel people to become believers?" (10:99).

3- God orders Muhammad in the Quran not to feel grief because of their lack of belief, as their degree of misguidance could not allow them to be guided by him: "Perhaps you may destroy yourself with grief…if they do not believe in this…" (18:6). "What of him whose evil deed was made attractive to him, and so he regards it as good? God leads astray whomever He wills, and He guides whomever He wills. Therefore, do not waste yourself sorrowing over them. God knows exactly what they do." (35:8).

4- In Sum, Muhammad used to prefer the company of the rich affluent ones aiming to guide them to Islam, and he used to shun the common poor believers, and this habit persisted in both Mecca and Yathreb.

Fourthly: Political Conditions Entailed that Muhammad Was to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers:

1- Muhammad acted on his own using his human efforts, without knowing yet miracles worked by God via previous prophets. Muhammad had no miracles whatsoever, except the Quran itself, and he used to set plans along with the poor believers and execute these plans himself to strive and convince non-believers to convert to Islam. When he mistook, the Quranic revelation rebukes and commands him about what to do. Muhammad succeeded to face all challenges that were more than the ones anybody could face, and he managed to establish a utopic city-state of democracy, dreamt of by most philosophers, amidst Arabian deserts of aggression, enslavement, and tyranny typical of the Middle Ages. This city-state in Yathreb was pioneer in its era in terms of freedom and human rights.

2- Islam in the Yathreb city-state has been an exceptional phase in that era in the 7^th century Arabia with its sharia and higher values of justice, absolute freedom, mercy, charity, human rights, and direct democracy, amidst Middle-Ages culture of enslavement, raids, tyranny, massacres, corruption, and military dominance. It was an age of religious wars and inquisition-like persecution, centuries before and after Muhammad. Islam was a light flashed for some time amidst such Dark Ages, when applied by Muhammad in Yathreb city-state, and then this light went off because of the crime of the Arab conquests committed once Muhammad died. Darkness reigns supreme in the life of the Muhammadans until the present moment, but the light of the Quran remains preserved in its verses despite of the Muhammadans until now.

3- We see the vast gap now between the Quranic text and how they are applied now, and we can appreciate how Muhammad strove hard to apply them in Yathreb; this is his real tradition, preserved to the full within the Quranic verses. Of course, Muhammad had to deal with a dominant culture of bad notions represented by Qorayish tribesmen that used to distort the inherited Abrahamic religion and to trade with religious notions. Tyranny and violence were the dominant features of all the surrounding lands of the ancient world known at the time: in Persia, Byzantium, China, and India. Application of the Quranic sharia entailed a great measure of flexibility and compatibility in how Muhammad dealt with power centers in his society. He managed and succeeded to apply the Quran, but as a human being, he made some mistakes, corrected by the divine revelation in the Quran by orders, commands, warnings, reproaches, etc. Let us not forget that Muhammad belonged to the same people who shared the same mentality: "Is it a wonder to the people that We inspired a man from among them: "Warn mankind, and give good news to those who believe that they are on a sound footing with their Lord"? The disbelievers said, "This is a manifest sorcerer."" (10:2), but he discarded the culture of his age to apply the Quran that represents a different culture altogether amidst those who refuse it. He managed to establish a city-state of real democracy and freedom in Yathreb in the 7^th century, and to appreciate this fully, let us not forget that the culture of corruption, tyranny, and enslavement of others still dominate until now in the majority of countries of the world today in modern times, especially in the countries of the Muhammadans, especially in the axis of evil and terror in the world: the KSA. We cannot possibly blame Muhammad due to the return of the culture of tyranny, corruption, and enslavement once he died, because of the Arab conquests committed by Arabs who still belonged to the Middle-Ages culture of violence. We should be proud of Muhammad who managed to do the impossible: to establish a Quranic utopia in Yathreb in the Middle Ages in Arabian deserts away from known civilizations at the time. He succeeded to establish the civilized application of Islamic sharia of the Quran in Yathreb. People do him injustice when they believe historical accounts about him written centuries after his death; such erroneous accounts show him as a bloodthirsty warrior and conqueror who killed POWs and struggled for looting and committing massacres and assassinations. Such falsehoods were fabricated by gods and deities of the Sunnite creed among scholars and scribes to re-create another character for Muhammad to justify crimes of caliphs in the Middle-Ages. Those who love Muhammad should no believe such fabrications authored by Al-Bokhary and Ibn Ishaq and their likes; his only history is found in the Quran exclusively.

4- In Egyptian civilization, Moses' Pharaoh confiscated power, authority, and wealth, and God has ordered Moses and Aaron to speak to him softly; see 20:44, and this is part of flexibility in terms of politics in dealing with self-deified tyrant. In Mecca, conditions were different with competing and fluctuating balance of power centers; some among Qorayish tribesmen believed in Islam, and the Hashemites defended Muhammad due to tribal rivalry only. That is why struggle was within grey areas. Hence, Muhammad had to try to neutralize the strongest unbelievers in Mecca as much as he could, hoping to guide some of them to Islam and to protect weak and poor believers. In Yathreb, things got more complicated; city-state had to be established while applying the Quranic sharia amidst dangerous mines like hypocrites, Jews, Bedouins, Qorayish military attacks, sieges, etc., and this meant emergency state most of the time, yet martial laws were never applied. The solution lied in absolute freedom of religion and peaceful opposition in deeds and words, with no holding arms of course. On their part, hypocrites made use of such unprecedented levels of freedom and opposition, but they never resorted to holding arms as they were afraid; see 9:56-57. Inside Yathreb, there were also faithful believers devoted to Islam and felt ready to sacrifice everything and their lives for the sake of God; see 3:151 and 3:172-173. The existence of that type of believers caused fright to the hypocrites, who used to show their hatred in words and deeds and then retreated and apologized using swearing falsely to protect themselves; see 63:2, because they feared any sort of confrontation with believers.

5- In sum, there were certain limits never crossed by both sides in Yathreb, believers and hypocrites, which entailed a type of compatibility mode and flexibility in grey areas within a tangled web of power centers relations complicated further by volatile events.

6- Muhammad was a mercy and a compassionate fellow with believers; see 9:61 and 9:128, who used to pardon those who harmed him and ask God's pardon for them; see 3:159 and 9:113-115. Muhammad cared for uniting all power centers in Yathreb to protect the weak against the oppression of the strong and to try to convince the affluent ones to convert to Islam. Muhammad was quite sure of the faith of the poor weak ones among the common people who did not aim at hypocrisy, fame, wealth, and showing off, as their only target was to please God; they were the forerunners in 9:100, whom history never mentions, but the Quran does. Such forerunners left the arena or the scene for those who seek transient worldly possessions and fame as they abused and manipulated Islam for their venal purposes as per Middle-Ages logic and culture: the culture of looting, invasion, massacre, and doing any crimes for money and possessions and authority and power. Once Muhammad died, such wayward hypocrites became the leaders of the Arab conquests, while forerunners sank into oblivion, trying to preserve their real faith from the deluge of crimes and insults and violation of the Quran done by such conquests. Islam is innocent of such crimes of Middle-Ages mentality, despite the fact that Arab conquests abused the name of Islam to justify their crimes.

Lastly: The Intended Meaning behind the Previously Mentioned:

Those who used to remain around Muhammad among the famous, rich, and leading Arabs among the Arab societies of tribalism and its influence of patriarchal culture and values are the ones who cared for maintaining their status of wealth and power and authority, and thus confiscated full power and dominance once Muhammad died. They committed the crime of Arab conquests and history glorified them, but God was angry of them due to their crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. History ignored the names of believers among the faithful poor ones within the common people who refused to participate in that crime, fearing God and obtaining His mercy.

CHAPTER I: Arab Conquests Companions Were Fashioned by the Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe, and Not by Isla

SECTION II: The Cunning of Qorayish Tribesmen Led to the Arab Conquests

CHAPTER I: Arab Conquests Companions Were Fashioned by the Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe, and Not by Islam

Introduction: The Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe:

1- Arab conquests companions inherited the same pre-Islamic Qorayish culture of violence, enslavement, looting, and invading typical of the Middle Ages, practiced by Arabs within raids among tribes in the Arabian peninsula. They carried their tyranny outside Arabia, headed by Qorayish, under banners of Islam, though Islam is the religion of peace, justice, and freedom. Hence, we conclude then that Arab conquests companions ignored on purpose Islamic values in the Quran, and they pretended to be converts of the new religion during Muhammad's lifetime, hiding their true colors. Once Muhammad died, they showed their true nature of violence and blood-thirsty atrocities and desire for looting once they reached power and authority. This culture of Qorayish remained with them after they left Mecca and Yathreb and the whole of Arabia to conquer other countries, carrying and bearing this violent culture and spreading it in the name of Islam.

2- Such crimes were committed on purpose with deliberate scheming and plotting, especially by the beneficiaries of Qorayish: the major tribe that was the archenemy of Islam, conspiring against the burgeoning religion from the very beginning and waging wars against Muhammad. Once the prophet died, Qorayish planned to be the leader of early Muslims, since no more divine revelations will come to expose any conspiracies. Qorayish manipulated the banner and name of Islam to plot and execute the crime of Arab conquests that went against the Quran, of course.

3- Part of such plotting and scheming of Qorayish was to plant spying agents around Muhammad; this was expected in times of struggle and waged wars. Within such agents loyal to Qorayish, the tribe managed to unite all Arabs after Muhammad's death to conquer the surrounding countries to establish a mighty empire. This entails a research to prove these facts: how Qorayish plotted and planned all this? What were its schemes and conspiracies? These queries will be answered in a coming chapter in this section. But first, let us explain in this current chapter the fact that Arab conquests companions are agents planted by Qorayish around Muhammad in Yathreb, to conspire against Islam. To get to know the agents of Qorayish as a product of the scheming tribe, we must get to know Qorayish first and its features in the only source used by Quranists: the Quran itself. Thus, we will prove how Qorayish followed the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh.

4- Qorayish is described three times in the Quran as following the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh, in its waged wars against Muhammad. Within the context of the Battle of Badr, God tells us about Qorayish and its similarity to Moses' Pharaoh in three verses: "Like the behavior of Pharaoh's people and those before them. They rejected Our signs, so God seized them for their sins. God is Strict in retribution." (3:11). "Like the behavior of the people of Pharaoh, and those before them. They rejected the signs of God, so God seized them for their sins. God is Powerful, Severe in punishment. That is because God would never change a blessing He has bestowed on a people unless they change what is within themselves, and because God is Hearing and Knowing. Such was the case with the people of Pharaoh, and those before them. They denied the signs of their Lord, so We annihilated them for their wrongs, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh-they were all evildoers." (8:52-54). Hence, Moses' Pharaoh and his retinue of powerful men resemble Qorayish and its mighty powerful men, as we discuss in detail below.

Firstly: Moses' Pharaoh's People Were Imams of All Tyrants and So Were Qorayish Tribesmen:

1- Moses' Pharaoh's people and household followed the footsteps of all tyrants before them, and later on, they had become imams of all tyrants after them; God tells us the following about their fate: "So We seized him, and his troops, and We threw them into the sea. Observe, therefore, what was the end of the oppressors. And We made them leaders calling to the Fire. And on Resurrection Day, they will not be saved." (28:40-41). Hence, any tyrannical regime is described to be Pharaonic, as any tyrants follow the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh, whose superiority in earth and tyranny made him to deify himself. Other tyrants assume that God has chosen them to rule over people within a theocracy, as done by the so-called 'righteous' four caliphs and the Arab conquests companions and all caliphs of all dynasties later on. Hence, we understand the Quranic repetition of the story of Moses and Pharaoh and the Pharaonic regime and enmity toward God; this was a warning beforehand to Muslims, showing that Islam rejects theocracies and tyranny of all sorts. This refutes any claims of Arab conquests companions and those who followed their footsteps in tyranny, oppression, corruption, and theocracies, just as Moses' Pharaoh. Yet, most Arabs among the countries of the Muhammadans from the Gulf to Morocco submit to theocracies; even secular tyrants lean on clergymen of man-made, earthly creed to control and ride nations. Quranic verses about Moses' Pharaoh are no longer rightly understood, as the Quran is deserted and abandoned by the Muhammadans now; the Quranic verses are now like poems/dirges sung at funerals! What a shame!

2- God describes in the Quran Qorayish and its tyrants who occupied Meccan Kaabah shrine and breached the treaty with early believers as imams/leaders of disbelief: "But if they violate their oaths after their pledge, and attack your religion, then fight the imams of disbelief-they have no faith-so that they may desist." (9:12). Thus, such aggressors and transgressors are imams of all tyrants following the footsteps of Qorayish and the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh. This is applied now by Arabs who follow the example of Arab conquests companions and the Arab civil wars of the 7^th century until now. These companions were imams of disbelief as per the Quran; yet, the Sunnite clergymen assume that such companions were infallible and illustrious examples to be followed! Following them, Arabs engage into internecine strife until now! This has been going on from the assassination of caliphs Othman and Ali until now for 14 centuries! This is sheer madness perpetuated by Sunnites and Shiites until now!

Secondly: The Qorayish and the Pharaonic Tyranny:

1- Moses' Pharaoh's tyranny is shown in God's words to Moses: "Go to Pharaoh; he has transgressed." (79:17). Transgression here means tyranny: the excess of injustices, aggression, and transgression. This was Moses' Pharaoh, and the same applied to Qorayish as well; that is why the Quran describes Qorayish disbelievers several times as following the route of tyranny blindly until they receive punishment in this world and the Hereafter: "…and We leave them to move blindly in their tyranny" (6:110). "…and He leaves them to move blindly in their transgression" (7:186). "…We leave those who do not expect Our encounter to move blindly in their tyranny" (10:11).

2- God tells Muhammad the following about Qorayish and its distortion of the inherited traditions of the religion of Abraham: "So be not in doubt regarding what these people worship. They worship only as their ancestors worshiped before. We will pay them their due in full, without any reduction." (11:109). This means that Qorayish used to worship the Almighty in a false way inherited from the distortions of their forefathers, and they will be punished for it.

3- It is noteworthy that this Quranic verse, within the same context, warns Muhammad in a stern manner: " So be upright, as you are commanded, along with those who repented with you, and do not transgress. He is Seeing of everything you do." (11:112). Here, we find a divine command to avoid transgressions committed by Qorayish, and the next verse warns against trusting Qorayish the unjust tribe so as to avoid the punishment preserved for it: "And do not incline towards those who do wrong, or the Fire may touch you; and you will have no protectors besides God, and you will not be saved." (11:113). Thus, they were not only to avoid transgression and tyranny, but also not to trust tyrants of Qorayish. This is the best advice to every believing human being seeking righteousness indeed. These verses were revealed in Mecca, warning beforehand Muhammad and early believers against trusting Qorayish and its tyrants; this warning comes from God the Omniscient. Such warning in its strong phrasing in the Quran comes here as tyrants at the time were plotting and scheming against Islam.

Thirdly: The Fearsomeness of Moses' Pharaoh and the Fearsomeness of Qorayish:

1- Tyrants terrorize their nations, as done by Moses' Pharaoh before. Even Moses felt afraid when God told him to go to Pharaoh, and he asked to be aided by his brother Aaron; see 20:24-32. God told both brothers/prophets the following as they were afraid of the tyrant: "Go to Pharaoh; he has tyrannized. But speak softly to him, perhaps he will remember or have some fear. They said, "Lord, we fear he may persecute us or become violent." He said, "Do not fear, We are with you, hearing and seeing." (20:43-46). God interfered to allay the fears of Moses and Aaron, what about the oppressed people under the tyrannical rule of Pharaoh? Let us remember Pharaoh's words about the Israelites: "…We will kill their sons, and spare their women. We have absolute power over them." (7:127).

2- Likewise, Qorayish was fearsome and tyrannical; early Muslims felt afraid of them shortly before the Battle of Badr, and they tried to coax Muhammad to avoid such military confrontation, despite divine promise of victory. God wanted them to stop being afraid of Qorayish, and that was impossible unless military victory would take place. This divine interference in a decisive battle destroyed the myth of an invincible Qorayish; see 8:5-12 and 8:41.

3- While early believers felt afraid of Qorayish before the Battle of Badr, the army of Qorayish felt too sure of victory, showing off their might: "...those who left their homes boastfully, showing off before the people, and barring others from the path of God. God comprehends what they do." (8:47).

Fourthly: The Cunning of Moses' Pharaoh and the Cunning of Qorayish:

1- Tyranny and superiority is linked directly to cunning and plotting: tyrants are the worst and biggest criminals within a given society or country, controlling it while feeling superior above the rest of people. That is why Paradise is not for those who hold political ambitions that lead them to use corrupt means and to seek superiority above the others. God is the Only Supreme One, superiority is His alone: "Be He glorified. He is exalted, far above what they say." (17:43). Such corrupt affluent ones who give themselves airs of sham superiority follow the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh: "Pharaoh exalted himself in the land…" (28:4). "From Pharaoh; he was a transgressing tyrant." (44:31). "Pharaoh was high and mighty in the land; he was a tyrant." (10:83). Moses' Pharaoh himself followed the footsteps of Satan who felt superior and haughty, and God has said to Satan: "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with My Own hands? Are you too proud, or were you one of the exalted?" (38:75). In contrast to such superior ones, God says about the winners in the Last Day the following: "That Home of the Hereafter-We assign it for those who seek no superiority on earth, nor corruption. And the outcome is for the cautious." (28:83).

2- Those who seek superiority and riches need cunning, plotting, conniving, conspiring, and scheming to attain, and retain, full power and authority, with airs and titles of glorification that should be exclusively to God alone, and to keep their high stature, they must go on scheming and plotting, but they will pay a heavy price eventually. God says in the Quran a general sociopolitical rule applicable in all eras and locations before and after the Quranic revelation: "And thus We set up in every city its leading wicked sinners, to conspire in it, but they conspire only against themselves, and they do not realize it." (6:123).

3- The Quran tells us that God responds to human cunning by cunning of His own: this does NOT indicate humanizing of divine epithets or actions; rather, this is an image to make us understand how God turns the evil scheming against its authors eventually, because God's ways and actions are definitely beyond any sort of linguistic description or human imagination. Examples of such rhetorical style of description are as follows: "…God is swifter in scheming…" (10:21). "…they conspire only against themselves, and they do not realize it." (6:123). Thus, this is a divine law for all eras and locations: evil ways turn against its fashioners.

4- Evil ways and schemes harm its authors eventually; God describes in the Quran the cunning and evil ways of Qorayish against Muhammad and warns the tribe against the consequences of such schemes that will turn against it: "Priding themselves on earth, and scheming evil. But evil scheming overwhelms none but its authors. Do they expect anything but the precedent of the ancients? You will not find any change in God's practice, and you will not find any substitute to God's practice." (35:43). Hence, the Qorayish cunning evil ways are linked to its tyranny, and this entailed a divine warning in the Quran.

5- Such warnings are repeated in verses revealed in Mecca, a fact that asserts the historical event of Qorayish repeated plotting and conspiring against Muhammad, Islam, and early believers. "Those before them plotted, but the entire plot is up to God. He knows what every soul earns. Those who disbelieve will know to whom the Ultimate Home is." (13:42). "Those before them also schemed, but God took their structures from the foundations, and the roof caved in on them. The punishment came at them from where they did not perceive." (16:26). God reminds them of Noah's people's plotting and its consequences: "And they schemed outrageous schemes." (71:22) "Because of their wrongs, they were drowned, and were hurled into a Fire. They did not find apart from God any helpers." (71:25), and of Thamood's destruction: "They planned a plan, and We planned a plan, but they did not notice. So note the outcome of their planning; We destroyed them and their people, altogether. Here are their homes, in ruins, on account of their iniquities. Surely in this is a sign for people who know." (27:50-52)

6- Between the cunning evil ways of Moses' Pharaoh and those of Qorayish: of course, Moses' Pharaoh is the typical example of tyranny in the Quran: "He and his troops acted arrogantly in the land, with no justification…" (28:39). Even Moses sought refuge of God from such tyranny as a believer would do so from Satan: "Moses said, "I have sought the protection of my Lord and your Lord, from every tyrant who does not believe in the Day of Account."" (40:27). Moses' Pharaoh did not need so much plotting, as he used to control fully all wealth, authority, and power, thinking his foes oppressed because of his absolute power; yet, Moses' Pharaoh had to use scheming and plotting to face the peaceful prince who had hidden his true faith and tried to preach to his people, and later on God saved this prince: "So God protected him from the evils of their scheming, while a terrible torment besieged Pharaoh's people." (40:45). Thus, Moses' Pharaoh did not use absolute power to overthrow this prince as he had used it with the Israelites, but tried scheming against him and failed. As for Qorayish, things were slightly different; imams of disbelief did no control everything fully and they had to preserve their interests and tribal relations. Even Muhammad himself belonged to a powerful clan or tribe, with followers inside and outside Mecca. Hence, Qorayish tribal and military power had to be used cautiously and plotting, conspiring, and scheming had to be of use within deceitful ways of politics, especially planting spies and agents around Muhammad. Hence, the cunning evil ways would replace confrontations and absolute power. Hence, we conclude that the cunning of Qorayish was worse than that of Moses' Pharaoh. God says about the scheming o Qorayish the following: "…the scheming of those who disbelieve is made to appear good to them…" (13:33). "They planned their plans, but their plans are known to God, even if their plans can eliminate mountains." (14:46). Hence, we maintain the theory that Qorayish planted its agents and spies around Muhammad, who later on became famous leaders of immigrants in Yathreb and Arab conquests companions. God assures Muhammad in the Quran about the inevitable divine punishment waiting for them: "Do not ever think that God will break His promise to His messengers. God is Strong, Able to Avenge." (14:47). God tells Muhammad not to feel sad, but to be patient: "But do not grieve over them, and do not be troubled by what they plot." (27:70). "So be patient. Your patience is solely from God. And do not grieve over them, and do not be stressed by their schemes." (16:127). God asserts twice that the Qorayish plotters will be punished: "As for those who reject Our messages, We will gradually lead them from where they do not know. And We will encourage them. Our plan is firm." (7:182-183). "So leave Me to those who reject this discourse; We will proceed against them gradually, from where they do not know. And We will encourage them. Our plan is firm."" (68:44-45). This is the divine cunning against that of Qorayish tribesmen.

Fifthly: Plotting and Conspiring of Ancient People:

1- The difference between plotting and cunning ways is that the latter is a hidden type of conspiring; Pharaoh thought that his magicians made a cunning conspiracy against himself: "Pharaoh said, "Did you believe in Him before I have given you permission? This is surely a conspiracy you schemed in the city, in order to expel its people from it. You will surely know."" (7:123), while plotting tend to be more overt and public: "Pharaoh turned away, put together his plan, and then came back."(20:60) and sometimes hidden: "…Thus We devised a plan for Joseph…" (12:76).

2- This divine plotting is against tyrants of all eras and locations: "Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with Aad…The like of which was never created in the lands. And Thamood, those who carved the rocks of the valley. And Pharaoh of the stakes. Those who committed excesses in the lands. And spread much corruption therein. So, your Lord poured down upon them a scourge of punishment; your Lord is on the lookout" (89:6-14). That was why the plotting and scheming of Moses' Pharaoh were turned against him: "…Thus Pharaoh's evil deeds were made to appear good to him, and he was averted from the path. Pharaoh's guile was only in defeat." (40:37). "…But the scheming of the unbelievers can only go astray." (40:25). God made Pharaoh to adopt and bring up Moses in his palace to be later on the cause of his ruin and woe, and all plots of Pharaoh turned against himself, and eventually, he drowned along with his soldiers, and his cunning ways availed him not; he used to deify himself as well!

3- The same fate is expected for the cunning and plotting of Qorayish: they would be sieged by their cunning ways unwittingly as God gives them time to repent but they will be smitten if they would not repent: see 7:183 and 68:45. "Or are they planning a conspiracy? The conspiracy will befall the disbelievers." (52:42). ''They plot and scheme, but We plot and scheme. Therefore, give the blasphemers respite, a brief respite'' (86:15-17)

Lastly:

How was the cunning of Qorayish? What were its plans, plots, and conspiracies? What was the nature of such plotting? How and why was it different from the cunning of Moses' Pharaoh? How did Qorayish make use of the status of early Muslims and their development to serve its purposes? Answers will be found in the coming chapters, so please read on.

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Agents Sent by Qorayish to Spy on Muhammad and to Remain

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Agents Sent by Qorayish to Spy on Muhammad and to Remain Near him:

Introduction: Between the Pharaonic Cunning and the Qorayish Cunning:

1- Moses' Pharaoh oppressed, tortured, and killed countless persons among the Israelites, and he monopolized wealth, power, and authority to the extent that Moses, as a child, had no place for the purpose of protection except in the Pharaoh's palace. Conditions were different within tyrannical ways of Qorayish; as a tribe, its power and authority were divided on the progeny of Abd-Manaf: the twins Hashem and Abd-Shams, and the latter begot Umayya. Thus, the Hashemites as well as the progeny of Umayya and Abd-Shams shared power and authority. The Hashemites monopolized the protection of Kaabah and pilgrims, whereas the progeny of Umayya took care of summer and winter caravans of trade as well as intertribal relations inside Arabia and the Levant. The emergence of Prophet Muhammad with the monotheistic call of ''there is no God but Allah'' posed as a challenge to Qorayish, a defiance not only to its leadership of all Arabs outside Mecca, but also to its unity and roots, that harked back to the powerful ancient tribe Kenana, and to its trade and internal affairs. Hence, the emergence of Islam posed a threat to the relation of Qorayish with the other tribes as well; Muhammad belonged to a powerful clan within Qorayish: the Hashemites who were the paternal relatives of the progeny of Umayya, and the number of followers of the new religion was increasing fast among other clans and tribes. Accordingly, the cunning and evil scheming of Qorayish had to reach unprecedented levels of genius: "They planned their plans, but their plans are known to God, even if their plans can eliminate mountains." (14:46).

2- The Pharaonic violence was excluded from the cunning ways of Qorayish; Moses' Pharaoh was trying to eliminate foreign non-Egyptian newcomers and felt very pleased to torture and control them, and he even considered their flight out of Egypt as an effrontery to his power and control, and that was why he followed them until he drowned.

Firstly: It Is Noteworthy:

1- The drowning of Moses' Pharaoh and his troops was the very last act of divine retribution known within stories of prophets and their peoples in the past: "We gave Moses the Scripture, after We had annihilated the previous generations, as an illumination for humankind, and guidance, and mercy, so that they may remember." (28:43). Hence, this page of history of humanity was turned forever; annihilating the whole tribe of Qorayish was excluded from the divine plans. Qorayish had a mission to do, unwittingly, while they violated the teachings of Islam in the Quran: conveying the Quran to the world, preserved by God in its unique message and way of writings as evidence of true Islam; see 9:33, 48:28, and 61:9. These verses mean that the Quran will be conveyed to people even by those who violated its teachings and were its enemies. From the age of the crimes called Arab conquests until modern times now, the Muhammadans in their earthly, man-made fabricated creeds spread, honor, and revere the Quran and at the same time abandon and desert it in their daily life and in terms of practice and application; for they are polytheists as per the Quranic rules and teachings. Thus, despite the fact that the Qorayish-led Arab conquests are a crime against the Quran, they were the means to spread the Quran to the world, despite of Qorayish itself because the divine preserving of the Quranic text is beyond any human endeavor, even when human efforts are used.

2- However, Arab conquests did NOT spread Islam; rather, they re-introduced notions of earthly man-made creeds prevalent before the emergence of Islam using Arabic and 'Quranic' terms. For instance, the Persian Shiite creed is a reproduction of Persian chauvinism and local creeds. Another well-known example in history is Egypt; it was invaded and conquered by the Hyksos, the Persians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, and the Romans, and lastly by Arabs. Yet, Egyptians preserved and retained their religious character and creed notions via a process of Egyptianization of all foreign influences coming with every wave of invaders and conquerors. Egyptian creed notions were spread among conquerors and invaders themselves; hence, the same Pharaonic creed notions were rechristened under new names in every single wave of conquest. Hence, the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic creeds were Egyptianized by insertion of the ancient Pharaonic creeds and notions under new names. These new names were in Arabic in the case of Islam. For instance, the holy trinity of the Pharaohs that included Isis, Osiris, and Horus was reincarnated into the Coptic Christian holy trinity, and later on into Allah, Al-Hussein, and Sayeda (i.e., Lady) Zeinab. Hence, the Coptic creed repeated the Pharaonic one, and Egyptian form of 'Islam' is no exception to this rule. The Egyptian form of Sufism after the Arab conquest of Egypt was a repetition of the Pharaonic religious heritage and traditions; for more details on that subject, please refer to our book published here on our website titled ''The Character of Egypt". Hence, we conclude then that the Arab conquest of Egypt never influenced Egyptians in terms of religious beliefs; religious creed notions of Egyptians remained essentially the same, albeit with changes in language and names within the linguistic gradual change between hieroglyphic, demotic, Coptic, and Arabic languages. The only new item introduced by the Arab conquest of Egypt was the Quran: the argument against all Egyptians and their creeds, among those who remained Christian and those who converted to 'Islam' that was distorted by earthly, made-made, fabricated creeds.

3- The evil plotting and scheming turned against its authors; Moses' Pharaoh tried hard to oppress the Israelites; yet ironically, he was the one to bring up Moses in his palace to be the cause of his downfall, when he drowned while chasing the Israelites. Likewise, Qorayish hated the Quran and its men fabricated and made up the so-called hadiths (i.e., sayings and deeds attributed falsely to Muhammad) to distract people away from the message of the Quran, and this tribe waged wars against Muhammad and early Muslims to annihilate them, using utmost cunning and schemes, thinking itself victorious in the crime of Arab conquests; yet, the Quran eventually spread all over the world despite of all this.

4- Moses' Pharaoh, despite all his might and tyranny, could not kill Moses though he wished it: "Pharaoh said, "Let me kill Moses, and let him appeal to his Lord. I fear he may change your religion, or spread disorder in the land."" (40:26), because God protected Moses and Aaron as he promised them of this: "He said, "We will strengthen your arm with your brother, and We will give you authority, so they will not touch you. By virtue of Our signs, you and those who follow you will be the triumphant."" (28:35). Likewise, the cunning evil ways of Qorayish that might have eliminated mountains were defeated' Qorayish spies/agents, among the famous ones of the so-called companions, could not kill Muhammad in both Mecca and Yathreb despite being close to him in both cities. Qorayish could not kill Muhammad in battles, and the same applies to hypocrites among Yathreb dwellers and immigrants to it. The reason: God protected Muhammad to enable him to do his mission of conveying the message of the Quran, and once the Quranic revelation was completed, Muhammad died peacefully in bed: "O Messenger, convey what was revealed to you from your Lord. But if you do not, then you would not have delivered His message. And God will protect you from the people…" (5:67). Verses revealed in Mecca show that Muhammad would die in an ordinary manner: "You will die, and they will die. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will be quarrelling before your Lord." (39:30-31). When it was rumored that Muhammad was killed in a battle, God asserts in the Quran that Muhammad as a person/messenger does not matter in comparison to the importance of the message itself: the Quran, and that the time of Muhammad's death is postponed to a certain time determined by and known to God only: "Muhammad is no more than a messenger. Messengers have passed on before him. If he dies or gets killed, will you turn on your heels? He who turns on his heels will not harm God in any way. And God will reward the appreciative." (3:144-145). Hence, despite the assassination plots and attempts against Muhammad, he was protected by God, whereas the so-called 'righteous' pre-Umayyad caliphs were assassinated after his death.

Secondly: The Various Types of the Qorayish Cunning that Could Eliminate Mountains:

The main focus of the cunning evil scheming and plotting of Moses' Pharaoh was on violence, whereas those of Qorayish focused on other means beside military aggression and violence; i.e., planting spies and agents around Muhammad under the pretext of their being new converts to Islam and then driving Muhammad and early Muslims out of Mecca to force them to immigrate to Yathreb. This chasing of the early believers out of Mecca aimed at relocating the problem outside main center to deal with it away from dangers threatening the status and stature of Qorayish in Mecca, and simultaneously, Qorayish aimed at controlling and watching Muhammad and the early believers all the time if possible. After immigration to Yathreb, Qorayish raided and sieged Yathreb many times to assert the tyranny, haughtiness, and control of the Qorayish tribesmen. Wars began once God gave permission, in the Quran, to believers to defend themselves against their enemies. When Qorayish was defeated in the Battle of Badr, its fearsomeness was dispelled as a debunked myth; hence, strategies of Qorayish changed within extreme violence in the Battle of Uhud that came as retribution, when early Muslims were defeated. The Battle of the Confederates was the means by which Qorayish wished to annihilate all Muslims, once and for all, to assert its control over trade routes of caravans, but Qorayish was defeated this time yet again. Thus, Qorayish had but one thing to do: to try to contain the situation and to make use of it via its spies and agents who feigned to be new converts to Islam who came to Yathreb. Such agents and spies surrounded Muhammad most of the time, obeying him in all possible manners and ways to prove their sham loyalty to him, while their true loyalty remained ONLY to Qorayish. In addition, Qorayish manipulated the Bedouins of the desert to create problems to early believers in their new city-state, after failing to attract them into fruitless open-field battles with military wars whose results would not have been certain.

Thirdly: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Driving Early Muslims out of Mecca:

1- It was the top of cunning evil scheming methods to draw the route for your foes to tread on, making those foes thinking they had chosen this route out of their own accord. Such devilish plotting is still used by big countries now; it was the same scheme adopted by Qorayish. When powerful tribesmen of Qorayish held a meeting to tackle the issue of how to get rid of Muhammad, they discussed three options/solutions: to murder, imprison, or drive Muhammad away from Mecca: "When the disbelievers plotted against you, to imprison you, or kill you, or expel you. They planned, and God planned, but God is the Best of planners." (8:30). They opted for the last option: to force him to flee Mecca. Muhammad's immigration to Yathreb was their best solution for many reasons: murdering Muhammad would have caused civil war in Mecca; the Hashemites would have sought revenge to avoid being disgraced. The same applies to imprisoning Muhammad; the Hashemites would have sought to liberate him and revenge themselves against the rest of Qorayish to make it pay the price. Riving Muhammad and early believers out of Mecca meant that their possessions, houses, assets, and money would be confiscated by Qorayish and that the problem will be relocated into a far place outside Mecca, to deal with this problem as a one linked to external relations, and the Hashemites remaining in Mecca would be forced either to join forces with Qorayish in dealing with this external enemy after disowning Muhammad, or to get out of Mecca to join Muhammad in Yathreb.

2- the Quranic context within this topic of immigration does NOT use the term 'to immigrate', but rather use the term 'to expel', to assert of course the compulsion of this act of driving away early believers by force out of Mecca, as a form of oppression and persecution, with no other options left for early believers. "If you do not help him, God has already helped him, when those who disbelieved expelled him…" (9:40). "How many a town was more powerful than your town which expelled you..." (47:13). "To the poor refugees who were driven out of their homes and their possessions…" (59:8). "…They have expelled the Messenger, and you, because you believed in God, your Lord…" (60:1). "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion…" (60:8-9). "Those who were unjustly expelled from their homes, merely for saying, "Our Lord is God."…" (22:40).

3- In order to make this forced displacement successful, persecution of believers reached the highest possible levels so that the oppressed persecuted ones would find immigration as the only safe haven to get out of Mecca secretly as soon as possible, imagining that Qorayish would not approve of this; Qorayish tribesmen chased them when they fled in order to give the impression that they want to keep them. The plan succeeded and Meccan tribes got rid of all followers of the new religion. The scene ended by relocating the problem, or the threat, outside Mecca and Qorayish.

4- Hence, the Qorayish cunning plotting, described as able to eliminate mountains, combined both forced displacement and the Pharaonic cunning ways of violence and persecution; the Qorayish tribesmen had to go on attacking believers in Yathreb for two reasons: 1) to assert the dominance and hegemony of Qorayish, and 2) to preserve the dignity and reputation of Qorayish among other tribes of Arabia. Thus, Muhammad and the believers in Yathreb had to suffer being sieged and frightened by Qorayish and its power and awe, as the Qorayish tribesmen can resort to violence against them outside Mecca. The Meccan tribesmen were encouraged to attack the Yathreb dwellers and immigrants as God in the Quran, at that point, commanded them not to defend themselves as yet; the self-defense commands in the Quran had not been revealed at that point. Thus, Qorayish tribesmen used to attack Yathreb and cause harm to believers and return to Mecca unscathed, until God grants permission, in the Quran, to the believers to defend themselves militarily: "God defends those who believe. God does not love any ungrateful traitor. Permission is given to those who are fought against, and God is Able to give them victory. Those who were unjustly evicted from their homes, merely for saying, "Our Lord is God."…" (22:38-40).

5- The awe, hegemony, and reputation of Qorayish among Arab tribes were given a fatal blow when Qorayish was defeated in the Battle of Badr; moreover, the Qorayish trade was threatened, and the Holy Mosque of Kaabah began to lose its stature as a center of worship for tradesmen who stopped coming to Mecca. When Qorayish defeated the Yathreb dwellers in the Battle of Uhud, this was of no use to Qorayish in terms of regaining its reputation and awe among other tribes; the Qorayish tribesmen had to make pacts of alliance with other parties to try and vanquish and exterminate believers in Yathreb once and for all, during the Battle of the Trench, a.k.a. the Battle of the Confederates. Yet, Qorayish was defeated once more in an insulting manner that brought more disgrace and shame to it. Meanwhile, the Quran succeeded with its eloquence and uniqueness in enlightening Arabs and showing the silliness of the notion of worshipping stones and idols. That was why at that time, Mecca lost its stature as a center for worship; the Kaabah was surrounded by statues of deities and idols rejected by many tribes, who discerned how Qorayish tribesmen used to deceive and manipulate them to protect Meccan trade in return for revering some myths and falsehoods. This turnabout was caused firstly after the Battle of Badr which made a huge difference; the Quran calls it the Day of Distinction (see 8:41). Thus, Qorayish had to change its strategy after such repeated defeats; spies and agents loyal to Qorayish had to be planted in Yathreb around Muhammad, trying to achieve gains and profits from the current situation by containing it and controlling the affairs, while the Qorayish tribesmen stayed in Mecca, via those agents. Meanwhile, Qorayish enlisted the help of Arab Bedouins to urge them to attack Muhammad and believers in Yathreb by proxy, on behalf of Qorayish, before and after the death of Muhammad. Details of such relation between Qorayish and Arab Bedouins will be further mentioned in a coming chapter. We will focus here on the cunning plotting of Qorayish in planting spies and agents around Muhammad during his stay in Mecca and later on in Yathreb.

Fourthly: Planting Spying Agents around Muhammad:

1- The cunning ways of Qorayish, that were about to eliminate mountains as per the Quranic expression, included manipulation of the specific conditions of Islam and early believers in Mecca and later on in Yathreb; it was easy to convert to Islam by meeting Muhammad and declaring to him this conversion. Muhammad was NOT to test the minds and hearts of anyone; he was to accept whoever declared being a Muslim, and God is to judge hearts and minds. What was required by Muhammad was peace and security: the meaning of belief in terms of peaceful behavior; Muhammad never tested new converts by investigations and interrogations or used a lie-detector devise. Muhammad and early believers in Mecca used to feel happy with new male or female converts with warm hearty welcome offered to them, especially if this convert was a powerful one with certain stature. Within such conditions, it was very easy for Qorayish to recruit spies and agents around Muhammad from the very beginning, and the number of such agents increased with the passage of time as Islam spread all over Arabia.

2- Muhammad established the Yathreb city-state once he immigrated to it; it was a city-state in the modern sense, with certain borders and participators in governance that included all its dwellers, as well as relations and treaties with its neighbors that included Jewish tribes. Within such conditions, immigrants continued to flow into Yathreb, coming from Mecca and other cities as well. Immigrants included women whose number grew in a remarkable manner; Qorayish sent some women as well to be spies in Yathreb. Hence, we find the Quranic command in Chapter 60 to test these women NOT in terms of faith and belief but a security test to show the reason for their immigration: was it for the sake of Islam and avoiding persecution or to spy and deceive believers? Hence, this test is to assure peaceful behavior and demeanor as part of the meaning of faith and belief, not to test the religious belief; this is left to God in the Last Day. Thus, these women used to be tested in terms of security and peace only to make sure they can be trusted. If any woman was tested and she turned out to be a safe trusted person, she was allowed to enter and live in Yathreb and never left to return to her aggressive persecutors among the polytheists; otherwise, if she was doubtful and others felt sure she was sent as a spy, she was expelled out of Yathreb, never allowed to enter it again. "O you who believe! When believing women come to you emigrating, test them. God is Aware of their faith. And if you find them to be faithful, do not send them back to the unbelievers…" (60:10).

3- Immigration to Yathreb was a decisive factor that added to the power of believers who increased in number; yet, it was also a weak point as it allowed spying agents sent by Qorayish to infiltrate into Yathreb. Those spies came from Mecca and among Arab Bedouins as well coming from everywhere. It was expected from Qorayish cunning leaders to focus on sending agents as immigrants to Yathreb who feign being new converts to Islam; this resulted in the existence of many hypocrites inside Yathreb especially from Arab Bedouins. This is reflected in the repeated mentioning of hypocrites in the Quranic verses revealed in Yathreb. The Quranic Chapter 8 mentions hypocrites one time, linked to the Battle of Badr, while there are several revealed-in-Yathreb verses about hypocrites in the Quranic Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 63. These verses tackle various types of hypocrites and their conspiracies, intrigues, plots, and plans as well as doubtful relations with other hypocrites among Yathreb dwellers and with outside disbelievers and polytheists. Hence, this asserts that hypocrites were not only confined to be among Yathreb original dwellers like some persons within tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, but also included some of the newcomers among the immigrants. There are some verses showing that hypocrites included some Yathreb original dwellers; see 63:7-8, and some other verses show that hypocrites included some wealthy ones, and Muhammad is commanded in the Quran not to admire their wealth and progeny; see 9:55 and 9:85. Thus, the variety of the Quranic discourse about hypocrites and their conspiracies and plotting asserts that they existed in great numbers, especially in the verses revealed at the last shortly before Muhammad's death in Chapter 9, asserting that hypocrites enjoyed good audience. We believe that such an audience was among the immigrants who were actually agents and spies, and not emerging suddenly among Yathreb original dwellers, but it was at the service of Qorayish as well as hypocrites among Yathreb dwellers within tribes of Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj. To further explain this, we quote the only verse mentioning hypocrites in the Quranic Chapter 8, showing that they were not so many at first, as this Chapter was revealed in Yathreb once Muhammad settled in it: "The hypocrites and those in whose hearts is sickness said, "Their religion has deluded these people." But whoever puts his trust in God; God is Mighty and Wise." (8:49). There were at first a minority of hypocrites in contrast to a majority of true believers among immigrants and Yathreb dwellers described in these verses: "To the poor refugees who were driven out of their homes and their possessions, as they sought the favor of God and His approval, and came to the aid of God and His Messenger. These are the sincere. And those who, before them, had settled in the homeland, and had accepted faith. They love those who emigrated to them, and find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them. They give them priority over themselves, even if they themselves are needy…" (59:8-9). The number of hypocrites increased and their voices grew louder after the believers were defeated in the Battle of Uhud; see 3:118-120, 3:154-180. Such hypocrites in Yathreb were vociferous and outspoken during the Battle of the Trench (the Confederates); see 33:12-20, 33:60-62. Later on, they continued to be outspoken once battles ceased between Qorayish and Yathreb; this indicates a change in the strategy of Qorayish by sending more agents and spies who spread rumors and plotted against believers and Muhammad; see 9:42-110. We quote only one verse showing hypocrites doing their activities in public within Yathreb: "The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They advocate evil, and prohibit righteousness, and withhold their hands. They forgot God, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are the sinners." (9:67). Hence, the cunning ways and plots of Qorayish that would have eliminated mountains were responsible for increasing the number of hypocrites in Yathreb after battles ceased between Qorayish and Muhammad.

Lastly:

1- Shortly before the death of Muhammad, Yathreb was teething with latent changing elements and factors that emerged to the surface once he died. Qorayish went on with her cunning ways and plots to get on top of the Islamic city-state, unlike what was expected. The expectation was that the defeated enemy, Qorayish, would stay behind feeling grateful for being spared, and forgiven for aggression and persecution of early Muslims, after the believers seized Mecca. Ironically, this same enemy, Qorayish, dominated the arena once more speedily, using the wiles and cunning evil ways that would eliminate mountains, as per the Quranic expression. History tells us a strange occurrence; both Abdulla Ibn Massoud and Ammar Ibn Yasser were persecuted and tortured by polytheists in Mecca at the early stages of the call for Islam, and they were persecuted yet gain in their old age during the caliphate of Othman within the hegemony and dominance of the same Qorayish leaders and retinue!

2- The cunning plots of Qorayish that would eliminate mountains were the cause of putting off the light of Islam once Muhammad died, and soon enough, the Middle-Ages culture dominated to get back obscurantist dark ages that have been going on until this very moment in the countries of the Muhammadans.

3- Yet, the evil cunning harms its authors as well, and Qorayish is no exception to this rule. Muhammad succeeded in conveying the message of the Quran, and even Qorayish unwittingly spread this message to humanity, because God preserves the Quran Himself, even of disbelievers hated it, to be a refutation of all earthly, man-made, fabricated creeds of the Muhammadans until the Last Day.

CHAPTER III: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Manipulating Bedouins against Muhammad and the Early

Firstly: A Summary of the Quranic Chapter Eight:

After the military defeat of Qorayish in the Battle of Badr, the history of early Muslims entered a new phase differed from the previous stages or phases. New rules had to be formulated to make early Muslims depend on themselves, not on angels to support their hearts and souls. Such rules are found in the Quranic Chapter 8, addressing Muhammad and Muslims concerning relations with aggressive polytheists and self-defense fighting. Such rules have predicted the future, as they were revealed by God the Omniscient and Omnipotent, let us begin with a short summary of the Quranic Chapter Eight, with its rules given in advance regarding events that would yet to occur later on during Muhammad's lifetime.

1- Spoils were never a goal in self-defense fighting within the early days of Islam, but they were the main aim behind intertribal wars and Arab conquests of other countries. Early Muslims quarreled with one another over the distribution of spoils and they asked Muhammad about how to ivied spoils, and hence, God asserts in Chapter 8 the minor importance of money and the vital importance of piety: "They ask you about the bounties. Say, "The bounties are for God and the Messenger." So be mindful piously of God, and settle your differences, and obey God and His Messenger, if you are believers." (8:1). And later on, the way of how to divide spoils: "And know that whatever spoils you gain, to God belongs its fifth, and to the Messenger, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and to the wayfarer, provided you believe in God and in what We revealed to Our servant on the Day of Distinction, the day when the two armies met. God is Capable of everything." (8:41). "So consume what you have gained in spoils, legitimate and wholesome; and remain conscious of God. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (8:69). In cases of fighting for the sake of spoils only, as in Arab conquests, conflicts arise, and they might lead to major civil wars, as happened to the companions of the Arab conquests. As in cases of self-defense fighting for the sake of God and to prevent religious persecution, there was no room for conflict; Chapter 8 contains warnings against such conflicts: "And obey God and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you falter and lose your unity. And be steadfast. God is with the steadfast." (8:46). This last verse is a general rule never understood by the companions; in the Battle of Uhud, early Muslims were defeated because they ran for spoils once the Qorayish armies retreated, and Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed led the Qorayish troops once more to battlefield and defeated and crushed the Muslims who were busy collecting spoils. Hence, when they fought for God's sake, they achieved victory at first, but once they were busy with spoils, fighting here was no longer for God's sake; rather, for the sake of worldly gains and based on military might, and hence the defeated was bound to occur. "God has fulfilled His promise to you, and you defeated them by His leave; until when you faltered, and disputed the command, and disobeyed after He had shown you what you like. Some of you want this world, and some of you want the next. Then He turned you away from them, to test you; but He pardoned you. God is Gracious towards the believers." (3:152).

2- The issue of POWs: the Quranic sharia is clear about setting them free with no ransoms, as the case after the Battle of Badr. God has rebuked Muhammad for setting them free in return for ransom: "It is not for a prophet to take prisoners before he has subdued the land. You desire the materials of this world, but God desires the Hereafter. God is Strong and Wise" (8:67). Hence, the existence of POWs is linked to self-defensive wars only, not linked to seeking money, and that is why God has rebuked those who sought money that way: "Were it not for a predetermined decree from God, an awful punishment would have afflicted you for what you have taken." (8:68). God tells Muhammad in the Quran that He will forgive those prisoners if they believed and compensate them for the money they paid, while assuring Muhammad to protect him if they betrayed him: "O prophet! Say to those you hold prisoners, "If God finds any good in your hearts, He will give you better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you. God is Forgiving and Merciful." But if they intend to betray you, they have already betrayed God, and He has overpowered them. God is Knowing and Wise." (8:70-71). POWs were to be released for free or in return for setting free the Muslims captured by the polytheists: "…Then, when you have routed them, bind them firmly. Then, either release them by grace, or in return for the captured ones, until war lays down its burdens. …" (47:4). The following clear Quranic rule was against the companions of the crime of Arab conquests as they killed one another when they held captives, a bad habit that went on during the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates: "And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." (9:6). M. Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the false accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad, had fabricated falsehoods like that Muhammad used to kill captives and POWs including women and children, and other Arab historians imitated Ibn Ishaq in his claims, like Ibn Saad and Al-Tabary.

3- Fighting within Islam is ONLY for the sake of warding off aggression and as a form of self-defense in cases of religious persecution; once the infidels/polytheists stop their aggression, God will forgive them, but if they go on with their aggression against believers, they must be fought against to stop persecution, as religion is a matter to be judged only by God in the Last Day; see 2:190-194. "Say to those who disbelieve: if they desist, their past will be forgiven. But if they persist-the practice of the ancients has passed away. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes exclusively for God. But if they desist-God is Seeing of what they do." (8:38-39).

