Preface

Traditionalist Islam2 claims – and is typically supported tacitly in its claim by the
Orientalist scholar and mainstream media – that the Qur’an may be fully understood
only via the Traditionalist and his recourse to a vast later literature called the ḥadīth;
it also maintains that, taken together, the Qur’an and the ḥadīth provide the
foundation of what is called Islam; it further maintains that Islam is a religion (in
the sense of prescribed dogma, rite and custom) and that by following the
Traditionalist’s presentation of that religion one aligns oneself with the core
Qur’anic imperatives. I reject each one of these claims on the basis of the Qur’anic
text.

I believe in God. I have analysed the Qur’an with great care, and know it to be from
God. And on the basis of the same analysis I reject Traditionalist Islam. I do so for
many of the same reasons I reject Trinitarian Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: I
reject any religion founded on writings, opinions and events which post---date their
respective revelations in which I Kind little general (to say nothing of exclusive)
correspondence between the resultant dogmas and the revelations to which they lay
claim. Like the Karaite Jew, I believe the guidance I hold in my hands from God to
be sufKicient for the business of knowing how to obey God, and I take
responsibility for the exercise of my intelligence on that basis.

The present work not only demonstrates that a full and satisfactory understanding of
the Qur’an is possible without ḥadīth – or any other interloping literature claiming
canonical status for that matter – it shows the religion commonly known as Islam to
have, at best, vestigial correspondence with the Qur’an, and no claim to a monopoly
over it whatever.

I provide evidence throughout, marshalling Qur’anic, etymological, contextual and

historical data, to expose as spurious, specious and extraneous those assertions
which the Traditionalist insinuates between the reader and the text – assertions
made solely to lend credence to the Traditionalist’s claim to Kind conKirmation in
the Qur’an for his religion when his religion has its genesis elsewhere. I also draw
the reader’s attention to some of the many instances where a plain reading of the
text militates against that cultural narrative which today is called Islam.

While the energy expended in addressing the Traditionalist’s claims deKines the
tone and content of much of this work, my dominant interest is neither in brand
Islam nor in those who espouse it. Nor am I writing for the ediKication of academia,
or even for those who participate in online Muslim forums which de--- emphasise
ḥadīth. I will be glad no matter who reads, reKlects on, and beneKits from what is
presented here. But the people I am writing for typically overlook the Qur’an
altogether. They assume it to be no more than another node in the realpolitik mental
control grid, or they equate it with the words and deeds of those who claim loudest
to believe in it and – perhaps understandably – dismiss it on that basis.

In short, I am writing for the few: those who are awake and using their brains; those
suspicious of organised religion; those who recognise that they live in a matrix
characterised by controlled opposition, perception management and media Kictions;
those who understand that the world is in the thrall of a Satanic tyranny; those who
sense their own createdness and – despite endless propaganda to the contrary –
know life to have objective meaning, intuit a higher purpose, and want to do
something about it.

Among such people will be found individuals capable of grasping a key point about
the Qur’an (one obvious when the intelligence is not suborned to the pre---existing
requirements of an organised religion) which is that the Qur’an repeatedly illustrates
God’s time---honoured protocol for defeating Satanic tyrannies – even global
tyrannies possessed of what today is called full---spectrum dominance – and that the
sincere, steadfast application of this protocol has a proven track record of success.

It is my Kirm conviction, based upon much analysis and reKlection, that the Qur’an
contains the keys both to ultimate success and to overcoming tyranny in all its
forms – including, incidentally, those which speak the language of religion.

The translation and notes which comprise this work are the result of my own
process of due diligence upon the text of the revelation received by Muḥ ammad
and represent that doctrine upon which I stand.

S.G.
2. By Traditionalist Islam, I mean the orthodox schools of what today is generally called Islam – which
are based on the ḥadīth. ix

Background
The values men ascribe to words are a means to govern how they may interpret the
world and, therefore, limit what they will do in it. This fact is understood by ruling
elites in all ages, and they employ clever men trained in the sciences of how we
work to ensure that this reality serves their interests. They have had millennia to
practice their craft; they keep records, and are continually learning more.

When I was a child gay meant happy. Today gay is the sanctioned nomenclature for
what my father’s generation called homosexual, my grandfather’s generation called
queer, and my great---grandfather’s generation called sodomite. The day may come
when any connection between gay and happy will be expunged from the lexicons
and popular memory altogether.
Unthinking adoption of the new word value I am using to illustrate my point is
become almost universal. Potty---training the herd in the use of this new, Kluffy
euphemism was a necessary though minor line---item in a larger plan; one of many
such plans which have as their combined object political and cultural goals which
the population not only had no part in deciding, it will never be apprised of their
existence.

The masses think of their lives as individually signiKicant, and they plan in hours,
days, weeks and months. The ruling elite regards the masses as a herd with no
individual signiKicance at all, one which needs to be managed by its betters; and it
plans in decades and centuries.

The transition from sodomite to gay took a few decades. That is a long time for the
man in the street; but not for those who rule him.

The Qur’an is 1,400 years old. It is natural that key Qur’anic word values should
have attracted the attention of previous ruling elites and that such elites should have
assigned intellectual capital under their direction to the task of making those values
work for them. It is equally as predictable that this should have been achieved by
stealth and have gone largely unnoticed by – and with the unthinking complicity
of – the masses.

It was interesting to me as I began to apply myself to the Qur’an in earnest that the
Qur’an contains – as part of its DNA as it were – a number of inbuilt defences
against the imposition of arbitrary values upon its components, by means of which
the original values of key terms can be recovered should they be corrupted.

Among these is what is simply a feature of that system of roots which underpins the
Arabic language. This system is useful in that it allows words to be analysed and
assessed on the basis of predictable and consistent criteria.

I will give the reader without access to Arabic a taste of what I am referring to by
means of an
illustration – albeit an imperfect one – by taking what I will call for these purposes
the English root h---s---p. From this root we get hospital, hospice, hospitable, and
hospitalise. Because we are speakers of English we recognise that these words are
connected. But let’s say everyone in the world starts to agree that to hospitalise
means to give money to the priesthood. We can go along to get along, which is what
most people do when the world agrees upon something. But we can also choose to
demonstrate – even decades or centuries later – on the basis of the broader milieu of
the language why to hospitalise does not and cannot mean to give money to the
priesthood. And more than that, we can provide a strong case for what it does mean.

Arabic allows one retrospectively both to expose and to clarify cases where values
have been twisted, and it allows one to do so to an extent far greater than is possible
in English. And the interlocking root structure of Arabic I have just mentioned is
but one of the mechanisms we have now at our disposal. There are others, and I will
touch upon those in due course.

A few words about my background are in order. I did not begin as a disaffected
Muslim. I began as a disaffected Christian. I became a disaffected Christian through
admitting the fallacies inherent in Trinitarian Christianity and the obvious
contradictions in – and historical weaknesses of – Christianity’s foundational texts.
I had also seen through the usurpation of what remains of the message of Jesus by
the self---appointed Paul.

Clearly, there is some veracity in the Christian accounts – and I accept that within
those accounts exist teachings sufKicient for one who obeys them to gain access to
Paradise – but I could not escape the fact that the Trinitarian Christianity in which I
was schooled is based in subjective mysticism. I have nothing against subjective
mysticism per se. However, I take issue with subjective mysticism when it parades
itself about as objective truth.

