DISMANTLING ISLAM HISTORICALLY by Jay Smith

 DISMANTLING ISLAM HISTORICALLY 

A Response to Raymond Ibrahim on why Muhammad didn't Exist.

By Dr Jay Smith 

at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, 

on July 6, 2025.

To get an introduction, I kind of give you, I need to give you a little bit of background as to who and why I'm even talking about this tonight. And to do that, we need to go back to London 1992 when my wife and I were sent there to engage with the radical Muslims in London. London has a million Muslims in a city of 10 million. One tenth of the population are Muslims and they are some of the best Muslims you can get. Why? Because they come from three countries, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. That's my background. I was born in India. My parents, my father was born in India. My grandfather's grave is in India. My family have been in India since 1913, over a hundred years. My sister still lives there, is where I was born. I grew up. And I grew up in a school where most of the Muslims that came to that school, goodness sakes, they were my roommates. They were my classmates. And almost any big discussion we had was about the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the  authority of scriptures. I had it in the neck and I grew up with this and that's what prepared me for what I'm doing today. Having grown up with those great Muslims. When I left India 1971, I left high school there. I wanted  nothing to do with Islam. I was fed up with all this this this uh this huge  amount of discussion and and really aggravation from these Muslims. But what was fascinating is it was those Muslims that really prepared me for what I'm doing. It is those Muslims that really were the ones and I had I could not get over the fact that they  absolutely believe that Muhammad was the prophet, that the book Quran was his revelation, that it was the eternal revelation, completely preserved, never being created and that Allah was God. Fascinating that they knew those three things and no one really could question those three things. So when I came to America and did my undergraduate and was going through my graduate course, finishing off my divinity study, my wife and I went to a seminar, just a one-day seminar in Philadelphia on Islam. And we were told three things. We were told that there were 800 million Muslims. This is 1981 when there were only 800 million Muslims. Now (2025) it's almost two billion. But 800 million Muslims. Now, how do you compute a number like that? Goes in this (left) ear, goes out this (right) ear. You can't really compute. It's just too big. And then we were told that there were only 1,500 missionaries working amongst us 800 million. And that this 1,500 missionaries only made up 2% of all the missionaries. 

Those two numbers slapped me in the face. And I turned to my wife and says, "What in the world are we doing wrong? Why are we sending only 2% of all our missionaries to the fastest growing religion on earth? The religion that is attacking us at our foundation. It is the religion that's attacking our Lord Jesus Christ and our scriptures like no other. And that's why I decided to get back into Islam in 1981 because of two numbers. 15 hundreds  and 2%. That was my Pauline call folks and ever since that's the last 40 what 44 years now I have been working in Islam 44 years of engaging with Muslims the most beautiful people on earth the most my favorite people because they absolutely believe in everything that they say. Unlike so many Christians. And they're willing to die for what they believe. Unfortunately they're willing to take you with them. Nonetheless, it's not that they're doing it because they love it. It's because of that book, the Quran. This book right here. This is the one that does all the damage. But tonight, I'm not going to talk about  this book (Quran). I did that a year and a half ago. We're not going to talk so much about this book. I'm going to talk about the man behind this book. The man that received this book, the man that supposedly from 610 to 632, that 22-year period, that received these two halves. If you take the Quran in half, look at this is really damaged. Can you tell the Muslims have stolen from me five times and the police have always gotten it back and it is about ready to fal to pieces. But this is the book I've been using for year upon year. They're on the ladder at Speaker's Corner every Sunday for 25 years. I use this book. And when you look at this book, it's you can't even tell the printing on the outside, but it goes this direction. So it goes Arabic. So it goes from the right to  left. So that would be Medina. This would be Mecca. Medina means that's the part when Muhammad was living in Medina afterwards. And this is when he lived in Mecca from 610 to 622. This is what he received first. So this is the first  part of the Quran, though it's the second half that's written. Isn't that odd? Turn upside down. You get the right sequence. Nonetheless, let's go back to that sequence. And this is the part that really not there's not too much in this part that we would not that we would have problems with. Oh, there's lots of stories here that make no sense. But it's this half that has caused all the problems. This is where the violence is. This is where the misogyny is, against women. Chapter 4. Chapter two. This is the problem that we're all confronting. And I did that for 30, 40 years.  l confronted this part. And I found out that the best place to do that was a place called Speaker's Corner. So l used to go down to Speaker's Corner. If you ever go to London, go to Speaker's Corner. ( Click here and Watch this YouTube video, and this video , here Jay Smith was slapped )  It only exists on Sundays. And it's the place you need to go to because that's where you engage with Muslims face to face. It's the greatest laboratory in the world because you can say anything you want. I kid you not. It's the bastion of freedom of speech. It's been around for 200 years. It's where they used to execute all the prisoners every Sunday. And people would come because there was no television or  radio back then. How did they get entertained? They would go and watch the executions on Sunday. And before the the prisoners were executed, they were given their last defense and they would get up on these little soap boxes, stand up on those soap boxes, and they would try to defend what they had done. Of course, it never worked. They still got executed, but the soap boxes remained. So when the executions were finished, the crowds were there, thousands of people, and people got up on those soap boxes and started preaching or they started teaching or they started yelling or they started discussing and debating. And so it became speaker's corner. Now today, we don't use soap boxes anymore. And that's where that term get off your soap box*¹. It comes from speaker's corner. Now we use these little kitchen ladders that let you all have in your kitchen. These little A-frame ladders with two steps just so your head's above the audience so that you can be heard. That's why I feel very comfortable right now because I'm above you looking down on you. The problem is the higher l go, the farther I fall. And so Speaker's Corner was very violent back in the 1990s. They had not yet become the religion of peace. That only happened after 9/11. They were still quite violent. And when they ran out of ideas, they used their fists and it was not a pleasant place to be. But I would go down there every Sunday and always always I would try to engage with them and I we did what we call but by the seat of our pants because there was nothing there to help us. There was no book written on how to engage face to face with Muslims and how to debate them and how to discuss them. Everything was attacking attacking attacking. When l got down there they all had Bibles in their hands. Yes, Bibles, not Qurans. None of them had Qurans. They always had Bibles with little post-it notes all the way through. And all these post-it notes were about the historical anacronisms of our Bible, the the internal contradictions. Did you know that we have all kinds of scientific errors in the Bible? Have you heard about this? I hadn't heard about this. I have two master's degree, one in divinity and the other one in Islamics here at Fuller Seminary, and no one had taught me this. I hope Jack's teaching you all this. No, he's teaching you how to answer those kind of attacks. See, they were confronting my Bible, all these confrontation. And I remember the first Sunday I was down there. I was overwhelmed. I had no idea that I was going to get this kind of confrontation. And I wanted to get out of there. And I went home and I was bruised and battered. Not physically. I my ego was bruised, everything. Cuz I thought I knew everything. And these circles around me. My wife saw how disgruntled I was, and so she kicked me out the door the next Sunday, made me go back down again (to the Speaker's Corner). What a wife. If you met her, you'd see why. She says, "Get back on the horse again. If you're going to fall off the horse, just get back up and learn. Take a notebook with you and just learn and hear what their questions are and then find answers." Now, there was no internet back then in 1992 and there was no Google to ask your questions. You had to find out by going to the library or calling up somebody or trying to remember what you learned in seminary. I had nothing to help me. And I noticed that all the questions were coming one way, this way. They're always attacking my Lord. Always two subjects. Jesus and the Bible. 

Jesus in the Bible. Well, what two subjects do you want to talk about? But those two, right? What great subjects. And these were the Muslims that were asking me, see if you see an an atheist or a humanist or anybody else. I want to talk to you about those two subjects. Only Muslims want to talk about those two subjects. And they should be our favorite subjects. Now to defend against that, that's called apologetics. Apologetics. 

Apologetics. That's defense. And I had to learn my apologetics by the seat of my pants. It was difficult. I was hard. I didn't know what to do. I didn't know where to go. And then I went to and I did a course at the University of London by this man here, Dr. Gerald Hotting. He had a course there at School of Oriental and African Studies ( SOAS * ) on the origins of Islam. Well, I said, "Well, I thought I knew everything. This would be a fun course to do. Let's see what he's talking about." And there was about 50 students in the class and the very first day he started saying do you know we can't find any reference to this man named Muhammad in the seventh century. I said what? Not one word about this man named Muhammad in the seventh century. He said the earliest we can find about his biography is not till a man named Ibn Isham. There it is right there. Ibn  Isham. I just showed it to you. Ibn Isham right there. This is the first guy that ever wrote down his biography. And he died in 833. Year 833. Muhammad died in 632. Do you see a problem, folks? 

There it is right there. 833 when this guy finally writes it down. That's a 200-year gap. 

What happened? What happened in the intervening 200 years? And he says, you know, we can't find any mosque facing Mecca at all in the seventh century. I said, I never been taught this. Why hasn't I learned that in seminary? Why didn't I learn that at Fuller Seminary? Why didn't I learn that from the Muslims who had I was engaging with all these years? And he said, "Take a look at the Dome of the Rock. Probably the most famous building that's been built by a Muslim in the last 1400 years. The most beautiful building. It's right there in Jerusalem. Notice it has no Qibla. Direction of prayer." That's true. It has no qibla. It should be facing Mecca, right? Every mosque or every religious building should be facing Mecca. This has no qibla. I said, "Well, how come l've not heard this?" And as he was putting out these curious little tidbits, half the class were made up of Muslim students and they started getting up, going to the door, slamming the door, turning towards Dr. Hottie and saying not very pleasant things to never came back. Within two weeks, we lost all of our Muslims. Two weeks, 25 Muslims had left. If you're a professor on a university and you lose half your class, what are you going to do for your career? You cannot lose your students. And so he started toning down, toning down, toning down and start stopped coming to conclusion and stopped asking these questions. Well, I love these questions. And I saw the reaction of the students. I said, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If the Dome of the Rock has no qibla, then what does that mean, Dr. Haunting?" And he wouldn't answer. He didn't want to answer because he didn't want to lose any more students. 