4- Within self-defense fighting, fleeing away is prohibited unless within plans to defeat the enemies, as obedience to God is required in devoutness and piety: "O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve on the march, never turn your backs on them. Anyone who turns his back on them on that Day, except while maneuvering for battle, or to join another group, has incurred wrath from God, and his abode is Hell-what a miserable destination!" (8:15-16). "O you who believe! When you meet a force, stand firm, and remember God much, so that you may prevail." (8:45). Of course, early Muslims forgot that in the Battle of Hunayn: "God has given you victory in numerous regions; but on the day of Hunayn, your great number impressed you, but it availed you nothing; and the land, as spacious as it was, narrowed for you; and you turned your backs in retreat." (9:25). They forgot God's warning against imitating troops of Qorayish: "And do not be like those who left their homes boastfully, showing off before the people, and barring others from the path of God. God comprehends what they do" (8:47).

5- Military preparations as much as believers could were NOT for aggression but for deterring the aggressive enemies beforehand to ward them off to stop their aggression. Hence, the Islamic country is to be a secure, peaceful, and powerful one; if it would be peaceful and weak, enemies would get encouraged to raid and destroy it. Being strong in the military sense, the Islamic country would deter any potential assaults, and hence stopping any future bloodshed. Hence, military power should be used to maintain peace, and Muslims are to accept truces and treaties of peace, even if such offers were not sincere, because Islam is the religion of peace: "And prepare against them all the power you can muster, and all the cavalry you can mobilize, to terrify thereby God's enemies and your enemies, and others besides them whom you do not know, but God knows them. Whatever you spend in God's way will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged. But if they incline towards peace, then incline towards it, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Knower. If they intend to deceive you-God is sufficient for you. It is He who supported you with His aid, and with the believers." (8:60-62).

6- Undeterred aggressive enemies who breach peace treaties should be fought as a form of self-defense to deter them against breaching and violating peace treaties: "Those of them with whom you made a treaty, but they violate their agreement every time. They are not righteous. If you confront them in battle, make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them, that they may take heed." (8:56-57). Hence, this is linked to the notion of deterrence; at the time, Yathreb must have suffered sudden attacks and assaults by those who violated peace treaties and sieged and/or entered the city by night or day; hence, one had to be cautious, and Muhammad has been commanded in the Quran as to how to react and deal with such cases: "If you fear treachery on the part of a people, break off with them in a like manner. God does not like the treacherous." (8:58). Fighting had a special nature at the time in the 7^th century A.D.; Yathreb had its settled dwellers and its settled location amidst Arabian deserts, under continuous threat of being sieged and/or assaulted with troops within its borders, not to mention riding Bedouins who cut off routes of caravans who must be fought before they raided Yathreb; if they entered the city, they must be chased away into the deserts once more to deter them. This was the nature of fighting battles inside and around Yathreb, the very first and last Islamic city-state, against its enemies. Hence, Muhammad and the rest of believers never fought for the sake of material gains or for the sake of aggression against peaceful ones; this is prohibited in the Quran and illogical in terms of military life of a city under siege and continual threat of being attacked by Jewish tribes, Bedouins, and Qorayish troops. Verses of Chapter 8 set the general rules of how to deal with such conditions and predict that the enemies will breach the general peace.

7- Immigration to Yathreb was the basis of belonging to this city-state during Muhammad's lifetime; by immigrating to settle in Yathreb, this citizen is part of this city-state, with certain duties and rights, including defending the city with spending money and fighting for it. Those who converted to Islam but remained among the polytheists and disbelievers were NOT ruled or governed by the city-state of Yathreb; yet, they were to be aided in cases of their persecution unless there was a truce or a peace treaty that should not be breached: "Those who believed, and emigrated, and struggled in God's cause with their possessions and their persons, and those who provided shelter and support-these are allies of one another. As for those who believed, but did not emigrate, you owe them no protection, until they have emigrated. But if they ask you for help in religion, you must come to their aid, except against a people with whom you have a treaty. God is Seeing of what you do." (8:72).

8- The Quranic order here is concerned with believers as allies to one another in peace and good causes against the forces of aggression united against the believers: "As for those who disbelieve, they are allies of one another. Unless you do this, there will be turmoil in the land, and much corruption." (8:73). Most early believers disobeyed such order, and several Quranic verses warn them against making alliances and forming allegiance with aggressive polytheists, as Qorayish did its best to hold pacts with Bedouins and other tribes to be united against early Muslims. This leads us to the following point about the cunning ways of Qorayish.

Secondly: The Qorayish Cunning and the Manipulation of Bedouins to Fight Muhammad:

1- The Quranic Chapter 8 pre-warns against such Bedouins, but no one among the Yathreb dwellers heeded such warnings. As for military preparations, God tells them: "And prepare against them all the power you can muster, and all the cavalry you can mobilize, to terrify thereby God's enemies and your enemies, and others besides them whom you do not know, but God knows them…" (8:60), but at the time, they knew their enemies very well, but we assert that God means here to point at another future enemy of whom they did not know and that military preparations should have continued to face such enemy. This enemy was prepared and financed by the cunning ways of Qorayish tribe whose cunning and plotting would have eliminated mountains.

2- The cunning of Qorayish began with making a pact with the Jewish tribes that used to live near Yathreb. Jews of the 7^th century Arabia were so keen on forming such an alliance that they told the Meccan polytheists that Qorayish tribesmen were on the right side while Muhammad and the early Muslims were on the wrong side: "Have you not considered those who were given a share of the Book? They believe in superstition and evil powers, and say of those who disbelieve, "These are better guided on the way than the believers." Those are they whom God has cursed. Whomever God curses, you will find no savior for him." (4:51-52). After the defeat of the Jewish troops and their fleeing from their residence around Yathreb, Qorayish needed other stronger yet more naïve allies to be controlled easily, unlike the Jews of Arabia who fled, to use them against Muhammad in Yathreb in an indirect manner. If such war by proxy achieved any measure of success, this would have been a better step toward the achievement of the ambitions of Qorayish, and if such allies were defeated, the Qorayish tribe would have been saved the disgrace of another defeat. Such available allies were the Bedouins, manipulated by Qorayish within certain conditions; Yathreb was an open city-state that received any peaceful immigrants who claim conversion to Islam. That is why within the last years of Muhammad's lifetime, the Quran mentions several times the existence of hypocrites and spying agents of war among the Bedouins. There were no reasons die these Bedouins to engage in wars waged against the Yathreb dwellers after several defeats of the Jews and the confederates, making dwellers of Yathreb reach the zenith of strength and power. Yet, some, and not all, Bedouins were urged to wage such wars by Qorayish and its cunning and plotting when its tribesmen made pacts with such Bedouins. Hence, some Bedouins were hypocrites and some were aggressors who harmed Yathreb dwellers openly, and both types of Bedouins coordinated with one another in their plotting, as we discern from the Quran.

3- Immigration to Yathreb was a strong point that added number and power to believers in the city-state of Islam. Yet, it was a weak point as well; spies and agents used to infiltrate so easily inside Yathreb coming from Mecca and elsewhere and from Arabian Bedouins, urged and bribed by Qorayish and other Meccan enemies. Hence, the number of hypocrites inside Yathreb increased as well, and instead of enemy troops attacking the city-state from outside, hypocritical Bedouins who entered it after feigning conversion to Islam attacked Muslims inside Yathreb, and some Bedouins made pacts and treaties with Yathreb to be violated and breached later on, while forming alliances with some Yathreb dwellers to recruit them as supporters, followers, and spies.

4- The Meccan members of the elite, especially among the Qorayish tribe, were clever tradesmen whose connections with customers everywhere was so strong that tradesmen inside Yathreb could never risk losing their relations with Mecca and Qorayish, even if this meant to form allegiance with Meccan agents and spies. It is noteworthy that within such a context, some verses of the Quranic Chapter 9 warn against forming such alliances and pacts with polytheists because of interests of trade, and we conclude then that the atmosphere of freedom in Yathreb was not only confined to cult, creed, and political expression, but also in trade, and such conditions led to the existence of a fifth column working against Muhammad. "O you who believe! Do not ally yourselves with your parents and your siblings if they prefer disbelief to belief. Whoever of you allies himself with them-these are the wrongdoers. Say, "If your parents, and your children, and your siblings, and your spouses, and your relatives, and the wealth you have acquired, and a business you worry about, and homes you love, are more dear to you than God, and His Messenger, and the struggle in His cause, then wait until God executes His judgment." God does not guide the sinful people." (9:23-24). This is the reference of the influence of trade and economy in creating agents and spies inside Yathreb city-state of Islam.

5- God describes in the Quran the plotting conniving Bedouins who learned the cunning ways of Qorayish: "And among the Desert-Arabs are those who consider their contribution to be a fine. And they wait for a reversal of your fortunes. Upon them will fall the cycle of misfortune…" (9:98). Hence, these hypocrites among the Bedouins waited in anticipation to find any weak points among the Yathreb dwellers by spying on them to know all about the fortifications of the city and weak points that might be attacked and assaulted easily and to contact with other spies and agents among the hypocrites among Yathreb dwellers, so that such valuable information would be conveyed to other Bedouins outside Yathreb to prepare for their attacks and raids.

6- Those hypocritical Bedouins were coarse and uncouth people; yet, they learned from Qorayish how to be flattering hypocrites in order to make friendships inside Yathreb. Such Bedouins waited for any misfortunes to befall Muslims inside Yathreb; yet, some believers wanted to guide such deceived Bedouins to adhere to Islam faithfully to attain salvation, while justifying their manners. When the issue of how to deal with such hypocrites was raised as they breached pacts and changed their stances several times, Muslims were divided in opinion, and God has rebuked them for such division: "What is the matter with you, divided into two factions regarding the hypocrites, when God Himself has overwhelmed them on account of what they did? Do you want to guide those whom God has led astray? Whomever God leads astray-you will never find for him a way." (4:88). God has prohibited making friends with them unless they immigrate to and dwell in Yathreb; see 4:89-91. This means that if such desert Bedouins were really sincere and peaceful, they were to immigrate to Yathreb to become among its dwellers while enjoying complete religious freedom and political opposition as the case with hypocrites among Yathreb dwellers, as long as they adhere to peace and non-violence. Yet, if such Bedouins chose to stay outside Yathreb, they were to stick to peace and stop their aggression; otherwise, the Yathreb believers must fight them ack. This was a chronic problem created by the cunning Qorayish tribesmen to early Muslims in Yathreb.

7- The cunning of Qorayish did not stop at this point; fighting groups of Bedouins emerged around the city borders, as we read in the Quranic Chapter 9, when God has ordered Muhammad and the believers to engage into self-defensive fighting against those who sieged Yathreb, waiting to attack it in the right moment, making use of information provided by agents and spies among Yathreb hypocrites who feigned conversion to Islam: "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who surround you to attack you, and let them find severity in you, and know that God is with the righteous." (9:123). This verse ends in mentioning piety and righteousness to assert the fact that fighting in Islam is for the purpose of self-defense ONLY and exclusively, as God dislikes aggressors. Once some people rejected Islam after Muhammad's death, those hypocritical Bedouins were among the first people to attack Yathreb.

8- Let us re-read verses of the Quranic Chapter 9 about Bedouins, among the verses revealed to Muhammad shortly before his death: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites…" (9:101), "The Desert-Arabs are the most steeped in disbelief and hypocrisy, and the most likely to ignore the limits that God revealed to His Messenger. God is Knowing and Wise. And among the Desert-Arabs are those who consider their contribution to be a fine. And they wait for a reversal of your fortunes. Upon them will fall the cycle of misfortune. God is Hearing and Knowing." (9:97-98), and "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who surround you to attack you, and let them find severity in you, and know that God is with the righteous." (9:123). This means that there were disbelieving hypocrites living around Yathreb and its borders, waiting for a chance to attack believers, and they should be fought fiercely. All such conditions were the making of Qorayish with its cunning ways and plots that would have eliminated mountains, at the time when the Quran was being revealed.

9- Hence, we conclude that once Muhammad died, and the divine revelation stopped, the cunning of Qorayish increased exponentially; most Bedouins revolted simultaneously against the nascent Islamic city-state and attacked it militarily, not in a secular manner, but in a quasi-religious war led by someone who feigned being a prophet. It was funny and ironic that one of the Bedouins feigned to be a prophet; fighting among desert Arabs used to be for venal gains and interests and NOT for religious reasons. At the time, once Muhammad died, wars waged began to take up a quasi-religious veneer to be manipulated for ecclesiastical and trade reasons and interests, all fashioned by the cunning ways and plots of Qorayish. Such epidemic spread like fire; several men and women claimed to be prophets and prophetesses, as we read in history of Arabia, and we believe that this was under the control and orders of Qorayish and its cunning plotting ways.

10- The one-million question is raised: why did the Qorayish rich retinue of tradesmen, who feigned conversion to Islam, resort to inciting others to wage war against early Muslims and to reject Islam, while never appearing in the picture? The agents and leaders of such wars were Muslims against rejecters of the new faith, why? The reason was that Qorayish plotted to return to its leading position to remain in the center of the scene/arena, as it used to be before Islam. More details are to be found in the next chapter, please read on.

CHAPTER IV: The Cunning of Qorayish behind the First Civil Wars

Firstly: The Calm before the Storm:

1- Contrary to what the historians, such as Ibn Ishaq and his likes, had written, Arabia enjoyed a peaceful calm shortly before the death of Muhammad. Yet, it was the calm before the storm; once Muhammad died, the storm stirred at first in Yathreb by the attacks and war waged by those who declared their rejection of Islam. Such storm stirred in several locations simultaneously all over Arabia, which belied a conspiracy prepared and planned long ago with devilish cunning and its time of execution was the death of Muhammad, and such conspiracy was led by Qorayish agents: those riff-raff persons who claimed to be prophets.

2- Shortly before the death of Muhammad, Islam spread all over Arabia, but OVERTLY. This was NOT a spread of faith/creed within hearts, as this is judged only by God, the Omniscient, in the Last Day, but we mean Islam in terms of general peace and security within behavior and demeanor.

3- Overtly, on the surface, Yathreb enjoyed peace and security shortly before the death of Muhammad, but the Quran has exposed the fact that many of Yathreb dwellers were hypocrites and disbelievers loyal to Qorayish, however hard they feigned to be faithful and religious persons, and that is why God promised some among them, and NOT all of them, Yathreb dwellers to enter paradise: "Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those with him are stern against the disbelievers, yet compassionate amongst themselves. You see them kneeling, prostrating, seeking blessings from God and approval. Their marks are on their faces from the effects of prostration. Such is their description in the Torah, and their description in the Gospel: like a plant that sprouts, becomes strong, grows thick, and rests on its stem, impressing the farmers. Through them He enrages the disbelievers. God has promised those among them who believe and do good deeds forgiveness and a great reward." (48:29).

4- The same sham, shallow, and overt faith found in Yathreb was all over Arabia as well, with no real faithful belief in hearts of Arabs, however peaceful they had become shortly before the death of Muhammad, as we know from the Quranic Chapter 110. This Chapter indicates that they did NOT convert to Islam, but adhered to peace overtly in terms of demeanor and behavior, as witnessed by Muhammad and as peace is the uppermost value within the message of Islam. Muhammad could never read their minds and hearts; all Arabs came to him declaring peace on the superficial level. Unlike what was written in the historical accounts of Ibn Ishaq who wrote that internecine wars were prevalent shortly before the death of Muhammad, we maintain that calm prevailed, and the storm began to stir once he died. This atmosphere of calm and peace was enjoyed for a short time all over the Arabian peninsula, and then the storm of wars waged by those renegades who rejected the new faith broke out suddenly, concocted and planned by the Qorayish cunning that would have eliminated mountains.

Secondly: Qorayish Made Use of Islam to Dominate over Arabia after Loss of the Importance of Mecca in Trade:

1- Firstly, we are to remember that the Qorayish rich elite members knew that the Quran was a source of guidance, but they rejected it to preserve their interests in manipulating the Kaabah for venal economic reasons in the Qorayish trade. God tells us in the Quran that the Qorayish tribesmen said this about the Quran: "And they say, "If we follow the guidance with you, we will be snatched from our land."…" (28:57). God asserts that Qorayish tribesmen denied the Quran for economic and financial reasons: "And you make it your livelihood to deny it?" (56:82). Prophet Muhammad used to feel sad because of their stubbornness and falsehoods, and God has reminded him that they did not disbelieve him but deny the Truth of the Quran itself after understanding it: "We know that what they say grieves you. It is not you they reject, but it is God's revelations that the wicked deny." (6:33).

2- Qorayish tribesmen saw that defeating Islam was impossible; they had to live with this reality, or else, they will lose its stature and everything indeed. Moreover, Qorayish tribesmen saw that its religious hegemony of the past vanished apparently as Arabs no longer worship idols because of the Quranic enlightenment and the Quranic rationalism and intellectual war against polytheism. Hence, most Arabs realized that Qorayish have manipulated them to secure its caravans of trade in return for deifying and worshiping idols and myths, and the Kaabah lost its stature as a center of the Qorayish trade. Hence, it was expected that leaders of Qorayish would think deeply about their future and wealth under the new conditions: how to undergo and to manipulate such conditions to serve their purposes. Of course, they peremptorily sent their spies and agents, among the sly ones loyal to Qorayish, to Yathreb, and even some of their evil leaders feigned conversion to Islam in Mecca, before immigration to Yathreb. All leaders of Qorayish declared their conversion to the new faith once Mecca was conquered, hoping to make use of Islam to restore their high stature especially that Muhammad was originally a Meccan of the Qorayish tribe, and so were some of his companions. Most immigrants to Yathreb were originally Meccan persons. Some of them used to remain loyal to Qorayish, and were hired as agents to spy on Muslims, to supply Qorayish with information while betraying Muhammad and Islam. Qorayish made use of the Umayyads' close relations and connections with other tribes outside Mecca to contain and control early Muslims in Yathreb in a cunning way that would have eliminated mountains. Qorayish made use of the naivety of Arab Bedouins around Yathreb. Thus, after losing centrality of Mecca in trade, Qorayish wanted to manipulate Islam itself to serve its purposes of leading all Arabs, using a most cunning plot: inciting a religious war using those who rejected Islam to create a dilemma for the early Muslims, which would result in restoring the leadership to Qorayish unrivaled, when the tribe would emerge with an apparent solution to the dilemma. Thus, usual raids of Bedouins against Yathreb turned into a religious war of renegades under leaders who claim to be prophets. Such claims were foreign to thoughts and intellectual capabilities of Bedouins; hence, we conclude that this was a cunning plot of Qorayish tribesmen, who specialized in manipulation of religion and in how to control and direct Bedouins into the desired route, using a quasi-religious cover to justify the raids and wars to rival and undermine Muhammad's prophethood after his death.

3- The Qorayish cunning ways were used in plots and conspiracies in an unprecedented manner; the Qorayish tribe had made, secretly, a pact with desert Arab, the Bedouins, as well as with the hypocrites inside and outside Yathreb, some immigrants within its dwellers, and spies and agents planted carefully around Muhammad, all of which were loyal to Qorayish. Some agents around Muhammad were famous companions mentioned in history later on, and who waited to lead Muslims once Muhammad died. All this was not enough to restore the lost stature of Qorayish as leader of all Arabs; the Umayyads and sons of Abou Sufyan who converted to Islam shortly before the death of Muhammad had to lead the scene as well to lead all Arabs later on. The kick-start was the earthquake of the war of the renegades to terrorize early Muslims and then Qorayish would emerge as savior of Islam and Muslims! No plan could ever be more devilish at the time! No one would dare to contradict Qorayish later on about anything. Once the tribesmen of Qorayish and its spying agents undertook the leadership of Muslim armies and troops against the renegades, this military leadership was bound sooner or later to turn into rule, dominance, control, and power of Qorayish over all Arabia. Thus, the war battles had to go on for some time to set the foundations of the Qorayish hegemony by its leaders who feigned to be Muslims. Once Qorayish managed to unite all Arabs against an internal enemy, it was easier later on to defeat and to vanquish the renegades and then to form peace treaties with them to make room for the real goal: Arab conquests of neighboring lands around Arabia. This fatal, lethal step had to be justified by purposeful distortion and adulteration of the sharia of Islam to turn self-defense fighting into military aggression against all non-Arab nations in the Levant, Iraq, Egypt, North Africa, Persia, etc. to conquer and invade and colonize all these regions under the rule of Qorayish. The conquered nations were subdued and coerced to 'choose' either conversion to ''Islam'' (a Qorayish variety of creed, contradicting the Quran) or to pay annual tributes, or else engage in endless wars. Thus, Qorayish achieved its dream of establishing an Arab empire with Qorayish tribesmen on its head as rulers; those major tribesmen of Qorayish were the Umayyads, exclusively.

Thirdly: Evidence from Written Historical Accounts:

1- It is a well-known fact that historical accounts ignore lots of events referred to in the Quranic text; one of the reasons of this phenomenon was the fact that narrators and writers of such historical accounts were the descendants of the so-called companions of the lifetime of Muhammad, and they intentionally ignored any events that condemn their forefathers; events mentioned pointedly in the Quran. For instance, among such ignored events are the following: 1) repeated details mentioned in the Quran about the existence of hypocrites in Yathreb, 2) repeated Qorayish military raids against Yathreb before the divine command of self-defensive fighting, and finally 3) the last attack committed by Qorayish extremists after Muslims conquered Mecca peacefully, and those extremists tried hard to expel Muhammad out of Mecca. Hence, the Quranic Chapter 9 is filled with warnings addressed to such extremists, giving them a period to repent during the four sacred months. The Quran is filled with instances of companions insulting Muhammad and conspiring against him; several verses talking about deeds, conspiracies, actions, and plots, whereas historical accounts never mention all these events chronicled in the Quran. The historical account of Ibn Ishaq about Muhammad's lifetime was written in the earlier days of the Abbasid Era, collected from oral narratives registered by Ibn Ishaq. This gap of time allows ample room for distortion and fabrications. Ibn Ishaq added stories of his own fabrication, claiming that he heard such accounts from the historian Ibn Shehab Al-Zahry, though he never met with him. The book of Ibn Ishaq is filled with falsehoods, not authenticated history; all histories in the world are relative, not absolute truths or facts. The only source of absolute historical facts of Islam and of the lifetime of Muhammad is the Quran. This is the historical methodology adopted by us, Quranists; we reflect upon, contemplate, and analyze the Quranic verses, and then compare them with historical accounts to differentiate between falsehoods and facts. Accordingly, it is very difficult to find traces of the Qorayish cunning plots and conspiracies in written historical accounts, recorded decades after the death of Muhammad. We admit that even our narrative and personal opinions here in this book are categorized as intellectual deductions liable to be criticized, of course. Yet, we try to complete the puzzle picture using the Quranic verses. Let us shed light on what historians had written about the renegades' wars that broke out once Muhammad died, not shortly before his death; let us quote some of what historians had written.

2- We read this in historical accounts written by historians about the critical conditions of early Muslims between hypocrites inside Yathreb and attacks of Bedouins from outside the city, while Qorayish tribesmen had emerged as 'saviors': (…most Arabs rejected Islam, waging wars or threatening to fight one another, except the tribes of Qorayish and Thaqeef. False prophets like Musaylama and Tulayha acquired countless followers, the latter collected followers from among the common people of the tribes of Tay'e and Assad, while the tribe of Ghattfan followed the false prophet Oyyiena Ibn Hisn, who claimed that a prophet from either the tribe of Assad or the tribe of Ghattfan, who were allies, was better than the Qorayish prophet Muhammad, who died and Tulayha claimed to be his successor, who will lead other Ghattfan and other tribes …). This means that it was a surprise to find that most Arabs had rejected and became renegades, except for the tribe of Qorayish in Mecca and the Thaqeef tribe in the city of Ta'if, and that common desert-Arabs (Bedouins) were the main supporters of the renegades' rebellious wars.

3- We quote here another piece of historical accounts about the cultural level of such false men who claimed to be prophets: this piece tells us about the fierce battles between early Muslims and the army of renegades led by the false prophet Tulayha: (…Oyyiena Ibn Hisn led a troop of 700 soldiers from the Bani Fezarah tribe, along with Tulayha, and they fought fiercely, while Tulayha, wrapped in his swathes, stood uttering prophecies to them. As the battle grew fiercer, Oyyiena asked Tulayha if Gabriel the Angel came to him or not, and Tulayha answered in the negative, and after a while during the same battle, the same question was repeated by Oyyiena with curses, and Tulayha gave him the same negative answer. Within the third and last time, Tulayha told him that Gabriel told him that the fierce battle will go on, with unforgotten results. Oyyiena Ibn Hisn said to Tulayha that the unforgotten result was that he was exposed as a false prophet, and he shouted to the fighting tribesmen of Bani Fezarah that Tulayha was an inveterate liar, leading them out of the battle field, to make Tulayha lose the battle …). Eventually, Tulayha fled the battlefield, and later on, he declared his conversion to Islam once more, and he fought within battles of the Arab conquest of Persia! Historians had written the following about the same battle after the flight of its military leader Oyyiena Ibn Hisn: (…Tulayha prepared his horse and the camel for his wife, fleeing the battlefield for fear of being surrounded by the soldiers who fought against him, and before he managed to flee, he shouted at his soldiers of the Bani Fezarah tribe to flee along with their wives. When his army was defeated, he fled to the Levant, as a guest within the Tribe of Kalb, claiming his conversion once more to Islam, as he got wind of the news that both tribes of Ghattfan and Assad converted to Islam once more. Tulayha remained in the Levant until the death of the caliph Abou Bakr; he once performed pilgrimage to Mecca during the caliphate of Abou Bakr, whom people told him about the presence of Tulayha, but Abou Bakr told them to leave Tulayha alone as he became a Muslim now. Later on Tulayha returned to Yathreb and swore fealty to caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, and the latter reminded him of those killed during renegades' war because of him, telling him he would never like him, but Tulayha told Omar that those killed were martyrs for God's cause, and that he was now a good Muslim who repented lying to people about the claim of being a prophet. When Tulayha left the Levant for Iraq, some people seized in captivity Oyyiena Ibn Hisn, and presented him before Abou Bakr, and people shouted at him that he was an infidel who rejected God and the true faith, but Oyyiena Ibn Hisn, tied with ropes, said to them that he never believed in God before this moment, and that he repented and returned to Islam, and hence, Abou Bakr released him instead of having him killed…). Tulayha, the false prophet from the tribe of Assad, had composed such devilish verses that he claimed to be divinely revealed to him: (…We swear by the pigeons and the doves, and by the fasting birds that have fasted before you years ago, that our empire will certainly reach Iraq and the Levant…).

4- As for Sajah, a woman who claimed to be a prophetess, historical accounts tell us that (…she wanted to defeat Abou Bakr militarily, and for that purpose, she sent a letter to Malik Ibn Nuweira asking for support; yet, he advised her against her intentions, and to enlist the help, in her project to be a leader/prophetess, of the Bani Tamim tribe. She told him that she was merely a woman of the Bani Yarboo tribe, seeking no monarchy, leaving it to men…). (…Malik, Sajah, and Wakee' met one day, hearing the verses of Sajah, saying: "Prepare the horsemen, get them ready for looting, raiding other tribes in their tents with no bashfulness!'', and she chanted other verses to the soldiers who were about to raid the Yamama tribe: "Attack the Yamama tribe, beating the drums of war, in a just, fierce fight, feeling no guilt or shame!"…). Such were the 'revelations' of Sajah!

5- Later on, Sajah made a pact of alliance with another man who proclaimed himself as a prophet: the most famous one who did so in history of Arabia: Museilama the Liar. At first, Sajah tried to wage a war against him as a rival, but he managed to win her to his side: (…he showered her with gifts, and he sent her a letter asking permission and a promise of safety to be able to visit her, and she agreed to that. He showed up at her location along with 40 tribesmen from Bani Haneefa tribe. Museilama told her that he as a prophet and she as a prophetess ought to have authority over the half of the lands, leaving the other half to the Qorayish tribe, if justice was to be applied, as God appointed both of them as prophets!…). As for the next quotation, we apologize for quoting the coarse language of both Museilama and Sajah; we quote them to prove they were among the riff-raff of the Bedouins. Both Sajah and Museilama were along together: (…he ordered her to remain alone with him by dismissing her followers, attendants, and servants. She obeyed him; he prepared a sumptuous tent to appeal to her and remind her of the carnal joys of sex. Once alone inside it, she asked him about the 'divine' revelations he received. He told her: ''God created women for men, for the purpose of copulation and begetting children, and there is no miracle more wondrous than a pregnant woman who later gives birth. God created orifices in the female bodies, for men to enjoy and use for their pleasures of both sexes, to spread their offspring on earth", and she told him that she believed in his being a prophet sent by God. He proposed to her by saying: "Let us get married at once, and with your followers and mine, we will rule and dominate all Arabs'', and she gave her consent. He felt overjoyed and began chanting verses of poetry: Let us get to fucking, for I have prepared the bed for you/ We can fuck inside this tent anywhere, not just in bed/ you can choose any position you like to enjoy with me the carnal pleasure. She told him to try all positions with her tonight, as her revelation entailed so. They remained inside the tent for three consecutive days, and later on, returned to her tribe. Her followers asked her about the whole affair, and she said that she got married to him and she believed in his being a prophet. They blamed her for not receiving a dowry or a gift from him. She demanded her dowry, but he told her that her dowry was that he cancelled the dawn and night prayers ordained within Islam of Muhammad. One of her followers who witnessed all this, Otarid Ibn Hajib, chanted this verse: Our prophetess we adore and worship passionately/ For she is unparalleled; as prophets of other people are males…). Eventually, historians claim she re-converted once more to Islam and became a pious repentant, dying eventually in the city of Basra, Iraq, with 'Islamic' funerary rituals and prayers offered to her, during the caliphate of Mu'aweiya, the first Umayyad caliph. Historians wrote some of the verses of Museilama the Liar, that he claimed to be 'divinely' revealed to him: (…O croaking frog, croak as much as you like; water above you and mud beneath you; you never stop thirsty ones from drinking, and never soil the water… He once chanted as well: Plant, sow, and reap the wheat, and then grind it into flour, and then spread ghee over the flour to make food, and glorify the holy wheat… He was once visited by Talha Al-Namry, who asked him about his conditions, and Museilama told him that he used to receive visitation from an unknown man in the dark, and Talha told him that he was a liar and a false prophet, whereas Muhammad was a true prophet of God, but infidels loved the liar and rejected the faith of the truthful one…).

Lastly:

1- Qorayish manipulated and made use of the naivety combined with belligerent fierceness of desert Arabs, i.e., the Bedouins, and controlled them to initiate what historians call wars of the renegades (i.e., those who forsook and rejected Islam), and made some of them to claim themselves as prophets, supported by famous cavaliers in Arabia at the time, such as Oyyiena Ibn Hisn, a.k.a. the Fool, and Amr Ibn Maady Yakrab. This phenomenon of the emergence of false prophets came to an end once their role was fulfilled by serving the purposes of Qorayish and its plans. Such false prophets declared their return to Islam, and they became soldiers in the Qorayish military troops to conquer neighboring countries. Once Arab conquests were done, desert Arabs and Bedouins realized the painful truth: the Umayyads confiscated the best possessions, lands, and money of the conquered nations within the caliphate of Othman. Hence, they rebelled against Othman and assassinated him during their revolt, and later on they became the Shiites of Ali the caliph, and then assassinated him as well. Eventually, they became united under the term Al-Khawarij (i.e. the renegades) who fought intermittently the Umayyad Dynasty. Such changes occurred within one generation: Bedouins became Muslims, rejecters of Islam, converts once more, conquerors, renegades, assassins, and then Al-Khawarij. In all cases, they bore grudges against Qorayish that manipulated them to serve its purposes with its cunning that might have eliminated mountains.

2- Thus, the Qorayish tribe manipulated desert Arabs (Bedouins) as tools to establish its empire and then got rid of them as soon as was possible. The same policy has been followed in the 20^th century by Al-Saud, the royal family of the KSA, as they have trained desert Arabs of the Najd area in Arabia in martial arts, calling them the Najd Brothers, and used them to fight and pave the way, with bloodshed, to the establishment of the current third state of Saudi Arabia, and then, Al-Saud fought them to get rid of them. This has been recently repeated in Egypt; the terrorist MB group members have used and manipulated the simpletons and the riff-raff and have sacrificed them in the nearest chance to serve the purposes of the supreme guide! Hence, the ignorant citizens were used by the terrorist MB members as steps in the ladder leading to the fulfillment of their political ambitions, leading eventually to their downfall. Let this be a useful lesson to Egyptians to beware of those who manipulate creeds to appeal emotionally to citizens to deceive them.

3- This is what we have learned from the history of Qorayish and from the Quran itself. God will tell the Qorayish tribesmen in the Last Day that they had followed the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh and his likes: "And you inhabited the homes of those who wronged themselves, and it became clear to you how We dealt with them, and We cited for you the examples." (14:45). This is a uranic prediction that Qorayish will never heed the Quranic stories, about Moses' Pharaoh and others, to draw lessons from them; in fact, Qorayish had established a tyrannical theocratic empire, and live in arrogance like Pharaoh, but under the banner of Islam! Shame on them! This is an unprecedented cunning way and a devilish plan in human history; and that is why God tells Muhammad in the Quran about their cunning plans this verse: "They planned their plans, but their plans are known to God, even if their plans can eliminate mountains." (14:46). But in 14:47-51, God tells Muhammad to rest assured that they will be inevitably punished in the Afterlife. We, all human beings, are to heed such warnings: "This is a proclamation for humankind, that they may be warned thereby, and know that He is One God, and that people of understanding may remember." (14:52)

4- Did Muslims heed the Quranic warnings? To have an answer to this question, suffice it to look at the deplorable conditions of today's Muslims.

CHAPTER V: Abou Sufyan Was the Head of the Qorayish Cunning

Firstly: Abou Sufyan the Director:

1- Only naïve watchers of movies heed the actors and never heed the real moviemakers: directors who control actors and their lines of dialogue as well as the scenes and cameras, and every element in moviemaking industry.

2- As for our topic here about the cunning ways and plots of Qorayish, its director and mastermind was the leader of the tribe at the time: Abou Sufyan Ibn Harb Ibn Umayya Ibn Abd-Shams Ibn Abd-Manaf. Why are we saying so? Because Abou Sufyan was 1) the most important leader of the Qorayish troops in their wars waged for years against Muhammad in Yathreb, 2) the leader of the caravan before the Battle of Badr, 3) the leader of the Qorayish troops within the Battle of Uhud, 4) the one who gathered and united all tribes to try to annihilate all of the early Muslims within the Battle of the Trench (aka the Battle of the Confederates), 5) the one who converted to Islam once Mecca was captured by Muslims troops peacefully with no fighting, thus becoming the beneficiary of appointing his sons as leaders of wars against the renegades and later on leaders of Arab conquests, eventually resulting in civil wars among Arabs resulting in establishing the monarchy/caliphate for his eldest son, Mu'aweiya, to begin the era of the Umayyads that last for nearly a century of successive line of rulers. Hence, we can be certain to assert that Abou Sufyan was the director and orchestrator of all events and plots we narrate and quote here in this book; he was the one that recruited agents and spies from the very beginning while Muhammad was residing in Mecca until shortly before early Muslims captured Mecca later on.

Secondly: Overlooking the Role of Abou Sufyan in Plotting against Muhammad in Mecca:

1- It is noteworthy that all historians had intentionally ignored the role of Abou Sufyan in the persecution of Muhammad and early believers in Mecca; the focus of all historians was on historical figures such as Abou Jahl, Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, Umayya Ibn Khalaf, Umayya Ibn Abou Al-Salt, and Safwan Ibn Umayya, among others, who died as disbelievers and deniers of Islam. Yet, historians had to mention Abou Sufyan within events of the Battles of Badr, Uhud, and the Confederates (the Trench). Otherwise, historians purposefully ignored to mention Abou Sufyan within other events for years; he is mentioned once more to have met Muhammad on his way to conquer Mecca, declaring his conversion to Islam to Muhammad himself. Historians claim falsely that Muhammad had said then that whoever would enter the house of Abou Sufyan would be safe. We believe that the main reason of such purposeful ignorance of mentioning Abou Sufyan was that the main source of such oral narratives was named Abban Ibn Othman Ibn Affan, the one made governor over Yathreb during the Umayyad caliphate of Abdel-Malik Ibn Marawan in 76 A.H., and his fabricated narratives spread all over Arabia to the extent that things ignored by him remained unknown: chief among such ignored facts was the role of Abou Sufyan in leading and heading the cunning plots of Qorayish against Muhammad and Islam first in Mecca and later on in Yathreb.

2- We have re-read the historical accounts of Al-Tabary focused on the Meccan period, and to our surprise, no mention of Abou Sufyan has been found at all in relation to the persecution of early Muslims and Muhammad in Mecca, and likewise in relation to enumeration of the Qorayish leaders who led the troops and movements of hatred and animosity against Muhammad and the early Muslims. For instance, Al-Tabary writes the following about delegations of Qorayish coming to Abou Talib, the paternal uncle of Muhammad, once Muhammad proclaimed his call to Islam, with no mention of Abou Sufyan: (… the delegations of Qorayish felt troubled because Muhammad the Prophet denied their idols and deities, and they went to meet with Abou Talib who was in charge of protecting Muhammad the Prophet of God, to complain to him about his nephew who forsake their ancestral religion and to warn him to urge him to stop abusing their idols or to leave them to exact punishment against him. This delegation included the following leaders of Qorayish: Otba Ibn Rabei'a, Sheiba Ibn Rabei'a, Abou Al-Bakhtary Ibn Hisham, Al-Aswad Ibn Al-Mutalib, Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, Abou Jahl Ibn Hisham, Al-As Ibn Wael, and Nabeeh and Munbeih the sons of Al-Hajaj…).

3- Yet, there is one historical account, that we perceive as being a fabricated falsehood and a myth, mentioned by Al-Tabary linked with Abou Sufyan, as a leader among the biggest ones of Qorayish. This account is well-known because it is often quoted now and was made into a scene in an Egyptian movie of the genre of period/historical drama: the gathering of the Qorayish leaders, among them was Abou Sufyan, in their forum to discuss how to get rid of Muhammad, and Satan took the form of an sheikh of Najd to advise them to assassinate Muhammad by the way Abou Jahl suggested; a representative youth of every tribe of Mecca stabbing Muhammad at the same time so that Muhammad's tribe would have to accept the diyya (i.e., money paid to folks of the murdered one to stop more vendetta or revenge) instead of taking revenge from all tribes of Mecca, which was impossible to do. This falsehood fabricated by Al-Tabary goes as follows: (…consecutive series of narrators told us that the leaders of Qorayish gathered in their forum to discuss how to get rid of Prophet Muhammad and his call, and as debate grew hotter, Satan took the form of an old sheikh at their door. They saw him and asked about his identity, and he told them he was a sheikh from the Najd area who came to hear them and to give them pieces of advice concerning the matter they were discussing. They allowed him to join them. All leaders and affluent ones of Qorayish were gathered at the forum, with representative of all tribes of Mecca, not just from the Qorayish tribe… most men were of the opinion to murder Muhammad and all the new converts who followed him. They held various opinions about how to execute a plan of assassination. Some of them suggested that Muhammad was to be fettered in chains inside his house, while well-guarded at the door, until he would die of hunger and thirst, like mad poets before him. Satan in his human form of disguise told them that the tribe of Muhammad would manage to strike them all with their swords to release him, and thus, this suggestion was discarded. After some further deliberation, some men suggested that Muhammad was to be forced into exile, to leave Mecca forever, so that they would get rid of him regardless of his fate later on. Satan advised them that this solution is wrong, as Muhammad would gather more followers and fight them by huge troops one day. Thus, this suggestion was discarded as well. Abou Jahl Ibn Hisham (aka: Abou Al-Hakam Ibn Hisham) made the following suggestion that was approved by all of them, including Satan; representative youths each from one tribe in Mecca would carry a sharp sword to deal one blow each to Muhammad to murder him inside his house, and thus, all tribes would carry his blood, and Muhammad's tribe, Bani Abd-Manaf, would have to accept diyya money as they could not possible wage war against all tribes of Mecca simultaneously. Satan approved of this plan. The Archangel Gabriel told Muhammad of this plot, and told him not to spend the night in his bed. The criminals waited outside the gate of Muhammad's house until he would fall asleep. Seeing them, Muhammad told Ali Ibn Abou Talib to sleep in his bed instead, covered with a green mantle that used to be Muhammad's, promising him not to get harmed at all…Muhammad prepared his means, victuals, camels, and a man-guide through desert routes to flee to Yathreb as the last one to immigrate to it, miraculously getting out of his house without anyone seeing him as he passed through them, and to their dismay, once they crushed the gate to get to his bed, they found Ali instead of Muhammad…). This is the very first narrative mentioning Abou Sufyan along with other Qorayish leaders as taking part in plotting against Muhammad and Islam. Of course, this narrative is a myth and falsehood, even with its series/chain of narrators proves it, as it includes the name of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who was a child at the time! Narratives linked to Abdullah Ibn Abbas were mostly fabrications, as fabricators of hadiths wanted to flatter the Abbasids by mentioning their forefather Abdullah Ibn Abbas. Even the text of this narrative is improbable; who could tell that Satan took a human form; he did not need to be in disguise, as he and other devils are unseen by human eyes, as we know from the Quran: "…He sees you, him and his clan, from where you cannot see them…" (7:27). The whisperings of Satan and the devils are enough to drive evil people to commit sins and evil deeds, and devils do not need to take a human form at all for any reason! Thus, this narrative is utterly nonsensical! Another element that cast doubt on this falsehood of a narrative is that Bani Abd-Manaf was the largest tribe of Qorayish that included the Umayyads and Bani Abd-Shams, and some of the men gathered in this event were from both tribes. Another element that debunks this narrative is this: who told the narrators that Gabriel warned Muhammad?! The Quran asserts that the Qorayish tribe forcibly drove Muhammad and early Muslims out of Mecca, as we have explained in a previous article.

4- We conclude from the above that there were intentional ignoring of the role played by Abou Sufyan in Mecca against Islam and Muhammad; even the only narrative mentioning him is a falsehood and a myth in terms of series/chain of narrators, text, and topic. This ignoring him on purpose is curious; he was the most important leader in the tribe of Qorayish, and he played major roles in the events after the Battle of Badr, and he killed several of Qorayish tribesmen, and let us not forget that his in-law, the father of his wife Hind, was Otba Ibn Rabei'a, and that Abou Sufyan was the descendant of the famous founder of the tribe Abd-Shams Ibn Abd-Manaf

Thirdly: The Stature of Abou Sufyan inside and outside Mecca at the Time:

1- We read the following in the biography of Abou Sufyan: (…Abou Sufyan Sakhar Ibn Harb Ibn Umayya Ibn Abd-Shams Ibn Abd-Manaf, the Umayyad of the Qorayish tribe, the father of Mu'aweiya and Yazeed, among other sons, born ten years before Muhammad, among the affluent families of the Qorayish tribe, and he became a wealthy merchant who traded in his own money and in the money of the affluent ones in Qorayish via caravans into the Levant and other countries of non-Arabs, sometimes leading the caravans himself, and when the Qorayish tribesmen wanted to wage wars, they would give Abou Sufyan the war banner to carry, as their best leader. The three most esteemed men before the advent of Islam were Abou Jahl, Otba, and Abou Sufyan…).

2- This historical account asserts that Abou Sufyan used to lead the Qorayish tribe single-handedly and all of the tribesmen used to obey him: (…when a fierce fighting would break out between two factions of Qorayish, Abou Sufyan convinced both factions to accept mutual peace and forgiveness by preaching to them that forgiveness is better than what is right or should be the right of someone…)

3- The king of Yemen once wanted to know who the most influential and strongest leader in Mecca was, and thus he sent ten expensive camels to Mecca to be sacrificed and slaughtered by the noblest person in the Qorayish tribe. At the time, Abou Sufyan was spending his honeymoon with his bride Hind the daughter of Otba, who urged his husband not to miss such an honor, and he told her he would not miss it; he would slaughter any man who would take his place in slaughtering these camels. After the passage of seven days, no man dared to get near the camels, until eventually Abou Sufyan got out of his house and slaughtered himself all the camels.

4- Abou Qohafa, the father of Abou Bakr, used to live in Mecca, revering, obeying, honoring, and submitting to Abou Sufyan. He outlived his son, Abou Bakr. This scene in Mecca was witnessed by both Abou Bakr the caliph and his father: (…Abou Bakr the caliph sent for Abou Sufyan in Mecca to discuss a certain matter, and he shouted angrily at Abou Sufyan, who flattered and tried to appease the angry caliph. At the time Abou Qohafa was blind, and he asked his attendant about the one shouted at by his son the caliph. When he knew that Abou Sufyan was shouted at, he approached Abou Bakr his son and told him that he transgressed his limits against one of the most important leaders of high stature in Mecca. But Abou Bakr smiled along with his retinue of men gathered around him and told his father that Islam made some persons to rise above other persons who deserve to be humiliated…). Thus, this was the high stature of Abou Sufyan of the Qorayish tribe, let alone his renown and stature as a statesmen and tradesman within the annual caravans of the summer and winter to the north and to the south of Mecca.

5- A well-known historian, Al-Asmaai, writes about the entrance of Abou Sufyan into the court of the Persian emperor, Khosrow II, in pre-Islamic times, as the Persian emperor gave him a precious cushion as a gift, and Al-Asmaai wanted to authenticate this narrative, and he asked Abou Sufyan himself, ho told him the following: (… I gave the Persian emperor, Khosrow, whose face was bigger and larger than any face I ever saw before, gifts of fine horses, and he gave me a precious-looking cushion that was beside him, but I muttered to myself that this is too little a thing to receive by such a grand emperor, but his retinue men outside the palace court appreciated this gift very much, until one of them took it from me in return for 800 gold and silver cups, and I was content…). Al-Asmaai asked a Persian man converted to Islam about the precious cushions of the emperor, and this man told him that such cushions were worthy of 1000 gold and silver cups, as Abou Sufyan was cheated of 200 ones! Anyway, such a story asserts the stature and importance of Abou Sufyan as a figure in international trade at the time. Another long story, that we will not mention here due to its length, that links Abou Sufyan to Ceres, the Roman governor of Egypt, asserts the importance and international stature of Abou Sufyan as well.

Fourthly: Abou Sufyan Restored his Stature after a late Conversion to Islam:

1- Abou Sufyan declared his conversion to Islam after he met with Muhammad who was on his way to conquer Mecca. Obviously, Abou Sufyan was keen on retaining his leadership and high stature after his assumed conversion to Islam. He seized the chance to retain his status once Muhammad died and Abou Bakr became the ruler/caliph. Let us remember that Abou Bakr was a nobody at the time in terms of the criteria of affluent families of tradesmen of the Qorayish tribe, as we discern from the above story of Abou Qohafa, the father of Abou Bakr. Another narrative tells us that once Muhammad died, furor spread all over Mecca, and Abou Qohafa asked, when he knew his son became the ruler, if Bani Abd-Shams (the tribe of Abou Sufyan and the Umayyads) and Bani Al-Mughira, the most powerful factions in Mecca within Qorayish, approve of it. When he received the answer in the affirmative, he felt content, as he never imagined his son to become a ruler one day in the presence of the most powerful and affluent personalities. This was the dominant culture at the time, expressed by the hapless naïve Abou Qohafa.

2- Similarly, the stance of the Umayyad Khaled Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-As Ibn Abd-Shams Ibn Abd-Manaf, who converted to Islam earlier and immigrated to Abyssinia and then to Yathreb, and who witnessed the caliphate of About Bakr. He disliked the fact that Abou Bakr became a ruler over Arabs while he did not belong to the Hashemites and the Bani Abd-Manaf factions of Qorayish, and he adamantly refused for three consecutive months to give fealty and swear allegiance to Abou Bakr. He expressed his discontent to Ali and Othman, who became later on caliphs. Abou Bakr could not blame him, unlike Omar who begrudged this disloyalty against him. Abou Bakr had to coax and cajole Khaled, and he later on made him one of the military leaders of the Arab conquests.

3- Abou Sufyan planned and plotted to serve his own purposes; he indirectly and purposefully caused the breaking out of wars that came to be known later on as the ''renegade wars'', wreaking havoc within all early Muslims and shaking the new ruler, Abou Bakr, to the core. Within such storming times, Abou Sufyan managed to pressurize Abou Bakr as he led what was like a protest or oppositional movement decrying the lost rights of the Hashemites, the cousins of Abou Sufyan. The same devilish plotting technique was later on adopted by Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan when he incited others and gathered them around him under the pretext of avenging the assassination of the caliph Othman, the son of his paternal uncle, despite the fact that Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan was the one who have deserted Othman, refused to come to his aid, and left him to be sieged until revolting masses killed him. His sole purpose was to take hold of the gown of Othman, stained with blood, to reach the throne of caliphate himself! Earlier, Abou Sufyan incited Ali Ibn Abou Talib and Abbas, the paternal uncle of Muhammad, against Abou Bakr the caliph, threatening to wage wars against the caliph. This historical account proves this: (…When people gathered to swear allegiance and fealty to Abou Bakr, Abou Sufyan shouted at them that Abou Bakr was not worthy enough to become a ruler as this was an Insult and an affront to Bani Abd-Manaf, urging Abbas and Ali to revolt against him, calling people to swear fealty and allegiance to Ali, who refused of course, and Abou Sufyan recited poetry of lamentation over lost reputation and stature and the humiliation of affluent tribesmen. Yet, Ali rebuked him strongly and accused him of trying to incite rebellion and wars among Arabs, manipulating all evil methods, and that Arabs did not need his advice or consultation…). (…Abou Sufyan in his angry speeches against swearing fealty and allegiance to Abou Bakr as a caliph shouted at Abbas and Ali as the most humiliated ones in the whole affair…). (…when Abou Sufyan tried to urge Ali to rebel against Abou Bakr, telling him he could support him with countless horses and cavaliers, Ali told Abou Sufyan that he (i.e. Abou Sufyan) used to be an archenemy of Islam and Muslims but he could not harm both before his conversion, and Abou Bakr accordingly deserved the position more than him…). Abou Sufyan had to remain silent for a while, to bend with the wind of the majority's support for Abou Bakr; yet, he managed to embezzle Abou Bakr, who in turn tried to win Abou Sufyan to his side, by forcing him to appoint Yazeed, the son of Abou Sufyan, as a leader and among the retinue of Abou Bakr himself.

