About Mohammed III: Of Pork, Pictures, And Pedophilia

ADDENDUM

Mohammedan Lineage Myths

Some believe that provenance is magically passed down, through the ages, via bloodlines. Hence the fixation on bloodlines that we so often encounter in traditions around the world.

Attempts to link Mohammed of Mecca (son of an “Abd-ullah”, who was the son of Abd [al-]Mu-Talib Shaybah, who–in turn–was the son of Hashim ibn Manaf) to iconic Abrahamic figures proliferate.  The “Kitab al-Asnam” [“Book of Idols”] was composed by Hisham ibn Al-Kalbi of Kufa in the late 8th century.  It was the first to attempt to establish a genealogical link between Ishmael and MoM.

The purported lineage is as follows: Hashim (namesake of the Hashimites) was the son of Abd Manaf {17}, who was the son of Qusay ibn Kilab ibn Murrah ibn Ka’b ibn Luay ibn Ghalib ibn Fihr ibn Malik.  Thus, the earliest attested figure is a late 2nd-century figure referred to as “M-L-K”.  This was merely the Syriac term for a tribal chieftain (derived from the older Akkadian / Assyrian word for “king”).  The lineage is fudged from there on back.

Malik’s alleged father was “Nadr”…who was the son of Kinanah ibn Khuzayma ibn A-M-R [alt. Mu-Drikah] ibn Ilias [alt. Ilyas / Elias; a.k.a. “Elijah”] ibn Mu-Dhar ibn Nazar [alt. Nizar / Nazir] ibn Ma’ad, we can go back even further…to a figure alleged to have lived in the 2nd century B.C. who was referred to as “Adnan”.  He was assigned this name because he was purported to be an ancestor of the Adnani Arabs.  Per this genealogical contrivance, Adnan’s son, Ma’ad, sired Nazar…who sired Mudhar, who sired the Abrahamic prophet, “Elijah”.  Thus: Elijah was not Hebrew, he was an Ishmaelite (read: Arab).

There is a glaring temporal problem with this: Elijah of Samaria lived in the 9th century B.C.; and so could not possibly have been the great-great grandson of a man who lived in the 2nd century B.C.  (This is aside from the fact that making him an Ishmaelite requires ignoring all extant Abrahamic lore.)

The solution to this temporal snafu was to do one of two things.  The first option was to jettison the Biblical (i.e. Judaic) record of Elijah altogether–thereby making him an Arab while moving him forward in time more than EIGHT CENTURIES.  The second option was to move Adnan back in time (eight centuries further into the past)…thereby rejecting the aforementioned nine-generation link between Malik and Adnan.  The latter option would require inserting an additional 24-plus generations into the accepted Mohammedan genealogy (to get from Adnan to Malik).

In a nutshell, the traditional Abrahamic genealogy (per the Biblical record) must be dramatically altered in order to bring Ishmael’s progeny down to Elijah…and then from Elijah’s progeny down to Malik…and thereby down to Islam’s “Seal of the Prophets” (who was born c. 570 A.D.)  As stated, the Mohammedan genealogy is as follows: Elijah (as “Ilias”) sired Amir / Mudrikah, who sired Khuzayma, who sired Kinana, who sired An-Nadr, who sired Malik…down to Abd Manaf…and thereafter down to MoM.  Presto!

Prior to “Adnan”, very little is specified in Mohammedan lore. {18}  More ambitious Mohammedan genealogists claim that HIS father was a man named, “Ud[a]d” / “Awwad”, son of [Al-]Mu-Qawwim ibn Al-Yasa ibn [Al]-Hamis ibn Nibt ibn Salaman ibn Ham[m]al.  That last name, “Ham[m]al”, means either “ram” or “carrier” in Arabic; and designates an ancestor that would have lived at some point in the 4th century B.C.  (Never mind that that was a thousand years before Classical Arabic came into existence.)

That’s about it.

