What happens when you lose sight of an ancient civilization?

What happens when the

history of an entire era is hijacked? What happens when you take away the legacy of a
nation? What happens when you violate the sanctity of a human being; of all mankind?
What happens when all that comes to pass? Is the truth irrevocably lost? Or does it hide
from sight, only to return after a while, as the Dwellers of the Cave returned to the City?
And can the people of the City suffer the return of the Cave Dwellers? Or will darkness
endure in the City? Will the Nile Valley accept the return of the Egyptian civilization? Or
will Miṣr remain in the City? Will the land of Yemen accept the return of Ibraheem’s
ancestors? Or will their memory be forever imprisoned in Iraq? Can the Sarawāt
Mountains of forgotten Arabia suffer the return of the Patriarch and his descendants
Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb? Or will their legacy be held hostage indefinitely in the wilderness of
the Levant? Will Yūsuf and Mūsa return to their homeland on the green slopes of
Ḥimyar? Or are they doomed to tarry forever in the desert of rabbinical lies? Will
ancient Ṣan‘ā’ ever sing its Psalms again, heralding the return of its sons, Dāwūd and
Sulaymān? Or will their memory be eternally lost in Palestine and the passages of the
Orientalist translations of the Old Testament?

Is there anyone on this Earth who will listen to the call of the Sarawāt Mountains and
pave the way for the truth to return to the City?

And will the people of the City welcome the return of the truth?

____________

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Disclaimer 3
Dedication 4
Spelling and Transliteration 6

Preface 8

A “Holy Forgery” Under Execution 16

 Christians and Muslims: Victims of Manipulation 20

CHAPTER I: Uncovering the Truths that have been Hidden from the Global
24
Consciousness

 Who Was the Pharaoh (Far‘awn) of Moses? 25

 Is the Qur’ānic Miṣr Really Synonymous with Ancient Egypt? 30
 The Nile Valley during Ancient Times 33
 The Nile Valley under Persian Rule 34
 The Nile Valley during the Greek and Roman Eras. 34
 The Originality of the Name “Egypt” 36
 Pharaoh, or Pharaohs? 37
 When Did Mūsa (P) Live? 42
 A Glimpse of a Qur’ānic Truth 51

CHAPTER II: The Origin of the Delusion 55

 Arab Conquest of Egypt 56
 The Septuagint Translation 61
 The Consequences of the Crime of Projecting the Name “Mtzrim” onto Egypt 65

CHAPTER III: What is the Miṣr of the Qur’ān? 68

 The Miṣr of Yūsuf: The First Storage System 69
 The Miṣr of Mūsa : The Rise of Far‘awn 79
 How many were the Israelites? 83
 Facts about the Pyramids 85

CHAPTER IV: Geographical Projections 91

 Exactly where was the Miṣr of the Qur’ān? 93
 A Glimpse of the Truth from their Own Mouths 96
 Where did Far‘awn Drown? 98
 What about Ṭūr Seenā’? 103
 Flight to Midyan 115

CONCLUSION 120

References 121

2
 Disclaimer

This book is not the work of one person, nor can any single person lay claim to its
contents. It is a compilation of many works; an assemblage of book passages, sayings,
quotes, interviews, and articles most of which have been translated from Arabic to
English for your convenience, and compiled into one volume. It is not to be published,
as those responsible for its compilation have no legal right to publish it in any way,
shape or form; nor do they seek any material gain from it. It has been made available for
free and is for you, dear knowledge-seeker, to read in the privacy of your own home,
and to share with your friends and loved ones as you see fit.

The message of this book is directed first and foremost to those who call themselves
“Muslims”, especially those among them who can read and understand Arabic, as they
have the utmost obligation and responsibility towards their non-Arab brothers and
sisters in the faith. This is because only those who can speak and read the original
language of the Qur’ān are qualified to assess the credibility of the Arabic sources used
as references, and to judge the accuracy of the translation of Qur’ānic passages to
English. In no way does this imply that Christians and Jews - especially those who are not
content with the beliefs they have inherited from their parents or communities, and
who feel an urge to search for the truth - cannot benefit from its message. The book is
mainly concerned with history, geography and archeology, and most of the information
contained within it is of special relevance to the followers of the other “Abrahamic”
faiths as well.

_____________

3
We dedicate this endeavor to all of humanity.

May it contribute to our awakening.

4
 ARABIA
The Untold Story

Book 1: The Search for Pharaoh

Compiled by:

The Badr Society for Cultural Research

2011

5
 Spelling and Transliteration

The following is a spelling and transliteration guide, to help non-speakers of

Arabic grasp the actual pronunciation of certain Arabic letters.

a = ‫( أ‬short alif ) when it comes at the beginning of a word. Examples: amr )‫(أمر‬, aseer )‫(أسير‬,
alam )‫(ألم‬.
_________

’ = ‫ ( أ‬short alif ) when it comes in the middle or the end of a word. Examples: ma’kal )‫(مأكل‬,

ma’wa )‫(مأوى‬, Saba’ )‫(سبأ‬, naba’ )‫(نبأ‬.

OR, ( hamzah ). Examples: jā’ )‫(جاء‬, mā’ )‫(ماء‬, Qur’ ān )‫(قرآن‬

_________

ā = (long alif ). Examples: asmā’ )‫(أسماء‬, anwār )‫(أنوار‬, aqlām )‫(أقالم‬.

_________

th = ‫( ث‬thā’ ). Examples: Yathrib )‫(يثرب‬, thawāb )‫(ثواب‬, thaman )‫(ثمن‬.

_________

dh = ‫( ذ‬dhāl ). Examples: dhahab )‫(ذهب‬, ādhān )‫(آذان‬, dhakar )‫(ذكر‬.

_________

ḥ = ‫( ح‬ḥā’ ). Examples: ḥamal )‫(حمل‬, ḥoot )‫(حوت‬, Ḥimyar )‫(حِميَر‬.

_________

ṣ = ‫( ص‬ṣād ). Examples: Ṣāleh )‫(صالح‬, ṣiyām )‫(صيام‬, aṣnām )‫(أصنام‬.

_________

ḍ = ‫( ض‬ḍād ). Examples: Ramaḍān )‫(رمضان‬, ḍalāl )‫(ضالل‬, ghaḍab )‫(غضب‬.

_________

ṭ = ‫( ط‬ṭā’ ). Examples: ṭūr )‫(طور‬, bāṭil )‫(باطل‬, ṭāreq )‫(طارق‬.

_________

6
ẓ = ‫( ظ‬ẓā’ ). Examples: ẓaheera )‫(ظهيرة‬, ẓalām )‫(ظالم‬, shawāẓ )‫(شواظ‬.
__________

‘ = ‫‘( ع‬ayn ). Examples: ‘iqāb )‫(عقاب‬, a‘rāb )‫(أعراب‬, Far‘awn )‫(فرعون‬.

__________

gh = ‫( غ‬ghayn ). Examples: ghayth )‫(غيث‬, ghafoor )‫(غفور‬, raghd )‫(رغد‬.

__________

q = ‫( ق‬qāf ). Examples: qitāl )‫(قتال‬, qalam )‫(قلم‬, Quraysh )‫(قريش‬.

__________

h = ‫( هـ‬hā ). Examples: Hūd )‫(هود‬, hadiyy )ّ‫(هدي‬, wahn )‫(وهن‬.

_________

Note: Aside from proper nouns (the names of prophets or geographical

locations), certain terms that appear in the Arabic text of the Qur’ ān have been
left un-translated for the time being, as we have yet to find accurate substitutes
for them in English. Consequently, those terms have been left as they are, and
transliterated for the convenience of non-speakers of Arabic.

__________

7
 Preface

One of the first truths taught to man, with the earliest rainfall of divine awareness, was
that he was never the only sentient and free-willed being in existence; for there were
other forces that shared sentience with him, as well as freedom of choice. Among those
forces roaming the infinite universe is a knowledgeable, able, and active being; an entity
that had rebelled against the command of Allah, and made a stern, defiant choice: {He
said: "You see this one whom You have preferred over me? If You respite
me until the Era of Resurrection, I will surely manipulate his progeny,
except for a few}…[17:62] And so it was made evident to humankind that this
rebellious force was indeed very serious, having sworn a most binding oath to lead astray
all those who belonged to the progeny of Adam: {He said: "By Your might, I will
mislead them all”}…[38:82] Consequently, this entity was cast out from the grace
and mercy of the Creator for, in its arrogance, it would not suffer that the descendants of
Adam be favored over it. More so, this fallen being had accumulated enough awareness
to fully understand the strategic importance of the cognitive pipeline of divine revelation
connected to Adam’s progeny - much akin to an umbilical cord connected to a fetus - and
without which this favored human race would be no more than savage beasts running
amok on the face of the planet.

By Allah’s will, the Heavens also revealed to Adam’s progeny all the actions,
manifestations and goals of this rebellious force, as it attempted to infiltrate the
communication channels between mankind and the higher source of divine guidance, in
order to disrupt the means of prosperity and evolution of the new, favored race: {We
have adorned the lower Heaven with the ornament of planets * And guards
against every devious rebel * They cannot eavesdrop on the Upper Host;
and are bombarded from every side * Outcasts; they shall face a swift
retribution * Any of them who snatches a fragment is pursued by a piercing
flame}…[37:6-10]

And so man, ever lacking in knowledge, ascertained that the supply lines of revelation
originating in the Upper Heavens were well protected from eavesdropping, let alone
infiltration, to ensure that the divine messages reached the inhabitants of the Earth in their
pure, clear, and unaltered form; for the Heavens were packed with vigilant sentries,
carefully watching and monitoring any potential threat. And some of those who were
audacious or careless enough to approach the sanctity of the Upper Domains related to
us, briefly but expressively, what they saw: {And we touched the Heavens, but
found them full of grave guards and fiery projectiles * And we would sit in
places and attempt to eavesdrop, but those of us who do so would find a
projectile seeking them * And we do not know if it is evil that is intended for
those on Earth, or if their Rabb wants them to be guided}…[72:8-10]

8
Yet these strict security measures would not deter the rebellious entity, for it was
determined to foil the project of humankind’s succession to the Earth. And so it
attempted to tamper with the divine revelations after they reached the hearts of Allah’s
messengers. But again, its efforts were thwarted: {And We did not send before you
any messenger or prophet, without having the shaytan interfere with his
wishes. Allah then overrides what the shaytan has cast, and Allah secures
His revelations; for Allah is the Knower, the Wise}…[22:52]

As such, all of the aforementioned stages marking the transmission of the divine
revelations were immune to spies and would-be infiltrators, as stressed by the Qur’ān.
But there was one final stage in the pipeline that was never guaranteed any such
protection: the stage marking the transmission of Allah’s messages from the awareness of
those who first received them, to the awareness of the successive and cumulative
generations of peoples, in the form of traditional beliefs, cultures, and national folklore. It
was in that very stage that the rebellious devils, seen and unseen, obvious and hidden,
each supporting the other, stood poised to waylay those who travelled the path of
righteousness, and to ultimately hijack the divine messages of Allah. It was in that stage
where the Sheikh of Blasphemy ascended to the throne of deception and assumed
leadership of his armies bent on misguiding Adam’s progeny and leading them astray.

In that final stage, the soldiers of iblees, of all races and colors, competed among each
other to record spectacular and consecutive victories throughout the ages; victories whose
effects are still being tragically felt by humanity to this very day. Eventually, they
achieved resounding success in severing the final lines that served as means of delivery
of the divine revelation and awareness among nations and peoples. Consequently, they
distorted Allah’s messages and, through their twisted scriptures recorded in fancy tomes,
ultimately lured humanity beyond the edge of the cliff over-looking the abyss of
ignorance, idol-worship, and blindness: {And they did not appraise Allah as He
deserves to be appraised, for they said: "Allah has never sent down
anything to any human being." Say: "Who then sent down the Book which
Mūsa had come with - a light and guidance for the people - that you scribe
into scrolls, displaying some of it and concealing much; and you were taught
what neither you nor your fathers knew?" Say: "Allah did”. Then leave them
engaged in their folly}…[6:91]

As a result, multitudes of Adam’s progeny lost their way, and have been wandering in
cognitive darkness to this very age. Despite this, the heavenly supply line remained intact
- a mercy for mankind - until the final divine message was revealed, sometime during the
6th Century A.D., and protected from tampering by the soldiers of Allah Himself:
{Indeed it is We who have sent down the reminder, and indeed it is We who
will preserve it}…[15:9]

9
The Sheikh of Disbelief went mad, and was eventually forced to revise his strategy to
counter the new protective arrangement. Through this last and weak link in the pipeline
of revelation, a great and sinister plan was laid out, wherein the final scripture was
emptied of its meaning, and its understanding was bound with the shackles of man-made
traditions, conjecture, and hearsay. Thus, the guiding light of Allah’s ultimate and
protected message was veiled and prevented from reaching the consciousness of Adam’s
progeny, except for a very rare few. These disruptive shackles are referred to by the term
laghu, which appears in [41:26], and relates to us how the rejecters of the divine truth
during Muḥammad’s time sought to “make noise” over the Qur’ān, in order to prevent its
guidance from reaching the masses. And this “noise”, or distortion, is still very much
echoing today, as the vast majority of those who call themselves Muslims have made the
Qur’ān of no account, twisting and constraining the meaning of its signs (ayahs) in order
to make them fit with man-made dogmas and inherited traditions, thus masking the voice
of divinity: {And those who rejected said: “Do not listen to this Qur’ān, and
make noise over it that you may succeed”}…[41:26]

Although we will not discuss herein the reasons for excluding the last stage in the
pipeline of cognitive revelation from direct protection, we can establish only that the
reason is related mainly to the principle of freedoms decreed by the Almighty.
Furthermore, we can say that Allah's revelations have stressed often and repeatedly,
through all the messengers, the need to fortify this stage in the pipeline, being that it is
most fragile and vulnerable. But alas! The warning has gone unheeded for millennia.
Consequently, the so-called “Muslims”, who are supposedly the guardians of the last
scripture, have lived for centuries unaware that their creed was subverted by an intricate,
yet subtle network of pagan rituals and beliefs; oblivious to the fact that their deen (the
divine system established for them by Allah), was infiltrated by rabbinical and canonical
dogmas attributing to Allah and His messengers falsehoods and slander that no sane mind
can accept.

Yet it was not for the final revelation to leave the generations of its recipients, both past
and present, without pointing out to them the den of treachery, where the divine
covenants were broken, and where the pens and parchments of forgery are still scattered
upon the table of universal illusion and glamour, waiting for those brave enough to step
forward and expose them. And so it was made known to the masses that certain
infiltration groups were recruited, specifically from among the People of the Book, whose
hearts became as hard as stone, and who chose to appoint the shaytan as their source of
inspiration. Their lord and master pointed out to them all the ports of misguidance and
windows of worldly deception, and so they mastered the art of forging and counterfeiting
the divine scriptures, starting with the Torah, which was revealed to their own ancestors:
{And from among them is a group who twist their tongues with the Book so
that you may think it is from the Book, while it is not from the Book, and

10
they say it is from Allah while it is not from Allah, and they knowingly say
lies about Allah}…[3:78] Not only that, but the Qur’ān also classified, in detail, the
various types of fraud that they perpetrated. These ranged from completely hiding divine
truths from their public…{O people of the Book, Our messenger has come to
you to clarify for you much of what you were hiding from the Book, and to
pardon over much. A light has come to you from Allah and a clarifying
Book}…[5:15] … to twisting and corrupting those truths by mixing them with
falsehoods, and ultimately planting their fraud in the consciousness of the masses, in
order for the latter to be oriented and led, like sheep, in the ideological direction that
suited those infiltration groups, while shunning all views and opinions that were in
conflict with their diabolical interests: {O messenger, do not be saddened by
those who increase in disbelief from among those who said: "We believe"
with their mouths while their hearts did not believe. And from among those
who are Jewish, there are those who listened to lies; they listened to people
who never came to you; they distort the words from their context, and they
say: "If you are given this, then take it, but if you are given anything
different, then beware!" And whoever Allah wants to test, then you will not
possess anything for him against Allah. These are the ones whose hearts
Allah did not want to cleanse; in this world they will taste humiliation, and
in the Hereafter they will suffer a great retribution}…[5:41].

Even more still, their audacity and insolence reached such an extent that when the
elements of direct forgery of the scripture could not be made available, they resorted to
the uncontested claim that they were the heirs of the prophets, the sole guardians of
Allah’s words, and had a monopoly over interpreting the scripture. Some even claimed to
directly receive revelations from outside the Book. The Qur’ān did not forget to mention
this wide window of fraud in the name of Heaven: {And who is more wicked than
he who invents lies about Allah, or says: "It has been inspired to me," when
We did not inspire anything to him; or he who says: "I will bring down the
same as what Allah has sent down."? And if you could only see the wicked
at the moments of death when the malā’ika have their arms opened: "Bring
forth your souls, today you will be given the severest punishment for what
you used to say about Allah without truth, and for you arrogance towards
His revelations."}…[6:93]

But how is all this relevant to us, who are presumably the followers of the last prophet?
Often we hear in our daily lives that the books of the Old Testament (OT), or what we
invariably call “The Torah” - irrespective of whether that designation is correct or not -
are actually corrupted records. We, as Muslims, know this for a fact; so what exactly is so
new about this issue that we have chosen to raise it again in our research? What is indeed
new is the fact that we have dealt with the forgeries and falsehoods perpetrated
throughout the ages by the clergy of the previous nations as though they were simply

11
general information to be reiterated here and there in books, discussed over tea in casual
meetings, or debated over in intellectual conferences. What is indeed new is that the
catastrophic effects of those falsehoods and forgeries, and the role that they have played
in our past and in the shaping of our future as a nation have been, for centuries untold,
completely absent from our awareness and consciousness. Consequently, our knowledge
about the corruption of the previous scriptures was never in fact helpful, nor has it
benefited us in any way; on the contrary, it has become an argument against us and a
testament against our own beliefs. For we did not raise, neither in the past nor the present,
so much as a finger befitting the Qur’ānic warnings about the danger and seriousness of
those corruptions and the destructive effects they’ve had on our culture and identity. The
main reason, as we will soon realize, is that those forgeries have always shown up under
the guise of “Allah Said So”.

As a result of this shortcoming on the part of our bygone generations, the creed - the
belief system - of our fathers, grandfathers, academic figures and historians of both past
and present, has been infiltrated to the core by the most venomous poisons that were
recorded in those scriptures. This infiltration has continued throughout the ages and is
very much alive and well with today’s generation, and the vast majority of us are
completely unaware of it. What is new is the fact that our thinkers, scholars, and self-
imposed religious authorities have been contained by a dark, sinister and secretive force,
whose impact began to be felt shortly after the time of Muḥammad (P), and down the
generations until this very day. Consequently, our scholars and academics, throughout the
past fifteen centuries or so - except for a very rare minority who were most often silenced
or whose voices were ignored - have been unknowingly marketing the rotten merchandise
of the forgers of the previous scriptures, and assimilating it into our belief system. What
is new is that our schools, colleges and universities have gone on teaching our children
pure and consummate rabbinical garbage concerning our history, concerning who we
are, and where we came from. What is new is that someone wrote for us our own history
and the record of our own lands, named and classified us as they saw fit, taught us our
genealogy through their eyes, presented it to us on a silver platter, and said to us: “Take
what we have given you with force, for it is from Allah!”. And we believed them. Despite
the dozens of warnings in the Qur’ān, we listened to them and took their words as the
unquestionable truth. And look where we are today as a consequence of our actions. We
are a nation numbering some 1.3 billion, yet we have gone completely off the margin of
the page where history is being recorded. Our minds and our intellect have submitted
their resignation and gone to sleep in a cave. We have become the great mockery of the
age; a veritable freak show to be studied and analyzed.

Is everything we have said so far an exaggeration or a delusion that does not relate in any
way to the reality of our existence? Or should we really give some thought as to what
went wrong? This is what we aim to answer in our research; this humble effort of

12
gathering what has been said here and there about our history by some unheard or
ignored voices; voices belonging to brave men who refused to accept the rabbinical
version of history, and decided instead to listen to what the earth itself had to say, or at
least what some marginalized Arab geographers of old had tried to convey.

It would be impossible for one study to provide a complete and comprehensive view of
the entire corpus of corruption that certain groups of Jewish rabbis perpetrated; all the
“amendments”- so to speak - that they injected into the previous scriptures throughout the
ages. Such a study would have to encompass an analysis of everything from one of the
earliest recorded Old Testament scripture, coinciding with the period known as the
“Babylonian Exile”; to the later Greek translation of the OT, that was transmitted to the
world from Egypt starting from the 4th Century B.C; to the Masoretic rendering of the
original so-called “Hebrew” text, which started in the 6th Century A.D and continued on
until the 10th. Add to all that the Orientalist and Zionist interpretations of the actual text,
starting from the late 19th Century, and whose effect was equally - if not more -
destructive than the older corruptions; and you end up with a project of enormous size,
requiring effort on a scale that no single - or sane - individual or group would even
contemplate. It is for this reason that we have chosen to dedicate this effort to cast light
on one specific subject: the history and geography of the messengers of Allah, those
noble emissaries of the Almighty whom the Qur’ān mentions, and whose trace was lost to
the world as a result of what could only be a sinister conspiracy of unimaginable
proportions and ramifying implications, starting from the Patriarch Ibraheem (P), and
ending with the deliverer of the last scripture, Muḥammad (P), whose biography was
equally the target of a malicious scheme.

The first step that we have taken on our long journey to uncover the lost legacy of the
prophets of Allah was to liberate ourselves from the shackles of the tyrannical motto of
“Allah Said So”, which has nested itself within the religious dogma of not only the
world’s Muslim population, but its Jewish and Christian communities as well; for they
have all been victims of this diabolical motto. We have come to the realization that the
ultimate goal of this dogmatic slogan has always been one and the same: to blind the eyes
of the followers of all three faiths to the great blasphemy that was perpetrated against
humanity itself, and to keep their ears deaf to the call of the Sarāt Mountains of Arabia
and the secrets that lie buried within their slopes and valleys, waiting to be
uncovered…waiting to turn the rampant version of history upside down.

And so after freeing ourselves from the despotic clutches of the so-called Salaf, and their
understanding of Allah’s final scripture, let us now delve together, dear reader, into the
forgotten bits of lore scattered here and there in the books of Arabian history and
tradition, as well as the current version of what is called The Old Testament, and to
analyze all the geographical inconsistencies that have been ignored for ages untold. Let
us reason together with a progressive, inquisitive and open mind, as Allah has always
13
intended us to do, and bring our findings under the light of what some modern
archeologists and anthropologists have been saying for the past hundred years or so, and
what the Qur’ān has been hinting at for nearly fifteen centuries; the shattering
geographical truth hidden within its divine passages. It is a truth that we have often read
and recited but failed to grasp, due to the influence of pre-conceived dogmas that have
acted as a veil over our eyes. We shall delve together, dear reader, in the turbulent ocean
of our ancient and forgotten traditions, to look upon our history through our own eyes,
not through the eyes of others, and to ultimately put the pieces of this age-old puzzle
concerning the identity of Allah’s messengers, and where they actually lived and
preached.

The road that we intend to walk is a long and treacherous one, but there is a great prize
waiting for us at the end. Throughout our journey, we will uncover for you many blatant
forgeries, and many shocking truths. We will show you how the great history of Egypt
was hijacked by a group of seventy men ascribing divinity to what they wrote with their
own hands, and how they successfully hid the truth about the journey of Mūsa (P) and
the Israelites and planted their deception in the consciousness of the future generations.
We will show you how they forged the journey of Ibraheem (P) who, according to their
twisted scriptures and the even more twisted interpretations of the Orientalists who came
after them, had crossed the continents of the ancient world on foot, with his sheep and
goats (at the advanced age of eighty) and how they traced, in his footsteps, the imaginary
boundaries of a Jewish “Promised Land”; while we have been applauding and playing the
drums to the tune of their forgery for centuries. We will uncover for you the insanity of
their claim over Palestine, and their delusions concerning the so-called “Temple Mount”.
We will show you that the Muslims have also fallen victim to the great lie, and accepted
the Orientalist and rabbinical version of Palestine’s history as the truth, without even
being aware of it. We will prove to you, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the ancient
kingdom of Dāwūd (P) and Sulaymān (P) was never in Palestine. Then, we will retrace
the steps of the Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns against the ancient Israelites and
reveal to you the real destination of those campaigns, their motives, and the consequences
of the so-called “Exile”. Finally, we will devote an entire volume to recount to you the
story of the Arab Messiah, and the circumstances surrounding the Apostle Paul’s
mysterious journey to Arabia, where we will uncover together the most spectacular case
of mistaken identity the world has ever known.

What we will present to you in the pages that follow is a case of blind dogma versus
science and reason; a case of uncovered truth staring rampant falsehood straight in the
face. So let us take you by the hand, and may you find the patience to accompany us to
the very end. May your heart be brave enough to accept the truth when you see it.

And may the truth set you free…

14
“They must find it difficult…those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than
truth as the authority”.

- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist.

15
 A "Holy Forgery" Under Execution

And the time will come when our children (the “American Indians”) will realize
that they are descendants of the House of Israel, and that they are the
Children of God; and then they will know the legacy of their ancestors, and
rejoice in it.

(The Book of Mormon – 14:15)

What we will expose to you here, dear reader, is a blatant and living example of “Holy
Forgery”, perpetrated in the name of God (“God Said So!”), which will help us better
understand the forgery that was successfully passed on the Muslims after Muḥammad’s
(P) time, and the residents of Arabia in general. The example that we are about to give
you must have begun as a kind of joke or a comical farce until eventually, after many
centuries (and continual repetition of the lie), it became a living, breathing, catastrophe,
whose effects we are witnessing right now, as you are reading these very words.

In the year 1830 A.D, an American by the name of Joseph Smith published his “holy”
book which he called The Book of Mormon. This “divine” book, as he claimed, was the
result of a translation that Smith did of old glyphs carved into golden tablets which dated
back to the 4th Century B.C. The story, as Smith relates it, is that the tablets were buried
for centuries under the earth, near his home town in the suburbs of New York City and,
had it not been for the guidance of a divine agent (an angel by the name of Mormon who
appeared to him on September 21, 1823), he would never have found those tablets. The
angel then inspired to Smith the meaning of the ancient hieroglyphs, and thus began the
story that Smith told the American people when he published his book.

Among the “divine truths” contained in Joseph’s book is the account of events that took
place between 600 B.C and 400 B.C (as he claims), when two groups of Jews, one from
Jerusalem and another from Babylon, migrated to the New World, which is known today
as North America! The story of Mormon goes that the Babylonian group eventually
disappeared or became extinct, while the Israelite group survived and multiplied, until
their descendants became what is known today as the "Red Indians"! The book also
labeled the territory of what is today known as the United States with some Biblical
names, including “the Land of Zion”.

No one was able to see the golden plates that Smith allegedly translated, because the
angel had recovered them from Smith’s possession - as he claimed. But this did not

16
prevent the establishment of a new church by Smith, which was called: "The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

Picture #1: A portrait of Joseph Smith

And the story doesn’t end here! In 1842, Smith came out to the public with a second
book, no stranger than the first, which he called The Book of Abraham. Joseph claimed,
again, that he had found papyrus scrolls containing ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, locked
up inside the coffins of mummies that were on display in Kirtland, Ohio. Immediately,
Smith realized the importance of his new find, as he claimed the scrolls contained
writings by the hand of the Patriarch Abraham himself!! So Smith bought the scrolls,
then began “translating” them – again with the help of a divine agent – and they
eventually became part of his second book, which contains three illustrations copied from
the original scrolls. Among those drawings was an illustration that showed Abraham (P)
lying on a sacrificial altar, in the presence of the king himself, and about to be sacrificed
to the gods of ancient Egypt!

Now the fact is that no one could even debate with Joseph Smith concerning these
outrageous allegations because, back then, there were very few people in the world who
could decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphs, and it wasn’t easy to locate or reach those few. So
this gave Smith the opportunity to write pretty much whatever suited him, without any
objection from anyone, and then ascribe divinity to his work with the famous declaration
of “God Said So!”

17
Afterwards, it was thought that the original papyrus scrolls were lost in the famous
Chicago fire of 1871, leaving only the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon as the
sole testaments to Smith’s claims. As the years went by, the number of Americans
embracing the “Last Testament” (as they called it), continued to grow. These people
actually believe, among other things, that Smith’s two books are divine in origin, and
contain the words of God. The issue is truly as simple as that; no proof needed, because
“God Said So!”

But then came the year 1966, which brought two big and rather unpleasant surprises to
the new church: The first was the discovery of a bundle of ancient papyrus scrolls stashed
deep inside the vaults of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, among which
where the very same scrolls containing the illustrations that Smith had copied into his
second book. The second surprise was that by that time, huge advancements had been
made in the science of archeology and ancient languages, which made it possible to
translate the Egyptian hieroglyphic writings with unprecedented accuracy.

As was expected, no sooner than the original scrolls were discovered that scientists began
to pour over them, in an attempt to translate their contents. And it was then that they
immediately discovered the lies, the deceptions and the forgeries that Joseph Smith
committed in his interpretation of the ancient texts, over a century earlier. The so-called
Book of Abraham turned out to be nothing but a collection of falsehoods written by
Smith’s own hands, and attributed to God. Does this sound familiar to you, dear reader?

The original papyrus actually depicted the rituals of burying the dead in ancient Egypt,
and mentioned some very well-known names and terms in their culture (Osiris, Horus,
Set, etc…). On the other hand, the Book of Abraham completely falsified the contents of
the scrolls, and included terms that were nowhere to be found in the original copy, like
“Abraham”, “Pharaoh” and “angels”.

This important discovery caused a storm of objections and ridicule towards Smith’s
writings, as scientists expressed their anger at the nerve shown by Smith in his forgery of
the ancient Egyptian texts. Thousands of articles were written about the controversy and
the scandal.

Yet despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that was put forward back then, which
proved that what Joseph Smith had written was in fact no more than a collection of
garbage, and that the original inhabitants of America (the so-called “Red Indians”) had
absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Israelites; the 120 years that had passed between
Smith’s writing of his books and the translation done in 1966 were enough for those false
ideas and dogma to spread. Now, it is estimated that the number of Mormons worldwide
is close to 13 million, with some 40% of them living in the United States alone. Statistics

18
and forecasting projections also show that the number of followers of this church is
expected to reach over 100 million by the year 2080.

These people actually believe that the original inhabitants of the American continent -
those tribal peoples falsely labeled “Red Indians” - are descendants of the Children of
Israel! This means that technically, the ancient Israelites were the first inhabitants of
America, during the bygone era, some 2600 years ago! And the only proof these people
have is simply a book penned by the hand of a liar, who claiming that “God Said So!”

Picture #2: The top part shows the original scrolls, which Joseph Smith had copied into his
book (the bottom part).

What was the hidden agenda here? I think you’ve already figured it out, haven’t you? In
case you haven’t, allow us to inform you: The ultimate purpose of this falsehood is that
the Zionists have the right to claim America as their own, for the interests of “God’s

19
Chosen People”; ideologically at first, then gradually hijacking the sovereignty of that
nation, in order for their future generations to establish full control over the rich
continent, all under the guise of “God Said So!”. And the fruits of this “holy forgery”
have already started to mature. Think of who it is that really governs the United States of
America today and dictates its foreign policies. The answer should immediately spring
into your mind.

So what is the point of this story?

The point is to show you how a lie is propagated and marketed. The purpose is to show
you how the evil doctrine of “The Promised Land” has demonstrated unparalleled success
in the hijacking of lands from their rightful inhabitants, under the very nose of an
apathetic international community. But beyond that, the point is to demonstrate to you
how easily humans can be manipulated by the elite (governments and religious
institutions), and that every lie that has ever contaminated the divine messages
throughout history - with no exception - had political motives behind it. And humanity is
currently reaping the seeds of those falsehoods.

You must keep this truth in mind, dear reader, as you go along this journey. For soon you
will discover how the Muslims themselves, who have lived many long centuries with the
conviction that theirs is the perfect creed that no falsehood can touch, have equally been
victims of such political manipulations, and that most of the beliefs they hold so dear to
their hearts have absolutely zero basis in the Qur’ān, and are in fact nothing but a
collection of rotten lies inherited from the previous generations.

 Christians and Muslims: Victims of Manipulation

It is clear that the purpose of Joseph Smith’s outrageous claim concerning the origin of
the so-called “Red Indians” was not motivated out of his love for them. His intention,
purely political, was to exploit their long-standing roots in North America, in order to
claim that the ancient Israelites had built a presence on that continent. To avoid the
requirement of presenting scientific proof of his allegation, Smith resorted to a second
claim that was even more outrageous, when he attributed divinity (news from Heaven) as
the source of his writings; thereby moving his controversial claims from the domain of
objective and scientific methodology, to the supreme and draconian court of ideological
absolutism, whose tenets involve placing investigators, inquirers and doubters on the
delicate scale balancing between infidelity and faith. This escape mechanism of
attributing a claim to the Divinity has long proved successful in penetrating the defenses
of the human mind. It is by means of this oppressive and totalitarian instrument that it

20
becomes possible to muzzle the mouths of objectors, to freeze the minds of thinkers, and
to marginalize the views and opinions of intellectual opponents. This audacity against
Allah is not a product of Joseph Smith’s age, but a practice that has existed for ages
untold; a profession of the organized religious institutions. In fact the Qur’ān, the divine
scripture that Muslims have abandoned and made of no account, pointed the accusing
finger at the clergy and religious elite who intentionally and knowingly twisted the words
of Allah’s messengers to suit their own worldly interests and desires or, in some cases,
invented outright slander and falsehoods which they attributed to those messengers.

It seems to us that lately many voices have started resounding here and there, casting very
serious doubts about the authenticity of the Old Testament accounts concerning the story
of the Israelites; accounts that have shaped the beliefs and culture of the whole world for
many generations, including the Muslims, whose creed has been infiltrated to a
fundamental level by the Biblical stories, without them even being aware of this fact.
These voices have raised the very real possibility that the Biblical record of the ancient
Israelites is not a case of “God Says So”, as the masses have been led to believe.

Among those voices are Neil Silberman, a professor of archeology at the Tel-Aviv
University and his colleague, historian Israel Finkelstein, who issued a famous cry in
their shocking book entitled The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of
Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001), after it became very apparent
to them that there was a deep gulf of staggering contradictions between what is written in
the Old Testament text concerning the kingdoms and prophets of the ancient Israelites on
one hand, and what the earth itself - the soil of Palestine and the Sinai Peninsula - has
revealed throughout over 90 years of extensive excavations and archeological research.

And their cry was not the first on such an academic level, for it was preceded by the
voice of professor Ze’ev Herzog, who at one point occupied the position of Head of Old
Testament Studies at the Tel-Aviv University. In 1999, Herzog published what was then
considered an appalling article in the weekly Haaretz Magazine, under the title
Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, wherein he talked about how archeology - once
freed from preconceived notions and dogma and allowed to operate as an independent
science - reveals the fallacy of the (Israeli) claim over the Palestinian territory.

