INTRODCUTION

 European Christianity has been based on oppressing, military attacking, and committing aggression against others; this is exemplified by aggressions committed by the Christian Romans, the Spanish, the Americans, and the Serbians and Croatians in modern times. This European application of Christianity contradicts the Egyptian application of it; the Coptic Orthodox Christianity of Egypt is based on bearing patiently with injustices and submission to the unjust ones without ever revolting against them unless when injustices may go too far. Thus, the human application of the principles of both Christianity and Islam is changed as per the dominant culture of a given society or country; hence, we see features of Europe (i.e., seeking dominance, invasion, and money) in European Christianity, whereas the features of Egyptian Christianity are derived from the agricultural nature of Egypt and its peace-loving dwellers of the Nile Valley. Likewise, the Egyptian 'Islam' differs a great dealt from the application of 'Islam'  by desert-dwellers and Bedouins who are violent by nature and live in, e.g., Arabia, Algeria, and Afghanistan. The Iranian application of 'Islam' is influenced by the dominant culture of Persian mythology and tenets that are repeated within new appellations in the Shiite religion. Consequently, the different applications, patterns, and readings of Christianity in many eras and locations (colored by nature and culture) are repeated within Islam by the Muhammadans. The only difference now is that people in the West have cleared the name of Christianity of crimes perpetrated by the vast majority of those who claimed to be Christians throughout the past centuries till the crimes committed in the middle of the 20^th century; i.e., from the Roman times till the times of the Americans and Serbs. Yet, the west people do not hesitate to make Islam responsible for the heinous crimes perpetrated by Wahabi terrorist organizations whose members are few thousands, and thus are nothing in comparison to 1.5 billion of the Muslims on the planet, whom we call the Muhammadans. The Wahabi ideology of wickedness is the one responsible for most of the terrorist crimes worldwide, and this evil religion of Satan, Wahabism, is spread and protected against criticism worldwide by the powerful and rich KSA, under the pretext of proselytizing 'Islam' and under the guise that Wahabism were 'real' Islam! Wahabi terrorism is partially a reaction to terrorism practiced for centuries by European Christian colonizers of Arab countries. The USA is partially responsible for Wahabi terrorism; the 'Christian' USA made use of Wahabi extremists within the war against communism in Afghanistan. Thus, the Americans allied themselves with Wahabi devils to combat the communist regimes (in Russia and elsewhere), and then, the Wahabis have turned against the USA now. This political manipulation of the Wahabi devilish religion that contradicts Islam in every aspect has incited Wahabi terrorism now linked falsely to Islam in worldwide media. It is unjust to make Islam responsible for atrocities of Wahabi terrorists funded by the KSA by making worldwide media call such Wahabi terrorists as 'Islamists' and their wicked agenda as 'Islamism'. We have spent more than 30 years of our life refuting the myth of ascribing Wahabi notions and terrorism to Islam (i.e., the Quran), using Quranic proofs and historical evidence within our scientific research. It is indeed a pleasure to us to summarize these intellectual endeavors of three decades in this book that you are reading now. The preliminary chapter of this book tackles what real Islam (Quranism) is, in a simple way to introduce the idea how Islam contradicts the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans, especially the Sunnite Wahabi religion of terrorism.                      

Our research methodology:

Firstly: we assert the following points:

1- We have written a lot about showing the contradiction between the Quran (i.e., the Only Book in Islam) and the books sanctified by the  Muhammadans, and this contradiction is reflected in human rights, relations with others, etc.  

2- The Quranic sharia legislations precede their era in asserting (in the 7th century A.D.) freedom, direct democracy, human rights, women's rights, citizenship rights, and tolerance, and this contradicted the dominant culture of tyranny and injustices of the Middle-Ages in Arabia and later on in the East of the Muhammadans and the Christian West. Both sides fought one another many times during the Middle-Ages, and each had warring doctrines and internal sects and groups that fought against one another within an atmosphere of religious mythology, theocracies, and doctrinal conflicts. This is why imams and clergymen of Muhammadans rejected the essence of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and invented their fiqh (i.e., jurisprudence) to fit the dominant culture of hegemony, tyranny, violence, and corruption. They deliberately misinterpreted the Quranic verses and invented and fabricated 'revelations' they ascribed forcibly to religion, naming them as fiqh laws and hadiths ascribed to God, to Muhammad, and to Sufi, Sunnite, and Shiites 'holy' imams. These earthly, ma-made religions were forged and adulterated ones that falsely raise the banner/label of Islam but in fact they carry the flavor of the bad features and aspects of the Middle-Ages culture and its clergymen: tyranny, corruption, violence, and enslavement.          