This leaves between one and two millennia to account for…if, that is, we are to make it all the way back to Ishmael, son of Abraham.  The Biblical Abraham would have been an Amorite–as the name was originally an Amorite name, though one that may have been adopted from the Chaldeans.  (“Abram” was recorded in Assyrian cuneiform in inscriptions by the Hyksos on the Sinai peninsula.)  Abraham’s identity is, of course, retro-actively altered by Islamic historiographers, rendering him–as with all other Abrahamic prophets–not only a Hijazi Arab, but a MUSLIM (ref. 3:67 in the Koran).

The Ishmaelites–we might be reminded–are said to have been Abraham’s progeny through his son (sired via Hagar).  So whenever the Hebrew Bible references “the seed of Abraham” (as in Genesis 17:8, which declares that Canaan was bequeathed to Abraham’s seed), it encompasses not just the progeny of Isaac, but the progeny of Ishmael.  In other words: Anything promised to “the seed of Abraham” includes the Ishmaelites.  Beth Israel, on the other hand, is more narrowly defined as the progeny of Isaac’s son, Jacob. {22}  Hence it is only statements that specify “Israel” (i.e. the progeny of Jacob ben Isaac) that restrict the Promised Land exclusively to the Jews (see my essay on “The Land Of Purple”).

Yet even THAT interpretation poses problems.  For, in Genesis 17:20, the Abrahamic deity proclaims that he will make the progeny of ISHMAEL a great nation…right after Abraham beseeched the godhead, “O, that Ishmael might live before thee!” two verses earlier. (!)

There is a problem with ALL of this, of course.  IF Ishmael and his progeny were ordained by god to deliver the “right” message, and IF Ishmael really lived in Arabia and erected the Kaaba in the Hijaz in the 2nd millennium B.C., then why is it that the Koran tells MoM that he was sent the Final Revelation so that he “may warn a people [the Arabians] whose forefathers were not warned” (36:5-6)?   Other verses pose further problems, as the Koran’s protagonist declaims: “We have heretofore never given them [the Arabians] anything to recite, nor did we ever send a warner before [MoM]” (32:3, 34:44, and 35:24).  Yet according to Mohammedan lore, Arabians WERE warned, as the sons of Ishmael would have been located in the Hijaz (hence the location of the Kaaba).

(Note that I explore an explanation for this historical snafu in my essay, “Mecca And Its Cube.)

The rationalization for all this typically as follows: When the Abrahamic deity finally got around to it, the Final Revelation was given to the Bedouins of Arabia because otherwise–come Judgement Day–they would have been able to use the excuse that “the Book”, which had been made available to all others (10:47 and 16:36), had never been revealed to THEM (6:155-157).

Yet this contradicts the contention that the Koran was intended for all mankind AND that a prophet had already been sent to all nations (16:36)…as well as the contention that Abraham dwelled in the Hijaz.  6:155-157 states that the “Recitations” were delivered explicitly to the Arabians (in their native tongue) so that THEY would–finally, at long last–be made aware.  That is: The revelations were delivered in THEIR tongue–whatever it may have been–in order to preclude the possibility they plead they didn’t know any better when the Day of Judgement arrives.

It is clear, then, that the authors of the Koran did not believe that Ishmael had dwelled in the Hijaz; and so did not think the Meccan cube dated back to the days of Abraham. (Again, see my essay: “Mecca And Its Cube”.)

With regard to Abraham’s progeny, there is no explanation for how the one to two millennia prior to the (alleged) 2nd-century B.C. “Adnan” (or perhaps his ancestor, “Ham[m]al”, if we oblige) might be chronicled. {18}  The use of narrative filler is not uncommon in sacred histories; as with, say, the use of the Kings of “Alba Longa” in Roman lore to account for the massive caesura (four centuries) between the founding of Latium / Sabinium by Aeneas and the founding of Rome by the fabled Romulus.  Presto!  The sequence of events is given extra dramatic flare.