We have related to you, dear reader, the voices of three of the most prominent Jewish
experts of the past decade or so, that you may hear the truth straight from their own
mouths. Yet what about the hundreds of articles and books that have been published, and
the like number of seminars given by a number of Western experts of various
nationalities, and professors in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics,
all of whom have finally found the courage to stand up to the truth and to make a bold
declaration that their precedents could not have made fifty years ago, for fear of
persecution by the warlords of ideological tyranny: That the ancient Israelites did not

21
reside in Egypt, and the Exodus into the so-called “Sinai Peninsula” never happened. The
Twelve Tribes did not annex Palestine after bloody battles with the alleged “Canaanites”,
and the kingdom of David - if such a figure ever existed in the first place - was never
anywhere near Jerusalem. It was the vast number of contradictions between the OT
account and the archeological findings that finally caused those voices to declare that the
prophets and kings of Israel were most probably mythical figures, as there is absolutely
no conclusive proof that they ever existed.

Yet very few of those experts contemplated the possibility that they may have been
searching in the wrong place. This is because the vast majority of those who worked on
the ground, in the excavation sites of Palestine, Egypt and Jordan, analyzed their findings
while adhering to the pre-conceived notion that they were in fact studying the very same
territories where the ancient Israelites were believed to have established their presence.
And it is on this occasion that we recall the words of the French thinker Pierre Rossi, in
his book published in 1976, entitled: La Cite D’Isis - Histoire Vraie des Arabes (Lit:
City of Isis - The True History of the Arabs), wherein he commented on inherited dogmas
and beliefs: “The day that the Old Testament ceases to be source material for our
historical sciences is the day when our understanding of the Orient is liberated from
the dark empire of preconceptions”.

It is often difficult - very difficult - for an archeologist, even one who has no religious
convictions of his own, and no matter the level of objectivity he tries to maintain in his
work, to completely rid himself of the cultural burden and the inherited beliefs of his
society. Very often, he will find himself thinking twice, if not ten times, before he
declares that the unquestionable results of his scientific research do not conform with the
established creed, especially when the subject matter touches on the sensitive issue of
religious dogma or “holy” figures from the distant past. The main reason for this
reluctance is quite simply fear; fear of the established religious authorities and the
warlords defending the banner of “Allah Says So”.

It is time for humanity to wake up and rid itself of the shackles that inhibit free thinking.
The humble effort you hold in your hand, dear reader, is actually a large collection of
voices that have finally broken through the barrier; voices that refused to succumb to the
tyrannical slogan of “Allah Says So”, and instead relied on the principle of {Bring forth
your proof if you are truthful}.

It is truly astounding and tragic how, despite all the warning bells the Qur’ān struck about
the clergy of the People of the Book and their tampering with the previous scriptures, the
belief system of the Muslims has nevertheless been contaminated to its core by delusional
concepts and false canonical dogmas that have been nesting in the numerous yellow and
diseased books of tradition, Hadith and Tafseer; that is has become nearly impossible to
separate the truth from the falsehood. The most vile crime perpetrated by the classical

22
commentators is that they rejected the independence of the Qur’ān as the ultimate and
incorruptible divine source, and inhibited the interpretation of its signs by associating
them with the contaminated texts of the previous scriptures and the books of tradition
penned by men who lived centuries after Muḥammad (P); claiming that the Qur’ān
cannot be understood outside of those sources. As a result of their crime, the generations
of today are paying the price, as the vast majority of Muslims have completely discarded
all sense of logic and reason. They have gone on believing mythological fairy tales that
have been peddled as the truth by the most awesome and destructive force of propaganda,
fear-mongering, false promises and exaggerated claims that mankind has ever known: the
established religious order. We firmly believe it is the obligation - the duty - of every
free-thinking Muslim to expose those false beliefs once and for all, and free humanity of
their scourge.

*****

23
 CHAPTER I

Uncovering the Truths that Have Been Hidden From

the Global Consciousness

24
After that somewhat lengthy - but necessary - introduction, the time has come, dear
reader, to embark on our long journey and discover the great forgery perpetrated by the
hijackers of human history; a forgery whose effects are still being felt today, on a global
scale. We begin our quest with the tip of a thread that we place in the palm of your hand,
and urge you to follow slowly through the shadowy corridors of an untold story. This
thread begins with one question which opens a window onto a long-forgotten past. The
question is simply:

 Who Was the Pharaoh (Far‘awn) of Moses?

One of the greatest historical distortions perpetrated by a league of ancient Jewish priests
and successfully passed onto not only the Jewish people, but indeed the whole world -
including the Muslims - was to forge the identity card of the tyrant who lived at the time
of Mūsa (P), and whom the Qur’ān has specifically mentioned from among the many
tyrants of the ancient world. Our aim here is to show you just how this forgery was
committed, what the goals behind it were, and how it has contributed to creating one of
the greatest delusions that humanity has ever known.

We will begin by asking you the following question: What is the first image that comes to
your mind when you are asked to paint a mental image of Far‘awn? Does the image look
like picture #3, or is it more along the lines of picture #4?

Picture #3: Image of Far‘awn

25
 Picture #4: Image of Far‘awn

It is safe to say that the first image to cross the minds of the vast majority of
readers is that of picture #3, which depicts one of the rulers of ancient Egypt. On
the other hand, very few people in the world will even consider picture #4,
which shows a traditional Arab tribal chief or ruler, even one as vile as Abu
Sufyān or the traditional Abu Lahab.

However, we can say, for certain, that there is a very tiny minority of people on
this planet who, after having explored the darkest and most forbidden corners of
history, know for a fact that the Far‘awn of Mūsa (P) was indeed more akin to
the portrait shown in picture #4, and that the figure shown in picture #3 is
completely innocent from having anything at all to do with Mūsa (P) or the
ancient Israelites. The reason they keep this knowledge to themselves is simple:
They are afraid that the vast majority will ridicule them, or perhaps they are
intimidated of standing face to face with the religious elite of our time, just as
Galileo was reluctant to confront the heads of the Church, back in the European
dark age, when he discovered that the Earth orbited around the sun, and not the
other way around. As for the few men in this world who had the courage to
stand up and declare the truth concerning the identity of Far‘awn; thinkers and
professors like Kamāl Ṣaleebi, Ibn Qarnās, Ayman Fodah, Aḥmad Dāwūd,
Bernard Leeman, Farajallah Ṣāleḥ Deeb, and others; they did not receive much
attention, neither from the media, nor from the academic institutions of this
world. (And we all know who controls those institutions). As a result, the truth

26
about the real identity of Far‘awn remained hidden, buried under the rampant
and traditional beliefs of people.

Now, if you are among the majority who chose picture #3, we will ask you another
question: What is your proof that Far‘awn of the Qur’ān was a ruler of ancient Egypt?

To cut it short for you, we asked this same question to a random sample of one hundred
Muslims living in an Arab country, all of whom had chosen picture #3. The answer that
60% of them gave was along the lines of: “It’s common knowledge” or “our parents told
us so”, or “This is what we have always known”. Another 25% of the sample pointed to
the books of Tafseer (commentaries of the Quran), as well as the opinions of religious
scholars. The remaining 15% mentioned history books and the media (cinema,
documentaries, etc…), as well as their educational institutions, as sources for their belief.

Let us briefly touch upon the answers given by our study sample:

1) Common Knowledge:

Our question here is the following: Is common knowledge that is rampant in any society,
irrespective of its culture or religious beliefs, necessarily the truth?

For example, people in many cultures believe that statues and stone monuments such as
those of Buddha, Sheeva, the Saints, the graves of the Imāms, the Wailing Wall, the so-
called Ka‘bah, etc…all of these man-made edifices are actually focus points which bring
the faithful closer to the Creator. Does this common belief necessarily agree with the
truth? In the ancient world, it was common knowledge that the Earth was the center of
the universe, and that the sun revolved around the Earth. This Greek belief, attributed to
Aristotle (died 322 B.C) and later supported by Ptolemy, remained rampant in the old
world for more than thirteen centuries. How many human souls paid the price for
doubting this false belief, until Galileo finally proved it wrong in 1640 A.D. Did this
common belief agree with the cosmic reality?

There are over one billion Catholics in the world today who believe that God sent his
only son-incarnate, Yeshu (Jesus), to die on the cross in Palestine, some 2000 years ago,
in order to absolve all humans of their sins. The question remains: Is this really the truth?
Or is it a lie fabricated for political manipulation? The Muslims are practically
unanimous in their belief that the term al-masjid ‘ul aqsa which appears in the Qur’ān,
refers to a mosque (a physical structure) located in Palestine. It will not be long, dear
reader, before you come to the conclusion that they follow nothing but delusions. Such is
the plight of humanity in general; and how clearly and eloquently the Qur’ān expressed
this fact: {And most of them follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture

27
does not avail against the truth in anything. Allah is aware of what they
do}…[10:36]

What we will say here is that any Muslim who takes any piece of information or
knowledge as unquestionable truth, just because his parents or political leaders or
religious figures say it is so, is going completely against the tenets of the Qur’ān and the
warnings of Allah’s messengers, and has only himself to blame for the consequences of
his stubborn standpoint.

{And if they are told: "Come to what Allah has sent down, and to the
messenger;" they say: "We are content with what we found our fathers
doing." What if their fathers did not know anything nor were they
guided?}…[5:104]

{They said: "We found our fathers serving them."}…[21:53]

{And they will say: “Our Rabb, we have obeyed our leaders and our elite,
but they misled us from the path”}…[33:67]

Are the above verses not an accurate reflection of what the vast majority of Muslims have
been doing for many centuries; blindly following the creed they inherited from their
parents and enforced by their religious leaders? How will they defend themselves when
they stand for judgment before Allah?

2) Commentaries of the Qur’ān:

For the sake of brevity, we will simply point out that the classical commentaries of the
Qur’ān are works written by the hands of men, many of whom lived centuries after
Muḥammad (P). Their works are not in any way sacred, nor can they be placed on the
same pedestal as the Qur’ānic text itself. Allah expects us, just as He expected the
generations before us, to use reason and logical thinking and to reflect on the signs in His
Book; especially in instances where the subject matter concerns natural phenomena or
supposedly historical events that occurred in bygone eras.

{Do they not reflect on the Qur'ān? If it was from any other than Allah they
would have found in it many a discrepancy}…[4:82]

{Do they not reflect upon the Qur’ān? Or are there locks on the
minds?}…[47:24]

The Qur’ān also directed Muḥammad (P) and his people, several times, to roam the lands
around them and witness, first-hand, what the fate of the previous nations who defied

28
Allah’s messengers was like, and to reflect upon that. This command is still very much
applicable today. Being that we are in the 21st Century, we now have at our disposal
accurate scientific tools that our predecessors (the so-called Salaf) could not have
dreamed of; namely in the fields of archeology and anthropology. Consequently, we are
not bound by the understating of those who had limited tools of investigation, especially
considering the nature of the subject matter at hand. Reflecting upon the truths of the
Qur’ān was never the exclusive privilege of the Salaf. The approach that we have chosen
is simply to let the Qur’ānic text speak for itself, without binding our understanding of its
signs with the chains of preconceived or traditional beliefs, and without relying on old
sources contaminated with rabbinical and canonical corruptions as having the final say in
how we - the generations of today - must understand the Qur’ān.

On the other hand, the explanations or speeches that are reiterated every once in a while
by the so-called mullahs or religious scholars, concerning historical events from the past,
are in no way binding to the scientific community. Just because your local neighborhood
sheikh tells you that Far‘awn was the ruler of ancient Egypt, does not mean you should
take his words at face value. This is because the aim of the religious elite - as they see it -
is to simply preach a moral lesson to you (although most of the time they end up inciting
fear into their audiences as a means of social control). This in no way means that they
have actually looked deeply into the issue of Far‘awn’s true identity from a purely
investigative and scientific perspective; as such an undertaking is simply beyond the
scope of their self-proclaimed role in society.

3) Educational Curriculums and the Media:

Despite the supposedly educational goal of school and university programs, and certain
media content in general, the instant they touch upon the sensitive matters of religious or
cultural beliefs, you will find that, more often than not, those programs will resort to the
rampant culture and the religious or sectarian creed as their inspirational sources, rather
than actual scientific evidence. Moreover, the content that they put forth to the public is
often subjected to strict surveillance from the government or the established religious
order.

As will be shown to you later on in this study, the Old Testament stories, as well as the
Orientalist interpretations of those stories, have been, for many centuries, the only
recognized sources for the history of our region. What they have been teaching us in
schools and universities and mentally programing us to believe through motion picture,
documentaries, and news programs, has been mostly nothing but lies and propaganda
designed to suit the specific, political interests of imperialist powers who do not give a
damn about humanity, and who have been suppressing the divine truths - by one means

29
or another - for time out of mind. Do you really think, dear reader, that the media wants
you to know the truth about everything in this world? Perhaps you should recall the
famous words of Gerald Massey before you answer that question.

Let us now empty our minds and consciousness of all that we have been led to believe
concerning Allah’s messengers, and begin our investigation in light of the Qur’ān as the
sole and ultimate divine scripture, supported by the findings of modern archeology and
anthropology.

 Is the Qur’ānic Miṣr Really Synonymous with Ancient Egypt?

According to the vast majority of Muslims, the word Miṣr which appears a total of five
times in the Qur’ān, designates Egypt (the Nile Country). This is how all the rampant
translations of the Qur’ān have rendered the word. As a result, it is common knowledge
among them that Mūsa (P) and the Israelites were there, and that Far‘awn (Pharaoh), was
the title given to the rulers of Egypt, one of whom persecuted Mūsa (P) and his people. Is
this common knowledge necessarily the truth? Is it not open to debate? Is it really
unquestionable?

The fact is that the Qur’ān does indeed say that a man referred to as Far‘awn was the
supreme ruler of a place designated as Miṣr. We are not denying this in any way. In fact,
Far‘awn himself declared it to his subjects:

{And Far’awn proclaimed among his people: “O my people, do I not possess

the kingship of Miṣr, and these rivers that flow underneath me? Do you not
see?”}…[43:51]

What we are questioning is, precisely: Does the word Miṣr actually mean “Egypt”?

Let us begin by asking the people of Arabia who lived during the age that the Qur’ān was
revealed (6th Century A.D) the following question: What was the name that they - the
contemporaries of Muḥammad (P) - knew the Nile Country by? If we can find some
piece of evidence - perhaps a letter or correspondence exchanged between Arabia and
Egypt at the time - it would certainly help us answer that question.

According to Islamic traditions, the prophet Muḥammad (P) sent several letters to the
leaders of the neighboring kingdoms and empires, inviting them to embrace Islam, for
their own sake. One of those letters was addressed to the leader of the Nile Country

30
(under Roman mandate), whose title was al-Muqawqas. Here follows is a translation of
what Muḥammad’s letter is reported to have said:

“In the name of Allah, the Raḥman, the Raḥeem. From Muḥammad, son of ‘Abdullah,
to al-Muqawqas, Highest of the Qibt: Peace be upon those who follow the guidance.
I hereby call upon you to embrace Islam; that you may be saved, and Allah will
repay you twice. If you deny, you shall bear the responsibility for the sins of the
Qibt…”

Picture #5: Letter purportedly written by Muḥammad’s (P) own hand, and addressed to "Al-
Muqawqas"

Some people have thrown criticism at us for using the above letter as evidence, as there is
no proof that Muḥammad (P) actually sent letters to rulers of neighboring states. Our
answer to them is simply that they are missing the point. Let us explain why that is so:
We fully agree that the above letter does not constitute genuine evidence, and is most
probably a forgery. This is why we clearly say that it was purportedly written by
Muḥammad (P). In fact, we are 99% certain that the purpose of forging the letter was to
provide a religious cover for the imperialistic wars that the so-called “Islamic State”
fought later on, under corrupt leaders who were allegedly “companions” of Muḥammad.
Now ask yourself the following question: If you were living a century or so after
Muḥammad’s time, and you intended to forge a letter to the Roman Viceroy of Egypt
who reigned during the 6th Century, and attribute it to Muḥammad (P) himself, how could
you possibly come up with a name for Egypt that was not even known during your day
and age? If you look very closely at the writing style of the letter’s script, and compare it
to some of the earliest known Qurā’nic manuscripts, it will immediately become obvious
that the message could not have been inscribed much later than two to three centuries

31
after Muḥammad’s time. The point here is not to discuss whether the message is genuine
or not; but to show you that, until the end of the 8th Century A.D at the least, the Arabs
referred to Egypt as al-Qibt, not Miṣr.

As is made clear by the letter, Muḥammad (P) - or those who attributed the letter to the
prophet - called the leader of Egypt under Roman mandate ’Aẓeem’ul-Qibt (meaning: the
Head or Prime Authority of Qibt). And this word, Qibt, was most certainly the name
given by the Arabs during Muḥammad’s time to the great country that lay across the Red
Sea, and whose people were known as Aqbāt. Do you see the terms Miṣr (to denote the
land) or Miṣriyyoun (to denote its people) appear anywhere in that letter?

In fact, those who forged the other letters in Muḥammad’s name strictly abided by the
known protocols of international diplomacy at the time, as is made evident by the
messages Muḥammad (P) supposedly sent to other heads of state. For instance, the
letters addressed Heraclius, the Emperor of Byzantine Rome at the time, as Hiraql,
‘Aẓeem’ ul Rūm. They addressed Khosrau, the King of Persia, as Kisra, Malik’ ul Furss.
And they addressed the Negus, ruler of Ethiopia, as al-Najāshi, ‘Aẓeem’ ul Ḥabashah. It
is quite obvious that the terms Rūm (Romans), Furss (Persians), and Ḥabashah (Ethiopia)
are nationalities, not religious faiths. By the same logic, al-Qibt denotes the country, and
Aqbāt the national identity of its people.

Furthermore, Islamic traditions claim that one of Muḥammad’s (P) wives was named
Mariah al-Qibtiyyah, meaning: Maria the Egyptian. And these same traditions also tell us
that later on she embraced Islam, yet despite this, she still retained the title al-Qibtiyyah,
even after she became “Mother to the Believers”, through her marriage to the prophet (P).
This proves that the designation of Qibti (or Qubti, as some pronounce it) in its true,
original meaning, denoted the Egyptian national identity. Hence, all Egyptians were
referred to as Aqbāt by the Arabs during Muḥammad’s (P) time, not just the Christians
from among them, as is common today.

So where did the name Miṣr come from then? Answering this question is one of the main
purposes of our search.

Until now, we have seen that the Nile Country during Muḥammad’s (P) time, and most
probably until the early Abbasid Era - as we will later prove - was known as Qibt. But
that still doesn’t tell us what the land was called during the time of Mūsa (P) who, by our
estimates, lived around seventeen centuries before Muḥammad’s age. So let us now
rephrase the question and direct it to the people who lived in ancient Egypt - in what is
today commonly referred to as Miṣr by Arab Muslims worldwide - while assuming, for
the sake of argument only, that Far‘awn was indeed one of their kings in that distant age.

32
Since the Qur’ān is relating to us Far‘awn’s own words and his boasting to his own
people that he possessed the kingship of a place called Miṣr, such a question becomes
necessary. So let’s take a brief trip through history, to see just what that land was called
back then, by its own inhabitants. Could it be perhaps that, unknown to us, it was called
Miṣr (or something resembling that name) at some point, and then later on became
known as Egypt?

 The Nile Valley during Ancient Times

Experts in the field of Egyptology generally agree to divide the history of Egypt into two
periods: The Old Age (or Historic Age), and the Age of Dynasties (or Royal Age).
During the Old Age, the land was divided into several, independent provinces, which
gradually started coming together, until they formed two big regions: Upper Egypt (the
interior part) and Lower Egypt (the coastal part, which includes the Nile Delta area).
Each of these two regions had its own ruler. This status remained until the year 3020 B.C,
when King Narmer united both parts for the first time, and thus began the Age of
Dynasties, which witnessed the rise of thirty royal families, starting from Narmer himself
of the first Dynasty, and ending with the Ptolemaic Era, when Alexander the Great
conquered Egypt in the year 332 B.C.

What was the name of the land back then? During the Historic age, the Nile Valley was
not yet unified. As a result, the historians and archeologists have not found a name for it,
because the country was composed of scattered towns and villages. It was not until the
Dynastic age when a unified name for the country finally emerged. This name was Kemet
or Keme, (often rendered as Kheme), as is evident in the hieroglyphs unearthed from the
Nile Valley itself. The name is spelled as such: . When translated, it means “The
Black Land”, which is thought to indicate the fertility of the Valley’s soil. The ancient
Egyptians called themselves Remetch en Kemet, which means the "People of the Black
Land".

Archeologists are then divided over the issue of what the Egyptians called their land in
later eras. Some claim that the country eventually became known as Het-Ka-Ptaḥ, named
so after the famous Egyptian deity Ptaḥ. This name is spelled as such: , and is
thought to literally mean “Realm of the Ka of Ptaḥ". Other academics in the field of
Egyptology don’t agree with this opinion, and argue that the name Het-Ka-Ptaḥ was
given only to a particular city or administrative region - most probably around the city of
Memphis. Still, a third group speculates that the name was given specifically to the
central part of the Nile Valley, where the river basin is at its nearest point to the Red Sea.

33
In our opinion, the Het-Ka-Ptaḥ theory does sound plausible, because from a purely
linguistic point of view, and upon closer inspection, it appears that the name Aegyptos is
actually a Greek derivative of Ptaḥ, as we will soon see.

Whatever the case, we now have three names that have been proposed as candidates for
the original name of the Nile Country, as it was known by its own people: (Kheme,
Kemet, and Het-Ka-Ptaḥ), and none of those names bears any semblance or relation to
Miṣr, whatsoever.

 The Nile Valley under Persian Rule

The Persians ruled the Nile Valley during two separate periods. The first was from the
year 525 B.C until the year 404 B.C and included the reign of five kings, the last of
whom was Darius II. The second, shorter period, was from 341 B.C until 332 B.C, when
the Persians were expelled by the Greeks. Throughout the rule of the Persians, there is
not a single record or archeological trace, whether in the Nile Valley or in Persia, that
indicates that the Persians changed the name of the country to Miṣr, or to any other name
even remotely resembling it.

 The Nile Valley during the Greek and Roman Eras

The Ptolemaic Age began in 332 B.C, under King Ptolemy, son of Lagos (Ptolemy I),
and ended with the Roman conquest of 30 B.C, under Emperor Augustus. We have
elected to include both these periods together, because the traces they left on the names of
the towns and the administrative divisions were mostly similar. The only exception was
that the Greeks changed the names of some of the cities because they could not vocally
pronounce their original, native names. For example, the city of Mem-Nopher became
Memphis, while the name Kheme, which also denoted a particular town, became
Litopolis. What about the entire country? What name did they give to it? The Greeks and
Romans have left us one name that has endured the ages. This name, as it appears on the
Greek maps, is Aegyptus. On the Roman maps, it appears as Egyptus.

People who speak a certain language often change the spelling of names in another
language because of the difficulty they may have with vocally pronouncing some of the
sounds of that foreign language. Going back to the Het-Ka-Ptaḥ theory, it is easy to see
where the Greeks - who were unable to pronounce the name - got Aegyptus from. By the
same logic, Ae-gypt-us was rendered as Qibt (or Qubt) by the Arabs. As for the name
Miṣr, we did not find a single archeological trace for it until that time. We did not find a
single town or province that bore it. We did not find a single map that showed it.

34
Throughout the five-thousand-year history of that ancient land, there has never been a
single indication, in the entire ancient world, that the Nile Country was ever called Miṣr,
or anything even remotely resembling than name, by its own people.

Map #1: Ancient Greek map, showing the name Aegyptus

Map #2: Roman map By Marcus Vispanius (year 20 A.D)

How can the name of such an ancient and famous land be changed like that? How can it
be given a name that never existed in its entire history? On the other hand, if you look at
the two maps above, you will note that Libya maintained its same name from the Greek

35
age until today, despite the fact that it was far less influential and important than Egypt in
the politics of the ancient world.

Who was behind this name change?

In their attempt to find an explanation for how Egypt became Miṣr, some linguists
theorized that this Arabic word is the equivalent to the Aramaic term Msrim which, in
their opinion, is related to the ancient Egyptian word mdjr, spelled as such: . The
problem with this theory is that the term mdjr, as is made evident by the Hieroglyphic
texts temselves, simply means “fortress” or “barrier”. It was never the official or proper
name of the Nile Country. However, it is important that you make note of this meaning,
dear reader, as we will cast more light on it later on.

 The Originality of the Name “Egypt”

In our present day, whenever a resident of the Nile Country wants to introduce himself to
an American or a European, he says: “I am Egyptian” (Meaning: I am a Qibty), without
even being aware of it. Yet when he is talking to an Arab person, he will switch to the
term Miṣri instead. This is truly a mind-boggling phenomenon that we don’t see
anywhere else in the world. The reason Westerners aren’t familiar with the term Miṣr is
because they chose to stick to the original name of that land, which is Aegyptus –
Egyptus. And can we blame them? Put yourself in their place: Do you approve of
changing the original and ancient name of a great land or kingdom, like China, or Persia,
or India, just because some ignorant fool of the Abbasid Age decided, with a stroke of a
pen, to give it a new name in his records?

Now you might ask us: What is your proof that Qibt is the original name of the Nile
Country? Our answer is simply that E-GYPT = QIBT. Can it be any simpler? That is the
real name of the Nile Country; a name that has been known in the East and West for time
out of mind. And it was also the name known by the Arabs during Muḥammad’s age.
Who are we to change it? On the other hand, we defy anyone to analyze the name Miṣr
and be able to find one common and unified name that even remotely resembles it, in all
corners of the world - like we did with Egypt - without twisting the word to make it fit
their hypothesis by force.

Going back to the originality of the name Egypt, we can say for certain that this name is
much much older than was first thought. It goes back to an age even earlier than 3020
B.C (when King Narmer unified both regions of the land). This name appears in the
Legend of Osiris, which was related to us by the Greek historian Plutarch. The legend
states that: “When Isis learned of the death of her husband, Osiris, at the hands of

36
Set, she wore the black shroud and mourned him, in great sadness, and she cut the
curls of her hair from the weight of the catastrophe. And the land became known,
since then, as Koptos – meaning the land that weeps/mourns. And she went to look
for her husband’s body, for Set had thrown it in the Nile”.

And that, dear reader, is the story of the name and its derivatives: Koptos – Coptos –
Qobt – Qibt – Egypt. It is a name that goes back in its originality over 5000 years!

Now, we find ourselves forced to ask the following question: Where does Miṣr fit in, and
how was that name associated with Egypt? Did Allah, in His final scripture, decide to
name it so? Is it possible that Allah, who is quoting Far‘awn himself in the Qur’ān
[43:51], give the land a name it had never known in its entire history? Or could it be
perhaps that the Qur’ān is not talking about Egypt in the first place?

For now, I think the picture has become clear: The term Aqbāt (plural of Qibty) is the
Arabic term that should be used to correctly identify all Egyptians today, whether they
are Muslims or Christians. This name is their national identity, which was hijacked from
them and replaced with the false identity of Miṣri.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Christians of Egypt call themselves “Copts”
(Aqbāt)? In truth, there is no religious sect in Christianity called “Coptic” (or “Koptic”).
This is a fallacy. The Christians of Egypt are no different than their Greek Orthodox
fellows in Syria, Greece and Russia. They have the same belief system, the same rites and
rituals, and the same spiritual reference (the Eastern Orthodox Church). So why should
the Christians of Egypt be given the special and unique label of “Copts”? I think the
answer is obvious by now: It is because, without being aware of it, they kept their
original national identity. And the Muslims of Egypt today had better wake up and realize
that they too are “Copts” (Aqbāt). They are in fact, rather paradoxically, “Muslim Copts”.

 Pharaoh, or Pharaohs?

Since the only reliable source of information for Muḥammad (P) concerning the identity
of Far‘awn was the Qur’ān, let us then return to Allah’s scripture and deeply contemplate
its passages, after clearing our minds from any and all pre-conceptions or traditional
beliefs. The first thing that strikes us is the fact that the Qur’ān never mentions Farā‘ina
(in the plural form). There was only one person in the Qur’ān who went by that title (or is
it a name?), and that person was exclusively the tyrant of Mūsa’s day and age.

How did the misguided Muslims deal with this truth? They transformed the singular into
plural, thus sending the wrong message to their awareness, by using the term Farā‘ina,

37
until it eventually became “common knowledge” among the masses that there was more
than one Far‘awn.

If you consult any index of Qurā’nic terms, or make a search of all instances in the
Qur’ānic text in which this title (or name) is mentioned, you will find that it appears more
than seventy times, and not once is it mentioned in the plural, nor does the context give
any indication that there was more than one figure who bore that tag.

{And We parted the baḥr for you, thus We saved you and drowned the
people of Far’awn as you watched}…[2:50]

{And Moses said: "O Far’awn, I am a messenger from the Rabb of all
peoples}…[7:104]

{And We helped the children of Israel cross the baḥr, and Far’awn and his
soldiers followed them out of aggression and enmity. But when he was
certain to drown, he said: "I believe that there is no ilah except the One in
whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who have
aslamu}…[10:90]

{Go to Far’awn, for he has transgressed}…[20:24]

{So Far’awn followed them with his soldiers, but the yamm came over them
and covered them}…[20:78]

The above verses are some examples. There are nearly seventy more instances that you
can check for yourself, all of which prove that the Qur’ān addresses only one particular
person - and none other - as Far’awn (Please note that we have left the words baḥr and
yamm un-translated for now, but we will study them in detail later on).

One of the great delusions of our time is that there were over a hundred of the Farā‘ina
who ruled the land called Miṣr by the Qur’ān, starting from king Narmer, and ending
with Cleopatra. The reality that very few of us are aware of is that the Qur’ān completely
denies this claim, and tells us very clearly that after Far’awn and his henchmen drowned,
the Israelites eventually inherited the entire land surrounding Miṣr.

Let’s open our eyes and read the following:

{So Far’awn sent gatherers to the cities * "These are but a small band." *
"And they have done what has enraged us." * "And we are all gathered and
forewarned." * So, We evicted them out of gardens and springs * And
treasures and an honorable station * Thus, We made the Children of Israel
inherit it}…[26:53-59]

38
{Mūsa said to his people: "Seek help with Allah, and be patient; the land is
for Allah, He will inherit it to whom He pleases of His servants; and the
ending will be for the righteous." * They said: "We were being harmed
before you came to us and since you have come to us." He said: "Perhaps
your Rabb will destroy your enemy, and make you successors in the land, so
He sees how you work?"}…[7:128,129]

{And We let the people who were weak inherit the east of the land and the
west of it which We have blessed. And the good word of your Rabb was
completed towards the Children of Israel for their patience; and We
destroyed what Far’awn and his people were doing, and what they had
contrived}…[7:137]

What have we here? Something that the Muslims have unfortunately never paid attention
to! The Qur’ān is telling us that the Israelites eventually inherited everything that their
enemies left behind! If the Miṣr of the Qur’ān is indeed Egypt, another serious question
poses itself here: Has anyone in this world ever heard so much as passing reference to the
Children of Israel having inherited or ruled the land of Egypt around 1250 B.C. (the
approximate date of the so-called “Exodus”)?

This is why, in the entire text of the Qur’ān, we do not come across any mention of the
term Far‘awn either before or after Mūsa’s time. The proof is evident by reading Surah
12 of the Qur’ān, which recounts the story of the prophet Yūsuf (P). Allah’s book - which
99% of the Muslims have thrown behind their backs - tells us that the title of the ruler of
the place called Miṣr during Yūsuf’s time was al-malik (the king or supreme authority),
while his subordinate was given the title of al-‘azeez (meaning: “one who had high status
or power”, or something of the sort). There is no mention of Far‘awn anywhere in the
account of Yūsuf (P), even though it is presumed that he lived, at most, some 150 years
before Mūsa ’s time.

There was only one Far‘awn and that was exclusively the title (or name) of the tyrant
who persecuted Mūsa (P) and the Israelites. Assuming that the term Far‘awn was indeed
a title, try to imagine this: One of the kings of England during the 13th Century (Edward
I), was given the title “Longshanks” by the people. The title could be either literal
(indicating the he had abnormally long arms or legs), or figurative (his arms were “long”;
meaning he often stole from the treasury). Does this mean that all the kings of England
who came after him were called “Longshanks”, just because one of them bore that title?
Of course not! And yet, for some reason, that’s exactly what the Muslims did to the rulers
of the place referred to in the Qur’ān as Miṣr. They projected the tag identifying one
particular ruler onto all those who ruled before and after him! This is a complete fallacy
and is a screaming contradiction to what the Qu’rān is telling us. How could there be
other Farā‘ina when Allah’s Book makes it clear to us that after Far‘awn drowned along

39
with his soldiers, the stage became set for the Israelites to eventually inherit the entire
land that Miṣr was a part of?

So where do we look for this tyrant then? Do we look for him in Egypt? Absolutely not,
as there is zero physical or archeological evidence of there ever having been figures by
the name of Yūsuf, or Mūsa or a group by the name of Bani Isra’eel in the land of the
Nile, nor any trace of their passage through the so-called “Sinai Peninsula”. Not one
shred of evidence has ever been uncovered to even remotely suggest this. It is for this
reason that many modern Biblical critics and scholars have dismissed the story of the
Exodus from Egypt as a mere myth and nothing more; some even going as far as denying
even the existence of the prophets, altogether.

The following, dear reader, are samples of what some of the most prominent among those
scholars and experts have said concerning this issue:

1) Victor Siegleman:

In an interview with The Independent magazine in 2003, Siegleman, one of the most
outspoken academics in his field, stated that: "For Palestinians, the legitimacy of the
existence of the State of (Israel) is in question, not only the territories occupied in
1967. After the contemporary historians, it was the turn of the neo-archeologists in
(Israel) to cast doubt on the Old Testament account, especially concerning the
history of the Patriarchs and Prophets, as well as Solomon’s Temple. Consequently,
the Zionist ideology on which the Jews founded their own state on their alleged
ancestral land can no longer be viewed as valid. Archaeologists have not found any
trace of the ruined Temple, nor of a glorious Kingdom under Solomon’s reign, nor
anything else for that matter. And the Biblical text, which has no actual physical
basis, is nothing but a literary invention ".

2) Thomas Thompson:

Thompson was, at one point, Professor of Archaeology at the Marquette University in

Milwaukee, USA, prior to being expelled from his post because of his opinions. He
published his first book entitled Early History of the Israelite People (1992), in which
he explicitly denounced the historicity of the Biblical account, and called on academics to
rely on archeological excavations as well as the wealth of information found in ancient
and unbiased non-Jewish records (notably the Greek chronicles), as sources to rewrite the
history of the region. In one of his studies published in the Palestinian Al-Karmel
magazine (2001), entitled: Can We Re-Write the Ancient History of Palestine?

40
Thompson avidly supported the independence of the academic curriculums of history and
archeology from theological ideologies.

3) Keith Whitlam.