4- Concerning the appointment of Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as a leader by Abou Bakr, we have several historical narratives: (…When Abou Bakr appointed Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as the governor of the Levant, he sent them with no horse to ride, but Yazeed insisted on being given a horse and threatened to give up the appointment…). (…Once Abou Bakr finished his own journey of pilgrimage in 12 A.H., he prepared his armies to conquer the Levant, and he sent several leaders there, with reconnaissance troops, and among these leaders were Amr Ibn Al-As and Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan…). (Abou Bakr sent his armies and troops to conquer the Levant in 13 A.H., under the leadership of Khaled Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-As, who was later on replaced by Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan, who led first troops of 7000 soldiers, and the number multiplied several times later on from the youth of Arabia…). We quote the following extracts from the biography of Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan: (…he converted to Islam on the day Mecca was conquered by early Muslims, and Abou Bakr made him lead an army into the Levant, and Abou Bakr saw him off while Yazeed was on horseback while Abou Bakr was on foot…). Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan was rewarded by being appointed as the governor of Damascus, as military conquests traditions dictated for victorious military leaders who conquered a certain location, and other leaders of other troops were appointed as governors of Palestine, Jordan, Homs, etc.

Fifthly: Abou Sufyan Coveted the Levant:

1- Within the summer and winter trade caravans journeys, Abou Sufyan held close relations with the tries of Kalb that used to control caravans routes from Arabia to the Levant. When summer and winter journeys stopped later on, Abou Sufyan wanted to manipulate the burgeoning religion, Islam, once Muhammad died to serve his purpose: to control not only trade routes to the Levant, Iraq, and Yemen, but to conquer and rule over these areas. Abou Sufyan planned and plotted what came to be known as the renegades' wars, which were later on took the form of conquests of other nations around Arabia. His plans were so successful that eventually, his son Mu'aweiya ruled as governor the whole region of the Levant during the caliphate of Omar and Othman. Mu'aweiya got married to Maysson the daughter of the leader of the Kalb tribe, to guarantee his controlling the Levant. Later on, when he founded the Umayyad Dynasty, Damascus his capital became the center of the Umayyad Empire that stretched into parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe after the death of Mu'aweiya, achieving his plans and expansionist ambitions. Let us never forget that all such events started by the so-called renegades' wars, planned by Abou Sufyan, after he defeated the Byzantines in the Levant, in the Battle of Yarmouk.

2- Abou Sufyan considered the Battle of Yarmouk as a personal battle; historical accounts confirm this: (… there were 1000 soldiers in the troops of the Battle of Yarmouk, among them 100 soldiers who fought before in the Battle of Badr, and Abou Sufyan used to shout at them in the battlefield to encourage them, saying to them that they are the supporters of Islam and Allah and the defeaters of the polytheists and the Byzantines, invoking God to grant them victory…). Here's another quote from records of history: (…Yazeed fought with his father in the Battle of Yarmouk, shouting that the victory of God is drawing nearer to the defeaters of polytheism and defenders of Islam, and invoking God to grant them victory…). Mu'aweiya participated of course in this battle, even his sister-fighter Juweireiya along with her husband, as women used to take part as soldiers in such battles, and this sister got injured after fighting fiercely, and even Mu'aweiya was shot at with an arrow on the eye, and when the Arab troops were supported by additional 3000 soldiers, victory was achieved and the number of injured ones increased, including the close associates and followers of Abou Sufyan who converted to Islam after the conquest of Mecca.

3- We personally do not believe the historical account narrated by Abdulla Ibn Al-Zubayr who claimed that he saw Abou Sufyan in the battlefield flattering and praising the Byzantines in poetry. We do not believe this as Ibn Al-Zubayr was a foe of the Umayyads, and it is illogical that Abou Sufyan would sing the praises of the enemy fought and defeated by his progeny.

4- The Battle of Yarmouk was the very first important step in achieving the dream of Abou Sufyan of forming an empire. Abou Sufyan died during the caliphate of Othman in 33 or 34 A.H., after witnessing his son, Mu'aweiya, as the governor of the Levant, and after Abou Sufyan helped his paternal uncle's son, Othman, to become caliph. This story will be told later on below. But here, we quote this extract from the book titled ''Moroj Al-Zahab'' by the historian Al-Masoody, Tome I, page 551, and we personally believe this story: (…When Othman became caliph and received fealty and allegiance of all Arabs, Abou Sufyan, who was blind in his old age, entered his own house, along with kinsmen from the Umayyads, and asked if there were other non-Umayyads present in his house. When he was answered in the negative, he repeated to them several times that his will and testament to them before his near death was that they seize the opportunity and the chance to become monarchs and form a ruling dynasty that he dreamt of…).

5- Abou Bakr died without knowing the fact that Abou Sufyan masterminded the so-called renegades' wars to manipulate them to serve his purposes, and he was the one to employ agents to urge Abou Bakr to begin the Arab conquests of other nations. Abou Bakr died without knowing the fact that he was controlled and manipulated like a marionette figure by the agents and spies whom in their turn were controlled by Abou Sufyan, especially the two major agents: Abou Bakr's close leaders: Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed and Amr Ibn Al-As.

CHAPTER VI: Khaled And Amr Were Agents of Abou Sufyan

Firstly: The Cunning of Abou Sufyan that Could Eliminate Mountains:

1- Abou Sufyan was the military and political leader of Qorayish, and its leading tradesman in the trading caravans of summer and winter journeys, and it was natural that he felt enmity and animosity toward Islam that endangered the Qorayish trade. Yet, he never hesitated to declare his conversion to Islam shortly before the conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, as it seemed that his interests and those of Qorayish entails such a conversion in order to manipulate the burgeoning religion to serve his purposes just as he used to manipulate the Kaabah Mosque before and in order to retain his stature after the conquest of Mecca. The cunning of Abou Sufyan led him to plant spies and agents around Muhammad in Yathreb, and those spies and agents feigned being new converts to Islam who immigrated to Yathreb. Such agents were of various types that included desert-Arabs and Bedouins, who caused many troubles to Muhammad and early Muslims in Yathreb, and the Quran mentions some rules of how to deal with them. Once Abou Bakr became a ruler/caliph, Abou Sufyan masterminded the renegades' war against him, and he manipulated them to coerce Abou Bakr to appoint Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as a leader of early Muslims shortly after he converted to Islam. The cunning of Abou Sufyan went further by convincing Abou Bakr to commit the crime of Arab conquests, a grave sin against the teachings and legislations of the Quran. Thus, Abou Sufyan no longer needed the summer and winter trade journeys, as the Levant was governed and controlled by his son, Mu'aweiya, but the big surprise to our readers here is the fact that the most prominent military leaders under Abou Bakr who led the Arab conquests were the spies and agents of Abou Sufyan: Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed and Amr Ibn Al-As.

Secondly: Between Amr and Khaled:

1- It is noteworthy that Amr and Khaled converted suddenly and simultaneously to Islam after being its archenemies, and Qorayish tribesmen never expressed regret or sorrow when both men immigrated to Yathreb, despite the fact that their joining the enemy of Qorayish constituted an overtly great loss, if they both really were bent on annihilating Islam and Muslims and waging fierce wars against Muhammad. Hence, we conclude from the suspicious timing of both men converting to Islam at the time when Muslims achieved victory over Qorayish and the diminishing power, wealth, and authority of Qorayish that spies and agents were sent to get nearer to the threatening danger in Yathreb. Qorayish realized its need for manipulating Islam to restore its lost status and stature. Hence, Abou Sufyan saw to it that Muslims in Yathreb had to be controlled from inside the city-state of Islam by sending to it the most skillful military leader of Qorayish, Khaled, and the most shrewd and cunning of the youth of Qorayish, Amr, by making them feign conversion to Islam to immigrate to Yathreb under his pretext. Both men, thanks to the plotting of Abou Sufyan, became the leaders and planners of the Arab conquests that achieved the ambitions of Abou Sufyan and the Umayyads.

2- Amr Ibn Al-As was the son of a famous Qorayish whore (or sex worker) named Al-Nabigha, and that is why his lineage and parentage remains a controversial issue to Arab historians. His mother chose to give him the name of Al-As, because he was her most lenient male friends who treated her other offspring with care and tenderness. Hence, Amr was named Amr Ibn Al-As Ibn Wael of the Sahm tribe, and hence, he was not an Umayyad. Abou Sufyan used to declare that he thought that Omar was the real biological father of Amr, and Mu'aweiya was the closest friend to Amr. Despite the doubts concerning his parentage, Amr was so clever and shrewd and with the help of his high IQ and the aid of Abou Sufyan, he became a prominent leader. Amr was the one sent by Qorayish to the king of Abyssinia to coax him to hand over Muslims (led by Jaffer Ibn Abou Talib) immigrated to his country to flee persecution, and the king refused, and Amr returned to Qorayish to be sent suddenly by Abou Sufyan to Yathreb, where he declared his conversion to Islam to Muhammad himself, 6 months before the non-aggressive conquest of Mecca. Amr was the most shred and artful of all Arabs at the time, and roles he played were made known later on within the Arab conquests and the major civil wars of Arabs in Arabia, as he turned out to be the major spy and agent of Umayyads, obedient especially to Mu'aweiya.

3- Khaled differs from Amr in some respect; the father of Khaled was Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, the tyrant affluent leader of Qorayish, of the Bani Makhzoom faction, who follow Umayyads directly in high stature. Khaled was the greatest military leader in Qorayish, and historical accounts tell us that he had high stature and prestige before the advent of Islam, with adroit military and fighting skills and a large number of horses fit for fighting. Yet, Qorayish let him immigrate to Yathreb, in public and NOT secretively, to reside beside their foe Muhammad! This is strange enough! Shortly before Khaled declared himself a new convert to Islam, he was the military leader of the Qorayish polytheist troops that prevented by force Muhammad and early Muslims from entering Mecca to perform pilgrimage. Weeks later, Abou Sufyan sent Khaled as a spying agent to Yathreb, with another totally different mission.

4- To recapitulate in brief: both Amr and Khaled converted to Islam suddenly and at the same time, after the violent acts and military aggressions of the latter and the political cunning plotting of the former against early Muslims. Hence, anyway, both Amr and Khaled were agents in service of Qorayish and its most prominent leader Abou Sufyan.

5- The difference between both Amr and Khaled in terms of character traits was the main influential factor in their consecutive fates that were in store for both of them; Amr with his shrewdness and sharp acumen retained his unrelenting loyalty to Abou Sufyan and later on to his son, Mu'aweiya, and thus, Amr lived to be pointed twice as governor of Egypt and died there in bed, leaving to his progeny ill-gotten wealth of countless bars of gold. In contrast to Amr, Khaled, despite his military genius and high stature and prestige, he lacked shrewdness and cunning, making him a source of danger threatening to expose Abou Sufyan, who feared his ambitions, reputation, and fame, because he was a role-model adored by his soldiers. Hence, Khaled was dismissed from the post of a popular and powerful military leader, and he was humiliated in an ignoble manner. After being disgraced, he died suddenly during the caliphate of Omar!

Thirdly: Amr Ibn Al-'As:

Historical accounts tell us that it was rumored that Muhammad sent Amr as a leader to a 300-soldier troop to call a certain tribe to Islam and gather them as recruits within the troops of Yathreb, and another troop was sent afterwards led by Obeidah Ibn Al-Jarah, with immigrants to Yathreb like Abou Bakr and Omar. But Amr insisted to be the supreme leader of all troops alone with no other leader, and all of the men present obeyed him, and later on, it was rumored that Muhammad appointed Amr as a governor of a far city to get him out of Yathreb, and Amr remained there until Abou Bakr became caliph. Amr became one of the prominent military leaders of the Arab conquests in the Levant, and he became the governor of Egypt that he conquered on behalf of the caliph, Omar, and remained in his position in Egypt until Omar was assassinated. The next caliph, Othman, appointed Amr once more as governor of Egypt for four years only, and Othman dismissed him by the end of them, and Amr went to Palestine, with occasional visits to Yathreb, where he preached rebellion against Othman. Once Othman was assassinated, Amr allied himself to Mu'aweiya and fought along with him in the Battle of Siffein, saving Mu'aweiya from defeat by the trick of making soldiers brandishing copies of the Quran in the battlefield. Amr helped Mu'aweiya to become the caliph by the ruse and the trick of arbitration between Mu'aweiya and Ali the caliph. Thus, Mu'aweiya rewarded Amr by appointing him once more as a governor of Egypt, as Amr regained his position there from Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr, the governor of Egypt appointed formerly by Ali. Furthermore, Mu'aweiya granted Amr the taxes and tributes, all money and possessions of Egypt that he could loot during his lifetime as governor! Eventually, Amr died within the caliphate of Mu'aweiya in 43 A.H., leaving ill-gotten money to his progeny: tons of countless gold bars, but his progeny considered such treasures as ill-gotten money, and refused to take them, and urged Mu'aweiya to return the money to the rightful owners among the Egyptians, but eventually, Mu'aweiya confiscated all possessions and wealth of Amr to himself, saying that he did not care if such treasures were ill-gotten or not! (Reference: ''Al-Khetat'' by the historian Al-Makrizi 1/140, 564).

Fourthly: Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, and Historical Accounts about him linked to Muhammad:

1- A reminder: historical accounts that mention Muhammad the Prophet are NOT part of Islam, and might be true or false. Islam is the Quran alone. The criterion to judge historical accounts is when such accounts do not contradict the Quran. Historical facts are relative, while Quranic verses are absolute Truths. Hence, to believe or to deny historical accounts is not a stance within religious belief but rather within historical research circles. It is not a matter of faith at all. We quote here some stories related to Khaled.

2- Al-Tabary, the historian, writes this unbelievable story (…Muhammad was in the city of Tabuk, and several non-Muslim men from several tribes came to him to pay tribute and sign peace treaties written by Muhammad himself with copies to each tribe. Later on, Muhammad sent Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed to the Christian leader of the tribe of Kendah, named Akidar Ibn Abdel-Malik. It is rumored that Muhammad told Khaled that he would know this leader by a sign: this leader loved to hunt wild cows of the desert. Once Khaled and his wife found wild cows scratching the gate of their make-shift residence with their horns, he felt the urge to hunt the wild cows on his horse accompanied by some men and his brother, Hassaan, who got killed by the men of Akidar in a fight in the same night as Akidar coveted the cows for himself and hated rival hunters trespassing in his territories. Khaled conquered the territories of the tribe the following day, and he confiscated to himself the huge, precious tent of the defeated Akidar, who fled, which was embroidered with gold and fineries of cloth. Back in Yathreb, when Muhammad saw such a tent and saw that other men liked it very much as a spoil of war, he told them that the handkerchief of the late Saad Ibn Muaaz in Paradise is softer than the tissue of such a tent, and later on Akidar paid tribute for keeping his creed and signed the peace treaty, and returned to his territories in safety…). Any reader that would believe such a story is a denier of the Quran and an enemy of God and Muhammad, and this applies to its fabricator/narrator in historical accounts. The Quran refutes such fabrications; tributes were paid when in self-defense wars, the aggressive enemy is defeated, NOT as an alternative to occupying people's lands and coercing them in religion. Tributes are paid as punishment for the defeated enemy's aggression. The above story, or rather we call it a falsehood, asserts the lies of Muhammad committing aggression against non-aggressive ones who never raided Yathreb at all. Muhammad could never have violated the teachings of the Quran; we know quite well that when Muhammad made mistakes, the Quran has reproached and rebuked him. Thus, such a crime of aggression against the tribe of Akidar is NOT true. Besides, the Quran asserts that Muhammad never knew the future; how could he knew about the wild cows and about persons in Paradise or Hell, both eternal places are yet to be created after the commencement of the Last Day. Hence, such silly and laughter-inducing talks about dead Saad and fooling Akidar by hunting wild cows are fabrications of narrators who made up silly falsehoods about Muhammad and the so-called companions, and such accounts are still loved by infatuated masses of the Muhammadans until now! Another account about Khaled goes like this: (…when Muhammad conquered Mecca, he sent Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed to Mecca as a preacher of peace, not as a military leader, with soldiers of several tribes who converted to Islam, and they passed a well of water owned by tribesmen who were enemies of Khaled, who had killed before some of his allies, relatives, and friends, and when they raised up arms against Khaled and his troops, he told him to feel safe and rest assured that all people of Arabia converted to Islam, forgetting past offences and grudges…). This story is believable, as Muhammad used to send emissaries for peaceful preaching and calls, and it was natural that old enemies of Khaled would protect themselves against potential treachery. The problem lies in the fact that Khaled, who declared his conversion to Islam, which was a cunning façade for deceit in our opinion, used to revoke his words and break his promises as in his days before the advent of Islam. The rest of this story goes like this: (…some tribesmen did not believe Khaled and decided not to leave their arms and weapons lest they might be taken captives or get killed by the treacherous Khaled, some other tribesmen assured the rest of the doubting ones that new converts to Islam brought general peace, and not more intertribal wars. Eventually, all of the tribesmen gave up their arms and weapons at the feet of Khaled, who had all of them tied up in ropes and he himself killed some of them. Muhammad was rumored to have said that he was innocent of such madness and treachery committed by Khaled. Muhammad was rumored to have sent Ali to stop this bloodshed reminiscent of pre-Islamic eras, and Ali reached them with a lot of money to pay compensations (i.e., diyya money) for the families of those killed, and he distributed the rest of the money among the tribesmen. Muhammad praised Ali for his conduct, and Muhammad prayed to God at the Kaabah Mosque that he was innocent of the foolish deeds of Khaled…). This story is in accordance with the peaceful call and preaching of the Quran, as at the time of the conquest of Mecca, many people converted willingly on their own accord, and the crimes of Khaled against the tribesmen assert his violent nature before and after his assumed conversion to Islam. Another story about the enmity between Khaled and Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf due to the aforementioned crime of Khaled and goes like this: (…Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf protested angrily against the crime committed by Khaled, and the latter assured him that he wanted to avenge the tribesmen who murdered the father of Abdel-Rahman, but the latter retorted mockingly that Khaled was avenging their murder of the paternal uncle of Khaled, thus repeating the crimes of the pre-Islamic era of darkness and barbarity…).

3- Thus, we now know very well the true nature and character traits of Khaled, who opposed early Muslims and committed military aggressions against them at first and then feigned conversion to Islam by orders taken from Abou Sufyan; Khaled remained loyal to barbaric values of pre-Islamic era. We tend to think that Muhammad might have kept Khaled away from him for the rest of his lifetime because of such heinous crime and treachery committed by Khaled. Later on, when Abou Sufyan caused the renegades' wars to break out, Abou Bakr needed badly the military genius of Khaled. As per the plots and plans of Abou Sufyan, Khaled returned once more to militarily lead all Arabs within the caliphate of Abou Bakr during the so-called renegades' wars and the Arab conquests that created the bad habit of violating the four sacred months.

4- Within the renegades' wars, Khaled committed several crimes: he killed Malik Ibn Nuweira the leader of the Bani Tamim tribe after he surrendered and declared his conversion to Islam. At the same night when this leader was killed by Khaled, Khaled married forcibly his widow! Other heinous crimes of Khaled included burning some POFs alive after tying them in huts! Omar tried to convince Abou Bakr to stop Khaled from committing more crimes by dismissing him from his post as the leader of the troops. Abou Bakr refused to follow this piece of advice! Instead, he appointed Khaled as the military leader of the troops against Museilama the Liar, the false prophet, and historical accounts praise Khaled for his crimes! In a coming chapter, we will write about the details of the complicated relations between Khaled, Omar, Abou Bakr, and Abou Sufyan, and how the life of the criminal Khaled came to an end suddenly in the city of Homs, in the Levant, in 21 A.H. within the caliphate of Omar.

Lastly:

1- It is noteworthy that most of the so-called companions who committed the crime called the Arab conquests received honorific titles by historians of the period, whereas those who did not participate in such crimes never received, like Ali Ibn Abou Talib, never received any titles of honor. Hence, Abou Bakr was given the honorary epithet of ''Al-Seddiq'' (i.e., the truthful one), Omar was given the honorary epithet of Al-Farooq (i.e., the differentiator between right and wrong), Othman was given the honorary epithet of Zu Al-Nurain (i.e., of the two lights), Al-Zubayr Ibn Al-Awwam was given the honorary epithet of Hawariy (i.e., disciple of Prophet Muhammad), and Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed was given the honorary epithet of Seif Allah Masloul (i.e., the brandished sword of God).

2- It is unbelievable to think that Muhammad could have given such titles to such men; especially that title of Khaled, as it was impossible for Muhammad to ascribe something to God on his own accord. Hence, no one had the right to call someone as the sword of God; such epithets were the fabrications of historians who used to adore, deify, and worship historical figures and were bent on showing them as infallible ones who committed no mistakes at all! How come Khaled would receive such a title while his sword used to be brandished against early Muslims, against captives and POWs, and against tens of thousands of innocent victims within the conquered nations? Of course, Khaled was the brandished sword of Abou Sufyan, and his story does not end here in our book; we will write in a coming chapter about his battles and whims and how he came to be the source of discord and conflict between Abou Bakr and Omar, as Omar himself was the biggest secret spying agent working for Abou Sufyan.

CHAPTER I: Omar Was the Primary Agent of Abou Sufyan

Introduction: Which Is More Precious and Holy: Islam or Omar, or rather, The Quran or the Falsehoods of the Sunnite Accounts that Deify and Sanctify Omar?

We are still receiving, via email messages, curses and verbal abuse in all forms addressed to us because of our article published online here, but first published in the 1990s in Cairo, titled "The Unspoken of History of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in the Sunnite Traditions". The focus of our article is Omar during his caliphate. Here in this book, we focus on the unspoken-of traits and deeds of Omar before his caliphate; we prove using the Quran and the Sunnite books of traditions and historical accounts that Omar himself was the primary and close agent working under Abou Sufyan.

Firstly: We begin by stressing some Quranic facts:

1- The Quran asserts the fact that there were adamant hypocrites residing and having close relations with Muhammad in Yathreb, and Muhammad never knew them and he was deceived by them until his death, as they did not perform deeds or say words that might have exposed their true colors, exposed in the Quran with no names of course. Because God knew their inner nature and the evil deeds they would commit after Muhammad's death, God asserts in the Quran that they will be tortured in their lifetime twice and then for eternity in the Hereafter: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Yathreb too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will suffer a severe eternal torment." (9:101).

2- Arab conquests contradict the Quranic teachings and legislations, and accordingly, we conclude that the so-called companions participating in such aggression had denied and rejected Islam knowingly and on purpose using the name of Islam as a banner to justify their crimes and unify Arabs of all Arabia to form an empire, despite glorification of the so-called companions in the Sunnite books of history!

3- Some of these so-called companions are described in the Quran as ''adamant in hypocrisy'', and Muhammad never knew them by name during his lifetime. Yet, they were exposed in the historical accounts narrating their deeds after Muhammad's death. The life story of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in Sunnite books shows clearly that he was among the group of companions adamant in hypocrisy and that he was the agent of Abou Sufyan. Evidence to support this view is as follows: historical accounts tell us that Omar declared his hatred toward Abou Sufyan during the lifetime of Muhammad, but once Muhammad died, Omar turned out to be the biggest ally of Abou Sufyan. Before his feigned conversion to Islam, Omar used to be the archenemy of Muhammad, and he was about to kill him! All of a sudden, Omar declared his conversion to Islam. Such sudden conversions were a repeated pattern in the stories of several companions, such as Amr and Khaled. This is clear proof that Abou Sufyan recruited many agents in a cunning way that could have eliminated mountains, causing a major negative change in world history, and such change still has its signs and marks in today's world, influencing international strategies, political life, and world history until this very moment; we mean the Sunnite creed and its Wahabi manifestation that wreaks havoc all over the globe with terrorism.

4- Historical accounts and stories about the so-called companions, especially caliphs, are filled with lies, falsehoods, and exaggerations; yet, some of them are true, and some are facts mixed with lies and myths. This entails that specialized researchers in the field history should sift through such accounts and narratives, equipped with scientific history methodologies and experience, historiography, schools of thought, deep knowledge of the Arabic tongue, as well as deep knowledge of the contemplation and reflection of Quranic verses.

5- We give some accounts of the history of Abou Bakr and Omar, as some of the stories about them contain tinges of justice applied occasionally during their caliphate, in comparison to the Umayyad Dynasty, who committed countless repeated crimes and persecuted, and sometimes killed, people calling for justice and freedom of speech, and they, of course, crushed any oppositional movements and revolts. One of the worst crimes of the Umayyads was employing oral narrators in mosques who fabricate hadiths that ascribe deeds and sayings to Muhammad that he never uttered or did as well as historical accounts to appeal to people and to spread lies, myths, and falsehoods to flatter and praise Umayyads and curse and damn Ali Ibn Abou Talib along with his progeny and supporters. Al-Hajaj, the minister or vizier appointed by the Umayyad caliph Abdel-Malik Ibn Marwan, massacred and murdered countless persons (in prisons and in military battles) if he would suspect their lack of loyalty to the Umayyads, and the caliph announced publicly in 75 A.H. in Yathreb, during the quelling of revolts, that anyone who would tell him to fear God, he would have him killed! The Umayyads invented the policy of persecuting free thinkers of free opinions, by stressing the notion of fatalism and forcing it into Islam, to justify the oppression and injustice of caliphs as inevitable fate ordained by God and cannot be protested against! Free thinkers opposed the notion of fatalism, such as Ghilan Al-Dimishqi, who declared that fatalism ascribes injustice to God and this was wrong, as injustice was actually a result of suppression, oppression, and coercion practiced by rulers. Of course, this thinker was murdered by the Umayyads. Narrators appointed by Umayyads fabricated hadiths to support fatalism and to curse its critics. Details of this are found in our article published here in our website about freedom of speech and opinion between Islam and Muslims. We have written as well a series of articles about preaching and sermonizing the sultans and rulers; briefly, we have concluded in this series of article that some preachers/authors fabricated stories of justice of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs to preach sultans indirectly to urge them to apply justice. Hence, such authors invented the term ''righteous'' caliphs to describe Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali, in order to differentiate them from other tyrant rulers. Such invented stories by the oppressed oppositional figures, a minority, launched a war of ideas; clergymen subservient to sultans and caliphs had to invent their own counter-stories and hadiths that deify rulers as representatives of God. Oppositional figures wrote exaggerated stories of the supposed justice of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdel-Aziz to attack the injustice and tyranny of both the Umayyads and the Abbasids. Such stories and counter-stories were later on collected and rewritten in the Abbasid era in the form of historical accounts of historical figures as well as hadiths ascribed to Muhammad, which he never uttered of course, and the number of such hadiths and accounts has been increasing ever since, reaching thousands of millions so far! All Arab historians kept quoting such fabrications repeatedly from their predecessors. For instance, the famous historian Ibn Al-Jawzy wrote his books filling them with a mixture of history, stories, preaching, theology, hadiths, and hagiology (i.e., praises, miracles, and epithets of the saints or 'holy' men). Hence, accounts, stories, and hadiths increased exponentially during the Abbasid era about almost everything, including the exaggerated supposed justice-application levels of caliphs Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Omar Ibn Abdel-Aziz, as narrators and writers vied for writing/inventing more stories of this type! Understandably, the tomes and volumes of that type increased exponentially in the Second Abbasid Era in comparison to the First Abbasid Era. Within the latter era, Ibn Saad the historian wrote little of the hagiology-like praises of caliphs Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Omar Ibn Abdel-Aziz, while in the former era, endless volumes and tomes were written by countless authors. This chaotic heap of books entails a research methodology within historical studies, as the one we adopt in this book concerning Omar Ibn Al-Khattab.

Secondly: Abou Jahl Was the Maternal Uncle of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab:

1- The mother of Omar was Hantamah daughter of Hisham, the sister of Abou Jahl, whose real name was Amr Ibn Hisham. Some historians wrote the lie that the mother was named Hantamah daughter of Hashem, as Hashem was the paternal uncle of Abou Jahl. Of course, we do not care if either of both claims is true or false; let us not forget that even Muhammad was the nephew of the archenemy of Islam: Abou Lahab (see the Quranic Chapter 111). What we care for here is whether Omar befriended Abou Jahl or was hi enemy, and if Omar supported Muhammad or felt animosity toward him.

2- Omar descended from the faction of Bani Ouday, which was not as prestigious as the Hashemites and the Umayyads faction in Qorayish, but Bani Ouday was a modest faction like Bani Tayyim, the faction of Abou Bakr. Hence, Omar was proud of the faction of his mother and maternal uncles: Bani Makhzoom. Omar even married from this faction his wife Oum Hakeem Daughter of Al-Harith Ibn Hisham, who bore him his daughter Fatima. Omar imitated his maternal uncle, Amr Ibn Hisham aka Abou Jahl, in extreme hatred and causing as much harm as possible to Islam, early Muslims, and Muhammad. That was why fabricators of hadiths ascribe to Muhammad that he prayed to God, every time he would see both men, to make one of them convert to Islam. Such falsehood paved the way to claim that God loved and chose Omar! This is illogical; how come that Omar, who participated in harming early Muslims in Mecca with his maternal uncle, would convert all of a sudden to Islam after feeling animosity and hatred toward the burgeoning religion for a long time?! Of course, we tend to think he feigned conversion to Islam for ulterior motives.

Thirdly: Omar's Sudden Conversion to Islam:

1- The character of Omar was serious, firm, strong, and unrelenting; he could not have been so whimsical and changing suddenly in his stances, attitudes, and choices. How come such a reversal would occur to him so suddenly, from archenemy of Islam to a Muslim? It is more logical to think that Omar's steps were planned accurately and meticulously. We have concluded from his history that he NEVER changed his real stance against Islam. Historians wrote that once he got so furious that he was bent to kill Muhammad, but he was prevented from such attempt by the cunning shrewd Abou Sufyan, who recruited him as his special agent to spy on and control Muhammad by getting closer to him. Abou Sufyan arranged matters so that Omar declared his conversion to the new faith with fanfare and celebratory acts, to make Omar get closer to Muhammad to be able to spy on him.

2- Stories and accounts about Omar's conversion to Islam assert what we have deduced; Ibn Saad the historian in his book titled Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra mentions the following about this sudden conversion of Omar: (…A series of narrators that ends with Anas Ibn Malik that…), please let us note here that the assumed last narrator in the series is Anas Ibn Malik, who was a Yathreb dweller, not from Mecca, and who among the last so-called companions who died after most of them died before him. This asserts the fact that Anas Ibn Malik was a mere child in Yathreb, who never knew anything about Islam and Muhammad, when Omar declared his supposed conversion in Mecca! How come he would recount an event he had NOT witnessed?! He might have heard it, if he was the real narrator; anyway, let us quote the rest of the narrative: (…A tribesmen from the Bani Zahrah faction stopped Omar who was on his way, carrying a sharp sword, to kill Muhammad, and he advised him to give up such a scheme if he wanted to stay alive and safe from the wrath of the Hashemites, but Omar accused the man of converting to the burgeoning religion and forsaking the ancient creed of the forefathers, but the man assured him that the opposite was true, and he told him that his sister and her husband converted recently to Islam. Omar felt furious due to such a surprise and went speedily to the house of his sister, still carrying his sword, when Kheibab the immigrant companion spotted him and went to warn the sister and her husband…). Again, there is another contradiction here: Khibab was in Mecca at the time, immigration to Yathreb did not occur as yet, the scene of this fake story is Mecca, in the earliest days of Islam, and this fake story is akin to a b-movie, indeed: (…Omar entered the house of his sister and heard her along with her husband reciting the Quran, and Omar asked about the strange recitation he heard from both of them. She told him that this was the Quran, and he yelled at them both, accusing them of converting to a false creed, and jumped at her husband to strike him, but the sister intervened and stopped Omar, who slapped her so hard in the face till she bled! She shouted at him in anger to try and read the Quran, to give himself a chance to understand it, but he had to wash up by performing ablution first to be able to touch it. Omar accepted the challenge, performed ablution, and…). We interrupt here again to mention that verses about performing ablution (see 4:43 and 5:6) were revealed in Yathreb and not in Mecca! This proves that this story is a myth. Another point is that one does NOT have to perform ablution to read and/or touch the Quran, as 56:79 means simply that the Light of Truth in the Quranic verses reaches ONLY purified hearts and souls of those who reject polytheistic notions, whereas hearts and minds filled with erroneous notions of polytheism would never understand the Quran correctly. We go on quoting the fake story of how Omar converted to Islam: (…Omar read part of the Quranic Chapter 20, and asked softly to be led to Muhammad, and Kheibab, who was hiding behind a door, emerged and told Omar that Muhammad kept praying to God to make faith enter either Omar's heart or that of Amr Ibn Hisham…). The camera moves on to the street until it reached inside a house to begin the next scene: (…Omar still carried his sword, and inside a house, a gathering of companions of Muhammad were there, whispering and asking if Omar came to act violently or to declare his conversion, and Hamza, the paternal uncle of Muhammad, who was among the gathered ones, told them that he would kill Omar if he came to threaten Muhammad, and Omar's escaping being killed was linked only to his immediate conversion. Suddenly, Muhammad came to meet Omar, telling him to stop his aggression so as to avoid disgrace similar to what occurred to Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, and he should be reasonable and sensible enough to convert, and he prayed ardently to God to guide Omar to Islam, and eventually, Omar declared his conversion…). Of course, the Sunnite fabricated story allows Omar to proclaim himself as a Muslim within the presence of several of the so-called companions, to justify the feelings early Muslims of being overjoyed to win Omar to their side, and to prevent any doubts regarding this sudden and serious reversal in stances.

3- Of course, this b-movie has been convincing ONLY to naïve Sunnites who deify mortals among historical figures and heroes, but we are not seeing the director of this movie: Abou Sufyan. Roles were distributed and given carefully: extremist feelings of animosity and violence reserved for Abou Jahl, and his nephew, Omar, who was not less in violence, hatred, and fury, would suddenly take the other opposite side, while Abou Sufyan, the mastermind, prevented Omar from the rash attempt when he tried to kill Muhammad, to avoid intertribal civil war in Mecca by those who would have avenged his murder and those who would defend themselves. The cunning plot of Abou Sufyan was that Omar would feign a conversion to Islam to spy on Muhammad and the early Muslims.

Fourthly: The Joy of Early Muslims due to Omar's Conversion to Islam:

1- As Omar's hatred toward Islam and Muslims was well-known, the above-mentioned theatrical show or b-movie had to be played out to impress early Muslims and make them swallow the bait. The scheme was successful; instead of doubts, early believers among the weak people felt overjoyed with Omar's conversion and bragged of it to spite Qorayish disbelieving tribesmen!

2- Ibn Saad the historian mentions accounts that assert the feelings of overjoyed early believers due to Omar's sudden conversion: (…Abdullah Ibn Masoud used to repeat that Muslims were still in excellent state since Omar became a Muslim… another narrator said that early Muslims could never managed to pray at Al-Kaabah Holy Mosque until Omar helped them to enter it by fighting the infidels to leave us alone to allow us to pray in peace…). This cunning and devilish plot of Abou Sufyan worked its magic indeed!

3- Abou Sufyan seized the chance by recruiting more spies and agents who feigned conversion to Islam to be planted inside the early Muslim community; Ibn Saad writes: (…once Omar converted to Islam, many new converts emerged in Mecca…). This means that such sudden conversions were allowed and approved of by Abou Jahl and Abou Sufyan.

4- Qorayish tribesmen condoned such conversions as well as other events greater than that; Ibn Saad writes: (…one narrator said that once Islam entered the heart of Omar, Islam was preached publicly, and Muslims visited the Kaabah to pray daily in peace and security, feeling victorious over their archenemies…). One might wonder why such condoning by the Qorayish tribesmen was ascribed to Omar; indeed, it is more logical to think that Omar's sudden conversion was an intrigue and a plot by Qorayish, the most powerful tribe which decided apparently to bend with the wind of the new burgeoning religion, until the Abou Sufyan plotting would bear its fruits later on.

5- Narrators and storytellers fabricated more falsehoods to the story; in their books, they claimed that Muhammad knew beforehand about Omar's imminent conversion from Archangel Gabriel, as he came to Muhammad inside the house, among the gathered forty-something people, women and men, among the early converts, while Muhammad was praying to God that Islam would be supported by either of two men who loved God best: Amr Ibn Hisham or Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, and Gabriel told Muhammad that angels of Heaven felt happy as the latter would convert soon enough! What a disgraceful piece of falsehood of an account!

6- Later on, after the b-movie of Omar's sudden conversion, another similar fanfare and 'celebration' event took place as Omar defied Qorayish and declared in public his intention to immigrate to Yathreb, even before Muhammad did it. The historical account of it asserts that Omar gathered his luggage, circumambulated the Kaabah seven times, and moved toward the leaders of Qorayish, warning them that he would immigrate now and if anyone who desires to meet his death violently to make his folks, wife, and children feel the feelings of bereavement should follow him to try and stop him! Of course, leaders of Qorayish feigned being intimidated by this 'show' of strength!

7- Another historical account adds that two men immigrated alongside with Omar to have his protection, as they followed him once he was out of Mecca, near the city of Qibaa. Those two men were Ayash Ibn Abou Rabeia, brother of Abou Jahl and Al-Hareth, and Hisham Ibn Al-As Ibn Wael. This account asserts that Abou Jahl and his brother Al-Hareth, caught up with their brother Ayash to prevent him from going on in his journey, by trying to coax him by saying that their mother swore never to sit in the shade or cover her head from the sun until she would see his face. Ayash was warned by Omar that they might coerce him to give up Islam. Yet, Ayash told him he must return to save his mother from her grief and to get his own money from his family to help the rest of poor immigrants in Yathreb, as he would join them there later on. Abou Jahl tied him with ropes and forced him into Mecca again and made others mock Ayash, who remained tied to the camel, as a rogue, and imprisoned him in a house locked from outside. In this strange unbelievable account, Ayash was tricked by his two brothers, but they never talk to Omar, who was the son of the sister of Abou Jahl, and never tried to convince him to return to Mecca. How come? How both brothers did know the timing and the route of the three immigrating men and that they would spend a night in Qibaa?! What was the interest of Abou Jahl in leaving Omar to immigrate with no resistance while tricking Ayash alone to get him back to Mecca by ruse? Ayash had travelled under Omar's protection and in secret; why Omar allowed his return and did not protect him? Who let the cat out of the bag about the two men travelling with Omar?! We assume this is a false account because of its being illogical.

8- Before leaving this point to move on to the next, we assert here that Omar developed a close relation with Abou Bakr, the close friend of Muhammad, and among the first persons to convert. Other accounts tell us that Muhammad made Omar and Abou Bakr befriend each other and that Omar married off one of his daughter to Muhammad, which made Omar an important figure among early Muslims. It is noteworthy that all historical accounts assert that Omar went on with his extremist nature but within showing his faith, as if he were more of a Muslim in comparison to Abou Bakr and Muhammad himself! We tend to think that such behavior betrayed a clever spying agent who managed to plant himself near the Prophet in Yathreb.

Fifthly: The Relation between Omar and Abou Sufyan during Muhammad's Lifetime:

1- The espionage network of spies and agents created by Abou Sufyan surrounded Muhammad all the time and went on sending reports to Abou Sufyan. Sadly, no historical accounts exist to tell us how and why such sudden change occurred after Muhammad's death; as Abou Sufyan emerged as a from-behind-curtains leader of early Muslims who controlled every event and almost everyone, and later on, Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan managed to establish (for the very first time in the history of Muslims) the caliphate system as a monarchy of a dynasty to pass rule to his lineage. Mu'aweiya and his successors managed to form the very first Arab empire in history. In fact, we now see the results of forming such an empire, but we know very little about the history of how Abou Sufyan plotted all this.

2- Despite the fact that countless historical accounts of the period contradict the Quran, some of such accounts go with what the Quran tells us. For instance, we know for sure the fact that there were spies and agents around Muhammad sending their reports to Abou Sufyan, especially in times of battles. Abou Sufyan got news of Muhammad and his companions waiting for him near Badr area, and thus, he changed the route of his trade caravan. Who told Abou Sufyan in advance? We tend to think that the answer is spies and agents who remained close to Muhammad, of course. Shortly before the Battle of Badr, Muhammad was surrounded by Abou Bakr, Omar, Ali, and other groups of immigrants and Yathreb dwellers. We personally tend to believe that Yathreb dwellers were NOT among the spies and traitors; the agents must have been among the immigrants, indeed. We cannot historically prove that Omar was the one who told Abou Sufyan. We quote this Quranic verses, revealed as a warning after the Battle of Badr, to assert our hypothesis that traitors and spies were among the immigrants: "And remember when you were few, oppressed in the land, fearing that people may capture you; but He sheltered you, and supported you with His victory, and provided you with good things-so that you may be thankful. O you who believe! Do not betray God and the Messenger, nor betray your trusts, while you know. And know that your possessions and your children are a test, and that God possesses an immense reward." (8:26-28). The address here is directed to the immigrants who were poor and weak, feeling afraid of others in most times in Mecca, and there is a reference to the economic factor and close relations with relatives in this Quranic warning against treachery and betrayal.

3- Shortly before the conquest of Mecca, a faction of Qorayish breached the peace treaty with Muhammad, and historical accounts tell us that mobilization began in Yathreb; news of it reached Abou Sufyan at once, who came to Yathreb himself to make sure. He met with Muhammad to renew the treaty, but Muhammad refused. Abou Sufyan tried to win the support of Abou Bakr to make him convince Muhammad, but Abou Bakr refused. Eventually, Abou Sufyan appealed to Omar for help. Omar spoke harshly to Abou Sufyan and was adamant in refusing to help him, asserting that he preferred to kill him instead! Ali spoke softly to Abou Sufyan and addressed him as the biggest leader of all Qorayish, and such account was narrated (supposedly) by Abou Sufyan himself to Qorayish tribesmen, telling them that Muhammad was about to prepare an army to conquer Mecca. Despite the fact that Muhammad hid all the military procedures and movements, all news of them in detail reached Abou Sufyan, of course, and he went to meet this marching army of Muslims. We pose a question here: how did Abou Sufyan know the exact location of a marching army outside Yathreb? From his spies, of course! Once he was there, Abou Sufyan met with his friend Abbas, the paternal uncle of Muhammad, who was riding a mule owned by Muhammad, and Abbas made Abou Sufyan ride behind him to go to Muhammad. On their way, they passed by Omar who told Abou Sufyan that they will defeat Abou Sufyan and all Qorayish easily very soon. Before Abou Sufyan and Abbas reached the tent of Muhammad, Omar went there first, urging Muhammad to allow him to kill Abou Sufyan who came giving up and seeking peace. Abbas entered and said that Abou Sufyan was under his protection, insisting on his safe return to Mecca. Omar protested an enumerated the bad traits and deeds of Abou Sufyan. Arguments went on. Omar told Abbas that his conversion to Islam was better news to Muslims than Omar's, but he would like to be allowed to seize the chance to kill an archenemy of Islam. The stance of Abbas was preferred by Muhammad, who declared that the life Abou Sufyan was secured from being killed and urged Abou Sufyan to convince Meccan tribes to surrender with no fight. We see here that Omar tried to appear more violent and eager as a hater of disbelievers, though he knew he could not possibly kill anyone who sought peace with Muhammad. Why did Omar insist and argue in vain, then?! We tend to believe that this situation shows Omar as a hypocrite adamant in hypocrisy and wanted to feign being faithful and loyal to Muhammad.

4- Such hypocritical acts occurred during the lifetime of Muhammad; if Omar was really a foe and a hater of Abou Sufyan, he would have remained with the same unchanged stance against him after the death of Muhammad. Yet, history tells us that on the contrary, Omar stood against others like Saad Ibn Eibada, Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas, Al-Zubayr, and Abou Hurayrah. Worse yet, Omar who helped Abou Bakr to become caliph within the council of Al-Thaqeefah, was about to burn the house of Ali Ibn Abou Talib, with Ali and his wife (Fatimah, daughter of Prophet Muhammad) and children inside along with supporters of Ali who proclaimed him as the one who should be the caliph/ruler. Such horrendous act that was not accomplished, but posed as a threat only, was part of the cunning and the devilish plots of Abou Sufyan, and it showed the true colors of Omar as a hypocrite and a traitor.

CHAPTER II: Omar during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr

Introduction: A Vision Concerning the Plotting of Abou Sufyan:

Omar was domineering over Abou Bakr, and in his turn, Omar was controlled by Abou Sufyan the evil plotter. The execution of the plan began once Muhammad died, and Ali and his family prepared for his burial. Abou Sufyan planned and executed the renegades' wars to distract Muslims, shortly after Omar and Abou Sufyan paved the way for Abou Bakr to become the ruler of all Arabia in the Thaqeefah council, where he received fealty and pacts of allegiance from others, BEFORE the burial of Muhammad took place! Abou Sufyan tried to gather protestors against a caliph who came from a poor faction of Qorayish, calling for appointing Ali or Abbas as a caliph. Such an 'act' or 'scene' created the desired effect; Omar managed to convince Abou Bakr to appoint Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as one of the leaders of the military troops fighting against the renegades who declared their rejection of Islam. Such wars and battles metamorphosed into the Arab conquests by both Omar and Abou Sufyan who exerted their influence over Abou Bakr, the caliph. Such conquests bore fruit only to Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan later on. It is noteworthy that the Thaqeefah council resulted in the marginalization of Yathreb dwellers to allow caliphs to emerge solely an exclusively from Qorayish in Mecca. Another result was the marginalization of Ali Ibn Abou Talib and the relatives and in-laws of Muhammad, by forcing Ali to swear fealty and allegiance to Abou Bakr, who was controlled and manipulated by Omar overtly, and by Qorayish covertly, and the tribe was represented by Abou Sufyan. Hence, we conclude that the caliphate of Abou Bakr was akin to a short transitional period to pave the way for Omar to become a caliph and allow more room and space for the hegemony and control of affairs to Abou Sufyan. Such a room and space grew larger within the caliphate of Othman, who was one of the Umayyads, who succeeded Omar and allowed Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan to become the strongest and most powerful governor within his caliphate. Later on, Othman was sacrificed by being killed to pave the way for Ali, whom Mu'aweiya fought fiercely against to reach the throne of caliphate and establish the Umayyad Dynasty, thus achieving the dream of his father Abou Sufyan. We give more details of this below.

Firstly: Omar Was the Orchestrator of Appointing Abou Bakr as Caliph and Marginalizing of Yathreb Dwellers, and How Omar Killed Saad Ibn Eibada:

1- The historian Ibn Al-Atheer in his book of history summarizes the history written by Al-Tabary, while choosing what he deemed right and true. We quote from his book the historical account concerning the beginning of the caliphate of Abou Bakr and the Thaqeefah council: (… When the Prophet died, Yathreb dwellers who were in Mecca at the time gathered in Thaqeefah to proclaim Saad Ibn Eibada as caliph/ruler, but news of that reached Abou Bakr who hurried there along with Omar and others, and they questioned such hasty procedures. Hot debates ensued about appointing a ruler and viziers from which faction or tribe. Some insisted on choosing Ali Ibn Abou Talib as caliph, while others insisted about Abou Bakr, excluding Saad altogether because his tribe was poor and weak. Some adamantly refused to obey Omar in swearing fealty to Abou Bakr, such as the Hashemites, Ali, Talha, and Al-Zubayr, with the latter brandishing his sword to threaten anyone who would not swear fealty to Ali. Yet, Omar coerced them into being disarmed and forced them to swear fealty and allegiance to Abou Bakr…). Here, we perceive that the tyrannical nature of Omar emerged suddenly; such demeanor does not match his hypocrisy and flattery to Muhammad and his relatives and household, like Abbas.

2- The strong side of the argument of Omar and Abou Bakr in the Thaqeefah council was that Arabs never submit except to Qorayish, and never to tribes of Yathreb, who originally came from Yemen. Such argument for Qorayish and its hegemony entailed that the supreme leader of the tribe, Abou Sufyan, had to be present. Another narrative conveyed by Ibn Abbas about Omar goes as follows: (… when Muhammad died, Ali and Al-Zubayr along with other Yathreb dwellers who were in Mecca at the time and other immigrants were inside the house of Fatimah and Ali, and they refused to swear fealty to Abou Bakr, as they insisted on Saad Ibn Eibada who represented Yathreb believers who thought of themselves as protectors of Islam, unlike the Meccan believers who resisted Islam for a long time before the conquest of Mecca. Hot debates and arguments ensued when the gathering went to the Thaqeefah council. Abou Bakr told the people present, especially addressing the Yathreb dwellers, that Arabs would never accept rulers outside Qorayish the most powerful and wealthy tribe of Arabia. People who were convinced swore fealty to Abou Bakr, while Saad Ibn Eibada was ignored, feeling indignant, he went home without swearing fealty to Abou Bakr, and the latter cursed Saad in public…). We understand here that Abou Bakr was the one who proposed the utmost importance to the hegemony of Qorayish in deciding a caliph from Qorayish, not from among the Yathreb dwellers.