So l start taking this qibla down to Speaker's Corner and I start putting it up there and I got beat up. I mean physically beat up. They knocked me out and I got one time, there were 60 Muslims around me kicking me. I went unconscious. I had no idea what happened. When the police finally  pulled me out, they said there a black man came and laid on top of me and took the blows for me. I said, "Where is he?" He had disappeared. I call him Barry, my black angel. I have a black angel. Barry. He saved me my life twice now at Speaker's Corner in the 25 years I've been there. But I suddenly realize this material is  potent. This is heavy material. If this is the only reactions Muslim have is to beat you up or to walk out the door and slam the door and yell at you as you're walking out, if that is the only reaction they have, we got to learn this material. We got to know this material. That was in then in 1995  some of these students came to me and they said we can't answer this but there's a man who can, his name is Dr. Jamal Badawi and they said, "we want you to debate him there", it is Dr. Badawi and myself. He is the world's leading authority on the Quran. He had done 400 uh 400, I'm sorry 300 videotapes. You know these old boxes, these little VHS's for those who are at gray hair. You remember the VHS boxes that we had to use and he had done 300 of these videos just on the Quran. They said he's coming back from Malaysia. He's going to stop in London on his way back to Halifax in Canada. Would you be willing to debate him? Well, I hadn't done a debate before. We don't get trained up in how to do debates in seminary. Not in homiletics class. We're trained just to say make sure that you take a subject only keep it to 20 minutes. Say three things about that subject. Make sure you support it in scripture and then always have a good conclusion at the end and then as you walk out the door people shake your hand say what a great sermon you've done. Nothing about debating, nothing about getting confronting or people supporting and people yelling at you and calling you all kinds of name giving you death threats that we weren't taught in homiletics. So l said okay, let me try it out and so l went up to see a woman.  Her name was Dr. Patricia Crone. Dr. Patricia Crone*² is the leading authority on Mecca. She is from Denmark. She reads and writes 15 archaic languages. How many of you can read and write 15 archaic languages? Show of hands. None.   She's unique in the world. And these are languages that no one uses anymore. Nabotine Aramaic. Cyro Aramaic, Aadian. Amazing woman. She's a linguist. She studied there at the same school, School of Oriental and African Studies. Got her doctorate there and became head of department at Oxford University when l got to know her. And when I started my doctoral thesis, she was my supervisor and she was the one that actually wrote two books, one called Hagerism *³ and the other called Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. She shut down Mecca and all she did was look for source material from the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth up until the seventh and eth century. Only using evidence from those centuries, trying to find this city called Mecca. Could not find any reference to the city  called Mecca at all. So l said, well, I'm going to use her. I went up to her and of course we were she knew me and we went into by this time she had a death threat from Oxford University for writing (Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam) Meccan and trade in 1987 and so she transferred up to Cambridge University was headed department at that time and I sat in her office for one afternoon for about three hours as we put together this debate she said do this here's a better way to say it here why don't you use it I finally turned to her and I said Dr. Crone, why aren't you doing this debate? This is your material. You have the languages. You're the one that's done the research. Me, what do l know? I'm just going to mimic you and copy you. And she turned to me and she started laugh. She said, "Jay, let me tell you something. I have a chair to protect. I have an institution to represent. I could never do this debate. I don't have the freedom to do this debate as an academic. But you, you have no chair to protect. And the only person you represent, his name is Jesus Christ." What an answer. Here's an atheist telling me that we are the only ones that can do this debate. We have a freedom they don't have. As Christians, we have a freedom because of Jesus Christ that they do not have. So l said, "Okay, let's go." I did this debate. Took us two hours. At the end of debate, I gave 10 historical challenges. AlI of them hurt her challenges. He did not have an answer for any of them. And he turns to me at the end and he says, "You know, Mr. Smith, all you've done is shown us everything you've brought is based on silence. There's just nothing there. Granted, there's nothing there. Everything you've done is based on silence. And the absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence. And he hung me. The absence of evidence does not prove the evidence of absence*⁴. I had nowhere to go. He was right. I didn't have any evidence. He didn't have any evidence. So, we're just silence. There was no reference to this man named Muhammad. We can't find any  reference to the city called Mecca. We can't find any manuscript for any book called the Qur'an. None of this we can find in the seventh century. But that's just silence. Where's the evidence? 

How do you prove evidence for something that never existed? Do you see the problem, folks? That was 1995. This is 2025. 30 years later and everything I'm going to introduce tonight is based on evidence. We finally have the evidence. 

But here's what's fascinating. Everything's turned on its head. Cuz if we have the evidence, then what do they have? Absolutely nothing. 

Now suddenly everything the Muslims are going to present is based on silence. They have no evidence for their man Muhammad. Okay. Now no one has dared to debate me on this until this year and a man named Raymond Ibrahim. But before l do that, let me just put go ahead something  else l want to bring up because this was causing a huge wave and a lot of problems there at Speaker's Corner. A lot of the Christians were getting quite upset and especially the Anglican church and I was not Anglican and I was an American there in Britain. Who what is this American doing causing all this problems there in Britain and so Colin Chapman*⁵ you can see him over on the right. He was he was in charge responsible for all the Islamic work for the Archbishop of Canterbury. And so he came to me and he says, "Jay, you've got to stop what you're doing. Do not, do not do this." He says, "I'm going, we're going to put together a debate and we're going to be it's going to be an internal debate. It's between you and Dr. David Marshall who you see pictured there with the glasses. Dr. David Marshall has a doctorate from Oxford University on the Qur'an. So, he's an academic himself. And we're going to bring in scholars. All of them are Christians. So, be this is what we call an in-house debate. And it's between you and Dr. Marshall. And it's going to be on basically two subjects. Should we use historical criticism and should we use polemics in our engagement with Muslims? Now you know where l stood on both those issues. I said yes to both those issues. He said no to both those issues. We should not use historical  criticism and we should not use polemics. POLEMIC. What do I mean by polemics? Anybody here not know what polemics is? Oh boy. Okay. All right. How do l define polemics? 

Well, I told you what apologetics is, right? Just defending the faith. Defending means making sure that whenever anybody confronts Jesus or our Bible, we answer them. That's called apologetics. It's much like your  football team. You have a football team here. l'm not going to ask you which one is the favorite because you'll start fighting amongst each other. So, let's just say whatever is your favorite football team. Don't you have two teams within within every football team? One called defense and the other called offense. And don't they have two different skills? The defense has to make sure that the others don't score against them and score the touchdown. They're they're big guys. They're really muscular. And boy are they hard because they create walls to stop the others (opponents) from scoring. Right. The offense, however, has a totally different object. They have to push against the others (opponents), but they have (skills). They can run. And they can toss. And they're a lot more exciting. And they are the ones that actually win the game, right? They are the ones that whose names you hear and they're the ones who have the highest salary. And see, in Christianity, defense would be apologetics. Offense would be polemics. It's as simple as that. So, if you're defending the faith, you better know everything you you can about the Bible and Jesus. Those are the two things you need to know. If you're going on the offense, especially against Islam, you better know the Qur'an. You better know Muhammad. But how many of you have studied the Qur'an or studied Muhammad? Few hands. We don't teach that here. There is no school in the world that teaches Islamic apologetics or polemics, except ours. Mappy, Master of Arts and Apologetics and Polemic to Islam. And guess at what institution that is being taught? Veraritoss International University*⁶. That's your university, folks. It's a Calvary Chapel Seminary. Did you not know that? Veraritoss International University is your seminary in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The only place on earth where you can learn Islamic apologetics and polemics. And I direct it. And I have five of us. All of us have doctorates. Every one of us have had either 20 years or more experience engaging with Muslims both apologetically and polemically. Now do you know what apologetics and polemics is? Apologetics is defense. Polemics is offense. It's as simple as that. Two different sets of skills. And in many discussions you have to use both simultaneously. And I had to do that every Sunday afternoon. I would have to use sometimes defense, defense and then l go on the offense. They throw the questions. I'd answer them. Then I throw the same questions right back in their laps. and that we're not teaching anybody until  now. I've just come back from England. I have to be careful. I'm not going to say too much, but I there was something that happened about three weeks ago in England, in London where we brought all the best polemics in the world together in one place. I brought them all over 15 of the top polemics in the world against Islam and about 300 of them showed up and they all had to be people we knew. It was by an  invitation only. I'm not going to tell you where it was because I don't want the Muslims to find out where it was. And we went for three days just learning how to use polemics, how to use internal polemics and cultural polemics and external polemics.*⁷ l'Il explain that a little bit later. And for three days, 300 of us learned how to confront Islam head-on. And then Sunday, we went down to Speaker's Corner and shut down the corner. It was so much fun. You'll see the videos. It is amazing. And I had my ladder and I had another ladder next to me. And I had 50 different people get up on the ladder the first time for most of them and they used the best polemics they could come across and the Muslims had no idea how to shut us down. And then we went up to a restaurant afterwards and 150 of us had dinner together and I looked at all these guys and gals and they're all in their 20s and 30s folks. They're young. Every one of them is more eloquent than me, quicker than me, smarter than me. Boy, we're going to lift them off and unleash them on the Muslim world. You got to realize we are going to take Islam. That just happened three weeks ago. We're going to do it again next year and the year after that. We're raising up a whole new generation of young men and women who are quick and they are bright. And they are fearless. There is no fear in any of them. Oh, I love that. It is so nice. 

So anyway, back to the story. We had this debate two hours and there was 50 academics who were there, all Christians. And after two hours, I was arguing, yes we should use polemics. Yes, we use should use historical criticism. He was saying no, no, no, no. After two hours, we finished the debate. And then they had a show of hands. And they wanted to know how many were with Dr. David Marshall and how many went, came with me? 25 went with him. 25 went with me. Who do you think went with him? The academics or the missionaries? Okay, I'm getting both. So, I'm. You're right. For those who were correct, you're right. It was the academics who went with him and the missionaries went with me. I couldn't understand that. I thought for heaven's sakes, the academics would go with me because this is all academic material. It's all  historical. Where else do you learn that but in academia? But they all went with him. And I didn't understand it. And Dr. until Dr. Peter Redell then explained to me on the way home. He was in my car with me and he said, "Jay, let me explain something to you. I'm an academic." In fact, he was my the professor for my doctorate. He was the one that help get helped me get my doctorate at Melbourne School of Theology. He's Australian and he's an academic there. And he said, "We academics, we understand what you're doing. We understand why you're doing it, but we can't do this cuz in our institution there are many Muslims who are on staff with us. We can't use polemics and certainly not historical criticism, not in our academic institutions. ( If) We'd use, ( we) lose our our chairs. We would be thrown out. We'd lose our tenure. But you as a missionary," he was saying the same thing to me that Dr. Patricia Crone had said back in 1995. Isn't that interesting? And I realized, the penny dropped. This is something we have to do. This is something we must do. Those of us who are on the ground. So, since then our material has really matured. We have gone much quicker, much faster. And, of course, in the last 20, 30 years. By 2023, I came here to this church and I presented the book, "The Book, The Man, and The Place."*⁸ Just those three subjects right here in the same hall. And there are about 2,000 people here. They didn't even know who I was because it was a Wednesday night and Jack Hibs couldn't make it. So he asked if I could do it. I said, "Okay." So it it was kind of a audience of just made of people who walked in to hear Jack Hibs and I was here instead. And they just kind of looked at me like a deer in front of a headlight cuz they had no idea what I was talking about and I didn't sure wasn't sure that they would ever understand what I was talking about. So l just said, "just look at the screen." Follow the screen. For those of you here, remember that a lot of you who were here, you probably didn't know who I was or what I was going to talk about. And when you left, you say,"What in the world did he just say?" That as John is right, 2.6 million people have watched that, all over the world. On my site, over half a million have watched that. So, it's over three million people have watched that. It's gone all over the world. And that's why I then had to come back and unpack it for four hours to get slow it down. Now, since then, since 2023, no one's really taken me on. They can't because how can you take me on? In order to take me on, you have to have evidence from the seventh century. And as you can see tonight, there just is no evidence that supports that man, that book, or that place until April of this year. And then a man named Raymond, Raymond Ibrahim, who's a Christian, put up these two videos in April of this year. Raymond Ibrahim, how many of you know who Raymond Ibrahim is? Okay, one good man, fine Christian debater, and he's the only one that's dared to do this. And I thank God that he did this because he put up two videos, one on uh April 9th and the other one on April 11th, basically saying that, and he's really is attacking me. He says, you  know, I think I don't think Jay knows what he's talking about. He said, "This idea that Muhammad didn't exist is not only laughable, it is probably the worst polemic at all to use. It's the weakest polemic we could ever use." 