While working as Professor of Theological Studies in the Sterling University of Scotland,

UK, Whitlam published his famous (or rather infamous) book entitled The Invention of
Ancient Israel: Silencing Palestinian History (1996). Whitlam reached the same
conclusions as Thompson: that there was indeed a Western-Zionist scheme whose aim
was to blur the true historical implications of the archeological and anthropological
discoveries in Palestine, since the second half of the 19th Century, and whose ultimate
goal was to enforce a certain ideological reality and a fraudulent interpretation of the
region’s history. Whitlam argued that the so-called “Biblical Israel” had been - and still
was - no more than a Zionist ideology to legitimize the granting of European Jews real-
estate rights in Palestine.

4) Ze’ev Herzog.

Seldom is Herzog’s name mentioned in the academic circles of Biblical archeology,

without causing a stir. In his appalling article, published in the (Israeli) Haaretz magazine
in October of 1999, Herzog stated: “The people of the world - not only the (Israeli)
citizens or the Jewish population in general - will be shocked upon hearing the truths
that have become evident to the archeologists who have been working in the field for
quite some time”. Herzog described the findings as “…a veritable revolution in the
eyes of the (Israeli) archeologists, and their view of the Bible as a historically
accurate source…It is very difficult to accept this truth; but it has become clear to us
academics and researchers that the ancient Israelites never resided in Egypt, nor did
they wander in the desert, nor did they annex Palestine through a military operation,
nor is there any sign of the Twelve Tribes in the region”.

The conclusion that must be drawn from the above exposition, dear reader, is that we
need to re-study the history of Palestine; of the whole Near-East as a matter of fact, while
relying on what the earth itself has to say, rather than on ideological or theological
doctrines. It is only then that the world can be free of the great delusion concerning the
true identity, history and role of the Israelites in ancient history.

Despite the sound arguments of the neo-academics and archeologists, there remains one
major flaw in their logic: When they failed to find any evidence of ancient (Pre-Exilic)
Israelite relics in Egypt and the Levant, they immediately discarded the accounts of the
Old Testament as pure myths, without pausing to ask the question: Are we looking in the

41
right place? What they failed to take into consideration was the very real possibility that
the Old Testament account concerning the Children of Israel - despite all the tampering
that had physically corrupted its text - may have been, on a certain level, an accurate
record of events, albeit whose theater was not Palestine in the first place. The Old
Testament account contains hundreds of names of people, heroes, prophets, poets, kings,
mountains, valleys, cities, even species of plants and animals. It would be preposterous to
assume that all these names were simply made-up myths that must be completely
dismissed. Could it be that the Orientalists, beginning with the Zionist movement which
dawned in the late 19th Century, had interpreted those names as being associated with
ancient Palestine? In other words, could it be that the theater of the OT events was
fraudulently projected onto Palestine? That is the question that we will ultimately find
the answer to.

 When Did Mūsa (P) Live?

Historians can’t really pin-point the exact date. If you read everything that was ever
written on this subject, you will find yourself in the range of anywhere between 1500 BC
and 1200 BC, with 1250 BC as the most likely date of the so-called “Exodus”. Now,
since we are assuming, for argument’s sake, that Mūsa (P) and the Israelites lived in
Egypt, let us check out the names of all the rulers of Egypt during that time period, to see
who the possible candidates for Far‘awn were. We have found that the period coincides
with the 18th and 19th Dynasties.

The following is a table showing the names of the rulers of ancient Egypt, their given
titles (as shown in the hieroglyphic inscriptions on their tombs) and the year of their
reign, as is agreed upon by the vast majority of experts on this issue:

18th Dynasty

Number Name Title Period of Reign

1 Ahmose I Neb-Bahti-Ra 1550 – 1525 BC

2 Imhotep I Jesr-Ka-Ra 1525 – 1504 BC
3 Tahutmose I Aa-Khapru-Ka-Ra 1504 BC – 1492 BC
4 Tahutmose II Aa-Khapru-An-Ra ? (alternated with his successor)
5 Tahutmose III Men-Khapru-Ra ? (alternated with his predecessor)
6 Hatshepsut Maat – Kara 1473 – 1458 BC
7 Imhotep II Aa-Khapru-Ra 1427 – 1401 BC
8 Tahutmose IV Men-Khapru-Ra 1401 – 1391 BC
9 Imhotep III Neb-Maat-Ra 1391 – 1353 BC
10 Imhotep IV Akhnaton 1353 BC (Started religious revolution ; didn’t last long)

42
 11 Nefer Khebro Wa-An-Ra 1353 – 1335 BC
12 Semenkara Aankh-Khapru-Ra 1335 – 1333 BC (was assassinated)
13 Tutankhamun Nep-Khapru-Ra 1333 – 1324 BC
14 Ai Khapru-Ra 1323 - 1319 BC
15 Hor-Mohep Jesr-Khapru-Ra 1319 - 1307 BC

19th Dynasty

Number Name Title Period of Reign

16 Ramses I Men-Bahty-Ra 1307 - 1306 BC

17 Seti I Men-Maat-Ra 1306 - 1290 BC
18 Ramses II Osir-Maat-Ra-Setep-An-Ra 1290 - 1224 BC (#1 candidate for THE Pharaoh)
19 Merneptah Ban-Ra-Hotep-Er-Maat 1224 - 1214 BC (#2 candidate for THE Pharaoh)
20 Seti II Osir-Khepru-Ra-Setep-An-Ra 1214 - 1204 BC
21 Amonmes unknown 1204 BC (led a short-lived rebellion; didn’t last long)
22 Septah unknown 1204 - 1198 BC
23 Towsert unknown 1198 - 1196 BC

There you have in front of you the names of more than twenty of Egypt’s rulers, covering
a time span of over 300 years, to guarantee that the age of Mūsa (P) falls within the reign
of one of them. Do you see, in the above list of names or titles, anything that even
remotely resembles the word Far‘awn? Can you twist any of the above names or titles to
make it into Far‘awn?

We should note here that the Zionist-controlled Western media and the religious Jewish
scholars usually point to Ramses II as the most likely candidate for the tyrant who
persecuted Mūsa (P). Do you see in Ramses’ name or title (Osir-Maat-Ra-Setep-An-Ra)
anything that resembles the world Far‘awn? Furthermore, studies done on Ramses’
mummy have shown that he died at the age of ninety, after suffering from arthritis and
hardening of the arteries. His son and successor, Merneptah, also suffered from those
conditions toward the end of his life. Does it sound to you like Ramses II could have
chased a group of 600,000 slaves across the wilderness of Egypt, to the Sinai Peninsula?

In addition, please note that the titles of these rulers, as was discovered from the
translation of the Hieroglyphic royal cartouches , always carried the meaning of servitude
or glorification to their prime deity, “Ra” (note how the name “Ra” is common in every
one of the titles). For example, the king of Egypt would be addressed as such:
Ramses, Eternal Servant of Ra; or Seti II, Watchful Eye of Ra, etc… Furthermore, these
titles always came following the king’s actual name, not preceding it. Another common
title that the kings of the Nile Valley were thought to have shared was “Lord of the Two

43
Lands” (meaning Upper and Lower Egypt). This title, transliterated in the ancient
Egyptian tongue, was pronounced ḥar-pa-neb-tawi; although some experts believe it was
the title given to Horus (the patron deity of Egypt), not to the kings. In either case, ḥar-
pa-neb-tawi bears no relation to Far‘awn whatsoever.

Is the Quran really talking about a king of the Nile Valley? Or are we missing
something?

Picture #6: A photo of the mummified corpse of Ramses II.

In this regard, professor Zāhi Ḥawwās, the Secretary General of the Egyptian Council for
Antiquities (and former Egyptian minister of tourism) objectively reiterates, in many of
his seminars, the fact that the Far‘awn of Mūsa’s age has not yet been identified from
among the ancient rulers of Egypt, and that he cannot assert that any of those rulers was
in fact the Biblical figure. In an answer to the question of whether or not Ramses II could
be the one - as was claimed by some French scientists who had analyzed the mummy -
Ḥawwās replied, in an interview with the Baḥraini Ayyām newspaper on 22/05/2005, by
saying: “Absolutely not. The (Far‘awn) of Mūsa died by drowning, and they did not
find any evidence of this in the mummy. Furthermore, the analysis of most of the
royal mummies has not yet revealed which of them belongs to the Biblical figure…so
there is really no conclusive evidence until now”.

On the other hand, renowned Syrian scholar of mythology and ancient religions, Dr. Firās
al Sawwāḥ, in his book entitled The Bible and Ancient Near East (2000), says: “As for
the date of the Exile, there is a general consensus that it was around the year 1260
BC, during the time of Ramses II… However, despite the enormous efforts made by

44
 Picture #7: Professor Zahi Ḥawwas (November, 2006)

archeologists in their attempt to find a historic basis for this story, they have failed
utterly, and the thousands of hieroglyphic texts unearthed in Egypt have remained
silent on this event that is so central and paramount in the Bible…To even think that
600,000 persecuted slaves escaped through the delta area and made their way
across any body of water towards the Sinai desert, where they succeeded in causing
the Pharaoh himself to drown, and that the records of that period – which is
considered the most richly and intricately documented period in the entire history of
Egypt – are completely silent about such an event, is out of the question”.

So there, dear reader, you have now heard testimonies from two Arab scholars - one of
whom has been at the head of the Egyptian antiquities department for some time - among
the hundreds of testimonies that have lately resounded all over the world, even by
western scholars, including Jewish academics, all of whom have declared the same
objective truth: There is absolutely no trace of any group of people by the name of Bani
Isra’eel ever having lived or settled in ancient Egypt, nor any trace of a mass exodus
through what is called the “Sinai Peninsula” by any such group.

What is even more shocking is the following fact: There is absolutely no physical proof -
and we mean zero proof - that the title of “Pharaoh”, or anything remotely similar to it,
was ever used to designate the rulers of Egypt! If you review the names and titles of all
the rulers of united Egypt, from King Narmer in 3020 BC, all the way to the year 332 BC
when the Greeks conquered the Nile country, you will not find a single trace of the word
“Pharaoh” anywhere; not on the walls of the temples nor on the murals of the pyramids,
nor the royal cartouches, nor in the papyrus documents or diplomatic letters sent to and
from Egypt. There is simply no indication that the people of Egypt gave their rulers such
a title. Moreover, that term doesn’t even fit with the phonetics of the ancient Egyptian
tongue, and is totally alien to their culture. It is a term that was hijacked from somewhere
and forced into the ancient Egyptian culture by means of a great forgery that we will soon
expose to you.

45
The modern experts in the field of hieroglyphics tried, in vain, to find even one word in
the political protocols of Egypt that is anywhere close to the word “Pharaoh” which
appears in the Bible. Finally, after some agonizing efforts, they found a single, orphan
solution to the problem. In fact, this solution was the accomplishment of one man, a
scholar by the name of James Henry, who claimed the following: “And so, as the years
passed, the Egyptian people began to refer to their government as ‘The Great
House’. Then, eventually, it became the title of the king himself. And this title, in
their ancient language, was pronounced pr-aa, which the Israelites later adopted
adopted into the (Hebrew) language. And how numerous were the symbolic and
figurative adjectives that the subjects of the Egyptian court used to describe their
king!”

The claim that the compound hieroglyphic expression pr-aa (meaning “The Great
House” or “Great Court”) is the origin of the title “Pharaoh” is not only false (which is
why most objective academics have rejected it), but is also plain comical and downright
ridiculous, as we will soon prove. The goal of Mr. Henry and others of his ilk, in
propagating this lie, was to force the term “Pharaoh” onto the culture of the ancient
Egyptians, at any cost and by any means, in order to give historic credence to the claim
that the events described in the Bible had taken place in Egypt.

On this occasion, we would like to address those who call themselves “Muslims”, and
who claim that they resort to the Qur’ān for guidance, by pointing out to them the
following fact: If you accept the twisted logic of Mr. Henry, then you have to accept that
when Allah told Mūsa (P): {Go to Far‘awn, for he has transgressed}…[20:24],
Allah actually meant to say: “Go to the Great House, for he has transgressed”. Are you
comfortable with this conclusion, dear reader? Is it possible that Allah would use the
honorary title “Great House” to name the tyrant which He eventually destroyed at the
hands of Mūsa? Did Allah address His messengers by their plain names: (Mūsa,
Ibraheem, Muḥammad, etc…), while keeping the honorary title of “Great House” when
referring to the doomed tyrant? Where has our sense of logic gone?

The truth of the matter is that the word “Pharaoh”, which appears in the Quran as
Far’awn is neither the “Hebrew” nor the Greek translation of the ancient Egyptian term
pr-aa. It is nothing but a sad, pathetic attempt to force the term into the culture of the
ancient Egyptians, for reasons that will soon become apparent.

You want more evidence that the title doesn’t exist? Why don’t we take a look at some
translated Hieroglyphic royal cartouches, to see how the ancient Egyptian speech was
actually pronounced, in order to see if the word pr-aa appears anywhere in the mention of
the king. Here follows are translations of several cartouches, as examined on the pyramid
murals, all of which mention the king. You will note that the cartouches have two words
in common: Hor (which is an allusion to Horus-Ra, their main deity) and Teti, which
46
denotes the king himself. We have included for you the English translation of the
cartouches, followed by the transliteration (actual pronunciation) in parenthesis.

Cartouche 563/A:

“The mouth of the King is as incense, and the lips of the King are as myrrh” (djed
merdu re en teti em senetjer sepeti teti em onetiu).

Cartouche 563 / B:

“Descend, O King, to the field of your mate, Ka. To the field of your servants” (ḥai
teti em sekhet ka eke er sekhet ḥetep).

Cartouche 563 / C:

“The food of the King is like the food on the ship of the god” (noret khefat net teti
mi netjer depet).

Cartouche 564 / A:

“The reign of the King is more than a year, and his servants more plenty than the
Nile” (onekh teti ir renepet aut teti er ḥep).

Cartouche 609 / A:

“O, King Osir, rise. Hor has come, and He calls you among the gods” (djed merdu
usir teti pu oho ere k ḥeru ip ef tju em o netjeru en tju ḥeru).

Do you see the word pr-aa appearing on any of those royal cartouches?

Dear reader, we promise you that in the years to come, more and more scientists and
archeologists will find the courage to come out and speak, and to expose one of the
greatest delusions that humanity has ever known. And then - only then - will the Muslims
all around the world say: “Oh, look! That’s not new! The Qur’ān declared it many
centuries ago!” Such has been the sad plight of Muslims for ages, and the story of their
hypocritical approach to the Qur’ān; the scripture they claim is the primary source of
their beliefs. They wait for the “Infidels of the West” to make all the scientific and
archeological discoveries, before boasting about how those discoveries are a testament to
the Qur’ān; rather than letting Allah’s book guide them to the truth. But how can the
Qur’ān guide them, when they have bound their understanding of its signs with the chains
of old traditions and the explanations of the Salaf (the previous generations of Muslims),
whom they have elevated to the status of godhood?

Now some of you might ask: “Kings or Pharaohs…what difference does it make? Why
should we waste our time with needless intellectual rhetoric?” Well, it would certainly

47
make a difference if we discovered that, for hundreds of years, we’ve been living a myth
that we continue to cling to as the irrefutable truth. It would make a world of difference if
we knew that the events we thought took place during that remote period of time in
Egypt have dramatically shaped, over the centuries and through our willful ignorance, the
way we live today, with all this web of political, ethnic and religious conflict and
intolerance. Only by unraveling the truth and exposing the falsehoods that we have been
fed, can we untangle this web of antagonism and belligerence we currently endure.

What characterizes ancient Egypt and makes it stand out as a unique civilization in the
history of the old world, besides the magnificent legacy of colossal wonders of masonry
and engineering, and the highly religious texts and moral teachings, is the fact that the
ancient Egyptians kept a solid and coherent documentation of their chronicles, covering
everything from geo-political, socio-economic and military records; to the personal
familial issues of their kings; to matters as trivial as the daily life activities of the
Egyptian citizen, in a way that left very little to the imagination and not much room for
second guessing or speculation.

With the demise of ancient Egypt, the language that had kept its culture intact and
thriving for well over four millennia, was eventually declared extinct following the
Ptolemaic and Roman period (332 BC - 395 AD). After that, the ancient Egyptian
monuments and texts became shrouded in sheer silence and neglect, and the once great
civilization that had helped shape the human code of moral conduct gradually faded into
oblivion. Throughout the fifteen centuries that followed, too many stories were
recounted, seemingly trying to retell the history of ancient Egypt not as it actually
occurred, but according to interpretations and perspectives that somehow served the
interests of the story tellers; interests that that were most often political in nature.

Of all the narratives that have been relayed to us concerning ancient Egypt, the Old
Testament is the only story that managed to convince the world with its tales of “Pharaoh
and the Hebrew Slaves”, until it eventually achieved a monopoly over the account of that
ancient land. As a result, most of the scholars who studied the history of the ancient Near
East for nearly two millennia, relied primarily on the Bible as their reference; and in
doing so, they simply followed what the Jewish scribes wrote - or tampered with -
concerning the story of the ancient Israelites. They blindly took the OT account as the
unquestionable account. Instead of excavating the earth and digging out the hidden truth,
scholars of the ancient history of the Near East simply re-sketched the landscape and
chronicles of that remote period of time, following whatever signs they encountered
within the confines of the Biblical text.

That is how the world originally got to recognize Egypt. They imagined it as the land
where the ancient so-called “Hebrews” were enslaved, and the land that witnessed the

48
devastating plagues, the parting of the sea, and the epic “Exodus” of some 600,000
Israelites towards what is called the “Sinai Peninsula”. Consequently, whenever Egypt
was mentioned during the last two thousand years, the word “Pharaoh” would
simultaneously pop up in the discourse, thus adding more deluding power to the Biblical
designation of the rulers of ancient Egypt by that title.

 Ancient Egypt Resurrected.

It was not until 1822 that French philologist Jean-François Champollion managed to
decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs in his arduous task of translating the Rosetta Stone.
Thanks to Champollion’s effort, the long-silent and almost buried culture of ancient
Egypt, with its treasures of enormous records and chronicles inscribed on the stone and
written on papyrus scrolls, was resurrected and finally brought back to life. And what the
predecessors thought of as mute masonry covered with some weird scribblings, and
coffins haunted with some kind of eternal curse, began to attract eager historians and
modern archeologists. Upon dusting off the ancient artifacts and temple reliefs and
inscriptions, and reading the Egyptian texts, these scientists, for the first time, began to
listen to the stones themselves and to the papyri scrolls recounting the true story of the
Nile Country.

Starting from the mid-nineteenth century, the genuine version of the history of ancient
Egypt and the Near East began to unravel, as its true stories were being retold. Ironically
enough, what the excavated records of ancient Egypt voiced to the modern historians and
archeologists was drastically different from what the (Hebrew) narrative said. But what
struck historians as a total surprise is the fact that ancient hieroglyphic records had no
mention of any Israelites in Egypt; absolutely none whatsoever. While the Bible is
replete with tales of Egypt; the more of the ancient hieroglyphic texts and inscriptions
were uncovered, the farther from truth the Biblical narrative looked, and the more it
became evident that someone had hijacked the history of ancient Egypt and prostituted it
to make it fit with their political and ideological agendas.

Prominent Egyptian scholar Ashraf ‘Izzat brings to our attention the fact that, contrary to
what everybody believes, the history and the chronicles of ancient Egypt had absolutely
zero mention of “Pharaoh(s)”. According to the ancient texts and papyri, high ranking
officials like priests, princes and commanders of the army, addressed the king as the
“Ruler of the Crowns”, the “Beloved of the Gods”, “Lord of the Diadems”, or “Lord of
the Two Lands”, but never as “Pharaoh”. As we saw previously, the king himself often
proclaimed a certain title that showed servitude or glorification of Horus-Ra. Yet
nowhere on any of the royal cartouches of over 100 kings of that ancient land does the
word “Pharaoh” appear.

49
As for the term pr-aa, ‘Izzat relates to us, on his website, the translation of an Egyptian
poem found in the Book of the Dead. This ancient tome of prayers, rituals, and
descriptions of the trials of the Afterlife is estimated to have been written during the age
of the great pyramid, and a copy of it can be seen on display in the British Museum in
London. The poem shows the true context of that word, and proves, beyond the shadow
of doubt, that the term pr-aa (which means “Great House”), was used to indicate the seat
of the government, never the king himself. Here follows is the English translation of a
passage from that poem, a hymn to the god Horus-Ra:

“Homage to thee …
o thou Lord of brightness
thou who art at the head
of the great house …
prince of night and of thick darkness …
he comes to thee being a pure soul …
..o, grant thou unto him
His mouth that he may speak therewith,
At the season when there are clouds
And darkness …”

As you can see from the above passage, the prime deity of ancient Egypt, Horus-Ra, is
being described as “the Head of the Great House”. This shows that the “Great House”
(pr-aa) was the seat of power, not the king himself. Think of the White House, in our
present day and age: Have you or anyone else in this world ever heard of the President of
the United States himself being given the title of “White House”? Furthermore, the term
pr-aa is clearly associated with the god Horus-Ra, not with the king of Egypt who, in all
likelihood, was considered the prime deity’s representative in the land.

‘Izzat also presents to us a sample of a royal Egyptian titular, namely that which can be
found on King Tutankhamun’s cartouche. The famous “teenage monarch” of Egypt went
by the throne name of Neb-Kheperu-Ra, which means “Lord of Manifestations of Ra”,
and was customarily accompanied by the epithet “Lord of the Two Lands” followed by
the usual benediction “life, prosperity and health”. Nowhere does the term pr-aa appear
on Tutankhamun’s cartouche.

The glaring conclusion, dear reader, is now very clear: Ancient Egypt had Kings and
Queens. It did not have “Pharaohs”. Furthermore, the term “Pharaoh” is not a Greek or
(Hebrew) translation of the Egyptian pr-aa. And the Far‘awn of the Qu’rān had
absolutely nothing to do with Egypt whatsoever.

50
 Picture #8: Jean-François Champollion

Picture #9: King Tutankhamun’s Royal Cartouche

Now we come to the critical question: Is the term Far‘awn, as it appears in the Qur’ān, a
name or a title? What we will venture to say in the following lines may come as a shock
to you.

 A Glimpse of a Qur’ānic Truth

There is very solid and eye-opening evidence that Far‘awn was indeed the personal
name of the tyrannical figure who persecuted Mūsa (P) and the Israelites. Had the term
been a title, it would have been mentioned in the form of al-Far‘awn, (meaning “the
Pharaoh”). The fact is, nowhere in the Qur’ān does it appear with the prefix “al-”. Let’s
look at the following examples:

{And the wife of Far’awn said: “A pleasure to my eye and yours, so do not
kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son” while they
did not perceive}…[28:9]

51
The phrase “wife of Far’awn” is no different than “wife of Nūḥ” (Noah), or “wife of Lūṭ”
(Lot), as can be seen in the following passage:

{Allah puts forth as examples of those who have covered the truth, the wife
of Nūh and the wife of Lūt. They were married to two of Our righteous
servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help
them at all against Allah. And it was said: “Enter the Fire, both of you, with
those who will enter it” * And Allah puts forth as an example of those who
believed the wife of Far’awn. She said: “My Rabb, build a home for me near
You in the Paradise, and save me from Far’awn and his works; and save me
from the transgressing people}…[66:10,11]

The fact is that every Muslim knows “Nūḥ” and “Lūṭ” to be the names of two of Allah’s
messengers. Yet when Far’awn is mentioned, they automatically assume the term to be a
title, because of the pre-conceived ideas that they have inherited and can’t seem to cast
aside.

The Qur’ān also tells us how Mūsa (P), in his infancy, was picked up from the yamm by
members of Far’awn’s household (Āl Far’awn):

{Then the family of Far’awn (Āl Far’awn) picked him up, so he would be an
enemy to them and a source of sadness. Certainly, Far’awn and Hāmān and
their troops were wrongdoers}…[28:8]

In their everyday prayers and supplications to Allah, Muslims use the exact same
expression in relation to Ibraheem (P) and Muḥammad (P), without even being aware of
it. They pray to Allah to send “blessings” upon the family (household) of Muḥammad
just as He had done so for the family (household) of Ibraheem. They know for a fact that
“Muḥammad” and “Ibraheem” are names; yet somehow, Far’awn stubbornly remains a
title! Further proof of our claim can be seen when Mūsa (P) confronts Far’awn directly,
where it is very clear that the Israelite prophet was calling the tyrant by his personal
name, not his title: {And Mūsa said: "O Far’awn, I am a messenger from the
Rabb of all people."}…[7:104] Had Mūsa been calling him by his title, the text
would have mentioned the word with the prefix “al-” (the), just as in the case of the king
or supreme authority (al-malik), and the high-ranking officer or governor (al-‘azeez), in
the story of prophet Yūsuf. (Please see, for example, the Arabic text of 12:78).

Finally, we find the terms Qārūn and Hāmān, both of which are obviously personal
names mentioned alongside Far’awn: {And We had sent Moses with Our signs,
and a clear authority * To Far’awn, Hāmān, and Qārūn. But they said: “A
lying deceiver”}…[40:23,24] Mentioning two proper nouns in the same sentence,

52
and in the same context, alongside a title, is both logically and linguistically unsound. For
example, if we say: “Joe, Mack, and King are walking in the castle garden”, it would
seem that “King” is a proper noun. If it was a title, the sentence would have to be stated
as such: “Joe, Mack and the king are walking in the castle garden”. By the same logic, if
Far’awn was a title, it would not appear in the same sentence with two proper nouns
(Hāmān and Qārūn) without the prefix “al-” (the).

The conclusion that can be drawn here is that the opinion claiming Far’awn to be a title
cannot stand in the face of the Qur’ānic logic, or with the clear context of its passages,
nor is it supported by any physical or archeological evidence. The truth, dear reader, is
that Far‘awn is an Arabic name, and is still known today - as a family name especially -
in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. And the Qur’ān - a radically Arabic scripture - names
only one tyrant by that name. There is no such thing as Farā’ina (in the plural), nor were
they the rulers of ancient Egypt. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply delusional, and
is a victim of a great historical forgery, whose webs are gradually being unwoven as you
turn the pages of this book.

What have we learned so far? We have seen that the land we currently call “Egypt” was
never known as Miṣr to the Arabs, but has always been called Qibt; furthermore, we have
seen that this name goes back in history over 5,000 years. We have also seen that the
people of that land were never referred to as Miṣriyyoun, but rather as Aqbāt (Kopts). We
have also learned that the rulers of that land, in the ancient times, were kings and queens,
not “Pharaohs”; and that they had nothing at all to do with the ancient Israelites.

So, now we find ourselves in front of a mountain of questions: Where did this rampant
and false belief concerning Egypt and the Israelites come from? Who twisted the truth
and turned it into a global, wide-spread delusion? What were the interests of the
perpetrators, and what did they hope to gain by this forgery? Where was the Miṣr of the
Qur’ān located, and who was Far‘awn? Will the search for this mysterious figure uncover
more falsehoods that we have always thought to be unquestionable truths? Where did
Mūsa live? Where did Yūsuf and his father, Ya‘qūb, live? Who were the Children of
Israel? How and when did Egypt become Miṣr? Did an invading force or empire annex
the land of the Nile and change its name at some point in history?

All these questions will be addressed starting from the next chapter.

53
Picture #10: A papyrus scroll from the Book of the Dead, showing an illustration associated
with a civilization that had absolutely no relation to the ancient Israelites whatsoever.

Picture #11: Tutankhamun; victim of a hijacked history.

*****

54
 CHAPTER II

The Origin of the Delusion

55
We are still searching for the lost identity of Far‘awn, and will continue to do so until the
truth of the matter is finally revealed. Until now, we have encountered a few surprises on
the way, and uncovered certain facts that have cast serious doubt concerning many of the
beliefs we had thought were truths not open to discussion. So let us continue; perhaps
there are more surprises waiting for us down the road.

 Arab Conquest of Egypt

According to the vast majority of Muslim historians, the Arabs, under the military
command of ‘Amr bin al-‘Āṣ, marched on Egypt for the first time some 15 – 20 years
after Muḥammad’s death (the exact date has never been pinpointed). The history books
tell us that the conquest of the Nile country came shortly after the liberation of Palestine
from the Romans. Although we are not necessarily denying these events, nor are we in a
position to judge whether the Muslim “conquest” of Egypt was lawful or not in the first
place; our only reservations concern the date of the event in relation to Muḥammad’s
actual day and age.

Prominent historian and geographer Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (died in 1230 A.D), in his book
entitled Mu‘jam al-Buldān (literally: The Glossary of Countries), describes with some
detail the military campaign led by ‘Amr bin al-‘Āṣ, and relates to us the supposed
contents of several letters exchanged between ‘Amr and the Khalifa of the time, ‘Umar
bin al-Khaṭṭāb.

According to Yāqūt, the first stop of the Arab march on Egypt was the town of
al-‘Arish, which today lies on the border of Palestine and what is called the “Sinai
Peninsula”, not far from Ghazza. The Arab army camped there for a while, then moved
on towards the town of al-Farma, where the first military confrontation took place
(Yāqūt tells of a battle that lasted two months, which the Muslims eventually won).
Afterwards, he relates to us a crucial point in the campaign, which is when ‘Amr’s army
reached a fortified keep he called Babloun or Bab-lioun. The following are Yāqūt’s exact
words:

..."‫ وهو أصحهما ألنهما يحملهما اسم واحد‬،‫ ويقال بابليون‬،‫ باب اليون‬:‫"اليون بالضم ثم السكون وآخره نون‬

He then describes to us a fierce battle, wherein ‘Amr succeeded in storming the keep, in
whose site he set his tent (camp) which was called: al-Fusṭāṭ. Now, please read carefully
what Yāqūt said about al-Fusṭāṭ on page 453 / Volume 5 of his book:

".‫ و هي مدينة مصر اليوم‬،‫ و بنى في مكانه الفسطاط‬،‫ فتحه عمرو بن العاص‬..."

56
Here is a translation of the text: "It (the keep) fell in ‘Amr’s hands and, in its place, he
built al-Fusṭāṭ, which is the city of Miṣr today.”

What Yāqūt is telling us is very clear: the setting of ‘Amr’s camp, al-Fusṭāṭ, is what
became known later (during Yāqūt’s day and age) as the “City of Miṣr".

As such, we can deduce the following:

1- That Miṣr was originally the name given to the city that was located in the exact spot
where ‘Amr’s camp stood some 600 years before Yāqūt’s time.

2- The keep that had fallen in ‘Amr’s hand was called Bablioun (That is how Yāqūt wrote
the name).

Yāqūt’s words are also supported by other prominent Arab historians, notably: al-Ṭabari,
al-Atābki, and Ibn Katheer, all of whom agree on the fact that what became known as
Miṣr - during their time - was originally called Bablioun.

In order to verify the accuracy of the Arab historians’ account, we looked for this
Bablioun (or any other similar name), in the old maps of Egypt, precisely in a spot
somewhere near the Nile delta area, as this is where the famous camp al-Fusṭāṭ is known
to have been located. Sure enough, we found the following map:

Map #3: Old European map clearly showing the location of the Keep of Babylon, at the
south end of the Nile Delta. (The name “Libya” can be seen near the top-left corner)

57
It appears that the Arab historians got it absolutely right. In fact, British scholar Alfred
Butler, in his book entitled Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the
Roman Dominion (1992), says that the keep was built in the era of Roman emperor
Trajan, and was called Babylon-en-Keme. (Don’t be confused, dear reader; this is
Babylon, Egypt, not Babel in ancient Iraq!). Does the word Keme sound familiar? Does it
ring a bell? Could it be that the Romans, who had conquered Egypt previously, had built
a fortified keep in the delta region, and decided to name it “The Babylon of the Black
Land”? (Remember: Keme is the ancient name of the Nile Valley, as it was called by the
Egyptians themselves. The name means “black land” or “black soil”, as an indicator of
the valley’s fertility).

So as you can see, we have evidence proving that the Arab historians were right on that
one. At any rate, it is clear that the name Miṣr was NOT the original name of that keep,
and that it later became known as al-Fusṭāṭ, which was the name given to ‘Amr’s camp.

Now the question is: Exactly how and why did al-Fusṭāṭ become Miṣr? Yāqūt al- Ḥamwi
relates to us that the Babloun Keep eventually became the center of the military
operations of ‘Amr’s army, and that he then marched from it westward towards
Alexandria, which also fell into his hands with surprisingly little resistance. Once there,
he sent a letter to ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb in Madinah, updating him on the status of the
campaign, and asking him whether he should move the center of operations from the
Delta area to the newly conquered city on the Mediterranean coast. (The following
conversation appears word for word, in Yāqūt’s book):

‘Umar asked: “Will there be a body of water between me and the Muslims?”

‘Amr replied: “Yes. The Nile”

‘Umar: “I do not like to have water between me and the Muslims, neither in winter
nor in summer”.

And so it was that ‘Amr’s camp, al-Fusṭāṭ, became the new center for the Arab state in
Egypt, gradually grew into a city, and became a second capital for the so-called “Muslim
Empire”. Today, al-Fusṭāṭ is nothing but a small district in Old Cairo (the capital of
Egypt), barely the size of four city blocks.

The resounding truth, dear readers, is that it was centuries after the Arab conquest of
Egypt that the name Miṣr was introduced, for the first time, into that country. It was not
the Qu’rān that associated the name with Egypt! However, its introduction did not
initially spread to the entire country. It was only the al-Fusṭaṭ fort that eventually came to
be called Miṣr.

58
The fact is that Egypt never knew the name Miṣr before the Abbasid Era. During
Muḥammad’s (P) time, the land was called al-Qibt. Accessible to you, dear reader, are all
the ancient history books written by the Greeks and Romans, supported by geographical
maps that can be found on the internet; and you can examine and research those sources
until dizziness overtakes you. You will not reach any other conclusion.

But why did the Arabs do that? Why did they introduce that name into the Nile country,
and cause the future generations so much confusion? Let’s read on to find out:

In his book Lisān’ul-‘Arab (Literally: The Arab Tongue), Ibn Manẓūr mentions the word
miṣr as a common noun, as follows (Arab readers can verify):

"‫ أي جعلوه ِمصراً فتمصر‬،ً‫"مصروا المكان تمصيرا‬

Here, Ibn Manẓūr mentions what was known as the tamṣeer of a place, (i.e. turning it into
a miṣr). What he is essentially telling us is that the development of a previously
insignificant stretch of land into a center of attraction and a destination for travelers is
referred to as the process of tamṣeer. Hence, this place, which was previously only an
unattractive or unimportant spot in the wilderness, is turned into a miṣr; a place where
living is easy and secure, and where goods and services are available.

In fact, in his book entitled Fūtūḥ al-Būldān (Literally: The Conquest of Countries),
Arab historian al-Balādhiri talks about the tamṣeer of al-Kūfah (turning a previously
insignificant hamlet in Iraq into a miṣr; an important destination). Hence, al-Kūfah
became the miṣr of Iraq, just as al-Fusṭaṭ had become the miṣr of Egypt before it).

Can it be any simpler?

