"Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Muhammad (allegedly dead 632 but see Pourshariati) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."
This oral statement Klevius has previously attributed to Hugh Kennedy. However, it was overheard in a discussion where also Robert G. Hoyland participated. Now when I've heard Hugh Kennedy again I realize it was probably not him but Robert G. Hoyland who said it. There's no doubt about the authenticity of the statement itself though, and it alters nothing of what Klevius has written. Just something for you who can't use your own brain and therefore is incapable of reading and trusting Klevius.
Klevius analysis of the origin of islam is as rock solid as it was when he first presented it after Georg W Bush humiliated* himself by stating that 'islam is a peaceful religion'* However, Bush had nothing to do with the fact that muslims supported by hate mongering Saudi Arabia were incapable of living in peace after their dictator had been elegantly toppled.
There are two simple reasons why Klevius understands islam equally well as whoever muslim:
1 Only the Koranic texts about pillaging, enslavement, rapetivism and booty from the "infidels" fit the historical facts about early islam and muslims.
2 Only muslim one way reproduction via rigid religious sex apartheid explains islam's growth. And as you already know, Klevius is the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it). Btw, you will get a sex tutorial here soon that will probably alter your view on sex equally much as Einstein altered our view on physics.
However, to these points you have to add what differs Klevius from muslims, i.e. the fact that Klevius has chosen as his axiomatic point of departure the equality principle of the 1948 Human Rights declaration instead of muslims' hateful racist/sexist sharia.
UK (diversity trained or muslim?) officers raid shops asking for names and addresses of those who have bought Charlie Hebdo. And not a word about it from BBC
Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.
Klevius quiz: Which of the Judaic branches do you think would have been first in line trying to murder Albert Einstein as of today?
Origin of islam - some hasty random notes for you to chew on
An eighth-century manuscript of a seventh-century text in Syriac, attributed to Thomas Presbyter contains the earliest known mention in a non-muslim text of Muhammad.
'In the year 945 [=634], indiction 7, Friday 4 February at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn(?), whom the Arabs killed. Some four thousand poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs (i.e. muslims) ravaged the whole region.'
The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time
The construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 691–92 represents the earliest known dated passages later found in the Koran. In these inscriptions, some letters are provided with diacritical points.
There can be little doubt that the first contacts between nascent islam and the Christian world were one-sidedly violent and bloody and that they brought much suffering on the populations of the Christian Countries that the muslims attacked.
These accounts show that offensive sword-jihad was the modus vivendi of the early muslims and that sack, pillage, the taking of (sex-)slaves and the ravaging of the land were commonplace.
The sources also show that the muslim sense of a “god-given” entitlement to Judea-Samaria, and thus modern Israel, goes back to the foundations of islam itself.
There is evidence of the establishment of Dhimmitude and payment of Jizya and other taxes that destroyed the wealth of the non-muslims.
The explanations for much of this can be found within the Koran, Biographic and Hadith literature.
Some muslims of today are inclined to say that the Hadith and Biographies are “inaccurate” or that they “reflect the views of the muslims of the times [a century or more after Muhammad] rather than the truth about islam”. What the above demonstrates is that the “views” expressed in the Ahadith and Biographies reach back to, if not the time of Muhammad himself, then to within a year or two of his death.
Given that the early records date to before the time of the textus receptus of the Koran and thus pre-date by centuries other muslim sources and further that they reflect the actions of the Sahaba, we can be quite certain that the attitudes in the later muslim sources which reflect these earlier sources are genuine in that they are accurately accounting the beliefs of the Sahaba.
Muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X "president" Barakeh Hussain Obama Soetoro (or whatever) now proposes Human Rights in his fight against original islam
However, the question is whether he means Human Rights or islamic "human rights" i.e. sharia? If the former he betrays all muslim OIC countries and in the latter case he betraysUS and the free world.
The muslim finger (shahada) problem
The shahada hate finger is protected by
Saudi based sharia OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!