The weakest polemic you can use. Isn't that interesting? So, what I'm going to do tonight is I'm going to shut him down. I'm going to take the 10 accusations and he gave 10 accusations. I, you know, if you're watching Raymond Ibrahim, thank you for doing this because finally I have an academic who's actually taking me on on these subjects and you gave 10 good questions and these are the same questions you're going to hit if you go out in the world and if you talk to Muslims and the number one first thing is Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history. So you cannot say he didn't  exist because there's so much historical support for him. Number two, in fact, Muhammad has more historical support for him than Jesus has. Woo! Oh, I love that. Number three, if Muhammad did not exist, how can you explain the Sunni ~ Shiite divide, the Sunnis who are confronting the Shiites, the Shiites from Iran and  Iraq? Look what's going on in the world right now. Look at all the problems. It's all between Sunnis and Shiites. How can you explain that if Muhammad didn't exist? Number four, there are no incontrovertible proofs of Muhammad's non-existence. Woo, that's a real whammy. I can see someone laughing already because you can see that's actually it's a contradicting term. Since the  traditions, that's the Islamic traditions about Muhammad are so embarrassing. Why would they write them? He's such an embarrassment, Mr. Smith. Number six, Mecca. You can't use Mecca against Muhammad. It's not an argument. You can use a Mecca against Muhammad. Number seven, no one can prove or disprove historical facts. Oh boy, that's a whammy. And it comes down to a matter of faith. Doesn't matter what you find. Muslims will always believe it. Number nine, the claims against Muhammad's existence are merely an academic and subjective exercise. That's all it is. Just because 'you don't like Muslims' is what he said. Boy, I wonder where he got that from. And then number 10, the best polemic is not the historical polemic. The best mater POLEMIC is just to show how irrelevant Muhammad is. Confront his character. Confront his morality. That's the best polemic. That's what we call the internal palemic. So tonight, what I'm going to do, let's go through each one of these 10 to see if l or Raymond, actually I should call him Raymond. I'm going to call him Raymond from here on out because I have two good friends named Ibrahim. One is Iman Ibrahim and the other one is Raymond Ibrahim. I don't know Raymond Ibrahim. l've never met him. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I know Iman Ibrahim. And lman Ibrahim actually is head of of SCES on the Islamic branch there. He's in charge of the ent Islamic world and he  absolutely stands with me on this position. So, rather than call him Ibrahim because people confuse which Ibrahim I'm talking. Let's just call Raymond and Iman. Okay, we'll stick with Raymond from here on out. So here we go. This is what the Muslims claim. This is what the Islamic traditions claim. This is what the standard Islamic narratives say. Isn't that great? Standard Islamic Narrative. SIN. This is what sin tells us. Muslims SIN's traditional claims. They say this. For the past 1400 years, Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet. He modeled Islam as the paradigm for the world. He received the Qur'an as his final revelation for the world. Therefore, the Qur'an, his revelation was sent down only to him between 610 and 632. It is the greatest, the only perfectly preserved revelation and also the final revelation. It corrects the previously corrupted revelation. In other words, our revelation. And therefore, Mecca was the city Muhammad was born in and lived in for the first 52 years of his life. Thus, Islam is completely dependent on three things. Now, this you've seen before for those of you who are here before. These are the three things. One book called the Quran, one man named Muhammad, and one place called Mecca. Since these three areas are foundational to Islam, we should investigate them at the (or what) time they all existed. That means in the early 7th century and in the place they existed, that means the central western part of Arabia known as the hijaz where Mecca and Medina are located. So notice these three things are what holds up Islam. It is like three legs of a stool. (爪) You have the Qur'an, you have Muhammad, and you have Mecca as the three legs. If you start to attack one of those legs and it finally collapses, the other two collapse as well. All three are needed. You can't have one without the other. One without the other two. Are you following that? Yes. With that in mind, let's now look at Raymond's 10 suppositions and assess them one by one.

Supposition number one, Muhammad is one of the most historically supported people in history. How many people, just show of hands, believe that? Wow. Not one of you. I'm already got you converted. week you go on to supposition number two then no we need to stop we need to go with supposition one so you know how to answer this okay now to understand what he's talking about we need to look at what they're saying, this is what he says, this is what the Muslims will say they would believe that if you look at that map there that Muhammad Empire included that brown area so that that's that area right there or over on this side right there l'm going have to do this two both sides okay that brown area where Mecca and Medina look where Mecca and Medina farther right in the central western part of that brown area. So when he died in 632 that's as large as Islam was once he died then you have Abu Bakar, Omar, Othman and Ali, the next four caliphs what they call the rightly guided caliphs then come to power  and they expand the borders out and so it includes the Orient area from Tripoli all the way to India and from Turkey all the way down to Yemen over on this side from Tripoli to India and from Turkey all the way down to the Hudma or what is day Yemen in Oman that's a pretty big area so it is by far by 661. It is the second largest superpower of its day by that time. And then when the Umayides come to power in 661, starting with Muia, he then he and others after him up until 749. For the next roughly hundred years, they expanded out to the purple area. So it includes Spain all the way to India. And then from Yemen all the way to Turkey over here. There's Spain and there is India and there is Turkey and there is Yemen. So all that area comes under their jurisdiction. That's their story and there's been no reason not to confront it or dissuade you from it because it's a pretty good story. I mean that's all we've been told, right? And you've always believed that there was a man named Muhammad and there were four caliphs that followed after him, Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali. 

But l'm going to show you there's a problem with that. Let's look and see where we get Islam's emergence. Let's put it on a timeline so you can see what's going on. So Muhammad according to what the Islamic narrative, the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) tells us is that Muhammad was born in 570. He started receiving his revelations in a place called Mecca in 610. And then in 621 he suddenly is woken up in the middle of the night and told to get on the back of a winged horse called the Burak who flies him up from Mecca up to Jerusalem. He goes up to the seven heavens and meets Allah who tells him to pray 50 times a day. He comes down to the fifth heaven, meets Moses. Ah that's way too many. So he bounces back and forth between the fifth and the seventh heaven getting it down from 50 to 45 to 35 to 15 to 10 down to five prayers. 

Once he gets it to five prayers, Moses, okay, that's enough. So he shuts back down to Jerusalem, gets on back to the wing horse and flies back to Mecca. That happens in 621. It's known as the Mi'raj*⁹. You've all heard this before. To you, this is nothing new. And then in 622, he then moves from Mecca up to Medina and takes over and become that's where the calendar starts in 622. He then comes back to Mecca and takes over Mecca. So now he controls both Mecca and Medina in 630. And he controls the holy places where the Kaaba*¹⁰ is. And then he dies in 632, poisoned by one of his wives. So that's his life. That's the timeline to show you what Muhammad's life is like. And then Abu Bakar comes. He only lasts two years. He then dies peacefully. Uh that he is followed by Umar who only lasts 10 years. Uh he is killed. So when he is killed, Uman takes over. He only lasts 12 years. He is killed. But while he is in power, the Qur'an is put together. When he is killed, Ali takes over, the adopted son of Muhammad.  And he only lasts 5 years before he is killed at the battle of Sifen by Buuya. So what am I putting that up there? 

What we're saying according to what standard Islamic narrative tells us and what Raymond Ibrahim tells us that Islam was fully formed by 661, right? Mid 7th century. We're talking about the seventh century still, 1400 years ago. Now, here's the problem. How do we know everything I've just told you? And I've not told you much. I've just told you bare bones because we have to be careful of time. That's what they tell us. Where did that story come  from? That's what you want to know. Well, the story comes from the Islamic traditions, the standard Islamic narrative. This is what they tell us. And when you go to the standard Islamic narrative, they tell us that Muhammad dies in 632. And the person that writes his biography down is this guy, Iban Isak. Iban Isak. The only problem is look when he died. Whenever you see a D, that means his death date. I'm always I'm putting their death dates because they can't write anything after they die. All right. So, I'm putting the last possible time they could have written something down. 765. Do you see a problem with that, folks? Did Iban Isak know Muhammad? Did he ever see Muhammad? Did he hear Muhammad? So, how did he know his biography? Do you have anything written by Iban Isak? No. So, I held this up. Where does this come from? That's not Ibn Isak. His name is Ibnisham. This guy is the guy that wrote it down. This is the one that took what Ibn Isak said, didn't like a lot of it, so he threw it out and only retained what he liked. And so that's what we have today. So these two books, these two volumes come from a man named Ibam. Look when he died, 833. That's even later. That's 70 years later. And then another man named Alwaki who wrote down this the battles of Muhammad. So they are the ones that actually give us the story of Muhammad's life, not Ibnisak. So bye-bye. We don't need you. Goodbye. Now that's the first genre. The second genre are known as the hadith, the  sayings of Muhammad. And they're written down by these guys here. AI Bukhari is the most important. He is the most prolific. He is the one that was given 600,000 of these stories. And he whittled them down all the way down to 7,000 uh, sorry, 7,439. So he throws out 98% and only retains   2%. And he does that before he dies in 870. Then we have Sahib Muslim who dies in 875. In mid 884. Look at the dates they die. 887. 899. For Dawud Nissa 915. 1,2,3,4, 5, six of them. Did any of them know Muhammad? Did they ever hear him say anything yet? They write down what he said. They all lived 240 and later years after Muhammad. That's not the only genre. We have two more genre. The taps and the that's the commentaries that help you to  understand the Quran. You can't make sense of this. 25% of this even though Muslim scholars don't understand. And if those of you who have read he Quran, how much of it can you understand? It goes all over the place, doesn't it? As we say in India, it jumps all over the place. Stories don't begin. Stories don't end. There's no transitional phrase to help you from story to story. Thank God our Bible's not like that, but the Qur'an is. So you need commentaries to explain it. And that's why the commentaries have to be written. But look who's the first man to write it down. His name is Alabi 923 AD.  That's over 300 years. That's almost 300 years after Muhammad died. So everything we know about who this man was, what he did, and what he said comes from two to 300 years later. How many of you are happy with that? You're not happy with it. You're happy with it. You're a good man. I like you. I know why you're happy with it because that makes our job a lot easier, doesn't it? See, he's being smart. But let me ask you, sir, you're going to be Abdul right now, right? Abdul, you're happy. You're a Muslim. You love that. What about Jesus Christ? Don't we also have a hadith of Jesus, the sayings of Jesus. Don't we also have a sitta of Jesus, the  biography of Jesus? Yes, we do. Don't we? For those of you who are Christian, not you, Abdul. You're a Muslim. Okay, оkау, stay a Muslim night now. So as a Muslim you don't have anything for two to 30 hundred years but we have the Sirah of Jesus; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John right who wrote down what Jesus did the hadith of Jesus what he said that's written in red letters in some of your Bibles anytime Jesus spoke that's the hadith of Jesus. So we have the same genre right. the of the what Jesus said and did would be the commentaries of Paul's letters he would take what Jesus say and apply it to Ephesus and to Philippi and to Corinth, right? So there is the taps. So we have the same genre in our New Testament. And then the which would be the histories of mankind that is in the book of Acts, the book the history of the early church. So we have the same four genre that you see up on the screen there. But when were they written? We're going to get to that. Hold on to that because I that's going to answer one of my questions. So you stay right there Abdul. I'm going to keep talking to you. 