Every major city in the world today was, at some point, established through the process
of tamṣeer - the transforming of an insignificant plot of land into a destination for
travelers. In the ancient times, the process often involved building some kind of wall or
enclosure around the place, so it became a safe haven not only for traders and their
caravans, but also for adventurers and fortune-seekers, who sought shelter from the
dangerous wilderness areas.

And so it was that al-Fusṭāṭ became the miṣr - the prime destination and trade center - of
the land of Egypt under the Arab conquest, replacing Alexandria which previously played
that role during the Greek and Roman eras. This purely linguistic fact should not sound
strange to speakers of Arabic. In fact, the Arabic word maṣeer, which means
“destiny/destination”, is derived from the root miṣr. Likewise, the human colon is called
miṣrān, because it is the ultimate destination of food in the process of digestion.

59
This also explains why, even today, when modern Egyptians want to go to Cairo (the
capital), they will say "We are going to Miṣr", even though they are already in Egypt!.
Why is that? It is because, deeply rooted in their memory, they know that somehow, the
name Miṣr was associated with Old Cairo. This association originated with the Arab
conquest of Egypt, sometime during the 7th Century A.D.

The introduction of the name Miṣr into Egypt by the Arabs was not a deliberate attempt
at forgery. It was simply the reality of al-Fusṭāṭ having become the new urban center and
final destination for all Egyptian travelers and traders that popularized the term.

But the great catastrophe came later on when this word, which had gradually become
a proper noun (effectively identifying the new capital), was eventually stretched to
designate the entire land of Qibt (Egypt), and was interpreted as the very same Miṣr
mentioned in the Quran, and as the setting for the story of Mūsa (P), Far’awn and the
Israelites.

The time has come to rid the world of this belief, which the archeologists are now
beginning to identify for what it really is: no more than a delusion. And the only divine
scripture that can expose this fallacy is the Qur’ān – the book which the Muslims have
alienated and made of no account.

The truth is that the source of this delusion goes back in time much earlier than the Arab
conquest of Egypt. There must have been a rampant belief among some Arabs, long
before the time of Muḥammad (P), that the great country lying to the west, across the Red
Sea, was indeed the theater of the events surrounding the Israelites. This creed - for a
time - existed side by side with older, more original Arab beliefs that did not agree with it
regarding the theater of the Biblical events. This explains why the books of the Arab
historians of later periods demonstrated wide-spread confusion, controversy, and
contradictions concerning this matter.

Exactly how and when did this creed originate? To rephrase the question: How did the
delusional association between Egypt and the Israelites originate in the consciousness of
the masses, and slowly infiltrate and contaminate the original Arab beliefs? In the
following section, we will place our finger on the center of the spider web, and show you
the exact, precise point from which this great misconception sprang into being. And
unless and until we wake up from this delusion and realize that we’ve been lied to, we
will be forever caught in the webs of false theological ideals and baseless political slander
and enmity.

60
  The Septuagint Translation

After Alexander’s successful conquest of many of the world’s nations during the 4th
Century B.C, his empire soon became the dominant force on the map, and stretched to
include Mesopotamia, West India, Persia, and Egypt. As a result, the Greek language
became the language on the “tongue of the world”, from horizon to horizon. It was in that
era that King Ptolemy Philodelphis (a.k.a Ptolemy II), King of Egypt under Greek
mandate, commissioned a group of Jewish priests living in the city of Alexandria to
translate the Old Testament from Aramaic to Greek. The priests, who numbered around
seventy, took it upon themselves to achieve this task, the first of its kind in the history of
the old world. Their translation became known as the Septuagint Bible, in reference to the
seventy or so rabbis who brought it to the world.

Eventually, the Greek Bible was born, almost a millennium before the Arabs conquered
that land under ‘Umar. And it was in this Greek translation that the great forgeries which
would later become rampant in the world as unquestionable truths were born. In addition
to the forgery that was perpetrated via the translation, the Septuagint text also added
entire passages which were nowhere to be found in the original Aramaic Bible.

th
Map #4: A map of Alexander’s empire at its zenith (4 Century B.C)

In fact, Jim Cornwell, in his book History of the Bible (1998), points to many of those
new passages; among which is the story of Eve being created from Adam’s rib and
bearing the blame for the loss of Paradise. It was from that point onward that rabbinical
Judaism regarded the woman as an inferior and “cursed” being, rather than the half that

61
completes the man. Centuries later, this belief found its way to the “Islamic” books of
Hadith (narrations attributed to Muḥammad), and tradition, where we can find many
narrations demeaning to women and their status in society.

And so it was that the great council of Jewish authorities of that time stamped their
approval on the Greek translation, despite the glaring and grievous errors and falsehoods
it contained. And it was this Septuagint Bible which then spread like a wildfire across
the nations of the old world, carried on the wings of the rapidly spreading Greek
language; in much the same way that American “culture” and “values” have been carried
to all corners of today’s world via the English language and the media. And since the vast
majority of people, during that age, could not easily get access to the original Aramaic
text, they took the Greek Bible at face value, without ever having the possibility to verify
the translation.

And one of the greatest forgeries originating in the Septuagint translation was the
replacement of the name Msrim (or Mtzrim), which appeared in the original Aramaic
text, with the Greek name Aigypto, thereby transferring the events surrounding the life of
the Patriarch Abraham and his descendants from their original location to the Nile Valley
which, at the time of the translation, was ruled by the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasty. This was
perpetrated for purely political reasons, as will be apparent soon. So let us together
examine the texts of the Old Testament, to see what their black hands wrote to the world.

We will randomly choose any passage or sentence in the Bible that contains the term
Mtzrim, in order to see just how this great delusion was born. Let’s take the following
passage, from (Genesis 21:21):

‫ויׁשב במדבר פארן ותקח־לו אמו אׁשה מארץ מצרים‬

The last word on the left (Aramaic is read from right to left, like Arabic) will be the
center of our attention. But first, we need to see just how that word is actually
pronounced. Despite the fact that most of us here do not read Aramaic, this is no longer
an obstacle, since it is possible today to obtain a vocal glossary of all the languages ever
known in the world. We will spell it out for you, first in the so-called “Hebrew”
language*, and then we will see how the same term was rendered in the Greek
translation:

________________________________________________________________________
* It is imperative that we distinguish between “Hebrew” as the name that was falsely given to the language
associated with the ancient Israelites, and the Aramaic letters that are used in its written form. The so-called
“Hebrew” language did not have an original alphabet of its own. This important fact will be fully explained
in our second book.

62
The first letter: "‫ "מ‬is “mem”, pronounced “m”.
The second letter: "‫ "צ‬is “tzade”, pronounced “tz”.
The third letter: "‫ "ר‬is “resh”, pronounced “r”.
The fourth letter: "‫ "י‬is “yod”, pronounced “i” or “y”.
The fifth letter: "‫ "ם‬is also “mem” (as it’s written when it comes at the end of a word).

Reading the whole word, ‫מצרים‬, we get: M – tz – r – i – m (Mtzrim), which is how the
name is pronounced in modern “Hebrew”. Now the question is: How did the Septuagint
priests translate this name into Greek, the language that carried the new, dominant culture
to the entire ancient world? Let’s take the same passage (Genesis – 21:21), and study it
again, this time in Greek:

καὶ ἔλαβεν ،καὶ κατῴκησεν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῇ Φαραν αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ γυναῖκα ἐκ γῆς
Αἰγύπτου.

There’s the word again which, in the context of the passage, clearly designates the name
of a land, and is therefore a proper noun. It is the last word on the right (Greek is read
from left to right). Again, using any vocal glossary for the pronunciation of Greek letters,
let’s spell it out:

The first letter: "A" is “alpha”, pronounced “a”.

The second letter: "ἰ" is “iota”, pronounced “i”.
The third letter: "γ" is “gamma”, pronounced “g”.
The fourth letter: "ύ" is “upsilon”, pronounced “i”or “y”
The fifth letter: "π" is “pi”, pronounced “p”.
The sixth letter: "τ” is “tau”, pronounced “t”.
The seventh letter: "ο" is “omicron”, pronounced “o”.

Now, joining the letters together, we get: A-i-g-i(y)-p-t-o (Aigypto).

And there you have it, dear reader: The “translation” of what is clearly a proper noun,
Mtzrim, a name that was not very well-known at the time, to Aigypto, a very well-known
name that was recognized by every child and adult in the East and the West of the globe.
This is the land of Egypt as it is pronounced in English and al-Qibt as it is known - or
should be referred to - in Arabic. Here is the English translation of that same passage:

And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran (Pharan), and his mother took for
him a wife from the land of Egypt (Genesis – 21:21).

And so it was that the famous land of Egypt and its great civilization were hijacked,
without much effort, by a pack of Ptolemic Jewish priests, who wrote a book with their

63
own hands and called it “the Holy Bible”. No sooner had the name Mtzrim been replaced
with Aegypto, that the entire culture of the Nile Country became, almost overnight, a
heritage owned by the Children of Israel, and a theater for the events surrounding
Mūsa (P) and Far‘awn. And they perpetrated the exact same crime with the Chaldeans of
Mesopotamia, when they “translated” the name Ur-Kasdim, which appears in the original
Aramaic text as the birthplace of Ibrāheem (P), to Ur-Kaledon in the Greek version, in
order to claim that the Patriarch was born in ancient Iraq. And they would do it later with
Palestine, when the Imperialist Zionist translations of the Old Testament claimed that it
was the ancestral and “Promised Land” of the Jews, and that the Kingdom of Dāwūd was
located there. And they are doing it today with the United States of America, as we
showed you in the story of Joseph Smith. Wherever there was a great power in the world
(Greece, Rome, Babylon, USA), you would find those prospective forgers start to hover
around it and shower it with “Israelite Holiness” until eventually, they put their hands on
the territory in question and steal its resources, while projecting to the entire world the
image that they are victims of persecution and injustice. And whenever any thinker or
archeologist steps forward and shows the courage to break the silence and expose their
lies and their fraud, they immediately label him as “Anti-Semitic” (As if “Semitism” -
assuming the term even designates a particular race - has anything to do with them in the
first place!).

Try to visualize, dear reader, the fame and renown that was gifted to the Ptolemaic
Dynasty when their land was imagined, by the whole world, as the theater of the “Holy”
events surrounding the Children of Israel! It was all perpetrated for the mutual benefit of
the Greeks and the Jewish priests whom they commissioned to translate the original text.

And so it was that this monstrous lie was propagated, and the illusion of a connection
between the land of Egypt and the events described in the Bible was implanted in the
consciousness of the nations. And only Allah knows how the story will end.

As for the name Mtzrim, which appears in the original Aramaic text, we can say for
certain that it does not necessarily correspond with the Arabic term Miṣr which appears in
the Qur’ān. This is because the Qur’ān, as we will ultimately conclude, is a radically
Arabic document, and is independent in its usage of terms from the previous scriptures.
This important fact will be fully elaborated on in our second book, wherein we will deal
with the story of Ibrāheem (P) and his migration. For now, it is enough to understand that
the term Mtzrim designates the tribal identity of a clan that lived in the same region or
territory as the ancient Israelites; a territory whose real location will be revealed to you in
due time.

64
 Picture #12: An old painting depicting the seventy Jewish rabbis presenting the prototype
Greek translation of the Bible to the Greek governor of Egypt, Ptolemy II.

 The Consequences of the Crime of Projecting the Name Mtzrim onto Egypt

The fact is that the Septuagint Bible created not only mass confusion concerning the true
location of events depicted in the Old Testament, but deeply affected the cultural and
cognitive perceptions of both the Western as well as the Islamic world. To the Judeo-
Christian West, the Bible became, for a long time, the only source of information for the
history of the ancient Near-East. Sadly, the vast majority of Arab academics, on the other
hand, have gone on reiterating the same lies over and over again and, as a result, have
looked upon a twisted and distorted version of their own history, as it was related to them
by others. As a consequence of this shortcoming, the stories of the Prophets of Allah have
been tampered with to such an extent that if you read what the classical commentators of
the Qur’ān said concerning this issue, your mind will surely be boggled by the
geographic insanity of those stories, and you will wonder just how on Earth they even got
by the commentators in the first place. You will soon be aware of a colossal conspiracy
that has been brewing slowly for long centuries, while the Muslims have been asleep in
their cave. You will eventually realize how Allah’s divine book, the only scripture that
could expose this great illusion, was kept unknowingly locked away and shackled by the
commentators and historians, who twisted the meaning of any of its passages that
contradicted their delusional beliefs concerning the geography of the Prophets, to make
them fit their creed. In short, the Muslims have made the Qur’ān of no account. They are
a nation whose past has been stolen right out from underneath their feet, and who have
completely lost all sense of orientation, logic and reason. And a nation that is not aware
of its past ultimately loses touch with its identity and has no future to speak of.

This Septuagint forgery eventually led to the following:

65
1- Created a delusional connection between the stories of the ancient Israelites and the
land of Egypt.

2- Allowed the conquering Greeks to write their own version of the history of Egypt, in a
way that was mutually beneficial to both the Ptolemaic Dynasty, and the Jews who lived
there. This would set the stage for the Zionists (who consider themselves to be
"Descendants of Israel") to hijack Egypt and claim it as a part of their "Promised Land".

3- Inserted the term “Pharaoh”, by force, into the culture of ancient Egypt, by falsely
claiming that the rulers of that land were designated by that title.

4- Ruined the reputation of the ancient Egyptian Kings (whom the Greeks conquered), by
claiming that the tyrant who persecuted Moses and the Israelites was one of them.
Consequently, all the curses and damnations of the Lord that are mentioned in the Bible
fell upon the heads of the Egyptian kings, who were completely innocent of such claims,
and victims of a fabricated history.

5- Hijacked the heritage of ancient Egypt and claimed that the Israelites had a role in it.
We have seen, in the works of the “fraudmeister”, Joseph Smith, a similar example when
he claimed that the so-called “Red Indians” of North America were descendants of the
Biblical Israelites. Another example is the bogus allegation we hear every now and then
from Zionist figures, arrogantly claiming that the pyramids of Egypt were actually built
by the “Jewish ancestors”! The question that remains to be answered by those criminal
forgers of history is why there is not, in the entire corpus of the Old Testament, from
cover to cover, any mention or even passing reference to the pyramids of Egypt. Isn’t that
strange, dear reader?

How were the Muslims affected by this creed?

One of the most serious diseases that have plagued the belief system of those who call
themselves “Muslims”, throughout the ages, has been the old and rotten motto: "The
Ummah Cannot be Unanimously Wrong”, or “It is not Possible for the Consensus of the
Ummah to Err”. This illusion that they created - and we mean by “they” the self-imposed
mullahs and religious elite - has led to the clergy leading the masses like sheep; for as
long as the Ummah is unanimous concerning a certain issue, this means that every
member of the Muslim society must discard his/her brain and blindly follow the Ijmā‘
(consensus), without question or doubt.

The truth of the matter, dear reader, is that there no such thing as “Consensus of the
Ummah”. The truth is that our so-called Ummah has never really agreed on anything

66
except to disagree. Scholar Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal was well aware of this fact, when he
stated the following:
"‫ وما أدراه أن الناس اختلفوا وهو ال يعلم؟‬، ‫" من إدعى اإلجماع فى شيء فقد كذب‬

Paraphrase: “He who claims that there is consensus concerning any issue is a liar;
for how can he know for sure that the people truly agreed on the matter?”

What they call Ijmā‘ of the Ummah is actually nothing but the consensus of a handful of
scholars who monopolized the understanding of the deen (Allah’s divine system) by
claiming that they were the “Heirs of the Prophets”, and whose opinions were supported
by the political authorities of their time; while they ruthlessly persecuted and silenced
anyone whose opinion went against theirs. It is the consensus of the religious elite, and
their brutal theocracy whose banner has always been “Allah Says So”, that has proven to
be the cause of the downfall of the Ummah worldwide. And the sad plight of Muslims all
around the globe is testament to the fact that they have abandoned Allah’s scripture and
blindly followed the whims of their leaders and religious elite. No one has the right to
speak in the name of the Ummah. And even if the entire world’s population of seven
billion were unanimous on one issue that contradicts the Qur’ān, their consensus would
simply not avail.

The Muslims have gone on believing that their creed is spotless, and untouched by the
fallacies of men. But soon, dear reader, you will discover that nothing can be further from
the truth. The Muslims are no better than all the people who received previous scriptures
and were then betrayed and turned from the divine path by their elite and the established
religious order. Such is the way of the rebellious entity that, at the dawn of time, swore an
oath to mislead the majority of mankind from the truth.

*****

67
 CHAPTER III

What is the Miṣr of the Qur’ān?

68
  The Miṣr of Yūsuf: The First Storage System

The first mention of the term Miṣr in the Qur’ān occurs in the story of the prophet Yūsuf,
in Surah 12. The first clue as to what Miṣr really is comes to us in the following sign:

{One among them said: "Do not kill Yūsuf, but if you are going to do a thing,
then cast him into the bottom of the well, so that any travelling caravan will
pick him up.}...[12:10]

From the above sign, we can deduce that Ya‘qūb (P) and his children lived close to a
trade route, since they knew for certain that a caravan would pass and pick Yūsuf up, and
then they would be rid of him forever (or so they thought). So they dropped him in a well
that stood on this route. But where did Ya‘qūb (P) actually live?

The Qur’ān gives us another clue:

{And they came back to their father, in the evening, crying}...[12:16]

This tells us that the distance separating Ya‘qūb’s home from the trade route wasn’t very
far, since the children (Yūsuf’s jealous brothers) returned home in the evening, after
having thrown the boy in the well, that same day. Later on in the story, we come to the
following key event:

{And a traveling caravan came and they sent their man to draw water, but
when he drew he said: "Good news, there is a boy!" So they hid him as
merchandise. And Allah is aware of what they did}...[12:19]

Just as the jealous brothers had anticipated, a caravan did eventually pass by, stopped at
the well for a drink, and lo and behold! They found a boy down at the bottom. The
expressions: “Good News!” and “Merchandise” are testaments to the profession of those
who picked him up from the well: They were most probably merchants on a trade trip,
and this was their lucky day. Their hands had fallen on free human inventory.

{And they sold him for a low price, a few coins, and they regarded him as
insignificant}...[12:20]

The selling of Yūsuf for a cheap price, as the Qur’ān tells us, indicates that the merchants
sold him at the nearest opportunity they could, for two reasons:

1- To be rid of the expenses necessary to sustain the boy (food, drink, and encumbrance
of carrying living merchandise).

69
2- The boy was acquired for free, so the business mentality dictated that they offer him
up for sale at the nearest opportunity, before the expenses exceeded the income from the
sale.

What does this tell us? It tells us that there is no chance Yūsuf could have remained in the
possession of the merchants the whole distance between Palestine and Egypt, as the great
Imāms of forgery claimed. They sold the boy at the nearest market on the trade route, and
were done with him. In fact, that was something the brothers of Yūsuf had not counted
on. It didn’t occur to the children of Ya‘qūb that Yūsuf would not end up very far from
them, geographically.

Now the question is: Where did the merchants sell Yūsuf? Let’s read on and find out:

{And he who had bought him from Miṣr said to his wife: "Make his stay
generous, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son." And it
was thus that We established Yūsuf in the land and would teach him the
interpretation of the narrations. And Allah has full control over the situation,
but most of the people do not know}...[12:21]

From the context of the above passage, we can see that they put him up for sale in a place
which the Qur’ān refers to as Miṣr; to where a man (the buyer) came from his own
village, to make the purchase. How is that so? The passage clearly says that the man
bought him from Miṣr, which means that the place of purchase differed from the home
village of the man. Had it been otherwise (i.e. had the place of purchase been the man’s
village itself), we would not have read the phrase “from Miṣr”. It would have simply
said: “And he who had bought him said to his wife...”. The text does not say that the
buyer himself was from Miṣr. It is simply telling us that the man made the purchase
there.

From our understanding of the sign, we can see that the man came to Miṣr from his
village, bought the boy for a cheap price, then went back to his village and asked his wife
to take care of the boy. This gives us a clue as to how the trade routes of ancient Arabia
functioned. Obviously, they did not branch to pass through every village. The merchants
would empty their cargo in certain stations placed at intervals along those trade routes.
As for the villages where the people lived, they were located some distance from the
main trade route, and could be reached by following secondary paths branching off from
that route. That is exactly where Ya‘qūb’s tented village was located. His children left
their father’s home in the morning, went down to the main trade route, dropped Yūsuf in
the well, and returned home in the evening of the same day. This means the trade route
did not pass through Ya‘qūb’s village.

70
This realization leads us to investigate a bit further the nature of those trade stations,
which were located at intervals along the trade routes. What exactly were they? Evidence
suggests they were actually places that constituted not only markets for trade, but also
rest and service stops for the caravans, and places where the traders could meet with the
inhabitants of the nearby towns and mingle with them. They were also locations where
the inhabitants of the villages could sell their own goods (pottery, crops, or service labor).
It is a fact that the trade caravans could not afford to burden themselves with supplies
(food and water), as that would take up too much precious space – space that could be
used to carry profitable goods for trade instead. So, they relied on such caravan stops to
provide the services they needed. In fact, this was one of the many ways that ancient
Arabia became fabulously rich in that bygone era.

Map #5: The caravan routes of ancient Arabia

Certain caravan stops achieved significant strategic importance, either due to the fact that
they were located on the intersection of several trade routes, or because they were
surrounded by many villages, hence providing them with large markets. These important
centers, where services would be offered to the caravan owners, and where a wide range
of goods were made available, were called amṣār in Arabic. This word is the plural form
of miṣr. And Ya‘qūb’s village was not very far from one of those important centers.

71
Then the years went by, and the Qur’ān relates to us the story of what happened to
Yūsuf (P): how he was accused of a crime he didn’t commit, how he was jailed, and how
he made some friends and eventually rose to a high station in the land. Because of his
ability to interpret dreams, he became a councilor to the supreme ruler, whom the Qur’ān
refers to as al-malik (meaning the king or the high ruler). There is absolutely no mention
of Far‘awn whatsoever in the story of Yūsuf (P), because the tyrant had not yet appeared
on the scene.

Next, we come to a crucial detail in the story of Yūsuf, where we find a major hint that
the events being related to us by the Qur’ān could not have taken place in Egypt. It is a
hint which the vast majority of Muslims failed to grasp, because of the hypocritical way
in which they have been approaching the Qur’ān for the past thousand years or so. The
king of the land surrounding Miṣr saw a vision in a dream: Seven fat cows being eaten by
seven thin ones. Being that dreams are symbolic, he sought the aid of Yūsuf, who by that
time was in prison. Yūsuf went on to interpret the dream to the people as a warning that
years of drought would eventually come. He told them to start storing grain for the next
seven seasons/cycles, in order to prepare for the coming dearth. After the drought, rainfall
would come, and the crops could be grown again. Here is what the Qur’ān tells us:
{Then after that will come a year in which the people will have rain and
they will be able to produce once again}...[12:49]

It is worth noting here that the term used in the Arabic text which corresponds to the
underlined phrase is yughathu, which is derived from ghayth. By cross-referencing with
other passages in the Qur’ān where this term appears, we found that, in the context of
agriculture, it always indicates rain. The following are some examples of this Qur’ānic
phenomenon:

{With Allah is the knowledge regarding the Hour. And He sends down the
rain (gayth), and He knows what is inside the wombs. No soul knows what
it may gain tomorrow, nor does any soul know in which land it will die. Allah
is Knowledgeable, Expert}...[31:34]

The Arabic text says: yunzil’ul ghayth, which clearly means “brings down the rain”.

{And He is the One who sends down the rain (gayth) after they have
given up hope, and spreads His mercy. He is the Supporter, the
Praiseworthy}...[42:28]

72
Again, the same expression, yunzil’ul ghayth appears here, and again in the same context.
An even clearer example can be seen in the following sign:

{Know that the worldly life is no more than play and distraction and
adornments, and boasting among you, and to increase in wealth and
children. It is like plants that are supplied by an abundant rain
(ghayth)…}...[57:20]

The conclusion that can be drawn is that the story of Yūsuf (P) took place in a land that
depended on rain for growing crops. This does not fit with the climate of Egypt, because
any first-year student of geography knows for a fact that Egypt has always depended on
the flooding of the Nile for its agriculture, and on the later development of irrigation
canal systems for that purpose. The amount of evidence that can be found to support this
fact is quite enormous, to say the least. The Nile Valley receives, on average, no more
than 30 millimeters of rainfall throughout the year. The fact is that Egypt - like
Mesopotamia - does not need rain for its agriculture; full stop. The Nile River, whose
source is underground water basins and lakes in central Africa, has been, for thousands of
years, the lifeblood of Egypt. As long as the Nile flows, the Egyptians could plant crops.
Rain is irrelevant.

In fact, Theodor Noldke, a well-known Christian Zionist, once mocked the “author” of
the Qur’ān, by claiming that there was a glaring geographical inaccuracy in it concerning
Egyptian agriculture. The following are Noldke's exact words, quoted from his book
History of the Koran: “....The problem with this passage is that the Egyptian
civilization has never depended on rain for the success of its crops. Egyptian
agriculture has always depended on the flooding of the Nile for water. Clearly,
Muḥammad was ignorant of Egypt's geography and climatology and he demonstrates
this by associating good harvests with rainfall.”

Of course, the misguided Muslims could not defend their "beloved prophet Muḥammad"
from the claims of the arrogant Zionist Noldke. The reason is because they have been
victims of the same delusion that the rest of the world has believed in for centuries: The
delusion that the Miṣr mentioned in the Qur’ān is none other than Egypt. As a result of
their adoption of the Septuagint translation of the Bible as the source which supersedes
the Qur’ān, they found themselves cornered and unable to defend Muḥammad (P) from
such allegations. Had they known the truth, they would have found the response to
Noldke - and others of his ilk - quite easily. They would have pointed out to him that the
events being described did not take place in Egypt. The Qur’ān is talking about a land that
depended on rainwater for agriculture; a land whose plentiful rivers could dry up if rain
stopped for a lengthy period; a land whose rivers are not permanently flowing like the

73
Nile, the Amazon, or the Euphrates. It is a land whose inhabitants built wells to store
rainwater, which explains why we find Yūsuf (P) in a well, in the beginning of the story.

Some people have blindly rushed to the defense of the “Egyptian Famine” theory, by
claiming that there is archeological evidence for it. They point out the following
hieroglyphic inscription which was discovered in the Sahal Island (a small island on the
Nile), in the year 1890:

Picture #13: The Sahal Inscription

The above stele, known as “Hungry Rock”, describes a seven-year famine that allegedly
took place in Egypt during the time of King Djoser of the Third Dynasty. However,
archeologists have unanimously cast serious doubts about the authenticity of this
inscription, as they have found some glaring evidence that it was made during the
Ptolemaic age, sometime around 250 B.C. This means that although the event was
claimed to have taken place during the reign of Djoser, the actual inscription itself does
not date back to Djoser’s time. You can easily verify what archeologists have said
concerning the authenticity of this famous rock, through various sources on the internet.

But what does the stele actually say? Here follows is a translation of part of the text: “….I
was in mourning on my throne. Those of the palace were in grief; my heart was in
great affliction. Because Hapy [the river god] had failed to come in time in a
period of seven years. Grain was scant, Kernels were dried up, kernels were dried
up, scarce was every kind of food…”

74
Even if the account of the Egyptian famine was indeed real, and not just a story made up
by some Ptolemaic priests, it still has absolutely nothing to do with the drought
mentioned in the Qur’ān, mainly for two reasons:

- First: The Stela is recounting an event that supposedly took place during the Third
Dynasty of Egypt, and coinciding precisely with the reign of King Djoser, around 2600
B.C. This means that the event took place more than twelve centuries before Yūsuf’s
time!

- Second: The cause of the famine, as is told by the inscription, was that the Egyptian
river god “failed to show up” when he was supposed to. This means the Nile did not
flood. This is further evidence that Egyptian agriculture did not rely on rain. Even the
Ptolemites, who most probably associated the Biblical story with Egypt (no doubt due to
the influnece of the Septuagint translation), and carved the inscription themselves,
understood the nature of their country’s climate and geography.

Apparently, neither Noldke nor the Muslims had any idea what the Qur’ān is talking
about.

Returning to our story, we eventually learn from the Qur’ān that Yūsuf asked the king or
high ruler (al-malik) to let him manage all the affairs of the storage system in the land for
the next seven seasons, in preparation for the coming drought. The king, understanding
Yūsuf’s wisdom and vision, accepted the offer.

{He said: "Appoint me over the granaries of the land, for I know how to
keep records and I am knowledgeable."}...[12:55]

What Yūsuf (P) did was that he organized a complex system not only for the storing of
the grains and crops (which are perishable), but also to protect from theft, and to oversee
the division of rations during the years of drought. This no doubt required vast resources,
and a complex logistical effort; not to mention convincing the farmers to give up a large
portion of their product, every year, in order to store it, rather than sell it. This project
required the building of silos for the storage of grains, as well as walls around the trade
station (Miṣr), turning it into a veritable citadel with several doors or gates. Yet Yūsuf
knew he was up to the challenge, so he asked the king to appoint him for this task.

And then came the years of drought, the effects of which were felt by all the people in the
region, including Ya‘qūb and his children, who were also in the same geographical area
and affected by the same lack of rainfall. This of course is completely contradictory to the

75
twisted Septuagint “translation” of the Bible, according to which Ya‘qūb was in
Palestine, while Yūsuf was in Egypt. According to their logic, both Egypt and Palestine
were hit by a drought at the same time, and all because the “God of the Nile” failed to
show up!

{And the brothers of Joseph came and entered upon him, and he recognized
them, but they did not recognize him}...[12:58]

By that time, Yūsuf (P) had of course become the new governor (al-‘aziz) of the citadel,
and reported directly to the ruler of the land (al-malik). And it is clear that he was in
direct charge of managing the distribution of the reserves and meeting all kinds of people
face to face. This also could not have been possible in Egypt, whose protocols dictated
the building of huge royal courts, and the servants of their king to number in the
thousands, not to mention his viziers, war generals, and guard battalions rivaling in size
those of Rome and Persia. To imagine a bunch of Bedouins (Yūsuf’s brothers) casually
strolling into the home of the highest official of ancient Egypt, with the ease that we read
about in Yūsuf’s story, is out of the question. This is further evidence that the events did
not take place in Egypt, but in a simpler, and more humble pastoral society.

The proof that Yūsuf’s brothers were no more than Bedouins (livestock herders) is found
in the following (We have left the word un-translated, so Arabic readers can verify for
themselves):

{And he raised his parents upon the ‘arsh and they fell in prostration to
Him. And he said: "My father, this is the interpretation of my vision from
before. My Rabb has made it true, and He has been good to me that he took
me out of prison and brought you out of the badou after the shaytan had
made bitterness between me and my brothers. My Rabb is kind to whom He
wills. He is the Knowledgeable, the Wise}...[12:100]

In the end, Yūsuf’s successful system of storage management not only saved his village,
but made the nearby citadel a prime destination for the people of the land. And among
those were Yūsuf’s brothers, who came to Miṣr after all those years of being separated
from their brother.

If you are still not convinced by what we are telling you, dear reader, then how do you
explain the following sign?:

{And he said: "My sons, do not enter from one gate, but enter from separate
gates; and I cannot avail you anything against Allah, for the judgment is to

76
Allah. In Him I place my trust, and in Him those who place their trust should
trust."}...[12:67]

Ya‘qūb advised his children not to enter Miṣr from the same gate, but to enter it from
different gates, so as not to attract attention to themselves. The question is: Was Egypt
surrounded by a wall that had several gates leading into it? Erecting a wall with various
gates is only possible in fortified towns (citadels), not around entire lands or geographical
regions! The only exception to this that the world has ever known is the Great Wall,
which surrounds China, and is considered one of the seven great wonders of the world.
Just imagine - for the sake of debate - that the entire land of Egypt (since the common
belief insists that Miṣr = Egypt) was walled, and had gates. What would have been the
point of Ya‘qūb’s warning to his sons that they should enter from different gates?
Absolutely nothing. It would have been pointless, because the geographical expanse is so
vast that they would not have seen each other anyway, nor would anyone have noted their
entry.

Picture #14: An artist’s impression of the Miṣr of Yūsuf.

Picture #15: Surrounding Egypt with a gated wall would require building a structure akin to
the Great Wall of China. Is there a trace of a wall even one tenth that size in the Nile Valley?

77
Finally, we come to yet another piece of glaring evidence that Miṣr is not Egypt. And it is
here that we must be very careful and accurate in our reading:

{They said: "Our father, ask forgiveness for our sins, indeed we were
wrongdoers * He said: "I will ask forgiveness for you from my Rabb; He is
the Forgiving, the Merciful.* So when they entered upon Yūsuf, he gave
sanctuary to his parents and said (to his brothers): "Enter Miṣr, Allah willing,
in security”.}…[12:97-99].

The above passage caused enormous problems for the classical commentators, because
they approached the passage while maintaining the pre-conceived belief that Yūsuf had
lived in Egypt itself. As a result of this pre-established creed, they falsely concluded that
the place he lived in and the Miṣr he told his brothers to enter were one and the same!
This is completely false, as the rendering of the passage would then become absurd. Just
how many times did they enter Miṣr? Why would Yūsuf say: “Enter Miṣr, Allah willing,
in security”, if they had already entered it? The fact is that the Qur’ān is describing a
logical sequence of events which left the classical interpreters completely dumbfounded,
because they had all been brainwashed into reading Allah’s Book through Septuagint
lenses. The sequence is as follows:

1- Yūsuf’s parents and brothers came to him in his village.

2- Yūsuf provided sanctuary for his parents in the village.
3- Yūsuf told his brothers to enter Miṣr.

All you have to do, honored reader, is open the books of so-called Tafseer and see for
yourself the amount of garbage, incredulity, and conjecture that the classical
commentators spewed forth concerning [12:99] in particular. The most tragic example
can be found in the commentary of Ibn Katheer, wherein he says:

‫ فقال بعضهم "هذا من المقدم‬.‫]وقد أشكل قوله "آوى إليه أبويه وقال ادخلوا مصر" على كثير من المفسرين‬
[...‫ أي وقال "ادخلوا مصر إن شاء هللا آمنين" ثم آوى إليه أبويه ورفعهما على العرش‬،"‫والمؤخر ومعنى الكالم‬

Paraphrase: [The sentence: {He gave sanctuary to his parents and said: “Enter Miṣr
Allah - willing, in safety} caused some problems for many commentators. Some of
them said: “It must be in reverse order”, (meaning he said “Enter Miṣr and then
gave sanctuary to his parents)].

What Ibn Katheer is saying here is something truly astonishing. It is but one of the
hundreds of examples exposing how Muslims approach the Qur’ān: they twist and corrupt
the clear meaning and context of its words in order to make it fit with their pre-

78
conceptions or established beliefs, instead of correcting those beliefs to match the Qur’ān.
What we see here is an alleged “tool” for “understanding” which they called al-
Muqaddam wal’ Mu’akhar. What this basically means is that they reverse the order of the
sequence, and claim that Allah actually meant it the opposite way, as if it is some kind of
expressive style, so to speak! Therefore, although [12:99] is clearly telling us that Yūsuf
received his parents first and then directed his brothers to enter Miṣr, Allah actually
meant it in reverse; because that’s the only way it would conform to their pre-conceived
understanding that Yūsuf’s village and Miṣr were the same place. Such is the crime of
those who claim that the Qur’ān is the primary source of their beliefs.