3- Omar had killed Saad Ibn Eibada: Feeling indignant and because of his being politically defeated, Saad remained at his house, keeping away from people, and adamantly refusing to swear fealty to Abou Bakr. When people appealed to him to comply and relent regarding this stance, he declared in public that he would never swear fealty to Abou Bakr until his death, and if forced by anyone, he would defend himself with his sword and spear along with his tribal faction. Omar insisted that Abou Bakr should force Saad to swear fealty and loyalty to him. Basheer Ibn Saad told them that his father was adamant in his refusal and would stick to his stance to death, and that his tribesmen feel the danger to them in such a situation, and advised Omar and Abou Bakr to leave his father alone, as he was quite harmless and did not pose a threat to them. Soon enough, Saad went into a self-exile in the Levant, seeking safety as he felt he would be murdered. Within days, Omar sent after him an assassin who got rid of him in the Levant. This is how Saad was killed: the assassin talked to him into swearing fealty to Abou Bakr, so that he could return home to Mecca, and when Saad refused, both men fought, and the assassin moved away, only to return and to shoot an arrow at Saad, who fell down dead. Another version of the story asserts that Saad was killed by an arrow shot at his heart while he was bathing in a public bath in the Levant. The masses and the narrators and the storytellers chanted poems and verses asserting that the Jinn and spirits killed Saad!

Secondly: Omar and the Marginalization of Ali and the Hashemites:

1- Al-Tabary mentions another version of the story of Al-Thaqeefah council, asserting that Omar was the one who stressed the vital importance of a caliph coming solely from Qorayish, and addressed the gathered people concerning this topic, as Muhammad himself was from Qorayish and Mecca. So many people were convinced by the argument of Omar and swore fealty to Abou Bakr, but Saad Ibn Eibada shouted that this was the beginning of the downfall of Arabia, by showing weakness. At the same time, Abou Bakr delivered a speech to all the gathering, stressing that everyone among Yathreb dwellers should be consulted by the caliph in all matters and affairs of rule, and that no differences should be allowed to create rifts and conflicts that would threaten peace in Arabia. Omar delivered his speech, asserting the contrary; no rulers or consultants should come out of Qorayish, the tribe of Muhammad. Eventually, after silencing protesters, almost everyone present swore fealty and loyalty to Abou Bakr, with a few exceptions. One of the Yathreb dwellers delivered a speech stressing the avoidance of the danger of fissures and disagreements that would threaten the peace of Arabia, and that the Yathreb dwellers supported Muhammad for the sake of God, not for ruling over Arabia or for any material gains. Meanwhile, the body of Muhammad has not been buried yet! The reason: for three days, people came and go to swear fealty to Abou Bakr! Eventually, after the three days ended, Abbas and his sons and Ali Ibn Abou Talib performed all rituals of burial!

Thirdly: Omar Threatened to Burn down the House of Ali and his wife Fatima:

1- Omar was shrewd and cunning enough to stress in his speech the hegemony of Qorayish and the fact that Muhammad was from Qorayish to proclaim Abou Bakr as caliph. Yet, if his words would be applied as true, then Ali or Abbas were the ones to be chosen as they came from the household and family of Muhammad! Let us remember that Ali refused, at first, to swear fealty to Abou Bakr, as he coveted being a ruler himself, and he kept to his house with a gathering of his supporters, and Omar had to do something to stop such a threat and to force such a group of supporters to swear fealty to Abou Bakr. A historical narrative says that Ali, Al-Zubayr, and all the Hashemites refused to swear fealty to Abou Bakr for six months, i.e., until Fatimah died. Other accounts and narratives mention other longer periods of adamant refusal to swear fealty to Abou Bakr. Most of such narratives assert that the refusal of Ali ended because he had to relent eventually because he feared the wrath of Omar.

2- Al-Tabary in his book mentions this account when Omar threatened to burn down the house of Ali, after locking his household in it: (… Omar stood before the gate of Ali's house, where was his wife and children, Talha, Al-Zubayr, and other men who were among the immigrants to Yathreb previously, and Omar shouted to them that if they would not get out to swear fealty to Abou Bakr, he would lock them all up and burn their house to ashes… When Al-Zubayr got out brandishing a sword against Omar, they fought and Omar managed to make him drop his sword and took him captive…). Another narrative of Al-Tabary asserts that Abou Bakr felt guilty and sorry for such a scene of threatening to burn down the house of Fatimah and Ali, as he wished it would never have occurred even if war would have broken out to make Ali caliph.

3- Apart from the history book of Al-Tabary, narratives and accounts in other Sunnite history books assert the story that Omar was threatening to burn down the house of Ali and his household, with differences in some details. Al-Blathery, the historian, mentions the same story with an additional detail of Fatimah who opened the door for Omar to ask him indignantly if he meant to burn her house down, and he angrily told her that he was more powerful than what her father (i.e., Muhammad) came with! And he forced the gathered men inside to get out in order to swear fealty to Abou Bakr. Another historian, Ibn Qotayba, mentions that Omar gathered indeed some firewood and carried them to burn Ali's house, and when people told him that Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, was inside with her children, the grandchildren of Muhammad, Omar said that he did not care that they were inside! Another historian, Abou Al-Feda, mentions that Omar carried a torch of flames to burn the house, and Fatimah stood at the gate asking him indignantly about what he was going to do, and Omar told him that he was not jesting; he would burn it down along with her guests, husband, and children if they would not swear fealty to Abou Bakr!

Fourthly: When Did Ali Swore Allegiance and Fealty to Abou Bakr?

1- There is another narrative asserts that Ali refused to swear fealty to Abou Bakr for the rest of the lifetime of Fatimah, with whom people sympathized, and once she died, Meccan people ignored Ali altogether, and that was why he had to swear fealty to Abou Bakr eventually.

2- Al-Tabary writes the following account: (…Ali remained popular with people of Mecca until his wife died. Once she died six months after the death of Muhammad, people seemed to be no longer interested in Ali, and he had eventually to swear fealty to Abou Bakr to make up with him, and he sent for Abou Bakr to come to his house alone, as Ali feared Omar. Omar advised Abou Bakr not to go there alone, but Abou Bakr went anyway, assuring Omar that Ali meant no harm at all. Ali had gathered beforehand the Hashemites inside his house. Ali made a speech to Abou Bakr asserting that they never bore any personal grudge against him, but the Hashemites though earlier that they had the right to choose a caliph from amongst themselves, as they are the nearest relatives of Muhammad. Abou Bakr wept, and when Ali finished his speech, Abou Bakr said that the Muhammad and the relatives of Muhammad are nearer and dearer to him that his own faction and family, but he heard that Muhammad said that prophets never bequeathed any possessions; they leave it as charity, and hence, no one would inherit anything, even leadership, from Muhammad. And then, Abou Bakr reminded Ali to swear fealty at dusk, and then all gathered men prayed congregational prayer, and after that, Ali delivered a speech in favor of Abou Bakr, swearing fealty to him, with all men blessing such reconciliation…). It is noteworthy that this reconciliation was done in the absence of Omar.

Fifthly: Depriving Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad the Prophet, from her Inheritance:

1- In the above-mentioned account, Abou Bakr apologized for having deprived Fatimah from her inheritance of any possessions left by Muhammad. Abou Bakr invented and fabricated a saying, i.e., hadith, to support this view. This was the beginning of the bad habit of falsely ascribing deeds and sayings to Muhammad, a habit that remained for centuries.

2- Al-Tabary writes this account conveyed by Aisha, the widow of Prophet Muhammad: (… Fatimah and Abbas went to Abou Bakr asking for all belongings and possessions of Muhammad as such things were lawfully their inheritance, but Abou Bakr insisted that such possessions must be given for charity to the poor and that prophets were not to be inherited. Fatimah never talked about this matter again and never talked to Abou Bakr again until she died, and Ali buried her at night, without the presence of Abou Bakr…). Of course, Abou Bakr was a liar; there is nothing in the Quran to support his erroneous view about prophets; Muhammad's possessions ought to have been distributed to his only surviving relatives: Abbas, his paternal uncle, and his daughter. Hence, Abou Bakr disregarded Quranic legislations of inheritance on purpose! Shame on him!

3- This occurred so as to assert the marginalization of the Hashemites within the caliphate of Abou Bakr to confirm his authority as a ruler and in order to allow more room for Omar to get more influence in ruling affairs by controlling Abou Bakr. This was done to prepare Omar to succeed Abou Bakr upon his death. Qorayish knew very well that if a caliph/ruler of Arabia would come from the Hashemites, caliphate would never leave their family at all, and this would have crushed all hopes and ambitions of Abou Sufyan and his progeny to become kings. Thus, rulers had to be outside the Hashemites, especially Ali, so as the caliphate would be eventually passed to the Umayyads, who represent the Qorayish hegemony. Thus, we conclude that the caliphate of Abou Bakr was just like a bridge to allow Omar to become the next caliph.

Sixthly: Omar Was the De Facto Ruler during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr and to the Benefit of Abou Sufyan:

1- Because Omar aided Abou Bakr to become caliph, to the extent that Omar threatened to burn down the house of Ali and his household and to stir the ire and enmity of the Hashemites and Yathreb dwellers and several others, Omar became the first man in the ruling regime after the caliph, as assort of deputy or a consultant whose orders were absolute and control beyond measure. Ibn Abd-Rabou, the historian, mentions an account that asserts the control of Abou Bakr by Omar: after the end of the renegades wars, a peace treaty was signed by several parties who urged Abou Bakr to give his consent and agree, but the latter consulted Omar, who in a fit of fury cut the treaty into pieces and refused to sign it and advised Abou Bakr never to sign it unless the treaty items changed. The mediator of this peace treaty, Talha, asked angrily Abou Bakr about who was the real caliph: Abou Bakr or Omar, and Abou Bakr answered that the de facto ruler was Omar, but obedience was due to Abou Bakr! And Talha remained silent in indignation and surprise.

2- Of course, we conclude that Omar overtly controlled Abou Bakr, but the real controller of events here was Abou Sufyan, the devilish cunning plotter who planned things for Omar to execute. We recapitulate here that Abou Sufyan gathered people in arms; threatening Abou Bakr that caliphate was a right only for the Hashemites, not poor factions of Mecca like the one to which Abou Bakr belonged. Ibn Abd-Rabou narrates the account that Abou Sufyan felt indignant as Ali and Abbas, both from the Hashemites of course, let caliphate go to Abou Bakr, and he recited poetry to urge the Hashemites to fight for their stolen right to rule Arabia! What is new to this story here is that Omar was the one to advise Abou Bakr to bribe Abou Sufyan to avoid his fury. This bribe was that Abou Bakr appointed Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as the governor of the Levant, and with this promise, Abou Sufyan swore fealty and loyalty to Abou Bakr, and another bribe was a large sum of money that was supposed to be given as charity alms! We notice here that with Abou Sufyan threatening Abou Bakr at first, Omar never threatened to burn down the house of Abou Sufyan as did with Ali and Fatimah!

Lastly:

1- Because Omar was a hypocrite adamant in hypocrisy, he showed his true colors once Muhammad died and changed his stances; is true character appeared. He was so demonstrative and exaggerating in flattering and hypocritically talking to Muhammad and the Hashemites, in general, and so extremist in showing feigned feelings of hatred and animosity toward Abou Sufyan. The opposite happened once Muhammad died; Omar showed extremist feelings of animosity towards the Hashemites and became the best friend and ally of Abou Sufyan, while controlling About Bakr during his short period of caliphate.

2- When Abou Bakr tried to rebel against Omar and Abou Sufyan who practically controlled all affairs during his caliphate, Omar readily murdered Abou Bakr by poisoning.

CHAPTER III: Omar Was the Murderer of Abou Bakr

Firstly: The Mysterious and Sudden Death of Abou Bakr:

1- All accounts concerning the death of Abou Bakr assert that he died by poison, and during his dying short days when Abou Bakr was attended and served by Othman, Omar used to be the imam in the congregational prayers instead of Abou Bakr, as a sign that he will be his successor. An unauthenticated account asserts that Abou Bakr died of fever he contracted from taking a bath in biting-cold weather, but we tend to disregard such claim.

2- We give here examples of such accounts. Ibn Saad: (…Abou Bakr received a plate of porridge as a gift to be eaten for supper, and he ate from it with his friend Al-Hareth who, while eating together, sensed that the food was poisoned, and quickly ordered Abou Bakr to stop eating. When both went ill, Al-Hareth told him that it was their fate to die in one day…). (…it was rumored that Abou Bakr was ill for about 15 days after eating a poisoned plate of rice or porridge, prepared by some Jewish people, and Al-Hareth his friend ate with him and died as well…). Ibn Al-Atheer: (… Abou Bakr and Al-Hareth his friend died on the same day, days after eating supper together that was a poisoned plate of porridge, prepared by some Jewry, and it was rumored by some that he suffered fever for 15 days as he took a bath in a cold day, and that fever prevented him to be imam in the congregational prayers, until his death, and Othman remained with him to serve him until he breathed his last…).

Secondly: The Assassination of Abou Bakr by Poisoning:

1- We tend NOT to believe that Abou Bakr died of fever because he took a bath in a cold day; rather, this fever was because of his being poisoned. This is asserted by his burial at night secretly and quickly without ceremony and funerary procedures. He was buried in silence that was suspicious; Omar ordered women in the city among Abou Bakr relatives not to cry and scream to lament his death. If Abou Bakr had died naturally, why such exceptions were made? He died suddenly within political unrest and turmoil; and this asserts that he was in fact assassinated for political reasons, and he did not die a natural death.

2- We tend to believe that Abou Bakr was poisoned, as narratives might be truthful while containing some lies; there were no Jews in Mecca and Yathreb at the time. No one was tracked down and punished for giving a ''gift'' of poisoned food to Abou Bakr, and we know for sure that Abou Bakr, in his efforts to defeat renegades in wars and to orchestrate Arab military forces to conquer other nations, was brimming with health, energy, and strength as well as ambition; h died suddenly indeed. The mention of Al-Hareth in such narratives is of course, a lie; other accounts mentioned that Al-Hareth, who was a medical doctor, died during the caliphate of Mu'aweiya, and was the personal doctor of this very first Umayyad caliph. It is written in history of medical doctors of the time that Mu'aweiya once asked Al-Hareth, his personal doctor, about the secret behind good health and treatment, and Al-Hareth told him that hunger is the remedy for most ailments of the human body. This means he did not die at the same time with Abou Bakr.

Thirdly: Omar Was the Murderer of Abou Bakr:

1- We conclude that Omar was the one to assassinate Abou Bakr with poison, as he controlled Abou Bakr totally during his short caliphate; moreover, Omar was the primary beneficiary of his death to succeed him as caliph. Those who helped Omar to receive written order of succession from the dying fevered caliph, Abou Bakr, were Talha, Othman, and Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf, who were present at the deathbed and the moment of dying of Abou Bakr and urged him to do so, and they witnessed his burial and people swearing fealty to Omar after him, such historical figures participated in several plots and intrigues later on, as we will mention this in this book in a coming chapter.

2- Abou Bakr died suddenly, despite his excellent health and energy as well as activities and ambitions, after his caliphate lasted for nearly 27 months, and he was survived by his senile father Abou Qohafa. Abou Bakr was assassinated suddenly during his following up of activities like conquering Iraq and the Levant, feeling proud of Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed and his military victories. He used to send many letters containing decrees and orders to all military leaders and governors. Abou Bakr died in a critical moment: during the Battle of Yarmouk and a threatening conflict between him and Omar. Omar begged him many times to dismiss Khaled from leading the Arab armies and troops, while Abou Bakr refused adamantly, despite the fact that Abou Bakr used before that to obey Omar blindly. The dismissal of Khaled was a matter of life and death to Abou Sufyan, and he urged Omar, in our opinion, to get rid of Abou Bakr as soon as possible. The very first order or decree of Omar as a caliph was to dismiss Khaled, to humiliate him, and to confiscate his wealth and possessions as he done with those belonged to Abou Bakr, especially the Treasury of the caliphate, as Abou Bakr used to control it alone without interference from Omar.

Fourthly: Omar Speedily Buried Abou Bakr at Night with No Funeral:

1- Because it was a plot of assassination, Omar buried the victim at night, without waiting for the next morning to prepare a funeral fit for a dead ruler which would have been attended by hundreds of men and women. Omar prevented women from crying and lamenting for him loudly. All historical accounts and narratives agree that Abou Bakr was buried at night in silence. We quote some of such historical narratives below.

2- About Burying Abou Bakr with no funeral, Ibn Saad writes: (… Different groups of narrators confirmed that Abou Bakr was buried at night in silence before the morning would rise and before everyone knew about his death…).

3- It was strange at the time to bury anyone at night in normal conditions, let alone the caliph of all Muslims. The astonishment of such night burial is shown in this quotation from the book of Ibn Saad: (…A man asked an imam about whether a dead person could be buried at night or not, and he was answered that it was permissible, as Abou Bakr was buried at night…).

4- It is certain that Omar was the one who buried Abou Bakr at night: (…Different groups of narrators confirmed that Abou Bakr was buried by Omar Ibn Al-Khattab at night in silence…).

5- It is certain that Omar performed funerary prayers service over the dead corpse of Abou Bakr in the Mosque of Prophet Muhammad in Yathreb, as Ibn Al-Atheer writes this in his history book titled ''Al-Kamel''.

6- It is certain that Omar was the one who descended the corpse of the dead caliph Abou Bakr into the grave himself; Ibn Saad writes: (…A series of narrators assert that the son of Omar, as an eye-witness said that Omar himself was the one who descended the corpse of the dead caliph Abou Bakr into the grave, with help from Othman, Talha, and Abdel-Rahman, the son of Abou Bakr…). The same narrative or historical account is repeated in the same manner in the book of history titled "Al-Kamel" by the historian Ibn Al-Atheer.

7- To make his burial occur in silence without drawing the attention of the people of Yathreb by disturbing their sleep at night, Omar ordered Aisha, the daughter of Abou Bakr and wife of Prophet Muhammad, not to scream and lament over his death, and he threatened her with severe beatings by him if she violated his orders! Ibn Saad the historian writes: (…A series of narrators confirm that when Abou Bakr died, Aisha and the women within the household of Abou Bakr started to lament loudly in grief, but Omar ordered them sternly to keep silent, and when they refused to obey Omar's orders, Omar threatened Aisha to beat her severely if she would not stop and make the other women stop, and all of the women stopped in fear of an angry Omar…). Ibn Al-Atheer mentions the same quote in his book ''Al-Kamel''. Another quote is as follows: (…Aisha was rumored to have said that when her father, Abou Bakr, died between sunset and deep night, women of his household started lamenting and crying loudly while the corpse was being washed and wrapped with white cloth, and Omar ordered them to keep silent and scattered them from one another…).

Fifthly: Omar Speedily Confiscated Treasury of Abou Bakr:

1- In an earlier article of ours, that was confined only to Abou Bakr, some false historical narratives and accounts have deceived us for sometimes, leading us to think that Abou Bakr was honest within financial dealings and deserved thus to be praised by us, and we criticized Mubarak, a previous president of Egypt (1981-2011), by comparing his thefts to the assumed honesty of Abou Bakr. This article was published in mid-1990s in the Egyptian opposition newspaper (Al-Dostour). Later on, we have been undeceived about this matter when we were preparing a series of research articles about preaching and sermonizing to sultans and rulers, and we have discovered that, to our surprise, that some preachers used to make up and fabricate stories to sing the praises of Abou Bakr and Omar due to their supposed 'just and fair' rule during their caliphates, in order to criticized indirectly the sultans and caliphs if their age and to sanctify Abou Bakr and Omar as saints or 'holy' men. We ourselves were deceived for some years by such narratives and accounts and used them to criticize Mubarak and others under him who used to rob and oppress Egyptians. We admit here that we have been mistaken to believe such narratives about Abou Bakr and the rest, and we have been undeceived solely by rereading meticulously all narratives about them to compare them with one another to verify the authenticity and veracity of each narrative.

2- After months of verifying narratives, we found out the following results that we briefly mention here: Abou Bakr and the rest of the so-called companions of the Arab conquests were surprised by the huge wealth that fell into their hands after looting conquered countries, especially Iraqi cities. One-fifth of the looted wealth was sent to Abou Bakr in Yathreb. Such amounts of precious possessions and money stirred the heads of all Arabs in general, as this was unprecedented. Hence, Abou Bakr who used to obey Omar blindly gave himself the right to distribute such sums without seeking Omar's advice and consultation, and taking a large part to himself. Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed was an issue to quarrel and argue about between Abou Bakr who wanted to keep him on one hand and Omar and Abou Sufyan who wanted his dismissal from heading the troops on the other hand. Most spoils came to Yathreb because of the military victories achieved by Khaled, and conquered nations paid him huge tributes as they feared him. Abou Sufyan and Omar demanded his dismissal from heading the army and troops because his ambitions and victories as well as ever-rising popularity among tribesmen threatened to thwart the plans and plots of Abou Sufyan. Hence, the power and strength of Khaled posed a threat to Abou Sufyan and Omar, especially that Abou Bakr began to be fed up with the hegemony and control of Abou Sufyan and Omar over him; with such treasures, Abou Bakr thought that it was high time to liberate himself from the control of both Abou Sufyan and Omar using the influence and power of Khaled. Thus, Abou Bakr thought that be making a pact with Khaled and with such unimaginable huge wealth, he could stop the control of both Abou Sufyan and Omar over caliphate affairs. That was why Abou Bakr adamantly refused both men's request to dismiss Khaled; of course, Abou Bakr was right in such a stance: why on earth dismiss an excellent victorious military leader? At that time, Khaled was in the midst of a decisive battle: the Battle of Yarmouk. Thus, because of the dominant motto "anything for money", all endeavors and steps and maneuvers were accessible and available by evil men: Omar readily poisoned Abou Bakr to get rid of him. Once Omar was made caliph, the very first decree/order he made was to dismiss Khaled to obey Abou Sufyan and to keep the threat of Khaled at bay. The second thing readily done by Omar was to confiscate all money in the Treasury, and he claimed to the rest of Yathreb dwellers that the caliphate Treasury was found empty, as Abou Bakr distribute all to the poor and to the military endeavors! Omar wept for Abou Bakr before the gathered men, claiming that honesty of Abou Bakr was an example that would put to shame all caliphs after him when they would be compared to him! Omar was such an inveterate liar!

3- Countless false narratives and fabricated, made-up accounts sing the praises of Abou Bakr; we quote some of them briefly here from various sources and references: Ibrahim Al-Nakhey who lived in the times of Al-Hajaj the Umayyad terrible vizier and who never saw Abou Bakr writes this lie: (…Abou Bakr was named 'the clement one' because of his mercy and charitable nature…). Another narrative written by Ibn Saad and ascribed to an unknown man from the city of Basra, Iraq, assumes that Muhammad was rumored to have said that both Abou Bakr and Omar are the masters of the sheikhs of Eternal Paradise, when Abou Bakr and Omar were made friends to each other by Muhammad! This narrative is false for many reasons: 1) Basra was not yet established at the time when Abou Bakr conquered Iraq, 2) no one at the time would believe a narrative of an unknown man, and 3) as per the Quran, this narrative is false; Muhammad never knew the future and has been ordered by God to declare this fact: "Say, "I am not different from the other messengers; and I do not know what will be done with me, or with you. I only follow what is inspired in me, and I am only a clear warner."" (46:9). Yet, the falsehood of Abou Bakr and Omar as masters of sheikhs of Paradise is repeated in countless Sunnite books, tomes, and volumes of hadiths and history!

4- Ibn Saad mentions in his book of history contradictory accounts concerning the wealth and possessions of Abou Bakr that were left by him to his inheritors. A narrative purportedly ascribed to Aisha is that Abou Bakr never left a dirham or a dinar to his household to inherit. Another narrative ascribed to a series of narrators ending in Abou Qohafa, the father of Abou Bakr, asserts that this father inherited the sixth of his dead son's wealth, and other shares were given to Abou Bakr's sons and daughters and wives.

5- In addition, there are historical made-up accounts and fabricated narratives that aim to defend the assumed honesty of Abou Bakr in terms of financial dealings; among them was the claim that when he was dying, he ordered all his money to be given to the caliph who would succeed him (i.e., Omar) who wept as he received such money and said to others around him that felt the enormity of his responsibility as the new caliph!: (… a series of narrators ending in Aisha claim that she said that when her father, Abou Bakr, was dying of fever, he ordered his men to give all his money within the treasury to Omar who will succeed him, and when her grandfather carried all money to Omar, the latter wept as he received such money and said to others around him that felt the enormity of his responsibility as the new caliph of Muslims…). Another account shows that Abou Bakr, upon dying, gave one-fifth of his wealth to his family and ordered the rest to be given to charity and alms to the poor, and Aisha saw him suffering the throes of dying and she recited a verse of poetry about the futility of wealth to the dying souls, and he felt angry with her, and she recited a Quranic verse, and shortly before his death, he ordered her to return an orchard he gave her to the Treasury of caliphate: this was an implied confession that this orchard was not really his, but was part of ill-gotten wealth. This last account ascribed to Aisha is a falsehood of course; it shows her as accusing her dying father of being a thief whose ill-gotten money would be of no avail to him. The narrative goes on by Abou Bakr praising himself to be able to get rid of ill-gotten money before his death; and this is contradictory, as he used to eat and wear and live in luxury with such money gathered by force from conquered nations in the Levant and Iraq. Why on earth would he order Aisha to return all money to the Treasury to be confiscated by Omar?! This account contradicts with another that asserts that Yathreb dwellers forbade Abou Bakr to engage in trade, and to take only a monthly salary agreed upon by them, and he later asked them to raise the salary to face high prices of goods and they agreed. Eventually, when Omar wept at the end of this strange narrative, Adel-Rahman Ibn Awf told him to return some of the money to the penniless household of Abou Bakr, if he really felt sorry for their being impecunious, but Omar adamantly refused this and said this would happen upon his dead body!

6- This coming account is the only one, in our opinion, that goes with the logical sequence of events, despite some illogical details in it that we will pinpoint to it. Ibn Saad mentions beforehand that some details narrated by the series of narrators of this account seemed contradictory: (…Abou Bakr the caliph used to lock the Treasury of the caliphate with a huge lock unguarded by any man, claiming he feared no one who might have thought of stealing it…). Hence, we discern that Abou Bakr kept the key of this lock about him; no one knew the expenditure and the incoming money into the Treasury of the caliphate except the caliph! (…Abou Bakr used to empty the Treasury regularly by distributing its money to the poor…): this contradicts the previous quotation: how the narrator knew of this since Abou Bakr was the only one to keep the key?! It is more logical that the caliph never wanted anyone to know anything about the Treasury of the caliphate. (…Abou Bakr made the Treasury of the caliphate to be located in a wing of his new house…). This means that he kept the money for himself, and we can imagine the huge amount of war spoils that came to him from Arab conquests. (…even charity money of zakat and alms used to be collected to the treasury from all tribesmen, and Abou Bakr alone undertook the mission to distribute them among the poor and to buy military victuals, horses, etc.…). We conclude here that Omar was kept at bay; he knew nothing of the Treasury at that point, and that was why Omar confiscated the Treasury once Abou Bakr died. Another contradictory account says the following: (…Once the corpse of Abou Bakr was buried, Omar went along with Othman and Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf, among others into the Treasury room, finding nothing at all; no dirhams and no dinars, and they wondered about this…). We see here that none of them, who plotted the assassination of Abou Bakr, believed that the Treasury to be empty; the huge wealth was somewhere else. They sought the man who used to weigh and balance the silver and gold of the Treasury, who asserted that it contained more than 200.000 pieces! We notice here that such contradictory accounts never mention the huge amount of spoils that came to Abou Bakr from the battles of Khaled and conquering Iraq and the Levant, which was one of the reasons that Omar and Abou Sufyan insisted on dismissing Khaled; they had none of the shares of the spoils and Khaled grew too powerful. When Abou Bakr refused to dismiss Khaled from his post as the leader of the troops, Omar had to kill Abou Bakr to take his place as caliph. More details about Khaled, Omar, Abou Bakr, and Abou Sufyan within the coming chapters, so please read on.

CHAPTER IV: Khaled Was the Reason behind the Assassination of Abou Bakr

Introduction:

1- The most important faction of the Qorayish tribe was Bani Abd-Manaf, which included the Hashemites, Bani Abd-Shams and the Umayyads. The other poorer and less powerful factions included Bani Makhzoom (faction of Khaled), Bani Tamim (faction of Abou Bakr), Bani Sahm (faction of Amr), and Bani Ouday (faction of Omar). Thus, the battles that broke out during the lifetime of Muhammad seemed apparently as an on-going conflict and struggle between the Hashemites and the Umayyads. Bani Makhzoom were obedient to the Umayyads who were led by Abou Sufyan, who was later on the leader of all Qorayish tribe, and who used all possible arms, tools, and weapons against Muhammad, including agents and spies in both Mecca and Yathreb. Such agents, in our opinion, includes Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, Amr Ibn Al-'As, and Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed.

2- Agents and spies of Abou Sufyan anticipated him in feigning conversion to Islam, as he converted only shortly before the conquest of Mecca; and all his agents were loyal to him especially Amr and Omar, because their poorer factions would never compete with the Umayyads anyway. Khaled posed a threat to the ambitions of Abou Sufyan, because his faction, Bani Makhzoom had their own similar ambitions and because of his military genius acknowledged by everyone at the time.

3- Naturally, Abou Sufyan and Omar sensed that Khaled posed a threat as Abou Bakr admired him; he might have made use of Khaled to get rid of the control and hegemony of Omar and Abou Sufyan. Let us remember that Omar helped Abou Bakr to become caliph by marginalizing the Yathreb dwellers and the Hashemites (faction of Muhammad himself). Omar felt threatened by Khaled because Abou Bakr might have made Khaled his successor instead of Omar, whereas Abou Sufyan felt that the military prowess of his two sons, Yazeed and Mu'aweiya, were dwarfed by the military genius of Khaled. Let us remember as well that Abou Sufyan once threatened Abou Bakr by waging war against him to call for the right of the Hashemites to choose a caliph from among themselves; Abou Bakr had to appease the ire of Abou Sufyan by appointing his son, Yazeed, as a military leader within troops in the renegades wars and the conquest of the Levant. Thus, Khaled's military genius alarmed Abou Sufyan a great deal and drove Omar to enumerate Khaled's errors such as murdering Malik Ibn Nuweira, and urged Abou Bakr incessantly to dismiss Khaled. Abou Bakr never agreed to such illogical request; he appointed Khaled as the military leader of troops against the renegades and false self-proclaimed prophets, and Khaled was victorious as usual and defeated and vanquished all renegades. Later on, Abou Bakr agreed to military expansionist plans; namely, the conquest of the Levant and Iraq, for the primary reason to divert Arabs of Arabia from the idea of rebellion and gathering rebels and renegades ever again. This resulted in a soaring reputation, fame, and glory for Khaled as a genius military leader that threatened to be a subversive agent against the pans of Omar and Abou Sufyan.

4- In fact, Khaled with his military genius and his tribal fanaticism to his faction, Bani Makhzoom, became more than just an equal and a peer of Abou Sufyan; he surpassed Abou Sufyan and his two sons in terms of popularity and military prowess and shrewdness. If Khaled was destined to go on like that, he would have demanded to be appointed as governor of Iraq and the Levant, thus dashing all hopes of the Umayyads to establish a hereditary monarchy exclusive for their own lineage. Simultaneously, Abou Bakr used to avoid invoking the ire of the Umayyads; yet, he might have thought to get rid of their influence and hegemony over affairs of the caliphate by Khaled and his faction. Omar felt he was gradually losing grip and control he had over Abou Bakr as long as Khaled was there. Thus, Khaled was the primary cause of the assassination of Abou Bakr by poisoning and the later dismissal and insult of Khaled by Omar. This struggle was for loot and authority, of course.

5- Khaled represented here the culture of pre-Islamic era that consisted of enslavement, rape, loot, robbing, stealing, and killing captives (i.e., POWs). We mentioned before that Muhammad in the repeated narratives disowned Khaled for his crimes of murder. Islam was marginalized once Abou Bakr became caliph; the struggle and conflict for authority and wealth was behind making Khaled the point of contention.

6- We give below details from narratives and accounts written by the historian Al-Tabary, however contradictory they are sometimes.

Firstly: Abou Bakr Refused to Dismiss Khaled because he killed Malik Ibn Nuweira:

1- The orders of Abou Bakr given to Khaled during the renegades' wars contradict Quranic sharia laws concerning freedom of faith and creed and fighting in cases of self-defense only: (…Attack, kill, and burn all people, and their houses and possessions, who would not surrender and pay zakat and return to Islam …). Other lengthy accounts tell the story of the enslavement of Malik and a group of his people, discussions about their status and if they were praying Muslims or otherwise, and ending in killing Malik and all his men under orders of Khaled, who got married, illegally, to the widow of Malik in the same night! Omar insisted on the dismissal of Khaled under the pretext of the murder of Malik and defiling his widow, and urged Abou Bakr to force Khaled into paying diyya money for Malik's family or to have him killed, but Abou Bakr insisted in his turn to overlook and condone crimes of Khaled and ordered Omar sternly to stop nagging about Khaled! Later on, Abou Bakr paid diyya money to the family of Malik and urged a general pardon of Khaled on the part of all the wronged parties!

2- Other narratives assert that Omar attacked Khaled in the mosque in Yathreb by removing Khaled's headwear, decorated with arrows signifying military victory, and Omar abused him verbally as a killer who defiled a dead man's wife, but Khaled never uttered a syllable until the anger of Omar was spent, and Khaled complained to the caliph, Abou Bakr, who apologized to Khaled himself and told him that his errors would be overlooked and condoned. Later on that day, seeing that Abou Bakr and Khaled remained dear friends and allies and were supping together tonight, Omar felt furious and left them and confined himself to his own house.

3- In addition, Abou Bakr rewarded Khaled by appointing him as the supreme leader of the military troops when war was waged against the false prophet, Museilama the Liar, mobilizing hundreds of men to fight as soldiers under Khaled, after pardoning him his errors with Malik!

Secondly: Victories and Spoils of Khaled in Iraq:

1- Khaled's victories in Iraq were unprecedented in the history of Arabs at the time in terms of the number of captives/enslaved and huge amounts of spoils; one-fifth of enslaved men and women and spoils went to Yathreb, the capital of Yathreb at the time. He sent news of victory, one-fifth of spoils, and an elephant used to be owned by Emperor of Persia, who ruled Iraq before the Arab conquest of it, along with rich attires and precious-stones-studded headwear items of this emperor. Abou Bakr later on granted such rich attires and headwear to Khaled as gifts. Men and women of Yathreb felt awe at such magnificence and when they saw the Persian elephant I n their routes. Such huge amounts of spoils made Khaled's renown to soar to the highest levels in all Arabia. We can easily imagine now the feelings of anger and deep-seated jealousy of Omar at the time.

2- With every victory, Khaled would send unimagined spoils that dazzled eyes of all Yathreb dwellers; each cavalier in battles in Iraq received 1000 dirhams, as Khaled was generous with his soldiers, who grew fiercer and more brutal with each battle they won in Iraqi cities; at one night, for instance, 30 thousand men were killed in a conquered city. Thousands of inhabitants were killed daily within conquered cities, to the extent that many city dwellers later on would flee semi-naked from their unconquered-yet cities, leaving all their possessions to the Arab invading armies at their gates.

3- Khaled extended his conquering endeavors to gain more lands in Iraq, finding almost no resistance of any kind later on. Accordingly, spoils were increasing with every city taken, to the extent that at one point, a soldier's share of spoils reached 1500 dirhams. Once such rich spoils reached the caliph in Yathreb, Abou Bakr sang the praises of Khaled to everyone who repeated such praises everywhere all over Arabia. Abou Bakr is rumored to have said that: (…Had women failed to bear yet another great man similar to Khaled?). We can easily imagine now the feelings of anger and deep-seated jealousy of Omar at the time.

Thirdly: The Wealth of Khaled and the Insult directed to Abou Sufyan Were the Direct Causes of the assassination of Abou Bakr:

1- It is certain that Khaled managed spoils with no one overseeing him; he was the one to count money and to distribute them among the soldiers and cavaliers, while sending the one-fifth to the caliph. Thus, any suspicious ones like Omar and Abou Sufyan would easily presume that Khaled might use such huge sums to gather men around him to proclaim himself as the coming caliph, as people went to Khaled upon his return to Yathreb to congratulate him and receive gifts of money from him. It is understood that Khaled used to give gifts of money to tribal leaders to gain their loyalty and support if any conflict of any type might arise anytime, Omar felt furious for such squandering of spoils money, that was why Omar readily assassinated Abou Bakr and dismissed Khaled, after questioning him about money given to tribal leaders. Al-Tabary mentions that Khaled was humiliated in public by verbal abuse and throwing his headwear, and then was tied by men of the new caliph, Omar, who would question him about squandering such sums, and then dismiss him from leading Arab armies. Those who tied Khaled were Bilal and Abou Obeidah, who later on asked Khaled's pardon, and he forgave them, as both were his friends, as they could not avoid obeying the new caliph.

2- Abou Bakr felt he would strengthen his stance by leaning on Khaled to get rid of the domineering Omar and the annoying interference of Abou Sufyan. Abou Bakr saw this as a chance to get rid of the influence of Abou Sufyan and to humiliate him especially that Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan and his troops were defeated by the Byzantines in the Levant in several battles, whereas Khaled scored land-sliding victories in Iraq. Abou Bakr, under the pretext of such defeats of Yazeed, sent for his father, Abou Sufyan, to come to Yathreb, and he humiliated him in public, in the presence of the Yathreb elite, to the extent that Abou Sufyan had to flatter and suck up to Abou Bakr with sweet talk, calling himself as the minion and slave of the caliph. We have mentioned before in this book that Abou Bakr's blind father was astonished and scolded him for humiliating the supreme leader of Qorayish, and Abou Bakr asserted to his blind father that Islam had made some men to be elevate high above other tribesmen who were supreme leaders before the advent of Islam. We have mentioned earlier as well that the king of Yemen sent ten of the best and expensive breed of camels to Mecca, on the condition that they were to be slaughtered by the supreme leader of Qorayish, and tribesmen had to wait for Abou Sufyan to return from his the honeymoon and get out of his tent to slaughter these camels. Thus, a reversal happened when Abou Bakr, who came from a poor faction in Mecca, humiliated the once supreme leader of all Qorayish who once threatened Abou Bakr of waging war against him to choose a caliph from the Hashemites, the clan and family of Muhammad, only to be appeased by Abou Bakr's appointment of Yazeed as a military leader. Things changed now as Khaled's victories made him the favorite of the caliph and primary ally. Hence, Abou Sufyan readily and speedily caught up with his son, Yazeed, in the Levant, to come to his aid during the Battle Yarmouk, the decisive battle securing the Levant in the hands of Arabs after defeating the Byzantines. Before his departure to the Levant, Abou Sufyan took revenge of Abou Bakr for humiliating him in public by ordering Omar to assassinate him by poisoning.

Fourthly: The Movement of Khaled from Iraq to the Levant and his Dismissal:

1-We can hardly imagine Abou Bakr paying heed to Omar's advice of dismissing Khaled who vanquished the Persian Empire in Iraq in every single battle; when Arab troops and armies were defeated by the Byzantines in the Levant, and their military leader, Khaled Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-'As, killed in the battlefield, troops scattered all over the Levant, and Abou Bakr feared that the Byzantines would prepare themselves to recapture the Levant within a decisive battle, and he had to issue orders to Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed to leave Iraq and go to the Levant with his troops and armies to come to the aid of Arab troops there. Khaled realized that Omar was the one to advise the caliph to send him to the Levant, as Omar envied him for conquering Iraq with military genius, but Khaled had to obey Abou Bakr. He reached the Levant shortly before the decisive Battle of Yarmouk. The Byzantines prepared 240 thousands of men under the leadership of Pahan, a fierce byzantine military leader, with Christian clergymen to incite them to fight. Arab troops included 27 thousands of men, and Khaled added 9 thousands when he reached them coming from Iraq, making the total number 36 thousands. The Byzantines were defeated eventually after on-going days of intense fighting, and the Levant was entirely gained by the Arabs. Yet, in the middle of such critical times, and ten days before achieving a decisive victory, Abou Bakr died suddenly and was buried by Omar by night. Omar succeeded him as caliph, and his first decree or order was to dismiss Khaled during the intense on-going Battle of Yarmouk, but Khaled achieved decisive victory before such decree had reached him

2- Narratives and accounts vary about details of the decree of dismissal reaching Khaled. Some claim that news of death of Abou Bakr were not mentioned and circulated in the Levant until victory of Arabs was achieved, and then news of the caliph, Omar, who dismissed Khaled and appointed Abou Obeidah instead. Abou Obeidah felt shy to read the decree of dismissal to Khaled until Damascus fell into the hands of Arabs in 14 A.H., and there is an account that mentions the humiliation of Khaled by throwing his headwear on the ground in public and confiscation of all his possessions and money by Omar's men upon his dismissal by Omar, who claimed that Khaled talked to him in an insulting manner, and Omar swore never to employ him in anything.

Fifthly: The Mysterious Death of Khaled:

1- Khaled died after his being dismissed, feeling humiliated and indignant, and he died in bed in the Levant city of Homs in 21 A.H., and we tend to think that he was assassinated by poisoning just like Abou Bakr.

2- In order to the mysterious, hasty, and sudden death of Khaled, Mu'aweiya appointed Khaled's son Abdel-Rahman as the governor of Homs. Mu'aweiya was the ruler of all the Levant; yet, the fame and popularity of Khaled still annoyed and disturbed the peace of mind of Mu'aweiya. Memories and stories of Khaled's victories in Iraq were still vivid in people's mind all over Arabia, and most of new settlers in Basra and Al-Kufa, Iraqi newly established cities, were mostly former soldiers and cavaliers serving under Khaled. Thus, later on, Iraq was mostly the center of several revolts and oppositional movements against the Umayyad Dynasty later on. Such former soldiers used to mock and taunt Mu'aweiya as his son was defeated in the Levant while they helped achieve victory in Iraq. Thus, Abdel-Rahman Ibn Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed lived surrounded by and enjoying the privileges of the legendary story of his father, the military leader of unparalleled genius in Arabia, to the extent that he sheltered those who fled the wrath of Othman, during his caliphate, as he succeeded Omar, while threatening Othman himself with arrogance and haughtiness never to harm those men who sought his protection. The same arrogance and haughtiness of Khaled's son were used with Mu'aweiya, as the former used to mock and taunt the latter.

3- Typical of him in such situations, Mu'aweiya would have patience and never respond verbally, to postpone his revenge later on in action. When Mu'aweiya became caliph, his intentions to make his son, Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya, his successor to establish the Umayyad Dynasty led him to execute parallel plots: 1) to get rid of any potential competitor, by murdering them, who might oppose his son and proclaim himself a caliph and 2) to quell and terrorize the Shiites in Iraq and murdering their leaders. Hence, Abdel-Rahman Ibn Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed was murdered in 46 A.H., as Mu'aweiya dispatched a murderer to poison his cup in Homs, promising this murderer to be appointed as governor of Homs instead of the poisoned Abdel-Rahman, who by the way was in his turn among the military leaders and heroes of the on-going wars between the Umayyads and the Byzantines. His fame and renown grew just like his father, Khaled, which made him a possible threat and a competitor to Yazeed once proclaimed as heir to the throne after Mu'aweiya. That was way he was assassinated by poisoning. Mu'aweiya was also responsible for the murder, by poisoning, of the leader sent by Ali, the caliph preceding Mu'aweiya, to govern Egypt, to prevent Ali's controlling Egypt. Later on, Mu'aweiya assassinated Al-Hassan Ibn Ali, who was supposed to be the caliph succeeding Mu'aweiya as per treaties signed after the defeat and murder of Ali the caliph. In all such cases of poisoning, Mu'aweiya had employed a third party unsuspected by anyone!

4- Poisoning was the method used to kill both Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed and Abou Bakr before him. History tells us that the Umayyad Dynasty caliphs specialized in getting rid of their foes by poisoning; this was a recurrent pattern throughout their caliphate, even within internal conflicts and intrigues within the Umayyad household! We have published before on our website an article titled "Investigation of a Mysterious Murder Committed in 99 A.H.", about the assassination of the Umayyad caliph Suleiman Ibn Abdel-Malik by poisoning.

CHAPTER V: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr

Introduction:

1- The Arab conquests constituted the biggest sin and the most flagrant violation against the Quranic sharia; yet, they are made 'holy' and part and parcel of the Sunnite creed, and most of the companions/criminals of such conquests became deities for the Sunnites. Proof: the panic attack that might occur to some Arab readers of this book who used to regard such historical figures as holy saints, as we assert that they were merely murderers and thieves. Most Muhammadans learn – as children – to sanctify and glorify Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali, among others. Yet, real scientific historical research does not regard anything or anyone was 'holy', and we quote in this book books authorized, revered, honored, and valued by Sunnite scholars themselves.

2- This proves the corrupt nature of Egyptian education in particular and religious education in the Arab world at large; our urgent mission is to reread history of Arabs critically using scientific methods as done by scholars in the West. In addition, we, Quranists, must use the Quran as a measure stick and criterion of such history, to make the Muhammadans stop worshiping and deifying things, locations, and mortals.

3- We see that most Muhammadans worship and sanctify Omar more than God himself; Sunnites do not feel furious when God is verbally abused by any non-Sunnite, but they do shake with fury if Omar, or any other deified figure among the mortals, is being criticized within a historical research showing his true character, using Sunnite books themselves.

4- Deifying mortals is a crime and a grave sin in terms of the Quran and in terms of the intellect; yet, what is worse now is that Muhammadans of today follow the footsteps of the murderous companions and kill one another in some regions within the Arab world! This has been going on and off for the last centuries since the days of the caliph Ali! This is absurd!

5- Thus, if we, Quranists, would not examine the history of the so-called companions and judge it using the Quran, Muhammadans and Arabs in general would go on killing one another in religious strife, causing the rest of the world to accuse Islam of being a barbaric, backward, and terrorist religion. In fact such traits describe truly the Sunnite Wahabi creed, not real Islam: the Quran alone: Quranism we propagate here on our website.

Firstly: The Violation of Islamic Sharia within Arab Conquests during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr:

1- We assert here again that Islam (Quranism) is the religion of peace, justice, and freedom, whereas the earthly man-made creeds of the Sunnites and Shiites affiliating themselves by force to Islam are creeds of heresy, blasphemy, injustice, tyranny and enslavement of fellow human beings. The culture of the Middle Ages was based on injustice, oppression, suppression, and tyranny. Qorayish hegemony was part of such a culture. The revelation of the Quran came to show the way of how to establish the foundations of justice and how to put an end gradually to the crime of enslavement of human beings; yet, enslavement as a crime went on for centuries following Muhammad's death. Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed was a victorious military leader who caused the death of tens of thousands persons and the enslavement of thousands others, not mention looting and murdering captives and POWs. Let us quote below examples of such crimes.

2- Ibn Al-Atheer, the historian, summarizes what Al-Tabary mentions about how Khaled murdered many enslaved and captured men and sent women as slaves to the capital of the caliphate at the time, Yathreb, to Abou Bakr. No one felt the urge to condemn such practices in the renegades' wars as well, and in the battles with the Persians and the Byzantines. Even the liar, Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the false account of the lifetime of Muhammad though he never saw him, ascribe such falsehoods to him as murdering POWs, captives, children, etc. and enslavement of women to be distributed and sold as spoils! Such falsehoods spread to justify the crimes of Arabs of the conquests and of internecine civil wars.

3- Khaled in his battles against the Persians in Iraq caused the death of 30.000 persons, and sent one-fifth of the spoils to Yathreb, and distributed the rest among his soldiers and cavaliers, while enslaving widowed women of the dead men, collecting heavy taxes and tributes from Christian peasants. Some of such non-Arabs became later on Arabophone scholars of science, history, and theology in the Umayyad caliphate.

4- Khaled gained victory over Christian Arabs who aided the Persians in Iraq, and murdered their leader himself, while taking his men as captives, to be later killed upon his orders, after deceiving them by securing their safety to leave their fortress and surrender. All their possessions were of course confiscated by Khaled as spoils, while their children, about 40 who learned the Gospels in the fortress, became slaves to be sold later on, while keeping one-fifth of spoils, women, and children to be sent to Yathreb!

5- Akidar, the Iraqi Christian leader, refused to fight the troops of Khaled, and proposed a peace treaty that included surrender, but his proposal was rebuffed by his people of his tribe, called Kendah. Khaled later on captured and killed Akidar and confiscated all his possessions, and the same applied to all captives, while their women and children were sold into slavery. Khaled kept to himself the beautiful daughter of one of the killed resistance leaders to be his concubine.

6- Within another battle in Iraq, the same occurred, as Khaled vanquished the Christian Arabs who were allies to the Persians, after attacking their locations at night, murdering all captives while enslaving their progeny and women and sending one-fifth of spoils, confiscated looted ill-gotten money, to Yathreb, and even Ali Ibn Abou Talib bought an enslaved beautiful woman who later on bore him a son and a daughter. This means that Ali, once his wife Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad died, married more than one woman not to mention enslaved concubines who bore him many children, thus gaining the fruits of Arab conquests without participating in them!

7- The same recurrent pattern occurred with every captured city in Iraq, but peasants were spared from being killed and their lands saved confiscation for economic reasons: they had to give large part of their crops and heavy taxes and tribute to Arabs in return for keeping their possessions and creeds, and to work sometimes for free in lands confiscated by Arab fighters.

8- When men of an Iraqi city by the river resisted fiercely Arab troops led by Khaled, who urged them to surrender to spare their lives but they refused, Khaled ordered his men, after conquering the city, to behead all male residents by the river banks, and that went on for three days, as there were about 70 thousands of them, so that the river turned red from too much blood shed on it! Arabs called that river for some time the ''Blood River'', and Abou Bakr knew of this from Jandal, the man Khaled sent with the one-fifth of the spoil, and Abou Bakr felt overjoyed that he gave Jandal a beautiful slave woman as a gift. Was there brutality and barbarity worse than this in all Arabia?!

9- Other cities in Iraq feared Khaled because of what occurred to other city residents as they were robbed and murdered brutally and their women and children enslaved, and residents of most cities fled and deserted their cities to avoid such fate, and thus Khaled conquered several cities with no fighting and with no resistance of any type, and spoils were beyond measure, as dwellers of deserted cities fled leaving their possessions and wealth, to be looted by the troops of Khaled, sending the usual one-fifth to Yathreb, to Abou Bakr.