This, then, was the context in which I become interested in the Qur’an. I wanted to
know, in particular, what it had to say about Jesus and the nature of God. It was due
only to my close study of the Qur’an coming from this perspective – and subsequent
acceptance of the Qur’an’s veracity – that I felt a need to acquaint myself with
brand Islam.

I was not predisposed toward rejection of the Traditionalist’s arguments, but nor did
I have a pre---existing allegiance to them. I listened to them. I studied them. And
then I rejected them.

The Traditionalist’s claim is that his secondary (in fact, supplanting) literature
explains the Qur’an. The truth is that his religion has been decided upon on the basis
of the aforementioned literature – one entirely removed from the Qur’an – and that
the Qur’an serves only as a wall at which he throws those extracts of this
supplanting literature which form the sum and substance of his religion in the hopes
that some of it will stick – which some of it seems to if the reader accepts assertions
on a generalised or piecemeal basis and puts his faith in authorities and cultural
conventions.

A key feature of the Traditionalist’s method is the arbitrary assignment of

specialised values to ambiguous or general statements.3 He claims that such
statements mean whatever he likes in order to achieve his predetermined ends, and
the laity assumes he is right. Should anyone challenge the merits of his assertions,
that person’s motives are called into question, or he is accused of impiety or heresy.

The Traditionalist’s intellectual process – if one can call it that – features such
logical fallacies as the contention that since his preferred literature says that a
particular word means x, the fact that his externally derived expectations of x are not
met in the Qur’an constitutes proof that his preferred literature is necessary in order
to understand the Qur’an.

This is the logic of children.

When I have questioned the Traditionalist’s assumption that x necessarily has the
value his extra---Qur’anic stories claim for it – especially in the context of a
revelation he himself acknowledges as both consistent and complete – he has
typically either Klown into a rage or denied the premise of my point by reference to
nebulous, superior knowledge held by wise specialists, one to which he himself has
no access and about which he knows nothing.

In one sense, of course, the Traditionalist is right. His religion can only be
understood by reference to this other literature. He is right to such an extent that one
can remove the Qur’an entirely from the construct within which he operates to no
measurable effect.

My position is not that the Traditionalist should not follow his religion – he can
follow what he likes no matter how little sense it makes to me; it is that he should
cease conKlating his religion with the Qur’an and claiming monopoly rights over a
book for which he demonstrably has so little use.

My thoughts on the ḥadīth literature, in a nutshell, are as follows:

• The Qur’an itself claims to be from God and complete. If this is true, there is
no good reason to follow anything else. And if it is not true, there is no good
reason to follow the Qur’an.

• The ḥadīth literature is, by universal consent, hearsay. And hearsay has no
place – to my mind at least –

3. This is only one branch of the Traditionalist’s obdurate maltreatment of the Qur’an, but it is a key one,
and one from which important branches of obtuseness extend and divide in a process of ever---increasing
divergence, complexity, and dependence upon tenuous derivation. However, I must mention here further
central branches such as: the emphasis ad nauseam on the gloriKication of an imagined past as religious
obligation and prerequisite of piety, an adamantine insistence that the Qur’an is incomplete (not in word,
naturally, but everywhere in deed), and the immovable resolve never to apply initiative or intelligence to
the Qur’an without reference to (and complete obeisance before) a later and co---opting mythology – and
to regard any effort in that direction as an act of irreligion. A culture thus constricted needs no active
external enemies to be conquered. It is already made the pawn of any organised agency possessed of
unconstricted intelligence which chooses to commit resources to controlling it.

xi
in the business of establishing the facts concerning God.

• At the root of what divides the two major sects of what is today called Islam
lies conKlict between their
competing bodies of ḥadīth literature. If they cannot agree among themselves
on what they accept, I see
no reason why I should accept any of it.

• The so---called science of ḥadīth (that system by which a particular chain of

narrators is established and
assessed) is predicated on obvious foolishness and a sophistic method; there
is no such thing as reliable
hearsay. All hearsay is unreliable.

• The Qur’an says that God sent down the best ḥadīth in the Qur’an. If that is
that case, I can see no
scenario in which one would look to ḥadīth other than that which is best.
The Traditionalist’s proselytising efforts are an amalgam of two related
deceits: the Kirst is the common bait---and---switch method (using the
Qur’an primarily as a means to shoehorn a religion entirely of his own
contrivance into the mind), and the second is the conKlation of the Qur’anic
revelation with another literature. Such a presentation leverages revelation
rather than rests upon it, and insinuates a cultural mythology into the space
created by an individual’s engagement with that revelation – a revelation
over which he, the Traditionalist, then claims expert, exclusive and
exhaustive knowledge.
The religion the Traditionalist is so attached to has an emotional appeal –
especially for those tired of both the tyranny of moral relativism and the
undeclared religion of fraudulent science (among which number I certainly
count myself) – yet it is, when viewed dispassionately, a cultural construct
and mythical narrative, one with no direct foundation in revelation.
I am a white northern European. If it is simply a matter of Kinding an old
mythology as a bulwark against the advancing nihilism and utilitarianism of
a scorched---earth cultural policy agreed upon by the current ruling elite,
there are better traditions to choose from than what brand Islam has to offer,
ones much closer to my own cultural heritage and racial memory.
The question, then, for me is not about electing to believe something I like in
order to Kight a rear---guard action against something I do not. It is about
responding appropriately to a preserved revelation from the creator of the
universe.
I disregard the Traditionalist’s understanding of the Qur’an not only because
I am highly sceptical of his preferred sources, but also because I am not
much impressed with his results. Nor am I much impressed with the rest of
 what he has done. Of course there have been some generative thinkers within
the cultures in which the Traditionalist has prevailed, but that fact does
nothing to mitigate for me the dominant tendency towards intellectual
osteoarthritis in all places where the Traditionalist gains the ascendency.
Those vigorous boosts which cultures today called Islamic received in the
past were due to the inKluence of the Qur’an, and intellectual and cultural
progress was made despite the Traditionalist and his stock of Kictions, not
because of them.
While many people are afraid of criticising the religion of Islam, I regard
such concerns in a broader context. For me, brand Islam is just one among
many streams of human energy being directed towards conKluence and
useful conKlict by those who understand realpolitik. If it were not required
as an agenda item, Islam would not have been given its present form or
imported into the West. I do not regard brand Islam as a cause, but almost
entirely an effect. It is an effect like feminism, the cult of sexual license and
perversion, the destruction of the family, the institution of dumbed---down
education, mediocrity as the new excellence, the degeneration of cultural
standards, or the promotion of distractions such as Hollywood and sports. If
there is one thing of which I am completely sure as concerns the
Traditionalist, it is that when it comes to the larger game he is a pawn and not
a player. And I have greater concerns than how one particular group of
unthinking people allows itself to be manipulated given a world in which
there are so many such groups of pawns that we are drowning in them. I am
not looking to reform or inKluence Islam; but neither will I be intimidated
out of using my mind by people who cannot or will not use theirs. The
strategists who have given brand Islam some time on the playing Kield run
many, many projects, some of which seem contradictory but enough of
which have the extermination of the majority of the world population as a
mid---term goal for a sensible man to consider it a credible threat. And if I do
not fear such people or their plans more than I do God, the Traditionalist may
rest assured that being individually killed by him and his intellectually
mediocre co---religionist pawns is no more intimidating to me than is the
prospect of being caught up in a planned mass cull at the hands of the highly
organised, interlocking cabals of those extremely intelligent men who do
control strategy.
In short, there is a queue of people with murderous agendas which have me
in their sights, as they do xii

billions of others, and the Traditionalist – if he wants a piece of me – should join the
back of the queue.