To resolve this problem in their own lore (which, to repeat, is an inexplicable gap of between one and two thousand years), some Islamic scholars conjecture that the salient Gentile lineages proceeded via Ishmael’s two eldest sons, Nebaioth (a.k.a. “Nabut”) and/or Kedar (alt. “Qaidar” / “Qedar”; progenitor of the Qedarite Arabs).  There are also some traditions that posit ancestors of Ishmael’s subsequent TEN sons (most notably the third: Nadbeel / Idiba’ilu) and/or his two daughters (Mahalath and Basemath)…who’s progeny roamed Arabia for the ensuing centuries…until we somehow arrive at “Hamal” (or, later, “Adnan”).

HOWEVER, when the Koran opts to mention Abraham with his sons Isaac and Ishmael (3:83-84), it then only mentions ISAAC’S son, Jacob (ironically, remaining mum on Ishmael’s progeny).  This glaring omission is quite strange if it is Ishmael’s lineage that is supposed to be most relevant. {19}

So what of Kedar?  He is said by some to have sired “Yashjub”, who in turn sired “Yarub”.  Thereafter, the speculation completely fades away.  For during Classical Antiquity, the only attested lineage that is salient (vis a vis Abrahamic lore) is categorically HEBREW (i.e. Davidic).  Getting from the early Ishmaelite lineage–past the traditional Abrahamic (read: Judaic) patriarchs–down to “Adnan” (via “Hamal”) requires a tremendous genealogical slight-of-hand.  Indeed, to get all this to work, one must circumvent the entirety of Abrahamic lore and concoct an entirely new lore from whole-cloth. {18}

It is no wonder, then, that attempts to catalogue the generations from Ishmael’s alleged great-grandson (“Yarub”) down to “Adnan” (or even to Adnan’s purported ancestor, “Hamal”) are generally frowned upon in Islamic circles.  Even the most dogmatically-brazen Muslims recognize the entire enterprise to be ridiculous.  For attempts can only possibly end in embarrassment; as one would be forced to fill a gap of well over a thousand years with invented characters.

YET…comic absurdity doesn’t prevent some True Believers from trying anyway.  The most mendacious Mohammedan genealogists simply proclaim Adnan’s father to be Ishmael HIMSELF, then just call it a day.  The rest of us are expected not to notice the intervening millennium or two; nor to try to ascertain where key figures like “Yusuf” and “Musa” might fit into such a hyper-compressed timeline.  (And what about Ishmael’s son, Kedar?)  Presumably, we should overlook such temporal foibles and just play along.

Other commentators simply dissemble on the matter.  This genealogical pickle is made even more unseemly once we recall that–per Islamic lore–the Abrahamic icons (esp. the prophets) are ALL supposed to have been Muslim; even those in the Hebrew lineages from Isaac (e.g. Levite, Davidic, et. al.)  That is: Those reputedly Judaic “prophets” were supposed to have been Muslim ALL ALONG (per the tenet of “hanif”).  No amount of obscurantism can hide the fact that such conjecture is addled with a slew of glaring logistical snags.

One can’t help but wonder why Islamic apologists try so diligently to retro-fit (read: force-fit) a patently Judaic legacy into their own legacy; or vice versa.  They bend over backwards to link their prophet to Abraham–as if that were the only way to justify their Faith as monotheistic; or the only way to validate MoM’s greatness; or the only way to proffer MoM’s Abrahamic bona fides; or the only way to show that Providence was somehow at work when MoM was “chosen” to deliver the final revelation.

Their hackneyed attempt at ancestral co-optation reveals the spuriousness of the lore they so exuberantly tout.  That they find the need to shoe-horn Judaic lore–itself highly dubious–into their own lore so as to give it a veneer of Abrahamic legitimacy indicates that they (correctly) suspect their own lore can’t stand on its own merits.

So there we have it: A farcical lineage that assiduously strives to connect MoM (qua last Abrahamic prophet) to the father of Semitic monotheism BY BLOOD…via a contrived pantheon of non-Hebrew (Ishmaelite) intermediaries.  The result of these efforts is a cast of characters that manages to cover only a small fraction of the remaining two millennia.