3- The Europeans have liberated themselves from the dominant Middle-Ages culture and they have followed the path of human rights and democracy. Egypt in the 19^th century was influenced by this European renaissance and introduced secular reform by following the footsteps of the West; yet, when Wahabism emerged in the Najd region in Arabia, resulting in the establishment of the very first Saudi state in the 18^th century, the inevitable conflict occurred between Egypt of the renaissance and the Wahabi Saudi state that insisted to make the Muhammadans return by force to the Middle-Ages culture of aggression, violence, and bloodshed. The Egyptian army defeated Saudi troops and made the first Saudi state collapse in 1818 A.D. Within the rule of the king Muhammad Ali Pacha and his sons, who were his successors to the throne, Egypt began its route of renaissance, secularism, and reform; yet, the political, international, regional factors and conditions aborted this renaissance and helped in the establishment of the third current Saudi state in 1932 A.D., and oil has been discovered in the KSA which allied itself to the USA. Within the power of both Saudi oil and American dollars, Wahabism spread all over the world as if it were Islam, as Wahabis have hijacked the name of Islam; this resulted in millions of victims who paid the heavy price since the emergence of Wahabism till the present day. The first and biggest victim is Islam itself, of course, whose name is hijacked by Wahabi terrorists and criminals. Because of the Saudi/Wahabi authority and dominance worldwide, any Muslim thinkers who question, refute, and undermine Wahabism, by showing how it contradicts the Quran, are severely persecuted.        

4- Higher values and principles of the West are exactly the ones mentioned in the Quranic text. This fact was first mentioned by the Egyptian reformist thinker Muhammad Abdou (who died in 1905 A.D.) who headed Al-Azhar, when he visited Europe and lived for a while in France. M. Abdou discovered that the higher values of the European civilization match the higher values in the Quran (the only source of Islam). These Quranic higher values have been rejected by the Muhammadans for centuries as we see in their history, culture, and behavior/deeds. M. Abdou said his famous phrase: (In Europe, I have found Islam but no Muslims). M. Abdou meant to day that he found Islamic/Quranic values in the West culture, whereas the Muhammadans in Egypt and in the Arab world were very far from the essence of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and its higher values, though they label themselves as 'Muslims'. The same phrase of M. Abdou occurs to our mind as we live as a political asylee here in the USA since 2001, enjoying my freedom of thought and my religious freedom after 25 years of being persecuted inside Egypt by its president, government, and Al-Azhar institution as well as by the terrorist MB members and Salafists who are both Wahabis. The fiercest among our foes have been the MB members, who hated very much our reformist views and intellectual endeavors to reform the Muhammadans peacefully using the Quran (the Quranism theory: Quran is the only source of Islam). This persecution was inflicted on our person and on others who hold different view than those of the terrorist MB organization that spread only the earthly, man-made religion called Wahabism, which is the new name of the extremist Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine. This religious persecution contradicts Islam (i.e., Qurnaism) and the higher Quranic values that include absolute religious freedom.         

5- Scientifically, methodologically, and based on thorough research, we must put a clear barrier to differentiate between Islam (i.e., Qurnaism) and the Wahabi man-made religion; Wahabism is the cause of most terrorism worldwide: in both Arab world and in the West. The methodology adopted in this book that you are reading now is based on getting to know Islam through understanding the Quranic text, and then, we objectively research the history of the Muhammadans from the era of the Qorayish caliphs to that of the Ottoman caliphs in this PART ONE of the book. PART TWO of the book tackles the emergence and spread of the Wahabi religion that falsely and forcibly carry the name/label of Islam.   

6- There is a certain method of understanding the Quran and another one to understand history and heritage of the Muhammadans and their man-made, earthly religions with their  sharia/fiqh legislations. Let us provide below this brief overview for further explanation.