I like that when a guy when a guy agrees with me. It's so nice funny to have someone that agrees with me. I'm going to put up Abdul Manik's name there because he is the one that actually introduces the name Muhammad. Did I say Muhammad? Oh boy, slap my mouth. No, he doesn't. He doesn't introduce the name Muhammad. You're going to see why in about 10 minutes. Nonetheless, he is the first one to get up that title and it's not Muhammad as you're going to find out. But it's these people here, the Abbasids that I've just put up there. They are the ones that actually make him into the Muhammad that we know today. And I'm emphasizing  Muhammad for a reason. I'm overemphasizing it for a reason. You'll see why. So conclusion, Muhammad was revealed 84 years after the Abbasids created him, 141 years after he was first introduced. Yet 201 years after he supposedly lived, Raymond, however, considers this 200-year gap as perfectly acceptable and thus not a problem.  How many of you agree with Raymond? You should raise your hand. You just did. Come on, Abdul. Get your hand up there. He's suddenly getting chicken foot because he knows that he's going to be put on the hot seat. Don't get chicken foot on me. Please stay there. I want you to be a good Muslim tonight. All right. And here's the other problem. Look at the distance and direction. Now, everything that Muslims including Abdul sitting here says is happens in those two cities that you see right there that are circled in green. Do you see them up there? Mecca and Medina. That's where everything happens. That's where all this takes place. That's where Muhammad lived. That's where he was born there in Mecca.  He was there for 52 years, then moved to Medina. And he spent that whole time receiving this book here in those two cities. Do you see where they are? Just so you see them on the map. But here's the problem. Everything we know that's written about him, about his life, does not come from those cities. They come from that city, Baghdad, which is, 200 miles away. Ibnisham, the man who  actually wrote then, this guy here who wrote on his biography, he was born in Basra, grew up in Cairo and wrote in Baghdad. Basra is a good 1,200 miles away. Mecca uh Cairo is a good 990 miles away and of course Baghdad is 1,200 miles. The guy who wrote down his sayings came from Bkhara which is in Usbekistsan which is 2600 miles away. The guy who wrote down all the taps in the comes from Tabaristan which is traditionals writers lived or worked in Mecca or Medina. They were way too far to the north of Mecca and came from the west and east of Baghdad. Doesn't Raymond realize that these are Abbasid writers all writing after 750 and way too far away? Has he forgotten about this? Or should we remind him? Abdul, you're his spokesman now. You tell me. Please knock on his door and tell him. All right. And ask him how is he going to answer this question? Let's continue on. But which Muhammad is Raymond talking about? Which is the Muhammad that you support, Ahmed? Or no, I'm sorry. You're Abdul. I'm gonna keep changing your name. Abdul. Abdul. Abdul. Okay. Abdul, which is the one you support. See, if you support the Muhammad of Islam, then there you have to agree to four things. And Raymond has to agree these four things. Number one, he must have the name Muhammad. That looks like that. There it is. This is the only Arabic I'm going force on you people tonight. All right? You don't have to learn Arabic tonight, but learn that name there. You know Arabic?  Egyptian. You're Egyptian. Okay. Is that Muhammad up there? Yes. Okay. Is there a dama and a fat and a fat up there? Is there a Mima Mimdal? Yes. Okay. So, that's Muhammad. Okay. We got our Arab speakers down here. All right. You're going to help me out. All right. The rest of you, don't worry about it. Just listen to me. Say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. To everything I say. So, that's what Muhammad looks like, right? And whenever you read it, that's what it looks like. Hugely important. 

You'll see why. Now, he must have lived in the city of Mecca. In order to be the Muhammad of Islam, he had to have come from Mecca. If he didn't come from Mecca, he's no longer the Muhammad of Islam because he spent 52 years there, folks. He received half this book there. All right? That's where the holy places are. That's where the Kaaba is. That's where everybody focuses five times a day, praying towards. So, it has to be Mecca. Number three, he must have received this Qur'an, all 114 surahs from that place and from that time and everything had to have happened in the seventh century. Those are the four things you have to claim. Are you following me? Abdul, you're starting to get a little nervous now. Don't bhhhhworry if you're getting nervous. What about Raymond Ibrahim? Okay, so those are the four things you have to accept. Conclusion. All four of the above criteria, the man, the place, the book, and the time must be fulfilled in order to prove that the Muhammad of Islam actually existed. That your Muhammad actually existed. All right. So, let's go ahead and let's start and let's look at this name. Now, Raymond suggests that we can find the name Muhammed in a written text just like the one l showed you. Mima Mimdal. All right. But that name requires four consonants** and three vowels***. Am I correct? (**Consonant = a basic speech sound in which the breath is at least partly obstructed and which can be combined with a vowel to form a syllable.)(***vowel= • a speech sound which is produced by comparatively open configuration of the vocal tract, with vibration of the vocal cords but without audible friction, and which is a unit of the sound system of a language that forms the nucleus of a syllable.

"the four middle syllables have the same vowel"

• a letter representing a vowel sound, such as a, e, i, o, u.

"the Old Testament was written in Hebrew without vowels")  In the seventh century there were no vowels. There were no vowels in the Arabic text. Today there are. Right. But back in the seventh century there were only 16 consonants. How many consonants are there in the text today? 28. 28. That's right. Thank you. 28 today. But 16 back then. Where did they get the other 12 from? They didn't exist in the seventh century. They had to be created in the 8th and 9th century. All right? Are you following this? You're my Arab speakers. Okay? If you get it, the rest of you will not get it. But as long as you get it, that's important. Okay? So, the earliest Quranic manuscripts. Now, look at them. Here they are. I'm giving you five of the earliest six manuscripts. I want my Arab speakers to go up and read what's up there on that on those scripts. Can you read it? Yes. No, you cannot. Well, of course, it is not Arabic. It is Arabic but it is not Arabic. Old Arabic. It is old. What's wrong with it? It is it is written like you can't read a word of it, can you? You can try to guess what it is but you need five dots, don't you? The letter is not connected. If you have one dot above little little bullface that becomes a noon right? If you have two dots it becomes a two a t. If you have three dots, it becomes a th. If you have one dot below becomes a b. And two dots becomes a ya. Do you see them up there? Yes. Not one dot. So you can't read it, can you? And yet these are the earliest Quranic manuscripts. And these are not from the seventh century. These are from the 8th and 9th century. So what Muhammad are you talking about? Where's Muhammad there? Because Muhammad requires three vowels. Do you see any vowels in any of those manuscripts? Do you see any damas or kas or fats? I don't see any. And this is why Raymond hasn't done his  history. Are you listening to this, Abdul? Please listen. This is for you too. I know you don't know Arabic, but they agree with me. In the seventh century, there were no five dots. Today, there are five dots. These dire critical marks had to be invented because nobody could read that. You can't read it. But that's why they had to be created in the 8th and 9th century. So, with that in mind, what does the word Muhammad look like today? ( محمد ) That's what it looks like today. All right. You both agreed with me that. But since there were no vowels back then, this is what it looked like back then. Now read it. Oo, did you hear? Mhmt. So suddenly it goes from Muhammad to Mhmt.  Thank you. Let's give her a hand. Abdul, what are you doing? You're not supposed to be clapping. This is shutting you down. You just keep somber for a while. Okay. 

So now it's become mhmt with no vowels which means this is a word. It's not Muhammad but it's Mhmt. How do we know that? How can we prove that right now? Well, we need to go to John of Damascus. Good old John of Damascus. See, John of Damascus was there in the courts of Abdul Malik from 685 to 705. He was a Christian. He was there in Damascus. That's why he's called John of Damascus. He was a treasure for Abdul Malik. And so he was watching what was happening and he was seeing that this dispute was happening between the Ishmaelites and those who come in the line of Isaac. The Jews and the Christians come in the line of Isaac. But the Umayyads were Ishmaelites  and they did not have a prophetic line. They didn't have any scripture like the Jews and the Christians had. And yet they controlled now from by the time of the Malik comes to power from Spain all the way to India and from Turkey all the way to Yemen. So they were the second biggest superpower of their day. The problem is they had no identity. The Byzantine Empire, the other biggest empire that there was the biggest competitor, they had a prophetic line. They had a scripture. They had a whole series of prophets. What did the Ishmaelites have? They needed a prophet and they needed a book of revelation that would equal what was going on. So he was watching this, right? He sees this all happening. He doesn't say anything. He doesn't write anything because he's under their employee. So when he retires in 7:30, now look at the date. 730 AD, we're well into the 8th century. We're a hundred years after Muhammad had died, if Muhammad had existed, he then writes his greatest masterpiece. And what does he titled it? Look at the title, the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Oo, I love that. Why does he not say heresy of the Muslims? Because there were no Muslims that early. Muslims, that word did not exist. We can't find any reference for anybody called Muslims. No Muslims. So he calls them Ishmaelites. Ishmaelites. Now we see what's going on. And he talks about this prophet that these Ishmaelites have this. What does he say? He says that from that a false prophet called Mhmt. Now notice he's writing in Greek. In Greek the vowels are there. Look at the Greek. Those who can read Greek, what does it say up there in the top left that's circled? Mhmt. It's Mhmt. John Damascus tells us what it is. It's Mhmt. So this Mhmd who after conversing with an Arian monk, who are the Arians? They didn't believe that Jesus was God. They didn't believe in the trinity and they didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God. They didn't believe Jesus at all was divine. Arian was the one that brought this up in the fourth century. The Aryan controversy has been around ever since almost from the second 

century. You have the Ebianites bringing up the same problem. Aras brought this up in the 4th century. Athanasius was 

told to shut him down at the council of Nika, which he did. And here it raises its head again and there is a there is 

John of Damascus watching this. He's ringside sheet seat and he writes this his greatest piece and he says this 

Mhmmed this new prophet this Aryan monk who get you get your material from and he goes on he fabricates his own heresy and then he talks about that this monk has four books. The book of The Cow**, that's Surah 2 in the Qur'an today. 