10- Within another battle, Khaled caused the death of more than 100.000 persons, in battlefield and when enslaved after gaining victory, as their sole 'crime' was defending their own city against Arab invaders and causing the fighting to remain for longer than usual!

11- On his way from Iraq to the Levant to aid defeated Arab troops there who suffered great losses because of the victorious Byzantines, Khaled killed thousands of men and enslaved women and children of the cities on his way, looting all their wealth and possessions, sparing no lives at all, even Christian monks and clergy in churches of the Levant, all the while sending one-fifth of spoils and slaves to Yathreb. We can just wonder here: what were the amounts of spoils money reaching the Treasury of Abou Bakr, looted from Iraq and the Levant? Was such immense treasure the main cause behind poisoning Abou Bakr and his night hasty burial with no funeral so that Omar would confiscate the caliphate Treasury?!

Secondly: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr and his Conquests:

During the Arab conquests, the so-called companions violated the four sacred months, during which God imposed the divine la of never fighting in them as they were the months of performing the pilgrimage in Mecca. We mention below some battles that broke out during the four sacred months of the lunar calendar (Zu Al-Hijja, Muharram, Saffar, and Rabei Awwal) during the caliphate of Abou Bakr. We will indicate the sacred months using brackets.

1- Al-Tabary mentions that Abou Bakr ordered Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed to conquer Iraq and Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan to conquer the Levant after the end of the renegades' wars in which Khaled achieved victory. Abou Bakr returned to Yathreb coming from Mecca, where he performed pilgrimage in 12 A.H., and once there, he prepared and mobilized troops and armies for that purpose. This means that this mobilization was in (Zu Al-Hijja) in 12 A.H., and he decreed such aggression against Iraq and the Levant in the very first month of the sacred four, and he knew quite well that people of the Levant and Iraq never committed any aggressions against Arabs; he could not possibly call his aggression as self-defense. Al-Tabary asserts that huge Arab troops began their march in (Muharram) in 13 A.H., and fighting and battles went on for the rest of the sacred months and the rest of the lunar months.

2- Hence, such aggressive wars began with a one-sided decision of Arabs and their caliph Abou Bakr, and horrific incidents of bloodshed began and lasted for several months, and the very first battles occurred between Arabs and the Persians on one hand, and the Arabs and the Byzantines on the other hand in (Muharram), (Saffar), and (Rabei Awwal), and even Khaled caught up with Arab troops defeated in the Levant to come in their aid in (Rabei Awwal).

3- Al-Tabary asserts that one major Iraqi city, whose residents fled into the wilderness leaving their possessions and wealth to avoid confrontation with Khaled troops, was conquered in (Saffar), and Khaled and his men looted every possible item they could lay their hands on, and then, they demolished and burned down the city to efface all its traces! A cavalier's share of the spoils amounted to 1500 dinars, not to mention items looted personally by each cavalier and soldier, and when Abou Bakr received his share of one-fifth, he told those around him in Yathreb that women failed to bring forth a great man like Khaled! All Arabs condoned and overlooked the fact that such spoils were ill-gotten money looted from those who never harmed a single Arab in Arabia; this tells us that Abou Bakr and the rest of the villains, murderers, and criminals, i.e., the so-called companions, had created a new creed with jihad defined as looting, destroying, enslaving, and murdering peaceful innocent people! Abou Bakr had the nerve to brag and take pride of crimes of Khaled in public in Yathreb, once countless spoils reached him! Al-Tabary considers in his history book such crimes as deeds pleasing to Muhammad and God! He was the historian of the Sunnite creed criminals among the early Muhammadans, NOT of Islam or Muslims. Those residents of the Levant cities who readily surrender their possessions and promised to pay the heavy annual taxes and tributes were spared from being killed in the sharia of the devilish creed concocted and fabricated by Abou Bakr and the rest of his gangsters. Those who defended themselves against Arab conquerors would end up being massacred, and their possessions and lands were confiscated and looted, and their children and women were enslaved and sold. The worst thing was to ascribe such horrible crimes to Islam; Islam is of course innocent of such crimes perpetrated in its name: "O you who believe! Enter into submission, wholeheartedly, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; he is to you an outright enemy. But if you slip after the proofs have come to you, know that God is Powerful and Wise." (2:208-209). Arabs never heeded this divine warning; they followed the footsteps of the Devil and ascribed their horrendous crimes to Muhammad, about whom God says: "We did not send you except as mercy to humankind." (21:107), but the companions of the sword made Muhammad and Islam as tools to murder the humankind!

4- Al-Tabary mentions another battle in Iraq with Arab troops against the Persians, who used to occupy it, in (Saffar) in 13 A.H., as 30.000 men were killed and priceless spoils were distributed, with the usual one-fifth of them sent to Yathreb, to Abou Bakr. Let us remember that spoils included enslaved women and children, separated from one another after killing their husbands and fathers. They were later on distributed as gifts or sold into slavery, forming a generation of non-Arabs in Arabia. Abou Bakr died suddenly, by poisoning, during the events of the Battle of Yarmouk in the Levant, in (Rabei Awwal) in 13 A.H.

Thirdly: The Reason Why the Arabs Were Victorious in their Conquests:

Khaled used delivered a speech to his men before battles, asserting to them that what they do was for God's sake and the sake of His religion, and that they had to be fearless and heartless to advance God's cause! Thus, we read here about power-, sex-, and money-hungry and blood-thirsty criminals who aimed to loot everything possible and to justify their crimes by a thin film of religiosity in the name of jihad for God's sake! They violated both the sacred months and the name of Islam by murdering the innocent, eating from ill-gotten money, and destroying people's lives and cities.

Lastly:

1- We conclude here that Abou Bakr and his men fought innocent people who never committed aggression against Arabia, and never sent forces and troops to conquer Yathreb for instance. It was Abou Bakr who mobilized and sent Arab troops to conquer other nations to satisfy their greed for looting and power. Khaled murdered and massacred hundreds of thousands of men, including captives, who rightly tried to defend themselves, their families, and their homelands, and he enslaved their progeny and women by distributing them among his men and selling some into slavery, not to mention those sent to Yathreb as spoils of war. Arabs in Yathreb, like Ali Ibn Abou Talib, in their old age enjoyed sexually such women, who bore them progeny.

2- God in the Quran prohibited all types of injustices, whether committed in the four sacred months or not, and the Quran asserts that the worst crime in Islamic sharia laws is murder; the life of any innocent peaceful human being is important, regardless of his/her creed or lack of it, and they are not to be killed unless in retaliation when they commit murder first.

3- We quote here an excerpt from our article published here on our website in Arabic and in English titled "Islam Is a Religion of Peace": (…The link between Islam and its faith concepts and sharia laws of self-defense fighting is clear; yet, Quranic sharia gives us more assertions to prevent manipulation of Quranic terminology and concepts. A clear enough example is found in the Quranic Chapter 4, when tackling the prohibition of killing an innocent, peaceful person; a believer in terms of behavior and demeanor, NOT in terms of creed and faith: "Never should a believer kill another believer, unless by error…" (4:92) and the rest of the verse tackles the diyya money (compensation) for manslaughter paid to the folks and family of the killed one, who was killed by accident. The next verse tackles the Afterlife punishment of killing a believer, again in terms of innocent peaceful demeanor NOT creed: "Whoever kills a believer deliberately, the penalty for him is Hell, where he will remain forever. And God will be angry with him, and will curse him, and will prepare for him a terrible punishment." (4:93). The next verse tackles this innocent peaceful person whose right to live is protected by Quranic sharia laws: "O you who believe! When you journey in the way of God, investigate, and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of this world…" (4:94) this verse means that all believers should verify and make sure they would not kill innocent, peaceful person, even in battlefield, and this person's sign is to utter the word of peace, and then, this person is to be protected and made to listen to the Quran and riven safely home, as we discern from this verse: "And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." (9:6)…).

4- Hence, we assert that the Arab conquests were crimes committed by Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman and the rest of their contemporaries and those who followed their footsteps and were violations against Quranic laws; it was an insult to Islam's name to be used as a cover or a pretext to justify such horrors. Such criminals said to the other in general (i.e., non-Arabs) that they were not believers and attacked them to massacre, rape, enslave, and loot. This scramble for loot was certainly against the divine warning in the Quran that they never paid heed to it: "…and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of this world.…" (4:94).

CHAPTER VI: Abou Sufyan during the Caliphate of Omar

Firstly: Omar Became Caliph Once Abou Bakr Was Buried:

1- Once Abou Bakr died and was buried at night secretly, Omar appointed himself as a caliph the morning after, and this betrays a conspiracy arranged for everything to fall into slots. There is an account saying that Abou Bakr dictated on a scribe the decree that Omar would succeed him, and such dictation was done in the presence of Omar himself and Othman, who advised him to choose Omar, and Abou Bakr had sealed this decree. Hence, Othman used to attend Abou Bakr in his dying days; and the same goes for Omar, and both witnessed his death moment in his bed, and both called people to show them the sealed decree. This was a plot and a clear scheme executed by both men and masterminded by Abou Sufyan.

2- From Abou Bakr's closed chamber and bed of death, news spread about Omar being caliph among all Arabia and the fighting troops in Iraq and the Levant. Narratives and accounts vary about such an event; some accounts assert that Abou Bakr appointed Omar as his successor after taking the advice of Othman and Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf, and we personally do not find anything to refute such account, and we believe it as true because Abou Bakr never realized that he was poisoned, and when he felt his death was near in his feverish state, he might have dictated such a decree. Another account tells us that Talha and Ali, among the attendees of Abou Bakr in his death bed, opposed the succession of Omar, but Abou Bakr insisted on it. Such an account is asserted by another account supporting it narrated by Aisha who asserted that such opposition by Ali and Talha infuriated Omar. Of course, such narratives might be false; they might have been fabricated to support Omar's situation, as he buried Abou Bakr secretly at night and proclaimed himself as caliph hastily the morning after without taking anybody's opinion.

3- We reassert here that historical narratives are relative; they are not absolute truths or facts. The Absolute Truth is the Quran alone. In contrast, historical accounts narrated by human beings can contradict and refute one another, and narrators might lie as well and fabricate falsehoods. All historical figures and narrators of that time are not mentioned in the Quran and the deeds and narratives ascribed to them are NOT part of faith or Islam at all; this is just history. Even if one denies the existence of such characters and narratives, this has no effect on one's faith. History is not religion, and vice-versa: religion is not history. One should study history with the scientific methodology of research to form an opinion or stance toward it, supported with evidence and sufficient proof. To agree with this or that narrative or to disagree with such and such account is NOT part of Islam or faith. Yet, if Arab readers disagree just because this book they are reading comes with something novel and unprecedented in comparison to what is usually taught and inculcated in schools, or because they have been brought up in a culture that deifies the mortals like the so-called companions, then they should not go on reading and they ought to stop wasting their times and our time in fruitless discussions and questions. We address only those who seek historical facts among the cultured readers.

Secondly: Omar Controlled Governors by Confiscations, Beatings, and Dismissal:

1- Omar is known to the Sunnites of today within Sunnite historical accounts that he was a 'just' ruler; we beg to differ. We have published here on our website an article refuting this falsehood of the 'just' Omar, titled "Unspoken-of History of Omar the Caliph", and we have asserted in it how Omar committed grave injustices against the conquered nation whose lands and possessions and wealth were confiscated and occupied and whose people were persecuted and oppressed. We assert here in this book that Omar favored Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan above all men, and this asserts our opinion that Omar was the primary agent/spy of Abou Sufyan, even during his caliphate, feared by all because of his severity and firmness. Such nepotism for the sake of Mu'aweiya was manifested in how Omar dealt with dismissed governors, as he confiscated their money, wealth, and possessions. Mu'aweiya was the only governor left in peace by Omar! In addition, Mu'aweiya was promoted to be the governor-general of all the Levant region, thus realizing the dream of his father, Abou Sufyan, who masterminded, before his death, how to appeal to nations of the Levant to help Mu'aweiya establish the Umayyad Dynasty, the very first hereditary rule or monarchy in Arab history, with Damascus as its capital.

2- Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas, governor of Iraq, was appointed and later on dismissed by Omar, who confiscated half of his wealth as well, despite his being the military leader who achieved many victories, especially in the Battle of Al-Qadisiyya, after Khaled was dismissed from leading the Arab troops and armies. Abou Moussa Al-Asharey was appointed instead, to be later dismissed by Omar, who confiscated half of his wealth as well.

3- There were governors who were not dismissed but had half of their wealth and possessions confiscated by Omar: like Amr Ibn Al-'As, conqueror and later governor of Egypt. Omar sent to him Muhammad Ibn Maslama, who was a sort of financial auditor, to confiscate half of the wealth and possessions of Amr, who verbally abused Omar and his father, Al-Khattab, and had to entreat Ibn Maslama not to mentions this verbal abuse to the redoubtable Omar. Amr had to pay a lot of money to bribe him to buy his silence, but this did not prevent this financial auditor to send half of the money and possessions of Amr to Omar in Yathreb.

4- Let us focus here in more detail about Abou Hurayrah, the thief, the Sunnite supreme deity, and the fabricator and primary narrator of hadiths, which are still sanctified and revered by all Sunnites until now. This man was dismissed, beaten, verbally abused by Omar while his money, wealth, and possession were confiscated by Omar himself as well. A historical narrative tells us that Omar appointed Abou Hurayrah as governor of Bahrain, and then sent for him to come to Yathreb, checking and verifying the fact that this penniless governor had amassed riches and bought precious horses with a large sum of money, and after confiscating his wealth, Omar beat and flogged him himself until his back bled, and Omar verbally abused him in public and slandered his mother! Later on, Abou Hurayrah narrated his story, after the death of Omar, in a way that showed him as an innocent, guiltless, and wronged man: he said that he defended himself against the accusation of theft leveled against him by Omar, but Omar flogged him and confiscated all his money. Ibn Katheer, the revered imam and historian of Sunnites and especially Salafists, and who lived in the Mameluke era in Egypt and died in 774 A.H, honored and celebrated Abou Hurayrah a lot of times in his writings and mentioned many hadiths narrated by him, especially in his book of his own interpretation of the Quran, and in his history book, he mentioned that Abou Hurayrah died in 59 A.H., and we quote below some information Ibn Katheer wrote about Abou Hurayrah, along with our own comments on such tidbits and pieces of information:

· Ibn Katheer writes that Abou Hurayrah converted to Islam in 7 A.H., and we just wonder and pose this important question: why hadiths that are ascribed to Abou Hurayrah have been circulated about things occurred in Mecca, like the night-journey, Muhammad's trying to convince the dying Abou Talib to convert to Islam, and hadiths about praising Othman who married Roqaya, the prophet's daughter, who died in 3 A.H. during the Battle of Badr? How come that Abou Hurayrah who converted to Islam in 7 A.H. in Mecca would be there in Yathreb to narrate and witness events in it?! These contradictions prove that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Ibn Katheer tells us about Abou Hurayrah that he accompanied Muhammad in Yathreb for just one year and nine months. Does this comply with the fact that Sunnites think that hundreds of thousands of hadiths narrated by Abou Hurayrah are true? How come he would narrate such hundreds of thousands in such a short period of time?! This asserts that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Many companions used to cast doubts on lots of narratives told by Abou Hurayrah; Ibn Katheer and Al-Bokhary wrote about how this man used to defend himself and his views: he used to rebuke other companions for leaving Muhammad most of the time to care for their trade and work, while he kept to Muhammad's side all the time. We wonder here: does this period of 21 months enough to allow Abou Hurayrah to narrate hundreds of thousands of hadiths?! This contradiction asserts that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Ibn Katheer admitted that Aisha, widow of Prophet Muhammad, denied the veracity and authenticity of most narratives of Abou Hurayrah, and he talked coarsely to her, mentioning to her that he was not busy beautifying himself like other women like her do to keep away from Muhammad, but he kept to the side of Muhammad all the time more than she did. We wonder here: how would he dare address her in that manner? How come a man's wife was not nearer to him than any companions? This shows that that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Ibn Katheer admitted that Omar, the caliph, accused Abou Hurayrah of theft, and dismissed him from being the governor of Bahrain, confiscating his money, and finally flogged him while verbally abusing him in public. We read about the viewpoint of Abou Hurayrah on this subject, but never about Omar's view or side of the story. We can just wonder here: who was the liar and who was the truth-teller: Omar or Abou Hurayrah? The latter admitted being accused and flogged; could we believe his fabrications and hadiths after that?! This proves that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Ibn Katheer admitted that Omar threatened Abou Hurayrah many times to stop narrating accounts about Muhammad; otherwise, he would punish him severely by severe beatings and flogging, and he likened Abou Hurayrah to corrupt Jewish clergy. Many historians assert that Abou Hurayrah used to keep a low profile by never uttering any hadiths during the caliphate of Omar, as he feared being punished or beaten by Omar. Even Omar ordered the new governor of Iraq to prevent people in mosques from narrating and circulating hadiths. We just wonder here: who was right: Omar or Abou Hurayrah?! This proves that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Ibn Katheer mentions that Abou Hurayrah used to narrate what was told to him by Kaab Al-Ahbar, the Jewish clergyman converted to Islam, who used to be a contemporary of Muhammad. We know quite well that Kaab Al-Ahbar was the main source of Israelites' narratives in heritage of Muslims as shown in countless tomes and volumes, and thus, we can conclude then that Abou Hurayrah was a mere paid agent spreading lies of Kaab Al-Ahbar as his mouthpiece. This proves to us that Abou Hurayrah was an inveterate liar.

· Lastly, Ibn Katheer admitted that Mu'aweiya, when he became a caliph, used to give many gifts of money to Abou Hurayrah, and later on appointed him as governor of Yathreb. When Abou Hurayrah died, Mu'aweiya lavished lots of money to his progeny for his services for the Umayyads and against Ali. It is a well-known fact in history that Abou Hurayrah fought with Mu'aweiya against Ali in the Battle of Siffein. Thus, Abou Hurayrah was a mouthpiece of the Umayyads and he used to fabricate hadiths for their sake to make people support the Umayyads. We apologize for digressing here about the inveterate liar, Abou Hurayrah, as he was the primary servant of the Umayyads just like Omar and Othman before him, as they were employed by Abou Sufyan and later on by his son Mu'aweiya.

Thirdly: The 'Just' Omar Favored Mu'aweiya:

1- This nepotism toward Mu'aweiya was manifested in the fact that Mu'aweiya was the only governor during the caliphate of Omar who never got dismissed, humiliated, nor his money confiscated; on the contrary, Omar made him the governor of the whole of the Levant region. At first, Omar divided the Levant between the two sons of Abou Sufyan: Yazeed was the governor of Damascus and Mu'aweiya of Jordan, but when Yazeed died in the pest epidemic in 19 A.H., Mu'aweiya was appointed by Omar as the governor of the Levant, and the good news reached Abou Sufyan via envoys sent by Omar himself. This means that Omar made Mu'aweiya a governor-general, in full control of full authority, wealth, taxes, and tributes, and the Arab troops of the Levant. This is clear evidence that Omar was an agent working for Abou Sufyan. It is noteworthy that Mu'aweiya retained his position even after the assassination of Omar, during the caliphate of Othman, the son of his paternal uncle. Mu'aweiya as an independent ruler used to appoint himself governors of the Levant cities. Mu'aweiya retained his position even after the assassination of Othman.

2- We read this historical account about the relation between Omar and Abou Sufyan, during the caliphate of the former: (…Omar in his house had a comfortable couch reserved only for two persons when they visit him in Yathreb: Abbas and Abou Sufyan…).

3- There are historical narratives and accounts that were forged and spread at the time to cover Omar's nepotism in favoring Mu'aweiya and his father Abou Sufyan. We quote some of them here: (…When Abou Sufyan visited Mu'aweiya in the Levant, he returned to visit Omar in Yathreb, who demanded that Abou Sufyan would give him some of tributes and taxes money collected by his son. And when Abou Sufyan replied that they had collected nothing at all, Omar sent a ring owned by Abou Sufyan to his wife, Hind, to bring to them luggage he came with after his visit to the Levant. Omar found that the luggage contained 10.000 dirhams, and he confiscated the sum to the Treasury. When Othman, as a caliph, tried to return the sum to Abou Sufyan later on, he refused and insisted on never to have it back since Omar gave it to the Treasury of the caliphate…). Of course, we do not believe such a false narrative, as Omar never checked or questioned Mu'aweiya at all. The queries raised here are these: Why Omar dismissed all governors and confiscated their money and condoned and overlooked Mu'aweiya? Was Mu'aweiya an angel who never appropriated money and possessions of people in the Levant or some of the money collected as tributes and taxes?! Why did Omar grant Mu'aweiya free reins in the Levant? Mu'aweiya had full power and authority there to the extent that he prepared troops and armies and built a strong fleet to attack the Byzantines, and he gained spoils that he distributed himself. Omar never received any of them, and he overlooked all that. For instance, Mu'aweiya conquered a large part of the lands of the Byzantines in 22 A.H., with troops of 10.000 soldiers and cavaliers, and gained victory and lots of spoils, and Omar never received any of them and he never checked Mu'aweiya. Such events show clearly that Omar was the obedient agent of Abou Sufyan, who remained loyal to him even when he became caliph.

CHAPTER VII: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Omar

Introduction:

The Arab conquests expanded during the caliphate of Omar (14-23 A.H.) between Isfahan in the east of Persia to Tripoli in Libya. Iraq and the Levant were conquered within battles that continued between 14 and 18 A.H. and Egypt was conquered in 20 A.H. and Alexandria, its capital at the time, in 21 A.H. and between 22 and 23 A.H., Libya and most of Persia were conquered. Omar himself as assassinated in 23 A.H., and within such years of conquests, hundreds of thousands of innocent victims were killed unjustly in such a horrid period of aggression falsely under the name of Islam and jihad. Thousands of families were scattered and destroyed within countries and cities between Middle Asia and Libya. Arabs at the time looted all treasures of these regions, and they enslaved or sold into slavery women and children of the conquered nations. Such crimes led to the deification of Omar in the Sunnite creed, which is based, until today it its Wahabi version, on legalizing aggression, massacres, and looting of any non-Sunnites under the banner of Sunnite jihad, formulated by Omar and his contemporaries. Events of such horrendous crimes are too many to describe in our book and the limited space here; we will quote some examples only of crimes that were committed in the four sacred months in Persia and Egypt, but we remind the readers that crimes of conquests went on non-stop for the whole year of lunar months. As usual, we will enclose the sacred months between brackets.

Firstly: Examples Showing How Omar Violated the Sacred Months while Conquering Persia:

1- In (Zu Al-Hijja) in 13 A.H., Omar began his caliphate by swiftly mobilizing all tribes of Arabia into troops to conquer Persia, which was ruled at the time by Yazdegerd III, and most men of Arabia complied with the caliph's written requests that were sent to all cities and villages of all tribes, within the season of performing pilgrimage to Mecca. This means that Omar manipulated this season to begin the military mobilization of all tribes, in flagrant violation of the rites of pilgrimage and its sacred four months.

2- After he managed to mobilize great throngs from all tribes of Arabia under his leadership, Omar led them in (Muharram) in 14 A.H. within great and enormous military procession, as mentioned by Al-Tabary.

3- Yet, eventually, it was decided that Omar would remain in Yathreb and to would appoint Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas as the military leader to conquer Persian, while another army would be directed to the area that would come to be known later as Basra, in Iraq, to prevent any military aid reaching Persia via the Persian Gulf. Al-Tabary asserts in his history that the region known now as Basra was conquered in (Rabei Awwal) in 14 A.H., and Omar ordered that its people, made enemies by Omar in his written decrees, should be made to choose between conversion to Islam, paying tributes to retain their creeds, or be put to the sword! It was Omar who began aggression against them; he was their enemy, and they never started any sort of aggression against Arabs and never sent an army to conquer Yathreb. This aggression of Omar, then, was against the Quranic teaching and against Islam.

4- Saad defeated the Persians in the Battle of Al-Qadisyyia, and this was the onset of the destruction and ruin of the Persian Empire, and this battle took place in (Muharram) in 14 A.H., as per history of Al-Tabary, and the ensued battles went on for several months, and some of the military skirmishes and movements were extended to (Saffar) in 16 A.H.

5- Al-Tabary mentions in his history the conquest of the Persian capital in (Saffar) in 16 A.H., achieving victory and gaining much spoils left by those who fled, as spoils were said to reach 3 billion dinars, consisting mainly of priceless treasures collected by the Persian emperors over the decades, only to be confiscated wholly later on by conquering Arabs.

6- We feel no wonder why Persians and today's Iranians, especially Shiites, hate Omar and Abou Bakr so much until now; when the capital of Persian Empire was conquered, more than 60 thousands of women, men, and children were enslaved, as per history of Al-Tabary.

7- Al-Tabary mentions as well that the conquered capital of the Persian Empire yielded to the Arab conquerors priceless huge amounts of spoils, to the extent that military leaders appointed two persons to take care of the spoils: one to collect and count them and one to distribute them among cavaliers and soldiers, of course, after sending one-fifth of then naturally to Yathreb: to Omar. This indicates that Arabs looted all palaces, big houses, and the court of the Persian emperor, leaving nothing to the capital's dwellers to get away with it, as they took anything they tried to escape with in their failed attempt to flee the capital. Al-Tabary asserts that Arabs found hidden treasures inside domes within jars sealed with lead, filled with silver and gold, in huge amounts to the extent that prices of gold declined at the time, not to mention laying their hands on treasures, precious-stones-studded an encrusted tiaras, crowns, statues, shields, saddles, swords, precious jewels and stones, fineries, and clothes of the Persian emperor, sent to Omar among his one-fifth share of spoils.

8- Concerning distribution of such spoils, Al-Tabary mentions that a cavalier's share was 12.000 dinars at least, and houses of the capital of the Persian Empire were distributed by the military leader Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas among the Arab soldiers and cavaliers, while sending the most precious items to Omar to impress him, especially items that could not be distributed like Persian rugs, statues, and other masterpieces and priceless works of art, looted and partially destroyed by the barbarian Arabs who demolished the great Persian civilization. It is noteworthy that Ali Ibn Abou Talib received a share of the looted items, consisting of a piece of finery cloth that he sold for 20.000 dinars, as he advised Omar to cut and distribute all finery pieces of cloth. This ill-gotten money did not prevent Shiites from deifying Ali just because he begot his sons, Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein, from his first wife, Fatimah, daughter of Prophet Muhammad! Shame on Ali, the eater of ill-gotten money, and shame on Shiites for worshipping mortals!

9- During the month of (Saffar) in 16 A.H., a battle occurred where the Persians lost more than 100.000 persons killed by, according to Al-Tabary, the most prominent Arab figures among the Yathreb dwellers and Meccan ones who immigrated before to it during the lifetime of Muhammad, as well as other luminary military Arab figures, and each cavalier received from spoils a share of 7.000 dinars and nine horses from this battle alone, not to mention enslaved women and children.

Secondly: Examples Showing How Omar Violated the Sacred Months while Conquering Egypt:

1- During the month of (Rabei Awwal) in 16 A.H., as per Al-Tabary, Egypt was conquered by Arabs, after Amr Ibn Al-'As achieved victory over Cyrus, the Roman governor of Egypt, in the Battle of Ain-Shams City. Another historical narrative asserts that Egypt was conquered during the month of (Muharram) in 20 A.H., and this discrepancy is due to the fact that Egypt was conquered by stages. What concerns us here is that both months mentioned are among the four sacred months of pilgrimage and general peace.

2- The invading Arab troops swept over the peaceful and serene Egyptian countryside, looting items and raping and enslaving women of every village, sending one-fifth of the spoils and slaves to Omar in Yathreb and distributing the rest amongst themselves; numerous Egyptian girls and women were distributed in Mecca and Yathreb, among other Arabian cities, as mentioned by Al-Tabary, who listened to the narrator who was a soldier within the Arab troops that conquered Egypt. Al-Tabary mentions that Alexandria, the Egyptian capital at the time, was conquered by troops of Omar in 22 A.H., and all its surrounding villages were looted and destroyed, sending all their beautiful women to Arabia, and when Cyrus tried to retrieve them within a peace treaty conditions with Omar, Omar refused to get them back to their homeland, according to Al-Tabary in his history.

Thirdly: The Divine Punishment for Omar and the Arabs:

1- Because of such above-mentioned violations against the Quranic teachings, during and outside of the four sacred months, God had punished Omar and all Arabs in general, by a grave famine and a contagious pest, and later on, Omar was assassinated in one of the sacred months as well.

2- We know quite well from the Quran that there is a divine torment in this life, before the Hereafter, to the sinners as a warning, so that they might remember God and repent: "We will make them taste the lesser torment, prior to the greater torment, so that they may return." (32:21). History of Arabia at the time has missing gaps, never spoken of or written, and among such gaps is Qorayish undergoing torment, as we find traces of it in the Quran; God says about them in Mecca the following: "Even if We had mercy on them, and relieved their torment, they would still blindly persist in their defiance. We have already gripped them with torment, but they did not surrender to their Lord, nor did they humble themselves. Until, when We have opened before them a gate of intense torment, at once they will despair." (23:75-77). As for Arab hypocrites, God mentions in the Quran that they were tested with tribulations and suffering so that they return to God and repent: "Do they not see that they are tested once or twice with suffering every year? Yet they do not repent, and they do not learn." (9:126). God in the Quran asserts that hypocrites of Yathreb will be tormented twice (after the death of Muhammad), and will suffer for eternity in Hell: "Among the Desert-Arabs and Bedouins around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Yathreb too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will be returned to a severe eternal torment. " (9:101). As usual, they never repented and never thought of God.

3- Narratives and accounts of Sunnite history books turn the famine and the pest into occasions to deify, venerate, and revere Omar and his contemporaries, and no one took notice of the fact that both the famine and the pest were divine punishments for all Arabs. We are in no loss at this; they considered their aggressions, occupations, invasions, and military conquests as jihad and looting as spoils sent by God to them! Hence, we can say that they worshipped other deities and not Almighty God, and such mortal deities are devils ordering them to commit horrendous crimes like aggression, rape, looting, murder, massacres, and so on, as opposed to God in the Quran Who orders true believers in Him to follow the path of righteousness, piety, charity, mercy, and justice. God says in the Quran the following about Arabs and their inherent desire to violate prohibitions and commit them willingly, while ascribing their crimes to God: "And when they commit an indecency, they say, "We found our parents doing this, and God has commanded us to do it." Say, "God does not command indecencies. Are you attributing to God what you do not know?" Say, "My Lord commands justice, and to stand devoted at every place of worship. So call upon Him, and dedicate your religion to Him alone…" (7:28-29). God says about Islam, His true religion violated on purpose by the caliphs before and after the Umayyads: "God commands justice, charity, and generosity towards relatives. And He forbids immorality, and injustice, and oppression. He advises you, so that you may take heed." (16:90).

4- Both the famine and the pest occurred in 18 A.H., according to Al-Tabary, who mentions as well that so many people died as a result. The pest in the Levant caused the death of the governor of one of the Levantine cities, Abou Obaidah Ibn Al-Jaraah, as well as the death of other well-known ones among the so-called companions: Mu'aaz Ibn Jabal, Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan, who was Abou Sufyan eldest and first-born son, among many others.

5- Al-Tabary mentions about the famine in 18 A.H. that this famine was severe, and people called this year the Ash-Year, because ashen dust and sands were swept by the wind all over Arabia, as the scarce agricultural lands were so dry, grey, and cracked, to the extent that people's faces turned grey. Rain never poured at all for a whole year, even all cattle died, and no one would eat any meat of any sort, however meager, and this means that God punished the Arabs with that famine, and the countless spoils did not avail them, and even savage animals did not fear humans and vice-versa. Ashen faces refer to the fact that people at the time stopped smiling and laughing because of their severe hunger, as it was rumored that Omar roamed the streets of Yathreb to find general sorrow overshadowing everyone. At one point, Yathreb dwellers were surprised to find about 60.000 persons gathered outside the city gates asking for aid, but no one had either money or victuals, even the caliphate Treasury was empty, or so it seemed. It was said that Omar spent all the money in Treasury to get food, but it was never enough, as the famine went on for a whole year. It was said that Omar wrote and sent letters to all governors of the other conquered countries in order to send victuals to relieve the severity of the famine that struck Arabia, especially Yathreb. People used to gather daily to pray to God for rain, but it never rained during 18 A.H., and Omar ordered Amr Ibn Al-'As, governor of Egypt, to empty all Egyptian storehouses of their fruits and grains to be sent to Yathreb, and that entailed creating a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, and Amr feared Egyptians would revolt against him due to heavy taxes and sending most of Egyptian produce to Yathreb, but Omar told him that Egypt's ruin would be better than the imminent ruin of Yathreb! This was Omar, the mortal god who is being now deified and revered by Egyptian Sunnites of today!

6- Concerning the pest spread as an epidemic in the same year 18 A.H., Al-Tabary mentions that thousands of people, both the poor & impecunious and the affluent &rich, contracted the disease and died, among those who died were Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan, the first-born of Abou Sufyan and the elder brother of Mu'aweiya, Mu'aaz Ibn Jabal, Abou Oubaidah, the governor, and many more from the so-called well-known companions. Some claim that the total number of those who died of this epidemic was 25.000 persons, and early Muslims feared that the pest that had taken its toll for months might encourage enemies of Arabs to attack them, but this never happened. We can read here between history lines that both the pest and the famine were divine punishment against Arabs, because both struck Arabs only in Arabia, the Levant, and Iraq, whereas people of conquered nations never suffered. Thus, non-Arabs never suffered the famine or the contagious pest, not even to the smallest degree. Even some Arabs who tried to flee their locations to avoid the pest in Arabia died eventually of it in Iraq and the Levant; for instance, Al-Hareth Ibn Hisham went away to Basra, in Iraq, with 70 members of his household, but he died like most of them, and only four persons returned eventually to Yathreb.

7- Another divine punishment was the assassination of Omar, by Abou Louloua the Persian, in the sacred month of Zu Al-Hijja 23 A.H., but some historians assert that it was in the sacred month Muharram 24 A.H., an thus, as Omar violated the sacred months, God made his fate to be killed in them later on: "The sacred month for the sacred month; and sacrilege calls for retaliation…" (2:194).

8- The main cause behind the assassination of Omar, in our opinion, was the enslavement of women and children of the conquered nations; Ibn Saad, the historian, writes that Omar used to write letters to the military leaders of the Arab troops to order them never to bring non-Arab men or male youths to Yathreb as slaves, especially who never grow beards, but to focus on women and children. This shows to us that Omar feared a possible retaliation. Abou Louloua the Persian came to Yathreb as an exception, with a recommendation from his master, Al-Mughira Ibn Shaabah, and he was among the children enslaved from Persia, who saw as a child how Arabs caused the irretrievable loss of his family, homeland, house, and possessions; no doubt, Abou Louloua used to watch other slaves, among children and women, from Persia coming to Yathreb regularly to be distributed or sold into slavery to other people in Arabia. Of course, this scene used to remind him of injustices done to him. He had listened to their screams and cries of woe within streets of Yathreb, replaying his own scenes of suffering in his mind. Of course, Abou Louloua killed Omar and then committed suicide to avenge such oppression. It was said that Abou Louloua used to try and comfort the new children-slaves, while crying that Arabs must pay the price for their crime of destroying Persia.

9- Pardon us, Arab readers, for we regard Abou Louloua the Persian as a hero, and we wish that he were an Egyptian man.

CHAPTER I: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Othman

Firstly: Conquered Countries Suffer Worse Conditions during the Caliphate of Othman:

1- We begin here by indicating the despicable conditions of the conquered nations whose women, children possessions, houses, lands, and money were appropriated by Arab conquerors, showing how conditions worsened during the caliphate of Othman, and suffering aggravated, causing eventually the assassination of Othman later on in 35 A.H. God never cause injustice to any mortal, but people do grave injustices against one another.

2- Conquests perpetrated by Arabs went on and expanded during the caliphate of Othman from 24 A.H. to 34 A.H., and Arab troops conquered more lands from the Persian Empire, parts of Middle Asia, Cypress, North Africa, Spain, Armenia, Constantinople, Nubia, Sudan, and Abyssinia. Mediterranean Sea battles with the Byzantines ended always in victory for the Arab fleet. Huge amounts of spoils were looted and thousands of women and children were enslaved. Some witnesses assert that such riches led people to forget God and to focus on material gains and affluence. Othman used to give every soldier and cavalier 100.000 dinars. In 35 A.H., revolt against Othman as a caliph went for a whole year, ending in his assassination. This was another divine retribution and punishment as the crime of conquests went on, and Othman was killed within the four sacred months as well.

3- Looting and collecting ill-gotten money went on before, during, and after battles, and later on heavy taxes and tributes were imposed after settling in conquered villages and cities, as paying such large sums was a proof of 'conversion' to Islam, submission to Arabs, and/or the price for retaining one's original creed! Anyone who would not pay was considered an infidel who must be severely punished or lose his life! This was the Arab faulty logic as narrated by Al-Tabary! Of course the affluent nouveau-rich Arabs quarreled with one another over their shares of the ill-gotten money; grave injustices and sins committed by them formed a curse that would incite internal unrest and full-fledged Arab civil wars soon enough. Such divine punishment began with the assassination of Othman because of injustices done and quarrels over wealth.

4- Hence, we find no great difference between stances of both Othman and Omar in relation to conquered countries, in looting and enslavement and other grave injustices against the Quran. Othman seemed to be a more unjust ruler in comparison to Omar; as Othman condoned and overlooked misconduct of governors of conquered nations as they collected taxes and tributes and looted and confiscated feverishly as much lands, possessions, and wealth as they could using all their might to oppress people by all possible means. Let us give some examples about conditions of Egypt at the time quoted from the history book of Al-Makrizi, the historian known for his hatred toward Egyptian Copts: he narrates that Omar wrote to Amr, governor of Egypt, to collect 40 dirhams from every Egyptian Copt apart from tributes in the form of goods, and to punish those who could not pay by cutting their hair and branding their napes! Other letters by Omar urged Amr to collect heavier taxes, and in one year, Amr gave Omar 12 million dinars from Egypt! At one point, Amr had to stop collecting taxes to allow some reforming projects to agricultural lands and other facilities in Egypt to make up for local losses and scarcity due to heavy taxes! As for Othman, he dismissed Amr from his post as a governor of Egypt, and he appointed instead Abdulla Ibn Saad, who unjustly and oppressively collected heavier taxes and urged his men to loot as much money as possible from all Egyptians! He later on sent to Othman from Egypt 14 million dinars in one year! Othman admired his newly appointed governor and rebuked Amr for not imitating him in milking the Egyptian Cow dry! But Amr urged Othman to stop such a policy so as not to harm and impoverish the Egyptians to the extent of driving them to revolt against Othman, who gave a deaf ear to Amr's piece of advice. Hence, Othman harmed Egypt more than Omar did, and we can easily imagine the cruelty and heartlessness of Ibn Saad as its governor in collecting money and looting all over Egypt. Arabs who settled in Egypt felt the great urge to revolt against the greedy Othman, especially that one of them tried to advise Ibn Saad to be more lenient toward Egypt, but he flogged him in public to death! This provoked the revolt against Othman, among other reasons, by Arabs settled in Egypt and elsewhere. If Ibn Saad killed an Arab man that way, what about how he dealt with poor Egyptians?! We do believe that ill-gotten money and other sins of injustices brought a curse to Othman and Arabs in general later on in Arabia, as such ill-gotten money caused the greed and resentment leading to civil strife, as you will read about in the next paragraphs.

Secondly: Conspiracy of Appointing Othman as Caliph instead of Ali:

1- All historians of the period agree that the dying Omar, who received fatal stabbing by Abou Louloua the Persian, dictated a list of companions from which Arabs should choose from their next caliph; this list included the following names: Ali, Othman, Al-Zubayr, Talha, Saad, and finally Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf. Omar appointed his son Abdullah as arbiter, judge, and executer of this will. He suggested that Ibn Awf be appointed as caliph momentarily until consultation among Yathreb dwellers would take place. Views divided between Ali and Othman, as other names received little attention and popularity by people of Yathreb. Ibn Awf consulted all Yathreb dwellers, until at one point, he sent for Ali to check whether he would follow the footsteps and methods of Omar and Abou Bakr or not. Ibn Awf felt doubts concerning the serious-mindedness and resolve lacking in Ali, and he chose Othman finally instead of Ali. Othman received fealty as the new caliph and people swore allegiance and loyalty to him in a hasty manner. This was the scenario before people of Yathreb, as conspiracy against Ali enacted by Ibn Awf and directed by, we tend to think, Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan.

2- Ibn Awf was among the culprits who, along with Omar and Othman, participated in the assassination of Abou Bakr by poisoning and in the plot to appoint Omar as caliph, and he had to ensure his own safety by choosing Othman as Omar's successor. We are to remember that the Qorayish influence was focused in the Hashemites, who were represented by Ali, and the Umayyads in general represented by Othman at that time, as the rest of Mecca companions were from tries and factions of minor importance in terms of influence and wealth. At the time, it was feared that if caliphate reached any Hashemite, it would remain within this powerful faction forever, and this would endanger the hopes and ambitions of others, especially Mu'aweiya, and hence, choosing Othman was the safer option, as he could not perpetuate caliphate within the Umayyads at the time.

3- Thus, Arabs in Yathreb were bent on appointing a caliph who would be easily manipulated and urged to condone and overlook any misconduct and looting as well as other injustices committed by Arab settlers in conquered nations and their governors; they wanted to enjoy full power and authority as well as wealth within a caliph who was not so strict as Omar had been. They feared at the time that Ali would imitate Omar in his strictness, firmness, and harshness with others. Omar used to prevent most of the so-called companions from settling always in conquered countries, but ordered them to remain with him in Yathreb, and they obeyed him reluctantly. Al-Tabary asserts that shortly before the death of Omar, most men grew weary of him because of that reason in particular. On the contrary, Othman opened the doors wide open for most Arabs to move freely within conquered countries, and he allowed them to grow filthily rich and politically powerful within his caliphate, and thus, they spread in recently conquered countries and participated in conquering many others. Hence, such Arabs amassed undreamed-of huge amounts of wealth, and this made Othman popular among them at first. The most powerful and richest five men during the caliphate of Othman were Othman himself, and then Abdel-Rahman Ibn Awf, Talha, Al-Zubayr, Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas.

4- We remind readers here of the amounts of wealth of each man mentioned above. Othman: despite his much-talked-of generosity, in the day when he was assassinated, his murderers who revolted against him robbed from his house 30 billion dirhams, 100 thousand dinars, and 500 thousand dirhams, and they confiscated assets whose values reached 200 thousands dinars. Al-Zubayr: he owned between 35 and 52 million dirhams and 200 thousand dinars as well as assets and houses in the Egyptian cities Alexandria and Al-Fostat and in the Iraqi cities Al-Kufa and Basra, and upon his death, he left a vast, lush garden that was sold in return for one million and 600 thousand dirhams. Ibn Awf: he died in 32 A.H. shortly before Othman's death, and he left countless amounts of gold that men grew tired of cutting it. Saad: he left upon his death 250 thousand dirhams as well as a spacious, grand palace in Al-Aqeeq, a southern region of Arabia. Talha: when he died, he had a gold ring with a big red ruby in his finger, and his daily revenues from his lands in Iraq reached 1000 dirhams, or 500 thousand dirhams annually as per another account, and he left in his house two million dirhams plus 200 thousands dirhams as well as 200 thousand dinars, not to mention assets and houses valued by 30 million dirhams. He left as well 100 big jars filled with gold! We have quotes such numbers from two history books: "Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" by the historian Ibn Saad; see Tome III pages 53, 76, 77, 157, and "Moroj Al-Zahab" by the historian Al-Masoody; see Tome I pages 544: 545.

5- Hence, according to the above, we perceive that appointing Othman as a caliph was a plot hatched cleverly by Abou Sufyan, and Othman was a victim of such a plot, as we conclude from the historical account we quote here from ''Moroj Al-Zahab'' by the historian Al-Masoody, Tome I, page 551, and we personally believe this story: (…When Othman became caliph and received fealty and allegiance of all Arabs, Abou Sufyan, who was blind in his old age, entered his own house, along with kinsmen from the Umayyads, and asked if there were other non-Umayyads present in his house. When he was answered in the negative, he repeated to them several times that his will and testament to them before his near death was that they seize the opportunity and the chance to become monarchs and form a ruling dynasty that he dreamt of…). This ambition of Abou Sufyan was achieved, after his death, by his son Mu'aweiya.

Thirdly: The Reasons of Why a Revolt against Omar Was Impossible:

1- Omar aroused Arabs' lust and scramble for loot by giving the launch signal of the Arab conquests; Arabs achieved undreamt-of-before ambitions when conquered, invaded, occupied, looted, robed, stole, enslaved, raped, and confiscated during the caliphate of Omar, and they were too busy to fight one another. This state of relentless scramble for loot went on for years during the caliphate of Othman as well, save the last year of it. Once looting and conquering came to a halt, Arabs disagreed and fought one another and murdered Othman, entering the period of civil wars, which is still an on-going period until this very moment, in our opinion. This was because of the fact that their aggression and crimes named by historians as (Arab conquests), and named falsely by them at the time ('Islamic' jihad), were NOT for the sake of God as they claimed, but for the sake of power, authority, money, and women. That was why once conquests stopped, the internecine strife began in Arabia, as they disagreed and struggled against each other over wealth and loot.

2- Omar as a caliph combined in his treatment and dealing with Arabs both justice and firmness; he was never accused of nepotism and cronyism and never dealt with his relatives and close associates in a manner that set them above or apart from the rest of Arabs. Omar sought and applied equality among Arabs in general. In a sense, Omar managed to mobilize all Arabs of Arabia into one unified party apart from all the conquered nations' peoples, who were treated as spoils and slaves of Arabs. With justice, equality, and lack of discrimination, Omar gained the loyalty of all Arabs, and with his firmness, they feared to arouse or stir his fury; no one among Qorayish or among any tribes of Arabia dared to face or confront him.

3- Apart from justice combined with firmness, Omar used his cunning and ruse to ensure he gained the loyalty of the two most powerful factions of Qorayish: the Hashemites and the Umayyads. Omar kept his loyalty to Abou Sufyan; he left his son, Mu'aweiya, ruling all the Levant alone, and the Umayyads had close relation with the tribe of Kalb, the most powerful tribe dominating the Levant. Mu'aweiya ensured the loyalty of this tribe to him as a governor/ruler of the Levant by his marrying Maysoon, the daughter of the head of this tribe, and she became the mother of his eldest son, Yazeed, and such marriage and such conditions allowed Mu'aweiya to remain the ruler of the Levant and supportive of Omar, conquering in his name more lands in the Levant, fighting the Byzantines, and storing loot without Omar's ever questioning him or holding him into account. Meanwhile, the cunning Omar ensured the loyalty of Ali, and through him the Hashemites, by appointing him as his consultant and marrying Ali's daughter who begot him children; likewise, we know from history that Prophet Muhammad appealed to some factions when he married Omar's daughter.

Fourthly: The Inevitability of Revolt against Othman:

1- The revolt against Othman was inevitable as his period of caliphate, as well as his personal nature, character, and traits differed a great deal from Omar; Arabs in Othman's caliphate grew filthily rich from the scramble for hoarding ill-gotten money and treasures confiscated from conquered countries. Let us remember that they grew weary before of Omar in the last year of his caliphate; what about, then, their reaction toward a corrupt ruler like Othman? Historians give us details about the various conditions and reasons of the revolt against Othman and of his assassination. Chief among such conditions and reasons were the following: A) Othman's nepotism and cronyism for the same of his relatives, the Umayyads in particular, B) Othman allowed Arabs to settle everywhere in conquered countries, and this made them turn into powerful and wealthy centers that coveted more power and money within the unleashed political ambitions, C) looted wealth centered on people of the Qorayish solely, especially the Umayyads, and this created feelings of resentment and fury among non-Qorayish Arabs who fought in the conquests, and lastly D) the main reason in our opinion was that conquests came to halt at some point, while corruption and stubbornness of Othman paved the way to Qorayish, and the Umayyads in particular under the leadership of Mu'aweiya, to plot against Othman and to escalate revolts resulting in his assassination.

2- When Arabs and Bedouins (a.k.a. desert-Arabs) revolted during the caliphate of Abou Bakr, in what became to be known as the renegades' wars, they were defeated, quelled, and crushed by Qorayish. All Qorayish tribesmen realized that such Bedouins would not rest and settle down with no conquests and raids and fighting to which they are used for decades; they were addicted actually to raids and looting. Their energy must be spent and directed toward something similar while warding off their danger away from Yathreb and Mecca. Hence, conquering the neighboring nations (North Africa, the Levant, Iraq and Persia, etc.) was of vital strategic importance for the Umayyads in particular, who planned to establish an Umayyad Empire, and for all the co-called companions in general. The Persian Empire reached at the time a stage of decadence, affluence, and corruption that led to its speedy fall into the hands of Arab conqueror. As for the Byzantines, they resisted fiercely at first with all their might, in their fortresses and Mediterranean Sea fleet, but their capital, Constantinople, remained a head whose body parts were severed by Arabs: its lands in Egypt, the Levant, and North Africa. Hence, when Arab conquests came to a halt during the caliphate of Othman, the Arabs and Bedouins returned to their habits of internal fights and raids and blood-thirsty aggressions against one another in Arabia: like a bon-fire that found nothing to consume and thus consumed itself. That was why the revolt against Othman seemed inevitable at the time; especially that he was the exact opposite of Omar; Othman used to resort to corruption, nepotism, cronyism, stubbornness, and adamant refusal to reform and/or change his mind, his strategies, and his manners and ways, despite the fact that he was certain to get killed eventually when he was sieged in his house for 49 days.