Secondly: the Quran has no different layers/aspects of meanings:

1- The totally wrong method adopted by theological studies at Al-Azhar institution to understand the Quran is by using terminology of heritage books, fatwas, hadiths, and narratives of ancient authors of the Middle-Ages. Of course, every past era has its different sets of terms, and this Azharite method leads to misunderstanding the Quran because of so many contradictions and discrepancies in terminology sets of every school of thought and every fiqh of different doctrines, etc. Sadly and illogically, the ancient fiqh scholars (and Azharite clergymen after them) justify these contradictions and discrepancies resulting from this erroneous approach to the Quranic text by asserting a phrase presumably uttered by the fourth caliph, Ali Ibn Abou Talib, which is as follows: (the Quran has different layers of meanings). This means that any Azharite fiqh scholars/researchers of today would easily choose views or proofs from ancient books as per their whims to support their viewpoints, while focusing on certain decontextualized Quranic verses to serve their purposes while disregarding Quranic verses that refute their viewpoints in their research topic, while quoting the silly phrase that some Sunnite fiqh scholars and historians falsely attribute to Ali. We personally are quite sure that Ali had no time or brains to say such an illogical, heretic phrase insulting to the Quran, as he was busy with political unrest and civil war.     

2- This fiqh phrase is insulting to the Quran; the Quranic text can NEVER have a view and its opposite view simultaneously about the same issue so that one might quote verses supporting one view and another person might quote verses supporting the opposite view within the same topic.

3- This illogical view ascribed falsely to Ali contradicts what God says in the Quran about the Quran itself as the Book containing the Final Message from God to humanity. God describes the Quranic verses as precise (see 11:1), and this means that each verse has a definite, direct, straightforward meaning, without twisting or roundabout manner of expression (see 39:28, 18:1, 6:126, and 6:153). The Quran is a Book with no contradictions at all; see 4:82.  

4- If the Quran contain no contradictory verses and notions, how come that fiqh scholars quote verses that apparently support their views and refute those of other scholars? The answer is simple; the methodology they adopt in understanding the Quran using Sunnite, Sufi, or Shiite sets of terminology (that differ from one era to another and in many cases from one Middle-Ages author to another!)and this leads a scholar to choose decontextualized Quranic verses (and phrases from inside long Quranic verses) and to deliberately misinterpret them and twist their meanings whimsically to serve their biases and purposes/interests within the topic at hand. This is how theologians and scholars who hold different views and debate with one another quote verses to 'support' discrepancies and contradictory opinions and misuse the Quran under the pretext of the phrase ascribed falsely to Ali.  

The scientific methodology to understand the Quran:

1- We, a Quranist Muslim thinker and researcher, adopt the scientific and academic methodology of research to understand the Quran; this way, we are 100% percent sure that the Quran contains no contradictions at all. 

2- The scientific methodology imposes on researchers that they are not to begin their research by personal biases and prejudice and that if they are researching a certain book, they must adhere to the set of terminology found in that book as well as its notions and concepts. The reason: the terminology used by the authors of books are like a contract or an agreement made between them and the readers; they are to stick to them to understand the pattern of ideas and facts of the book at hand and the topic of research. This is the core of the scientific methodology of research within books and sources authored by any persons. This very scientific methodology of research must be adopted when we research and ponder on the Quranic text.

3- God commands believers in the Quran to ponder its verses; see 47:24, 4:82, and 23:68. The scientific methodology of pondering the Quran is to make any Quranic verse your imam; you must follow it directly without any prejudices or prior views you are trying to prove. Do not use or adopt any other notions, rules, or concepts from outside the Quranic text; approach God's verses as objectively and neutrally as possible in order to get to know the pure Quranic view of any given topic or issue. Researchers must gather and collect all the verses related to the topic at hand, and then, they must decide which are the definitive verses and which are the similar verses that assert the same facts (in detail) of the definitive ones (which are more concise and brief). This shows that the Quran is a Book that has concise, brief verses that are detailed in other verses by the Omniscient God: "We have given them a Book, which We detailed with knowledge - guidance and mercy for people who believe." (7:52).  