But wait.  There’s more.  There is also an effort to place the first HUMAN BEING ever to exist (“Adam”) NINETEEN generations before Abraham (per the traditional Biblical account).  Propounders of this zany (Young Earth) approach opt to place Noah exactly in the middle of this (far-fetched) pre-Abrahamic lineage.

Splendid.  But no word yet on with whom Adam’s son, Seth (Arabized as “Sheeth”) mated so as to produce his fabled son, “Anush” (from the Ancient Hebrew, “Enos[h]”; sometimes Arabized to “Anwas”).  Short of incest, preternatural procreation must be assumed (in order to–as it were–get the ball rolling).

Adam sired three sons via Eve (as “Hawa”): Cain (as “Qabil”, with twin sister, Iqlimia) and Abel (as “Habil”, with twin sister, Layudha) and Seth (as “Shayth”).  Expositors solved procreation problem by giving Cain and Abel each a twin sister, which they then swapped for mating purposes.  Cain killed Abel not due to jealousy over god favoring one over the other, but because he was jealous of Abel bedding Iqlimia, who was more beautiful.

With whom Seth mated is anyone’s guess.  Some say there were OTHER sisters involved.  In any case, he begat Enosh (as “Anoush”)…and on to Kenan (as “Qinan”) to Mahalel (as “Mahlail”) to Jared (as “Yarid”) to Enoch (as “Idris”) to Methuselah (as “Mattulshalakh”) to Lamech (as “Lamik”), who was the father of Noah (rendered “Nuh” in Arabic).  As in Hebrew lore, the salient son of Noah was Shem.

Shem-ites split according to the two sons: Arpha[k]shad and Aram  (as “Eram”).  The former sired Shelah, who sired [h]Eber (rendered “Hud”), patriarch of the lineage that led to Abraham.  This was through [h]Eber’s son, Peleg / Falikh, then to Reu / Rau to Serug / Sarukh to Nihor / Nahur to Abraham’s father: Terah / Azar.

Terah also had a son, Saleh–who was said to have been the patriarch of the NON-Ishmaelite Arabians (the doomed people of Thamud).  Another son was Haran, who begat the infamous Lot / Lud.  (Haran may well have corresponded with the patriarch of the Arameans–normally considered Shem’s son, Aram.)

Abraham sired Ishmael via Hagar–inaugurating the Ishmaelite lineage (who were primarily Nabateans).  Meanwhile, he sired Isaac via Sarah–thereby inaugurating Beth Israel via Isaac’s son, Jacob.  To ensure that all Arabians were considered Ishmaelites, instead of Abraham siring Midian via his concubine, Keturah (as in Hebrew lore), it was Ishmael who sired him–thereby inaugurating the (Ishmaelite) lineage that led to the Sabaeans / Minaeans in southern Hijaz and Dedanites / Lihyanites / Tanukhids in northern Hijaz (as well as possibly the Lakhmids in eastern Arabia).

Jethro / Shu’ayb was considered a Midianite.  It was his daughter, Zipporah / Saffura / Sephora, whom Moses wed.

But never mind any of that. By 10,000 B.C., there were already MILLIONS of homo sapiens in the world. {20} And by 2,000 B.C., there were TENS OF MILLIONS of people strewn across the planet, from the Americas to the Nordic regions to Southeast Asia.  (Bear in mind that Cain eliminated Able; then all of Cain’s progeny were eliminated in the Great Flood.)  Ergo, since the day that Seth and his mystery-mate begat mankind, each and every man in each and every generation had to be re-producing like gang-busters…AND doing lots of traveling.  The math here is silly, of course; especially once we note that, in addition to Shem, Noah had only two other sons (Ham and Japeth) who produced offspring.  Positing super-charged insemination and super-charged migration, century after century, certainly makes for fun speculation.