The truth of the matter is that Yūsuf (P) told his brothers to enter Miṣr, which was the
name of the trade citadel that was near the village where he lived, not the village itself.
There are two separate places being mentioned here: There is the agricultural village
where Yūsuf lived, and then there is the citadel which was located on the trade route, to
make it easier for the caravans to reach it. This was the walled trade station that harbored
all the silos for storage, as well as the market and the caravan service center. So when
they (his parents and brothers) came to him, he provided sanctuary for his parents (who
were of old age) in the village, then told his brothers (who were younger and physically
able) to enter the nearby citadel (Miṣr), in security. What Yūsuf wanted was to transform
the life of his brothers from a nomadic life of livestock-herding to a sedentary life of
commerce and trade. This is the truth that the commentators failed to grasp.

From all we have seen so far, we can say that the village where Yūsuf lived and its
neighboring citadel were two distinct places, and they were both not far from the tented
village where Yūsuf’s father, Ya‘qūb, originally resided. And Ya‘qūb’s village, in turn,
was not far from where his fathers Isḥāq and Ibraheem had settled before him. From this,
we deduce that Ibraheem, Isḥāq ,Ya‘qūb and Yūsuf all lived and died in a land that was
at the hub of the ancient trade routes, in what the Qur’ān calls al-Qura (the Towns). And
those towns were located around one central, or capital town, which the Qur’ān
designated as Ummul’ Qura (the Mother/Origin of Towns).

Figuring out where that land was is the ultimate goal of our long journey.

 The Miṣr of Mūsa : The Rise of Far‘awn

{And Far‘awn proclaimed among his people: "O my people, do I not possess
the kingship of Miṣr, and these rivers that flow beneath me? Do you not
see?" [43:51]

79
Allah is telling us that Far‘awn’s trade citadel had many rivers flowing near it (not just
one); whereas Yūsuf’s area suffered from a seven-year drought, due to lack of rain. This
leads us to ask the question: Were Mūsa (P) and Yūsuf (P) in the same citadel? It is
possible that they weren't, since there could have been many such walled caravan centers.
So how can we be sure?

Let’s see what the Qur’ān says. It is there, as always, where we will find the answer that
exposes the crimes of those who have forged our history. Please pay attention to the
underlined phrases:

{And a believing man from among the people of Far‘awn, who had concealed
his belief, said: "Will you kill a man simply because he is saying 'My Rabb is
Allah' and he has come to you with proofs from your Rabb? And if he is a
liar, then his lie will be upon him, and if he is truthful, then some of what he
is promising you will afflict you. For Allah does not guide any transgressor,
or liar * O my people, you have the kingship today throughout the land. But
then who will save us against the torment of Allah, should it come to us?".
Far‘awn said: "I am showing you that which I see, and I am guiding you in
the right path" * And the one who believed said: "O my people, I fear for
you the same fate as the Day of the Opponents * Like the fate of the people
of Nūḥ, ‘Ād, and Thamūd, and those after them. And Allah does not wish any
injustice for the servants * And, O my people, I fear for you the Day of
Mutual Blaming * A Day when you will turn around and flee, you will have
no protector besides Allah, and whoever Allah sends astray, then there is
none who can guide him * And Yūsuf had come to you before with proofs,
but you remained in doubt regarding what he came to you with, until when
he died, you said: 'Allah will not send any messenger after him'. It is such
that Allah sends astray he who is a transgressor, a doubter"}...[40:28-34]

Where did these events take place? The man is reminding Far‘awn and the people around
him of the example that was made of the nations who came before them, in the same
region. He is reminding them of the fate of the people of Nūḥ, ‘Ād and Thamūd. As we
will eventually realize, those nations had no geographical relation to Egypt whatsoever.
Issuing a warning to Far‘awn and mentioning the fate of peoples or nations who lived in a
vacuum, or who were geographically unconnected to him, would have made no sense
whatsoever.

Furthermore, it’s clear from the above signs that Yūsuf (P) had been sent to the ancestors
of Far‘awn’s people. This is proof that Yūsuf and Mūsa were in the same citadel. The
question that naturally poses itself here is: how can a land dry up for seven years when it
had abundant rivers, as Far‘awn was boasting? It seems that we have misunderstood the

80
meaning of the word nahr (river) in its Qur’ānic context. Usually, when we think of the
term “river”, we tend to think only of permanent waterways, whose sources are
underground basins or huge lakes (like the Amazon, the Nile, the Euphrates, and other
permanent rivers that do not dry up). But according to the Qur’ān, the term does not
necessarily encompass only those types of waterways. The fact is that not all rivers are
like that. Some, both small and large, rely on the rain and snow which melts from the
mountaintops in order to flow continuously. If the rain should stop for seven years, the
rivers will dry up, leaving only their trace in the valleys and mountain slopes. Has anyone
ever heard of the Nile drying up? Has history ever recorded such an event in the past four
thousand years?

The events described in the Qur’ān took place in a mountainous country, where
hundreds of rivers and streams cascaded down from the mountains and were fed with
seasonal rainwater. It is a land where agriculture depended on rain. This is clearly evident
once again, from a conversation that eventually took place between Mūsa (P) and
Far‘awn, as is related to us in the Qur’ān. Please read the following carefully:

{He said: "So who is the Rabb of you both, O Mūsa ? * He said: "Our Rabb is
the One who gave everything its creation, then guided all." * He said: "What
then has happened to the first nations?” * He said: "The knowledge of that
is with my Rabb, in a record; my Rabb does not err or forget. * The One who
made for you the earth habitable and He made ways for you in it, and He
brought down water from the sky, so We sprouted out with it various pairs
of vegetation”}…[20:49-53]

Here, we see Far‘awn inquiring to Mūsa (P) about the fate of the earlier nations who
inhabited that same geographical region, and Mūsa (P) reminding ungrateful Far‘awn
about the presence of one universal sustainer (Rabb) who made the earth habitable for
them and their livestock, and brought water down from the sky for them.

This geography has no relation to Egypt whatsoever. And the rivers (in plural) that
Far‘awn was boasting of were not the permanent water-ways (like the Nile and its delta
branches, or the Tigris and Euphrates of Iraq). They were rivers that could dry up after
long years of drought. And that’s exactly what had happened during Yūsuf’s time.

On the other hand, the Qur’ān tells us that the land where these events took place also had
what it called a baḥr, in which Far‘awn eventually drowned. Again, this leads to the
question concerning our understanding of the word baḥr. Does it necessarily designate a
sea? It appears, from the Qur’ān, that baḥr is simply a general term describing any body
of water. In fact, Allah’s Book tells us that there are salty baḥrs as well as fresh-water

81
baḥrs. This is clearly evident in [25:53] and [35:12]. The term means any natural body
that has plentiful water. It could be a lake, a river, a sea, or an ocean.

The tyrant whose personal name was Far‘awn entered the scene during the period in
which Mūsa (P) lived. The Qur’ān called only one person by that name. This means there
were no Farā‘ina (in the plural) before him, and none came after he drowned.
(Remember that the Israelites eventually inherited the entire land). During the time of
Yūsuf, which is estimated to have been some 100 - 150 years before Mūsa (P) at most,
there was no Far‘awn. There was al-malik (the supreme ruler or king) and his immediate
subordinate al-‘aziz (the governor who managed the citadel). The king, whose personal
name is not mentioned, had been very kind to Yūsuf and had offered him a high position
and noble status in the land. Mūsa was not as fortunate.

It is worth mentioning here, that Mūsa (P) was, for a time, actually raised in Far‘awn’s
home, by none other than Far‘awn’s wife! The Qur’ān states this fact very clearly:

{And We inspired to Mūsa’s mother: "Suckle him, and when you become
fearful for him, then cast him off in the yamm, and do not fear nor grieve.
We will return him to you and We will make him of the messengers. * Then
the family of Far‘awn picked him up, so he would be an enemy to them and a
source of sadness. Certainly, Far‘awn and Hāmān and their troops were
wrongdoers * And the wife of Far‘awn said: "A pleasure to my eye and
yours, so do not kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a
son;" while they did not perceive.}...[28:7-9]

Do the above signs seem to you like they are talking about Ramses II, the king of Egypt
who died at the age of ninety, and who had fathered nearly a hundred children? Search
your soul, dear reader, as you ponder over this question.

Anyway, what this means is that Far‘awn and Mūsa must have spoken the same language;
a fact that has completely slipped past 99.99% of Muslims, who have been reading the
Qur’ān like zombies, for centuries. The Qur’ān relates to us direct conversations between
Far‘awn and Mūsa, without a translator. What language did they speak? Is there any
record in Egypt of “Pharaoh” speaking what is called “Hebrew”? Or did the Israelites
speak ancient Egyptian?

The final sign we will discuss bearing mention of miṣr in the story of Mūsa (P) is the
following, somewhat puzzling one:

82
{And you said: "O Mūsa, we will not be patient to one type of food, so call
for us your Rabb that He may bring forth what the earth grows of its beans,
cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Would you trade that
which is close at hand with that which is better?" Go down to a miṣr, you
will have in it what you have asked for. And they were stricken with
humiliation and disgrace, and they remained under the wrath of Allah, for
they were disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and killing the prophets
without right; that is for what they have disobeyed and
transgressed.}...[2:61]

The Israelites, after having escaped into the wilderness, grew impatient and asked Mūsa
to provide them with various types of food that grew in different seasons. What was
Mūsa’s answer to them? "Go down to a miṣr, and you will find what you want therein".
Here, the word miṣr clearly appears as a common noun. This is so blatant that a grade-
school student of Arabic can notice it. This rather strange instance reminds us of the true
meaning of the term, as no more than a walled and secured trade station where food
(grains, vegetables and fruits) are stored and easily available. What the discouraged
Israelites asked Mūsa (P) for could only be found in the markets or the storage vaults of
the trade citadels of ancient times.

There is absolutely zero mention of Egypt in the entire Qur’ānic account of the Israelites.

 How many were the Israelites?

According to the Bible itself [Exodus 1: 5], the descendants of Ya‘qūb totaled seventy in
number. Now, if we assume - for the sake of argument - that Ya‘qūb was Israel himself
(despite no indication of this in the Qur’ān), another important question poses itself: How
on Earth could the Israelites have reached 600,000 in number in just four generations?
(Some commentators have even gone as far as to claim that the number of refugees who
fled towards the so-called “Sinai Peninsula” was two million!)

Has anyone ever contemplated this issue? Don’t the “traditions” tell us that Mūsa (P) was
the son of ‘Imrān, son of Qāheth, son of Āzer, son of Lāwi, son of Ya‘qūb, son of Isḥāq,
son of Ibraheem? If that’s true, it would mean that no more than 150 years could have
passed between the time of Ya‘qūb and the time of Mūsa (assuming each generation is
around thirty seven years - and that’s stretching it). How did a small, microscopic tribe of
goat herders, originally numbering seventy souls, become 600,000 in a span of 150
years? What kind of nonsense is this?

83
Let’s do the math: If we assume that each generation is twenty five years (rather than
thirty seven), where the age of twenty five was - back then - the average age of
establishing a family; this means than no more than 6 generations could have passed
between Ya‘qūb and Mūsa. Let’s stretch it to the extreme and say that their number
increased by a net 50% each generation (after taking into consideration deaths from
disease or natural causes). That would mean they multiplied as follows:

- End of first generation: 105

- End of second generation: 158
- End of third generation: 237
- End of fourth generation: 356
- End of fifth generation: 534
- End of sixth generation: 640

The Children of Israel could not have numbered far over 600 people by the end of six
generations, or they would have defied the laws of human reproduction. Apparently,
someone wanted to insult our intelligence by claiming that the number of Israelites who
escaped from (Egypt) was 600,000!! Could it be, perhaps, that the Septuagint priests, in
their “translation” of the Bible from Aramaic to Greek, decided to add three zeros to the
real figure? Could this number be the same group that Far‘awn himself described as
being: {These are but a small band}, before he and his men went in pursuit of them,
as the Qur’ān says? Furthermore, would Ramses II, or Merneptah, or any other monarch
of ancient Egypt, rally his men and personally join them in a cat-and-mouse chase across
the Egyptian desert, towards the Sinai Peninsula? Do we believe the Qur’ān, or do we
believe the Imāms of forgery?

And it gets even better! In [Exodus – 1:15], we read the comical story that the King of
Egypt himself, Ramses II, became so worried by the “vigorous fertility” of “Hebrew”
women, and the rapid multiplication of the Israelites, that he asked two “Hebrew”
midwives, named Shiphrah and Puah, to kill all newborn “Hebrew” boys and to let the
girls live, so the King could keep track of their number and maintain it under control!
{Applause and drums, please!}

This is the kind of garbage that they have been peddling as the truth for centuries untold,
while the world has been asleep. We have to completely discard our brains and believe
that a microscopic tribe of goat herders became, in just six generations, an entire “nation”
that threatened the demographic balance of Egypt and shook the very throne of King
Ramses II! What a story! Where is the archeological evidence that 600,000 (let alone two
million) Israelite “slaves” actually resided in Egypt? Scientists have excavated practically
every corner of the so-called “Sinai Peninsula”, and found human remains and hunting

84
tools that dated back to the pre-historic time (around 9000 B.C). You think that 600,000
Israelites could wander in Sinai for fourty years and not leave a trace of their passing
there?

And to add further insult to injury, we must believe that these Israelites, whose actual
number was closer to 600, and half of whom were probably women, children and elders,
had built three pyramids in the Giza area of Egypt, before fleeing with Mūsa (P) across
the Sea of Reeds into Sinai, the peninsula which every archeological evidence has proven
was under full Egyptian control at that time. (This means that they fled from Egypt into
Egypt!). Or how about the version of the story that claims they crossed the Red Sea
further south, and landed in Arabia, after the Lord “miraculously” parted the waters of
that sea, and made for them a two-hundred kilometer-long trench across?

Has it ever occurred to anyone on the face of this Earth to ask why there is zero mention
of pyramids in the entire Biblical narrative? Did it accidentally “slip the minds” of the
Septuagint priests to mention those structures that remained, for over 4,500 years, the
most spectacular architectural achievements ever accomplished by the hand of man?
Until when are we going to be slaves to these delusions?

This explains why the officials in what is called “The Arab Republic of Miṣr” became so
enraged when Menachem Begin, the first Prime Minister of (Israel) ever to visit the
Republic in 1979, gazed upon the pyramids and arrogantly proclaimed: “These are the
works of our grandfathers”. Of course, it was inevitable that they would be enraged. And
do you know why? It is because they have bound themselves up in the chains of the fake
identity of Miṣriyyoun. Until they wake up and realize that they are Aqbāt (Egyptians);
until they wipe the dirt and dust of the Septuagint lies off their shoulders, vindicate their
ancient kings from the falsehoods that ruined their reputation, clear themselves of the
deceitful title of “Pharaohs”, and look upon their true and glorious past through their own
eyes, not the eyes of others; they will never win back their future.

 Facts about the Pyramids

“These are the works of our ancestors” ... Yes, of course! Let’s beat the drums and blow
the trumpets to the tune of the Zionist leaders’ propaganda concerning the identity of the
builders of the Egyptian pyramids! The stories we hear in Sunday school seem to form
the basis for the popular belief that “Jewish” slaves (as if Judaism even existed during
Mūsa’s time!) were forced to build the pyramids in Egypt, but they were saved when they
left Egypt in a mass exodus. That's the story that the Judeo-Christian West has raised
their children to believe, and that’s what has been repeated countless times by the
diabolical propaganda machine they call “Hollywood”. Their audacity and prostitution of

85
a fake history have reached such an extent, that they have associated the microscopic,
nomadic tribe of Bani Isra’eel, who never set foot in Egypt, to the construction of the
three pyramids south of the Nile Delta. These criminals continue to ignore the glaring
scientific fact that the archaeologists of the world are practically unanimous about; a fact
that the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, Pr. Zahi
Ḥawās, has reiterated time and time again in his speeches and articles: that the three great
pyramids of Giza were constructed over a period of thirty years, and completed around
2200 B.C. This puts the date of their completion some nine hundred years before the
time of Yūsuf (P)! This information can be found quite easily on the internet, or in books
dealing with Egyptology. The fact of the matter is that the architectural wonders at Giza
existed even before the time of Ibraheem (P), and hence before the Israelites even existed.
They were built by the ancient Egyptians themselves, not by the ancestors of Ariel
Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, David Ben-Gurion and other European Jews of their ilk, as
the Zionist propaganda machine would have us believe.

Furthermore, the builders of the pyramids were not slaves. They lived in good housing
conditions at the foot of the pyramids, and when they died, they received honored burials
in stone tombs near royal cemeteries, as a reward for their contribution. This information
is relatively new, as the first of these worker tombs was discovered only in 1990. They
ate well, received the best medical care, and were exempt from taxes. Unlike slaves, they
were also well paid. The pyramid builders were recruited from poor communities and
worked shifts of three months (including farmers, who worked during the months when
the Nile flooded their farms), distributing the king’s wealth out to where it was needed
most. Virtually every fact about the workers that archaeology has revealed rules out the
use of slave labor in the construction of the pyramids. Furthermore, there is zero mention
of “Israelites” or “Jews” taking part in the project. Try convincing the Zionists of this
fact.

An equally outrageous claim has been circulating lately among some “Islamic” groups,
who are fond of boasting about the “Scientific Miracles of the Qur’ān”. This group has
been claiming that the pyramids of Giza were actually built using heated clay, and that
the Qur’ān solved the mystery of their construction some fifteen centuries ago! When
they are faced with questions concerning their allegation, they quickly point out the
following sign: {…O Hāmān, fire-up the clay and make for me a high platform,
that perhaps I may look upon the god of Mūsa ; though I think he is one of
the liars.}…[28:38]

The fact is that this claim has absolutely no basis whatsoever, and is nothing but another
sad and miserable attempt at projecting the Miṣr of the Qur’ān onto Egypt, thus
unknowingly marketing the rabbinical lie to our future generations. These pseudo-

86
intellectuals - who have nothing better to do than sit around waiting for the “Infidel
West” to make all the scientific discoveries, and then boast about how those discoveries
are validating the Qur’ān - claim that the truth about the pyramids’ construction was
revealed in the year 2006 by Michel Barsoum, a professor of construction engineering at
the Drexel University (USA).

As a matter of fact, Barsoum never said in any of his research articles or seminars that the
pyramids were built of fire-heated clay. What he said, precisely, was that some (about
two thirds) of the stones making up the larger pyramids were actually cast bricks made of
a primitive form of cement, composed of limestone and water. Barsoum’s theory is that
the limestone was mixed with water and poured into molds, then left to dry under the hot
sun and the arid weather conditions of the Nile valley. As for the rest of the stones (those
making up the foundations and the bottom third of the pyramids), they are actually solid
rock taken from quarries and transported to the construction site by means of boats along
the Nile.

Below is a close-up photo of the great pyramid of Khufu, which clearly shows the two
types of stones.

Picture #16: The lower half shows the natural rock cut from quarries, characterized by
irregular block sizes, and wider spaces between the blocks. The upper half shows the cast
limestone bricks, easily distinguishable by their relatively similar size, straighter surface, and
the fact that there is very little space between them - a characteristic not found in natural rock

87
Our conclusion here is that the “Islamic”, neo-intellectual claim concerning the
construction of the pyramids is false. Furthermore, we remind you, dear reader, of the
archeological fact that the pyramids of Giza were completed 900 years before the time of
Yūsuf (P), and that they served as tombs for certain kings of ancient Egypt. This means
that sign [28:38] of the Qur’ān is not talking about the pyramids of Giza, but about some
other structure that a man named Hāmān built of heated clay (not limestone). What this
Hāmān (possibly a high priest) constructed for Far‘awn was some kind of elevated
platform - perhaps an observatory - which would allow the tyrant to gaze upon the
heavenly bodies (stars and planets), and perhaps catch a glimpse of what he called “the
god of Mūsa”. Further evidence for this is found in the following signs:

{And Far‘awn said: “O Hāmān, build for me a high edifice that I may uncover
the secrets * The secrets of the heavens, and that I may take a look upon
the god of Mūsa ; though I think he is a liar. Thus the evil works of Far‘awn
were adorned for him, and he was blocked from the path. And the planning
of Far‘awn brought nothing but regret}…[40:36,37]

The great pyramids were not made from heated clay. Countless theories have been put
forward to explain how the archeological wonders of Giza were erected. Of those
theories, only Barsoum’s hypothesis states that cast limestone cement bricks were used in
their construction. Limestone cement and clay are two completely different materials,
whether in terms of their chemical structure, or the techniques involved in their use for
construction. The Qur’ān tells us that Hāmān actually “cooked” the clay, using some kind
of furnace that was fired up, in order to make the material fit for construction. This is
clearly evident from [28:38]. The cement bricks of the pyramids, on the other hand -
assuming Barsoum’s theory is correct - were made of a mixture of limestone and water,
and left to dry in the air and sun. These are two completely different construction
techniques.

The question that poses itself here is the following: Was there ever a civilization in the
ancient world, known for its construction of towers or high edifices from clay? The
answer is yes; the culture of South Arabia (‘Asir and Yemen) was - and still is - famous
worldwide for its skyscrapers made from mud. These buildings, some of which have been
standing for over 700 years, have continued to baffle tourists and architects alike, who
have visited those regions. In fact, one of the most famous Yemeni cities of the
Ḥaḍramawt province, Shibām, was nicknamed “The Manhattan of the Desert”, because
of its tall buildings constructed from plain mud, some of which reach over thirty meters
in height. The ancient Egyptians did not build their temples, pyramids, or tombs from
clay. They built them from solid rock. Only the houses of the Egyptian commoners were
built from mud, and had thatched roofs. Nothing remains of those houses today (this is
because mud construction - unlike buildings made from quarried rock or limestone

88
cement bricks - requires regular and exhaustive maintenance in order to preserve it). If
the pyramids of Giza were made from cooked clay, they most probably would not be
standing where they are today.

Picture #17: A tourist photograph of the city of Shibām (Yemen), with its famous clay
skyscrapers.

Picture #18: A castle built entirely from mud, in the city of Najrān (near the Saudi-Yemeni
border).

89
 Picture #19: The pyramids of Giza. Do they look to you like they were made from clay?

A final word is in order on this occasion; one final nail in the coffin of the “Egyptian
Pharaoh” theory. If the Qur’ānic Far‘awn truly was one of the kings of ancient Egypt, and
if the edifice that Hāmān built for him is actually one of the pyramids, then how can we
explain the following passage?

{And We let the people who were weak inherit the east of the land and the
west of it which We have blessed. And the good word of your Rabb was
completed towards the Children of Israel for their patience; and We
destroyed what Far‘awn and his people had wrought and what they had
built}…[7:137]

The above sign alone - had the so-called “followers of Muḥammad” pondered over it - is
enough to condemn the rabbinical version of history that has been propagated as the truth
by the Zionists and their ancestors, the Imāms of fraud and forgery. The above passage
states, in clear and undisputed terms, that Allah eventually destroyed what Far‘awn and
his people had built, and what they had worked so hard to achieve and acquire. It tells us
that the Children of Israel were eventually made successors in the land that was
described as being mubāraka (fertile and rich) for all people; the very same land to which
the Patriarch Ibraheem (P) and his relative Lūṭ (P) had migrated some 400 years earlier.

Where exactly was that land? Did Allah destroy the works and monuments of the kings
of Egypt? Or are their temples and pyramids still standing, tall and proud; silent
testaments to the crimes of those who have forged the history of humanity?
90
 CHAPTER IV

Geographical Projections

91
It is certain that the events of the story of Yūsuf (P), Mūsa (P) and Far’awn took place
somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula. The Septuagint lie however, with the support of the
political authority of Greece at the time, and the Greek language that spread throughout
the ancient world, was the first step toward hijacking the true geography of the Biblical
prophets, and leading all of humanity astray. Starting from the late 19th Century, the
Orientalist translations of the Bible began to appear, fortifying this illusion in the minds
of our contemporary generations. Looking closely at the passages of the Septuagint Bible
dealing with the story of “Moses and Pharaoh”, the first thing that can clearly be noticed
is the absence of any mention of the Nile in those passages. Not once does that name
appear in those stories. The Septuagint translation mentions an anonymous river, without
ever specifying a name for it. It was the Orientalist translations of the Biblical text which
later inserted the “Nile” in those passages, thus firmly planting a false geography in the
cultural consciousness of both the East and the West. Let us look at the following
example from the Book of Genesis:

Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ δύο ἔτη ἡμερῶν Φαραω εἶδεν ἐνύπνιον. ᾤετο ἑστάναι ἐπὶ τοῦ
ποταμοῦ.

Anyone who can read Greek will immediately take note of the underlined word
“ποταμοῦ”, appearing at the end of the above passage (Genesis - 41:1). The word is
pronounced “potamou” and simply means: river. As a matter of fact, we found that
some modern translations remained faithful to the Greek text, and kept the word “river”
as it is. For instance, the The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible (1901)
rendered the passage as follows:

And it came to pass at the end of two full years that Pharaoh dreamed: and
behold, he stood by the river.

On the other hand, we find the name “Nile” appearing in the The Bible in Basic English:

Now after two years had gone by, Pharaoh had a dream; and in his dream
he was by the side of the Nile.

The name then disappears in the King James Bible translation…

And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and
behold, he stood by the river.

…Only to reappear again in the Contemporary English Bible:

Two years later, the king of Egypt dreamed he was standing beside the Nile
River. (Note the absence of the term “Pharaoh” here).

92
And so on and so forth…

It was this way, dear reader, that the lie was propagated to the future generations of the
world, and allowed to infiltrate their schools, colleges, churches, synagogues and
mosques. Eventually, the lie was repeated enough times and supported by the established
authorities, that it became unquestionable and concealed itself behind the banner of
“Allah Says So”. The ultimate goal of this forgery - which will be discussed in more
detail in our upcoming second book, was twofold:

- First: To wipe out the history of Arabia as the cradle of civilization and the true theater
of the Biblical events.

- Second: To serve the imperialist, Zionist interests which called for the creation of a
fictional “Jewish Promised Land” in Palestine, after annexing that territory from its
rightful inhabitants, under the very eyes of an apathetic world community.

 Exactly where was the Miṣr of the Qur’ān?

{And We have not sent before you except men to whom We gave
inspiration, from among the people of the towns. Will they not roam the
land and see how the punishment of those before them was dealt? And the
abode of the Hereafter is far better for those who are aware. Do you not
comprehend?}…[12:109]

The above sign states quite clearly, that all the messengers who were sent before
Muḥammad (P) were from the nearby, surrounding towns. Consequently, the sign is
directing its recipients (Muḥammad and his people) to roam the surrounding land and see
how Allah had dealt with the previous nations and generations who had lived in that same
region. It cannot be any other way.

These towns were all located in the vicinity of a main or capital town which Allah labeled
as Ummul’ Qura, which means, literally: “The Mother/Origin of Towns”. Note how
Allah did not actually name that town, because it is quite obvious from the context of the
passage (and from other signs in the Qur’ān) that the residents of Arabia knew very well
which town Allah was talking about. As to why it was given that title; that is an entire
subject on its own, and it will be explained in a separate book in the future. The rampant
belief among Muslims is that the title “Mother of Towns” refers to the city of Makkah in
the southern Ḥijaz province of what is today called “Saudi Arabia”. This is because
according to them, “Allah Says So”. It is beyond the scope of this book to disprove their
claim. However, as you walk the path of this long journey, dear reader, and uncover more

93
hints along the way, you will come to the conclusion that the Muslims have also been
deceived regarding the true identity of Muḥammad (P), and where the Qur’ān was
actually revealed. In fact, it is the ultimate goal of this quest to expose the great
geographic blasphemy of the ages, which was perpetrated against the final divine
scripture.

{And thus We have inspired to you an eloquent (‘arabi) Qur’ān, so that you
may warn the Mother of Towns and all around it, and to warn about the Era
of Gathering that is inevitable. A group will be in the Paradise, and a group
in Hell}…[42:7]

It is very clear, from the above sign, who the messenger was whom Allah sent to the
Mother of Towns, and what the message he bore was.

{And We had established them in the same way as We established you, and
provided them with hearing, and eyesight, and hearts. But their hearing,
eyesight, and hearts did not help them at all. This is because they used to
disregard the revelations of Allah, and they will be surrounded by that
which they used to mock * And We destroyed the towns around you and We
had dispatched the signs, perhaps they would repent.}…[46:26,27]

Again, we see the same statement being stressed time and time again by the Qur’ān. We
see Allah reminding Muḥammad (P) and his people of the previous nations who lived in
the same region, in the towns surrounding the capital and mother of all towns.

The truth, which the vast majority of Muslims failed to grasp, is that all the messengers
whom Allah told us about in the Qur’ān lived and preached around the Mother of Towns,
somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula. It is from there that their messages were carried to
all corners of the world. And the further you walk with us along the road of this journey,
the more obvious this truth will become.

It is on this occasion that we would remind you, dear reader, of the warning issued by the
believing man from among Far‘awn’s people, when he said to them: {O my people,
you have the kingship today throughout the land. But then who will save us
against the torment of Allah, should it come to us? Far‘awn said: “I am
showing you that which I see, and I am guiding you in the right path” * And
the one who believed said: “O my people, I fear for you the same fate as the
day of the opponents * Like the fate of the people of Nūḥ, ‘Ād, and Thamūd,
and those after them. And Allah does not wish any injustice for the
servants}…[40:29-31]

94
The same resounding truth is hinted at again in the following signs, which are directly
addressing Muḥammad (P):

{Did you not see what your Rabb did to ‘Ād ? * Iram of the great columns? *
That was like no other in the land? * And Thamūd who carved the rocks in
the valley? * And Far’awn of the Pegs? * They all transgressed in the land *
And caused much corruption therein * So your Rabb poured upon them a
measure of retribution}…[89: 6-14]

The above passage begins with a question that the malā’ika of revelation are asking
Muḥammad (P): Did you not see how Allah sealed the fate of those past nations, namely
‘Ād, Thamuud, and Far’awn’s people, who sowed the seeds of corruption in the land?
Which land is the passage talking about? Is it the not the same geographical area
surrounding the Mother of Towns? Why would Muḥammad be asked this question if he
had lived in a geographical vacuum, or in an area that was far-removed from those
previous nations? What sense would the question have made? Did Muḥammad ever set
foot in Egypt? Furthermore, why did the Qur’ān refer to the tyrant who persecuted Mūsa
as “Far’awn of the Pegs”? Was Far’awn any more than a tribal chief who had control of a
trade citadel surrounded by pastoral tented communities located in a mountainous region?
Has anyone ever found the mummified remains of an ancient Egyptian king and
unquestionably proven that his death was by drowning? If so, we defy anyone to come
forth and present that proof. Would Ramses II, Merneptah, or any other monarch of
Egypt - who had at his disposal a vast court of servants and guards, and armies capable of
conquering neighboring empires - personally take it upon himself to chase a small band
of refugees barely numbering 600, across the Egyptian desert?

Where has our sense of logic gone?

{And ‘Ād and Thamūd; much was made apparent to you from their
dwellings. The devil had adorned their works in their eyes, thus he diverted
them from the path, even though they could see}…[29:38]

Does the above passage not tell us that Muḥammad (P) and his people lived in the same
region where the desolate dwellings of ‘Ād and Thamūd are located? And is that region
not the same region where Mūsa (P), and his ancestor Yūsuf (P) had lived?

Are all these questions not worth pondering over? Or are they no more than intellectual
rhetoric?

What you will eventually discover is that the cultural memory of the South Arabians,
specifically the inhabitants of the Ḥaḍramawt Valley and the mountainous Sarāt Country

95
of Yemen, reveals traditions that are rich with references to the prophets and kings
mentioned in the Qur’ān, such as Ṣaleḥ, Hūd, Ibrāheem, Ismā‘eel, Shu‘ayb, Dāwūd,
Suleymān, and others. Many modern experts in the field of archeology, anthropology and
historical studies, notably Kamāl Ṣaleebi, Fāḍel al-Rubay‘i, Farajullah Deeb, Bernard
Leeman, and others, have actually visited the region and confirmed those traditions after
mingling with the population. (This is besides the abundant ruins and ancient vestiges
scattered across the region that, for some reason, have never been made known to the
public). The sad truth is that very few people in the world ever listen to the voice of the
Sarāt. Consequently, the rich traditions of that country - unlike anything found in
Palestine - have been, for centuries, dismissed as nothing but cultural delusion and local
fairytales; while the world has gone on believing the Septuagint and Orientalist forgeries
that have projected the theater of the Biblical events onto the Levant. Eventually, dear
reader, you will come to the realization that there is simply far too much mention of the
Biblical figures and locations in the cultural heritage of the Yemenis for it to be
considered a delusion or a mere coincidence; and that there are more truths hidden within
the folds of those traditions than the world has ever realized.

{And who would abandon the creed of Ibraheem except one who fools
himself? We have chosen him in this world, and in the Hereafter he is of the
righteous * When his Rabb said to him: "Aslim," he said: "Aslamtu to the
Rabb of all peoples” * And Ibraheem enjoined his sons and Ya‘qūb: "O my
sons, Allah has selected the deen for you, so do not die except as muslims”
* Or were you (O Muḥammad) present when death came to Ya‘qūb and he
said to his sons: "Whom shall you serve after me?" They said: "Your ilah,
and the ilah of your fathers Ibraheem, and Isma‘eel, and Isḥāq; One ilah and
to Him we are muslims" * That is a nation that has passed away; to them is
what they have earned, and to you is what you have earned; and you will
not be asked regarding what they did}…[2:130-134]

The above clear signs mention the noble lineage of Allah’s messengers, from Ibrāheem,
down to Muḥammad himself, all of whom lived in the same region. The truth that the so-
called “Muslims” failed to grasp is that the Qur’ān was recounting to Muḥammad the
story of his own ancestors, the prophets of Arabia’s distant and forgotten past.

 A Glimpse of the Truth from their Own Mouths

Just how confused were the classical commentators of the Qur’ān concerning the identity
of Far‘awn? Let us take a closer look at what can be found in some Arabic books of
tradition, in order to cast more light on this issue.

96
To begin, we will ask: What was the name of Far‘awn’s wife? If you ask this question to
any Muslim whose level of acquaintance with the traditions is average, he will most
probably tell you that her name was Āsiah. The truth of the matter is that her name is
completely irrelevant, which is why the Qur’ān never mentions it. Our aim in raising this
issue - trivial as it may seem - is simply to expose the methodology of a religious creed
whose advocates are confused to the point of insanity. If you ask that same Muslim where
he got the name Āsiah from, you will most certainly get the answer: “It’s common
knowledge”.