Much of the Traditionalist’s difKiculty with others like himself lies in the fact that
interpretive efforts are assessed, in the Kinal analysis, on perception of the authority
of the personality behind them. When it comes right down to it, it is simply a
question of who has the longest beard. And the question of who has the longest
beard is nothing if not a reliable source of frustration and conKlict. And while such
a dynamic provides intelligent men with a reliable constant for evolving strategies
of realpolitik, it does nothing to provide other intelligent men with a reliable
constant for evolving questions of hermeneutics. And it is for this reason that the
majority of the intellectual overhead in the present work was spent on the creation
and testing of an intrinsically Qur’anic system of hermeneutics – one larger and, I
hope, more enduring and interesting than the question of the length of my particular
beard.

I wanted to achieve several goals: Kirstly, to prove whether it is possible to

demonstrate the Qur’an as complete and sufKicient for the business of knowing
how to serve God – contrary to the Traditionalist’s claims; secondly, to aid those for
whom I am primarily writing, a goal which necessitates providing comprehensive
proof against the Traditionalist’s specialist claims for – and over – the Qur’an;
thirdly, to present a working mechanism which permits assessment of its results on
the basis of veriKiable data – thus precluding the insinuation of nebulous and far--
-removed authorities; fourthly, to provide demonstration of a system which itself
can be extended or improved upon without implying rift or schism; and lastly, to
force any Traditionalist who may wish to attack me to understand at least something
about my work before he does so.4

We do not have to guess at what the Traditionalist thinks the Qur’an means. He is
quite open about it. His exegesis is implicit in his translation. His process is, in the
main, eclectic, erratic, and unblushingly outcome---based; that is, he knows what he
wants the text to mean and, by God, he intends to bludgeon it
4. Clearly, the gatekeepers of this particular facet of the overall control grid are unlikely to smile upon
Kindings which, in essence, debunk their religion on the basis of the book they claim as its foundation.
And the priesthood and the unthinking portion of the laity of that religion will be unlikely to consider the
evidence here on its merits. Why should they? Their position gains neither purchase nor power in critical
thinking. However, those of us who are able to think are forced to think, to think ahead, and to think for
those who will not think. With this in view, I have the following points to make. There is an event (one I
have to assume to be present among the options of military planners and those of other think tanks)
which, if enacted, will set off a powder keg of emotions among those who follow the Traditionalist. This
event – should it happen – will be calculated to provoke the reaction needed to further the broader
geopolitical goals of the ruling elite. I have in mind the destruction of the so---called kaʿaba at Makkah
by a Nato smart---bomb, or as part of a further patsy---based ‘terrorist’ operation. Should this event come
to pass in whatever form, those who today follow the mullahs – and whose religious sentiment has a
sincere basis – will be forced off the pavement and out onto a theological crossroads, one which they will
have no option but to consider critically in order to negotiate. Then they will not only be forced to
consider the like of what is presented here, they will be very glad of the opportunity to do so. On a
separate but related topic: the Traditionalist should bear in mind that the lack of criticism of him and his
position he currently Kinds among Western scholars and media denotes neither assent nor
acknowledgement of his authority. It is the result of policy – one he had no part in forming. As and when
the ruling elite’s need for an Islamic bogeyman abroad and Islamic social---engineering programs at
home are superseded by narrative requirements featuring some new set of Kictions – be it asteroids
heading towards earth, alien invasion or some new contagious disease, it really doesn’t matter – the
cultural cover which the Islamists presently enjoy in the West will cease. If and when that happens,
criticism of the Traditionalist narrative will become common, if not de rigueur. The Traditionalist’s total
narrative is both fundamentally and obviously faulty (as anyone with even average critical abilities who
has taken the time to look at the evidence will allow), and attacking it on the basis of the ḥadīth literature
has two key features, both of which are rather depressing for the Traditionalist: Kirstly, it is fun; and
secondly, it has a tantalisingly low entry point. (There are entire YouTube channels run by intellectually
unimpressive Christians dedicated to little other than bashing ḥadīth, the total impression of which is of
hicks sitting out in the yard calmly blasting Kish in a barrel with shotguns over a few beers with a boar
on a spit in the background.) The Muslims, naturally, have their own champions; and while certain
Muslim apologists – intelligent ones – make a strong presentation when attacking the legion problems
with Christian narratives, they look distinctly weak once forced to defend ḥadīth (or the Qur’an when
presented on the basis of the same). My point here is this: highly intelligent and well---Kinanced Western
opinion---makers will turn their sights on brand Islam once word comes down from further up the food
chain that it may safely be attacked (i.e. once brand Islam has served its purpose inside the gates of the
Western nations, namely that of forwarding the project of the ethnic and cultural corruption of the
original populations, and providing the powers---that---be with the justiKication needed to create a police
state in previously ‘democratic’ countries) and that it may be done at a level more august – and with a
cultural saturation greater – than that possible via YouTube. By defending his non---Qur’anic literature
and drawing his understanding of the Qur’an through a Kilter of the same, the Muslim could only lose
against such an adversary even were he honed and practiced in the art of intellectual confrontation – and
he is neither. There was a time when those he claims as his forebears were intellectual masters. But that
was a thousand years ago and the scenery is very different now. The question now is not whether the
Muslim of today – and not some legendary intellectually formidable ancestor – will lose; it is only how
he will lose and in what speciKic ways he will be stamped into the ground. For myself, I am not trying to
save the Traditionalist, nor am I trying to stem the tide of the collapse of my own culture – both are
struggles doomed to failure. My deKining allegiance is neither to the white race (a race which shows
itself too easily deceived to warrant continued existence as a viable mass demographic, at least in a form
which is intellectually rigorous, culturally sustainable or morally defensible), and nor it is to the Islamic
religion which fails on the same criteria. My deKining allegiance is to God, to the message of the Qur’an,
and to those who strive both to understand that message and to apply it.

xiii

into the required shape no matter what problems are created in the process – and
there are many. I have read many translations and refer in this work to common
Traditionalist assertions and assumptions as a part of the process of exposing and
dismantling them.

For my part, I did not begin with a Kixed idea of what the text means. I began with
a number of precepts,5 certainly – such as the precept that the Qur’an is from God,
complete and preserved – but I have treated the text itself as a perfect structure,
something the mechanics of which may be learnt, applied and tested; I sought to
understand what it means rather than to tell it what it means. And the process of
rendering the Arabic into English – while demanding high levels of attention – was,
in the end, largely a technical one, a function of that hermeneutical method which
grew out of my extensive preliminary investigations.

There were two breakthroughs which informed my process which deserve mention,
both derived – although by different routes – with unconnected reading on the
Hittite civilisation.

The Kirst came about when I became interested in the brilliant Czech linguist
Bedřich Hrozný. It was Hrozný who translated the Hittite libraries which were
discovered early in the twentieth century.

The texts were written in cuneiform which, of course, was known to scholars.
However, the Hittite language itself was not. Hrozný, undaunted, undertook the
translation of these works from an unknown language with no dictionaries and no
source materials other his knowledge of languages in general and a lively
intelligence. He Kirst went through the entire body of texts and found the most
commonly occurring word. He reasoned that this word must mean bread (which it
did). And working on this basis he pieced the entire language together like a giant
jigsaw puzzle.