(**Sura al-Baqarah (Arabic: سورة البقرة‎, Sūratu l-Baqarah, "The Cow") is the second and longest chapter of the Qur'an.)

The book of the women that's Surah four in the Quran today. The book of the table that's Surah five of the Quran today. And the book of the camel There is no Surah called the camel. But what are four books doing when there's supposed to be only one book called the Qur'an. Isn't that interesting? This is 730 well into the 8th century. 

But now we know who this Muhamad is. His name is not Muhamad. His name is Mahm. So who in the world is Muhammad? Wait till you find out. Here we go. What does Md mean in Arabic? It is not a name. It is a title. It means the praised one, the blessed one, the anointed one, or even the Messiah. It's a title, folks. Have any of you heard this name before? You have. Where have you heard it? Okay. In Arabic. But where'd you hear before? Arabic. How about Hebrew? Anybody here speak Hebrew? Anybody studied Hebrew? Have you looked at the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament? You will find Makm 11 times in the Old  Testament. Makmmed is well known in the Bible. You didn't know that, did you? Well, here we go. The Ugarit were the first to introduce this word in 1400 BC. The Makmmet, the praised one, the anointed one. It was then borrowed in Hebrew in 1,000 BC and put into our Bibles 11 times. Song of Solomon 5:16, the Mhmd, the altogether lovely one, the praised one that Solomon's referring to. There's the Md we're looking for. Now, by the 4th century, St. Ambrose, the early church father, took it. Remember, Arabic comes from Aramaic, which comes from Hebrew. So, therefore, it's all the same letters. They use all the same letters. They're all Semitic letters. They use the same continental text. And therefore, St. Ambrose's writing in Syriak talks about this Mhmmed from Song of Psalm 560 and he says this is a title for Jesus Christ the anointed one the Messiah that's what the anointed one is from that time on from the 4th century AD it was this Mhmd was employed by many of the church fathers here are some examples. Oregon in the early 3rd century a Christian theologian interpret the song of Solomon 5:16 passage as the unique scripture where the esqueological neutrals of Christ and his bride are present. St. Ambrose in the 4th century AD introduced the ideas of that Song of Solomon 5:16 passage referred to Mahmud was to be considered a title for Jesus Christ the Messiah. Gregor of Alvara continued that idea in the late fourth century. St. John Cassian continued that in the fifth century. St. Augustine the great church father continued that in the fifth century. And then Aonius in the middle of the seventh century also believed that this Md was Jesus  Christ. Conclusion. The title Mhmmed, not the name Mhm. the title Mhmmed was a common title for Jesus by the seventh century in the church in that part of the world, especially in Arabic, which took it from Aramaic. So, we should not be surprised when we find it written in many places at that time. It's written all over the place. That's why we find Mmed after  Muhammmed after. But it's not just the Christians. The Jews also use that title in Hebrew. If you have any doubt, just take a look at this inscription from 523. This is a good hundred years before Muhammad even came in when Muhammad died. And this a sixth century Jewish rock inscription in what is today Yemen. It's there in Najan and it is translated by the Lord of the Jews by the Mhm. the Mad in Seabic script. l'm just putting it out to you. You can see it there in Sebic script. This is not the Arabic script that we see in the Qur'an. This is the Sebic script that comes from Yemen. It is Arabic but it is not the same script. Isn't that interesting? But look at the term Mahmud that is used there by the Jews. So, let's show you a quick synopsis. Makmed means the praised one or the blessed one or the anointed one or even the Messiah later on. So, it's not a name. It's not a name, folk. It's a title. It was used in Ugaritic in 1400 BC barred by the Jews in Hebrew in 1000 BC. That's why you have it 11 times in our  Christian Bible. It was subsequently employed by St. Ambrose in the 4th century as a title for Jesus Christ. The Jews also referred to it in their reference. And what was interesting by the seventh century the Jews started using that title for their exalcarks. The exalarks were those who were in charge of the seminary in what is today Baghdad Arabic. So they have all been speaking Arabic and they had always put Mhm before their name. Mhm. Benhuziel, Mahmmed, Ben David, Mhm. Ben, everyone. They have five different exelars where they put Makm before the name, the praised one, the anointed one. It was a title of endearment of authority of credibility well used in Arabic and Aramaic by the seventh century. Thus by the seventh century the Christians and used Mhm to refer to the returning Messiah while the Jews used Muhammmed to refer to the Messiah yet to come and at times interchanged it with the Messiah. Conclusion. Therefore, the term Muhammmed was well known in that part of the world and at that time but it was not pronounced Muhammad like you do today. That is how we now pronounce it. And there lies the confusion that Raymond's having. And same with you, Abdul. I can see you're confused now as well. So folks, knowing that, let's now look and see exactly when Muhammad's story was created within Islam itself. All right? So we're not looking for Muhammad anymore. We need to look for Muhammad. 

That's who we need to look to. You need to go to the evidence from that century. So, how well did the Muslims preserve 

Muhammad's story? Their Muhammad story. Now, we're getting back to the Muhammad of Islam, your Muhammad Abdul, okay? And itRaymond's Muhammad. How well did they preserve their manuscripts? Now, here's the problem. When anyone asks Muslims how they came to be sure that the story they have of Muhammad is true, the one, this one right here, this story by Ibenham, they point to numerous books on their bookshelves, including this one right here, and claimed that they were written by those who knew Muhammad. Did I know Muhammad? No. He died in 833. That's 200 years later. He certainly did not know Muhammad. That they saw what he did and they heard what he said. But they never show us their original extent copies or their original manuscripts. Nor do they ever give us any forensically tested   dates concerning when exactly those books were originally written. To be valid witnesses for Muhammad, we must have their traditional Writer's original extent manuscripts. So the question I'm asking is where is the original extent manuscript for ibam? That's all I'm asking. that which they actually wrote. Remember the compilers of the prophet's lite ibnisham al-wiri and what he said al- bhari sahi muslim iba tmidi ib naja and nasai all of them were living in the caul courts they were there in Baghdad therefore they had all the wealth to their disposal they did not have to depend on papyrus like the early church. The early church fathers had to prepare depend on all of ourt and our hadith were all written on papyrus which are these interlocking leaves and they disintegrate within a 100 years. Okay? They get dry and they crinkle away. That's not the case for the Muslims. Are you hearing this Abdul? That's not the case for you guys cuz you were in the caul courts. You were in the richest land in the world, the richest place. Therefore, you did not use papyrus. You would have used parchment or vellum, animal skins. If that were so, then those extent manuscripts still be available today. We should still see them. Where are they, Abdul? I'm picking on him because Raymond Ibrahim is not here today. You can go and shake your hands of (Raymond) Ibrahim. You're taking on his place for him. And that's what we need to ask Muslims. Where are these original manuscripts for the Sah for the hadith, for all of these  references that you're talking about and including the Sahaba and the Tabune. Now the Sahaba and the Tabune, the Sahaba would be the companions of the prophet. Okay. The equivalent that we would have would be Matthew and John. They were the  companions of Jesus. They were right there watching what Jesus did and hearing what Jesus said. So they would be our Sahaba. The Tabune were those who got it from the Sahaba. So they would be like Mark and Luke who got it from the  eyewitnesses. Okay? So two different generations. First generation would be the companions. The second were those who got it from the companions. Okay? So we have the same equivalent in Christianity. Right? So Muslims are saying that we do have the Sahaba and we do have the tabune. Are you ready? So, we have spent two years. What I'm going to show you now, no one's seen yet. Okay? This is two years worth of study. We decided to find out where these  manuscripts are. No one has done this work until we did it. And it's just coming out of Europe right now. So, you're getting it. Here we go. So, the Sahaba, the eyewitnesses or the companions of the prophet in the Tabi'un, those who receive what they knew from the Sahaba. What we're told by Muslims that they there are many Sahaba. 

[ The Sahaba = The eye-witness, or the "Companions of the Prophet" 

The Tabi'un = Those who received what they knew from the Sahaban: The Sahaba/Tabiun of Muhammad (7th - 8th centuries) This is a lie!...take a look... 

• Muwatta ibn Malik: 9th century (200 years later) 

• Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih: 12th century (500 years later) 

• Musnad ibn Hanbal: 13th century (600 years later) 

• Musanaf Abdul Razzaq: 13th century (600 years later) 

• Musnad al-Tayalisi: 13th century (600 years later) 

• Abi Shaybah: 13th century (600 years later) 

Conclusion: These documents were all supposedly created in the 7th century; yet they don't begin to appear until the 9th - 13th centuries; thus, from 200 - 600 years too late! Tnis suggests tnat tney were al written by otners TUUS or years later...consequentiy, they are AlI REDACTED ATTRIBUTIONS! ]

Actually, they only list about five of them. And the Tabi'un they're from the they were writing in the seventh and the 8th century. This is a lie. You ready? 