Here follows is the actual truth of which they are completely unaware: The name Āsiah
does indeed come from the “Islamic” books of tradition. Those books even mention her
full name as Āsiah bint Mazāḥim, bin ‘Obayd, bin al-Rayyān, bin al-Waleed
(bint = daughter of; bin = son of). This name can be found in several “historical” sources,
most notable of which are: Ibn Katheer’s Al-Bidāya wal Nihāya (Lit: The Beginning and
the End), Ibn ‘Asaker’s Tareekh Dimashq (Lit: The History of Damascus), and al-
Majlisi’s Biḥar’ul Anwār (Lit: Seas of Light). What do you think will be the average
Muslim’s reaction when you show him that name, straight from his “beloved” sources?
Has it ever occurred to anyone to ask why the books of tradition gave Far‘awn’s wife a
distinctly Arabic name? Aren’t those the same “divine” sources that placed Miṣr in
Egypt?

What about Far‘awn himself? Is there any mention of his “name” in those sources?
Prepare yourself, dear reader, for another shock. In al-Jawhari’s book entitled al- Ṣiḥāḥ
as well as Al-Ṣadouq’s ‘Ilal-ul Shara’e‘, we read the following strange story:

‫ }إذهبا إلى فرعون إ ّنه‬:‫ أخبرني عن قول هللا عز وجل لموسى وهارون‬: ‫]قلت لموسى بن جعفر عليه السالم‬
‫ أي كنياه وقوال له يا أبا‬- ‫ فقوال له قوال لينا‬: ‫ لعله يتذكرأو يخشى {؟ فقال أما قوله‬،‫ فقوال له قوال لينا‬،‫طغى‬
.[‫ أبا مصعب الوليد بن مصعب‬:‫مصعب وكان اسم فرعون‬

Paraphrase: [I asked Mūsa son of Ja‘far about the significance of {Go, both of you,
to Far‘awn, for he has transgressed * So say to him gentle words, perhaps
he will remember or be concerned}. He said to me “{So say to him gentle
words} means that they were to address him by his personal name of Abou
Miṣ‘ab. Far‘awn’s name was al-Waleed bin Miṣ‘ab”]

Other renowned sources clearly mentioning Far‘awn’s name as al-Waleed bin Miṣ‘ab are:
geographer Yāqout al-Ḥamwi’s Mu‘jam-ul Buldān (Lit: Glossary of Countries) and al-
Ṭabari’s famous Tareekh (History).

Do the above names have any relation with the culture of ancient Egypt? Does al-Waleed
bin Miṣ‘ab have anything to do with “Ramses” or “Merneptah”? Does Āsia bint Mazāḥim
97
bear any resemblance to “Nefertiti” or “Hatshepsut”? Why would al-Ṭabari, widely
considered by Muslims to be the most trusted authority on “Islamic” history, give the
Biblical tyrant and his wife Arabic names?

The reason we quoted those sources, dear reader, is not because we actually believe the
information they contain concerning Far‘awn’s name to be authentic. In fact, what al-
Ṭabari wrote about this issue is pure hearsay, and most probably had no actual basis
whatsoever. But this does not mean that there aren’t any truthful hints found in his
writings. It is a question of isolating the truth from the garbage; of gleaning the history
from the myth. Furthermore, we already proved to you that Far‘awn was the man’s actual
name, not his title. Our citation of those confused - and confusing - traditions is purely a
case of “from your own mouth we incriminate you!” Can any Muslim alive today step
forward and explain to us why his beloved books of tradition, those sources that are
considered necessary to “interpret” the Qur’ān, designate the legendary tyrant with a
blatantly Arabic name? We asked this question to the same sample of 100 people to
whom we showed the two images of Far‘awn, and not one of them could find an answer
to it.

Could it be that the ancient memory of Arabia - whose voice has been muffled by alien
notions and false pretexts - somehow knew that the theater of the Biblical events was
indeed the Sarāt country? Could it be that the confusion and schizophrenia evident in the
books of tradition were actually the last remaining vestiges of that hazy memory?

We certainly think that is the case. And despite all the proofs we have put before you so
far, we have actually just begun to scratch the surface of this issue. A time will come,
perhaps in our children’s day and age, when the call of the Sarāt will finally be heeded;
when the mountain slopes and river valleys of ‘Aseer and Yemen will be heard; when the
untold story of Arabia’s forgotten past as the true cradle of human civilization will boom
across the globe; when archeologists will stand face to face with the shattering truth that
has been hidden, on purpose, by a league of human devils. It is then, and only then, that
you will find the so-called “Muslims” rushing to make their usual hypocritical
declaration: “That’s not new! The Qur’ān said it centuries ago!”

Their plight is truly one of comical tragedy.

 Where did Far‘awn Drown?

The key to cracking this puzzle lies in our understanding of the word yamm which has
been erroneously translated to “sea”. The Qur’ān, in certain passages, states that Far‘awn

98
and his henchmen drowned in the baḥr, while in other passages, it tells us that he
perished in the yamm. So does this mean that the two words are synonymous? Absolutely
not. There are no synonymous terms whatsoever in the eloquent tongue of the Qur’ān.
The terms baḥr and yamm are derived from completely different roots, and hence cannot
have the same meaning. So what is the solution then?

We have already shown you that the word baḥr does not necessarily mean “sea”. It
simply indicates a large body of abundant water. But what about yamm? Since there are
no synonyms in the Qur’ānic text, the only possible explanation is that yamm is a
description of this body of water. It is specifying what kind of baḥr it was that Far‘awn
drowned in. Hence baḥr is the general term, while yamm is the specific one. The relation
between the two terms is comparable to the relation between “vehicle” (general) and
“car” (specific).

When Mūsa was born, his mother placed him in the yamm [20:39]. The brainwashed
commentators interpreted this yamm as the Nile River, without any proof whatsoever.
When Far‘awn drowned in the yamm, they interpreted it as the Sea of Reeds, just south of
what is today known as the Suez Canal. And when Mūsa threw the golden calf of the
Sāmiriy in the yamm [20:97], they imagined it as a stream in the so-called “Sinai
Peninsula” (since they could not find a single river there). As you can see, they gave the
same word three different interpretations - thus making a mockery of Allah’s words - in
order to make the story fit with the geography of Egypt.

The truth of the matter is that the word yamm has only one meaning; and this meaning is
common to several of the so-called “Semitic” languages, notably Arabic, Aramaic, and
Syriac. It means: a great, flowing stream of water. This word appears exclusively in the
story of Mūsa, and has no other meaning. In fact, if you visit the regions of ‘Aseer and
Yemen (South Arabia) and ask the locals today what the word yamm means, they will
unanimously tell you it’s a great stream that flows down a mountainside. Once the yamm
reaches flat, open ground, it becomes a nahr (river). Such is the eloquence and precision
of the Qur’ānic tongue.

Using this knowledge to give the word a consistent meaning in the Qur’ān, the story then
becomes clear, and the puzzle is solved: Mūsa’s mother placed him in a stream; Far‘awn
drowned in a stream, and the calf of the Sāmiriy was hurled into a stream. Far‘awn did
not drown in the Red Sea, as the Zionist propaganda would have us believe. He drowned
in an inland body of water, somewhere in the Sārat mountains of ancient Yemen.

The proof can be found in the following signs:

99
{And We inspired to Moses: "Go forth with my servants, in secret. You will
be followed" * So Far’awn sent gatherers to the towns * "They are but a
small band." * "And they have enraged us." * "And we are all gathered and
forewarned." * So, We evicted them out of gardens and springs * And
treasures and an honorable station * As such, We made the Children of
Israel inherit it all * So they were pursued at sunrise * But when the two
groups saw each other, the companions of Mūsa said: "We are caught!" *
He said: "No, my Rabb is with me and He will guide me." * So We inspired to
Mūsa : "Strike forth towards the baḥr with conviction." So it split into two,
each side like a great cliff face * And We then brought the others (the
pursuers) near * And We saved Mūsa and all those with him *Then We
drowned the others}....[26:52-66]

The Israelites, led by Mūsa (P), fled Miṣr (a prominent walled citadel in ancient Yemen),
at night. This is the essence of isrā' (the departure from a place in secrecy, without
attracting attention). It was not until after Far‘awn realized the Israelites had left, that he
gathered a party of hunters from the nearby villages, and launched a full pursuit of what
he called "a small band". Would the great kings of Egypt, who lived in huge palaces with
an army ready at their call, prepared to take on rival empires at any time, need to send
callers to nearby villages to organize a search party? Would Ramses, Merneptah or
Imhotep, personally take it upon themselves to chase a small band across the wilderness
of Egypt? Furthermore, how far had Mūsa and the Israelites gone before Far‘awn caught
up to them? Let's think a bit: The Qur’ān is telling us that Far‘awn and his band moved
faster than the Israelites, because despite the latter's head start, the pursuers were still
able to gather themselves and catch up to them at dawn of the next day.

Then comes the critical part: Allah is telling us that the two parties reached a point where
they were close enough to gaze upon each other: {But when the two groups saw
each other, the companions of Mūsa said: "We are caught!"}. The average
width of the Sea of Reeds, the alleged crossing point, is around 25 kilometers (as shown
in the map below). It would have been impossible for the two parties to see each other
across that distance, taking into consideration the conditions surrounding the event.

Map #6: The alleged “crossing” point, in the Sea of Reeds, whose width ranges between 19 and 35
kilometers.

100
The next photograph is a satellite image of the area, which shows just how wide the Sea
of Reeds is at the imagined crossing point. It doesn't take a genius to realize that
something is just plain wrong with the entire geography of the story, and that someone
has been insulting our intelligence for centuries, while we’ve been unknowingly playing
the drums and trumpets to the tune of their fraud.

Picture #20: Satellite image of the area.

An even more outrageous theory places the crossing point not at the Sea of Reeds, but
further south, through the Red Sea itself! (See the following map). The advocates of this
theory completely deny that Mount Sinai is on that famous peninsula, and claim that
Mūsa (P) ended up in Arabia, somewhere in the Northern Ḥijaz region, where the
Israelites wandered for 40 years before finally entering the so-called “Promised Land” of
Palestine. In fact, some contemporary Muslim commentators have shown enthusiasm and
support for this latter theory, while completely ignoring the fact that it blatantly
contradicts the obvious geography deduced from the Qur’ānic account. They are
seemingly oblivious to the fact that the width of the Red sea at that point is around 200
kilometers! How could the two parties see each other from across that distance? Did the
Israelites take binoculars with them on their journey?

The logic of the Qur’ānic account is easily understood once we clear our heads of
inherited dogmas before contemplating its signs. The Israelites had not gone far at all
when Far‘awn caught up to them. There's not a chance in Hell they could have reached
the coast of the Sea of Reeds in one night. Furthermore, Far‘awn and his henchmen were
almost upon the evaders at the moment of the crossing. So where did these events take
place?

101
 Map #7: An even more absurd candidate for the crossing point.

Here follows is a possible explanation of what happened:

As we said before, Mūsa (P) and his people fled the citadel, in secret, at night. Far‘awn
didn’t gather the search party until after he realized they were gone. The Children of
Israel were most probably no more than six hundred in number. Far‘awn caught up to
them at dawn, which proves that the distance the evaders had covered could not have
been long. When they saw that the tyrant and his henchmen were getting close and feared
they would be caught, Allah comforted the heart of Mūsa and told him to head towards a
river bed along the slope of the mountainside. The Israelites hiked upwards along a
narrow path between two huge streams of water, like cliff banks on either side of them,
until they reached the highland wilderness and were able to ford the stream. When the
pursuers tried to take the same route, a third stream (yamm), which had been fed by
previous heavy rainfalls, gushed into their path and washed them away.

Furthermore, we remind you once again that the Israelites eventually inherited everything
that Far‘awn and his followers left behind. How else can we explain the following?

{Mūsa said to his people: "Seek help with Allah, and be patient; the land is
for Allah, He will inherit it to whom He pleases of His servants; and the
ending will be for the righteous."* They said: "We were being harmed
before you came to us and since you have come to us." He said: "Perhaps
your Rabb will destroy your enemy, and make you successors in the land, so
He sees how you work?"}... [7:128,129]

102
  What About Ṭūr Seenā’?

One of the most important and fundamental keys to understanding Allah’s signs in the
Qur’ān is to realize that there are no synonymous words in its vocabulary. The Qur’ān is
so precise in its usage of terms, that it is impossible to substitute one term for another and
maintain the exact same meaning. In many cases, words that appear, at first glance, to be
synonymous, might very well constitute a case of general versus specific. We have
recently seen that baḥr and yamm are not exactly synonymous. Likewise, the terms rūḥ
(spirit) and nafs (soul), often confused by the classical commentators, are nowhere near
having the same meaning. Other examples of words thought to be synonymous are: ‘ām
(year) and sanah (season or cycle); wālid (biological parent) and abb (parent); ya‘mal (to
work) and yaf‘al (to do); jabb (any general hole, pit or cavity) and bi’r (well). Famous
Andalusian scholar Ibn ‘Aṭiyya once attested to this characteristic of the Qur’ān by
saying:

."‫ ثم أدير لسان العرب في أن يوجد أحسن منها لم ُيجد‬، ‫"وكتاب هللا لو نزعت منه لفظة‬

Paraphrase: “If one term is removed from Allah’s book, and the entire (Arabic)
tongue is turned upside down in search for a better alternative to that term, none
will be found”.

There is no compromise in the matter. Allah does not play games. It is the so-called
"Muslims" who claimed the eloquent tongue (lisān) of the Qur’ān is simply a superior
example of the Classical Arabic language (lugha) of poetry, and started substituting and
interchanging words here and there in their exegeses, claiming that they are synonymous.
(Note, incidentally, how they mixed up the terms lisān and lugha, thinking them to be
synonyms). They envisioned the Qur’ān as some kind of show-down between Allah and
the poets of Arabia, which Allah won in the end! In short, they have unknowingly made a
mockery of Allah's Scripture.

Following the same logic as we did in our explanation of baḥr versus yamm, we come to
another delicate issue: The difference between the terms jabal (mountain) and ṭūr.
Understanding this difference is of paramount importance in order for us to determine
just where Ṭūr Seenā’ is actually located. The surprising thing we found when we read
what the classical commentators said about this issue is that despite all their geographical
confusion, they actually highlighted the distinction between the two terms. To give them
due credit, let us list a few examples of what they wrote:

- In Tafseer al-Qurṭubi, we come across the following definition:

‫ وما ال ينبت‬، ‫ وقيل إن الطور كل جبل أنبت‬،‫ وهي قرية شُعيب عليه السالم‬،‫ و ِمديَن باألرض المقدسة‬: ‫" قُلت‬
".‫فليس بطور‬

103
Paraphrase: [“I say: Midian is in the Sanctified Land, and it is the village of Shu‘ayb.
And it has been said that the ṭūr is a mountain that sprouts plants. And that
which does not sprout plants is not a ṭūr ].

- In the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, we can read the following definition:

‫ فالطور هو الجبل‬.‫"يقسم تعالى بمخلوقاته الدالة على قدرته العظيمة أن عذابه واقع بأعدائه وأنه ال دافع له عنهم‬
‫ وما لم يكن فيه شجر ال يسمى طورا‬.‫ وأرسل منه عيسى‬،‫الذي يكون فيه أشجار مثل الذي كلم هللا عليه موسى‬
."‫إنما يقال له جبل‬

Paraphrase: “The Almighty swears by his creations, which are testaments to his
great power, that chastisement shall fall upon His enemies, and that they cannot
avert it. And the ṭūr is a mountain on which trees grow, like the one where
Allah spoke to Mūsa , and from which ‘Eesa was sent forth. And that upon which
are no trees is not called a ṭūr , but is called (simply) a mountain”.

It seems they had known the truth all along. There, straight from their own mouths, is the
answer to this age-old puzzle: The difference between ṭūr and jabal is another case of
general versus specific. Hence, every ṭūr is necessarily a mountain; but not every
mountain is a ṭūr. A mountain that is covered with trees or vegetation in general, is called
a ṭūr, whereas a towering, rocky, and barren feature is simply a jabal (plain mountain).

In fact, quite a few commentators who realized the implication of this difference between
the two terms, vehemently rejected the theory that the Ṭūr Seenā’ mentioned in the
Qur’ān is the famous mountain bearing the same name which is located in the triangular
peninsula between Egypt and Palestine. Among those commentators was the prominent
scholar Fakhruddeen al-Rāzi who, in his exegesis of the Qur’ān, presented what he
thought were strong arguments in favor of those who claimed that the Ṭūr is in fact
located near Jerusalem.

The advocates of the Palestinian Ṭūr theory actually thought that the Qur’ān supported
their argument, specifically in the following passage: {And a tree which emerges
from Ṭūr Seenā’; it grows with oil and is a relish for those who
eat}…[23:20]. Their argument is that olives do not - nor did they ever - grow on the
so-called “Sinai Peninsula”, which means that the Egyptian Ṭūr theory clearly contradicts
the Qur’ān. Whereas, on the other hand, the “Blessed Land” (al-arḍ al-mubāraka) -
which they automatically assumed was Palestine - had plenty of olive trees all year
round. In fact, the mountain in question, which overlooks Jerusalem, is called “the Mount
of Olives”, and its peak is around 850 meters above sea level. Their conclusion was that
Ṭūr Seenā’ is in fact the Mount of Olives.

104
Picture #21: The so-called “Mount Sinai” in Egypt. Does it look to you like it is covered with
trees or any kind of vegetation?

Picture #22: The Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem, with the Russian Orthodox Church
of the Ascension clearly visible to the right.

What the proponents of the Mount of Olives didn’t realize is that they had fallen under
the influence of an old and fruitless Jewish debate regarding the true location of “Mount
Sinai”, a debate that is still raging until today. In fact, some Jewish sects firmly believe
that the Mount of Olives is “Mount Sinai”, where the Lord spoke to Mūsa. A more recent
theory among Biblical scholars and academics has even placed Mount Sinai in the far

105
north of Saudi Arabia, claiming that it is none other than the famous Jabal al-Lawz, a
peculiar-looking mountain with a blackened peak, located near the city of Tabūk, not far
from the Jordanian border. Still, others have claimed that Mount Sinai is somewhere in
the Negev desert!

Picture #23: Jabal-al-Lawz, near Tabūk (Saudi Arabia). It doesn’t seem too green, does it?

In fact, Paul, who invented Christianity, clearly states in one of his letters that Mount
Sinai is in Arabia, without specifying where exactly. (Incidentally, it seems that Paul
picked up much lore during his “mysterious” three-year sojourn in Arabia):

For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondmaid, the
other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after
the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an
allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai,
which gendereth to abondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with
her children. (Gal. 4 :22-25)

This is very interesting, isn't it? Paul is saying that Hāgar, the alleged bond maiden of
Ibrāheem (P), is an allegory to the "bond of flesh" and to Mount Sinai itself, which is in
Arabia. What is popularly called the "Sinai Pennisula" today was never a part of Arabia.
In fact there is zero evidence that the peninsula was ever called "Sinai" before the 4th
Century A.D.

If you think, dear reader, that the location of Mount Sinai is agreed upon - whether by
scholars or by laymen - then you are gravely mistaken. All it takes is a bit of research on
your part, whether on the internet, or in books of theology, and you will soon notice the
heap of conjecture, hearsay, and speculation that our predecessors spewed forth

106
concerning the location of that mountain. This has resulted in nominating no less than
four different locations as possible candidates for the legendary landmark! Is it in Egypt,
or in the Negev Desert? Or is it in Jerusalem? Or perhaps in Saudi Arabia?

Is it possible that Allah has purposely led humanity astray concerning this issue? Or has
the shortcoming been on our part? The answer to this puzzle can be found in the Qur’ān,
and is supported by a mysterious passage in the Bible, whose implications have just
recently begun to dawn in the minds of scholars. First, let’s see what the Qur’ān says:

{By the Ṭūr * And a recorded Book * In parchment unrolled. * And the
crowded Sanctuary * And the ceiling which is raised. * And the sea that is
set aflame. * The retribution of your Rabb is unavoidable * Nothing can stop
it}…[52:1-8]

The above passage begins with an oath sworn to Muḥammad (P), by the malā’ika of
revelation, that the retribution of Allah is unavoidable. The malāi’ka are evidently
swearing by certain phenomena or geographical features that are very well-known to
Muḥammad: The green mountain (ṭūr), the Book that is being recorded on animal skins,
the ancient and well-established Bayt (sanctuary), the sky that has been raised without
pillars, and the sea under which flames erupt (meaning that Muḥammad lived in a land
that - at some point not too long before his time - exhibited volcanic activity).

To each and every free-thinking believer who refuses to let his mind be enslaved by the
understanding of the Salaf, we ask the following: What does the Ṭūr (green mountain)
have to do with the Bayt? Why are they both mentioned in the same context, in the same
passage, and as part of the same oath? Has anyone ever deeply contemplated that? What
do all these locations or characteristics have to do with Palestine or Egypt?

{And We sent down from the sky water in due measure, then We let it
reside in the land, and We are capable of taking it away.* So We brought
forth for you gardens of palm trees and grapes, for which you will find many
fruits and from it you will eat. * And a tree which emerges from the Ṭūr of
Seenā’, it grows with oil and is a relish for those who eat}…[23:18-21]

Who is being addressed in the above signs? Is it not Muḥammad (P) and his people? Are
they not being asked to contemplate how Allah sends down rain for them to revive the
land after its death? Are they not being asked to reflect on how that rain causes the earth
to sprout palm trees and grapes for them to eat from? Did Allah not strike for them, as an
example, the green, wooded slopes of Seenā’? Does this not mean that Muḥammad (P)
and his people resided very near that green mountain, and were very familiar with it?
How, then, can it be in Palestine or in Egypt?

107
{By the fig and the olive * And Ṭūr Seeneen * And this secure country * We
have created man in the best form * Then We returned him to the lowest of
the low * Except those who have believed and done good works, they will
have a reward that will not end * So what would make you deny the deen
after this? * Is Allah not the Wisest of the wise ones?}…[95:1-8]

Which “secure country” is being spoken of in the above signs, and associated with the
Ṭūr? Is it not the same country mentioned in the following?

{I do swear by this country * And you are a dweller in this country * And a
father and what he begets}…[90:1-3].

Who, other than Muḥammad (P), is being addressed here? If the Ṭūr is in Egypt, or
Palestine, then why did Allah associate it with “The Country”? And which country is it
then? If, by now, you have jumped to the conclusion that the Ṭūr is near the city of
Makkah, in the southern Ḥijaz, then you need to pause and think a bit: Where, in the
vicinity of Makkah, can we find green mountains? Are there any grape orchards or fig,
olive, and pomegranate trees anywhere within 500 kilometers of that city?

When you read the precise details given to Muḥammad (P) in the Qur’ān, concerning the
place where Mūsa (P) had heard the divine call, you will immediately realize that
Muḥammad (P) must have known that very spot like he knew the palm of his own hand:

{So when he reached it, he was called from the edge of the right side of the
valley at the blessed area of the tree: "O Mūsa it is I, Allah, the Rabb of all
peoples."}…[28:30]

This fact is even more obvious in the following:

{And you (O Muḥammad) were not on the western slope when We decreed
the command to Mūsa . You were not a witness * And We established many
nations, and many ages passed them by. And you were not living among the
people of Midyan, reciting Our revelations to them. But We were to send
messengers * And nor were you on the side of the Ṭūr when We called. But
it is a mercy from your Rabb, so that you may warn a people who received
no warner before you, perhaps they may take heed}…[28:44-46]

To elaborate on what we are saying, consider the following example: Would someone,
describing certain important past events to you, dear reader, say: “I was there, at the
corner of Palm Street and 12th Avenue, under the great elm tree. I saw it happen”, if that
place wasn’t in your own neighborhood or, at the very least, very familiar to you? What
sense would such details make if it wasn’t? Muḥammad knew very well where the Ṭūr
was. It was in the Secure Country, in the vicinity of Midyan, to whose inhabitants Allah’s

108
messenger Shu‘ayb (P) was sent in the bygone days. It was in Mūsa’s very footsteps that
Muḥammad (P) walked. It cannot possibly be any other way.

Concerning Seenā’, Ibn Manẓour, author of Lisan’ul ‘Arab (Lit: The Arabic Tongue),
says the following in his famous book:

‫ إال أنه‬،‫ فهو على وزن علباء‬،"‫ ومن قرأ "سيناء‬.‫ فإنها ال تنصرف‬،"‫ فمن قرأ "سيناء" على وزن "صحراء‬... ]
‫ شجرة ؛ حكاه أبو حنيفة عن‬: ‫ السينين ّية‬.‫ وليس في كالم العرب فعالء بالكسر ممدود‬.‫ فال ينصرف‬،‫اسم للبقعة‬
.[...‫ وجمعها سينين‬،‫األخفش‬

In the above passage, Ibn Manẓour discusses the difference (or the relation) between the
terms Seenā’, as in Ṭūr Seenā’ (which appears in 23:20) and Seeneen, as in Ṭūr Seeneen
(which appears in 95:2). He suggests that Seenā’ is the actual name of the area or the spot
of land; whereas Seeneen is the plural of seeniniyya, which is a type of tree.

In his book entitled The Arabs, The Semitics, the Hebrews, and the Children of Israel,
(1991), scholar and researcher Aḥmad Dāwūd says:

‫الرب لموسى في نار الع ّليقة‬

ّ ‫ حيث تج ّلى‬،‫ ويعني جبل العلّيق‬،"‫] إن طور سينا هو في العربية القديمة "طور سيني‬
‫ وليس المقصود به جبال في صحراء سينا التي لم تكن تعرف هذه التسمية‬.‫ وخاطبه منها‬،‫المشتعلة على الجبل‬
.[ ‫ وحتى القرن الرابع ما بعد المسيح‬،‫طيلة تاريخها ما قبل الميالد‬

Paraphrase: [Ṭūr Seenā’ was known by its ancient name of Ṭūr Seeniy, and the name
means “Mountain of Blackberries”. It is where Allah spoke to Mūsa in the fire of the
burning blackberry tree. It has nothing to do with the present-day Sinai Peninsula,
which was not known by that name before the Fourth Century A.D].

What is worth noting here is Dāwūd’s indication of a phenomenon that we will encounter
very often on our quest to recover Arabia’s lost history. This phenomenon consists of
hijacking the names of locations (towns, mountains, rivers, etc…) or tribes - whether they
are mentioned in the Qur’ān or in the Old Testament - and projecting them onto
geographical regions that have absolutely no connection to the original names
whatsoever. Most notable among those names are: Seenā’, Yathrib, Makkah, Bakkah,
Midyan, and Miṣr. By the time we reach the end of our journey, we will have come
across hundreds of examples of this fraud.

Despite the fact that we disagree with Aḥmad Dāwūd about the origin and meaning of the
name Seenā’ we have to give him credit regarding what he said about the famous
peninsula having gotten its name sometime during the Fourth Century A.D. His
observation is actually spot on. In fact, many Jewish and Christian scholars are pretty
much unanimous that it was Emperor Constantine (died in 377 A.D), who gave that

109
Biblical name to the triangular peninsula lying between Egypt and Palestine. Among
those scholars, for example, is John D. Keyser, who stated the following: “It has been a
common belief in the Christian world, since the time of Constantine, that the so-
called Sinai Peninsula is in fact the location of the legendary mountain mentioned in
both the Old and New Testaments, and where God is said to have spoken to Moses.
What the vast majority of people don’t know is the fact that choosing the peninsula
as the site of the Biblical mountain was in fact the result of Emperor Constantine’s
personal opinion”. In fact, some scholars have even claimed that Constantine (or his
mother, in certain cases) formulated this opinion based solely on a vision he/she saw in a
dream! This information is easily found in books of theology as well as articles available
on the internet.

There is absolutely no constructive, physical, or documented evidence that the so-called

“Sinai Pennisula” was ever called by that name before the Christian age. The ancient
Greek and Roman geographers, cartographers and explorers, drew thousands of maps of
the region, and not one map or record of their journeys gave the peninsula that name. Not
even famous Jewish historian Josephus, who lived shortly after the time of Jesus, located
Mount Sinai there. The name was falsely projected onto that geographical location based
solely on the whims of a 4th Century ruling Roman figure. It is no more than a Christian
tradition. Constantine dreamed it there, and the world has been caught in his dream for
over sixteen centuries!

On the other hand, it is more logical to assume - from the context of the Qur’ānic
passages and our knowledge of how the residents of Arabia named their lands from the
most ancient times until the present day - that Seeneen is the name of the mountain
itself, while Seenā’ designates the name of the geographical spot. This is in fact in line
with what Ibn Manẓour said in his definition, and fully conforms with a very old Arabian
tradition of naming cities or spots of land in a similar way. Notable examples are: San‘ā’
(the capital of Yemen), Karbalā’ (a city in Iraq), Baṭḥā’ (a plain along the Euphrates
River in Iraq), etc…

Assuming the tree which grows on Ṭūr Seeneen and produces the greasy or oily
substance is indeed the olive tree; do you think, dear reader that olive trees don’t grow in
Arabia? Do you think that the figs and pomegranates mentioned in the Qur’ān are
exclusive to Palestine?

{And He is the One Who initiated gardens; both trellised and untrellised;
and palm trees, and plants, all with different taste; and olives and
pomegranates, similar and not similar. Eat from its fruit when it blossoms
and give its due on the day of harvest; and do not waste. He does not like
the wasteful}…[6:141]

110
If you do, then you better reconsider; because there is a green, fertile and forgotten corner
of Arabia; a land of green mountains and abundant rivers, where such trees have grown
for over five thousand years. It is a land that receives easily fifty times more rainfall than
Egypt does on any given year. And it is not Makkah, nor anywhere in the Ḥijaz, for that
matter.

Here are some photos of that land:

Picture #24: Terraced mountainside near the city of Ibb (Yemen).

Picture #25: Wooded mountains near the city of Ta’iz (Yemen).

111
Picture #26: A ṭūr (green mountain) in south ‘Aseer, near the city of Abha.

Picture #27: A mountain fig tree near Abha...

Picture #28: …and a close-up view of its fruit.

112
 Picture #29: Olives in Ḥeznah, Ghamed Province (South-Western Saudi Arabia).

Picture #30: Olive trees on the banks of a river in Daḥeel (SW Saudi Arabia).

Picture #31: Pomegranates ready for harvest, near Ṣa‘da (Yemen)

In the story of the heifer is another important clue as to the location of Ṭūr Seeneen. After
the drowning of Far‘awn and his henchmen, and the incident of the golden calf, the
Qur’ān relates to us the following event:

113
{And Mūsa said to his people: "Allah orders you to slaughter a cow." They
said: "Do you mock us?" He said: "I seek refuge with Allah that I not be of
the ignorant ones." * They said: "Call upon your Rabb for us, that He may
clarify what type it is." He said: "He says it is a cow neither too old nor too
young, but of middle age. So now do as you are commanded."* They said:
"Call upon your Rabb for us, that He may clarify what color it is." He said:
"He says it is a yellow cow with a strong color, pleasing to those who see
it." * They said: "Call upon your Rabb for us that He may clarify which one it
is, for the cows all look alike to us; and we will, Allah willing, be guided." *
He said: "He says it is a heifer which was never subjugated to plough the
land, or water the crops, free from any blemish." They said: "Now you have
come with the truth." And they slaughtered it, though they had nearly not
done so}…[2:67-71] The Qur’ān also tells us that Mūsa (P) travelled across the land
in the company of livestock: {“And what is in your right hand O Mūsa ? * He
said: "It is my staff, I lean on it, and I guide my sheep with it, and I have
other uses in it."}…[20:17,18]

The above passages - in addition to the signs we analyzed previously in the story of
Yūsuf - reveal to us that the region in which the Ṭūr was located - where Allah spoke to
Mūsa - was a fertile, mountainous region, with many rivers and flowing streams, volcanic
peaks (there are no volcanoes in the Sinai Peninsula, nor in Palestine), and pastoral lands
where livestock could graze. It was a land that Muḥammad (P) knew very well, and
whose territory he was familiar with. This land was not in Egypt, nor in Palestine. Only
the Sarāt Country of South-West Arabia fits all these criteria.

Picture #32: Hikers in the Sinai Peninsula. Does it look like a land where livestock can graze?

114
 Picture #33: A more likely candidate: green fields in Dhemar Province (Yemen)

 Flight to Midyan

If we take the theory that Midyan is in North Arabia at face value, while stubbornly
insisting that Miṣr = Egypt, sooner or later we will find ourselves stumbling in front of
another geographical absurdity. The Qur’ān recounts to us that Mūsa (P), at an earlier
stage of his life, accidently killed a man. Consequently, he was forced to flee from Miṣr,
to seek refuge in Midyan:

{And a man came running from the farthest part of the madeenah, saying:
"O Mūsa , the commanders are plotting to kill you, so leave immediately. I
am giving you good advice * He exited the city, afraid and watchful. He said:
"My Rabb, save me from the wicked people." * And as he traveled towards
Midyan, he said: "Perhaps my Rabb will guide me to the right
path}…[28:20-22]

Which madeenah was Mūsa (P) in when he killed the man? Who are the commanders
who were plotting to kill him? If you go back to the beginning of Surah 28, you will
immediately see that the madeenah (often translated as “city”) being spoken of is none
other than Miṣr, where Mūsa was raised as a child in Far‘awn’s own house! The
commanders are therefore Far‘awn’s personal militia. Now, if we take a look at the next
map and see where the currently popular belief theorizes Midyan to be in relation to
Egypt, the illogical implications of Mūsa’s journey will immediately become apparent to
us.

115
According to the Qur’ānic account, Mūsa spent eight to ten ḥajj periods working for a
Midyanite family, after having struck a deal with an elderly man who would later become
his father in law. There is widespread belief among Muslims that the elderly man was the
prophet Shu‘ayb; however, there is no indication in the Qur’ān that this is the case.
Although Shu‘ayb (P) was indeed sent as a messenger to the people of Midyan, there is
no conclusive proof that he was even a contemporary of Mūsa (P).

{So after Mūsa fulfilled his obligation and was traveling with his family, he
saw a fire on the slope of the green mountain. He said to his family: "Stay
here, I have seen a fire, perhaps I can bring you from there some news or a
burning piece of the fire so that you may be warmed * So when he reached
it, he was called from the edge of the right side of the valley at the blessed
area of the tree: "O Mūsa , it is I, Allah, Rabb of all peoples”}…[28:29,30]

It was there, in the wilderness outside of Midyan, in a place that was very well familiar to
Muḥammad (as we have seen), that Mūsa heeded the divine calling that would
eventually lead him back to a confrontation with Far‘awn and his henchmen. Mūsa, at
first, was reluctant to go because he had a killed a man in Miṣr: {…These are two
proofs from your Rabb, to Far‘awn and his commanders; for they are a
wicked people” * He said: "My Rabb, I have killed a soul from among them,
so I fear that they will kill me”}…[28:32,33]

Eventually, Mūsa did go back, along with his brother Hārūn, to confront the tyrant who
had raised him as a child. If Midyan is taken to be in northern Ḥijaz, the question that
poses itself here is the following: exactly how many times did Mūsa make the trip from
Egypt, across the so-called “Sinai Peninsula” and into Arabia? Let’s study the following
map, shall we?