Fifthly: The Plotting of Qorayish against Othman:

1- What arouses interest indeed is the plotting of Qorayish against Othman, as we read details of it between lines of historical accounts and the turnout of events. Of course, Mu'aweiya was executing the plotting of his father, Abou Sufyan, who died before the revolt against Othman. Mu'aweiya contributed a lot in stirring such a revolt against Othman by his encouraging Othman to be a corrupt absolute ruler, and later on, Mu'aweiya let down Othman and never came to his aid during the revolt that resulted in his assassination. Mu'aweiya deserted Othman and left him alone to face his fate by promising, in public, to send an army from Damascus to Yathreb to aid Othman, and intentionally reneging on this promise, of course. Mu'aweiya made a public announcement to spread news of his coming to aid Othman after the latter remained surrounded, by force of armed men, to imprison him inside his house for more than month, and Othman used to ask for aid from all his allies and supporters in vain. Such announcement led to the speedy assassination of Othman by the rebels! Of course, no armies or troops ever came from Damascus. With Othman dead and his assassins made sure no troops would come, the rebels hastily appointed Ali as caliph and swore fealty and loyalty to him, while controlling Yathreb with a firm grip, feeling safe and enjoying impunity, apparently, as Mu'aweiya never sent any military aid at all. Thus, we can conclude that Mu'aweiya plotted to get rid of his paternal uncle's son: Othman. Of course, Mu'aweiya cared for one thing to get: he went to the widow of Othman to ask her to give him the blood-stained gown to make use of it to become the caliph himself. Mu'aweiya made use of the assassination of Othman as a pretext to ask for revenge for Othman's death: for he could not possibly ask for Othman to be avenged while Othman still alive. Such demand for revenge was driven, of course, by the ardent desire of Mu'aweiya to become the caliph and founder of an Umayyad Dynasty or line of successive rulers. To achieve and realize his ambitions, Mu'aweiya made good use of his army that consisted mainly of soldiers from the tribe of Kalb, his obedient in-laws.

2- There is an aspect rarely tackled by researchers and historians concerning the civil war of Mu'aweiya vs. Ali; namely, the role of Abou Bakr's party of friends, relatives, and progeny in the assassination of Othman. We mean by this party the following names: Aisha the daughter of Abou Bakr, wife of Prophet Muhammad, her younger brother Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr, Al-Zubayr, the husband of Asmaa, one of Abou Bakr's daughters, and finally, Talha, the son of the paternal uncle of Abou Bakr. Al-Zubayr was partial to Ali because his mother was the paternal aunt of both Ali and Prophet Muhammad. Yet, wealth and filth riches consisting of ill-gotten money caused sudden changes in stances and loyalties; Al-Zubayr had political ambitions that drove him to consider Ali as an obstacle on his way to become caliph himself, and that was why he deserted Ali and joined forces with the Abou Bakr party: to his wife Asmaa and her sister Aisha, their brother Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr, and Talha. What these party members share in common was that they were not from the powerful factions of Qorayish: the Hashemites and the Umayyads who descended from Abd-Shams and Bani Abd-Manaf.

3- Aisha. Of course, never forgot the scene of assassinating her father with poison by Omar and Othman, but she and the rest of the party could not dare to face the harsh, cruel Omar, who threatened to burn down the house of Ali, along with his wife and children inside, in a fit of fury, and who threatened to kill Saad Ibn Eibada and later on murdered him anyway once he became caliph. Omar's absolutism and cruelty increased during his caliphate; it was natural that the Abou Bakr party would hide their true feelings. Hence, such venomous hatred inside Aisha and the rest of her party was unleashed during the caliphate of Othman; they wanted to avenge Abou Bakr's death from Othman, the chief ally of Omar and his fellow conspirator who participated in killing Abou Bakr, and M. Ibn Abou Bakr felt more hatred toward Omar and Othman, as he was merely a child when his father was assassinated, leaving him to be raised by his step-father Ali. It was natural that M. Ibn Abou Bakr was among those who revolted against Othman, the first one to break open the house of Othman, and the first one to strike him with the sword before the other rebels who broke in with him. Yet, other accounts assert that he was about to kill Othman but Othman stopped him by saying so and so. We will detail this part later on when we tackle the assassination of Othman in a coming part below.

4- As for Aisha, she slandered and verbally abused Othman, apparently for no good reason at all as seen by others, and she incited and urged his murder. She used to shout the slogan: "Kill Naathal, for he is an infidel!" The proper name Naathal was Othman's surname before the advent of Islam; people wondered at her stance as Othman was generous with her and with Talha, the son of her paternal uncle. When her slogan resulted in rebels surrounding Othman's house for 49 days, Aisha left Yathreb and headed to Mecca, to flee using performing pilgrimage as a pretext to cover her flight, as Al-Tabary mentions in his history. Aisha feared for the life of her brother and asked him to accompany her to Mecca, but he refused because he was one of the leaders of revolt against Othman, and people rebuked him for not following her advice, as if Othman, the Umayyad, got killed, caliphate would go to Ali the Hashemite from Bani Abd-Manaf anyway, and not to anyone from the tribe, faction, or progeny of Abou Bakr.

5- Before the departure of Aisha from Yathreb, she was overtaken by Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam and others who beseeched her to remain in Yathreb to aid and support Othman in his calamity, as she retained some authority as Prophet Muhammad's widow. Yet, Aisha refused and was bent on performing pilgrimage in Mecca, and when Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam recited poetic verses about this situation, blaming her for refusal to aid someone in distress, she said to him and his men that she wished him and Othman tied with ropes to huge rocks to be thrown at the sea bottom. She hates Othman and the Umayyads in general so much indeed. On her way to Mecca, she met with Ibn Abbas, whom Othman sent to Mecca to lead the pilgrimage rites as an imam, and she seized the chance to urge Ibn Abbas to preach others in Mecca to participate in dethroning Othman and to appoint Talha who would imitate his paternal uncle, Abou Bakr, her father, in just and fair rule. Yet, Ibn Abbas told her that if Othman was to leave his post as a caliph, people would naturally choose Ali after him, and she left him saying she was not the one to argue with him! Thus, she planned to make men appoint Talha as caliph, from her tribe Bani Tamim, to lead Arabs instead of the Hashemites and the Umayyads she loathed. This explains why Talha and Al-Zubayr swore loyalty and fealty to Ali as a caliph at first and then revolted against him and this was the reason behind the Battle of the Camel, incited and led by Aisha herself.

6- We give further detail here about the plotting of Talha against Othman, as the latter was so generous with the former, who became among the richest companions during the caliphate of the latter; yet, Talha used to borrow money from Othman more often than not, making use of Othman's generosity. Talha used to praise Othman in public in mosques to urge Othman to lend him money or to overlook a loan due to be paid. Yet, during Othman's forced imprisonment inside his house, rebels stopped victuals and water from being entered into the house, and when Ali beseeched Talha to help him liberate and protect Othman, Talha adamantly refused, saying he hated the tyrannical rule of the Umayyads who were represented by Othman! Such venomous hatred was equal to the one Aisha bore against the Umayyads!

7- There is an account asserting that Talha conspired along the rebels and took their side readily, giving them orders as well while they surrounded the house of Othman, and his orders were never to let anybody in or out of the house. Othman is rumored to have cursed Talha for inciting people against him and implored God to make someone murder Talha one day.

8- Al-Zubayr participated actively in the conspiracy against Othman, even if he kept a low profile and pretended otherwise. Al-Zubayr ordered his son Abdullah to defend Othman along with Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein, sons of Ali who tried to defend Othman most of the time, but Othman urged both brothers to stop defending him so as not to infuriate more and more the rebels. Al-Zubayr, however, fled out of Yathreb suddenly as he heard news of the rebels' intention to break into the house of Othman to assassinate him, as he intended not to witness such an act. After the assassination of Othman, Al-Zubayr and others pretended to feel the utmost sorrow and grief for his death, in order to manipulate his assassination for political purposes. The same pretense of grief was repeated when they revolted against Ali as he became the next caliph. Even Talha pretended to feel keenly the loss of Othman and said that his assassins regretted their deed, ending his words with recitation of some Quranic verses! What an inveterate liar and hypocrite!

9- In the next chapter, we will write about the divine punishment for Othman, the details of the revolt against him, his assassination, the looting of his possessions and wealth, violation of his wife, and how his corpse was denied a proper burial in Muslims' cemetery.

CHAPTER II: Divine Punishment for Othman

Firstly: Summary of Events of the Revolt against Othman:

1- It is written in historical accounts that the paternal uncle of Othman, Al-Hakam Ibn Al-As, was in exile under orders of Prophet Muhammad, but Othman urged him to return to Yathreb, and he made his son, Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam, the secretary of the caliphate and the second man after the caliph himself. Marawan had full control of Othman and indirectly caused his assassination because of his ill advice. Marwan gave leeway to the Umayyads to rule the whole region of the Levant, via Mu'aweiya the governor of it, of course. Marawan urged Othman to dismiss Amr the governor of Egypt from his post and to appoint another man and other governors in other countries. Othman never disobeyed Marawan in any consultation!

2- Othman appointed his half-brother, Al-Waleed Ibn Maeet, as governor of the city of Al-Kufa, in Iraq, but he later on dismissed him because of his corruption, to appoint Saeed Ibn Al-'As instead the son of Othman's paternal uncle. Ibn Maeet, the father, used to be among the famous enemies of Prophet Muhammad who used to harm him in Mecca; yet, Othman appointed his son, Al-Waleed, as governor of Al-Kufa! Al-Waleed used to abandon himself to excessive drinking sessions, praying as imam in congregational prayers while he was drunk, making errors in prayers and in preaching Friday sermons! This caused poets to recite verses to mock him because of that. Enmity grew between Al-Waleed the governor and the residents of Al-Kufa. News reached Othman of his excessive drinking sessions and growing mutual animosity and that he, drunk in bed, vomited on people who entered his house to sober him up. Furious, they took his ring from his fingers by force and sent it to Yathreb with a group of men from Al-Kufa, who told Othman the caliph all about what they had witnesses, asking him to dismiss such a sponge of a governor. Othman refused at first and insulted and drove them away from his house. Ali advised Othman to send for Al-Waleed for an interrogation. Later on, as the truth was affirmed, Ali tried to convince Othman to order the flogging of Al-Waleed, but Othman refused and just dismissed him from the post of governor of Al-Kufa.

3- Othman appointed instead Saeed Ibn Al-'As, who refused to sit in the pulpit/rostrum of the mosque of Al-Kufa until it was washed and cleaned thoroughly to remove wine stains caused by Al-Waleed whom they deemed as the 'impure' governor. Despite this pretense of piety, Saeed declared that the whole agricultural land of Iraq was the private property of Qorayish alone, and he imposed heavy taxes on people. Al-Ashtar, an Arab leader from the days of Arab conquests, told Saeed that all Iraq belonged to the soldiers who conquered it, and he led a group of men to go to Othman in Yathreb to complain of such insults and heavy taxes, asking for the dismissal of Saeed, but Othman flatly refused to meet them, and their residence in Yathreb prolonged in vain, trying desperately to meet Othman!

4- Othman sent for his relatives, i.e. among the appointed governors, to consult them about this group coming from Al-Kufa. Mu'aweiya, the governor of the Levant, based on his military and brutal nature, advised him to murder the all! Others advised him to dismiss Saeed to appease their anger. Others advised him to turn a deaf ear to them so as NOT to create a precedent of allowing people to choose their governors! Finally, Saeed himself advised Othman to send these oppositional men of Al-Kufa into military conquests away from Arabia to get rid of their annoyance.

5- Amr, the dismissed governor of Egypt and whose hatred toward Othman knew no bounds, got wind of the results of Othman's meeting with other governors. Amr told Talha an Al-Zubayr, and the three of them told Al-Ashtar, the leader of the group of Al-Kufa, of the intention of Othman to send them to join the next military conquest to get rid of them, and the three of them gave Al-Ashtar and his group 100 thousand dirhams to organize a revolt against Othman in Al-Kufa.

6- Al-Ashtar and his group reached Al-Kufa before the return of its oppressive governor, Saeed, to the city, and Al-Ashtar preached the people from the pulpit to incite them into preventing Saeed by force from entering the city. Al-Ashtar sent a letter to Othman to tell him of this act, urging him to appoint another governor to avoid sedition. Eventually, Othman had nothing to do except to dismiss Saeed and to appoint Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary instead.

7- Oppositional movements against Othman grew with the passages of time in several cities because of Othman's total obedience to Marawan who controlled actually all affairs of the caliphate and received large sums of money by Othman. At one point, Othman ordered a severe beating in public for some persons for various reasons, thus incurring the hatred of each tribe of each man against him as caliph. Othman used to defend all stances adopted by Mu'aweiya, much to the consternation of other governors and Arabs of other tribes. Ali had to stop talking to Othman to signal his refusal and rejection of several decrees of Othman.

8- Matters exacerbated when Othman ordered many oppositional figures to roam from one city to another incessantly, within the Levant and Iraq, to scatter them to mitigate their influence, but ironically, this led to unifying of all oppositional figures by joining their forces against Othman to incite revolt everywhere. Hence, Arabs settled in Egypt and some cities in Iraq gathered their forces and went to Mecca under the pretext of performing pilgrimage, but they went from Mecca to Yathreb soon enough, pretending to submit their complaints to the caliph. Ali offered to be the mediator between Othman and the rebels who nearly occupied Yathreb. Othman had to promise to execute the demands of the rebels, especially by dismissing unjust tyrannical governors. Rebels felt victorious and returned to their respective cities in Egypt and Iraq.

9- On their way home, the rebels from Egypt found out that Warsh, the man-servant of Othman, was accompanying their caravan with a sealed letter from Othman to the governor of Egypt. This letter contained the decree of the caliph, Othman, to the governor to kill all the rebels at once. Of course, these letters were written in the hand-writing of Marawan. Rebels of Egypt and Iraq returned to Yathreb to invade and occupy it by force, and the city dwellers felt terrorized by the swords of the rebels, who surrounded the house of Othman to prevent him from coming out of it. Negotiations went under such a siege for 49 days between Othman and the rebels, via mediators like Ali and Al-Ashtar. Othman denied that he was the one who sent such letters of murder. Othman refused to give them Marawan, as their captive, and every time he would promise them to apply reform, he would renege on his promise, as he was procrastinating and trying to win more time waiting for any military army of supporters coming to his aid from the Levant, Iraq, or Egypt. Yathreb dwellers hated Othman for being the cause of such havoc in and invasion of the city because of his stubbornness; and they felt that they were being insulted and disgraced because of one unwise man who refused to appease the anger of rebels by complying to their demands. Eventually, the rebels asked him to resign from his position as caliph, but he adamantly refused to do so. After 49 days of siege, they prevented food and water from being entered to his household, and Othman urged Ali and his sons to stop defending him, waiting for armies and troops promised by Mu'aweiya. Hearing rumors about Mu'aweiya sending troops, rebels broke into the house and murdered Othman. Such summarized story is mentioned by Al-Tabary and Al-Masoody.

Secondly: Historical Accounts of the Death and Burial of Othman:

1- We tackle here the role of M. Ibn Abou Bakr in the assassination of Othman; all historical accounts assert that he was the first one to strike Othman with his sword; yet, some other contradictory accounts assert that he withdrew after breaking into the house without participating in murdering Othman after the latter reminded him how Abou Bakr used to respect him, and M. Ibn Abou Bakr let go of the beard of Othman that he clutched. It was rumored that Othman was killed while reading the Quranic Chapter Two, and that M. Ibn Abou Bakr clutched his beard and abused him verbally and reminded him of his name before Islam: Naathal. And when he was about to strike him with his sword, Othman reminded him how his father, Abou Bakr, loved him as a friend, but he stabbed him nonetheless.

2- There are even contradictory accounts in books of history about details of the assassination of Othman. Al-Tabary mentioned accounts about a black Moorish man killed Othman by strangling him, and another account about an unknown man about to kill Othman by the sword, and Othman told him that the Book of God was between them, but the unknown men cut off the hands of Othman who tried to shield himself with the Book of God. Another account asserts that M. Ibn Abou Bakr hesitated and went out of Othman's house, and two other men of Iraq struck Othman with their swords and his blood stained the copy of the Quran he was holding, and one of the men kicked this blood-stain copy with his foot. Another account asserts that man men struck Othman with their swords and kicked him with their feet. Other accounts tackle how he was stabbed: in the face, in the chest, in the belly, or his hands and neck were cut off. Another famous account asserts that Naela, Othman's wife, stretched her hand to shield her husband from the strike of the sword, and her arm was cut off as a result, but she wept bitterly as he husband was struck by at least nine swords in different parts of his body and he bled to death.

3- Naela, Othman's wife, received a sort of verbal sexual harassment when she wept and cried while kneeling over the corpse of her husband, and one of the assassins remarked that her bottom was so big! They did not care to notice that her hand was cut off by a strike of one of the swords. Another similar account of this tragic event adds that before the offensive comment was uttered, the murderer poked and pinched the haunches of Naela!

4- All money and valuable items in the house of Othman, including the caliphate Treasury money, were looted by his assassins who killed him shortly before sunset, even all items of clothes, to the extent that one of them took the cloak of Naela and made a sexual remark about her big bottom! Even the two guards who used to guard the door to the Treasury threw the keys to the murderers and ran for their lives!

5- Many Yathreb dwellers and the rebels prevented the burial of the corpse of Othman in the Muslims' cemetery, and they prevailed on others who sought to bury him there. Thus, those who buried his corpse did so at night and secretly within an old Jewish cemetery abandoned later on as Jews left Arabia, and this cemetery was used as a type of public toilet! The corpse of Othman remained unburied for three consecutive days until he was buried secretly at night, just as was done with the Corpse of Abou Bakr by Othman and Omar in their plot against the first caliph. The only difference in both cases is that the corpse of Abou Bakr was buried hastily allegedly beside the tomb of Muhammad to appease the fury of the family of Abou Bakr, whereas Othman's corpse had to wait for three days to be buried beside a ruined wall of a ruined cemetery used as toilet! Those who buried the corpse used Ali as a mediator to take permission of Othman's family (his progeny and his wife, Naela) before they do so. It is rumored in history books that some people who saw the coffin of Othman between sunset and night threw stones at it in contempt. Later on, when Mu'aweiya appointed himself as caliph, he ordered Yathreb dwellers to bury their dead in a land between the Jewish cemetery and the Muslim one to unify them as one big cemetery. Of course, no funeral ceremony was held, and it is rumored in history books that no one attended the burial except Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam and three servants and one of Othman's daughters, who wept and bemoaned him and people tried to stone her and the coffin. Later on, Marawan prayed funeral prayers over the dead Othman with few men with him.

6- Al-Tabary asserts in his history that Othman was assassinated in the sacred month of Zu Al-Hijja; Arab conquests never stopped in the four sacred months and we tend to think that God had punished Othman by being killed in a sacred month as well, as happened before to Omar, of course.

Lastly:

1- Within the pre-Islamic era, Arabs used the lunar calendar, on which all religious rites like pilgrimage and honoring the four sacred months of it by never indulging in acts of violence in them, as per teachings of the traditional Abrahamic faith passed on by his son Ishmael in Arabia. When Muhammad was asked about the moon and the lunar calendar, as usual and typical of him, he waited until the Quran would provide the answer: "They ask you about the crescents. Say, "They are timetables for people, and for the Hajj."…" (2:189). This means that Arab used the lunar calendar, before the advent of Islam, in their lives to verify the timing of the four sacred months of pilgrimage and non-violence, as the pilgrimage season would begin in Zu Al-Hijja and go on for the duration of the four sacred months; until the last day of Rebei Awwal. That is why the Quran describes pilgrimage as follows: "Pilgrimage is during specific months…" (2:197).

2- Even the Arab tongue, or language, in Arabia used to call ''years'' as ''pilgrimages'' as a type of metonymy, indicating that the lunar calendar year used to begin by the month of Zu Al-Hijja. Let us remember this expression of 8 pilgrimages to mean 8 years in the speech of the father-in-law of Moses to Moses in the Quran: "He said, "I want to marry you to one of these two daughters of mine, provided you work for me for eight pilgrimages..." (28:27).

3- Yet, the crimes called Arab conquests that violated the sacred months caused another violation: the month of Zu Al-Hijja that used to be the very first month of the lunar calendar has been made, centuries ago, to be the last month of it, and the month of Muharram has been made to be the first one in the lunar calendar year instead.

4- The venomous hatred, enmity, and animosity of Persians toward Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman knew no bounds; as these three men crushed and wiped out the existence and glory of the Persian Empire. This is why the Shiite creed, originating in Persia and Iraq, is based mainly, past and present, among other ideas, on disowning and hating Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Mu'aweiya, Aisha, Abou Hurayrah, etc. and on deifying and worshiping Ali and his progeny. On the contrary, Egyptians felt safer with the Sunnite Sufism that deify and worship most, if not all, of the so-called companions, especially the four pre-Umayyad caliphs. Thus, instead of Sunnite Egyptians hating Omar, the Arab conqueror of Egypt, they worship and deify him instead! Thus, Persians felt keenly the loyalty and pride taken in their tongue, ethnicity, civilization, identity, and culture and imposed all that as a religion (the Shiite one) adhered to by millions of Persians, whereas most Egyptians of the same period and until today worship and deify the one who invaded their country, enslaved their women, looted their money and possessions, occupied their lands, effaced their culture and identity, put an end to the glory of their previous centuries-old cultures, and mocked and belittled their ancient civilization.

5- With the emergence of the high wave of the Wahabi, Salafist, Sunnite, Ibn Hanbal religion in Egypt more than 40 years ago, Egypt has been a subservient country to the KSA that re-conquered Egypt in the 1970s with the riyal and the petro-dollars, and bought into her alliance Mubarak and the terrorist Mb group members, with the latter thinking of themselves as conquerors of Egypt in 2012: they wanted to re-create the ties of Omar and Amr by looting Egypt and enslaving its citizens; if it had not been for the June 2013 Revolution in Egypt, their diabolical schemes would have been realized. Thus the terrorist Salafists and the terrorist MB members in Egypt are mere tools of the Wahabism of the KSA, and their loyalty will never be to Egypt, but to their Wahabi creed which is contrary to Islam, of course. Thus, Salafists, Wahabis, and the terrorist MB group members regard Egypt as a fat cow to be milked until it would bleed to death! Shame on them all!

6- We have written enough here about Othman, and other details will be mentioned and discussed in another research of ours to be published online later, titled "Othman: A Corrupt Caliph Assassinated within the Rules of his Era".

CHAPTER III: The Caliphate of Ali and the Divine Punishment in the Battle of the Camel

Introduction: This is the Major Civil War We Are still Living its Darkness and Dire Results:

1- God in the Quran predicts that contemporaries of Muhammad will deny the Quran by their demeanor and behavior; this happened via the crimes of aggression called Arab conquests and its following crimes of aggressions called Arabian civil wars, which resulted in Arabs subdivided into groups, parties, factions, and cliques fighting one another in the what has been regarded as the worst internecine strife in the history of Arabia. Within the Mecca revelation of the Quran, God has addressed Muhammad in these verses that contain the prediction and warning in advance: "Say, "He is Able to send upon you an affliction, from above you, or from under your feet. Or He can divide you into factions, and make you taste the violence of one another. Note how We explain the revelations, so that they may understand." But your people rejected the Quran, though it is the Truth. Say, "I am not responsible for you." For every prediction is a realization, and you will surely know." (6:65-67). We tend to think that such warning is not confined to Qorayish alone; rather, it applies to all people, eras, societies, and localities: anyone people or group who would manipulate the Quran, and thus denying and distorting its meanings in the process, for worldly gains, God will punished by God in this life before the Hereafter. And these divine punishments include epidemics, inevitable long fierce wars, corruption, deadly pollution of nature, etc. Thus, the Qorayish and especially the Umayyad powerful, arrogant, and affluent ones never paid heed to this Quranic warning and prediction, because they denied the Quran and disbelieved in it in the first place.

2- God replies to their denying and their disbelief in the Quranic message within two parts: the first part is the phrase told to Muhammad to tell it to them: "…Say, "I am not responsible for you."" (6:66). This means that there is a divine command directed to Muhammad to declare that he was not responsible for their deeds and faith (or lack of it), and such expression or stance is repeated in the Quranic text: Muhammad did not dominate or control anyone; he was merely messenger conveying God's message, without being responsible for the consequences or results, as God will judge all people in the Hereafter: "So remind, you are only a reminder, you have no control over them, but whoever turns away and disbelieves, God will punish him with the greatest punishment, to Us is their return, then upon US rests their reckoning" (88:21-26). Thus, Muhammad has nothing to do with anything in relation to others' faith or lack of it and their deeds, good and bad, "It is no concern of yours whether He redeems them or punishes them…" (3:128), this is God's business and concern, not any mortal's: "And say to those who do not believe, "Act according to your ability; and so will we." "And wait; we too are waiting." To God belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and to Him all authority goes back. So worship Him, and rely on Him. Your Lord is never unaware of what you do." (11:121-123). The second part of God's reply is as follows: "For every prediction is a realization, and you will surely know" (6:67), and this divine warning is addressed to those who deny the Quran: the message of God. This warning or prediction shows the inevitability of their being punished in the near future because of their denial. Of course, not all contemporaries of Muhammad denied the Quran, but this denial was adopted by the dominant majority, like the Umayyads for instance. In our opinion, this is the meaning of this verse: "But your people rejected the Quran…" (6:66). We note that the Quranic Chapter 8 tackles mostly Qorayish, with its believers and disbelievers, as this Chapter was revealed after the Battle of Badr when early Muslims defeated Qorayish. After tackling aggressive polytheists of Qorayish, we read this stern warning addressed to the immigrants to Yathreb among the believers who came from Qorayish as well: "O you who believe! Obey God and His Messenger, and do not turn away from him when you hear. And be not like those who say, "We hear", when they do not hear. The worst of animals to God are the deaf and dumb – those who do not reason. Had God recognized any good in them, he would have made them hear; and had He made them hear, they would have turned away defiantly. O you who believe! Respond to God and to His divine message when He calls you to what will revive you. And know that God stands between a man and his heart, and that to Him you will be gathered. And remember when you were few, oppressed in the land, fearing that people may capture you, but He sheltered you and supported you with His victory and provided you with good things – so that you may be thankful. O you who believe! Do not betray God and His divine message, nor betray your trusts, while you know. And know that your possessions and children are a test and that God possesses an immense reward" (8:20-28). We maintain that such a warning has been addressed mainly to immigrants among the so-called companions, as we discern here from the fact that God here has reminded them of the persecution they suffered earlier. We can conclude then that such warning came after the contemporaries of Muhammad among the immigrants participated in the Battle of Badr committed mistakes that entailed rebuke from God, and God warns them here against their intended betrayal. Sadly, we conclude here that even the few Qorayish believers among immigrants had some measure of doubts and denial within their hearts; or else, why would God address this warning to them?! This stern warning implies that among them those who were unjust and obeying their whims and do not heed God's Word, but obey words of the unjust sinners and deniers. That is why God here reminds them of their being formerly oppressed and persecuted and then warns them against betraying God. This stern warning comes from the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent Almighty God, Who has exposed here in these above-mentioned verses the inner layers of the deniers' thoughts and intentions that were in direct contrast with their overt showing off their faith and piety, within these early days of Islam as a burgeoning religion at the time. This tells us that most people of Muhammad denied the Quran, and this indicates Qorayish in general: "But your people rejected the Quran…" (6:66).

3- Such predictions and warnings were never heeded by the Qorayish tribesmen; they fell into a trap of their own doing once Muhammad died and the revelation of the Quran was completed. Qorayish led, unified, controlled, and dominated Arabs in all Arabia, and immigrants to Yathreb joined forces with the rest of Qorayish tribesmen in Mecca who declared (and some feigned) conversions to Islam. We are not to forget that those immigrants have been warned sternly in the Quranic Chapter 8 as we detailed above and that those new 'converts' of Qorayish in Mecca had a long history of enmity and fighting against Islam and Muslims. When both groups were united later on, they had marginalized the Yathreb dwellers, despite God's praise of those dwellers who supported early believers as we know from the final verses of the Quranic Chapter 8. Thus, the immigrants, who originated from Qorayish, had ignored the warning of God about never forming alliances with disbelievers; see 8:72-75. Thus, the Umayyads led and dominated Arabs and directed all situations once Muhammad died, causing Arabs to commit the crimes of aggression called Arab conquests, abusing and tarnishing the name of Islam in these crimes. This is deemed a crime against the Quranic sharia because Arabs in those conquests began aggression against innocent peaceful peoples who never fought Arabs; hence, Arabs did NOT require engaging in wars of self-defense. Thus, such conquests were aggression that contradicts Quranic sharia of Islam. Islam is against such aggression, conquering, enslavement, rape, looting, etc. Thus, the Umayyads controlled everything concerning this unjust aggression behind curtains during the caliphates of Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, and later on fought Ali in civil wars that went on for years with dire consequences and heavy losses and thousands of killed ones in order to establish their ruling dynasty and hereditary rule: the Umayyad Empire. In these civil wars, most former immigrants met their deaths of both sides of Ali and Mu'aweiya, including Talha and Al-Zubayr who incited such civil wars at first, and each party claimed falsely to fight for God's cause! Before such civil wars, the Umayyads, headed by Abou Sufyan and his son Mu'aweiya, plotted the assassination of Abou Bakr and Othman and caused indirectly the assassination of Ali and Omar. The Battle of the Camel, our next topic here, was the embodiment of the curse that befell Arabs at the time, and of God's punishment and fulfillment of the Quranic predictions. Massacres of this battle were repeated in the ensuing battles of Siffein and Nahrawan, during the caliphate of Ali, and wars went on between Mu'aweiya, as a caliph, and Al-Khawarij group of rebel fighter, and his successor, Yazeed, as caliph, three massacres and heinous crimes were committed: attacking and committing massacres and rape in Karbala city in Iraq, Yathreb in Arabia, and later on the siege of the Kaabah Mosque in Mecca and striking the Kaabah with catapults an d heavy rocks.

Firstly: Lines about the Caliphate of Ali from "Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" by the Historian Ibn Saad:

1- (…When Othman was assassinated in Friday, Zu Al-Hijja, in 35 A.H., Ali was proclaimed as caliph in Yathreb next day, and all Yathreb dwellers, including Talha, Al-Zubayr, Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas, swore fealty and allegiance to him…).

2- (…Talha and al-Zubayr swore fealty to Ali reluctantly, and went out of Yathreb, heading to Mecca to meet Aisha, and the three of them went to Basra, in Iraq, inciting others to avenge the death of Othman, and when Ali got news of that call for sedition, he led troops to Basra, sending envoys to Al-Kufa to ask its dwellers to support the troops of Ali, and all their forces joined on the route to Basra…). Of course, the result was the Battle of the Camel. (…Talha, al-Zubayr, and Aisha gathered forces from Arabs of Basra to engage in fighting against Ali, who defeated them, and Talha and Al-Zubayr were killed in the process, among 13.000 killed soldiers, and Ali stayed for 15 days in Basra and then went to Al-Kufa…).

3- Later on, the Battle of Siffein began soon enough: (…Ali gathered forces from Al-Kufa and went to fight Mu'aweiya, governor of the Levant, to remove him from his post by force, and Mu'aweiya prepared his troops, fighting Ali in Saffar in 37 A.H. for days, and most allies of Ali got killed in the battlefield, like Ammar Ibn Yasser, and then, the Levantine troops raised copies of the Quran in the air by their hands, calling for arbitration using the Quran, and this was an intrigue and plot of Amr Ibn Al-'As, who advised Mu'aweiya to do so to urge warring parties to stop fighting and call for a peace treaty after arbitration. Mu'aweiya chose Amr as his deputy an arbiter in these negotiations, whereas Ali chose Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary. Negotiations resulted in waiting for the end of the year, within a temporary truce, and then, Mu'aweiya returned to Damascus after he gained the contentment of his allies and supporters, and Ali returned into Al-Kufa after he gained the ire and discontent of his allies and supporters…).

4- This arbitration, and its results, was forced on Ali's supporters and followers by those of Mu'aweiya, and their ire and fury led them to turn against Ali, and this group of rebels called themselves Al-Khawarij (literally in classical Arabic: those who 'went out of the group'), but Ali killed most rebels of these group during the Battle of Nahrawan. Those members of Al-Khawarij used to shout the slogan ''judgment is by God alone!'', and when they began to murder some of Ali's supporters, he led his troops to fight them in an area called Nahrawan, in 38 A.H., after negotiations between Ali's man, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, and AL-Khawarij failed and they reached an impasse. After this victory, Ali returned to Al-Kufa, surrounded by his supporters and allies who feared one of the descendants of Al-Khawarij might kill him, which just happened later on.

5- The arbitration results came on the favor of Mu'aweiya because Amr, the cunning mastermind, managed to deceive Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary, when they gathered with all men in 38 A.H., including Abdullah Ibn Omar and Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas among other companions, and Al-Ashaary delivered a speech first to urge that both Ali and Mu'aweiya should be deposed from their posts in Yathreb and the Levant, respectively, and declared that ali is no longer a caliph. When he waited for Amr to declare Mu'aweiya as no longer the governor/ruler of the Levant, Amr did the exact opposite: he urged people to swear fealty to Mu'aweiya as the next caliph, and people agreed and went away!

6- Al-Tabary mentions that one member of Al-Khawarij, named Abdel-Rahman Ibn Meljam, assassinated Ali when the latter was about to enter a mosque to pray the dawn prayers, but on his way, two men interrupted him, saying that judgment is for God alone, not for Ali along with Him, and one man caught Ali and the other assassin struck him with the sword on the head, and then the other man struck him in the chest. People gathered and saw the result of the horrid act of murder, and the dying Ali urged them to avenge him by killing both murderers. When Aisha heard about the assassination of Ali, she rejoiced and gloated about it, and she deemed it glad tidings and recited some poetic verses! Thus ended the very first episode of the series of horrendous events called Arab civil wars, during the sacred months as usual, when they were violated as typical at the time, and in few years later on, the Kaabah Mosque itself was violated by the Umayyads!

Secondly: The Analysis of the Battle of the Camel as a Divine Punishment:

1- This battle went on for just one day: Thursday, the month of Jamady Awwal, in 36 A.H., resulting in the death of 13.000 persons within troops of Aisha and 5.000 persons within troops of Ali. Those killed had lost their lives within a cursed, mad civil war that we deem as divine punishment; it was a lost cause and doomed to fail from the very beginning as the warring parties fight NOT in self-defense for the sake of God, but for the sake of rule, wealth, and power. This doom to failure was because of another important reason; both parties (i.e., supporters of Aisha, Talha, and al-Zubayr on one hand, and supporters of Ali on the other hand) were NOT among the two powerful factions of Qorayish: the Hashemites and the Umayyads. This very reason was the cause of the failure of the revolt of Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr later on against the Umayyads. Of course, there were other reasons for such a failure; the three leaders, Aisha, Talha, and al-Zubayr, who joined forces due to their deep-seated hatred toward the Umayyads and the Hashemites, felt competitive against one another, especially both Talha and al-Zubayr, as they competed who would be imam in congregational prayers and who among both of them would earn the right to be the next caliph, as we read in the history book of Al-Masoody. Of course, both Talha and al-Zubayr suffered here bovine stupidity, especially concerning the political aspect, because they both forgot they could not possibly defeat Mu'aweiya at all, and they never agreed as to whom among both of them would be caliph! Thus, their fighting Ali was sheer madness and akin to suicide.

2- both Talha and al-Zubayr lowered themselves into a degrading pit of telling lies and in mass-murder, when they told and swore to God before Ali, back in Yathreb, that they would go to Mecca to perform pilgrimage, not to Basra or the Levant as Ali presumed, so as to allow them get out of Yathreb in peace, but in fact, as Ali knew later on, they went to Basra to call for sedition and to gather troops to fight Ali, and they in fact kidnapped and tortured the governor of Basra to give them the keys to steal all the money in his Treasury. Guards of the Treasury and other men tried to defend the place, but both Talha and al-Zubayr and their men killed about 70 men of them, and held 50 as captives, to be killed later on by imprisoning them and torturing them to death! Al-Masoody asserts that this was the first time after Islam that someone would dare to torture others to death. Shortly before the Battle of the Camel, Ammar Ibn Yasser tried to preach them to convince them to stop their aggression and surrender to the caliph, Ali, but both Talha and al-Zubayr tried to shoot their arrows at him, but he fled in a narrow escape, and the Battle of the Camel began the next day.

3- Of course, this battle was originally part of the Umayyad plots to get rid of Ali; Mu'aweiya masterminded it so as to deplete the energy of Ali and his troops with a sudden battle, and Mu'aweiya, for sure, manipulated the stupidity of Aisha, Talha, and Al-Zubayr as well as their deep-seated hatred toward Ali and the Hashemites in general. Mu'aweiya incited them to fight and rebel against Ali under the pretext of calling for revenge for the assassination of Othman, despite the fact that these three persons were among those who incited and urged the siege and killing of Othman, and they were not part of his family or clan to call for revenge at all. Ironically, M. Ibn Abou Bakr, the younger brother of Aisha, joined the forces of Ali against those of Aisha, and we must not forget that her brother murdered Othman along with the rebels who broke into the house of Othman, and Aisha was akin to a mother to him who feared for his life and urged him to accompany her to Mecca shortly before the assassination of Othman.

4- Moreover, the Umayyads not only incited the warring parties; but they also financed the leaders of the revolt against Ali: Yaali Ibn Umayyah was the former governor of Yemen appointed by Othman, and the son-in-law of Otba Ibn Abou Sufyan, brother of Mu'aweiya, and he came to Mecca to meet with Aisha, Talha, Al-Zubayr, and Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam, among others, giving them countless horses, weapons, arms, and the total sum of 400 thousand dirhams. This man gave Aisha, as a gift, the camel that carried her in a howdah in the battlefield, to urge her troops to fight and protect her. This cursed howdah caused the death of thousands of men each shouting God is the Greatest! (Allahu Akbar!). Aisha caused these men's deaths. Another man affiliated with Mu'aweiya, named Abdullah Ibn Amer the governor of Basra, advised the whole party to go to Basra under his protection and gave them one million dirhams plus 100 camels, as per the account told by Al-Masoody.

5- The Umayyads remained thankful and grateful for the military leaders, who were agents for the Umayyads, who played their role perfectly to incite others to fight against Ali, and thus a major step in the Mu'aweiya plot to appoint himself caliph and establish his Dynasty was completed. The Umayyads gave such military leaders several financial rewards before and after the Battle of the Camel, and appointed them in posts later on within the Umayyad Caliphate and Empire.

6- Ironically, Marawan Ibn Al-Hakam seized the chance of the Battle of the Camel to kill Talha to avenge the assassination of Othman. Marawan fought fiercely alongside Talha and Al-Zubayr at first, and toward the end of the battle, he seized the chance of being alone with Talha and no one was near them, shouted that he must avenge Othman from the man who killed him, and shot a deadly arrow at Talha, who died instantly, as per the account of Al-Masoody. When Al-Zubayr saw what happened to Talha, he tried to flee the battlefield, but another man who was friends with Othman overtook him and killed him with his sword.

7- Shortly before the Battle of the Camel, Ali tried to negotiate with his foes to save all parties bloodshed by sending them an envoy from Al-Kufa to Basra carrying a copy of the Quran, calling them to make it its judge in this dispute, but military men of Basra within troops of Aisha killed this envoy, and people of Al-Kufa decried the fact that Aisha was content of bloodshed instead of seeking peace. Aisha was inside her howdah, on a camel, covered with animals hides for protection, and after the battle, it became like a hedgehog because of countless arrows stuck to it. One of Ali's men asked her shortly before the Battle about her purpose behind all this, and when Aisha replied that she sought to avenge Othman, the man told her that she was not one of Othman's kinsmen, folks, or even tried to demand such revenge, and men protecting her tried to shoot this envoy but he escaped and told Ali to prepare for a fierce battle. People of AL-Kufa abused Aisha verbally as she was the primary inciter of this civil war, and until now in the Shiite creed, abusing her verbally is part of Shiite rites. Ali asked his soldiers not to begin fighting unless they were attacked first. The battle began when both military troops shot arrows at each other, killing several men of both sides. The fighting grew fiercer with the passage of hours, and the howdah became like a hedgehog because of arrows stuck into it, with hundreds of corpses around it on the ground. It is rumored that when a man opened the door of the howdah suddenly, Aisha screamed at him and demanded who he was. This man was her younger brother, M. Ibn Abou Bakr, who told her his name and identity and asked if she was OK, and when she answered in the affirmative, Ali appeared suddenly and shouted at her to go home to Yathreb, rebuking her for disobeying the Quran (he referred to 33:33, the divine order to wives of Muhammad to settle at home) and telling her that she disgraced her late husband, Prophet Muhammad, by obeying insensible men who sought sedition, rebellion, and bloodshed and manipulated her. Ali sent her by force to Yathreb with armed guards led by her own younger brother, who took the side of Ali, as we mentioned before. After the victory of Ali, he entered Basra, and both the victorious party and the defeated one felt depression and cursed for several weeks, and a general morning for the dead went on in every house with families who lost one or more than one man, to the extent that no one offered condolences to anyone; all families were too busy lamenting their dead. Hatred of people toward Ali increased because of that.

Lastly:

1- the generation of the companions who committed the crime called Arab conquests committed unsolicited and unwanted aggressions and massacres against peaceful nations (in North Africa, the Levant, Iraq, and Persia) that never fought them at all, and thus incurred upon themselves the curse against which God warns in the Quran; see 8:25. These aggressive companions proved that God's view of them is right: most of them were deniers of the Quran; see 6:66, and the predictions in 6:65 and 6:67 have been fulfilled in the Arab civil wars, Ali vs. Mu'aweiya, and the other civil wars and rebellions that followed later on.

2- No one of them, and of us today, tried hard to contemplate upon and sought to understand verses of the Quran as one should: "…Note how We explain the revelations, so that they may understand." (6:65). Hence, civil wars that began with killing Othman and went on for years intermittently until now in today's Middle East are God's curse upon deniers of the Quran: those who have forsaken it and established and followed earthly, man-made (Sunnite and Shiite) creeds that were formed because of these civil wars of Ali vs. Mu'aweiya. until this very moment, the Shiite creed followers live with the mentality of the Middle Ages of the 7^th century A.D., cursing and hating all companions that fought Ali or let him down, like Aisha, Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Al-Zubayr, Talha, Mu'aweiya, Yazeed, Abou Hurayrah, etc.

3- In contrast, Sunnite creed followers of today revere, deify, and worship all companions, including Ali, and insist that part of their creed tents is the notion that all of those companions were infallible and could never commit mistakes and errors at all! Thousands hadiths have been concocted and formulated to assert such a view and to ascribe it to Muhammad himself! Such a view causes headaches and depression to Shiites, as if the events of the 7^th century A.D. are being re-played daily before their eyes! Any news reel in any Arab TV channel will prove that the Shiite-Sunnite strife is still active, especially in today's Iraq. This is so painful, shocking, and grievous; the Battle of the Camel was the very first sign of the curse that befell the so-called companions and realized and fulfilled warnings and predictions of 6:65-67, never heeded by Arabs, past and present.

4- That is why civil strife within some Arab countries goes on: the curse of forsaking the Quran is striking Sunnites and Shiites until this very moment.

CHAPTER IV: The Violation of the Sacred Months during the Caliphate of Ali during the Battle of Siff

Introduction:

Bering the Quranic verses 6:65-67 in mind, we perceive now that the so-called companions suffered God's curse in the form of famine, contagious pest or epidemic, and lastly the series of civil wars ensued after the assassination of Othman. Arabs subdivided themselves into parties and cliques fighting one another for more power, looting, authority, and other worldly possessions and ambitions. This began in the Battle of the Camel in 36 A.H. followed by the Battle of Siffein in 37 A.H., violating the sacred months as typical of the Arabs of that period. These battles and wars were cursed and caused dire consequences to all those who participated in them. We will discuss one example of such civil wars, Battle of Siffein, to further elucidate our point. Arabs until this very moment suffer massacres in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world due to Shiite-Sunnite strife; until when bloodshed would go on because of falsehoods?!

Firstly: The Battle of Siffein:

1- Some historical accounts mention that after the assassination of Othman, Habiba daughter of Abou Sufyan, and widow of Prophet Muhammad, had sent his blood-stained gown and the cut-off hand of his widow, Naela, to her brother Mu'aweiya in Damascus. This shows clearly that a plot was being implemented: the aim was not trying to save Othman, but to get his blood-stained gown after his death to gain a step ahead in the ambitions of Mu'aweiya to become a caliph! Mu'aweiya raised up the blood-stained gown by his hands in the mosque, calling for revenge against those who killed Othman and those who protect the murderers, especially that most of them joined the army of Ali. Amr Ibn Al-'As joined forces of Mu'aweiya and swore fealty to him as the coming caliph, and he promised to support and aid him in return for appointing him later on as governor of Egypt once more after defeating Ali and dismissing the governor appointed by Ali if Mu'aweiya captured Egypt under his rule. Thus, Amr became the chief and closest ally and consultant to Mu'aweiya, and the latter refused to acknowledge fealty to Ali as caliph, declared rebellion, and prepared a huge army. Mu'aweiya masterminded the Battle of the Camel, but Ali defeated those foes and directed his army to fight Mu'aweiya in the area of Siffein, which was located between Iraq and the Levant. Mu'aweiya was getting ready to fight Ali by offering a truce to the Byzantines, promising never to engage into war with them by land or by the sea throughout the period of truce, and he even paid a heavy tribute to them.

2- The Battle of Siffein continued for 110 days and included 70 rounds in the battlefield. Ali's army consisted of 90 thousand soldiers, whereas that of Mu'aweiya consisted of 85 thousand. Mu'aweiya lost 45 thousand of his men in the battlefield, whereas Ali lost 25 thousand. This war came to a halt within the suggestion of Amr who proposed arbitration. Because Mu'aweiya came first to the area of Siffein, and established his military camps within a plain near the Euphrates River, whereas Ali and his men, who came later on, could not reach the river and thirst began to tire them out. Amr advised Mu'aweiya to allow them access to the river so as not to fight because of it, as they might fear dying of thirst, but Mu'aweiya flatly refused to follow this piece of advice. Ali ordered 4000 of his men to attack the camps of Mu'aweiya, led by his leader Al-Ashtar, and then another troop led by Ali attacked the camps of Mu'aweiya from another direction. They managed to force Mu'aweiya and his men away from the river and to occupy their place instead in the plain near it. In contrast, when Mu'aweiya and his men felt that their throats and mouths parched from thirst, Ali allowed them access to the river. Two days before the beginning of the battle, within Zu Al-Hijja, the sacred month that marks the beginning of the pilgrimage four-month season, Ali sent an envoy with a letter to Mu'aweiya, advising him to submit to fealty sworn by Arabs to Ali, but of course, Mu'aweiya adamantly refused, and war broke out in consecutive rounds. Both parties agreed to a truce for a while during the sacred month of Muharram, and then fighting went on.

3- Within the last day of Muharram, Ali sent an envoy with a letter to Mu'aweiya, telling him that God never guides the traitors and the treacherous ones, and both of them must resort to God's book and be reasonable. Mu'aweiya sent him in reply that the sword would settle their dispute, and the weaker would get killed. Thus, fighting went on in the first day of the sacred month of Saffar.

4- Ammar Ibn Yasser, the closest ally and supporter of Ali, got killed in the battlefield, Ali felt the urgent need to gather 10 thousand cavalier from the tribe of Rabeia, known to be fierce fighters, and from other tribes as well, and he delivered a speech to them asserting that they are his shield and weapons, and then he marched with them to attack Mu'aweiya and his men. Ali recited poetic verses in their praise and other verses mocking Mu'aweiya, calling him as a piece of firewood of Hell and made fun of his big, fat bottom. Ali sent an envoy with a letter to Mu'aweiya calling him to fight him within a man-to-man duel with the sword till one of them dies. Mu'aweiya refused of course but Amr urged him to accept readily, and Mu'aweiya shouted at Amr that he desired his death to proclaim himself a caliph, and Mu'aweiya forced Amr to duel Ali instead. Amr had nothing but to obey, and once Ali got ready to face him and brandished his sword, Amr thought quickly for a way out of his duel; he removed his clothes and revealed his genitals to Ali, telling him that he was force to face him, but he was no hero to stand before someone like him, and Ali felt repulsed by such a repugnant act, and moving his face away, he shouted at Amr that he became so grossly indecent.

5- At some point, both parties fought fiercely by night to continue fighting that began by daylight, to the extent that when spears and swords were lost or broken, men fought and quarreled with bare hands and cut tents and banners of each other! They tend to overlook prayers times, and they tasted one another's violence, as we read in the Quranic predictions; see 6:65.

6- Al-Ashtar, the military leader of Ali's troops, was about to gain victory at one point, but elderly people of the Levant sought the aid of Mu'aweiya and his military leaders to protect them so that they would not get killed and their women would not be enslaved by Ali's men who were mainly uncouth desert-Arabs, who before murdered Othman and molested his widow. When Mu'aweiya felt he was about to lose it all, he asked the advice of Amr, and the latter advised Mu'aweiya to deceive Ali by raising copies of the Quran using spears, in an indication of asking for arbitration between Ali and Mu'aweiya using the Divine Word. Amr asked every soldier and cavalier to do this, until about 500 copies of the Quran were used in this ploy. Men of Mu'aweiya, with orders of Amr, began to shout and chant slogans like: "God's Word is judge between us!", "Who would defend border areas against the Byzantines, the Persians, and the Turks if we die?", and Ali finally but reluctantly accepted the arbitration as a way to save many people from bloodshed.