Let's see who they quote. These are the ones they quote. Muwatta ibn Malik. It comes not from the seventh century. It comes from the 9th century. The Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbi. It does not come from the seventh century. It comes from the 12th century. That's 500 years later. The Musnad ibn Hanbal, it comes from the 13th century. That's 600 years later. It comes from the Musanaf Abdul Razzaq that's 600 years later, along with the Musnad al-Tayalisi that's 13 th century that's 600 years later and Abi Shaybah that's 600 years later. Not one of these are from the seventh and 8th century. All of that has been a lie and we didn't know that until the last two years cuz we assumed that they had the manuscripts. They have no manuscripts for any of these guys. These documents were all supposedly created in the seventh century. That's what Muslims tell us. Yet they do not begin to appear until the 9th to the 13th century, thus 200 to 600 years too late. This suggests that they were all written by others hundreds of years later. Consequently, they are all redacted attributions. Now, let's put that on a timeline, show you what l'm talking about. So, when the Muslims, when you come up and they say,"We know where the Sahaba and where the Tabi'un," they're looking at these five, six guys right here. That's where they put them, right up next to Muhammad there. None of them come from there. The first one, the earliest one is Muwatta ibn Malik that's from the 9th century. Then you have Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih from the 12th century. You have Musnad ibn Hanbal from 13th century, along with Musanaf Abdul Razzaq and then you have Musnad al-Tayalisi and then you have Abi Shaybah. All of them are from 12th and 13th century. Can you see the problem folks? Therefore the Sahaba and the Tabi'un, they are not from the first and second generations. They are not eyewitnesses. Our equivalent would be Matthew and John. Yet they were written two to 600 year later and simply redacted back to the seventh and 8th century. Thus they are probably fraudulent. Now since we started introducing this onto my  founder films which l started doing this spring,  the Muslims are coming back say aha Mr. Smith. Yes but we have the musnad the mat of Ib Malik the mata of Ib Malik is 9th century. Have you heard them say this? Maybe you haven't but Abdul you've been saying it a lot of times because you wonder you caught me on this a week ago and you've been hammering me on this. What about the mata Iban Mik? You see that's 9th century. That's 9th century. You say that's only 200 years after Muhammad. Okay, let's go back and see if that's true. Let's take a look. There is a partial copy of the mata in in the Chester Bey library in Dublin.  It is described as the second third of a celebrated treatise on the Islamic Jewish and is dated 890. I will give you that Abdul. But here's the problem. When does the mata get finalized? It does not. The complete manuscript from the ma does not get finalized until 1030. That's the 11th century. So you really have nothing earlier than the 11 th century. What's more, as of today, 1030 manuscript is the earliest fully extent copy of Iban Mik's work. But here is the problem. Who cares? Ibn Mik has nothing to do with Muhammad. Has nothing to do with the origins of Islam. Iban Malik is nothing more about the rules of Jewish prudence. It's nothing about the original. He's just talking about the rules that existed in the 9th and 10th and 11th century. So why is he even in this discussion? 

[What about the Muwatta of Ibn Malik? 

Recent Muslims claim:"It's from the 9th century, so it is indeed very early..." 

Let's take a look at this claim: 

• There is a partial copy of the Muwatta in Dublin's Chester Beatty Library (Mss. 3001). It is described as 'The second 'third' of a celebrated treatise on Islamic jurisprudence' and is dated to 890 AD. (Arberry, Arthur J.,A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts, Volume l, Mss. 3001 to 3250, Dublin: Émery Walker, p. 1) 

• The oldest complete manuscript of the 'Muwatta' currently known dates to approximately 1030 AD and is the earliest surviving 'Muwatta' manuscript in complete form. This manuscript was copied on qazelle parchment in a beautiful early Andalusi hand, indicating its Maghrebi-Andalusian provenance. It follows Yahyā al-Laythi's transmission (the most widely received version of Malik's text) as preserved through the Andalusian scholarly tradition https://qurantalkblog.com/2025/05/07/oldest-surviving-manuscript-of-imam-maliks-muwatta/ ) 

In other words, as of today, the circa 103O AD manuscript is the earliest full-y extant copy of Imam Malik's work. Any manuscripts older than the 5th century AH exist only in fragmentary form, or as a few folios (AI-Muwatta by Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795) [The Recension of Yahya b. Yah.ya al-Laythi (d. 234/848)] A translation of the Royal Moroccan Edition, Edited and translated by Mohammad Fadel & Connell Monette, Published by the Program in Islamic Law, Harvard Law School, Distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 2019) 

Most important, however, the Muwatta is only about rules of Jurisprudence, and not about early Islam, so it doesn't help us with any historical data on how Islam actually began, or who Muhammad was. This also explains why the "Muwatta" is never included as one of the major Islamic Traditions, since it doesn't belong to that genre.]

Do you see the problem? You're using the wrong genre, Abdul. Sorry. I know you're going to have a hard time after this. We'll go to dinner together and l'Il give you (a treat) l'II pay for your meal. Now, knowing that, since we know that, let's relook at the Sahaba and the Tab and let's put them on a timeline. So Abdul and Raymond and the other Muslims, they claimed that they're all hugged up against Muhammad. No, they're not. They first put the mat of Ibn Malik is there but we now know that he's not there. Actually he is here. So goodbye to lbn Malik. He doesn't belong there in the others. So really they don't begin to appear until the 11th century. So everything we know about the Sahaba or these Tabune do not come from the seventh and 8th century. They come from the 11th to the 13th century. That's 400 to 600 years too late. And this

NOTES

*¹ Soapbox

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject. The term originates from the days when speakers would elevate themselves by standing on a wooden crate originally used for shipment of soap, or other dry goods, from a manufacturer to a retail store. The term is also used metaphorically to describe a person engaging in often flamboyant, impromptu, or unofficial public speaking. Hyde Park in London is known for its Sunday soapbox orators, who have assembled at its Speakers' Corner since 1872 to discuss religion, politics, and other topics. In the context of the World Wide Web, blogs can be used as soapboxes and are often used for promotional purposes. 

*² Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam is a 1987 book written by scholar and historiographer of early Islam, Patricia Crone. The book argues that Islam did not originate in Mecca, located in western Saudi Arabia, but in northern Arabia. Her views are hugely different from those of historians and orientalist scholars like W. Montgomery Watt and Fred Donner, who have publications detailing trade activities and the struggles between competing Meccan tribes for control over trade routes.

Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam:

Crone found no evidence of Mecca being an important trading center in late antiquity of 6th and 7th century CE:

Mecca was not on the overland trade route from Southern Arabia to Syria.

Even if it had been, the overland trade route from Southern Arabia to Syria was not very important compared to the maritime trade route by the end of the second century AD at latest, the route was no longer in use.

A close examination of the Muslim sources themselves show that, except for Yemeni perfume, the Meccans traded mainly in cheap leather goods and clothing, and occasionally, in basic foodstuffs (clarified butter and cheese)

These goods were not exported to Syria, which already had plenty of them, but were supplied almost exclusively to inhabitants of the Peninsula.

If it is obvious that if the Meccans had been middlemen in a long-distance trade of the kind described in traditional Islamic literature, there ought to have been some mention of it in the writings of their customers who wrote extensively about the south Arabians who supplied them with aromatics. Despite the considerable attention paid to Arabian affairs there is no mention at all of Quraysh (the tribe of Mohammed) and their trading center Mecca, be it in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, or other literature composed outside Arabia.

She concludes that "Meccans did not trade outside of Mecca on the eve of Islam". That there was no continuous transmission of historical fact through the three generations or so that separated the early first/seventh century from the mid-second/eight century" and that the lines of transmission of the accounts were "pure fabrications".

Crone also found Islamic "traditions" to be unreliable, conflicting "with each other so often and so regularly `that one could were one so inclined, rewrite most of Montgomery Watt's biography of Muhammad in the reverse.'"

An examination of all available evidence and sources leads Crone to conclude that Mohammed's career took place not in Mecca and Medina or in southwest Arabia at all, but in northwest Arabia.

Reception

Robert Bertram Serjeant described the book as a "confused, irrational and illogical polemic, further complicated by her misunderstanding of Arabic texts, her lack of comprehension of the social structure of Arabia, and twisting of the clear sense of other writings, ancient and modern, to suit her contentions."

Fred Donner, on the other hand, stated that "[the] assumption that Mecca was the linchpin of international luxury trade [has] been decisively challenged in recent years – notably in Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam.", although Patricia Crone's theory has been challenged by Robert Bertram Serjeant who favored the Meccan trade theory.

*³ Hagarism

Book by Patricia Crone & Michael Cook

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World is a 1977 book about the early history of Islam by the historians Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Drawing on archaeological evidence and contemporary documents in Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Syriac, Crone and Cook depict an early Islam very different from the traditionally-accepted version derived from Muslim historical accounts. According to the authors, "Hagarenes" was a term which near-contemporary sources used to name an Arab movement of the 7th century CE whose conquests and resultant caliphate were inspired by Jewish messianism. Crone and Cook contend that an alliance of Arabs and Jews sought to reclaim the Promised Land from the Byzantine Empire, that the Qur'an consists of 8th-century edits of various Judeo-Christian and other Middle-Eastern sources, and that Muhammad was the herald of Umar "the redeemer", a Judaic messiah. 

Authors: Patricia Crone, Michael Cook

Subject: History of Islam

Published: 1977

*⁴ Evidence of absence

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. What counts as evidence of absence has been a subject of debate between scientists and philosophers. It is often distinguished from absence of evidence. 

*⁵ Whose Promised Land?

May 17, 2017 by Colin Chapman

We are grateful to Colin Chapman for permission to publish the conclusion of the latest edition of his "Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Conflict Over Israel and Palestine" (Lion, 2015). Colin Chapman has worked with CMS ( Church Mission  Society**)in the Middle East for 18 years and in his last post he was teaching Islamic Studies at the Near East School of Theology. He has taught at Trinity College, Bristol, and was principal of Crowther Hall, the CMS training college in Selly Oak, Bristol. He is now enjoying semi-retirement in Cambridge. His books include Whose Promised Land?, Whose Holy City? Jerusalem and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Christianity on Trial (Lion), Cross and Crescent: responding to the challenges of Islam (IVP), and “Islamic Terrorism”: is there a Christian response? (Grove). ** Click here for details. 

*⁶ Veritas International University

viu.ves.edu

Veritas International University is a non-profit accredited Christian university in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Founded in 2008, the university began as a seminary before transitioning to a university with the addition of undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. The university now offers doctoral degrees as well.

*⁷ Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Islam can take many forms, including academic critiques, political criticism, religious criticism, and personal opinions. Subjects of criticism include Islamic beliefs, practices, and doctrines. Criticism of Islam has been present since its formative stages, and early expressions of disapproval were made by Christians, Jews, and some former Muslims like Ibn al-Rawandi.*** Subsequently, the Muslim world itself faced criticism after the September 11 attacks. Criticism of Islam has been aimed at the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, in both his public and personal lives. Issues relating to the authenticity and morality of the scriptures of Islam, both the Quran and the hadiths, are also discussed by critics. Criticisms of Islam have also been directed at historical practices, like the recognition of slavery as an institution as well as Islamic imperialism impacting native cultures.

***Ibn al-Rawandi

Scholar, theologian and philosopher.

Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq al-Rawandi, commonly known as Ibn al-Rawandi, was a scholar and theologian. In his early days, he was a Mu'tazilite scholar, but then rejected the Mu'tazilite doctrine. Afterwards, he became a Shia scholar; there is some debate about whether he stayed a Shia until his death or became a skeptic, though most sources confirm his eventual rejection of all religion and becoming an atheist. Although none of his works have survived, his opinions had been preserved through his critics and the surviving books that answered him. His book with the most preserved fragments is the Kitab al-Zumurrud. Al-Rawandi is frequently mentioned in classical Islamic literature as one of the zanādiqa, a term referring to individuals who outwardly profess Islam while concealing beliefs that contradict it. He extended his critique to prophethood, though he did not deny the existence of a Creator. 