Map #8: Mūsa ’s imaginary trail across the desert

116
The distance between the Nile Delta area and Midyan is no less than 500 kilometers of
inhospitable desert, with virtually no fresh water sources whatsoever. The triangles
shown on the map are the three most popular candidates for the location of the actual Ṭūr
Seenā’. We have already seen that a number of Judeo-Christian scholars are in favor of
the “Arabian Sinai” theory as the most feasible one, which means that Mount Sinai is in
fact within the territory of Midyan (this last particular point fully agrees with the Qur’ān).
The problem however, is how Mūsa (P) could have made that journey no less than three
times! Furthermore, why would anyone living in Egypt travel 500 kilometers on foot to
seek refuge in Midyan? There is something blatantly wrong about the entire geography.
Although it is clear from the Qur’ān that the Ṭūr was in the vicinity of Midyan, both
landmarks were projected onto the wrong region. They cannot be in northern Arabia.

There is in fact a fifth candidate for the location of Ṭūr Seenā’; a candidate whose voice
has been silent (or silenced) for ages unmemorable. This contender for the coveted
location whispers to us, every now and then, from a mysterious passage in the Old
Testament itself, which most Christian and Jewish laymen are completely unfamiliar
with:

God came from Teiman (Teman), the Holy One from Mount Pharan (Paran)
Selah His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise
(Habakkuk - 3:3)

Biblical scholar and archeologist Michael S. Sanders, in his award winning website,
brings to our attention the fact that many Muslims consider the above passage to be
unquestionable proof that the Bible actually foretold the coming of Muḥammad (P). This
is because Pharan (or “Paran”, as it appears in some translations) is, according to popular
Islamic belief, a name given to the mountains surrounding present-day Makkah, in
Southern Ḥijaz (Makkah doesn’t even appear on the above map, because it is too far to
the south). Many Judeo-Christian scholars tend to keep this obscure Biblical passage “in
the closet” - so to speak - and avoid commenting on it; not because it mentions the name
“Pharan”, but because of the obscurity of “Teiman”, a name whose implications they
have failed to understand, or perhaps have been too afraid to contemplate. The Muslims,
on the other hand, often bring it up as proof of the alleged “holiness” of Makkah. The
name “Pharan” also appears in (Genesis - 21: 19-22), as the place where Ibrāheem’s
“bond maiden”, Hāgar, and her son Ismā‘eel are said to have ended up after the
Patriarch’s jealous wife, Sarah, ordered her husband to expel them from her home. The
problem with the Muslim claim, however, is that according to Habakkuk, Pharan is
located in Teman (or “Teiman”, in some translations). This name has no relation to the
Ḥijaz region whatsoever.

117
This passage in Habakkuk, with which we conclude our first book, will ultimately prove
to be the downfall of the Islamic creed concerning who Muḥammad (P) was and where
he lived and preached. It is a name that will eventually expose the greatest blasphemy
against Allah perpetrated by those who call themselves “Muslims”. For now, however, it
suffices to say that Teman is, in fact, Yemen. (Think of the Temanim Jews, dear reader,
and you will immediately make the connection). Consequently, by cross-referring to
another Biblical passage, we conclude that both Ṭūr Seenā’ and Midyan were in Yemen:

And he said: The Rabb came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He
shined forth from mount Pharan, and He came from the myriads holy, at His
right hand was a fiery law unto them (Deuteronomy - 33:2)

There is only one place on the face of this planet where we can find a mountain by the
name of Jabal al-Nabi Shu‘ayb (The Mountain of the Prophet Shu‘ayb). It is Yemen, and
here is a photo of the mountain:

Picture #34: Jabal Shu‘ayb, west of San‘ā’ (Yemen)

Map #9: Location of the mountain.

118
The stories of the Biblical Israelites, their kings, prophets, and poets, did not take place in
Egypt or in Palestine. Their theatre was in South Arabia, specifically in the mountainous
region along the Red Sea coast, from the southernmost valleys of ‘Aseer, all the way
down to the coast of ‘Adan, and in the highlands and plains bordering the Ḥaḍramawt
valley and extending northwards towards Najrān. Those are the most fertile and greenest
areas in all of Arabia. The ancient Greeks, and the Romans after them, gave that region
the name “Arabia Felix”; meaning: “Happy Arabia” or “Fortunate Arabia”, because of its
fabulous riches and resources. This was in contrast to “Arabia Deserta” (the name given
to the central part of the Peninsula) and “Arabia Petrea” (meaning “Rocky Arabia” - the
name given to the northern part of the Ḥijaz, towards Jordan and the Levant).

Map #10: A topographic map showing the theater of the Biblical events (the black circle).

*****

119
 Conclusion

{And We have not sent before you (O Muḥammad) except men to whom We
gave inspiration, from among the people of the towns. Will they not roam
the land and see how the punishment of those before them was dealt? And
the abode of the Hereafter is far better for those who are aware. Do you not
comprehend?}…[12:109].

{Many nations have come before you (O people of Muḥammad), so roam the
land and see how the consequence was for the deniers}…[3:137]

So where do we roam? Where were those towns? And where was the Mother of Towns?

We have been looking everywhere but the right place. What have we found? We have
been misguided from the truth by a league of corruptors and deceivers who have hijacked
our history to achieve their own selfish ends, and scattered the legacy of Allah’s
messenger’s to lands that they never set foot upon. At what price?

Finally, we put before you again, dear reader, the same two images of Far‘awn that were
the starting point of our journey. Will you choose the Arabian image? Or will you insist -
after all the evidence we have shown you - on stumbling along in the dark night of the
Septuagint illusion and choosing the Egyptian version? Or will you at least pause and
think, and wait for more proof (and rest assured that more is coming), before transmitting
your beliefs to your children and grandchildren; and research more into the matter, until
you see the light of dawn?

To be continued in Book II…

120
 Notable References

1) Books:

The Qur’ān

The Old Testament

Call of the Sarāt: Hijacking the Geography of the Prophets - The Tajdeed Society of Bahrain (2005)

La Cite D’Isis - Histoire Vraie des Arabes - Pierre Rossi (1976)

Palestine is not the Promised Land - Jameel Effarah (2002)

The Invention of the Jewish People - Shlomo Sand (2009)

2) Websites & Online Articles:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kmt.htm

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007059

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/ancient-egypt-had-no-pharaohs/

http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191

http://best.berkeley.edu/~mesa/comm/group_1/louis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_Stela

http://creationwiki.org/Famine_stele

http://www.hope-of-israel.org.nz/midiansinai.html

http://www.centre4sinai.com.eg/jebel.htm

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/04/In-Search-of-Mt-Sinai.aspx

http://www.yemeneconomist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1060:2009-05-24-18-
10-19&catid=45:2009-02-18-21-54-16&Itemid=55

http://www.manaralyemen.com/news-351.html

121
http://www.almosafr.com/forum/t41504.html

http://www.biblemysteries.com/moses.htm

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/whereismidian.htm

______________

122
What happens when you lose sight of an ancient civilization? What happens when the history
of an entire era is hijacked? What happens when you take away the legacy of a nation? What
happens when you violate the sanctity of a human being; of all mankind? What happens when
all this comes to pass? Is the truth irrevocably lost? Or does it hide from sight, only to return
after a while, as the Dwellers of the Cave returned to the City? And can the people of the City
suffer the return of the Cave Dwellers? Or will darkness endure in the City? Will the Nile Valley
accept the return of the Egyptian civilization? Or will Miṣr remain in the City? Will the land of
Yemen accept the return of Ibraheem’s ancestors? Or will their memory be forever imprisoned
in Iraq? Can the Sarawāt Mountains of forgotten Arabia suffer the return of the Patriarch and
his descendants Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb? Or will their legacy be held hostage indefinitely in the
wilderness of the Levant? Will Yūsuf and Mūsa return to their homeland on the green slopes of
Ḥimyar? Or are they doomed to tarry forever in the desert of rabbinical lies? Will ancient Ṣan‘ā’
ever sing its Psalms again, heralding the return of its sons, Dāwūd and Sulaymān? Or will their
memory be eternally lost in Palestine and the passages of the Orientalist translations of the Old
Testament?

Is there anyone on this Earth who will listen to the call of the Sarawāt Mountains and pave the
way for the truth to return to the City?

And will the people of the City welcome the return of the truth?

____________

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Disclaimer 3
Dedication 4
Spelling and Transliteration 6

Preface 8

The Invention of a National Identity 16

 The London Conference and Establishment of the “Buffer State” 17
 Marketing the Lie 19
 The Khazarian Conspiracy 22
 The “Hebrew” Deception 26
 “Hebrew” - A Name, or a Description? 34

CHAPTER I: Abraham’s Journey: Separating the Truth from the Myth 37

 Ibraheem’s Original Homeland 40

 The Location of the “Blessed Land” - Religious Confusion 44
 The Jealous Wife 48
 Trip to Egypt? 54

CHAPTER II: Al-Hamadāni’s Testimony 58

 Coincidences (1-20): Beer-Sheba 65

 Coincidences (21-31): Beth-El 80
 Hebron 88

CHAPTER III: Peoples, Tribes and Trees 97

 Who were the Biblical Canaanites? 98

 Egypt vs. Msrim 103
 The People of Lot 110
 The Tribe of ‘Ād 117
 The Tribe of Thamūd 123
 Trees and Roots: The Great Scandal 129

CONCLUSION 134

References 135

2
 Disclaimer

This book is not the work of one person, nor can any single person lay claim to its contents. It is
a compilation of many works; an assemblage of book passages, sayings, quotes, interviews, and
articles most of which have been translated from Arabic to English for your convenience, and
compiled into one volume. It is not to be published, for those responsible for its compilation
have no legal right to publish it in any way, shape or form; nor do they seek any material gain
from it. It has been made available for free and is for you, dear knowledge-seeker, to read in
the privacy of your own home, and to share with your friends or loved ones as you see fit.

The message of this book is directed first and foremost to those who call themselves
“Muslims”, especially those among them who can read and understand Arabic, as they have the
utmost obligation and responsibility towards their non-Arab brothers and sisters in the faith.
This is because only those who can speak and read the original language of the Qur’ān are
qualified to assess the credibility of the Arabic sources used as references, and to judge the
accuracy of the translation of Qur’ānic passages to English. In no way does this imply that
Christians or Jews - especially those who are not content with the beliefs they have inherited
from their parents or communities, and who feel an urge to search for the truth - cannot
benefit from its message. The book is mainly concerned with history, geography and
archeology, and most of the information contained within it is of special relevance to the
followers of the other “Abrahamic” faiths as well.

_____________

3
We dedicate this endeavor to all of humanity.

May it contribute to our awakening.

4
 ARABIA
The Untold Story

Book 2: Road of the Patriarch

Compiled by:

The Badr Society for Cultural Research

2012

5
 Spelling and Transliteration

The following is a spelling and transliteration guide, to help non-speakers of Arabic grasp the
actual pronunciation of certain Arabic letters.

a = ‫( أ‬short alif ) when it comes at the beginning of a word. Examples: amr )‫(أمر‬, aseer )‫(أسير‬,
alam )‫(ألم‬.
_________
’= ‫ ( أ‬short alif ) when it comes in the middle or the end of a word. Examples: ma’kal )‫(مأكل‬,
ma’wa )‫(مأوى‬, Saba’ )‫(سبأ‬, naba’ )‫(نبأ‬.

OR, ( hamzah ). Examples: jā’ )‫(جاء‬, mā’ )‫(ماء‬, Qur’ ān )‫(قرآن‬

_________

ā = (long alif ). Examples: asmā’ )‫(أسماء‬, anwār )‫(أنوار‬, aqlām )‫(أقالم‬.

_________

th = ‫( ث‬thā’ ). Examples: Yathrib )‫(يثرب‬, thawāb )‫(ثواب‬, thaman )‫(ثمن‬.

_________

dh = ‫( ذ‬dhāl ). Examples: dhahab )‫(ذهب‬, ādhān )‫(آذان‬, dhakar )‫(ذكر‬.

_________

ḥ = ‫( ح‬ḥā’ ). Examples: ḥamal )‫(حمل‬, ḥoot )‫(حوت‬, Ḥimyar )‫(حِم َير‬.

_________

ṣ = ‫( ص‬ṣād ). Examples: Ṣāleh )‫(صالح‬, ṣiyām )‫(صيام‬, aṣnām )‫(أصنام‬.

_________

ḍ = ‫( ض‬ḍād ). Examples: Ramaḍān )‫(رمضان‬, ḍalāl )‫(ضالل‬, ghaḍab )‫(غضب‬.

_________

ṭ = ‫( ط‬ṭā’ ). Examples: ṭūr )‫(طور‬, bāṭil )‫(باطل‬, ṭāreq )‫(طارق‬.

_________

ẓ = ‫( ظ‬ẓā’ ). Examples: ẓaheera )‫(ظهيرة‬, ẓalām )‫(ظالم‬, shawāẓ )‫(شواظ‬.

_________

‘ = ‫‘( ع‬ayn ). Examples: ‘iqāb )‫(عقاب‬, a‘rāb )‫(أعراب‬, Far‘awn )‫(فرعون‬.

_________

6
gh = ‫( غ‬ghayn ). Examples: ghayth )‫(غيث‬, ghafoor )‫(غفور‬, raghd )‫(رغد‬.
__________

q = ‫( ق‬qāf ). Examples: qitāl )‫(قتال‬, qalam )‫(قلم‬, Quraysh )‫(قريش‬.

__________

h = ‫( هـ‬hā ). Examples: Hūd )‫(هود‬, hadiyy )ّ‫(هدي‬, wahn )‫(وهن‬.

__________

Note: Aside from proper nouns (the names of prophets or geographical locations), certain
terms that appear in the Arabic text of the Qur’ ān have been left un-translated for the time
being, as we have yet to find accurate substitutes for them in English. Consequently, those
terms have been left as they are, and transliterated for the convenience of non-speakers of
Arabic.

__________

7
 Preface

The events described in the Old Testament did not take place in ancient Palestine. They took
place in the Sarāt Country of South-West Arabia; the region of highlands and mountains
bordering the Red Sea coast and extending from the southern border of the ‘Aseer province of
Saudi Arabia, all the way down to the coast of ‘Ādan in Yemen. Hence, the Children of Israel
were an ancient Arabian tribe of the legendary Qaḥtān branch (the Old Testament “Joktan”); and
the creeds of both Judaism and the Naṣrāniyya (the source of Pauline Christianity) were born
among them, then spread from their original homeland of Arabia to other regions of the ancient
world, carried on the wings of the so-called “Semitic” migrations.

It is here, at the very start of this intricate part of our quest, where we must take a pre-emptive
stance against the usual baseless and slanderous accusations that are thrown our way, no sooner
than we open our mouths to declare the shattering truth regarding the geography of the prophets:
The claim that we are in league with the imperialist West, and encouraging the Zionists to annex
and occupy the southern part of Arabia. In fact, those who make this claim are not only
unknowingly marketing the baseless ideology of the “Promised Land” - regardless of where that
land may be - but are also confusing two very distinct concepts: Israelite and Jew. This often
overlooked fact leads us to the following question: Why is Judaism defined today as being
a race?

This question keeps posing itself day after day in our modern age, and will probably continue to
do so as long as the contradiction persists between sound logic and instinctive truth on the one
hand and the Zionist propaganda based on fundamental and racist rabbinical teachings on the
other. It is a fact that any religious creed can be equally adopted by people of various races and
colors; whether they are Africans, Asians, or Europeans. How on Earth did Judaism become an
exception to this rule, and present itself as a “pure race”, unlike any other creed known in the
world? Take a look at those who embrace Catholicism, for instance: you will find, among them,
Arabs, Spaniards, Mexicans, Nigerians, even a small number of Japanese. Likewise, the Sunni
creed has been adopted by people of all races and colors; from Arabs, to Afghans, to Senegalese,
to Germans. How is it that the world came to view Judaism as the sole exception to this
phenomenon? How can the Jews claim the purity of their so-called “race”, and reserve for
themselves the exclusive (albeit baseless) label of “Semitic”, when the whole world has, for
ages, witnessed the existence of Jews of various races and ethnicities? How can a Moroccan Jew,
for example, be of the same “race” as a Russian Jew, a Peruvian Jew, or even a Persian or an
Ethiopian Jew? Is their claim not an insult to all the known social, racial, and geographical
principles? Does it not defy common sense?

If we analyze the rampant use of the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” today, we will find that they are
considered to be synonymous, and are often used interchangeably, even by those who call

8
themselves Muslims. Hence, the common belief is that every Jew is an Israelite, and vice versa.
The problem with this assumption is that it blatantly contradicts the Qur’ān. Allah’s final
scripture distinguishes very clearly between the concepts of Bani Isrā’eel (the Israelites) and
Yahūd (Jews). The two are not synonymous, as the deluded occupants of Palestine and the vast
majority of Muslims believe. According to the Qur’ān, Bani Isrā’eel were the descendants of
a single man named Isrā’eel. It is worth noting here that the ancient tribes of Arabia were very
often named after a fatherly figure. (Whether that figure was historical or legendary is another
issue altogether). Famous examples of this phenomenon include: Bani Umayyah (the
descendants of a man named Umayyah), Bani Hāshim (the descendants of a man named
Hashim), Bani Qurayẓah (the descendants of a man named Qurayẓah), Bani ‘Abbās (the
descendants of a man named ‘Abbās).

{Those are the ones whom Allah has blessed from among the prophets from the
progeny of Ādam, and those We carried with Nūḥ, and from the progeny of
Ibraheem and Isra’eel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the
revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fall down prostrating, and in
tears}…[19:58]

So as you can see, this man, Isra’eel, lived not too long after the time of Ibraheem, which places
him close to Ya‘qūb and Isḥāq (chronologically speaking). This was long before Judaism even
existed as a creed.

{Or do you say that Ibraheem and Isma‘eel and Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb and the Clans
were Jewish or Nazarenes?" Say: "Are you more knowledgeable or is Allah?" Who
is wicked than the one who conceals a testimony with him from Allah? Allah is not
unaware of what you do}...[2:140]

Furthermore, the Qur’ān denies that Judaism is a tribe, national identity or race, and very clearly
identifies it as being a millah, which means religious creed:

{Neither the Jews nor the Nazarenes will be pleased with you (O, Muḥammad) until
you follow their creed (millah). Say: "The guidance is the guidance of Allah." And if
you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then there is
none who can help or protect you against Allah}…[2:120]

{And they said: "Be Jewish or Nazarenes so that you may be guided!" Say: "No,
rather the creed (millah) of Ibraheem, monotheism; for he was not of the
polytheists.}…[2:135]

As can be seen from the above, the believers during Muḥammad’s time were being pressured to
adopt the creed of the Jews or the Naṣāra, so that they may be saved. How does one adopt
a race?

Throughout history, the Judaic creed was accepted by various groups of people of distinct
ethnicities, living in various geographical locations. It was also denounced by innumerable

9
individuals and groups, much the same as any other religious creed. The leaders of the Zionist
propaganda machine succeeded in deceiving humanity, by convincing the masses that Judaism is
a race and a national identity. Consequently, whenever any individual or group embraced the
creed throughout history, they automatically became a “Descendant of Jacob”, and were given
title deed to the alleged “Promised Land” in Palestine. This was done irrespective of what that
individual or group’s background, nationality or ethnicity may have been, and regardless of
whether their adoption of Judaism was before the Christian era, in the 11 th Century or even the
20th Century AD. And the most spectacular example of this deceitful phenomenon that we will
eventually come across in this book is the story of the Khazars, a Turkic people who lived north
of the Caucasus Mountains, and who converted from pagan worship to Judaism sometime during
the 8th Century AD.

Although it may sound strange to many people; the Qur’ān clearly says that the entire lineage of
prophets, starting from Nūḥ and down to Muḥammad (P), lived in the same geographical region.
Nowhere does the Qur’ān associate the Israelites with Palestine. Allah’s final divine scripture
recounted to Muḥammad’s people the story of their own ancestors. The age-old presence of the
Israelites as well as Judaism in Arabia is clearly attested to in old Arabian poetry. In fact,
Judaism was the creed of the Yemeni kings of the Ḥimyaritic Dynasty, whose reign extended
from 120 BC until the middle of the 6th Century AD, when Ethiopia invaded Yemen at the behest
of Rome.

Sometime between the 11th Century and 9th Century BC, the ancient Israelites established
a substantially large kingdom in the Sarāt Country of South Arabia. The word sarāt literally
means “heights”, and denotes a geographical region encompassing the elevated plateau known as
Najd, as well as the mountainous range stretching from the southern corner of the ‘Aseer region
in the north, all the way down past the “elbow” of Yemen in the south. This region is the
greenest and most fertile strip of land in all of Arabia, and contains many volcanic peaks, some
of which are still active today. In fact, these volcanos played a major role in the destruction of
the town of Lūṭ as well as the People of the Elephant, as we will see later on.

These mountains, with their abundant river valleys and fortified slopes and peaks, the likes of
which are not found anywhere in Palestine, match to the letter the geography of events described
in both the Old Testament and the Qur’ān. The highest peak of the Sarāt is Jabal al-Nabi
Shu‘ayb (Mountain of the Prophet Shuaib) which lies west of Ṣan‘ā’ (Yemen’s capital), and
whose summit is approximately 3,700 meters above sea level.

The valleys of ‘Aseer and Yemen have also been known to harbor breeding grounds for locusts,
up until not too long ago. (So when you think of the Old Testament stories speaking of locusts
and famine which plagued the land of Msrim, you know where to look). It is also the region that
sees the most rainfall in all of Arabia, both in winter and in summer. It is a land known for its
wooded mountains (Tūr), on which trees of many varieties grow, including Junipers, Lote trees
Cedars, Acacia, Bramble, and Cyprus trees. Its mountain slopes have been made into stepped

10
terraces ideal for agriculture, for over 4000 years, and are among the most fertile regions in the
Middle East. Figs, olives, dates, grapes, pomegranates and a wide variety of nuts and seeds are
grown there until today. The honey of Yemen (the legendary Cedar Honey) is greatly prized
globally, and considered one of the finest brands of honey in the world. It is a land known for its
rich livestock grazing grounds as well as for its mineral resources of iron, gold, and copper, some
of whose reserves remain untapped.

There, amid the mountain peaks and valleys stretching along the Red Sea coast, was once an
extravagant domain established and ruled by Dāwūd (P) and inherited by his son, Sulaymān (P).
Many relics of that distant era (the early Iron Age) are still scattered around the county-side,
begging to be excavated. Later on, the Ḥimyarite Jewish monarchs of Yemen established their
kingdom in that same region. In fact, we can safely say that the few Jews who still reside in
Yemen today are the last remnants of the religion in the land of its birth.

South Arabia in general was also a region of great economic and political importance in the
distant past, because of its location at the hub of the trade routes. Ships arriving from as far as
China, carrying spices, ivory and textiles, would dock at the coastal ports of ‘Ādan, and Qāna,
while camel caravans would carry the goods to the Levant and Mesopotamia. It was a land of
trade mediation, caravan service, as well as the primary source of two substances that were
prized to the ancients more than gold: the legendary frankincense and myrrh of Yemen and
Oman. So rich was this land that the Greek and Roman geographers and merchants labeled it
“Arabia Felix”, meaning “Happy Arabia” or “Fortunate Arabia”.

The Red Sea coast, as we will show you in upcoming books, was a territory over which the
Egyptians and the Assyrians (and later the Persians and the Romans) fought many wars. In fact,
a number of monarchs of those ancient empires launched campaigns against the coastal region,
and even delved deep into the heart of Arabia, sacking the prominent city of Najrān on several
occasions. Many ancient Egyptian ruins and relics exist in Arabia, even as far north as the Ḥijāz
region. Until recently, the Saudi rulers (ever the archeological enthusiasts that they are) have
been reluctant to uncover those vestiges. The Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns, which we
were deceived into believing had targeted Palestine, were in fact aimed at Arabia. Archeological
evidence has been unearthed in the city of Taima'a (in the Ḥijāz), which showed that the city
was, at one point, the winter capital for several Assyrian kings, and the launching point of
several military expeditions directed at the Red Sea coast of Yemen, to discipline the rebellious
Arab tribes who had control of the ancient trade routes. In fact, many prominent Arab historians,
among them al-Ṭabari, were unanimous that the so-called Bakht-Naṣar of Assyria (none other
than King Nebuchadnezzar) laid waste to the lands of Ḥijāz and Yemen in the bygone eras. For
centuries, Arab scholars have read those puzzling passages in the history books, and either
dismissed them as delusions or completely ignored them altogether, because they do not conform
to the Zionist version of history that they had been fed.

11
In contrast, no archeological evidence has ever been presented to suggest that such wars had
taken place over Palestinian territory. The land of ancient Palestine has been proven to be
a peripheral region of little importance to the great powers of the time. In fact, it was not until
around 250 BC when the current city of Jerusalem achieved any kind of significance in world
affairs.

The forgotten Sarāt Country, whose history has been shrouded on purpose; hidden from the
consciousness of the world, was the theater of the events surrounding a small yet special tribe
from among the many tribes of ancient Yemen. This tribe, identified as Bani Isra’eel (the
Children of Israel), had an experience somewhere in the slopes and valleys of Arabia’s
highlands, of which it left behind an intricate record. This record can be found today in the five
books of the Old Testament that are called, by convention, “The Torah”. This logbook was, at
one point, very accurate and genuine, and documented the trials and tribulations that the
Israelites went through as they struggled against pagan tribes and underwent a transition from
a life of goat-herding to a sedentary life of agriculture and trade. Eventually, however, the black
hands of corruption and forgery tampered with that record, starting from around the time of the
Babylonian Exile.

The Israelites were not aliens to Arabia, nor did they flee to it from the Levant, as the twisted and
corrupted rampant history tells us. They were among its original inhabitants. The science of
archeology, which the Muslims loathe and despise, is just starting to prove this fact. And this
can be confirmed from all that we know about anthropology as well (the study of human origins,
migrations and settlements), which teaches us that humans, by nature, often flocked to places
that provided them with opportunities for agriculture, game, or trade, until they were forced to
leave by an enemy or invading force, or due to climate changes.

The false history that we have been taught and that we continue to teach our children in the
universities of the East and West, tells us that the Israelites were not originally from Arabia, but
had migrated or escaped to it from Palestine. This, according to the rampant sources, explains the
presence of well-established Jewish communities later on (during Muḥammad’s time), in cities
such as Ṣan‘ā’, Najrān, and Ibb. This false history has managed to convince us that the
documented presence of Jews as “far south” as Yemen was because small bands of them had
migrated there as merchants during the time of King Solomon. (They insist that Sulaymān was
a Jew, that his kingdom was in Palestine, and that the trade relations between ancient Israel and
Sheba, during the 10th Century BC, had dictated that many Jewish merchants move to Yemen!).
And they have been propagating this garbage for centuries, cloaked behind the slogan of “God
Said So”, until modern archaeology began to expose their deception.

What we are proposing here is something radically different than what we have always perceived
as the unquestionable truth: The Children of Israel were not refugees or migrates to Arabia. They
simply originated there. Throughout the years, they benefited from solid leadership and, for
a time at least, unshakable beliefs and principles, which made them very strong, and hence feared

12
and respected by most other tribes. And in an environment as lawless and as harsh as Arabia,
where no more than 20% of the total area is habitable, one must have been very strong indeed to
maintain his wealth and his land, and to protect it from raiders and looters. The time has come
for us to change our perceptions and accept this truth, or we will be forever looking at our history
through the eyes of others; the eyes of those corruptors and forgers who have turned that history
upside down, and dictated to us a twisted account of the entire region.

All the stories of the previous peoples and the messengers that were sent to them, as related to us
in the Qur’ān, had taken place in South Arabia, and nowhere else. And those criminals who
scattered the legacy of the prophets to Egypt, Iraq and the Levant, dividing between father and
son and between brother and brother, will have to answer to Allah for their falsehoods, racism,
and crimes against history and humanity. Until we accept this fact, we will forever be lost in the
desert of Jewish rabbinical delusions and Zionist propaganda.

Throughout ancient history, migration took place from Arabia, not to Arabia. We have been
looking at the picture upside down. It is high time we rotated it and set it right. The ancient
Arabian tribes, falsely labeled as “Semitic” (a racist term coined by an Austrian Zionist in the
19th Century), migrated from Arabia, and moved toward the Levant (Palestine and Syria) and to
Mesopotamia. This fact, often reiterated by the ancient Greek and Roman geographers and
explorers, has now been confirmed by modern anthropology. The ancient Israelites were no more
than one of those many migrating tribes, who eventually established a significant presence in
Palestine, some two centuries after the Babylonian Exile, for reasons that will be evident later on
in our journey. Relocation from Arabia was the correct direction of all ancient displacements of
people, not the other way around.

The first thing that migrating tribes often did was to give the geographical features of their new
home territory the same names that were known in their original homeland. This reflected their
eagerness to keep an emotional linkage with the land of their birth. This process was known to
the ancient Arabs as tayammun (the word is derived from yumn, which carries a sense of good
fortune or optimism). Lebanese scholar Farajallah Ṣaleh Deeb, in his book published in 1988 and
entitled (lit): Yemen is the Origin: The Arabic Roots of Names, provided staggering evidence
that the names of over 200 geographical locations in the Levant (Syria and Lebanon) are actually
names whose original counterparts were in Yemen. In fact, Lebanon itself was named after
a mountain of the same name in Yemen, famous for its snow-caped peak. Likewise, Tyr and
Sidon (two Lebanese cities on the Mediterranean coast) took their names from their original
“parents” in South Arabia. To those who can read Arabic, we highly recommend Deeb’s book.
At any rate, we will take an in-depth look into the phenomenon of migrating names in a later
chapter.

Our ultimate aim in this book is to examine the biography of the Patriarch Ibraheem (P), an
account that was the target of a malicious scheme of corruption perpetrated, on purpose, by
a legion of human devils. This scheme ultimately served one sole purpose: to hijack the history

13
of Arabia for the benefit of imperialist and colonial powers. We will present to you, dear reader,
undeniable proofs that may came as quite shocking, that the story of Ibraheem is a genuine
Arabian legend that has absolutely no relation to Palestine whatsoever. We will prove that
Ibraheem was born somewhere in the central plains of Yemen, not far from the Ḥaḍramawt
valley, then migrated westwards towards the lush green oases of the mountainous Sarāt country,
where he eventually settled in the valley of Bakkah, at the site of the ancient Sanctuary (al-Bayt),
and re-established the tenets of Monotheism in Arabia, thus becoming known as “The Patriarch”.
Ibraheem (P) lived, preached, and died in Arabia, and his grave, according to the legends passed
down for millennia among the tribes of Yemen, is somewhere in that forgotten country. The
legacy of his children, Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb, has been told and retold countless times in the tribal
folk ballads (psalms) of Yemen, and their names are mentioned clearly in the legendary
genealogical trees of that country.

The path of our journey, dear reader, will now take a critical turn, as we uncover the source of
confusion that is evident in the books of the Arab historians concerning Ibraheem’s journey.
Together, we will untangle the webs of the monstrous conspiracy that has marginalized the
Arabian Peninsula, and kept its history shrouded behind a veil of lies and deceit. But before we
do that, we will expose to you the conditions and circumstances that led to the creation of
a Zionist state in Palestine, and how the elements of a Jewish “racial identity” (land, language,
and history) were artificially created, in what was to become the greatest cultural forgery that
mankind has ever known.

*****

14
“It is not a waste of time, proving that others have wasted theirs”.

- Ziād Minah

15
 The Invention of a National Identity

This state shall be, for Europe, a barrier against Asia and a bastion for civilization
in the face of barbarism.

(Theodore Herzl - The Jewish State)

In the year 1948 AD, the Zionist entity known as “Israel” was planted like a thorn in the waist of
the Arab world, in order to keep the region in a state of constant unrest; to single out its various
nations and drain their resources and energies, and to thwart all efforts aimed at unity among its
peoples. The imperialistic powers founded this entity on the basis of lies and fabrications,
coinciding with the time when Zionist propaganda became at the forefront of the Western media.
Once the history of the region was dismantled and re-written to suit their own interests, the entire
stretch of territory encompassing Iraq, the Levant, and Egypt, suddenly became the legacy of the
Jewish ancestors, of whom not a single archeological trace was ever found in the area before the
Babylonian Exile. Consequently, the great pyramids and the Sphinx of Giza became, almost
overnight, a cultural vestige of David Ben-Gurion’s ancestors!

Ask yourself the following question: What does it take to fabricate a national identity from
scratch? The three essential elements that first come to mind are: history, geography, and
language. After hijacking the history of the region and projecting the events described in the Old
Testament from their true theater (South Arabia) onto Palestine, the Zionist Movement
commissioned a Russian Jewish literary figure by the name of Eliezer ben‑Yehuda to invent a
language derived from one of Arabia’s extinct dialects; and thus modern “Hebrew” was born. In
other words, they swallowed an entire nation (from the Euphrates to the Nile) in bright daylight.
It was thus that Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin, and other Europeans of their ilk,
became the sole legitimate inheritors of an ancient Arabian tribe that lived in Yemen! This
historical forgery, the likes of which mankind has never witnessed, eventually led the way to
a mass migration of Jews from all corners of the world. The Zionist program, playing on the
emotions of the religious masses, used the Jews as scapegoats to implement the imperialist plan
of annexing Palestine, by marketing the ideology of its territory being the central part of the
alleged “Promised Land”.

Through this process, The West achieved what it had hoped for all along: to rid itself of a Jewish
population which, by that time, had lost its societal function and begun to constitute a burden for
Europe. This predicament was caused by the massive social and economic changes that had
swept over the continent. The Jews had been living in Europe for centuries, in a state of total
isolation brought about by the nature of the trade they conducted on one hand, as well as the
growing sentiment of antipathy that besieged them, specifically on the part of the Christian
majority, on the other hand. In fact, the label of "A People without a Land" that was used to

16
describe the Jews, was a manifestation of that sentiment. The truth is that the Jews of Europe
were in fact of pure European blood. In other words, a German Jew was indeed a German
national, while an English Jew was likewise an Englishman in every sense of the word. Does this
fact not raise serious questions about the “People without a Land” allegation? But the more
pressing question is: Just how did Judaism become a race and a national identity?

 The London Conference and Establishment of the “Buffer State”

As we write the pages of this book, over a century has passed since the imperialist conference of
London was held, at the behest of Britain, from 1905 until 1907. The London Conference
witnessed the birth of a series of international resolutions that have ultimately led to the current
state of affairs in the Arab World. The Conference was attended by an elite group of Europe’s
most intellectual thinkers and professors in various fields; from economical to commercial; from
political to agricultural, from historical to social; and culminated in the formation of a committee
that represented all the colonial powers during that period. At the end of the two-year
congregation, the Committee presented a recommendation letter to the British Prime Minister at
the time, Campbell Bannerman. Here follows is an excerpt from the infamous Bannerman Report
of 1907, which concluded the Conference:

“There are people (i.e. the Arabs) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and
hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the
cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one
history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one
another … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take
the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.
Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of
this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could
exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for
the West to gain its coveted objects.”

What exactly are those objectives “coveted” by the West? We think the answer is quite obvious:

1- To promote disintegration, division, and separation in the region (the Arab World).