4- Hence, following the Azharite corrupt method of using concepts and terminology of centuries-old books leads researchers to select decontextualized Quranic verses (of phrases of long verses) whimsically to distort meanings and support any biased views which will be against Quranic facts; this method contradicts the Quran and the scientific method of research, and it is the cause of the emergence of so many doctrines that argue against one another in useless debates and conflicts. Thus, the only scientific method of research to understand the Quran is using its own set of terminology while seeking guidance from God and seeking the Quranic Truth, even if it contradicts common religious views. As a Quranist researcher, we assert here that we have discovered that Quranic terms or terminology contradicts those of books of fiqh, hadiths, heritage, history, and traditions. It is unjust to use sets of terminology of such Middle-Ages authors to understand the Quran; this is against the scientific research methodology as well. We have followed the objective scientific research methodology within our pondering the Quran for more than 30 years and within our study of books of traditions, and we provide below brief examples of the contradictions and differences between Quranic terminology and sets of terminology in Middle-Ages books of traditions.

1- The Arabic/Quranic word for "religion" originally means (the path). Linguistically, this path might be a tangible, physical one or a figurative one, a straight one or a twisted one. In the figurative sense, the path/religion is one's relation with God. The word path/religion in the physical sense of (route) is used in this verse within the self-defense fighting in Yathreb: "It is not advisable for the believers to march out altogether. Of every division that marches out, let a group march out first, to gain information about the route, and to notify their people when they have returned to them, that they may beware." (9:122). It is silly that Sunnites imagine that this verse might indicate 'companions' leaving Muhammad in Yathreb to get educated about religion/faith outside Yathreb; polytheism resided in other cities, while Islam is in Yathreb. Yet, Azharite traditional books make this verse means (let a group remain behind, to gain knowledge of the religion)! Besides, Sunnite clergymen and theologian assume that the term ''knowledge'' is confined to theological branches; yet, in the Quran, it means (2) to get knowledge of the Quran, and (2) to research and use one's mental faculties to study the physical, natural world.

2- The Arabic term "Sunna" means legislations and issuing laws, and in the Quran, it means ONLY Quranic legislations and laws, even regarding things related to Muhammad (see 33:38) and this Quranic term is ascribed ONLY in all verses to God, whereas Muhammad is a role-model and an example to follow (see 33:21). The term Sunna, ascribed always to God, has another meaning in the Quran; i.e., God's way/method in dealing with polytheists by punishing and tormenting them (see 33:62, 35:43, and 48:23). In the books of the Sunnite religion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam (i.e., Quranism), the term ''Sunna'' refers only to the so-called hadiths fabricated and falsely attributed to Muhammad so many decades after his death and written down more than 200 years after his death. We have talked a lot about this in other writings of ours.  

3- The traditional term "companions" for Sunnites means those 'Muslim' men and women surrounding Muhammad during his lifetime in Mecca and in Yathreb, including his friends, and they are deified as saints! The Quranic term "companion(s)"/"friend(s)" means simply anyone who was contemporary and near someone else in the same era and location. The Quran repeats the fact that Muhammad was a friend/companion to the polytheists; see 53:2, 34:46, and 81:22. 

4- The term "Naskh" in the Quran means to assert, write, and repeat, whereas in the Sunnite books and terminology, it means to delete, replace, and omit.

5- The Arabic/Quranic verb "to rule" in the Quranic text means to judge (as in arbitration) and to issue judgments or verdicts in courts, whereas the silly Sunnite scholars in their books make this verb refer to political rule or theocracy! 

6- The Quranic phrase "those of authority among you" does NOT refer to rulers or governors at all as Sunnite scholars claim; rather, it refers to those with expertise in certain fields who are consulted for the benefit of a given nation or community; see 4:59 and 4:83. 

7- The Quranic terms "limits/rules" means God's sharia laws and legislations, but the Sunnite fiqh, these terms means corporeal punishments and penalties!

8- The Quranic term "hated" refers to the strictly forbidden and prohibited deeds (e.g., murder, fornication, disbelief, and immorality). Yet, in Sunnite books, the same term is used to indicate permissible items or deeds that one is preferably to avoid!