Born: 827 CE, Marw al-Rudh Abbasid Caliphate

Died: 911 CE

Other names: Abu al-Hasan Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Ishaq al-Rawandi

Occupation: Writer

Era: Early and Middle Abbasid Era

*⁸ Holes In The Narratives 

Click here ... Listen in with Al Fadi and Dr. Jay Smith talking about “The Book, The Man, and The Place” 

*⁹ Isra and Mi'raj

The Israʾ and Miʿraj are the two parts of a Night Journey that, according to Islam, the Islamic prophet Muhammad took during a single night around the year 621. Within Islam it signifies both a physical and spiritual journey. A brief sketch of the story is in the Quran surah al-Isra, while greater detail is found in the hadith; later collections of the reports, teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad. In the Israʾpart of the journey, Muhammad is said to have traveled on the back of Buraq to the Al-Aqsa Mosque where he leads other prophets in prayer. In the next part of the journey, the Mi'raj, he ascends into heaven where he individually greets the prophets and later, speaks to Allah, who gives Muhammad instructions to take back to the Muslims regarding the details of prayer. The journey and ascent are marked as one of the most celebrated dates in the Islamic calendar.

Yes, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem after his night journey, known as Isra and Mi'raj, where he is believed to have prayed at the Al-Aqsa Mosque before ascending through the seven heavens. This event is considered a significant miracle in Islam. 

*¹⁰ Kaaba

Cubical shrine in Mecca, Saudi Arabia; direction of prayer for Muslims.

The Kaaba, also spelled Kaʽba, Kaʽbah or Kabah, sometimes referred to as al-Kaʽba al-Musharrafa, is a stone building at the center of Islam's most important mosque and holiest site, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It is considered by Muslims to be the Baytullah and determines the qibla for Muslims around the world. In early Islam, Muslims faced in the general direction of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem as the qibla in their prayers before changing the direction to face the Kaaba, believed by Muslims to be a result of a Quranic verse revelation to Muhammad. According to Islam, the Kaaba was rebuilt several times throughout history, most famously by Ibrahim and his son Ismail, when he returned to the valley of Mecca several years after leaving his wife Hajar and Ismail there upon Allah's command.

Affiliation: Islam

Rite: Tawaf

Country: Saudi Arabia

Administration: The Agency of the General Presidency for the Affairs of the Two Holy Mosques

Ecclesiastical or organizational status Mosque

Status: Active

Leadership: Abdul-Rahman Al-Sudais: (President of the Affairs of the Two Holy Mosques)

Architectural type: Temple

Date established: Pre-Islamic era

Length: 12.86 m

Width: 11.03 m

Height (max): 13.1 m

Materials: Stone, marble, limestone

****The first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, was ruled by the four Rashidun caliphs (Arabic: الخلفاء الراشدون, lit. 'Rightly Guided Caliphs'), Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, who are considered by Sunni Muslims to have been the most virtuous and pure caliphs. They were chosen by popular acclamation or by a small committee, in contrast with the following caliphates, which were mostly hereditary. On the other hand, Shiites only recognise Ali and consider the first three caliphs to be usurpers.

Naked but not ashamed

 Genesis 2 and 3 - Why was nudity suddenly a shame for Adam?

Genesis 2:

Adam was created from mud, and Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs. Both had remained naked in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (KJV).

Genesis 3:7

"Then the eyes of both [Adam and Eve] were opened and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." (NIV)

Genesis 3:9-11

9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (KJV).

Question: What was it about eating from the Tree of Knowedge of Good and Evil that made Adam suddenly ashamed of his nudity when he was not ashamed before? ( Details here ) 

1. Question Restatement:

In Genesis, why did Adam and Eve become ashamed when they realized they were naked after eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

2. Possible Answer - It is shameful for the one who knows good, but does not do it:

The Tree of Knowledge was Knowledge of BOTH Righteousness AND Evil:

NKJV, James 4:17 - Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

It was not revelation of some sin that they had done that made them ashamed.

But rather, it was knowing the "Good" that they had not clothed themselves in, that made them ashamed, (the "Good" imitation of the love and mercy of God - righteousness).

At the very least, even if the narrative isn't teaching to clothe oneself in "good work" or "righteousness", then it is at least affirming that clothing your body is a "Good" thing.

So, compared with the goodness of God - they were likely ashamed of how their own "goodness" measured up to God's own.

NKJV - Revelation 3:15-18 - “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. ... 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

3. Explanation: The Spiritual / Mystical Symbolism of Clothing:

Although Scripture might speak to "modesty", Scripture elsewhere affirms nudity - "before the Lord".

Scripture shows justification for more extreme, and public, displays of nudity:

NKJV, 1 Samuel 19:24 - And he also stripped off his clothes and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

NKJV, 2 Samuel 6:20-21 - ... And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, “How glorious was the king ... uncovering himself ... as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!” 21 So David said to Michal, “It was before the Lord ...

In Scripture, "Garments" Are Metaphorical for "Works", BOTH Righteousness AND Evil:

NKJV, Isaiah 59:6 - Their webs will not become garments, Nor will they cover themselves with their works; Their works are works of iniquity, And the act of violence is in their hands.

NASB, Isaiah 61:10 - I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

NKJV, Daniel 7:9 - “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

People are NOT "spiritually naked" - when they do evil:

Note: This is an objection to another answer that asserts that nakedness is a metaphor for sinfulness - but even "sinful people" are "clothed".

NKJV, Zechariah 3:4 - Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, “Take away the filthy garments from him.” And to him He said, “See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.”

Adam and Eve, (like infants), were in a unique situation: they were neither clothed in goodness, nor evil. Although they had disobeyed God, this text seems to show that their disobedience was not on the same level of "evil / filthy garments".

I have been thinking about this answer since I read and accepted it all that time ago; and the more I think about it the more I accept it as scripturally accurate - particularly the 3rd explanation. To me, reading the passages, it is like the fact that disobedience and sin is always clearly visible to God, and not hidden by any lies (false clothing if you like) as disobedience and sin is always “laying naked” before God’s eyes. I wish I could give more than 1 upvote. 

Some cultures, especially Western ones, emphasize innocence vs. guilt in their moral paradigms. This is while others, especially Eastern ones, emphasize honor vs. shame in theirs. Kind of like your point about the garments being a metaphor for works and such, you can probably see the Bible speaking to both innocence-and-guilt and honor-and-shame paradigms, at the same exact time.

1

... A major difference between them is that the first emphasizes what you do, while the second emphasizes what you are. You do things like putting clothes on or off, and the clothes you actively wear are a (replaceable) depiction of what you are. In terms of depicting what you are...Are you clothed with sin, or are you clothed with Christ? Everybody, including Christians, makes mistakes all the time; but do you embrace sin, or do you embrace/accept Christ (as He leads you to the next, heavenly life, which will be void of sin)? Dirty vs. clean garments speak to this symbolically.

My dad, who is a pastor, has an interesting theory as of why. He says that prior to the Fall, they were clothed in light as a result of walking with God. They were physically naked, but because they were clothed in God's glory, they couldn't see that they were naked.

This idea is rooted in Exodus 34:9-25, where Moses' face was radiant from being in God's presence, talking to the Almighty "face to face". Considering this, it is possible that Adam and Eve were also radiant from being with God all the time.

When they disobeyed God and contaminated themselves with sin, their radiance wore off, and they saw that they were naked and hid themselves.

(Exodus 34:9-35, New International Version

9 “Lord,” he said, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”

10 Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 “Do not make any idols.

18 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.[b] 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

The Radiant Face of Moses

29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them. 32 Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai.

33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34 But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord.)

This perspective is compelling in light of the role of clothing in scripture. Revelation mentions white robes several times as gifts. Revelation 19:8 indicates that the white clothing is the righteous works of those who were (already) sanctified. Adam and Eve did not yet have righteous works, but God replaced their leafy aprons with garments of skin, which might have been from white sheep sacrificed for their sin.

The sudden shame for Adam's (and Eve)nakedness is an allegory, the physical of the spiritual. Not just the gained knowledge from eating the fruit.

First, they were commanded not to eat the fruit from the tree, nor touch it (Genesis 3:3) This is confirmed when the Lord went searching for Adam in Genesis 3:11 "And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?"

Second, Eve saw "that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise." (Genesis 3:6) and ate of the fruit of the tree. Eve was tempted with sin (by the serpent who represents Satan) the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes) and pride of life (to make one wise). She also gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. In verse 7 it explains how once they ate the fruit (disobeyed God) their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked.

Nakedness, was the physical representation of their disobedience to God engulfed with the shame and knowledge of that disobedience.

In that shame, they both tried to hide from God who was walking in the garden. (Genesis 3:8) This is the first sin of man. And with that sin comes shame and "nakedness" the exposure of our sin.

That feeling that we want to "hide" our sin, knowing that it is/was wrong and against what we know is right. You know, how when you are a child and you drink a beer for example. You know that it is wrong and something that you are not supposed to do so you hide the fact that you drank that beer. You brush your teeth, run straight up to your room, close the door and try to hide from your parents so they will not find out that you had some beer. Once they find out, you become "exposed" or naked before them.

The physical nakedness of Adam and Eve represented and still represents the spiritual exposure (or nakedness) of who we really are to God from whom we cannot run or hide from either in our hearts, minds, spiritually or physically.

Here are some other "naked" examples in scripture.

I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.-- Revelation 3:18 NKJV

Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen; I will take vengeance, And I will not arbitrate with a man.-- Isaiah 47:3 NKJV 

So just to clarify, it was spiritual nakedness, (not physical nakedness) which they were ashamed of?

1, I agree with you that it was a form of "Spiritual Nakedness", but, I disagree with you that "nakedness" is a representation of "being sinful", but rather a representation of "No Righteousness". They are very different things. So, I posted a very similar answer - from this other point of view, that "spiritual nakedness" is absense of "righteousness". After all, you are NOT spiritually naked if you do evil: NKJV, Zechariah 3:4 - Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, “Take away the filthy garments from him.”

There is nothing in the Genesis account to indicate that this was an allegory.To do so it would mean to undermine the Word of God.

Your perceptive question is addressed by almost all the biblical commentaries… On the second verse you quote, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked," Even a blind person knows when he is naked.So what was it that they realized here?