I reasoned that it must be possible to apply something of Hrozný ’s approach to the

Qur’an in at least some of those cases where the Traditionalist’s claims for word
values are neither consistent nor sit well with the totality of the language or
available contexts. And this insight informed part of my eventual method.

My task was far easier than that which Hrozný faced since the meaning of the
broader context is known. But where the Traditionalist’s treatment of a word causes
a disconnect for any reason, or he claims a value which he imports from elsewhere,
I searched the entire text for every instance or form of that word, and it was only
when I had both investigated that word and its root and identiKied a meaning which
was acceptable in the totality of contexts (that is, one which brings all instances into
alignment) that I allowed that value. And not only did I allow such a value, I
insisted that its feet be held to the Kire in terms of consistency.6 And on that basis I
translated the text; not in linear fashion but iteratively, traversing the entire text to
determine each value before allowing it, a process which I repeated many thousands
of times.7

My second breakthrough connected with the Hittites came by reading an article on

Hittite history. The Hittites were a successful civilisation, I was interested to learn,
less by force of arms than by the wisdom of their treatises. As I studied the format
of a Hittite suzerainty treaty it dawned on me that al fātiḥah (the Kirst chapter8 of
the Qur’an) comprises a contract between lord and vassal, one with much in
common with the conventions found in the Hittites’ suzerainty treaty.

Having had some experience of contracts in my working life, I knew that contracts
typically deKine their terms in the preamble. I approached the opening pages of al
baqarah (the second chapter) with this awareness in mind and found that they
indeed contain exact deKinitions for some of the most common key terms found in
the Qur’an. I then took those values and applied them across the entire text and
found that not only do they make consistent sense, they make full and illuminating
sense in many places where the Traditionalist’s current values are redundant or at
odds with the context, or both.
5. Arrived at on the basis of my initial analysis.

6. There are cases where I use a synonym by virtue of the requirements of the English language,
but none in which I leap
erratically from one value to another for the same source item. Where a source item objectively
has more than one sense,
footnotes are added where necessary.

7. The Traditionalist on the other hand hops shamelessly across entire lexical categories to ascribe
to the same word the values
he requires it to bear in order to justify his religion – some of which process I expose both in situ
and in related parts of the Appendix. My experience in such cases is that where a value is
correctly identiKied, it Kits all contexts; where it is contrived, comparison of all instances across
the entire set exposes where and how the Traditionalist has done violence to the language to
achieve his aims.

8. I attempt to refrain from the use of sūrah in the sense in which it is commonly used, i.e. to
describe a Qur’anic chapter. xiv

The other methods by which meaning is demonstrated are outlined in situ or in the
Appendix. There are a few things I wish to say in closing.

Firstly, I would be remiss in my duty not to say that over the course of my extensive
analysis of and work with the Qur’an I have acquired a professional respect for the
men who constructed the religion known as Islam.

As I have unpicked what they contrived so long ago (as they – quite clearly – set out
to neutralise and emasculate what they must have seen as the threat of a nascent,
burgeoning Qur’an---fuelled movement), I have grown sincerely impressed at their
ingenuity, knowledge of human foibles and mastery of subtlety. The fact that I do
not like or condone what these men did does not prevent me from respecting the
dexterity of their minds. These were men of insight and genius, used to planning
over centuries, and accustomed never to Kight head on what they could direct
towards other purposes.

They had to be both vigilant and subtle. They knew that the Qur’an was universally
read – and had been committed to memory – by sincere and careful students. Their
inKluence had to be at once minimal and devastating.

Yet, now that I have Kinished my process of reverse---engineering the inKluence of

their work, I am even more impressed – overwhelmed, in fact – by the integrity
native to the Qur’anic text. This inherent quality has proven sufKicient to preserve
the original sense against later cultural interference, and to allow the deciphering
and unpicking of that later barrage of misdirection, and the recovery of much, if not
all, of the original sense, even after so many centuries.

Secondly, I should be clear that this project is not the product of a desire to engage
academics, theory tourists or novelty seekers; nor is it formatted to cater to the
predilections of such people. My principle motivation was to do my own due
diligence on the Qur’an, to satisfy my own desire to understand it, and to do so free
of brand Islam, a Weltanschauung born of a literature both extraneous to the Qur’an
and obviously – to me at least – with origins in competing medieval cointelpro
operations.

And lastly, I wish to say that – having completed that process of due diligence to
my own satisfaction – it is my hope that the result will provide a comprehensive,
intellectually robust, and accessible9 resource to sincere people who – like myself –
feel the impetus to do something meaningful with their lives.

9. Notes tend to be presented in a terse form with an emphasis on textual references in support of points.
xv

Existing translations
What follows is an overview of translations of the Qur’an into English; I have tried
to include a representative selection of the most inKluential translations within three
broad categories: Traditionalist, Orientalist, and Independent.

Traditionalist translations
Muhammad Asad

Muhammad Asad (1900---1992) was an Austrian Jew. He was a journalist, diplomat

and accomplished linguist who converted to the religion called Islam.

While he states in the introduction to his translation that the Qur’an can be
understood independently he, lamentably, does not pursue that end. Nevertheless,
his work is, for me, one of the least troubling among the Traditionalist translations.
His rendering is fanciful and Klighty – suggestive of a good man rather more,
perhaps, than of a fastidious translator. However, his annotations are intelligent,
well researched, and insightful in many places, and I have included a number of
them in the notes here.

Asad was a man of letters, an intellectual, a reKined man, and perhaps also a little
naıv̈ e. He threw his impressive energies and talents behind the Islamic experiment
in post---Partition Pakistan, but was likely more enamoured of the idea of what it
might become than of what it, in fact, became.
Chastened, I suspect, by reality, he withdrew to Andalusian Spain to live out the
remainder of his days.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872---1953) was born in Bombay, India, and later removed to
England where he lived to the end of his life.

The impression one gains from his translation and commentary is of an intellectual,
fair---minded writer, and gentle soul.

His was the Kirst translation I read. In it, he attempts to tip his hat in the direction of
King James English, with varying degrees of success.

He sets out to interpret the Qur’an in the light of orthodoxy (namely, Sunni
orthodoxy) rather than to investigate or to reason. His translation is the one
recommended by the Saudi authorities, which is perhaps a reason to be careful of it.

He makes some interesting points in a number of his annotations, a few of which I

have included here.

Marmaduke Pickthall

Marmaduke Pickthall (1875---1936) was the son of an English clergyman and

became a novelist esteemed by many contemporary writers, as well as a journalist
and headmaster.

His translation, which followed his conversion to Islam, is subordinate to

Traditionalist orthodoxy. Its style is dated and stilted to the modern ear.

Drs. Hilali and Muhsin Khan

Dr. Muhammad Taqi---ud---Din bin Adil---Qadir al---Hilali (1893---1987) was a

20th---century Islamic scholar from Morocco, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan is
a Pakistani with Afghan Khattak heritage.

If Muhammad Asad’s translation can be thought of as representing the side of

contemplation, reason, compassion and intellect within the Traditionalist spectrum,
the Hilali---Muhsin Khan work is Kirmly dug in at the opposing end. It attempts to
force the entire Qur’anic narrative through a Kilter of ḥadīth literature and is full of
interpolations and footnotes based on the same. Its value lies in the insight it
provides the

xvi

outsider into a vocal and dominant mindset within the church of Islam.
If the Hilali---Muhsin Khan rendition truly represented the message of the Qur’an,
my own engagement with the Qur’an would have lasted no longer than a short
perusal.