But there you have it.  Mohammedan lore in all its daffy splendor.  

Other than homo sapiens beginning just 19 generations prior to Abraham, there were other modifications made to Abrahamic lore in order to accord with the desired (Ishmaelite) narrative:

In 6:74 of the Koran, Abraham’s father is re-named “Azar” (as apposed to “Tera[c]h”), who was the son of “Tahur” (from the Ancient Hebrew “Nahor”).  These men are said to have been descendants of Noah’s son, Sam (from the Ancient Hebrew “Shem”).  How?  Through Shem’s son, Arpachshad (as “Arfakshad”).  Some Muslim expositors seem to have conflated “Cainan” with “Kenan”; others simply skip “Cainan” with a wink and a nod, and go directly to Salah / Shelah (as “Shalikh”).  They then go to [h]Eber (as “Abir”) then Peleg (as “Falikh”) then Reu (as “Abraghu” / “Ra’u”) then Serug (as “Shahru” / “Saru”) then Nahor (as “Tahur” / “Nahur”)…who sired Abraham’s father, Tera[c]h (as “Azar”).  These Arabicized names for Biblical (Hebrew) figures indicate the derivative nature of Mohammedan lore.

Thus Mohammedan lore maintains ten generations from Noah to Abraham; placing Abraham three to four centuries after the Great Flood, assuming all hyper-exaggerated life-spans are disregarded.

There’s more.  Going backward from Noah (presumably, sometime in the late 3rd millennium B.C.):

Noah’s father is designated “Lumik” (from the Ancient Hebrew “Lamech) {21}, son of “Mutu Shal[i]kh” (normally rendered “Methuselah”)…who in turn was the son of the fabled prophet, “Idris”.  According to this farcical lineage, Idris (a.k.a. “Akhnukh”, an Arabized version of “Enoch”) was Anush’s great-great-grandson through Kenan (as “Qainan”)…who, recall, had been SKIPPED in other accounts.  Kenan’s son was Mahalalel (as “Mahla’il”), who was the father of Jared (as “Yarid”)], who sired Idris / Enoch, who sired Methuselah, who sired Noah’s father, Lamech…thereby putting Noah NINE generations after Adam and Eve.

We can only assume that Abraham existed at some point between three centuries (minimum) and six centuries (maximum) prior to Moses (who would have lived in the 13th century B.C.)  Though not even the most audacious Biblical literalists pretend to know exactly when that might have been. {22}  Abraham most likely would have lived at some point between 1800 B.C. and 1600 B.C. (thus placing Adam and Eve not much before 2000 B.C., when the world population was already 30 million people.)  Voila!  The human race is less than 5,000 years old (and evidently began with a ridiculous rate of copulation). {23}

But WHAT WAS going on in the late 3rd millennium B.C.?  People were worshipping at Stonehenge in Britannia.  The Minoans were thriving in Greece.  Numerous cities were thriving in Sumer (from Ur to Uruk, from Larsa to Lagash, from Kish to Nippur).  Eridu[g] had been a major city since the 6th millennium B.C. (see my essay on “Forgotten Cities”).  The Elamites were thriving is lower Persia.  Lothal was a thriving city in the Indus Valley.  And the Xia Dynasty was thriving in China.  

What of major figures?  Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk in the 26th century B.C.  Sargon of Akkad founded the Akkadian Empire in the 24th century B.C…even as King Uru-ka-gina erected the E-ninnu at Lagash…after establishing the first formal legal code.  And in the 21st century B.C., the great ziggurat of Ur was erected (by King Ur-Nammu) as a temple to Nanna…after establishing his own formal legal code.

Gee wiz.  Where was the Abrahamic deity for ALL THAT?

Sane votaries in the Abrahamic tradition remind us that we’re not supposed to take these archaic genealogies literally.  A fair point. {24}  But the fact remains that there was EVEN AN ATTEMPT to concoct such a preposterous genealogy in the first place; and that such an attempt was undertaken by the same people who formulated the lore on which the religion ITSELF was predicated.  Here’s the catch: Opt not to take THAT seriously, and the credence of the rest of the material collapses.