9- The Quranic term "loved" refers to duties and obligations ordained by God, imposed on pious believers; e.g., see 39:7, whereas the same term for Sunnites refer to any permissible items which are OK to discard and not to perform as they are not obligatory!

10- The term (Taazeer) in the Sunnite books means public humiliation and penalties exacted on 'sinners' by fiqh scholars, but this term and its derivation in the Quranic text mean to support God and His messenger; see 48:9, 5:12, and 5:12.  

 There are so many other examples that show that the Sunnite books contradict the Quran in many issues such as concepts of faith, belief, polytheism, disbelief, Shura consultation, and stances regarding women, the People of the Book, human rights, higher values, etc. We have given details of these aspects in our previous writings to prove how Middle-Ages Sunnites distorted meanings of Quranic verses and disregarded many Quranic sharia laws and legislations and the Quranic methodology of stories of ancient nations. In fact, these Sunnites have established ma-made laws and legislations that contradict the Quranic ones, and in order to add sham and fake credibility to their fabrications, they have ascribed them falsely to Muhammad and to God under the label (Sunna hadiths), which is the basis for the emergence of terrorists of our era like Osama Bin Laden, Omar Abdel-Rahman, Al-Zawahiri, etc.    

The problematic aspect of researching books of traditions:

1- The major problem of the so-called 'Islamic' studies of Sunnite books is how to deal with sources; most researchers mix between the absolute facts of the Quranic Truth and narratives/hadiths in Sunnite books. By the way. Hadiths when they were oral traditions fabricated by many men before they were written down in the Abbasid Era were only called (narratives). The term itself implies that such history might be true or false, and consequently doubted and never 100% ascertained to be true, and therefore, they are part of history and NOT of religion. Yet, the unjust fabricators of hadiths invented series of narrators (i.e., Isnad) to stop people casting on their lies and falsehoods and to lend sham credibility or authenticity on their narratives as if they were uttered by Muhammad; yet, many scholars in later eras cast doubt on such narrators and their honesty and memory. Thus, all hadiths are doubted or verified based on whims of scholars within certain doctrines, and those authors vied for undermining hadiths of the foes of the other doctrines. Eventually, we conclude that all hadiths are never 100% certain as part of history, and they are NEVER part of Islam, as religion must be based only on the Quranic Truth from God. Thus, faith and beliefs cannot be based on mere oral narratives. It is noteworthy that imams of fiqh and hadiths who lived in the First Abbasid Era, more than 200 years after Muhammad's death, never ascribed hadiths to Muhammad directly; rather, they were keen on memorizing the series of narrators to assert that these man-made narratives might be true or false, as fabrications of this type were so many by different men in many decades and locations, and in many cases, when series of narrators were not found or verified, the passive voice is used in phrases like: (it was said that the Prophet said that...). Within the era of imitation and intellectual stagnation in the 7^th century A.H. onwards (i.e., within the Mameluke and the Ottoman eras: 1250-1850), fiqh scholars never resorted to innovation; rather, they kept studying, summarizing, interpreting, and explaining books of ancient authors, who became revered and sanctified as demi-gods, and their views became sacrosanct despite so many discrepancies and contradictions. It was prohibited at the time to question, refute, or disagree with such views of Abbasid-Era authors. Within such regressive eras of blind imitation, the fake narratives/hadiths about Muhammad gradually became part and parcel of religion, within the absence of critical mind and within stagnant intellectual life; people no longer care even about series of narrators and began to write/say: (The prophet said that...). The era of blind imitation and stagnation has ended when M. Abdou (1849-1905), head of Al-Azhar, began an age of intellectual renaissance regarding religious thought, and he travelled to Tunisia and Algeria, among other countries, to spread his enlightened thought. Of course, this enlightenment in religious thought in Egypt was directly linked to liberal atmosphere and political movements inside Egypt and the Arab world at the time. It was very much hoped that such new trends of thought on all levels would bear fruit and evolve into full-fledged reform and renaissance that would make the Muhammadans return to real Islam (i.e., the Quran) and to become Muslims. Yet, such intellectual endeavors were aborted when the KSA emerged with its cursed Wahabism that revived the worst Sunnite/Salafist doctrine of backwardness, terrorism, violence, obscurantism, extremism, and bigotry: the Ibn Hanbal doctrine. The Saudi oil revenues helped to spread Wahabism worldwide labeled as 'Islam', as if it were Islam, though it contradicts the Quran in almost everything. The spread of Wahabism has been aided and supported by local, regional, and international conditions, and Wahabism now dominates most of the Muhammadans. This resulted in accusing Islam of being the cause of terrorism and backwardness. This is what Arabs suffer now as they need immediate religious reform, before other types of reform (political, legislative, etc.). Among the features of such Wahabi backwardness that dominates the Arab world now is to revive the Ottoman-Era ways of thinking: the same era when M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab lived in Najd, Arabia. We allude here to the fact that no one at the time (and now) would even care to mention the so-called series of narrators of hadiths; the Wahabi clergymen would say/write directly: (The Prophet said that...). This is silly; as if the writer/preacher was sitting with Muhammad moments ago! No one now would dare to say that such narratives are relative and might be true or false, and therefore, never to be deemed as part of the religion of Islam. Sadly, most Muhammadans now assume that such contradictory narratives/hadiths are part of religion, and they forget that Islam is ONLY the Quran. The hadiths/narratives were fabricated to reflect the dominant culture of certain eras and certain authors in the Middle-Ages, when they were authored and written down in books. Thus, the Al-Bokhary book reflects ONLY the mentality of the author named Al-Bokhary and his era. Likewise, our writings (of Dr. A. S. Mansour) reflect our culture, mentality, and era. Eventually, such Sunnite writings are part of human intellectual history and heritage, but NOT a part of Islam, and the Sunnite man-made earthly religion is ascribed falsely to God and to Islam, though all Sunnite notions and hadiths contradict the Quran (the only complete source of Islam).                            