Saheeh International

The Saheeh International translation was produced by a small team. The idea
appears to have been to bring together Traditionalist orthodoxy – presumably as
intoned by a group of Pakistanis or Arabs – with native---English editing
capabilities. It follows without apology or question the standard Traditionalist line
and – like all other translations that I have seen – unabashedly switches values for
key terms in order to achieve predetermined outcomes.

I generally use this version in the Appendix section to represent the Traditionalist
position. While the reader may form the opinion that I am picking unduly on the
Saheeh International translation, that fact is that I use it because it represents a
consistent and fair demonstration of the Traditionalist view; a middle ground
between the erudite and mystical Asad on one hand and the problematic Hilali--
-Muhsin Khan on the other; and because it generally indicates by means of square
parenthesis where words have been inserted into the text to reach the foregone
conclusions Sunni orthodoxy requires of it.

Orientalist translations
N. J. Dawood

Born in 1927 in Iraq, N. J. Dawood grew up bilingual in Arabic and English. His
translation of the Qur’an describes Traditionalist orthodoxy though with a number
of creative Klourishes of his own. His style is economical, well---crafted and
generally pleasing to read.

Since he is a Jew and not a convert10 to Sunni Islam, his translation tends to be
snubbed by Muslims. It is, however, one of the best---selling versions among the
non---Muslim population having been published by Penguin since 1956.

A. J. Arberry

A. J. Arberry (1905---1969) was a British Orientalist. His translation of the Qur’an

makes no historic interpretative strides but then neither does it offend. His style is
quiet and careful, pleasing in parts, and more exact in many cases than other
renderings.

Independent translations
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez (1903---1985) was a Pakistani, the son of a prominent

SuKi, and a civil servant. He was denounced as a heretic by the Traditionalist
mullahs for refuting the ḥadīth. He is incorrectly credited by some Traditionalists
today with founding the movement for the Qur’an alone.11 He was friend and
10. The tendency among intellectually isolated Sunnis is to use the word revert to describe converts
to their religion. The unsubtle implication is, of course, that Sunni Islam is the pre---existing and
universal faith from which some have latterly diverged. This silly verbal condiment is
predicated, somewhat predictably, upon a ḥadīth (that very literature which has served to
preclude so many Sunnis from doing due diligence on what the Qur’an’s usage of the word
muslīm implies). The true meaning of muslīm is fully demonstrated in this work, but widely
identiKied and expounded by many others also – including many who would identify as Sunnis.
No---one was ever a Sunni Muslim who was not made one by parents, society or as the result of
a personal decision. The correct term for any person who adopts a religion – be it Sunni Islam or
anything else – is convert.

11. There have always been those who stood by the Qur’an alone. The idea that Traditionalist Islam
is the ‘religion’ of the Qur’an is demonstrably false. Traditionalist Islam was created by Persians
beginning almost two centuries after the time of the messenger and it has persecuted those who
have challenged it ever since. My own opinion is that the plot is thicker than even this, one
whose motivating and principle origins may even stretch as far as Rome. However, this is a
subject requiring further study.

xvii

mentor to Abdul Wadud, author of Conspiracies Against the Qur’an.12

His rendering of the Qur’an into English comprises a highly subjective and lengthy
exposition of Qur’anic themes, one which gives voice to his view – at least as I
understand it – that the Qur’an’s primary mission is to institute a form of socialism
in the name of God.

Rashad Khalifa

Rashad Khalifa (1935---1990) was an Arab---American biochemist who achieved

notoriety on the basis of his computational work with the Qur’an focused on the
number nineteen. He rejected the ḥadīth literature entirely. He later claimed to be a
messenger of God. This brought the wrath of the Traditionalist Muslims upon his
head, after which he was murdered – I understand by one of their number.

His translation is unremarkable and a Traditionalist would Kind in it little to enrage

him. Khalifa was not a native speaker of English and – without wishing to be
unkind to him – his translation suffers as a result.

Edip Yuksel

Edip Yuksel (b. 1957) is a Turkish---American university lecturer. He was born in

Turkey and as a young man was an active Sunni radical and imprisoned by the
Turkish authorities as a consequence. While in prison, he was befriended by Rashad
Khalifa by letter, after which Yuksel became convinced of many of Khalifa’s
arguments against sectarian Islam.

Yuksel’s translation was written in collaboration with Layth Saleh al---Shaiban who
is owner of the free--- minds.org website, and Martha Schute---Nafeh.

An understandable irritation and frustration at the foolishness of the Traditionalist is

evident in some of the notes, although they are frequently interesting and make
intelligent connections with the Christian Bible (New Testament) and Jewish Bible
(Tanakh).13 The work forwards alternative – more palatable – interpretations of
particular words, an effort which many Westernised readers will appreciate.

As a student of Khalifa it is natural that Yuksel places a heavy emphasis on

mathematical proofs. I am neither a mathematician nor temperamentally inclined to
concentrate on the type of numerical patterns those such as Yuksel discern within
the Qur'an; for me, such an emphasis is of limited relevance or application.
However, I both admit and embrace the fact that people bring different talents to
their study of the Qur'an.

I reviewed this work only in part but was unable to identify a coherent and
consistent hermeneutical system apropos key word values, and it is that which is my
primary focus.

The Monotheist Group

The Monotheist Group grew out of the free---minds.org website, and members of
that group created a translation called The Qur’an: A Monotheist Translation.

The foreword to the translation contains an interesting article on pan---Qur’anic

exegesis. The translation itself adopts the rendering of raḥmān as almighty (as do I),
but does not explain why it does so – a point which has left some readers perplexed.
Its assumptions, so far as I can tell, comprise a composite of the views of Khalifa,
Yuksel and perhaps one or two of the more vocal contributors to the free--
-minds.org site.

There is no system in the application of terms across the greater text, and the
reading is as subjective as
12. This book is highly recommended to the serious student.

13. The commonly used term Judaeo---Christian is misleading which is why I tend to shy away
from referring to the Bible. There is
a Christian Bible (i.e. New Testament) and a Jewish Bible (i.e. Tanakh). Each is a collection of
assorted writings in various conditions of corruption. Judaism and Trinitarian Christianity have
almost nothing in common. Judaism – properly speaking at least – is a purely monotheistic
Abrahamic religion. Trinitarian Christianity – despite what it pretends – is not; its true origins
are in Hellenic---Roman traditions and mythologies in combination with – according to what is
termed in this work the ʿAsır̄ ---Ḥejāzthesis–apre--
 are in Hellenic---Roman traditions and mythologies in combination with – according to what is
termed in this work the ʿAsır̄ ---Ḥejāzthesis–apre--
-existingNazarenereligionfoundedbytheprophetʿIwsā,itselfconKlatedwiththenameanddeedsof the
man Jesus (Yeshua) who was killed in Jerusalem around 2,000 years ago, and whose reputation
was created and propagated in the Kirst instance by St. Paul (see Article XVIII). A proper study
of the Jewish perspective of Trinitarian Christianity is most worthwhile. Whether one accepts the
ʿAsır̄ ---Ḥ ejā z thesis or not, while the Qur’an presents ʿIwsā as al masīḥ (the anointed one),
there is no sense in which this correlates with the claims Trinitarian Christianity makes for Jesus
(i.e. that he is in some way part of what it calls the ‘godhead’).

xviii

any other.

Conclusions

There exist many other translations, not all of which I have read. However, I am
conKident that I have presented a fair and representative selection of those
translations (or, rather, translators) pertinent to my broader thesis. I will now turn to
the question of motivations and results.