Secondly: Arbitration:

1- At first, Ali refused the idea of arbitration, and delivered a speech to his allies asserting that wars had taken their toll, but the end of them drawing near, with victory to him, but he was a ruler/emir and became suddenly a servant to changing circumstances and to commands and whims of o"> 2- Ibn Qais met with Mu'aweiya, and the latter suggested that each party would choose an arbiter who would both make an oath to adhere to God's Book, and Ali's envoy and his men readily agreed. Mu'aweiya chose Amr naturally, and Ibn Al-Qais chose Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary. Yet, Ali felt alarmed by this choice of an arbiter, and urged men to replace him with someone else. Ali enumerated situations and traits that detracted from the suitability of Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary, but Ibn Qais, out of pride or as an intrigue, adhered adamantly to his choice endorsed by Mu'aweiya. When Ali suggested Abdulla Ibn Abbas instead, Ibn Qais adamantly refused to involve a Qorayish tribesman in this affair, to prevent future troubles with the factions of Qorayish. When Ali suggested Al-Ashtar instead, Ibn Qais shouted that this man would add oil to the raging fire of fierce war and would spoil everything. Finally, Ali had no choice but to accept Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary.

3- The parchment of the treaty of arbitration was written in Saffar of 37 A.H., and a truce would be kept until the arbitration would take place in Ramadan of the same year, involving both arbiters without the presence of Mu'aweiya and Ali. Ibn Qais showed the parchment in glee to all soldiers, reading it aloud for them. Sadly, some men quarreled with Ibn Qais for accepting such a humiliating treaty of arbitration, as "judgment is for God alone, not for mortals", and this motto became for centuries the one written on the banners of Al-Khawarij and all rebels that would emerge ever since. Those who quarreled with Ibn Qais rebelled against Ali and deserted his army and company, calling themselves Al-Khawarij, and fights and quarrels with bare hands ensued, with each group blaming each other and declaring the other as infidels and enemies of God!

4- The above-mentioned motto was immensely liked by Arabs who hated Qorayish and its hegemony and those who found themselves to be mere pawns in the power game and wars of Qorayish, as both Mu'aweiya and Ali were Qorayish tribesmen: the former from the Umayyad faction and the latter from the Hashemite one. 12 thousand men deserted Ali in Al-Kufa, declaring him and his followers as infidels who insulted God by appointing arbiters among the mortals instead of resorting to the Word of God alone. They turned against Ali for his refusal to call off the arbitration, as he hated to eat his word and disliked to renege on a promise. They declared Ali as an infidel and a disbeliever! Soon enough, Al-Khawarij spread corruption and wreaked havoc everywhere with rampant looting and raids, but Ali killed most of them when he faced them with his troops in the Battle of Nahrawan. However the notion of Al-Khawarij itself remained alive and vivid for centuries to come within all rebellious groups to emerge later on, because it meant to get rid of the Qorayish control and to be liberated from its hegemony.

5- Both Arbiters, Amr and Abou Moussa, met in 38 A.H in Ramadan, and both agreed to depose both Ali from caliphate and Mu'aweiya from his post as governor-ruler of the Levant, allowing the rest of Arabs to choose another caliph. In the presence of others as eye-witnesses, Abou Moussa declared in public that Ali was no longer the caliph, and he gained everybody's approval of that. However, Amr tricked and deceived him by promptly declaring Mu'aweiya as caliph, a moment later, and his approval of deposing Ali.

Thirdly: After the Battle of Siffein:

Under the subsection titled "the divisions of Ali's men", Al-Masoody the historian writes that many soldiers of Ali deserted him and each group returned to their respective tribes, and Ali had only few men left. One of these groups included 300 men led by Al-Hareth Ibn Rashid Al-Naji who converted collectively to Christianity, and this group of 300 men was descendants of the Bani Sama tribe, and Sama Ibn Ghalib was purportedly one of the great-grandchildren of Ishmael, and they settled within the gulf coast near Bahrain. When Ali heard of such conversion, he sent troops that murdered them all and enslaved their children, but their women fled. That was why the tribe of Bani Sama hated Ali so much for decades to come. These troops of Ali tried to invade the region of Al-Ahwaz in Iraq, to follow the fleeing women and enslave them, but these women solicited the aid and protection of the governor of Al-Ahwaz who agreed, out of generosity, to buy their freedom by promising to pay 300 thousand dirhams, but he paid only 200 thousand dirhams and fled with the women to join the forces of Mu'aweiya. When Ali got news of that, he verbally abused this traitor of a governor and called him a slave.

Fourthly: The Violation of the Sacred Months by Ali and Mu'aweiya during the Battle of Siffein:

1- During the months of on-going fights of the Battle of Siffein, Ali had no qualms fighting and violating the four sacred months of pilgrimage. Fighting went on within stages of skirmishes and raids with no general confrontation so as not to eradicate each other, as Al-Tabary writes in his history, but they fought each other many times a day during the sacred months, nonetheless.

2- They were fatigued because of fierce fighting within the sacred month of Zu Al-Hijja, and both partied urged a truce during the sacred month of Muharram, and Ali sent Abdullah Ibn Abbas, instead of himself, as the head and imam of the pilgrimage season. This means that fights went on intermittently for 110 days for the rest of the sacred months, apart from the truce of Muharram, and both parties made sure they would not eradicate each other's men by a truce, NOT for the sake of honoring the sacred months, until the Battle of Siffein ended with the trick of arbitration.

Fifthly: The Murder of Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr in Egypt in the Sacred Month of Saffer, in 38 A.H.:

1- In 38 A.H., Mu'aweiya send troops consisted of 4000 soldiers led by Amr to recapture Egypt from the governor appointed by Ali: M. Ibn Abou Bakr. A fierce battle ensued, but when men of the governor scattered and fled and deserted him when they felt the imminent defeat, M. Ibn Abou Bakr fled as well and had to hide with a house owned by a friend of his. A friend of Amr blew the whistle to him, and Amr speedily sent men there to fight the governor until he was killed by the swords of Amr's men, who readily put the corpse inside a hide of a donkey and burned it, and it was rumored that M. Ibn Abou Bakr was dying – and not quite dead – as he screamed when he was burnt in the hide! This brutality occurred in an Egyptian village called Kom Shoureik, during the sacred month of Safffar. It was rumored that Aisha hated the smell of grilled meat since she heard the news of the brutality done to her younger brother.

2- Amr regained his former post as the governor/ruler of Egypt, subservient to Mu'aweiya of course who controlled many conquered countries by this time. Infuriated by such effrontery, Ali sent troops trying to recapture Egypt, and these troops were led by the governor appointed by Ali; namely: Al-Ashtar, his close ally. Mu'aweiya plotted the assassination of Al-Ashtar via enlisting the help of a tavern-owner in the Sinai city of Arish, located on the route to Egypt, who readily agreed to poison the food of Al-Ashtar in return for removing taxes from his tavern for 20 years. When Al-Ashtar died of eating poisoned honey in the tavern, soldiers of Al-Ashtar killed the tavern-owner, and left Arish to return speedily to Ali. Mu'aweiya laughed when he heard the news and declared that God had servants made of honey, meaning that conditions and fate seemed to help him succeed in all his steps!

CHAPTER V: Ali the Caliph Was a Failure, Defeated by the Rules of his Era

Introduction: The Evaluation of Ali:

1- Ali Ibn Abou Talib is not, and never was, part of the Islamic faith; and the same goes for any mortals. Ali was a historical figure being researched within methodology of history, and within the historical and political level. We, Quranists, have no deified or sanctified creatures in our faith tenets; sanctification and deification are solely reserved to Almighty God alone, as per the Quran. As for God's creatures (humans, angels, and Jinn), all of them will standalone one by one before the Almighty in the Day of Judgment: "There is none in the heavens and the earth but will come to the Most Merciful as a servant. He has enumerated them, and counted them one by one.And each one of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone." (19:93-95) and they will not be able to speak in the Last Day except with God's permission: "Lord of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them-The Most Merciful-none can argue with Him. On the Day when the Spirit and the angels stand in row, they will not speak, unless it be one permitted by the Most Merciful, and he will say what is right." (78:37-38). We preach and warn with these verses those who deify Ali, and his progeny, and thus insult God by deifying and glorifying mortals as associates beside Him.

2- Typically, we quote and use excerpts from historical accounts and narratives taken from authoritative Sunnite sources and books, like those of the historians Al-Tabary, Al-Masoody, and Ibn Saad, whose books show that all of these authors revered and exaggerated in glorifying Ali. Yet, we re-read such accounts to analyze them to extracts character traits of Ali and how he was such a political failure responsible for his own failure and for the death of thousands of people because of his rashness and ambition. We evaluate Ali here as a responsible politician, and we evaluate at the same time his arch-foe, Mu'aweiya, by the same tools and criteria. Such a comparison is necessary here; as both foes had in common their acceptance of the crime of the Arab conquests as 'jihad', received its ill-gotten money, approved of all its crimes of rape, enslavement, confiscation, and looting of possessions, money, and lands of conquered nations, and considered spoils of such conquests of as heritage or inheritance of Prophet Muhammad! These crimes and insults against Islam that tarnished its name were approved by both men, and this common ground was the setting for their military and political dispute. Thus, we evaluate both figures historically and politically, not in terms of Islam and its morals and values.

Firstly: Between Mu'aweiya the Secular and Ali who Mixed Politics with Religion:

1- The worldly aim of Mu'aweiya, i.e. to gain wealth, power, and authority of caliphate, was precise and clear, and the same applies to his allies, especially his close associate Amr. It was rumored that Mu'aweiya at one point, once Ali became caliph, asked Amr to swear fealty to him instead. But Amr told him shockingly that he would not give up the Hereafter unless Mu'aweiya would give him generously from glory and wealth of the transient world! Thus, Amr agreed to be the chief ally of Mu'aweiya in return to be appointed back as governor of Egypt. When Mu'aweiya agreed, Amr praised him with poetic verse, while reminding him that he would lose his Eternal Life for the sake of helping him become caliph and Amr to become ruler of Egypt! Thus, this frank confession of Amr in prose and verse shows that they fought for the sake of transient wealth and power and not for God's sake, overlooking intentionally Islam and the Hereafter! Yet, in terms of politics and history, this frankness did him credit! Within the Battle of Siffein, Mu'aweiya once reproached harshly one of his military leaders for his lack of military prowess, and this leader told him that it was enough to intentionally lose one's Eternal Life in the Hereafter for sake of Mu'aweiya by engaging in unjust wars against the son of the paternal uncle of Prophet Muhammad. This leader asserted to Mu'aweiya that all of them, in both parties, had lost their place in Paradise for the sake of this transient world. They have replaced Eternal Paradise with transient fruits of the gardens of this transient earth. Mu'aweiya could not reply to this confession, and he remained silent. This shows that everyone was conscious of the fact that they fight for money. This is reminiscent of the stance of Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed and his men when he urged them to fight fiercely in Iraq and Persia as their only paradise in in this world, not in the next. The same applies to Ali; he fought his foes and rivals as well as his governors for the sake of the money of this transient world until he was killed. Ali knew that such possessions, wealth, lands, etc. belonged to their rightful owners: the peoples of conquered nations. Ali knew that this was ill-gotten money gained by bloodshed and crimes of looting, confiscation, and destruction of occupied countries, and he never cared for the sacred months when fighting is prohibited, as known from the Quran and as traditionally well-kept notion centuries before the advent of Islam, so as to make himself the ruler of such an empire based on grave injustices and oppression of millions of the innocent ones. Hence, Ali could not deceive others by showing off ostentatious behavior of piety and devoutness; indeed, Ali's crimes exceeded that of Mu'aweiya by adding a veneer of religiosity, tarnishing Islam's image and manipulating it in politics, a bad habit that has been going on for centuries by Arabs until the present day! Thus, the era of Ali would certainly reject his logic; every man knew quite well that fighting was for the scramble for loot, rule, power, and authority. Mixing religion with politics is misusing creeds for worldly gains; this is utter sacrilege and blasphemy. That was why in that era, people felt repulsed by the firmness of Omar and felt relieved to enjoy pomp, extravagance, and wealth during the caliphate of Othman, to the extent that they fought for money and killed Othman because of it. Thus, the discourse of Ali to all Arabs about religiosity and meritocracy (i.e., who deserves or entitled to rule) fell into deaf ears; as Arabs were dazzled by riches fell into their hands from the conquered countries. Thus, the pragmatic ways and venal ends would not allow any room for religious discourse; those who fancied using religious mottoes in such civil strife would have known better; as those called Al-Khawarij played the same game and declared Ali as an infidel. This bad habit of mixing creeds with politics within theocracies manipulating religions has caused millions of victims to lose their lives until this very moment in the Middle East.

2- Ali failed in terms of politics and military efforts because he fluctuated between the fake piety and religiosity on one hand and the scramble for wealth and power, whereas Mu'aweiya succeeded to achieve all his goals because he was truthful with himself: he never cared for the Hereafter and focused his endeavors on how to realized his goal to become caliph and establish a Dynasty. Ali's fluctuation cost him his money, friends, health, and later on his life. He used to swing like a pendulum between those who sought the Hereafter Paradise and those who sought pleasures of this transient world; one cannot combine both as Ali thought he would. Moreover, Ali never objected to Arab conquests though they contradict the Quranic teachings; at the same time, despite the equestrian abilities of Ali, he never participated in any Arab conquests, but he enjoyed their results: much money, possessions, and slave-women. During the caliphate of Othman, Ali felt resentment as he did not get his share of the spoils sent to Yathreb, claiming that he deserved some of Prophet Muhammad's ''inheritance'' (he meant these spoils) because he was one of his nearest relatives, while the Umayyad military leaders who fought for such spoils did not deserve to take shares! And Othman gave him until he was satisfied! Ali's reference to spoils and ill-gotten money as Prophet Muhammad's inheritance was a flagrant insult to Muhammad and to Islam.

3- Ali might have been on the side of right and truth if, and ONLY if, he had in public declared a strong stance against the crimes of Arab conquests, and to evict Arab settlers from conquered countries to restore such countries to their rightful owners and citizens; he would have forced Arabs to go home to Arabia where they would remain always, even if this would have cost him to wage war against the unjust conquering Arabs. Ali should have had taken the side of Islam if he should have did so. We are supposing that as Muhammad's nearest relative, he understood the Quran very well; if so, he should have stood against the Arab conquests or at least should have kept himself away from people who participated in such grave injustices, as done nameless Arab believers whose names were never mentioned by history books, because they never participated in these horrendous crimes and grave injustices. Instead, Ali struggled for ill-gotten money of spoils and his hesitation and fluctuation prevented him from gaining political acumen and experience. As a caliph he was a failure as he could not realize that justice can never be applied within an empire based on massacres, looting, rape, enslavement, and grave errors and injustices. Thus, Ali was a failed caliph defeated by conditions of his era that he could not dare to change or properly face.

Secondly: Between the Genius of Ali in Sex and the Genius of Mu'aweiya in Politics:

1- Despite the military genius and political prowess of Mu'aweiya, he was a failure in bed, in terms of the sexual aspect. We know from history that his first wife, Maysoon, the daughter of the leader of the tribe of Kalb, and the mother of his first born son, Yazeed, hated her conjugal life with him because of his impotence, to the extent that she hated all affluence and riches he gave her and yearned for her tribal life in deserts with her parental family, and when she expressed her sexual frustrations and ill-luck in marriage in verses of poetry to abuse and scandalize Mu'aweiya, he divorced her and sent her to her tribe. Another story of the personal history of Mu'aweiya, narrated by one of his eunuchs who was serving him in his caliphate palace in Damascus, asserts his being impotent: he said that once Mu'aweiya bought a white slave-girl for his own amusement, and her made her

Enter his bedchamber stark naked, and he kept inserting a phallic piece of polished wood (similar to today's sex toys or dildos) into her vagina, while lamenting his ill-luck for not having a healthy 'virile member' to satisfy such a vagina! It seems that Mu'aweiya tried to make up for his impotence by his hatching cunning plots and masterminding intrigues to reach his goal of absolute power, and both this ambition and this cunning nature were inherited from his father, Abou Sufyan, whose cunning plots would have eliminated mountains!

2- In contrast to Mu'aweiya, Ali Ibn Abou Talib was a political failure and a failed caliph, but he enjoyed immense sexual prowess and abilities; he had a large number of Arab wives and non-Arab concubines once his first wife died. He had a large number of offspring; he begot from his first wife, Fatima the daughter of Prophet Muhammad, four children: two males (Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein) and two females (Zeinab and Oum Koulthoum). He begot from the rest of his Arab wives and non-Arab concubines 12 males and 17 females, within 30 years after Fatima's death in 10 A.H., until his own death in 40 A.H., making the total number of his offspring 14 males and 19 females! Thus, Arabs participating in the crimes of Arab conquests were busy fighting within unjust wars of aggressions, while Ali was very busy with his amorous conquests! He used to name his children, who had different mothers, by similar names: he had three boys named ''Muhammad'': Muhammad the eldest, the middle, and the youngest, three boys named "Abbas": Abbas the eldest, the middle, and the youngest, and three boys named "Omar": Omar the eldest, the middle, and the youngest! Some historians mix up the names of Ali's progeny, but they assert that most of them died within the massacre of Karbala. Ali's children of non-Arab concubines (13 females and one male of his progeny) did not enjoy the same rights and stature of those born of Arab legal wives. This injustice was against Islam; and keeping concubines at home without marrying them is a sin in Islam called fornication. Would readers imagine that Ali never knew about sins?! Damn these sexual excesses of this mortal deity worshipped by the Shiites!

3- By the way, the dominant animosity and general prejudice against begetting offspring from non-Arab concubines and slave-women went on during the whole Umayyad Era, as such offspring were lower in rank, rights of birth, and social status and stature. Of course, this type of injustice was against equality as a value called for in the Quran. This prejudice was so unanimously agreed upon at the time that most Arab men used to take their erect ''virile members'' out of the vaginas of concubines and slave-women directly before ejaculation. Yet, Ali seemed never to pay heed to such habit, and so he begot 25 children apart from the four ones by Fatima! During the Abbasid Era, some Sunnite clergymen once issued a fatwa to prohibit this lack of ejaculation inside vaginas, under the pretext that one cannot prevent intentionally the divinely ordained process of procreation. A funny joke spread at the same time that a male fornicator committed the sin of fornication with a slave-girl one night, and he ejaculated inside her, and when she wondered why he did not ejaculated outside her to avoid her becoming pregnant, he told her that Sunnite clergymen prohibited this habit as religiously illegal, and the slave-girl laughed and wondered whether he knew that fornication is prohibited in Islam as well or not! We do not mention these stories for the sake of amusement; rather, but for the analysis of the character of Ali. Ali ate from ill-gotten money for decades and spent his time having sex within and outside wedlock with legal wives an concubines, thinking falsely and insultingly that this was the inheritance of Muhammad! Was this a stance of pious man who knew Islam so well?! Ali gave himself airs of being the only one deserving to be a caliph just because he was a relative and in-law of Muhammad. He never contemplated the Quran to realize that he was wrong in all this, and he joined the scramble for power and loot, setting a bad example for those who followed his footsteps, especially among the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs. Hence, talking about his piety and devoutness is utter nonsense and falsehood. He knew he was intentional enjoying, with no qualms whatsoever, the mortal taste of the fruits of oppression, suppression, massacres, and grave injustices of every sort committed as a sort of aggression against the conquered nations.

Thirdly: An Example to Politically Compare between Ali and Mu'aweiya:

1- Mu'aweiya insisted on capturing Egypt under the Umayyad control because this was a way to protect his capital, Damascus and the whole Levant. Mu'aweiya, thus, understood the strategy of the region and realized that the safety and existence of the Levant is linked strongly and directly with his controlling Egypt, an opinion urged strongly and vehemently by Amr Ibn Al-'As, his chief ally. Thus, Mu'aweiya had to keep Ali busy by the rebels and the Battle of the Camel in Iraq to have time to allow Amr to capture Egypt. Mu'aweiya and Amr plotted together the murder of Ibn Abou Huzayfa, who felt resentment and bore a grudge against Othman, the caliph at the time, and who chased away the governor of Egypt appointed by Othman, Abdullah Ibn Abou Sarh once Ali succeeded Othman as caliph, and Amr and Mu'aweiya hastily led their troops to capture Egypt, but they could not at first, and both had to trick Ibn Abou Huzayfa, who was appointed governor of Egypt, until he was entrapped in Arish, Sinai, with a troop of 1000 soldiers in a fortress, to be sieged by troops of Amr and Mu'aweiya that outnumbered troops of Ibn Abou Huzayfa who suffered huge stones and rocks catapulted at the fortress until he had to fight, to eventually get killed by soldiers of Amr.

2- Once Ali heard of the murder of Ibn Abou Huzayfa, he sent another governor to Egypt: Qais Ibn Saad who was from the Yathreb dwellers known for his political shrewdness and acumen; he managed to unite warring groups of Arab settlers who supported either Othman or Mu'aweiya, reminding them of their tribal belonging and assuring them of general peace in Egypt for all Arabs under the caliphate of Othman, and convinced them to sign peace treaties.

3- Mu'aweiya felt restless as Qais Ibn Saad posed a threat to his plan to stir and incite Arab settlers against Othman later on and as Ali emerged victorious from the Battle of the Camel. Mu'aweiya felt quite sure that he cannot succeed in paving his way toward caliphate unless he dominated and controlled Egypt, so as not to be crushed, in the Levant and his capital Damascus, between Egypt and its pro-Ali governor on one hand and Ali and his supporters in Iraq on the other hand. Mu'aweiya failed to win Qais Ibn Saad to his side, as two astute, shrewd men could not deceive or trick each other easily. Qais pretended in a letter to promise Mu'aweiya to think this offer over and over, but Mu'aweiya realized that Qais was trying to gain some time to support and warn Ali. Mu'aweiya tested Qais to make sure he would comply or not; he urged him to prepare troops to fight with him against Ali in Iraq, in return for big financial reward. Qais replied that he refused to betray Ali and that he would support him with all his might. Mu'aweiya was sure then that Qais was a fierce enemy that must be removed, murdered, or neutralized.

4- When Mu'aweiya failed to win over Qais to his side, he tried hard to drive a wedge between Ali and Qais to cause Ali to dismiss him from his post as governor of Egypt. Mu'aweiya spread the news all over the Levantine cities that Qais was his chief ally, hoping that Ali would go mad and get rid of Qais 'the traitor', and Ali ate the bait and the fishing line! Ali was somehow and to some extent naïve and lacked political experience; he believed what spies of Mu'aweiya came from the Levant to tell him about Qais 'the traitor'. Mu'aweiya read aloud in Damascus a fake letter that he pretended that Qais 'his new ally' had sent to him to declare his support. Ali was tricked easily, and to test the loyalty of Qais, he sent him a decree to kill all supporters of Mu'aweiya and Othman among Arab settlers in Egypt who urged rebellion against Ali. Qais refused to do this heinous crime because of the peace treaties signed with them, and he assured Ali that those people intended no harm at all to his caliphate. Ali got furious at such reply; the trick of Mu'aweiya succeeded in making Ali dismiss Qais from his post as governor of Egypt, to the relief and joy of Mu'aweiya who regarded Qais as a thorn in his side.

5- Ali sent a new governor to Egypt: M. Ibn Abou Bakr, who was the number one culprit within the assassination of Othman. Thus, Ali the unwise, and the very 'righteous' indeed (!), was foolish enough to send a governor who easily would incite wars in Egypt because he was a rash, inexperienced youth. This new governor raided houses of Arab settlers who supported Mu'aweiya and killed some of them, but later on, he gave them leave to get out of Egypt to join Mu'aweiya in the Levant. Thus, the folly of M. Ibn Abou Bakr strengthened Mu'aweiya with more men into his troops. After energies of Ali were sapped after the Battle of Siffein, Mu'aweiya felt that this was the right moment to try to capture Egypt and to get rid of M. Ibn Abou Bakr, by sending his troops to Egypt, led by the shrewd Amr who knew Egypt and Egyptians very well. Of course, M. Ibn Abou Bakr was defeated and burnt inside the hide of a donkey. Mu'aweiya gained control of Egypt easily via Amr, while Ali lost Egypt because of his folly, naivety, rashness, and lack of political experience and acumen; he never made use of Egypt as a source of power to threaten and get rid of Mu'aweiya.

Fourthly: Examples Showing Ali's Political Failure:

The ABC of politics is how to neutralize your enemies as much as you can and to turn them into your supporters later on and you must not engage into any war except when necessary. Ali did exactly the opposite of all this: he gave his enemies chances and pretexts to engage into wars against him and created enemies from neutral parties for no apparent reason, allowing them a chance to trick him and to plot and conspire against him, and to eventually murder him. This was his political concoction of failure that led to his downfall. We give examples below.

1- Ali refused the piece of Advice given to him by Al-Mughira, when he told him not to hastily dismiss at once all governors appointed by Othman, especially Mu'aweiya, who ruled the Levant, Iraq, Egypt, Persia, and Libya. He told him to wait until they swore fealty to him and to make sure that all their soldiers and Arab settlers outside Arabia were allies to him, and then, he could dismiss any of him as he want later on after settling all affairs. This piece of advice was right and sincere, but Ali paid no heed to it and hastily dismissed all governors, and Al-Mughira pretended to agree to such decisions, and when people blamed him for wavering attitudes, Al-Mughira insisted that he had to flatter the caliph since he never listened to advice. He chanted poetic verses to carrying this meaning, and soon enough, he took the side of Mu'aweiya and turned against Ali.

2- Hearing about the advice of Al-Mughira, Abdullah Ibn Abbas said to Ali that this advice was right and that flattery indicates treachery and betrayal to occur soon enough, and told him to follow this advice so as to foil the plans of the Umayyads, who wished him dead like Othman, by winning most Arabs everywhere to his side. Yet, Ali ignored the advice of the son of his paternal uncle, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, and Ali's faulty decisions gave Mu'aweiya the pretext to attack him as a rival!

3- An example showing Ali creating new enemies for no reason: Ali dismissed, for no reason, the governor appointed by Othman in a region of Persia, and this man was called Jarir. He sent for Jarir to come to Yathreb, and when he came, Ali told him that he was dismissed and that he would go in an errand to the Levant to convince Mu'aweiya to swear fealty to him. Ali's ally, Al-Ashtar, told him that this was a wrong step (a faux-pas), but it was too late: Jarir joined forces of Mu'aweiya and took his side once he reached Damascus. This boosted the morale of soldiers within the troops of Mu'aweiya.

4- One of the worst faulty decisions was to dismiss Ibn Qais and to bring him in Yathreb, thus allowing him to plot intrigue against Ali. Ibn Qais was one of the leaders of the tribe of Kendah, a tribe of Yemeni origin, who converted to Islam to realize his political ambition to become a ruler or a king. When Qorayish dominated everything after the death of Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Qais forsook Islam for a while, and then reconverted to Islam again and got married to the sister of Abou Bakr, as a step to fulfill his desire to undertake a leading role or position, and he participated in the crimes called Arab conquests in Persia and the Levant. Omar the caliph felt that Ibn Qais posed a danger and a threat as Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed gave Ibn Qais more shares of the spoils. Omar feared that an alliance between Khaled and Ibn Qais would be formed to unite soldiers of many tribes against him. Thus, Omar dismissed Khaled from his post as a military leader of Arab troops. The Umayyads knew the stature and ambitions of Ibn Qais among his tribesmen, and they knew his military genius was unsurpassed except by those of Khaled, and Othman made him governor of Azerbaijan as a powerful ruler who need not the permission of the caliph in every step or decision, thus warding off his danger and making good use of him. On the contrary, Ali hastily dismissed Ibn Qais and checked his finances as a former governor, confiscated his money. This led Ibn Qais to consider Ali an enemy, but he hid his feelings of animosity, until he forced and pressurized Ali, along with other men of consequence, to accept the arbitration via Abou Moussa and not Ibn Abbas and Al-Ashtar, both suggested by Ali, while threatening to withdraw his troops from those of Ali if he would not accept arbitration. Thus, Ibn Qais took revenge from Ali so cruelly, leading to the downfall of Ali later on. Thus, Ali's bad policies turned him from ruler into a subject obeying commands of others, especially disloyal allies bought by Mu'aweiya.

5- This was another fault of Ali; he submitted easily to views and suggestions of belligerent desert-Arabs and Bedouins among his allies, though in terms of numbers, they were few thousands, nothing to his 100 thousand Arab soldiers from all powerful tribes. Those desert Arabs deserted Ali later on and became Al-Khawarij, killed off easily by Ali and his troops in few hours within one day of battle. Yet, we understand here how Ali was a political failure in his dealings with them earlier from the very start. Ali should have been more firm and harsh with them and to exert more influence on them by enlisting the aid of their respective tribes' leaders. Ali should have told him that allies of Mu'aweiya in the Levant obey him blindly, and he was entitled to receive the same type of obedience. Ali should have been stern with the leaders of those uncouth desert Arabs to control them, but his hesitation and fluctuation gave them the chance to exert bad influence over him and to be the main cause of his military failure, allowing Mu'aweiya to succeed him as caliph.

6- In 40 A.H., shortly before the assassination of Ali, both Mu'aweiya and Ali agreed to a general truce and that each of them was to keep lands under his control, and in the same year, most allies of Ali deserted him because of his failure and fickleness, and the last ally to desert him was his own lifelong relative and friend Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the son of his paternal uncle, who was apparently fed up with giving many pieces of advice to the stubborn, hesitant, fickle Ali who kept ignoring them, to his detriment and downfall. Abdulla Ibn Abbas was the governor of Basra, and before he fled this Iraqi city, he confiscated all money inside its Treasury to himself!

Lastly:

The political failure of Ali made him lose most of his possessions and property, especially spoils shares given to him; as he spent all his wealth and savings during his five-year caliphate period filled with endless troubles. When he was assassinated, people found in his house about 600 or 700 dirhams, and some historians assert that people found only 250 dirhams. Ali never succeeded in the field of politics like Omar, Amr, and Mu'aweiya. As per historical accounts and narratives about Ali, we know that he kept eating and spending ill-gotten money, looted by bloodshed, destruction, confiscations, invasions, aggressions, looting, rape, enslavement, and massacres: the heinous crimes committed within the conquered nations.

CONCLUSION

We are still today living the results of the contradiction and vast difference between Islam on the one hand and the Arab conquests and their companions on the other hand; we are still paying a heavy price for such contradiction in terms of religion and in terms of history.

1- Arab conquests that are falsely, erroneously, and wrongly carries the name or banner of Islam caused the deification of the companions who initiated and participated in these atrocities, especially the very first four pre-Umayyad so-called 'righteous' caliphs, despite the fact that Islam (i.e., the Quran only) clearly prohibits deification of things and persons, dead or alive, and that these conquests contradicts the Quranic higher values (e.g., justice, freedom, and peace) and legislations. Such crimes and atrocities caused Middle-Ages Arabs to forget the four sacred months and to create their earthly, man-made, and fabricated creeds to fight one another under different banners. These man-made creeds that have nothing to do with Islam deify Muhammad as a deity alongside with God, making Arabs as Muhammadans, NOT Muslims. Muhammad has been turned into a belligerent god of war, aggression, terrorism, and compulsion in creed, based on countless fabricated hadiths (acts, deeds, and sayings attributed falsely and forcibly to him decades after his death), to the extent that his true nature and character, found ONLY and exclusively in the Quranic text, has been long forgotten. Even today's Arabs or Muhammadans, who deem themselves as 'Muslims', tend to forget that Muhammad was sent as a mercy to humankind, NOT to terrorize them.

2- The crimes called Arab conquests have two aspects: historical and religious. Concerning the religious aspect, the criminals who participated in such conquests ascribe their atrocities forcibly to Islam, but we, Quranists, quote the Quran to refute such association. We are to judge all things in accordance to the Quran; this is an Islamic duty and obligation: ""Shall I seek a judge other than God, when He is the One who revealed to you the Book, explained in detail?"…" (6:114). Using the Quran as a criterion or a yard stick, one has to choose either one stance or the other. Arab conquests could never be a form of Islamic jihad; jihad in Islam means self-defense and defense of one's homeland against aggressive enemies. No deification, sanctification, glorification, or worship of mortals is allowed in Islam in any sort or form. Hence, military fighting for self-defense and for stopping religious persecution is a just and fair in Islam. Hence, Arab conquests are crimes against Islam: they were committed as a form of aggression to occupy and loot other countries around Arabia; i.e., for political and economic reasons. This allows us to assert that those leaders and participators in such crimes were enemies of Islam, as they manipulated its name as a banner to cover their crimes and atrocities o massacres, looting, enslavement, destruction, rape, etc. and such criminals will be certainly punished in the Hereafter; ''believer'' as a Quranic term here means any peaceful person, regardless of this person's faith or lack of it: "Whoever kills a believer deliberately, the penalty for him is Hell, where he will remain forever. And God will be angry with him, and will curse him, and will prepare for him a terrible punishment. O you who believe! When you journey in the way of God, investigate, and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of this world. With God are abundant riches. You yourselves were like this before, and God bestowed favor on you; so investigate. God is well aware of what you do." (4:93-94). In our article titled "Islam the Religion of Peace", we have quoted these two verses, and many others, to assert that Arab conquests were the worst crimes that made Arabs kill innocent peaceful hundreds of thousands of people in many countries around Arabia. This crime is punishable in Hell forever in the Hereafter. Those killed were heroes and heroines who defended their homelands against the Arab conquerors, among other peaceful non-warring civilians, women, children, and men, who got killed. Let alone the other crimes such as raping and enslaving women of conquered nations and imposing various types of heavy taxes and tributes on the conquered nations, just like any blood-sucking bunch of thieves-cum-conquerors. The worst crime ever was to attribute such horrendous cries to God, the Quran, and Islam. How come that Islam, whose values in the Quran include justice, freedom, and human dignity, would be tarnished and distorted to that extent. This was the worst type of injustice Arab conquests companions committed against God Himself. Thus, they were really disbelieving infidels and deniers of the Quran. A real Muslim, i.e., a real believer in the Quran, cannot avoid making the choice: after using the Quranic verses to judge the Arab conquests companions, especially Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, among others, would such a Muslim choose to take the side of such mortals or the side of God in the Quran? There can never be a middle way in between the two opposite stances. One has to declare that such criminals were infidels and enemies of Islam in order to take God's side in the Quran. The other choice is to go on revering, honoring, worshipping, and deifying such mortals as gods! This last choice makes one not a Muslim, but a Sunnite Muhammadan who defends the mortal deities, just as done by all extremists Sunnites/Wahabis. Real Muslims revere ONLY the divine revelation of the Quran and do not deify neither Muhammad not his so-called companions and contemporaries. A Muslim must acknowledge that such Arab conquerors were infidels and disbelievers, fearing no blame at all when it comes from the Muhammadans. There are still those who deify mortals; their hearts are sick with polytheism, and they accuse us, Quranists, of being accusing dead persons of apostasy, and our reply is as follows. We, Quranists, judge historical figures in accordance with what is written about them in historical accounts. We know nothing about them but their deeds, actions, qualities, and traits, judged by us as disbelief in Islam, and it is our duty to clear the name of Islam from their crimes and atrocities; otherwise, the persistent tarnished image of Islam will make it appear as if it were a false religion. No one can deny the occurrence of Arab conquests, Arab civil wars, and other historical events that we have good proofs and evidence of their having occurred. The deification of mortals might drive some people to deny, in vain, the occurrence of Arab conquests, Arab civil wars, and other historical events mentioned in this book. This is utter madness; we talk Egyptian variety of the Arabic language now because Egypt was conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages: could we possibly deny the Arab conquest of Egypt?!

3- Concerning the historical aspect, any given nation that suffered, within any historical era, occupation, conquest, invasion, enslavement, injustices, etc. by a foreign force should normally feel animosity, enmity, and deep-seated hatred toward those foreign blood-sucking conquerors who humiliated, robbed, raped, enslaved, and massacred their ancestors. Such nations (e.g., Egyptians, people of the Levant, Iraq, and North Africa) should read their history objectively and they will inherit feelings of rage and hatred toward the so-called companions and the caliphs of all dynasties, especially the four pre-Umayyad caliphs. They should sympathize with their oppressed and suppressed forefathers who were raped, robbed, massacred, and enslaved. Yet, the exact opposite occurred; most Muhammadans all over the world have fallen into the trap of glorification of the history of the Arab conquests and deification of the so-called companions and their bloody heinous deeds against our ancestors! It is noteworthy that those who retained their original religion before and after the Arabs conquest (e.g., Christians of Egypt, Iraq, and the Levant) consider such conquests as evil deed done for demographic, venal, and political aims only. Today's Shiite Iranians partially agree with such Quranists' and Christians' point of view regarding the crimes called Arab conquests; yet, they fall into the trap of deifying Ali and hating only the rest of the so-called companions: such as Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha, Zubayr, Mu'aweiya, etc. as part and parcel of the Shiite creed notions. The root of the problem is linking the Arab conquests to Islam forcibly and falsely; this has led to destruction of Islam to build on its ruins the earthly man-made creeds that deify the so-called companions wholly or partially, eventually leading to the prohibition of criticizing them and their deeds like the civil wars in Arabia, even if this criticism is based on the Quran and done by Quranists. This prohibition is a grave injustice toward God and Islam and Muhammad. This is a grave injustice toward our ancestors, Coptic Egyptians, who suffered all forms of persecution, oppression, and injustices by Arab conquerors. We are their great-grand-grand-children who must pity them, not to sing the praises of Arab conquerors who occupied Egypt! Egyptians never read the history of Egyptian Copts persecution during and after Arab conquest and during the Umayyad era away from Sunnite historians' books filled with deification of the so-called companions. Yet, such books retain some signs of severe persecution, injustices, repression, and oppression suffered by Egyptian Copts. Such traces and signs constitute a grave injustice toward God, the Quran, and Muhammad, as Islam is based on justice, freedom, and peace. Truth about the Arab conquest of Egypt is found in books written by Coptic historians witnessing that period of time; yet, most persons among the few Egyptians who read and examined closely such Coptic books of history would go on deifying the companions and glorifying their conquests! Coptic history books of the period are filled with accounts of oppression, enslavement, looting, rape, heavy taxes and tributes, massacres, etc., and yet, the Sunnite Muhammadans in Egypt have their man-made creed notions that will prevent them from acknowledging the truth about such unjust conquests that led to the establishment of the Sunnite creed to replace real Islam: the Quran. The disbelief of such Arab conquests companions in terms of aggressive behavior and demeanor has been linked by force to Islam, leading to its eclipse centuries ago. The Sunnite creed is filled with hadiths that urge the glorification of the so-called companions and prevent the criticism of their deeds, especially the civil war! This contradicts the Quran that mentions some rebukes directed by God toward some prophets, including Muhammad, and the rebuke of several bad traits and deeds of many companions and contemporaries of Muhammad. How come that the so-called companions and their conquests are above any sort of criticism and questioning?! If one does this within a sermon, a book, an article, etc. in Egypt, one would be severely punished and imprisoned, even when one quotes the Quranic verses to support this criticism! Moreover, one might get killed by any extremist Sunnite Wahabi Egyptian as a result! The Egyptian ruling regime might imprison such a critic under the law of combating ''contempt of religion'', the religion of the Sunnites, of course! While Wahabi/Sunnite/Salafist go on abusing Islam (the Quran) and defaming God and His messenger Muhammad, and go unscathed and unpunished! As for Quranists, they never fear to be blamed by others when they get vociferous and outspoken within cyberspace in telling Islamic truths and facts based on the Quran. God will judge and settle the differences between Quranists and non-Quranists in the Last Day, when the unjust will not benefit from their deeds and transient gains and will receive God's curse in eternal Hell: "Most surely We will support Our messengers and those who believe, in this life, and on the Day the witnesses arise, the Day when their excuses will not profit the wrongdoers and the curse will be upon them, and they will have the Home of Misery." (40:51-52). God says nothing but the Truth.

ANNEXES: Answering Protests against Our Writing on the Topic of Historical Accounts Concerning Arab

ANNEX I

INTRODUCTION:

1- The foul-mouthed Ibn-Hanbal-doctrine Sunnites used to accuse us, the founder of Quranism, of being a Shiite; Shiites themselves used to feel happy with our severe criticism of the Sunnite creed, proving that it has nothing to do with Islam, and they feel very content with our critique and analysis of the historical figures: Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman. Yet, the Shiites who have read our writings have received a shock when our criticism reached their supreme deity, Ali Ibn Abou Talib, with the same neutrality, objectivity, and lack of glorification and sanctification to mortals. Hence, we have received via email Shiites' hate-mails and verbal abuse. This is a proof that refutes the accusation of the Sunnite Salafist fools against us that we are a Shiite. If the Sunnite Salafist fools have read our very first book published in print in 1982, titled ''Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Truth and Mythology'', they would have made sure that we are as vehemently against the Shiite creed as against the Sufi and Sunnites ones. Al-Sayed Al-Badawi was a Middle-Ages Shiite spy in Egypt who has been deified after his death by Sufis, and his mausoleum is still visited, in a form of pilgrimage, in the city of Tanta, Egypt. Hence, our Quranist trend is clear in its stance against Shiite and Sufi creeds as well as earthly, man-made, fabricated faiths that has nothing to do with Islam. Our methodology is clear enough now in tackling objectively with historical figures and characters, regardless of how they are honored, revered, and worshipped by some people; as Islam is the Quran alone, not to be mixed with history, traditions, creeds, faiths, heritage, and civilizations of Arabs (who deem themselves as 'Muslims'). Such items are NEVER parts of Islam as a faith; rather, they are linked, with its dark and bright sides, to its fabricators, authors, and adherents. Likewise, all actions and deeds of 'Muslims' and Arabs in all centuries reflect and represent such persons, and NOT Islam per se. It is not our concern to judge the faith and belief of such historical figures; this is God's business, not ours. We do care to show and discuss their actions, especially deifying mortals, against the clear Quranic teachings of never associating other deities alongside with God.

2- As for Shiites in particular, we have a long history of defending their human rights as oppressed people in Egypt and the Gulf monarchies; yet, they have verbally abused us once we have criticized their supreme God, Ali Ibn Abou Talib, as they assumed as if we were Shiite like them. For them, one has to worship and revere Ali as an heir to Muhammad and verbally abuse the rest of the caliphs, like Omar, Othman, and Abou Bakr. The Shiites forget the fact that the Quranic term ''People of the House'' does NOT refer to Ali and his descendants, but to the wives of Muhammad, and later on to any wives in households in generals. Hence, the Shiites worship Ali as a deity and supreme god in the way Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad are being worshipped by Buddhists, Christians, and Sunnites. Moreover, such adherents of earthly creeds can never fell content unless one follows their creeds; this is asserted by God to Muhammad in the Quran: "The Jews and the Christians will not approve of you, unless you follow their creed…" (2:120).

3- We, Quranists, criticize and refute all faith notions of the Sufi, Sunnite, and Shiite creeds as they contradict real Islam, i.e., the Quran alone, and after the Quranic refutation of their notions, we respect the personal freedom of all human beings to choose their creeds and faiths, or even lack of them (i.e., atheism), as long as there is no compulsion in religion. We, Quranists, never impose our persons or our opinions on anyone and seek no reward at all from any one; we advocate and propagate online what we deem as the Truth, seeking religious reform and to clear the name of Islam from tarnished image and bad deeds of some persons who claim to be 'Muslims'. We, Quranists, are NOT infallible or never-erring thinkers; we consider ourselves as seekers of Truth, and we value objective constructive criticism of us, for our benefit, and feel thankful for it when it is offered.

4- Despite all of the above, most of the criticism directed to us is nonsensical, rarely objective, and consists mostly of verbal abuse and insults, as if such verbal abuse would relieve our foes whose false creeds have been shaken to the core and put to question using the Quran and logical thinking. Of course, we do not care to respond to such painful cries of people whose ailment has driven them to verbally abuse us within cyberspace instead of discuss our Quranist views. Of course, very few of them pose questions to us, and we have responded to them several times as their queries are repeated. We publish the queries and answers here about deification and sanctification of mortals, i.e., countless historical figures, for further elucidation and clarification.

Firstly: Hadiths of virtues of some companions are not taken into account by Quranists:

1- Of course, Quranists refuse to accept any of the so-called hadiths (sayings, deeds, and traditions ascribed to Muhammad decades after his death) as part of Islam. Yet, some of our critics try to refute our view of the Quranic forbidding of deifying, worshipping, venerating, and revering any mortals, as done with the so-called companions of Muhammad, by quoting hadiths that enumerate virtues of the four rulers/caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali. As far as Islam is concerned, it consists ONLY and exclusively of the Quran; we, Quranists, will never acknowledge the existence of any other sources/books that are written by mortals and forced on later generations as 'Islamic' thought. The only discourse we believe in as Islam is the Quran: "…Which discourse, besides this, will they believe in?" (7:185). "In what discourse, beyond this, will they believe?" (77:50). "…In which discourse, after God and His revelations, will they believe?" (45:6). Moreover, the so-called hadiths of virtues of the co-called companions are teething with predictions of the future in this world and in the Hereafter, whereas the Quran asserts repeatedly the fact that Muhammad never knew the future: "Say, "I am not different from the other messengers; and I do not know what will be done with me, or with you…" (46:9). "Say, "I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of God, nor do I know the future…" (6:50). "Say, "I have no control over any benefit or harm to myself, except as God wills. Had I known the future, I would have acquired much good, and no harm would have touched me…" (7:188). Hence, in our historical research and analysis, we pay no heed to hadiths of any type, and those of virtues of some companions of Muhammad are no except to this Quranist rule. In fact, we do believe that fabricators and authors of such hadiths made them up within their intellectual wars against Shiites, who in turn made up their own hadiths, and this phenomenon of fabricating hadiths and attributing them to Muhammad decades after his death began earlier within Arab civil wars in Arabia shortly before the emergence of the Umayyad Dynasty/caliphate. Needless to say, all such Sunnite and Shiite hadiths contradict one another. In sum, fabrication of hadiths was a tool used in the intellectual wars and rivalry between Sunnites and Shiites. Let us discuss and analyze a prominent historical example. The inveterate liar, Abou Hurayrah, was the most famous narrator, or rather author and fabricator, of hadiths in Arabia. He used to fabricate hadiths to honor the Umayyads and the founder of their Dynasty, Mu'aweiya, and in response, Shiite narrators fabricated their own hadiths that urge the deification and sanctification of Ali and his progeny. This custom of fabricating hadiths to support any religious and political views went on by countless persons during the Abbasid and Mameluke caliphates. Shiites went on, on their part, to add up hadiths of their own as well to support their views and stances. Objective researchers in the field of history cannot possibly ignore such facts; fanaticism is the dominant tone in all such fabricated hadiths and stories. According to historical researchers, the nearest books written about the very first four rulers/caliphs (the ones before the Umayyad caliphate: consecutively: Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali) emerged in the First Abbasid Era, authored by famous historians like Al-Waqidi, Ibn Saad, and Al-Tabary. Other historians who came after them copied their works. Their volumes, however, contain obvious lies and falsehoods, about Ali and other figures, fabricated especially by making up hadiths attributed to Muhammad, as done by the historian and theologian Ibn Al-Jawzy in his book titled ''Al-Muntazim'' and by another inveterate liar of a historian Al-Sharif Al-Radi in his book titled "Nahj Al-Balagha".

2- The book titled "Nahj Al-Balagha" was authored by the Baghdad-based Abbasid historian-cum-poet Al-Sharif Al-Radi (359-406 A.H.), who was an Alawite Shiite, (Alawite means worshipper and/or claim to be descendant of Ali's progeny), claiming to be a descendant of the Shiite Imam Kazim. In his book, he collected the sayings, deeds, and sermons attributed to Ali Ibn Abou Talib decades after his death. Shiites at the time used to ascribe any pearls of wisdom and aphorisms to their deity Ali to urge others to revere and honor him. Of course, as was typical of the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Mameluke eras, such books contain indirect criticism to caliphs, rulers, governors, and princes at the time. In his book, Al-Sharif Al-Radi addressed his indirect criticism, ascribed to Ali of course as if he had said it (!), to the Shiite Buyyid Dynasty, who used to rule parts of Persia, but their being Shiites had never prevented them from persecuting some other Alawite Shiites who claim being descendants of Ali's progeny. Al-Sharif Al-Radi assumed that he could give them pieces of advice using Ali as the interlocutor/preacher of such advice, seeking reform. The age of Al-Sharif Al-Radi was filled with injustices and instances of oppression; hence, his writings came as a form of protest against the Buyyid Dynasty that controlled Baghdad and the Abbasid caliphate at the time, especially that the father of the poet Al-Sharif Al-Radi, whom Abou-Al-Nasr Bahaa Eddine called him the Only Pure One, was honored and respected by both the Abbasids and the Buyyids, and was the head of the one of Alawite sects, i.e. the Talibites (those who claim being descendants or followers of Ali Ibn Abou Talib), for five times; yet, he was persecuted by the Buyyids in his old age after he lost his eyesight, and was imprisoned in a fortress in Persia for a long time, until his release by another Abbasid caliph, who accompanied him to Baghdad. Thus, the poet's father was a victim of injustice and oppression. The Shiites consider the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi as if it were holy as the Quran (!), and many of them had written margins, footnotes, and interpretations added to it or in separate books, chief among such books is by Abou Al-Hadeed Al-Mu'tazali, who died at the beginning of the Mameluke Era in 656 A.H. As far as historical research is concerned, the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi is NEVER an authoritative book about history of Ali; rather, it reflects the cult of Shiites, and their cultural traditions and heritage in deifying Ali, as well as their age within the Buyyids Dynasty that controlled the Abbasids at the time. Hence, the poet's book reflects the Abbasid culture, language, and heritage of the time; it has nothing to do with Ali or any of the caliphs before him at all, with their Bedouin, simple, plain, and rudimentary stage of culture that of course lacked sophistication, complexity, and depth. Moreover, the caliphate of Ali was filled with belligerent events, leaving no room for preaching and endless speeches typical of times of peace to attentive disciples. Al-Sharif Al-Radi served his Shiite creed shamelessly during the Buyyid Dynasty rule in Persia and their control of Baghdad by asserting the Shiite hadiths ascribed to Muhammad, especially the ones vilifying Omar and Abou Bakr, leading Sunnite Ibn-Hanbal-doctrine theologians to try and refute the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi in their writings, by asserting the fact that 350 years difference in time between the assassination of Ali and the writing of the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi and that the author did not follow the ways of wiring and authenticating applied by the Sunnite writers, scholars, and theologians. This was ironic; Sunnite scholars themselves had fabricated countless hadiths ascribed to Muhammad centuries after his death, accumulated until at least the 10^th century A.H. Within the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi, he ascribed words and utterances to Ali directly with no series of oral narrators typical of Sunnite books. Hence, the Sunnite scholars refuted the book of Al-Sharif Al-Radi by refuting their own method of ascribing utterances to mortals who died centuries ago!