2- According to the above plight, we suffer from perpetual mix between Quranic facts and the so-called hadiths (attributed forcibly and falsely to Muhammad decades after his death) and fiqh notions. Thus, traditional Sunnite scholars kept for centuries writing their balderdash while discarding and disregarding the Quranic facts; they mixed between the Absolute Quranic Truth and notions/narratives in heritage books, which are sanctified by them as though they could never contain errors, lies, or falsehoods. A worst crime is to make history (a relative field) as part of religion (which is ONLY the absolute Quranic verses). We must remember that any researcher of history bears in mind that historical (long and short, simple and complicated) accounts are relative, whether the historians were contemporary to the events they write about or copy from ancient historians. Another plight is that many ignoramuses author books on Muslim studies without being well-informed within specialized fields of academic studies; they do not even know about scientific research methodology concerning history. This results in the catastrophe of dealing with historical narratives as if they were like Quranic facts of Islam!             

3- Ignoramuses take from such heritage books of traditions whimsically to serve their purposes, while overlooking and disregarding the fact that such books reflect the dominant culture and mentality of the Middle-Ages authors, and such books must NEVER be part of Islam. Such books may be good for studying history, and NOT the religion of Islam, and this study of history must follow the scientific research methodology as we have explained in many of our books that we have taught to our Azharite students at Al-Azhar University (now published on our website). This methodology is used to check historical accounts and narratives to accept them or not, and to examine their similarities, discrepancies, contradictions, intricate details, prejudices and biases of historians, authenticity, (il)logicality, veracity, sets of terminology, etc. Eventually, the credibility of researchers of history depends on how honest, objective, and neutral they are and how competent in research methodology and critical thinking they are deemed to be. Any findings in that respect are, of course, personal points of view and NEVER absolute fact regarding history. Absolute facts are exclusively found in the Quran. all narratives and accounts of history are relative and never infallible; they are never 100% true, because they are human writings ascribed to names of writers/authors. The problem is that Sunnites deify and sanctify their ancient imams and authors like Al-Bokhary (a supreme deity to the Sunnites) and some historians and fiqh scholars. The Only Book we must honor and revere is the Quran, as it is God's Word and never authored by mortals; it is never to be made equal to books written by people. May God come to the aid and help of all of us.

Dr. A. S. Mansour

July, 2006

Springfield, VA, the USA