The Orientalist translators are easiest to deal with. They are typically unconcerned
with Eternity. They are concerned with royalties, with their professional standing
among their peers, and with not having to check under their cars before backing out
of the garage. They have taken what they consider the safest route: to turn a Sunni
orthodox reading into something digestible in English which the publisher will like.

The translators of the remaining two categories are, like myself, ideologically
motivated. However, they both fall at the same fence to varying degrees in that
acceptance of their readings boils down to a question of personal authority.

The authority for the Traditionalist’s translations derives from a perception of his
traditions and of those who wrote and expounded upon them.14 The authority for
what I have called independent translations – while deriving from a different
historical basis – rests, in the end, upon a similar type of foundation: one must
choose to believe or not believe that Parwez, Khalifa, Yuksel or the authors of the
Monotheist Group are sufKiciently wise, clever or competent to make their work
reliable.

The point I am making here is not that these people are not wise, clever or
competent. For all I know they are superlatively so. I am saying that, at bottom, the
same mechanism is at work in the mind of the reader regarding the non---ḥadīth
readings as with Traditionalist translations: in both cases the reader has no choice
but to make an assessment based upon a perception of the personal competence15 of
the translator.
This translation

Certainly, I have a worldview, and regard the Qur’an within the framework of that
worldview. For example, I dismiss many popular coincidence theories of history
and current affairs, and in terms of realpolitik have much in common with aspects
of the Patriot Movement, the Truth Movement, some historical revisionism,
libertarianism and anarchism.

However, my textual approach was not actuated by my worldview. And acceptance

by the reader of my Kindings is not contingent upon his worldview and mine
corresponding. I have developed and applied a method of linguistic hermeneutics
which can be picked apart or utilised by anyone prepared to take the time to do so –
no matter what his worldview. This allows the emphasis to be taken off how wise or
foolish I may be personally, and placed on a methodology.

While I have certain preferences, I am ultimately interested less in who is right than
in what is right so I am not blindly or unreasonably protective of my efforts. If
someone more talented than myself can produce a cogent and integrated
demonstration of the total Qur’anic corpus – not just some small part of it – which
both proves my presentation wrong and his right, I will thank him and henceforth
read his translation and not my own.

But I will judge him on the basis of his achievement; I have no interest in the length
of his beard, his lineage, his university, the letters he uses after his name, the media
support he can generate, what people in the past supposedly said or thought about
him, or anything else of that nature. I am interested only in the results he can
demonstrate – his evidence.
14. He is emotionally bound up in this in the same way as I, as an Englishman, may be bound up in
notions of the sovereignty or history of my country. Fundamentally, the driver in each case is of
a sectarian nature. It is tribal. For him, an attack on the ḥadīth is not an intellectual question he
can dispassionately review. It is connected with his feeling about his parents, his tribe, his land,
his culture. He has a visceral response. I have similar responses about many things which are
happening to my country and culture and tribe. I am not objective and dispassionate about them.
I am under attack and I respond. But there is a difference: the lamentable condition of my
country and culture and tribe may sadden me – and it does – but it has no bearing on my eternal
soul; it is not a point of doctrine, belief in which will bear me to the garden or to the Kire.
However, the same cannot be said for belief in the ḥadīth literature.

15. This analysis holds true for people such as Khalifa and Yuksel also, for while mathematical
Kindings contribute towards conKidence in the Qur’an as a whole they do little or nothing to
elucidate the meaning of the narrative.

xix
Hermeneutics
Postulates

• The Qur’an is guidance for mankind (2:185)

• The Qur’an requires careful consideration and full attention (4:82, 47:24,
7:204)

• The Qur’an was sufKicient for Muḥ ammad (10:15)

• The Qur’an could only be from God (10:37, 17:88)

• The Qur’an is in Arabic so that we should use reason and understand (12:2,
43:3)

• The Qur’an contains the best ḥadīth (39:23)

• The Qur’an guides to that which is most upright (17:9)

• The Qur’an was both divided and compiled by God (17:106, 75:17)

• The Qur’an will be abandoned by its original recipients (25:30)

• The Qur’an warns man and is that by which Muḥ ammad warned (27:92,
50:45)

• The Qur’an is free of inconsistency or deviation (28:39, 39:28)

• The Qur’an is wise in judgment and guides to sound judgment (36:2, 72:1--
-2)

• The Qur’an is taught by God (55:2)

• The Qur’an is guarded (56:77---79, 85:2)

QualiLications
• The Qur’an is guidance for all mankind – a group to which I belong (2:185)

• I have taken the time to give the Qur’an careful consideration and full
attention (4:82, 47:24, 7:204)

• I have studied the Arabic and use reason (12:2, 43:3)

Resources

• DeKinitions found within the Qur’anic text (56:77---79, 85:2)

• The principles and norms of the Arabic language (12:2, 43:3)

• Arabic usage across the totality of the Qur’an (28:39, 39:28)

• Reason (10:100)

• Historical evidence (16:43, 21:7)16

Methodology

• Where a Qur’anic deKinition exists for a word, that value is adopted and
sustained – either overtly in the translation or by means of elucidation in
corresponding footnotes – across the entire text in every instance where that
word is found in that form in which it is found in the deKinition; in all other
cases17 that word is subject to the criteria which follow:

• Where historically accepted word values cause no tension or dissonance

either within local contexts or across the totality of instances they are
considered potentially acceptable and if found to be so are applied
consistently subject to the criteria which follow:

• In any case where a clear, explicit18 value exists for any term, that value is
enforced across all instances and an arbitrary19 value not admitted to any
instance of that term, the remaining cases being subject to the criteria which
follow:

• In those cases where a value claimed by the Traditionalist for a word

 generates dissonance with the principle or prosaic meaning of that word and
its root values and there exists no single instance which explicitly identiKies
the value for that word, the totality of the contexts of that word is considered
in order to render a single value which can – and must – be applied
consistently20 to every instance, the remaining cases being subject to the
criterion which follows:

• Where there are insufKicient instances of a word to identify its value by

comparing contexts, human reason is deemed sufKicient to identify from
lexicons which available value best Kits the local context21 given
consideration of the broader narrative.
16. These two verses refer to the people of the remembrance, which I take to mean
historians in the broadest sense.

17. I.e. where the word operates other than in that form in which it is found in the
deKinition (by means of different
prepositions).

18. I.e. any case where the meaning of the word is clear from the context. For example: he
entered the house and closed the door
behind him. Here there is no question as to the meaning of door. If in another context
the assertion is made that door means
something other than that mechanism by which one enters and leaves a house, it is
disallowed and door enforced.

19. I.e. a value for which no explicit support exists within the text.

20. Certainly a single verb can have more than one meaning – typically through the use of
different prepositions, or as part of
particular collocations (although experience shows that there is typically a unifying core
connecting such variance).
However, the rendering of the same combination of verb and preposition or collocation
should be consistently applied.

21. Where the results of such a process require comment footnotes are provided.

xx

Conventions

• I use chapter rather than sūrah in the notes since I take sūrah in a speciKic
meaning (discussed at 2:23).
• I use the archaic thou form for the second person singular since it identiKies
easily what is addressed to
the Prophet as well – by extension – to the individual believer in many cases.

• I render rabb as lord except where rabb forms part of a title in which case I
render it Lord.

• I render the Kirst letter of God’s attributes in lower case where they occur
without the deKinite article
and in upper case where they occur with the deKinite article in those
instances which denote titles.