Secondly: The issue of one's rights and one's meritocracy between politics and religion:

1- The Shiites base their thought and creed notions on a falsehood: Ali deserved to be the first caliph who must pass on caliphate solely to his progeny, and Abou Bakr stole caliphate from him. Another falsehood on which the Shiite creed is based is the meritocracy of Al-Hussein, son of Ali, to be made the caliph instead of Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan, the Umayyad caliph. These two falsehoods are mere lies in terms of creed and politics; Islam has nothing to do with caliphate as a political system, as the Quran contains no political rules or way of ruling. As for politics, meritocracy and right are intertwined; no one had the right to rule by virtue of birth alone. Meritocracy and entitlement entails being strong enough and well-equipped with the proper means, power, acumen, intelligence, and political shrewdness. Briefly, one has to acquire the right to rule and lead a given nation by virtue of heroic deeds, patience, forming a state by gathering people around a leader, and defending this burgeoning state militarily. This is regardless of one's meritocracy, or the fact that one is entitled or deserves or not to be ruler. This is ABC of political life. For instance, Prophet Muhammad earned the right to form the city-state of Yathreb: he immigrated, defended the city, gathered and unified people around him, stood many tests, trials and tribulation, and managed to govern the inhabitants of Yathreb. Hence, this city-state of Yathreb was not a gift of God and His angels to Muhammad. Another modern example is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; although the Palestinians have the right to form a state of their own, they never struggle enough to attain this goal; rather, they wait for others to help them despite the fact that they never managed to convince others of their right. Zionists were more practical in their address to the international community, and they managed to earn the meritocracy and to plan and execute their will to establish the Hebrew state in Palestine.

2- Within Islam, the Divine Truth and Right is the Quran itself: "With the truth We sent it down, and with the truth it descended…" (17:105). But what is deemed as right in the Quran needs to be preached and propagated in the correct, proper ways to deserve to be adhered to and to make it confront its deniers and haters; that is why God has ordered Muhammad to perform jihad by preaching the Quranic message: "So do not obey the disbelievers, but strive against them with it, a mighty struggle." (25:52). On the individual level, the Quranic right and truth is offered as a source of guidance, and human beings have to choose between guidance and misguidance, obedience and disobedience, and good deeds and sinning, bearing the consequences of either of the stances in the Afterlife: in Paradise or Hell.

3- According to the above, we should evaluate the so-called companions in terms of faith and politics; there were some of them who are described in the Quran as good persons who deserve Paradise in accordance with their deeds and faith, which God knows and we do not, and some are described as bad ones deserving Hell in accordance to their deeds and lack of faith: "The Pioneers-The first of the Migrants and the Supporters, and those who followed them in righteousness. God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens beneath which rivers flow, where they will abide forever. That is the sublime triumph." (9:100). "Of the believers are men who are true to what they pledged to God. Some of them have fulfilled their vows; and some are still waiting, and never wavering. That God may reward the truthful for their truthfulness…" (33:23-24). "…This is the Garden of Paradise you are made to inherit, on account of what you used to do." (7:43). "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Medina too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will be returned to a severe torment." (9:101). Hence, one's deserving to be among Hell or Paradise dwellers is based on one's deeds in this life; this applies to all human beings, and the so-called companions are no exception to this rule.

4- We must never forget that the companions who participated in the Arab conquests, which were against Islamic teachings in the Quran and dragged the name of Islam into their conquests, are infidels who denied Islam: the Quran. They betrayed Muhammad after his death and chose glories of transient life instead of Eternal Paradise. That is why history mentions their names; as typical in historical accounts to mentions tyrants and to glorify their processions and deeds. Hence, tyrant caliphs are mentioned in history books, with their bloody deeds, massacres, and sins, deserving Hell with such atrocities as they invoked God's wrath. The Quran contains this verse about the punishment of killing the innocent: "Whoever kills a believer deliberately, the penalty for him is Hell, where he will remain forever. And God will be angry with him, and will curse him, and will prepare for him a terrible punishment. O you who believe! When you journey in the way of God, investigate, and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," aspiring for the goods of this world…" (4:93-94), the term ''believer'' here means an innocent peaceful person, not a Muslim; let alone killing millions of innocent people by Arab conquests companions/soldiers! In fact, the Arab conquests companions fought one another for transient possessions of the world, thus denying the Afterlife by their bad deeds and betrayed Islam. Hence, meritocracy to rule was NEVER attained by being faithful, devout, religious, etc. or by any text(s), promise, or right; rather, it is all about the struggle for loot and power. Those who succeed in such a race and reach the throne of rulers are those who managed to skillfully use all possible means, tools, money, efforts, allies, and agents. They managed to flatter, appease, coax, and bribe everyone in a pragmatic manner based on beneficiaries willing to assist a potential man who aspired to absolute power. Hence Mu'aweiya managed to use all acumen, shrewdness, plans, plots, bribery, and assassinations to attain his goal of becoming a caliph, while Ali failed as a statesman, pretending to seek the Afterlife while he fought for the throne and transient wealth. Ali was weak enough in dealing with his supporters to the extent that some of them deserted him, causing his defeat and assassination later on. Hence, there is no theocracy in Islam; the city-state of Yathreb was a state of direct democracy among its dwellers with no despotism or tyranny, as we have discussed in another book published here online on our website. Tyranny typical of Moses' Pharaoh is prohibited in the Quran; there is no such a thing in Islam as a ''deified imam'', the Shiite famous notion about Ali, who is divinely inspired and people must obey him blindly. Such falsehoods are indeed shameless rejection of Islam by the Shiites past and present; in sum, no one 'deserves' to be ruler by virtue of who they were by birth or connections: Ali did not deserve being a caliph; he was a failure politically speaking. Ali's being the husband of Muhammad's daughter has nothing to do with meritocracy; there is no holy family or holy offspring in Islam. Hence, the Shiites failed in both politics and religion. A reminder: history is NOT religion, and religion is NOT history; we judge such historical figures as per historical accounts written about them. This has nothing to do with Islam at all.

Thirdly: Were there good, righteous companions?

1- The Quran asserts that there were good, righteous, and pious ones; we cannot possibly deny this Quranic fact mentioned in several verses, but no historical accounts mention their names. The reason: the good ones, of course, had never participated in the sins and atrocities of Arab conquests. Typically, history never mentions but tyrants, war criminals, blood-shedders, and conquerors. Yet, on rare occasions, historical accounts of Arabia do mention good companions. Let us give an example of them below.

2- Mus'aab Ibn Omeir: he was among the early ones to convert to Islam. Before his conversion, he used to be an affluent pampered lad doted upon by loving wealthy parents. Once he converted to Islam, his parents deserted him, and he was tortured and imprisoned to coerce him into forsaking Islam, but he never did that. He became penniless, and later on immigrated to Abyssinia, to return to Mecca later on, to immigrate to Yathreb city-state. History tells us that earlier, he was sent by Muhammad to convince Yathreb dwellers to convert Islam by preaching its teachings to them. So many men converted to Islam because of his endeavors. He was killed during the Battle of Uhud, while trying to defend Muhammad against a man who wanted to kill him in the battlefield. He held the banner of Muhammad and defended him by the sword until he was killed, and Qorayish thought that Muhammad was the one who got killed, but in fact, it was Mus'aab Ibn Omeir. He was so poor that they could not find a cloth to shroud him before burial, and people wept over him, and made him an example for those who deserted the glories of this transient world for the sake of God's cause. May God have mercy upon his soul.

ANNEX II

Some of the protests sent to us are summarized as follows: (…Why are you, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, raking the mud of the historical accounts of the Prophet's companions? God says in the Quran: "That was a community that has passed; for them is what they have earned, and for you is what you have earned; and you will not be questioned about what they used to do." (2:134), and this means that we are not to discuss such history, unrelated to us…). We seize this opportunity to discuss the Quranic expression "that as a community…" as it is repeated throughout the Quranic text, with various different contexts, unrelated at all to the topic of the so-called companions. In fact, the demonstrative pronoun ''that'' refers to what is directly mentioned before it, not to something distant or far away from its context in a given text.

Firstly:

1- As for the verse: "That was a community that has passed; for them is what they have earned, and for you is what you have earned; and you will not be questioned about what they used to do." (2:134), it refers to a certain context about Abraham and prophets from his descendants, as we discern from the previous verses: "And Abraham exhorted his sons, and Jacob, "O my sons, God has chosen this religion for you, so do not die unless you have submitted. Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, and he said to his sons, "What will you worship after Me?" They said, "We will worship your God, and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac; One God; and to Him we submit." "That was a community that has passed; for them is what they have earned, and for you is what you have earned; and you will not be questioned about what they used to do." (2:132-134).

2- In another context within the same Quranic Chapter 2, the Quran tells us to believe in all prophets, messengers, and divine books revealed by God and NOT to prefer messengers over one another, and this is a refutation of the claims of Jews and Christians to be the only guided ones as spiritual progeny of Abraham: "Say, "We believe in God; and in what was revealed to us; and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus; and in what was given to the prophets-from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we surrender."" (2:136). "Or do you say that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs were Jews or Christians? Say, "Do you know better, or God?" And who does greater wrong than he who conceals a testimony he has from God? God is not unaware of what you do. That was a community that has passed. To them is what they have earned, and to you is what you have earned. And you will not be questioned about what they used to do." (2:140-141). Again, the context here of ''that'' refers to Abraham and his progeny. In fact, it is sad that Arabs who claim to be Muslims fell into the same trap into which Jews and Christians had fallen by preferring messengers and prophets over one another: that was the beginning of deification of mortals and disbelief in God's messages.

3- ignoramuses among the Sunnite scholars quote a certain Quranic verse decontextualized to show they are right in their illogical and faulty sanctifying of Muhammad more than the rest of messengers of God: "These messengers: We gave some advantage over others…" (2:253). If we examine the context of this verse carefully, we will discern that the demonstrative pronoun ''these'' refers to other messengers mentioned in the previous verses, and their names do NOT include Muhammad. Even the rest of the verse 2:253 asserts this view. Let us quote the whole context here, mentioning messengers who were sent after Moses to the Israelites: "Have you not considered the notables of the Children of Israel after Moses? When they said to a prophet of theirs: "Appoint a king for us, and we will fight in the cause of God." He said, "Is it possible that, if fighting was ordained for you, you would not fight?" They said, "Why would we not fight in the cause of God, when we were driven out of our homes, along with our children?" But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. But God is aware of the wrongdoers. Their prophet said to them, "God has appointed Saul to be your king." They said, "How can he have authority over us, when we are more worthy of authority than he, and he was not given plenty of wealth?" He said, "God has chosen him over you, and has increased him in knowledge and stature." God bestows His sovereignty upon whomever He wills. God is Embracing and Knowing. And their prophet said to them, "The proof of his kingship is that the Ark will be restored to you, bringing tranquility from your Lord, and relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron. It will be carried by the angels. In that is a sign for you, if you are believers."" (2:246-248). ''And they defeated them by God's leave, and David killed Goliath, and God gave him sovereignty and wisdom, and taught him as He willed. Were it not for God restraining the people, some by means of others, the earth would have gone to ruin. But God is gracious towards humankind. These are God's revelations, which We recite to you in truth. You are one of the messengers.These messengers: We gave some advantage over others. To some of them God spoke directly, and some He raised in rank. We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear miracles, and We strengthened him with the Holy Spirit…'' (2:251-253).

Secondly: Demonstrative pronouns referring to meanings embedded within contexts:

Sometimes, demonstrative pronouns in the Quranic text refers to something embedded or inferred within a certain context, but not mentioned explicitly; the following examples will explain this notion further. Moses used to carry a staff in his hands and God said to him: "And what is that in your right-hand, O Moses?" He said, "This is my staff. I lean on it, and herd my sheep with it, and I have other uses for it."" (20:17-18). Hence, the pronoun ''that'' in 20:17 is used in the style of the cataphora in order to refer to the staff that is not mentioned until the next verse 20:18. Another example is the reference of destruction of evil people of Thamood until their houses turned into ruins: "They planned a plan, and We planned a plan, but they did not notice. So note the outcome of their planning; We destroyed them and their people, altogether." (27:50-51). The demonstrative pronoun 'there' referring to their ruins shows that we are to draw lessons from the event: ''There are their homes, in ruins, on account of their iniquities. Surely in this is a sign for people who know.'' (27:52). Within the context of the story of Quaroon, we see a description of the Paradise dwellers: those who do not aim at superiority on earth nor seek to cause corruption. "And he went out before his people in his splendor. Those who desired the worldly life said, "If only we possessed the likes of what Quaroon was given. He is indeed very fortunate." But those who were given knowledge said, "Woe to you! The reward of God is better for those who believe and do righteous deeds." Yet none attains it except the steadfast. So We caused the earth to cave in on him and his mansion. He had no company to save him from God, and he could not defend himself." (28:79-81). And then in 28:83, we see that the demonstrative pronoun ''that'' confines Paradise to a certain category of people, to distinguish those who deserve it from those who deserve Hell: "That Home of the Hereafter-We assign it for those who seek no superiority on earth, nor corruption. And the outcome is for the pious." (28:83).

Thirdly: In most Quranic contexts, demonstrative pronouns refer to something mentioned before in previous verse(s):

1- In these verses and their context, "They say, "Are we to be restored to the original condition? When we have become hollow bones?" They say, "This is a losing proposition"" (79:10-12), we discern that the pronoun ''this'' refers within the discourse of disbelievers to the resurrection.

2- The demonstrative pronoun ''these'' refers here to the hopes of Jews and Christians that will be unfulfilled: "And they say, "None will enter Heaven unless he is a Jew or a Christian." These are their wishes…" (2:111).

3- "…fasting for three days during the Hajj and seven when you have returned, this making ten in all.…" (2:196). In this verse, the demonstrative pronoun ''this'' refers to the amount of days of fasting in relation to pilgrimage in certain cases.

4- "If a wound afflicts you, a similar wound has afflicted the others. These days We alternate between the people…" (3:140). In this verse, the demonstrative pronoun ''these'' refers to afflictions and tribulations in general.

5- Another example is referring to the discussions between Abraham and his people: "And his people argued with him. He said, "Do you argue with me about God, when He has guided me? I do not fear what you associate with Him, unless my Lord wills it. My Lord comprehends all things in knowledge. Will you not reconsider? And why should I fear those you associate with Him, and you do not fear associating others with God for which He sent down to you no authority? Which side is more entitled to security, if you are aware?"" (6:80-81). "That was Our argument which We gave to Abraham against his people…" (6:83). Another example is the response of God in 53:22 to the discourse of polytheists in 53:19-21: "Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza, and Manat the third other goddess? Are you to have males and God the females?" (53:19-21), "This is a bizarre distribution" (53:22).

6- This is another example of the demonstrative pronoun ''these'' referring to the distribution of people in the Last Day into two groups: in Hell and in Paradise: "On the Day when some faces will be whitened, and some faces will be blackened. As for those whose faces are blackened: "Did you disbelieve after your belief?" Then taste the punishment for having disbelieved.But as for those whose faces are whitened: they are in God's mercy, remaining in it forever.These are the revelations of God. We recite them to you in truth…" (3:106-108).

Fourthly: More examples of demonstrative pronouns that refer explicitly to previous verses and their contexts within the Quran:

Pronouns referring to Paradise:

1- God in the Quran mentions figurative speeches to describe Paradise in a way to enable us to imagine its beauty, and the pronoun "this" refers to Paradise mentions before the pronoun in the same verse: "The likeness of the Garden promised to the righteous: rivers flowing beneath it; its food is perpetual, and so is its shade. This is the sequel for those who guard against evil, but the sequel of the disbelievers is the Hell-Fire." (13:35).

2- Another example of the pronoun ''this'' referring to Paradise mentioned in previous verses is as follows: "The Gardens of Eden, promised by the Most Merciful to His servants in the Unseen. His promise will certainly come true. They will hear no nonsense therein, but only peace. And they will have their provision therein, morning and evening. This is Paradise which We will give as inheritance to those of Our servants who are devout." (19:61-63).

3- another example about Paradise: "They will be served around with trays of gold, and cups. Therein is whatever the souls desire and what delights the eyes. Therein you will stay forever. This is the Garden of Paradise you are made to inherit, because of what you used to do." (73:71-72).

Demonstrative pronouns within Quranic stories:

1- In the Quranic Chapters 7 and 18, demonstrative pronouns are used to refer to Quranic stories of ancient peoples: "These towns-We narrate to you some of their tales. Their messengers came to them with the clear signs, but they would not believe in what they had rejected previously. Thus God seals the hearts of the disbelievers." (7:101). "And these towns-We destroyed them when they committed injustices, and We set for their destruction an appointed time." (18:59).

2- In the Quranic Chapter 28, God says the following about the abodes of disbelievers: "And how many a city did We destroy for turning unappreciative of its livelihood? These are their homes, uninhabited after them, except for a few. And We became the Inheritors." (28:58).

3- Such Quranic stories are about past events unknown before the Quranic revelations, as with the story of Noah: "It was said, "O Noah, disembark with peace from Us; and with blessings upon you, and upon communities from those with you. And other communities We will grant prosperity, and then a painful torment from Us will befall them."These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this…" (11:48-49).

4- God says the following about their fright at the moment of their death and what did such peoples say: "How many guilty towns have We crushed, and established thereafter another people? Then, when they sensed Our Might, they started running away from it. Do not run, but come back to your luxuries and your homes that you may be questioned. They said "Woe to us; we were unfair.", and this continued to be their cry, until We made them silent ashes" (21:11-15).

Demonstrative pronouns as indication to God's creation in the universe as signs of His Omnipotence:

1- God refers to His creation as signs in the universe repeatedly in the Quran within the context of urging human beings to believe in God alone with no associates and in the Quran as the only discourse of God in Islam: "And in your own creation, and in the creatures He scattered, are signs for people of firm faith. And in the alternation of night and day, and in the sustenance God sends down from the sky, with which He revives the earth after its death, and in the circulation of the winds, are marvels for people who reason. These are God's Verses which We recite to you in truth. In which discourse, after God and His revelations, will they believe?" (45:4-6). The verse 45:6 is akin to a slap on the faces of followers of man-made, earthly, fabricated Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi creeds who believe in the so-called hadiths that have nothing to do with God and Islam.

Demonstrative pronouns as indication to digital miracles in the Quranic text: (separate letters as miraculous signs in the Quran):

The digital miracles of the Quranic text, discovered by Quranists, show that God preserves the characters and special way of writing of the Quran, despite attempts to distort it. This is shown in separate Arabic letters within the very first verses of some Quranic Chapters, as indication to the verses of the Divine Book: the Quran; see 10:1, 12:1, 13:1-2, 31:1-2, 26:1-2, 27:1-2, 28:1-2, and 15:1-2.

Demonstrative pronouns as indication to Quranic parables:

1- God says in the Quran that those who worship and deify tombs and mausoleums into which the so-called saints buried are akin to the house of the spider; this alludes to the scientific fact that female spiders eat up the male ones after copulation, facts heeded and reflected upon by learned ones only: "The likeness of those who take to themselves protectors other than God is that of the female spider that builds a house; the most fragile of houses is the female spider's house, if they only knew." (29:41). "These examples We put them forward to the people; but none grasps them except the learned ones." (29:43).

2- God says in the Quran the following about the hard-heartedness of polytheists, especially who deny the Quran by believing the devilish, Satanic hadiths: "Had We sent this Quran down on a mountain, you would have seen it trembling, crumbling in awe of God. These parables We cite for the people, so that they may reflect." (59:21).

Demonstrative pronouns as indication to divine legislation laws in the Quran:

1- This example is taken from fasting legislations in the Quran: "Permitted for you is intercourse with your wives on the night of the fast… These are the limits of God, so do not come near them. God thus clarifies His revelations to the people, that they may attain piety." (2:187).

2- This example is taken from inheritance legislations in the Quran: "God instructs you regarding your children…" (4:11), "These are the limits of God…" (4:14).

3- This example is taken from legislations against alienating or estranging one's wife in the Quran and how to atone for this sin: "Those who estrange their wives by equating them with their mothers, then go back on what they said, must set free a slave before they may touch one another. To this you are exhorted, and God is well aware of what you do. But whoever cannot find the means must fast for two consecutive months before they may touch one another, and if he is unable, then the feeding of sixty needy people. This is in order that you affirm your faith in God and His Messenger. These are the ordinances and limits of God. The unbelievers will have a painful punishment." (58:3-4)

4- This example is taken from divorce legislations in the Quran: "Divorce is allowed twice. Then, either honorable retention or setting free kindly…If he divorces her, she shall not be lawful for him again until she has married another husband. If the latter divorces her, then there is no blame on them for reuniting, provided they think they can maintain God's limits. These are God's limits; He makes them clear to people who know." (2:229-230). "O Prophet! If any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity, and calculate their term. And be pious before God, your Lord. And do not evict them from their homes, nor shall they leave, unless they have committed a proven adultery. These are the limits of God-whoever oversteps God's limits has wronged his own soul. You never know; God may afterwards bring about a new situation. " (65:1).

Lastly:

We urge readers who hastily send us emails to try to contradict/refute us or pose several queries to us to wait and reflect deeply beforehand and to read our books and articles in their totality before they contact us via email.

ANNEX III

District of Belly-Dancers: In Response to our Rivals in Creed and Religious Thought:

Firstly: The Belly-Dancing Sheikhs

1- There are ''Ulama'' (i.e. religious scholars or theologians) who specialize in researching heritage and traditions of Muslims and researching the Quranic text, and this term covers as well scholars in natural sciences, history, and humanities. 'Ulama' is a term is a plural form in Arabic means literally knowledgeable or erudite scholars, and its masculine singular form is ''Alim'': scholar. Of course, there are intruders in the fields of religious and Quranic research and historical research concerning Middle-Ages ''Muslims'', and this type of bad scholars defend notions and theology of the forefathers and ancestors that contain deification of mortals and stones and locations as well as erroneous concepts linked to creed. Such scholars repeat the same falsehoods inherited from traditions and heritage books, volumes, and tomes, citing the same evidence and proofs shamelessly in an illogical manner, mixed with slander, verbal abuse, and threats addressed to deniers and questioners of ancestral traditions: like ourselves the founder of the Quranist trend and school of thought and reform. They even issue fatwas to kill reformers and questioners as apostates and renegades! They refuse to discuss any scholarly innovation and serious, hard research that require attention and discussion; they prefer fluctuating stances like belly-dancers!

2- Within the Egyptian vernacular dialect of Arabic we love and admire indeed as our mother tongue, there is another important term: Alima (feminine singular form) means a belly-dancer, and its plural form is Awalim (i.e., belly-dancers). In our opinion, belly-dancing is the worst type of dancing and is often associated with lewdness and bawdiness. The reason: it depends on moving breasts, buttocks, and bellies in a sexual, provocative manner that would appeal to lustful men and would be repellant to reasonable men. History of Egypt tells us that there were even male belly-dancers despite its disgrace in mainstream Egyptian culture, as we read in the book of the Egyptian erudite history scholar Ahmed Amin (1886-1954) titled: "The Dictionary of Customs and Traditions and Expressions of Egypt". The same piece of historical information about the existence of male and female belly-dancers is found in the book of the French Egyptianized scholar Antoine Barthelemy Clot, aka Clot Bey, (1793-1868) titled: "A General Overview of Egypt". Those male belly-dancers were rumored to be 'passive' homosexual or rent-boys, despised by most Egyptians.

3- This old culture of male and female belly-dancers had its own rules and traditions, linked to lewdness and lusts and sometimes such practice went on due to the spread of sinners overwhelmed by carnal desires, and in some eras, this practice of belly-dancing kept a low profile, especially in Nasserite Egypt after the 1952 coup d'état until the late 1960s. As for the royal epoch of Egypt before 1952, there were certain Cairene districts known for their brothels and night clubs and cabarets of belly-dancing, especially Clot-Bey Street that used to be filled with licensed brothels in the 1930s and the 1940s in Cairo. This street was named after the French Egyptianized scholar who made a renaissance in medicine studies in Cairo in the era of the ruler Muhammad Ali Pacha, who spread French culture in Egypt on all levels. When Great Britain occupied Egypt, they named the street of British-soldiers-filled licensed brothels after Clot-Bey to insult the French people in general as they occupied Egypt before the British. Within Nasserite Egypt, brothels and belly-dancing fell into disfavor as moral degeneration lessened due to the one dream unifying all Egyptians: Pan-Arabism. Even Azharite and Christian theologians and clergymen kept a low profile in public at the time. Once Nasser died and the unifying dream of Egyptian renaissance waned, faded, and withered away, people who psychologically suffered the shame and disgrace of the defeat of 1967 war (aka the Six-Day War), moral degeneration and both religiosity and religion-covered corruption came back with a vengeance to violently shake the Egyptian society, sponsored by oil-rich tourists from the Gulf monarchies. Extramarital sex with sex workers spread in Egypt alongside with religiosity, religious hypocrisy, overt religiousness, and the emergence of profiteering beneficiaries of the clique of sheikhs and clergymen from Al-Azhar institution and from outside it among Wahabi non-Egyptians coming to Egypt, especially from the KSA. Instead of Clot-Bey Street, Al-Haram Street (the Pyramids Street) was filled with unlicensed, hidden brothels night clubs of belly-dancing, patronized by Wahabi customers coming as tourists from the oil-rich Gulf monarchies since the 1970s. It is funny and ironic that such Wahabi corrupt, morally-bankrupt tourists, who can easily corrupt any location they visit or reside in, never visited the pyramids under the pretext that they symbolize paganism and this is against their 'Islam', whereas it was OK with them to visit brothels and night clubs of belly-dancers!

4- Hence, the culture of belly-dancing has come back on several levels, by persons who sought speedy profits within the least amount of time possible, under a cover of religiosity that hides immorality and sinning. This culture of belly-dancing and corruption is still until now parallel to the religious clergymen who manipulate their earthly creeds to gain wealth and venal gains to secure their comfort. Both cultures of belly-dancing and spreading falsehoods as a religion are devilish domains moving people away from the righteous path to God. Yet, the sins of female belly-dancers are less in amount and degree in comparison to the profiteering and ill-gotten money of sheikhs and clergy who misguide others by being professionals in lying to God and ascribing falsehoods to Him and to Islam. If belly-dancers and sex workers provide carnal pleasure at a price, clergymen provide mental opium, Middle-Ages-Catholic-like indulgences, wrong concepts, and falsehoods that make one lose both this life and the Afterlife. Even belly-dancers and sex workers might repent, especially in their old age, while religious professionals in media and pulpits and in the press gain more ill-gotten money and their trade flourish more than ever when their hair turn grey with aging. In the Last Day, God might accept the repentance of a sex worker or a belly-dancer if they repent sincerely in a manner deemed acceptable to Him, but God NEVER forgives those who die as polytheists who used to worship mortals and books and things: "God does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives anything less than that to whomever He wills. Whoever associates any deities with God has devised a monstrous sin." (4:48). "God will not forgive that partners be associated with Him; but will forgive anything less than that, to whomever He wills. Anyone who ascribes partners to God has strayed into far error." (4:116). "It was revealed to you, and to those before you, that if you become polytheistic, your works will be in vain, and you will be of the losers." (39:65). Belly-dancers and sex workers might repent sincerely and be accepted by God, but God never guides whoever is a pro in misguiding others in terms of faith and religious beliefs: God tells Muhammad in the Quran: "Even though you may be concerned about their guidance, God does not guide those who misguide…" (16:37). Hence, sheikhs who claim themselves as Ulama (scholars) are in fact Awalim (belly-dancers), with a difference: they can never be guided, this is a hopeless case. They lie to God and scribe falsehoods to Islam with no sense of shame or disgrace. We believe that belly-dancers and sex workers are better than imams/clergymen of the Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi creeds in our modern age, especially the famous ones among the televangelists.

5- The similarity, and difference, between Ulama and Awalim/sex workers is made clearer in our modern age than in the other centuries. Arabs descend more in deeper quagmires of immorality and corruption as much as clergymen/televangelists rise to stardom in their control of everyday life of citizens/believers; every stance and move entails a fatwa (religious edict or view)! Such televangelists (Ulama) control media and satellite channels and even social media now, with no competitors and rivals that vie for people's attention except belly-dancers (Awalim) and sex workers as well as erotic scenes in low visual arts. Hence, religious frauds go hand in hand with moral degeneration and immoral acts in general, with sins done openly or clandestinely according to one's social conditions, set of values, and degree of hypocrisy. Such sins of profligacy are perpetrated within a Sunnite cover of myths linked to the notion of intercession of saints/prophets to male and female sinners/fornicators in the Afterlife to allow them to attain forgiveness after their death, and such myths of intercession are daily propagated by televangelists and ignoramuses in pulpits of mosques, to the profiteering of white slaves, sex workers of all sorts, fornicators, and belly-dancers.

6- Sheikhs and televangelists who are worse than belly-dancers and sex workers are categorized into two types; those who dance and circumambulate around fossilized idols/notions of their forerunners among their ancestors/forefathers of Middle-Ages theologians and scholars, and those who burn the incense and dance to glorify the tyrannical rulers in a given country. Both types are worse than sex workers and male/female belly-dancers; their dances sap their energy and lifetime to hypocritical flatter the current regimes and tyrants as well as to propagate polytheistic notions that deify mortals and things. Hence they have no time and energy left to read new research and innovative notions of religious reform, as they lack talent, reasoning capabilities, and mental faculties, of course. For them, it is sufficient only to repeat ancestral notions of Middle-Ages theology!

7- Within a whole century of their irreligious jihad of misguiding the masses, the belly-dancing televangelists have managed to isolate Arab societies away from modern civilization of the 21^st century, making Arab societies re-live the 8^th and 9^th century A.D. until this very moment! Corrupt clergymen, and all of them are corrupt with no exception, stopped innovative thinking in religious matters, and hence, we have no Islamic thought modernized to cope with modern age, despite their endless media chattering and blabbering about the suitability and compatibility of the Quran with all times and climes and eras.

8- such belly-dancing sheikhs, clergymen, and televangelists in the Arab world, especially in Egypt, suddenly felt shaken to the core by the emergence of Quranism, a peaceful ''protestant'' reformist anti-clerical trend from within Islam, based on the Quran only as (sola scriptura) i.e. the sole book or scripture in Islam. Quranism, as a school of thought, is based on a scientific research methodology: to demolish centuries-old notions and fossilized concept of Middle-Ages religious thought and to rebuild Islamic thought based solely on the Quran and its terminology and notions. Thus, Quranists are iconoclastic free thinkers who destroy mythologies of the Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi creeds whose adherents insist on their being part of Islam while Quranists regard them as creeds that differ 100% from Islam: they are earthly, man-made, fabricated creeds unlinked and unrelated at all to the Quran; they are foreign to Islam and were imposed on it. Another element demolished by Quranists is disbelief in terms of behavior: i.e. aggressive terrorist demeanors and actions deemed by extremists as a form of jihad, but in fact it is terrorist aggressive actions against the innocent people. What Quranists are building is a Quranist vision proposed as an alternative view that asserts the higher values of Islam (i.e., the Quran alone) such as peace, justice, absolute freedom of thought, belief, creed, expression, and politics (i.e., direct democracy), mercy, charity, tolerance, human rights, and human dignity. The innovative unprecedented intellectual project and line of thought of Quranists reached a very important point in exposing the root of all evils of the three earthly man-made creeds imposed on Islam (the Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi once) and their sub-creeds of poisonous notions; via free discussion and critical reevaluation of such bad concepts based on one measure stick (the Quran) along with logical thinking, Quranists have discovered that the evil roots of the three manmade creeds are historical events of Arab conquests and the ensuing civil wars and persons involved in them. This led to fabrications of the endless sayings and oral traditions of the so-called ''hadiths'' ascribed falsely to Muhammad, as well as to fiqh (theology and quasi-religious jurisprudence) endless volumes and tomes that are deemed holy and sanctified despite their being based on human thought, NOT divine revelation. Such uprooting and raking endeavors and intellectual efforts exerted y Quranists have led the imams and mortal gods of the three man-made creeds to unite against Quranism and Quranists to quell and persecute them. They could not refute or confront us on the intellectual level. Yet, no dispute between us and them in basing our intellectual work on the Quran and historical accounts of heritage traditional books of Sunnites to assert our Quranism and they their Sunnite creed, but there is a vast difference between their dancing fluctuation and doubts and eagerness to please the mighty, the wealthy, the powerful, and the absolute rulers on the one hand, and our innovative approach toward a theory of understanding the Quran using its own contexts and terminology to deduce notions. That is why Quranists ignore attacks made on them and accusations leveled against them as 'apostates', 'infidels', and 'renegades', despite their poisonous calls and fatwas to exterminate Quranists by killing them all as heretics!

9- We, Quranists, have two Quranic options to respond to our attackers and accusers; we may defend ourselves against their verbal abuse by verbally abusing them sometimes, or some other times by charitably forgiving them as we regard them as ignoramuses led like cattle by a blind shepherd, and both responses are urged in the Quran, with the second option preferred: "The repayment of a bad action is one equivalent to it. But whoever pardons and makes reconciliation, his reward lies with God. He does not love the unjust." (42:40). In addition, Quranists never reach the Sunnites' and Shiites' levels of verbal insults, the call to kill all Quranists all over the globe, and accusations of being rejecters and deniers of faith and of being heretics and apostates. The reason of our calm reactions to our attackers and detractors is our peaceful reformatory endeavor and intellectual jihad within cyberspace to clarify Quranic facts often forgotten, in order to give advice and admonish others to differentiate between 1) real Islam (the Quran) and 2) criminal behavior of terror and aggression and polytheistic notion, hoping to dispel and debunk myths of deluded and deceived millions before they die as disbelievers and polytheists without their knowing it. After Quranists clarify Islam as they see it, they leave others to decide and choose for themselves freely, waiting for God's judgment in the Last Day. Our method is to preaching them using the Quranic methodology of guiding people: "Say, "O my people! Work according to your ability and so will I." You will come to know to whom will belong the sequel of the abode." The wrongdoers will not prevail." (6:135). ""O my people, do as you may, and so will I. You will know to whom will come a punishment that will shame him, and who is a liar. So look out; I am on the lookout with you."" (11:93). "And say to those who do not believe, "Act according to your ability; and so will we." "And wait; we too are waiting."" (11:121-122). "Say: "O my people, work according to your ability; and so will I. Then you will know. Who will receive a humiliating punishment, and on whom will fall a lasting torment." We sent down upon you the Book for humankind in truth. He who follows guidance does so for the good of his soul. And he who strays in error does so to its detriment. You are not their overseer." (39:39-41).

10- Those Azharite belly-dancing sheikhs, clergymen, and televangelists as well as their followers hold two silly, easy-to-refute points against Quranists, repeated ad infinitum ad nauseam since the late 1970s: 1) Are all current Muslims polytheists and disbelievers in deed, while Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour and other Quranists the only ones on the right side of true Islam?! 2) Why Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour and other Quranists propagate notions unsaid before by ancient imams?! Were all the ancient imams and scholars on the wrong and he and his Quranists the only ones on the right?!

11- The basis of the two above-mentioned easy-to-refute asinine remarks/points held against Quranists is that the culture of those belly-dancing clergymen acknowledges and judges what is deemed ''apparently'' true by the stature of its teller/writer, NOT by the content and embedded meanings of what is being said or written regardless of its human source. For instance, if the Egyptian Wahabi sheikh Qaradawi uttered a word, it is deemed ''true'' due to his renown and sate of being sanctified in the Sunnite world, even if his word is against the Quran (i.e., the only book within Islam) and against logic and reason; the same applies to well-known authoritative Shiite imams, like Khomeini, in Iran, within the Shiite circles. Another striking example is Al-Bokhary in his books of falsehoods, when he claimed that Muhammad was obsessed with sex and women and he allowed fornication in some instances! Despite this falsehood against the Quran and Muhammad, Al-Bokhary is believed as infallible, sanctified, and deified by the Sunnites all over the globe! We refuted this and many other falsehoods of Al-Bokhary in our book published here online titled "The Quran Is Enough" and in our episodes/videos uploaded here titled "Exposing Salafism". Thus, the major trouble within the Arab world and its religious habits is that truth is directly linked to imams/clergymen, dead or alive, within the creeds of the Sunnites, Shiites, and Sufis. When Quranist refute and debunk such falsities and myths by discussion and dialogue, they are accused as ''nobodies'' who are interfering in faith and attacking their ''Islam''! Yet, Quranists use logic and the Quranic verses in their refutations and discussions in all issues, but Quranists are always accused of ''contempt of religion'' and ''defamation of Islam'' a crime punishable either by years of imprisonment or by death at the hands of fanatics or the riff-raff! Sunnites, for instance, do not care to examine our Quranist views; what matters to them is NOT the content of what is being presented, but WHO is presenting these views! They think that the right views come ONLLY from a 'holy' sanctified person, dead or alive, deified by them!

12- Their logic in refusing Quranism is like the logic of disbelievers descried in the Quran; the disbelievers during the lifetime of Muhammad wondered why so humble a person would receive divine revelation of the Quran. They deemed as 'grand' only wealthy men like Abou Sufyan, Abou Lahab, and Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, the major criminals of their times! God mentions in the Quran their faulty logic: "They also said, "If only this Quran was revealed to a man of importance from the two cities."" (43:31). The cities here means Mecca and Yathreb, but within the Quranic terminology, the words 'city' and 'village' means any given gathering of humans in one location; i.e., any given society. Societies are often ruled by criminals and sinners among the affluent, arrogant, and haughty ones, who hate divine guidance and cast doubts on it if conveyed by humble persons; they begrudge the fact that God had not chosen them to guide others: "And thus We set up in every city its leading wicked sinners, to conspire in it, but they conspire only against themselves, and they do not realize it. When a sign comes to them, they say, "We will not believe unless we are given the like of what was given to God's messengers." God knows best where to place His message. Humiliation from God and severe torment will afflict the criminals for their scheming." (6:123-124). That was why the affluent ones felt contempt toward Muhammad during his lifetime, mocking his humble appearance: "When those who disbelieve see you, they treat you only with ridicule: "Is this the one who mentions your gods?"…" (21:36). "And when they see you, they take you for nothing but mockery: "Is this the one God sent as a messenger?"" (25:41). Thus, disbelievers of Qorayish had said to Muhammad what is being said to Quranists: (Who are you to talk in this unprecedented manner, opposing our ancestors?!), as we discern the same attitude in the following verse: "We never heard of this in the former faith. This is nothing but a fabrication.Was the message sent down to him, out of all of us?"…" (38:7-8). When Quranists quote the Quranic verses, they are attacked with the same logic of: ''We never read that our reverent ancient ancestral scholars had written such views!"

13- The other point, about the views of the vast majority set against those of Quranists who constitute a minority in terms of the numbers of those who acknowledge the Quran as the Word of God, is refuted easily; the Sunnites have this myth of unanimous views that unite the Umma (i.e., literally, a nation: a Sunnite term that means Sunnites in general, as opposed to non-Sunnites), despite the historical fact that unanimity in any political or religious matter has never been achieved in the past or present within Sunnites, who waged several wars within the last 13 centuries, with dire consequences!

14- In fact, the number of those who consider themselves as 'Muslims' – or at least in ID cards – exceeds 1.5 billion persons all over the world, deemed as Sunnites, Shiites, or Sufis. The vast majority of them, as per Quranists, are misguided ignoramuses with polytheistic erroneous notions of faith. This fact is indeed asserted by God in the Quran; God describes most human beings as misguided in terms of faith and belief, and as rejecters of the divine truth and faith that they refuse to accept and reflect upon, and even most of those who believe in God ascribe other mortals deities to Him; they are polytheists even if they do not know it. This vast majority of human being is in Quranic terminologies described as ''Man'', ''the human being", and ''Humanity'', linked in several verses with denial of faith as opponents to God. We cannot hear quote all these verses; let us here quote one of them: God says to Muhammad the following: "If you were to obey most of those on earth, they would divert you from God's path. They follow nothing but assumptions, and they only conjecture." (6:116). This means that not only the vast majority of human beings are misguided ones, but also they tend to misguide others around them as well; they could have misguide and divert Muhammad himself if he were to obey them! Let alone ordinary believers! Would we believe this verse as God says nothing but the Truth, or would we choose to deny the Quran and ascribe falsehoods and lies to God as done by the belly-dancing sheikhs/clergymen and televangelists of Sunnites and Shiites?

15- God describes in the Quran such corrupt inveterate liars of clergymen and their ancient imams as ''criminals'' who commit injustices against God Himself: "Who does greater wrong than someone who fabricates lies about God, or denies His revelations? The criminals will never prosper." (10:17). "Who does greater wrong than he who invents lies about God, or denies His revelations?..." (7:37). "…Who does greater wrong than he who invents lies and attributes them to God, in order to mislead people without knowledge? God does not guide the unjust people." (6:144). "…Who then does greater wrong than he who gives the lie to God's verses, and turns away from them? We will repay those who turn away from Our verses with the worst kind of punishment, because of their turning away." (6:157). God says in the Quran about the inveterate liars who ascribe falsehoods to God the following: "Who does greater wrong than he who fabricates lies about God? These will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, "These are they who lied about their Lord." Indeed, the curse of God is upon the wrongdoers. Those who hinder others from the path of God, and seek to make it crooked; and regarding the Hereafter, they are in denial." (11:18-19). These verses, of course, apply to belly-dancing clergymen of today and of the past. God promised His messengers and true faithful believers and witnesses with divine support: "Most surely We will support Our messengers and those who believe, in this life, and on the Day the witnesses arise. The Day when their excuses will not profit the wrongdoers, and the curse will be upon them, and they will have the Home of Misery." (40:51-52). We hope that we, Quranists would be among witnesses against our contemporaries in the Last Day.

16- Those witnesses described in the above-mentioned verses are very few within human beings; likewise, those who believe truly in a manner acceptable to God and do good deeds accepted by God are a minority among humanity in general, as per the Quran itself: "…except those who believe and do good deeds, but these are so few…" (38:24). Such minority of people includes witnesses and non-witnesses, and they will be divided into two groups, both small in number, in the Last Day as per their faith and deeds: 1) ''the forerunners'' and 2) ''those on the right'', as per the Quranic Chapter 56: "And the forerunners, the forerunners, those are the nearest in the Garden of Bliss, a throng from the ancients and a small band from the latecomers…" (56:11-14). "…for those on the right, a throng from the ancients, and a throng from the latecomers…" (56:38-40).

Lastly:

This is the status of the vast majority and the small minority within human beings as per guidance, within Quranic facts. Once again, we pose the same question: Would we believe these verses as God says nothing but the Truth, or would we choose to deny the Quran and ascribe falsehoods and lies to God as done by the belly-dancing sheikhs/clergymen and televangelists of Sunnites and Shiites who brag of their being the vast majority of ''Muslims''? in fact, all clergy are the worst type of humankind all over the globe in our modern age. Our conditions nowadays in the Arab world assert the veracity of Quranic verses, as they represent absolute Truths, despite any lies revered and adhered to by those belly-dancing clergymen and televangelists.

The best discourse: "But whoever turns away from My Reminder, for him is a confined life. And We will raise him on the Day of Resurrection blind."He will say, "My Lord, why did You raise me blind, though I was seeing?"He will say, "Just as Our revelations came to you, and you forgot them, today you will be forgotten."Thus We recompense him who transgresses and does not believe in the revelations of his Lord. The punishment of the Hereafter is more severe, and more lasting." (20:124-127). God says nothing but the Truth.

CONTENTS:

CONTENTS:

INTRODCTION 9

SECTION I: Companions of Arab Conquests: An Introduction to SECTION I

Chapter 1 Arab Conquests are the basic and the beginning of Violation 10

Firstly: Arab Conquests Were a Violation of both Self-Defense Fighting Legislation in the Quran and the Sacred Months. 11

Secondly: Arab Conquests Companions Were More Infidel than Men of Pre-Islamic Era and their Postponement of Months. 12

Thirdly: Arab Conquests Were the Foundations of the Earthly, Man-Made Creeds of the Muhammadans. 13

Fourthly: Arab Conquests Companions Were More Infidel than Disciples of Jesus. 14

Lastly: Cool your Nerves. 16

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among the Forerunners and Those on the Right: 18

Firstly: Types of Companions between the Quran and History. 18

Secondly: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among the Forerunners from the Immigrants and the Yathreb Dwellers. 19

Thirdly: Arab Conquests Companions Were Not among Those on the Right. 21

Fourthly: Why the Forerunners Were above those on the Right. 21

Fifthly: The Forerunners and Those on the Right Were Unknown and Obscure, and Never among the Elite Leading Men like Arab Conquests Companions. 22

Lastly. 25

Firstly: Immigrant Companions from the Qorayish Tribe Who Were Still Loyal to Qorayish.26

Secondly: Immigrant Companions from the Qorayish Tribe Who Were Non-Repentant Disobedient Sinners. 27

Thirdly: Various Non-Repentant Companions. 28

Fourthly: Repentance is the Criterion, and Arab Conquests Companions Never Repented. 29

Fifthly: How God in the Quran Predicts that Arab Conquests Leaders Will Not Repent. 30

Firstly: Abou Bakr Who Accompanied Muhammad in the Cave. 32

Secondly: Muhammad Tended to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers. 33

Thirdly: Reasons of Muhammad's Tendency to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers. 35

Fourthly: Political Conditions Entailed that Muhammad Was to Accompany Rich Polytheists, and Not Poor Believers. 36

Lastly: The Intended Meaning behind the Previously Mentioned. 38

SECTION II: The Cunning of Qorayish Tribesmen Led to the Arab Conquests

CHAPTER I: Arab Conquests Companions Were Fashioned by the Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe, and Not by Islam: 39

Introduction: The Pharaonic Qorayish Tribe. 39

Firstly: Moses' Pharaoh's People Were Imams of All Tyrants and So Were Qorayish

Tribesmen. 40

Secondly: The Qorayish and the Pharaonic Tyranny. 41

Thirdly: The Fearsomeness of Moses' Pharaoh and the Fearsomeness of Qorayish. 41

Fourthly: The Cunning of Moses' Pharaoh and the Cunning of Qorayish. 42

Fifthly: Plotting and Conspiring of Ancient People. 44

Lastly. 44

CHAPTER II: Arab Conquests Companions Were Agents Sent by Qorayish to Spy on Muhammad and to Remain Near him: 46

Introduction: Between the Pharaonic Cunning and the Qorayish Cunning. 46

Firstly: It Is Noteworthy. 46

Secondly: The Various Types of the Qorayish Cunning that Could Eliminate Mountains. 48

Thirdly: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Driving Early Muslims out of Mecca. 49

Fourthly: Planting Spying Agents around Muhammad. 50

Lastly. 52

CHAPTER III: The Qorayish Cunning Manifested by Manipulating Bedouins against Muhammad and the Early Muslims: 54

Firstly: A Summary of the Quranic Chapter Eight. 54

Secondly: The Qorayish Cunning and the Manipulation of Bedouins to Fight Muhammad. 57

CHAPTER IV: The Cunning of Qorayish behind the First Civil Wars: 61

Firstly: The Calm before the Storm. 61

Secondly: Qorayish Made Use of Islam to Dominate over Arabia after Loss of the Importance of Mecca in Trade. 62

Thirdly: Evidence from Written Historical Accounts. 63

Lastly. 66

CHAPTER V: Abou Sufyan Was the Head of the Qorayish Cunning: 68

Firstly: Abou Sufyan the Director. 68

Secondly: Overlooking the Role of Abou Sufyan in Plotting against Muhammad in Mecca. 69

Thirdly: The Stature of Abou Sufyan inside and outside Mecca at the Time. 71

Fourthly: Abou Sufyan restored his Stature after a late Conversion to Islam. 72

Fifthly: Abou Sufyan Coveted the Levant.

74

CHAPTER VI: Khaled And Amr Were Agents of Abou Sufyan 76

Firstly: The Cunning of Abou Sufyan that Could Eliminate Mountains. 76

Secondly: Between Amr and Khaled. 76

Thirdly: Amr Ibn Al-'As. 78

Fourthly: Khaled Ibn Al-Waleed Ibn Al-Mughira, and Historical Accounts about him linked to Muhammad. 78

Lastly. 80

SECTION III: The Cunning of Qorayish with Arab Conquests Companions 82

CHAPTER I: Omar Was the Primary Agent of Abou Sufyan 82

Introduction: Which Is More Precious and Holy: Islam or Omar, or rather, The Quran or the Falsehoods of the Sunnite Accounts that Deify and Sanctify Omar? 82

Firstly: We Begin by Stressing Some Quranic Facts. 82

Secondly: Abou Jahl Was the Maternal Uncle of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. 84

Thirdly: Omar's Sudden Conversion to Islam. 84

Fourthly: The Joy of Early Muslims due to Omar's Conversion to Islam. 86

Fifthly: The Relation between Omar and Abou Sufyan during Muhammad's Lifetime.

88

CHAPTER II: Omar during the Caliphate of Abou Bakr: 90

Introduction: A Vision Concerning the Plotting of Abou Sufyan. 90

Firstly: Omar Was the Orchestrator of Appointing Abou Bakr as Caliph and Marginalizing of Yathreb Dwellers, and How Omar Killed Saad Ibn Eibada. 90

Secondly: Omar and the Marginalization of Ali and the Hashemites. 92

Thirdly: Omar Threatened to Burn down the House of Ali and his wife Fatima. 92

Fourthly: When Did Ali Swore Allegiance and Fealty to Abou Bakr? 93