The notion that the fate of all mankind somehow hinges on this particular sequence of men is–to put it mildly–ludicrous.  (Never mind the outlandish proposition that bloodlines are cosmically significant: a tenet that serves as the basis for virtually all brands of racism.)  Note, moreover, that NOT ONE of the figures enumerated in this essay is documented as ever having existed–let alone as ever having said anything profound.  Their significance is based entirely on their position in the anointed (patriarchal) lineage.  

But never mind any of that.  Such delinquency is immaterial insofar as we’re fixated on a confabulated ancestral legacy.  When ancestry is all that matters, credibility is entirely beside the point; merit is patently irrelevant.

Alas, an obsession with bloodlines–especially patrilineal bloodlines–is standard in ancient lore.  The Judaic tradition was oriented around it (even though, now, it is MATRIARCHAL bloodlines that count for Jewish-ness).  Most monarchies throughout history have been obsessed with patriarchal lineage.  And–as we’ve seen here–Islamic lore takes this daft idea to the nth degree.  Such is the nature of tribal chauvinism; and thus of ethno-centricity.

We might note that patrilineal regimes could also be found in the Far East, as with the ancient Chinese “tsung-fa” system of primogeniture–whereby the anointed ruler was known as the “son of heaven”; and was empowered via a “mandate from heaven”.

Generally-speaking, in order to buoy one’s false pride (as a member of THIS group rather than of THAT group), a “just so” story must be concocted; and rendered post hoc.  Confabulated ancestry is the easiest way to accomplish this task.  Bolstering a tribe’s self-image with a cosmically-significant bloodline is a surefire way to appeal to its members.  Harkening back to fabled ancestors is the primary way of doing this.

Typically, genealogical fabrication is a crucial ingredient in etiological myths.  As with hagiographers proffering a burnished “record” of their protagonists, ideologically-driven genealogists will doctor the past to suit their purposes.  Indeed, they would re-write yesterday’s weather if they had to.  Historical accuracy is a moot point when one is determined to consecrate the in-group. {25}

The moral of the story is that collective identities are social constructs.  That’s all they ever were; that’s all they’ll ever be.  Such a specious taxonomy only gains traction insofar as participants pretend that it is an immutable essence of WHO THEY ARE.  To make the charade “work”, they must believe that their (contrived) legacy has been hardwired into the very structure of the cosmos.  Thus: “Our birthright is written in the stars.”  Tribal chauvinism–and its handmaiden, Providentialism–is the result of such mendacity.

The logic here is simple: Provenance occasions telos.  Thus: An effulgent etiology begets a effulgent eschatology; hallowed legacy girds a glorious destiny. {32}  Exalted origins dictate a grandiloquent purpose.  Hence: What we USED TO BE justifies whatever it is we PLAN TO DO.  With a divine mandate posited, the anointed group is given a blank check.  Once one “knows” where one used to be and where one is going, everything can be fit into a Grand Narrative, and thereby made to “make sense”.

So the trick is to establish a resplendent legacy–replete with valorized ancestors demanding reverence: the touchstone of tribal honor.  Doing so confers on the anointed group special privileges.  The idea is that an illustrious past gives one license to do whatever one sees fit.  When one sees oneself as “chosen”, prerogative becomes limitless.  (After all, who are WE to countermand god’s plan?)  When this divinely-ordained privilege is accorded along racial lines, some combination of xenophobia and a siege mentality ensues.

Such artificial divisions invariably contribute to the Balkanization of mankind; and an abiding obsession with bloodlines never ends well.  All forms of racism are predicated on this ubiquitous fixation.  Meanwhile, “I’m doing god’s will / work” is the ultimate omni-rationalization.  “It’s all part of god’s plan” is a wild-card anyone can play to justify LITERALLY ANYTHING.  With god’s imprimatur, anything goes.