• I render allāh as God which is the correct nomenclature in English. The

Arabic allāh is not a proper
noun and making it one in English contributes to the deceit that the Qur’anic
revelation is an exclusively
or speciKically Arab matter.22

• I stay as close to the original word order as I can without offending the
English ear.23

• I am not alone in breaking up verses to create new lines in my translation,24

and I restrict the Arabic text
to two lines or less.25

• The layout on the page intentionally leaves sufKicient space for written
notes, even at the cost of an
increased number of pages; engaged and intelligent students wish to add their
own observations – this
work seeks to facilitate the needs of such people.

• The bare Qur’anic text has no punctuation; rather, the narrative force implies
it. For example, the Qur’an
does not use an exclamation mark,26 but the context itself requires one by
convention in English, and I
provide i accordingly.

• I Kind the text perfect. The translators do not, as evidenced by their use
interpolation to Kill in what they
 see as the gaps. There are no gaps.27 They have missed the imperative
implicit in the text28 to parse, failing to see that when the text has been
properly parsed there is no need for interpolation.29 Hence, while my use of
parenthesis30 is more extensive than that seen in previous translations, I do
not make interpolations. I have no need of them. All comments or
explanations are made in the form of footnotes.

• The Qur’an makes use of ellipsis31 (where the narrative trails off and
intimates rather than explicitly states a conclusion, a convention widely
recognised to exist in the Qur’an and employed by the majority of translators
and commentators). I accept and use this convention and indicate what I take
to be the implicit text by means of scilicet32 in a footnote.

• I use a colon33 to denote where a phrase points at a subsequent one, including

where what follows is speech; to indicate the vocative; and to signal
examples (i.e. parables or comparisons).

• I identify a number of cases where one speaker cuts off the preceding one
which I indicate by means of double dashes.34

• The common idh is rendered as when (or occasionally as then where it

provides a complement to a preceding adverb). After baʿda it is elided.

• I treat wa idh as and when in all cases.

• Such stylistic devices and Klourishes as inna (often rendered lo!) and the
double nūns found in certain
22. There is nothing exclusively holy about either Arabic or the Arabs. The Qur’an itself
says that it is in Arabic so those who heard it might understand. Had they been speakers
of Czech, one must assume that the Qur’an would have been revealed in Czech. The
word allāh simply means God in Arabic and is the word used for God in Arabic by
Christians also.

23. I do this, in part, because it is my expectation that the serious student will use the
translation as training wheels to assist him as he learns to read the original for himself.
A close correlation between the Arabic and English word order is helpful to him, and
lessening the burden upon a dedicated individual of this sort is one of my core aims. My
priority was to achieve consistent, literal, methodically---achieved equivalence, and
poetic beauty has been sacriKiced in those cases where a trade---off is unavoidable.

24. The text naturally falls into small statements. This makes following and remembering it
 easy.

25. This means that those who know enough Arabic to follow much of the text in the
original can more easily avail themselves of
the English where necessary.

26. !

27. That is, outside of ellipsis (discussed below) which is an accepted rhetorical device and
occurs at the end of statements only; whereas the interpolation used by translators is
found in any position. Clearly, values for statements expressed by means of ellipsis are
by their very nature subjective since they imply and expect a subjective effort on the
part of the reader to supply the Kinishing thought.

28. There are legion instances where Traditionalists – and thus Traditionalist translators –
have failed to understand that implicit parenthesis is a feature of the Qur’anic text. They
have rightly discerned that the text seems disjointed in places, and to get round this they
resort to interpolations (i.e. making up the narrative in accordance with the requirements
of their respective schools of thought and favourite ḥadīth). Had previous readers
simply understood that the wording is thus to force parenthesis upon the text and read
accordingly, the sense would have become clear and required no interpolative invention
on their part.

29. []

30. ()

31. [...]

32. Sc.

33. :

34. ––

xxi

verbs indicating intensity of degree (often rendered indeed) are elided since they
add little in

contemporary English and the attempt to accommodate them clouds rather than
clariKies.
• Devices such as balā35 and bal36 are observed, and the function of the former
as a pan---textual indicator
identiKied.

• I treat fa as a comma, a colon, for, then, so, and or but depending on context,
which is standard.

• I treat wa typically as and or but depending on context; and sometimes as

when or so, which is standard.

• I include comments on grammar, word order, or the literal meaning of certain

phrases both to assist the
serious student and to aid future translators of this work into other languages
achieve the level of
consistency in their target language as I have achieved in mine.

• I use neither speech marks nor italics to indicate speech since the delineation
between narrative and
speech is often interpretive in nature and best left to the reader to decide.

• The number of commas and semi---colons is kept to the minimum admissible

in modern English.37

• I do not believe the bismallahs to be native to the Qur’anic revelation38

beyond al fātiḥah – a view which
is both supported by some scholars and by the fact that bismallahs beyond
that introducing al fātiḥah are not numbered by longstanding convention. It is
my opinion that their inclusion distracts from the obvious narrative
connections which exist between a number of contiguous chapters, and I
have elected to minimise their visual intrusion in the print version of this
work. It is my view that our understanding of the Qur’an is impeded by the
insertion of white space between chapters (resulting, typically, from design
or organisational considerations, or from the natural inclination on the part of
a Westerner to format the text after the conventions of a modern book).
Having reviewed some of the earliest codices, I have come to the view that
chapter divisions are of no more moment than are paragraph breaks today,
and have elected to minimise both the space between them and the impact of
the intrusion of the chapter titles in the print version of this book. Cf. 15:91--
-93.
• Modern English confuses the nominative and accusative personal pronoun in
certain circumstances (There is no god but him and There is no god but he). I
hold to the latter, more correct form when the personal pronoun is not an
object of any kind.

• I now render names in Arabic transliteration. Previously, I rendered by

means familiar Biblical forms as I did not wish to alienate the non--
-specialist reader. However, such a policy left me tacitly supporting the
Egypt---Palestine thesis39 and preventing the reader from gaining access to
other possibilities. Names which occur rarely or are very far removed from
their familiar forms have footnotes. Common names receive a footnote in
their Kirst occurrence only.

• In those cases where I have made pan---textual comparisons and reached

conclusions which require comment I apply the appropriate value and supply
a footnote for all instances of that term.

• Where a word forms part of a collocation (that is, it works predictably in

combination with another word or words to create a consistent compound
meaning) I stay true to the rendering of that collocation throughout.40

• Where a particular word objectively has more than one meaning – and more
than one of the available meanings Kits the context (for example, some
instances of imām, ummah, or azwāj) – a footnote is supplied in relevant
contexts.

• I pay close attention to grammatical constructions and other formulæ,

enforcing consistency throughout and deriving values on the basis of pan--
-textual comparison, much in the same way as is done with vocabulary.41

• I include some comments which I Kind intelligent and reasonable (but not all
of which I fully agree with) by one or two previous translators in order to
furnish the reader with a broader perspective.

• Where a footnote will not permit full explanation on any point reference is
made to the appropriate part of the Appendix.

• Various single and combined letters (muqaṭṭaʿāt) precede certain chapters. In

this work, where such letters precede a chapter they are presented in the
 bottom corner of each page of that chapter; where they are implied they are
given in brackets.42
35. English: verily.

36. See note to 2:88.

37. The number of both used by convention in modern English is reducing under the
inKluence of electronic media, mobile
communications, and degrading standards of education.