Little children are notorious for trying to shed their clothes and run around naked. This is done with total innocence; the two-year-old does not see any difference between his face, his knees, and the parts of his body which we adults insist that he cover. Only adults feel that certain parts of the body must be covered. Why? Because those are connected with physical lust and passions, and should not be exposed.

Prior to their sin, Adam and Eve knew good from bad, right from wrong, but they had not internalized an evil inclination. So they could choose to do right and wrong, and were held responsible for their choices, but the urge to do evil did not come from within. This urge was represented by the serpent—the external tempter. Since the evil did not reside within them, they were "naturally" good, and their nakedness was innocent and in no way sinful. They saw no difference between a hand, whose purpose was to give charity and to do good deeds, a mouth with which one praises G‑d and says kind words to others, and the parts of the body which are used to "be fruitful and multiply." With every organ they could fulfill the will of G‑d or vice versa, so no organ was shameful, nor did anything need to be covered.

When they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, the evil inclination became a part of them. No longer did they need an external tempter to incite them to sin—now, that tempter resided within their psyches. And specifically, sexual passion – a passion which is much stronger than the desire to give charity or praise G‑d, a passion which is much more encompassing and has the potential to be seriously misused – became a part of them as well.

Hence the abovementioned verse. "The eyes of both of them were opened" – they became aware of physical lust "and they realized that they were naked" – and only now it was inappropriate for them to be unclothed.

Agree that a this particular combination of Evil/Good had to be 'taken in' from the outside. Other ancient texts give explanation for this. Also appears that the same thing happened in the Jacob-'Messenger' story. The Unique Benjamin was born after Jacob's encounter - he (Jacob) was 'added to'. As if a Being was keen to have her Special child included in not only Creation on Earth, but inserted into the line of the Tribes of Israel going forward. 

Knowledge of good & evil (kge) made them feel guilty of being naked.

That is why God forbid them from choosing kge.

They were naked (which was sinful before the law or kge) & yet accepted by God for the sake of His Son Jesus.

But they rejected Jesus and chose the law.

Now we are given an opportunity to reject law & accept Jesus (Romans 7:4 , 6).

God had Knowledge of good & evil. Man was forbidden to have it. Why? 

Man was forbidden to have kge because God's perfect plan to grant acceptance to people was not based on their conformance to the kge but based on the Person of His Son Jesus. 

Adam and Eve BECAME (hayah) naked….that is, they became without works of righteousness (God’s righteousness) to clothe themselves with.

They were put in the garden to work and keep it....that is, to work and keep His commandments which are a delight (the meaning of "Eden") as they are not burdensome. This working and the keeping of His commandments must have become slackened in their lives.

They were not ashamed….that is, the shame of the nakedness had not appeared yet. The shame is the speaking of evil towards another who would come and tell them that they were naked….that their “works” were not the true works of God’s righteousness.

Genesis 2:25 KJV (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Who told you that you were naked?

That would be Jesus: “if I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin, but now they no cloak for their sin”.

They were naked and now their shame appeared before all to see as they responded with hatred toward him as they spoke evil of Him. They confirmed their nakedness by their evil reaction (their exposed shame) towards what Jesus had to say to them.

John 15:22-24 KJV (22) If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. (23) He that hateth me hateth my Father also. (24) If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

It was Jesus who opened their eyes….enlightening the eyes of their understanding… to their spiritually impoverished condition: you don’t know that you are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” “Laodicea” means “people of the Judgment”. It is then the Day of Judgment when we hear His voice walking in the Spirit of the Day of Judgment. He that has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying in the Day.

Revelation 3:17-19 KJV (17) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Laodicea…the church that heard the sharp rebuke of the Lord…. was instructed to have faith (gold tried in fire) and overcome and put on Christ….the white raiment of His good works so that they may be clothed.

If we are clothed with good works towards one that will enlighten the eyes of our understanding about our spiritually impoverished condition, then we will not speak evil.

Speaking evil of another (hating without cause) manifests the “shame” of our nakedness.

(18) I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (19) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Yet, the response of Adam and Eve was to sew fig leaves together (saying “Lord, Lord”) and not producing the fruits of His righteousness towards the One who informed them that they were naked.

Leaves only without fruit. They said “Lord, Lord”’ (leaves only) but did not do the will of God (producing fruits of righteousness).

Having fig leaves only (saying “Lord, Lord”) and while not producing any fruit will not save us. Faith alone will not save us if it is not accompanied by good works towards a “stranger” who will come along and tell us we have no true works of righteousness. Our so-called “works of righteousness” will not save us.

They made themselves “aprons”….in other words, they felt secure with their things and condition. They had need of nothing. 

They trusted in their own sayings of “Lord, Lord” but yet had no good works to show (no outward manifestation of the evidence of their faith). The eyes of their understanding were opened by the Lord who told them that they were naked…without the works of the righteousness of God.

Genesis 3:7 KJV (7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

They heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the “cool”….that is, Spirit…of the Day…the Day of Judgment. Laodicea = “people of the Judgment”.

They are reminded to keep His commandments…which Adam was to work and keep in Eden (delight). His commandments are to be a delight of those who have His Spirit…and they show they know Him by the keeping of His commandments.

They instead “hid” themselves from the presence (face) of the LORD God in the tree (singular) of the garden. They did not show that they knew the Father nor the Son by the doing of His commandments.

TREE = singular tree.

They hid in the tree (singular) of the garden.

This singular tree would by the Tree of Life as they professed that they were “alive” but were really dead. They did not eat of its fruit but hid in the name of being alive in Him.

Genesis 3:8-11 KJV (8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife **hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.**

They hid in the Tree of Life…..hiding behind their name that they lived in Christ but were really dead as they did not reach out their hand and eat of the fruit of that Tree.

Where are you? Where is your outward evidence of faith? 

Faith alone is dead….we cannot hide behind our profession of faith only. Work is the manifestation of the faith within you. This does not make us “alive”. Professing that one has faith but having no good works is being dead. Faith alone is dead. We must show forth …manifest…our good works as evidence of our inward faith. God had called unto Adam...calling out the evidence (the good works) of our faith in Him.

(9) And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

“Adam” means “red” and “Sardis” means “red ones” and speaks of having faith alone without good works.

Good works completes our faith in Him. Jesus is the author and completer (the Beginning and the End) of our faith as we hear His voice in the Spirit of Truth opening up the Scriptures to our minds and we show our faith by bringing forth good works towards what we hear.

We cannot hide from His face in the Tree of Life….having a name that we are alive but having no good works to accompany our profession of faith. We are “dead” having faith alone without good works.

Revelation 3:1-6 KJV (1) And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Good works completes our faith. The church in Sardis did not produce those good works. The Lord did not find their works complete (perfect) before God.

(2) Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. (3) Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

(2) Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. (3) Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

Some in “Adam” (meaning “red)…in Sardis (red ones)…who are "dead" will awaken to His voice and put on Christ and will walk with Him. Adam and Eve heard the Voice (Jesus Christ) walking in the Spirit of the Day….in the Day of Judgment. We are to overcome.

(4) Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

They did not hide in the Tree of Life in name only but actually partook of the fruit of life. Those who will hide in that Tree of Life when they hear His voice speaking to them today (and found not awakening to His righteousness) will have their name blotted out of the book of life. 

(5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

The Spirit speaks…we hear His voice….and we are to hear and respond according to the instruction. Where is our faith? Where are you Adam? Will our called out works complete our faith? He is calling out the evidence of our faith towards the hearing of His Spirit of Truth.

(6) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

“Are you eating of the tree whereof I commanded you that you should not eat”?.

Genesis 3: (10) And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (11) And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil speaks of using our tongues being used to speak evil ( others as being “evildoers”) in judgment upon them. Those who do such things think that they are doing God “service” for killing another with their tongues…being judge, jury and executioner supposedly in God’s name.

Professing one’s self as “wise” and speaking evil of another supposedly as a “judge” for God (“For God knows…”) is eating of the wrong tree. There is only One Judge and One Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy. Who are we to judge another using our own carnal commandments of men as a basis for? 

James 4:11-12 KJV (11) Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. (12) There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Whosoever will “kill” you will think that they are doing God service. They eat from the wrong tree as they see themselves as “judges”…that is, “gods” or “Elohim”. They know as judges supposedly for God who and what is “good and evil” according to their own standards….according to their handwriting of dogmas that think are true.

John 16:1-3 KJV (1) These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. (2) They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. (3) And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

They love and practice THE Lie…the same Lie from the beginning:

“you shall surely not die” = by “killing, you shall not die”. They think that they are doing God service and have peace and safety in killing another with their tongues…speaking evil of their brother.

“For God does know” = you are doing this thing in God’s authority.

“Your eyes shall be opened” = you shall be seen as wise. Everyone wants to be seen as the “wise” one.

“You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” = we shall be as judges for God as we know what and who is good and evil according to my own standard (according to the doctrines and commandments of men that we hold on to and think is true to keep).

Out of the same mouth one blesses God and yet curses other men made in His image. The fruit of this tree is death. The wages of THE Sin is death…death to the mortal body.

Genesis 3:4-7 KJV (4) And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So the eating of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not open their own eyes per se but by the eating of it caused a response: Jesus came to tell them that they were naked…. without the clothing of God’s righteousness . He opened the eyes of their understanding so that they knew that they were “wretched,

(7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

But they did not overcome. All are dead in Adam. We must overcome and put on Christ.

We must “awake” to His righteousness. We “sleep” when we forget to do His commandments. We must arise from the dead….being dead in trespasses and sins. We must depart from those who will not do His commandments when they hear His voice. Christ shall give us light…..the full knowledge of God when we do this.

Ephesians 5:14-21 KJV (14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. (15) See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (16) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (17) Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

We must not be found “drunk with wine”…that is, drunk on the wine of wrath towards what we hear the Spirit saying. Instead, we are to be filled with what the Spirit is saying…drinking it in.

(18) And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

And rejoicing within our hearts and giving thanks to Him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(19) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (20) Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; (21) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

The wages of THE Sin is death...when we continue to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The fruit of that is death to our mortal bodies. 

Romans 6:23 KJV (23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So Adam was hiding in the Tree of Life (having a name that he was alive but was really dead). He was prevented from reaching out to take also of its fruit.

Genesis 3:22-24 KJV (22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Now we must use the sword of the Spirit to mortify.. deaden....kill...the practicing of the sin in our lives.

Romans 8:12-14 KJV (12) Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. (13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Genesis 3: (24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. ( Details here revelation)

Spirit of Elijah

 God uses that spirit five times: 

¹once in Elijah; 

²in Elisha; 

³in John the Baptist; 

⁴in call out the Church (via the 7th church age messenger, William Marrion Branham ; 

⁵and in call out the remnant of the Jews.

Five times, "g-r-a-c-e" , "J-e-s-u-s", 

"f-a-i-t-h", and five is the number of grace. See? All  right .