38. See Article XX.

39. See Articles XVIII and XXI.

40. For example, ḍaraba + mathal is to present an example throughout. And while ḍaraba
cannot be rendered as to present in
combination with other words, those combinations in which ḍaraba features are
consistently rendered.

41. The requirement to catalogue and reference my evidence has been met at the price of
burdening the text with footnote
references.

42. See Article XX.

xxii

Note to the current edition

I have became aware since releasing previous e---book editions of this work that my
presentation fell at a common fence in that it assumed much of the unproven though
dominant Judaeo---Christo---Zionist narrative (hereafter: the Egypt---Palestine
thesis) and even some parts of that highly suspect narrative advanced by
Traditionalist Islam.

I had been cognisant, naturally, of tensions between the Qur’anic narrative and the
Egypt---Palestine thesis – a fact that an assiduous reader of the footnotes from the
previous edition will know. I was, at the time of writing that edition, aware of
arguments advanced by such people as Kamal Salibi, but I did not place any
emphasis on such assertions – or confront those of the Egypt---Palestine thesis –
since I wanted to remain within the boundaries of what I can reasonably prove. It is
only recently that I have came to recognise that I cannot reasonably prove the
Egypt---Palestine thesis – its popularity, ubiquity and enforcement constituting
neither proof nor good reason to assume its conclusions. As a result, in this edition I
treat the Egypt---Palestine thesis as one among competing theses.

I was – and remain – convinced of the rightness of the Petra thesis as advanced by
Dan Gibson in his book Qur’ānic Geography in the sense that I am fully convinced
of the rightness of his identiKication of Petra as the place of the Arab pilgrimage
(i.e. al masjid al ḥarām) referred to in the present work as the Petra pilgrimage
thesis. I was – and remain – neutral on many of his other claims. This is not because
I think he is wrong, but because I do not know that he is right; at least, I do not
know it to the extent that I can demonstrate on the basis of Qur’anic and other data
that he is right on the single point just mentioned.

I did, however, previously rather allow – by association – that Gibson’s further

assertions regarding the location of ʿAw d, Thamū d, and so on, as geographically
local to al masjid al ḥarām, were correct. And they may be. But I want here to make
a distinction between my support for the Petra pilgrimage thesis (i.e. that Petra was
the location for al masjid al ḥarām) and any other theses Dan Gibson presents
which I allow may also be true, such as the locations of ʿAw d, Thamū d, and so on.

Independently of my assessment of Gibson’s excellent book, I have come to

question the assumption that the location of al masjid al ḥarām and the city of Muḥ
ammad’s origin and initial locus of action are necessarily one and the same. I do not
refute the claim; I have simply chosen to allow that it may not be so. And if that
point is granted, it is not necessarily the case that al masjid al ḥarām was local to
the historical peoples just mentioned; and that being the case, it would be fairer for
me to present those parts of Gibson’s work which treat of the location of previous
peoples in the same light as I present comparable points from those other theses
which have much to recommend them but which require (as I’m sure Gibson
himself would both accept and welcome as concerns his own thesis) further
extensive and diligent work on the ground.

Of course, for most, the Egypt---Palestine thesis (augmented for the Traditionalist
Muslim by Traditionalist Islam’s addenda) is the answer and we should stop there. I
would be prepared to acquiesce if I genuinely thought it was correct, but I do not; at
least, conclusive evidence is yet to be produced.

My opinion is that politically motivated narratives – ones heavily invested in

predetermined outcomes – have taken the Kield, and for reasons based in something
other than the preponderance of evidence.

Despite all the money and political will behind the Egypt---Palestine thesis, there
remains no prima facie evidence that the children of Israel were ever captives in the
land today called Egypt or that they were resident in Palestine prior to the end of
their captivity in Babylon. Importantly, the Qu’ran does not overtly support current
historical orthodoxy on either point, and appears to Kit awkwardly with many of its
requirements.

In this work, as regards external theories, I assume an assertive posture only for the
Petra pilgrimage thesis (i.e. the location of al masjid al ḥarām at Petra) since the
data is extant which supports it. It is neither my intention nor within my competence
to wage war for or against any of the remaining theses. I wish, rather, to present the
Qur’anic text fairly and consistently. And to that end I provide information in the
footnotes to indicate where certain Qur’anic statements appear to have a bearing on
particular theses (and vice versa), and leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.

I make no apology for my primary role which is that of theological revolutionary. In

this capacity, what is of central importance to me is that – according to both to my
reading of 9:28 and the factual evidence on

xxiii

the ground – al masjid al ḥarām is now closed; and that the function of the histories
of the prophets in the Qur’an from Nū ḥ to Muḥ ammad is to impel the believer to
follow the prophetic template: to warn the dominant evil society and to call it to turn
to God alone to the end that those who will might repent and the judgments of God
become binding upon the rest. Such a call has nothing whatever to do with
promoting or enforcing a religion – and certainly not that religion which is today
called Islam. Despite the seemingly insurmountable branding problem the Qur’an
has by longstanding association with the Traditionalist’s obdurate commitment to
an unrelated cult, such remains the Qur’anic model for overthrowing tyranny. We
are under tyranny and I see no means of defeating the hell planned by the current
‘elite’ but by following the Qur’an’s instruction. The precise location of the
bondage of the children of Israel under Firʿawn or of the people of ʿAw d is
immaterial to this broader strategic objective. Given that the geological and
excavatory work required to achieve objective data on these subjects will likely
never be done, I must proceed without waiting for a Kinal and perfect estimate of
the facts on such questions.

The Qur’an claims to be a true narrative. I do not believe I can best serve the
interests of allowing it a voice if I impose upon it unproven assumptions taken from
elsewhere. For this reason, I have elected in this edition of The Qur’an: A Complete
Revelation to render the names of persons and places in accordance with the norms
of Arabic transliteration. Hence mūsā is Mū sā rather than Moses, etc. I have no
doubt that the person called mūsā in Arabic is materially the same as that called
Moses in English – and my instinct is to render in English to an English reader
rather than to ‘Arabicize’ the text, a policy which feeds into the cult of the Arab –
something widely practiced by the Traditionalist Muslim, and a thing for which I
have neither time nor patience. However, I have no way of knowing how far such
proper---noun correspondences hold true – and it is not my place to be the arbiter of
such correspondences. Since I wish to avoid the trap into which previous translators
have fallen (of shoehorning the reader into a priori acceptance of both the Egypt--
-Palestine thesis and post---Babylonian and Masoretic interpretations and redactions
of the scriptures), the fairest and least problematical solution is to render all names
of key historical Kigures in transliterated Arabic, to point out cases where the
Qur’anic text supports or militates against notable theses, and leave the motivated
student to investigate further.43

43. See Article XVIII.

xxiv

Note to the reader

As indicated above, this work – among other things – debunks the religion known
today as Islam, and does so on the basis of the revelation that religion claims as its
foundational text.

This is not something I can present to the world without extensive supporting
arguments and detailed evidence. It is not enough to have answers – even correct
answers; one must show how he arrived at them. If I am ever to be harmed as a
result of having had the temerity to follow the Qur’an’s imperative to use my own
reason, I insist upon the consolation of knowing that those who may care enough to
check my results after me will have the data they need to do so. Such a provision
necessitates an extensive use of footnotes.

Not all readers will wish to check all points the footnotes cover, and the casual
reader is encouraged to feel no obligation to read more of the supporting
documentation than he Kinds beneKicial.

xxv