2- To establish artificial political entities (puppet regimes) that would be under the authority of
the imperialist countries.

3- To fight any kind of unity - whether intellectual, religious or historical - and taking practical
measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.

To achieve the above objectives, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine,
populated by a strong, foreign presence that would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to

17
European countries and their interests. And thus the way was paved for the eventual
establishment of the artificial state of Israel. But why a Jewish state in particular?

The answer to that question lay in the societal changes that affected Europe starting from the
second half of the 19th Century. While the Arab Jews of North Africa, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen
lived in total harmony with their societies at the time, the European Jews had been living in
almost total isolation in their ghettos for several centuries and were, to a certain extent, victims
of persecution by the Christian majority. This was brought about in part because of the European
Jews’ own tendency for seclusion and refusal to integrate with their societies at large. Their firm
belief that they were the Israelites of the Bible, and hence “God’s Chosen People”, only added
strength to their conviction that they could not co-exist peacefully with others. As a result, they
could not achieve a harmonious existence in the modern and nationalist states that were
emerging in Europe at the time. The European Jews viewed the ideas of fraternity, equality and
justice for all - the hallmarks of the French Revolution - to be in direct conflict with their beliefs
and to pose a danger to their ideological identity.

On the other hand, the usurious nature of the trade they practiced often invited resentment and
enmity towards them. The Jews did not view their usurious dealings to be shameful or wrong in
any way; on the contrary, they viewed their trade to be divinely decreed to them by God. In fact,
Karl Marx (who was a Jew himself), in his infamous book entitled A World without Jews, once
said of them: “What is the object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his
worldly god? Money”. This comment by Marx was not made from the perspective of a critic as
much as from the perspective of simply stating the facts and explaining how and why the
European Jews (in particular those of Russian, Polish and Hungarian decent) achieved such high
status in their societies, and were able to infiltrate most global corporate and power circles and
centers of decision-making not just in Europe, but in many countries of the former Soviet Union
and the Western world.

Picture #1: Campbell Bannerman

18
And so it was that Europe struck two birds with one stone: they found a solution to an unwanted
Jewish population that had lost its societal function in the continent and, at the same time,
established that same population in the Palestinian territory to serve as a buffer state,
strategically planted at the cross-roads of the Asian and African wings of the Arab world, and
near the Suez canal, to serve the imperialist and colonial interests of the West.

 Marketing the Lie

George Carlin once called religion “the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerations”.
Speaking of false promises, the Zionist movement understood fully that in order to realize their
plan of establishing an alien entity in the heart of the Arab world, they had to play on the
emotions of the religious Jews of Europe, by convincing them that they were the descendants of
the Biblical Israelites, and that the territory of Palestine was the central part of their so-called
“Promised Land”, and the site of the legendary Temple of God, built by King Solomon sometime
during the 10th Century BC. Likewise, the Zionists had to win over the consent of as many
Western Christians as possible, by convincing them that Jesus would not return to Earth until the
Jews were allowed to re-build their temple on the so-called Temple Mount (they insist that the
knoll on which Jerusalem stands is a mountain!). The emotional attachment that many European
and American Christians have had with the city of Jerusalem in particular, facilitated the fruition
of the Zionist scheme.

Hence, Zionism is, at its core, a purely political movement with colonial and imperialist
ramifications. In fact, the intellectual minds (lawyers, business men, and media tycoons) who
strove for the establishment of the so-called “State of Israel” were mostly secular laymen who
simply used religion as a tool to achieve their end, by fooling the religious Jewish and Christian
communities of the West with the mythological creed that the migration of the Jews to the
Palestinian territory would accelerate the coming of the promised Messiah. This is but an
example of how the elite sow infectious superstitions in the minds of the masses, as a means of
social control and manipulation. The belief in Jesus’s return has equally established itself as
a fundamental creed in the “Islamic” faith, despite the fact that it blatantly contradicts the
Qur’ān. But then again, the so-called “Muslims” have made the Qur’ān of no account. They have
been reciting its passages like zombies for centuries, without making even the slightest effort to
understand its message.

At the forefront of this political movement was the secular Hungarian Jewish lawyer and activist
Theodor Herzl, who had a major hand in bringing the Zionist plan to fruition, as he saw in it the
most effective solution to the problem of the Jewish masses that had lost their function in
Europe. Late French scholar and thinker Roger Garaudy emphasized these facts, when he said:
“The spiritual father of Zionism was, without a doubt, Theodor Herzl, who ignited the
imperialist desire for the creation of (Israel) as a buffer state that would benefit the
interests of the West, and spearhead the colonial infiltration into the region”.

19
Herzl worked with utmost dedication to reach his goal. In 1896, he met with the Ottoman Sultan,
‘Abdul’ Ḥameed, whom he tempted with various material inducements. Herzl offered to fully
settle the Ottoman Empire’s national debt in exchange for allowing Jewish immigration and the
establishment of an independent entity in Palestine. Aware of the latent objectives behind Herzl’s
plan, ‘Abdul’ Ḥameed refused the offer, thus angering the Jews, and ultimately bringing about
his downfall at the hands of an association known as the “Young Turkey Movement”, which was
famous for harboring a large number of Jews from among the Dönmeh community (the Dönmeh
were Sephardic Jews, refugees to the Ottoman Empire, having migrated from Western Europe,
especially from Spain, in order to escape the brutality of the Catholic commissions there).

Picture #2: Theodor Herzl

The most blatant fallacy marketed by Herzl was that the Jews of the world constituted one
homogenous “Semitic” nation, while the remainder of humanity were essentially “non-Semitic”.
He concluded that: “If we reside for any length of time, in peace and security, in any society,
then we run the risk of total fusion. This is not in the interest of Judaism”.

As the time for the establishment of the Jewish state neared, the Zionists realized that they
needed to assemble the necessary ingredients for their ideological entity. And so it was that the
greatest historical forgery mankind has ever known began to take shape, as the components of
a Jewish nation were artificially created from scratch. This was done by means of:

1- Hijacking the history of the Levant and claiming it a relic of ancient Israelite culture.
2- Inventing a “Hebrew” language and claiming it to be the ancestral tongue of the Biblical
Israelites.
3- Projecting the events of the Old Testament stories and legends from their true theater (South
Arabia) onto Egypt and the Levant, thus hijacking the geography of Allah’s messengers in the
process.

20
In our first book, The Search for Pharaoh, we gave you a glimpse of how the archeological
excavations in Egypt and Palestine exposed the fallacy of the Zionist interpretation of the
Biblical stories. We will have a more in-depth look at these archeological findings in our
upcoming third book. What we can say for now, with absolute certainty, is that there is zero
documented or physical proof of the presence of the ancient Israelites in Egypt, or any record of
their escape into the so-called “Sinai Peninsula”. Furthermore, archeologists have failed
miserably at proving any significant Jewish presence in Palestine before the 4th Century BC. The
implications of this fact are quite clear: ancient Israel (the Biblical kingdom of Solomon) was
not anywhere in the Levant. This truth has recently begun to dawn even on the neo-historians
and archeologists of the West. Nowhere is this more evident than in the words of Ze’ev Herzog,
Professor of Biblical Archeology at the Tel-Aviv University. In an article posted in the Haaretz
newspaper in 1999, Herzog wrote: “It is apparent that there is a very wide gulf between the
Old Testament accounts of the region’s ancient history and what the excavations on the
ground have actually revealed. Modern science, as we know, does not rely on written
stories, but on physical and archeological findings. And archeology has made enough
progress to be considered an independent science on its own. What is happening in (Israel)
is that we do not want it to be independent. We want the findings to support the Biblical
accounts. This contradicts not only science, but the historical truth as a whole. And if we
want to maintain our credibility in the international academic circles, we have to abide by
the processes of science, not the dogma of politics and ideologies”.

What is perhaps ironic is the fact that this was the same newspaper that, two years earlier,
contained an article in which Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America
(back then), replied to what he called “Lies of the Palestinian Liberation Organization”. In 1997,
Palestinian Professor of history Jared al-Kidwah, made the following bold declaration during a
televised conference: “The events surrounding the kings Saul, David and Rehboam took place
in Yemen. The reason they did not find any ancient (Hebrew) ruins in Palestine is simply
because the Biblical Israelites were never there...Allah is witness to what I say: In my veins
runs more of the blood of ancient Israel than in the veins of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel
Sharon”.

The Zionist reply to Kidwah’s declaration was swift and grave. In a July 1997 issue of Haaretz,
Morton Klein wrote: “Yasser Arafat has failed to condemn the recent lies perpetrated by the
PLO, claiming that there is no relation between modern Jews and the Biblical Israelites. This
contradicts our most basic Jewish beliefs. It seems that Mr. Arafat has understood well the
lesson he got from other dictators of his kind; that the bigger the lie, and the more it is
repeated and reiterated to the public, the more readily the public will perceive it as the
truth. (An allusion by Klein to a famous speech made by Adolf Hitler during a conference of the
Nazi Party on the verge of World War II). It is imperative that Yasser Arafat order his
propagandists to stop spreading these lies and to apologize to the Jewish population of the
world”.

21
Who, then, is the liar? Are the Jews who began migrating to Palestine during the first half of the
20th Century truly the descendants of the Biblical Israelites? Let us see what some Jewish
authors and scholars have said concerning this issue.

 The Khazarian Conspiracy

In the year 1954, American anti-Zionist activist Benjamin Freedman (1890 - 1984) wrote the
following in a letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein (LL.D. of Boston, Massachusetts),
explaining the history of the Khazarian Jews: “The so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ in eastern
Europe in modern history cannot legitimately point to a single ancient ancestor who ever set
even a foot on the soil of Palestine in the era of Bible history. Research also revealed that
the so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ in eastern Europe were never ‘Semites’, are not ‘Semites’
now, nor can they ever be regarded as ‘Semites’ at any future time by any stretch of the
imagination. Exhaustive research also irrevocably rejects as a fantastic fabrication the
generally accepted belief by Christians that the so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ in eastern
Europe are the legendary ‘Chosen People’ so very vocally publicized by the Christian clergy
from their pulpits.” Goldstein’s initial reply to Freedman’s letter was one of genuine
astonishment, as the former had not previously heard any mention of the term “Khazar” in any
historical reference in the United States. The name was completely alien to him. Freedman, a
former Jew who later converted to Catholicism, replied with the following: “That must give
you some idea, my dear Dr. Goldstein, of how successful that mysterious secret power was
with their plot to block out the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom in
order to conceal from the world, particularly from Christians, the true origin and the history
of the so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ in eastern Europe...The Khazars were not ‘Semites’.
They were an Asiatic-Mongoloid nation. They are racially classified by modern
anthropologists as being Turco-Finns. In the 8th Century AD, King Bulan, ruler at that time
of the Khazar Kingdom, decided to abolish the practice of phallic worship and other forms of
idolatrous worship, and to make one of the three monotheistic religions, about which he
knew very little, the new state religion. After a historic session with representatives of the
three monotheistic religions, King Bulan decided against Christianity and Islam, and selected
as the future state religion what was then known as ‘Talmudism’ - and now known and
practiced worldwide as Judaism - This event is well documented in history. After the
conversion of King Bulan, none but a so-called or self-styled ‘Jew’ could occupy the Khazar
throne. The ideologies of the Talmud became the axis of political, cultural, economic and
social attitudes and activities throughout the Khazar kingdom. The Talmud provided civil
and religious law.”

Just what was Benjamin Freedman talking about when he made his bold declaration? Who
exactly were the Khazars, and where was their kingdom located? What were the political
motives behind their adoption of Judaism? It is worth mentioning, before we give you the details,
that in 1951, barely three years before Freedman wrote his famous letter, retired U.S. Military
Intelligence Officer, Col. John Beaty, published a scholarly book entitled Iron Curtain Over
America, wherein he gave overwhelming evidence that the strange race of Eastern European
"Jews" were actually Khazar and Mongol Asiatics, and had no relation to the Biblical Israelites
22
whatsoever. He also proved that these "Jews" had a stranglehold on American politics, on
banking and credit, on all sources of news, on the entertainment industry, on America's education
system, and that they were the predominant race as judges, lawyers, doctors, and even had a hand
in the realm of organized crime. The Jewish news media refused to review the book. Jewish book
dealers refused to handle it. Christian book stores ignored it, and only a few thousand copies
were distributed. Most Americans have never heard of Iron Curtain over America. Now,
however, the book has been reprinted, and is available.

A thousand years before the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel, there existed
a nominally Jewish kingdom on the eastern fringes of Europe - a kingdom that the Zionists and
their allied powers-that-be in the world don’t want you to know about. This was the Kingdom of
the Khazars, and it was located astride the Don and Volga rivers. The Khazars were a Turkic
people who originated in Central Asia and it is believed that reddish hair was predominant
among them, before the Mongol conquests that eventually altered their gene pool. The Khazars
were originally nomads who spoke a Turkic language and believed in Tengri shamanism,
a spiritual religion among whose hallmarks was the worship of the male phallus.

Khazaria extended from the Black Sea to the Caspian and from the Caucasus Mountain range to
the Volga, and its military power played a major role in principal wars in the region. In the early
7th Century AD, the Khazars aided the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (reigned 610-641) in his
campaign against the Persian State. In the 7th and 8th Centuries, they defended the south-eastern
frontier of Europe from invasion by the Arabs. Although victory passed repeatedly from Arab to
Khazar, Arab counterattacks finally compelled the Khazars to permanently withdraw north of the
Caucasus. These hostilities are the so-called Arab-Khazar Wars, which effectively stopped
Islamic incursions into eastern Christendom. Khazaria therefore acted as a buffer state between
the Islamic world and the Christian world, and prevented Islam from significantly spreading
north of the Caucasus Mountains. But there was a problem. By the mid-8th century, Khazaria’s
own power was becoming encroached by two major world powers: the Eastern Roman Empire
centered at Byzantium on one side, and the rapid spread of the Arabs on the other.

The Khazar Empire, representing a significant third force, was courted by the other two powers
that both pressured it to adopt their respective religion. It appeared that Khazaria could only
maintain its political and ideological independence by rejecting both Christianity and Islam, for
either choice would have automatically subordinated it to the authority of the Roman Emperor or
the Caliph of Baghdad. Not wishing to be dominated by either of the two, the Khagan (Khazarian
royal title) did a canny thing: he embraced the Jewish faith in 740 AD, and ordered his subjects
to do the same. By resisting the blandishments of both Byzantium and the Caliphate and deciding
to convert to Judaism, the third monotheistic religion, Khazaria retained its neutrality between
Christianity and Islam. Moreover, adopting Judaism was not only a symbol of political
independence for Khazaria, but it also held the balance of power between Muslim Caliphate and

23
the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Khazarian kingdom reached the zenith of its power during
the 11th and 12th Centuries AD, before the Khazars were eventually defeated and pushed into
Eastern Europe by the Mongol conquest.

Another author who wrote about the Khazars was Arthur Koestler (1905-1983). In his book
entitled The Thirteenth Tribe (published in 1976), Koestler speculates about the ultimate faith of
the Khazars and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He
produces a large body of meticulously detailed research showing staggering evidence that 90%
of the world’s Jewish population are of the Ashkenazi branch, and their lineage can be traced
back to the Khazarian kingdom. Hence the ancestors of the European Jews are not related to the
Biblical Israelites in any way, shape, or form. The implications of this fact is that the term “Anti-
Semitism”, employed by the Zionists to label anyone who voiced an opinion that opposed their
ideology, is a term that is, as Koestler himself put it: “void of meaning and based on a
misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims”. Koestler went on to say: “The
story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most
cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated." In his conclusion, Koestler stated that: "The
evidence presented in the previous chapters adds up to a strong case in favor of those
modern historians - whether Austrian, Israeli or Polish - who, independently from each
other, have argued that the bulk of modern Jewry is not of Palestinian, but of Caucasian
origin”.

As expected, The Thirteenth Tribe caused a stir when published in 1976, since it demolished
ancient racial and ethnic dogmas. At the height of the controversy in 1983, the lifeless bodies of
Arthur Koestler and his wife were found in their London home. Despite significant
inconsistencies in the police report, the couple’s death was ruled a suicide.

What does this tell us? Does it not answer the question of who has been lying and deceiving the
masses for the past century or so? Why don’t we read what the Jewish Encyclopedias themselves
have to say about the Ashkenazi Jews:

- The 1980 Jewish Almanac (page 3):

“Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary

Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.”

- The Jewish Encyclopedia:

“Khazars: A non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe
about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the
seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar
population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of
Yiddish-speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Besserabia and Rumania...

24
Aproximately 96% of all the Jews known to the world today are descendants of the Khazar
tribes of Russia, Eastern Europe and western Mongolia”.

- The American Peoples Encyclopedia:

“In the year 740 A.D. the Khazars were officially converted to Judaism. A century later
they were crushed by the incoming Slavic-speaking people and were scattered over central
Europe where they were known as Jews”.

Our question to you dear reader, is the following: On whom has the joke been? After all that you
have read so far, can you still say that Judaism is a race? How does one “convert” to a race? How
does one suddenly “adopt” a racial identity?

The shattering truth is that the Jews who answered the Zionist call and migrated to the
Palestinian territory in 1948 are European Jews from Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Russia,
Romania, Lithuania and Ukraine), whose ancestry can be traced back to Khazaria. They are
originally a Turkic people whose ancestors never even set foot in the land of Palestine, nor in
Arabia for that matter.

Map #1: The Khazarian kingdom at its peak (10th Century AD)

Conclusion: the Jews who occupy the Palestinian territory today are not the Biblical Israelites.
And here follows is our answer to Morton Klein: What you said concerning the means by which
a lie is propagated and marketed to the masses is absolutely true, and applies to your Zionist ilk,
foremost among all people, and to the propagandists whom you have been financing for the past

25
century. It is you and your criminal ancestors who have hijacked the history of humanity as we
know it, proclaimed yourselves members of a superior “Semitic” race, plundered and raped the
lands of innocents, and perfected the art of lies and deceptions to a degree that would put the
Nazis themselves to shame. Archeology has and will continue to expose the crimes you have
perpetrated against history, and the world is slowly awakening to the truths that you have been
conspiring to hide. Keep on excavating and burrowing the length and width of Palestine. Dig
until you reach the core of the Earth itself. You will never find what it is you seek there. Allah-
willing, you are digging nothing but your own graves”.

 The “Hebrew” Deception

In order for the Zionist movement to successfully hijack the history of the region and plant their
cancerous, racist, and illegitimate entity in the heart of the Arab world, it was necessary to
artificially create the elements required for their so-called “racial nationality”. Foremost among
those elements is language.

“Language is the nation. And the nation is the language. And there is no life for the nation
without a language”. These were the words of Eliezar bin-Yehuda, the man who is credited as
the “reviver” of the so-called “Hebrew” language. Bin-Yehuda understood, ever since the
beginning of the Zionist project, the importance and necessity of this matter for the continuity of
the Jewish “nationality”. In fact, there were many common means used by both the Nazis of
Germany and the Zionist movement to achieve their goals. One of those means was: "Lie, lie, lie
and keep on lying, until eventually, the people will believe you". The Zionists kept on claiming,
since the beginning of their colonial project, that there was once, a long time ago, a divine
language called “Hebrew”, and that it was the language of God’s Chosen People, that was
eventually lost or became “dormant” when the “Hebrews” were scattered and exiled from their
alleged “Promised Land”.

David Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, once said: “The Hebrew language died out,
because it hasn’t been a spoken language for over 2000 years”. This statement, and many
others along its line, were used to explain why the “language” is mysteriously not found in any
ancient dictionary or glossary, and is not mentioned in any historic document the world has ever
known. The fact is, as we will soon conclude, that there was never any language in the entire
region but Arabic and the various dialects that derived from it: Aramaic, Syriac, Old Yemeni,
Amorite, Phoenician, etc…

Encyclopedia Britannica states that: “The original authors of the Old Testament are
unknown; furthermore, it is not certain whether those who compiled it were individuals or
groups. The Old Testament was originally recorded almost exclusively in Hebrew, with the

26
exception of very few passages which were recorded in Aramaic. The first Jewish community
eventually translated the entire text of the Torah (the Five Books) to Aramaic”.

Isn’t it strange that it has never occurred to anyone to ask the following questions?

1- Why was it translated to Aramaic?

2- Who was this “first” Jewish group or community responsible for this translation?
3- If the language had been dead for 2000 years, how did it suddenly “pop up”, alive and well, in
Palestine, in the 20th Century, and coinciding with the return to the alleged “Promised Land”?

Did this “Hebrew” language even exist in the first place? An article written by Professor G.A.
Driver, who taught Modern Hebrew at Oxford University, UK, stated: “The Term ‘Hebrew’ is
actually a creation of the Jewish Rabbis in Palestine, which came at a much later time. This
is proven by the fact that the word was not known or used to refer to the Jews in Russia,
until after the 15th Century”.

The Zionist movement commissioned prominent Russian literary figure Eliezar bin-Yehuda, who
was among the first immigrants to Palestine, to write a linguistic glossary based on an ancient
Arabian tongue, mixed with the Yiddish dialect of the German Jews. Bin-Yehuda wrote the
entire framework for this new language, and sought to spread it among the new Jewish
community in Palestine. Giant French scholar and thinker Pierre Rossi, in his outstanding book
entitled (lit): The City of Isis – the True History of the Arabs (pages 28,29) says: “Modern
Hebrew is an invention of the Russian Eliazar, who published a literary and linguistic
glossary in the period from 1910 until 1922, as was required by the global Zionist
movement, and proposed it as a kind of ‘Esperanto’ for the Jews in all corners of the world,
who had been promised a new home in Palestine. It was nothing but a political tool”. (In
other words, a lie created for political manipulation).

The invention of this “Modern Hebrew” language was a very crucial condition for the success of
the colonial Zionist movement. This language, of which there is not a single mention in any
document, text, or archeological trace, in the entire literary history of the ancient world, suddenly
became a living reality! “No mention of it is found in any of the thousands of cuneiform and
hieroglyphic texts….nor even in any ancient Aramaic document was ever a single reference
to a Hebrew language” (Rossi, page 25).

Eliazar called for making “Hebrew” the language of the age for the new Jewish settlers, to be
spoken by the youngsters in their homes, in their schools, and on the streets. The goal was to
artificially create all the elements needed for a new “racial nationality”. In his excellent study
entitled (lit): Zionist Racism and the Philosophy of Jewish Upbringing, Professor ‘Abdulqāder
Fāris says: “And so Hebrew became the official language; so much so, that the elderly
generations who had immigrated to Palestine were forced to learn it from their children!

27
This is because the fathers who had left their original homelands in Europe, had never heard
of such a language, so they had to learned it from the younger generations”.

Is it possible, dear reader, that all those scholars were delusional? Or is it the Zionist propaganda
machine that has played the public for fools? The fact is that the term “Hebrew” was never
known - by the European Jewish communities - as a term designating a language, until the
1920’s, when the Zionist project began taking shape.

We will show you now, dear reader, a glimpse of the truth that what we have always thought
were independent “Semitic” languages, are in fact nothing but various dialects originating from
one mother language or proto-tongue, so to speak. This fact has been declared time and time
again by anthropologists and linguists since the end of the 19th Century, among them: William
Wright, Paul Edward Dhorme, Sabatino Moscati, Kamāl Ṣaleebi, Pierre Rossi, and many others,
all of whom have successfully demonstrated that the so-called “Semitic” languages did indeed
have one common origin. (Think of it as somewhat like French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian
all being offshoots of the original Latin tongue).

These academics have conducted extensive research on the dialects of Arabia and Mesopotamia,
and found glaring similarities between them, notably: the presence of three-letter verb roots for
the words, the presence of two tenses (past and present) for those verbs, as well as very similar
conjugation structures between them. In all these dialects, there are obvious resemblances among
the pronouns, the words that indicate sibling relationships, the names of body parts, numbers,
and natural phenomena, among others. This led to only one possible conclusion: the original
community from which sprang all the so-called “Semitic” people must have spoken a language
that was most similar to Arabic. In this regard, Sabatino Moscati says: “In light of all the
information that we, as anthropologists have been able to gather, there is now undeniable
evidence which indicates that the wilderness of the Arabian Peninsula is the point of origin
for all Semitic migrations".

Moscati’s observation is in line with that of other academics and scholars of the modern age,
notably Arnold J. Toynbee (1889-1975), and William J. Durant, both of whom have pointed out
that the Arabian Peninsula, specifically its southern part, may well have been the cradle of
human civilization. The implications of this discovery for our study are massive, and it is beyond
the scope of this book to fully elaborate on them. What we can say for now, with a great degree
of certainty, is that what is popularly known as the “Semitic” race - despite our reservations
against the use of this term - most probably originated in the Arabian Peninsula. This is in fact in
line with observations made by the ancient Greek historians, notably Herodotus, who stated that
the inhabitants of Phoenicia were originally immigrants from the Red Sea coast. It was the
ancient migrates from Arabia, starting from the 15th millennium BC, who eventually established
civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant. In the heading entitled “Arabia”, in the
Catholic Encyclopedia, we read the following:

28
“Arabia is the cradle of Islam and, in all probability, the primitive home of the Semitic
race”.

The following table demonstrates a small sample of the similarities between the so-called
“Semitic” languages. The first column (on the left hand side) contains the words in English. The
subsequent columns contain the transliteration of each word in several other languages:

English Ancient Yemeni Modern “Hebrew” Phoenician Syriac Arabic

ّ Father abba ّ aba abā abu abb

ّ Brother aḥu ّ aḥu aḥā akhu akh

ّ Hand ad ّ yad idā idu yadd

ّ Eye ‘ayn ّ ‘ayn ‘ّaynā anū ‘ayn

ّ Eight tamāni ّ shamāna tamāna shamānu thamān

ّ Ten ‘ashru ّ ‘ashr ‘asr ‘ashru ‘ashr

ّ Bull tūr ّ shūr tūra shūru thawr

ّ Camel jamal ّ jemal ḥamlā jamlū ّ jamal

ّ Water māy ّ māym māya mū ma’

ّ Earth arṣ ّ arṣ ar‘a arṣ arḍ

Peace ّ shalam ّ shalom ّ calem ّ shlāmu ّ salām

Late Lebanese historian and linguist Kamāl Ṣaleebi, who specialized in what is known as
“Hebrew” until it became a second language to him, reiterated Moscati’s observation that the so-
called “Semitic” languages were originally dialectic offshoots of an original and older proto-
tongue, and that the common ancestor of those dialects was most probably closer to Arabic. In
his famous book The Bible Came from Arabia (published in 1985), Ṣaleebi states: “All this
leads us to the conclusion that the three languages in question (Phoenician, Aramaic and
Arabic) actually existed side by side, from Yemen to the Levant...There is nothing strange in
the fact that Arabic coexisted with Aramaic as far back as the Biblical times. This is because
Arabic, from a purely Phonetic and morphological perspective, is the oldest of the three
languages”.

29
How did the experts reach the conclusion that Arabic is the oldest of the “Semitic” languages?
The answer lies in the vast phonetic roots of Arabic. The fact is that Arabic has a far greater
variety of consonantal sounds than any of the other languages, including what is falsely referred
to as “Hebrew”. From a purely linguistic perspective, sounds that were originally independent
phonemes in the proto-tongue (common ancestor language) of the region combined to form
allophones in all the dialects, except for Arabic, where they remained discrete phonemes. This
means that the so-called “Semitic” dialects (Aramaic, Syriac, Phoenician, Old Yemeni*, etc...)
could not possibly have pre-existed Arabic. This is because Arabic is the only language that has
preserved all the features of the ancestor tongue, whereas those features are absent in the other
dialects. Consequently, it is not possible for Arabic to have been a descendant of those dialects,
as is commonly believed. A whole does not come out of a part. What this means, ultimately, is
that the common ancestor of all the so-called “Semitic” languages was much closer to Arabic
than to any of the other offshoot dialects.

Proving that Arabic is the closet language to the proto-tongue and common ancestor of all the
known dialects is certainly possible, but requires a separate study of its own. It is not within the
scope of this book to present all the evidence for this theory. The observations made by Ṣaleebi,
as supported by other contemporary academics, as well as the latest anthropological findings
concerning the early human civilizations and the trends in human migration, must be taken very
seriously. What we can say now, with a great degree of certainty, is that the southern quarter of
the Arabian Peninsula was indeed the cradle of human civilization, and the true - albeit forgotten
- theater of the stories and legends of Allah’s messengers, from Nūḥ (P), down the line to
Muḥammad (P). The presence of towering mountains and badlands in the Arabian Peninsula, not
to mention the primitive means of communication in those bygone eras, must have given rise to
different dialects; original offshoots that derived from the proto-tongue. These dialects were
spoken by tribes and clans that, at first, lived together in the same general geographical setting,
before eventually wandering out of the Peninsula in successive and continuous migrations;
whether for reasons related to climate, competition for fertile land, or because of invasions or
wars. This of course assumes various phenomena in line with these anthropological facts,
notably that the spread of people in mass exoduses from Arabia, over thousands of years, led to
further evolution of those offshoot dialects, until they eventually became separate languages, as
people strayed further away from their point of origin. On the other hand, this necessitates that
the original, or common ancestor of all those dialects be preserved, at least in its spoken form (if
not in alphabet) by a small group or class of people who remained around the point of origin, and
thus preserved most of the characteristics of the proto-tongue. And it was precisely that group of
people to whom Ibraheem (P) had migrated in the distant past (around 1600 BC).

______________________________________________________________________________
* The term “Old Yemeni” is used throughout this text to indicate the ancient South-Arabian dialects, notably
Thamūdic, Sheban, and Ḥimyaritic.

30
The implication of these facts is that the classical division of the so-called “Semitic Languages”
into a Northern branch comprising Aramaic, Syriac and Phoenician and a Southern branch
comprising Arabic, Old Yemeni, and Ethiopian is a complete fallacy. Whether this division was
a result of ignorance, or a deliberate manipulation to conceal the truth remains to be seen. These
dialects, in their oral form, must have existed side by side all over Arabia, even during the
Biblical times. Their written form however (the various alphabets), is another matter entirely. For
example, the cursive Arabic alphabet that we use today was an ingenious development of the
Nabateans, around 200 AD. The Arabic language however, is immeasurably older than the
Nabatean civilization, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it originated in Yemen. (In a future
release, we will show you ancient Arabic inscriptions written in the Musnad scrip of South
Arabia). It is therefore more correct to classify the alphabets into northern and southern
branches, not the languages.

It might be difficult for you to accept this truth at this point, but eventually, the sheer amount of
evidence that we will present to you will lead to only one conclusion: that the language of the
Qur’ān is a sample of what may very well be the oldest dialect in existence. And it was precisely
in this language that Allah revealed His final message to mankind. Arabic is a language whose
alphabet was developed long after it was first spoken, and whose origins have always been
shrouded in mystery.

During the time of Muḥammad (P), there were groups of people who spoke Aramaic, Syriac, and
even Old Yemeni, living alongside speakers of Arabic. Until we accept this truth, we will never
understand the true history of Muḥammad (P), and where he actually lived and preached. The
Qur’ān describes all those other dialects as being a‘jami, to distinguish them from the ‘arabi
tongue. Strictly speaking, the term a‘jami, as is evident from various lexicons, means:
“something incomplete, imperfect, lacking, or something that struggles or makes an effort to
convey a meaning; something that struggles to be complete or perfect but fails to achieve either
quality”. The consequences of this are quite staggering to say the least, and necessitate
a complete revaluation of what the term ‘arabi actually means. Although we will not elaborate
on this point any further herein, it will not be long before you realize, dear reader, that the term
“Arabic” (written with a capital ‘A’, by convention) is not the name of a particular language or
nationality, but rather a description of a dialect. It is imperative that you keep this point in mind
throughout our quest to recover the lost geography of the prophets.

The question still stands: Where does the so-called “Hebrew” language fit in? Let’s go back to
what Encyclopedia Britannica says:

“The original authors of the Old Testament are unknown; furthermore, it is not certain
whether those who compiled it were individuals or groups. The Old Testament was originally
recorded almost exclusively in Hebrew, with the exception of very few passages which were
recorded in Aramaic. The first Jewish community eventually translated the entire text of the
Torah (the Five Books) to Aramaic”.

31
Do you believe this joke? Has anyone on this planet ever conclusively proven the existence of
a language called “Hebrew” – a language which they claim had become “dormant” for 2,000
years before it was “revived” in the Promised Land?

Here follows is the truth of this so-called “Hebrew”:

The letters you see below are Old Aramaic (also called “Paleo Aramaic”). Linguists estimate that
they were used as early as the 11th Century BC. Noting the 22 letters of this alphabet, it is
obvious that they are the same letters as those of the Arabic alphabet; with the exception of 6
letters that are not found in Aramaic. The Aramaic alphabet is:

The Aramaic dialect is nothing but one of the practically extinct a‘jami dialects that originated in
South Arabia, then spread northwards on the waves of the ancient migrations. Eventually, several
alphabets were developed as written vessels for Aramaic, and the one shown above is believed to
be the oldest.

Now, take a close look at the following letters, which linguists call “Squared Aramaic”:

Do they look familiar to you? These are the same letters which they call “Hebrew”; every one of
them! These squared Aramaic letters are estimated to have first appeared in Mesopotamia around
the 7th or 6th Century BC, which coincided with the era of the Babylonian Exile. This is the truth
that the Zionists have been hiding all along. And whenever anyone comes close to exposing their
deception, they quickly rush to the claim: “Hebrew does use the squared Aramaic letters, but it is
an independent language”. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single document in the
entire history of the ancient world that mentions anything about a “Hebrew” language. Not even
in the Old Testament itself do we find any indication or reference that the Biblical Israelites

32
spoke “Hebrew”! Their explanation of the absence of any mention of this language is simply that
it was “dormant” for many centuries. As for the presence of hundreds of Arabic words in this so-
called “Hebrew”, their allegation is that, for the purpose of its “revival”, it made use of many
Arabic terms that were incorporated into it. [Applause and drums, please!].

The time has come to expose this global deception once and for all. What they call “Hebrew” is
nothing but a mixture of Aramaic and Arabic that was injected with one of the rural dialects of
Germany, known as the "Yiddish". The Zionists invented this language from scratch and came
out to the world with claims of “holiness” and “originality”. Aramaic, in turn, is nothing but an
almost extinct dialect that originated in South Arabia, and is spoken today only in certain areas
of Syria and Iraq. Being that “Hebrew” had no written form of its own, the Zionists simply
hijacked the squared Aramaic alphabet and used it as a vessel for their invention.

The fact that “Hebrew” is derived from an ancient Yemeni tongue is not a new discovery.
English Orientalist David Margoliouth, who taught Arabic at the University of Oxford from 1890
until 1937, once stated: “We find, in the (Hebrew) language, especially in proper nouns, very
old manifestations that match, to the letter, the scriptures of South Arabia”. In his book
entitled (lit): Imagined Palestine - Land of the Torah in Ancient Yemen, (published in 2008),
Iraqi scholar Fāḍel al-Rubay‘i made the same observation concerning the alarming similarities
between what is called “Modern Hebrew” and the phonetic patterns of the ancient South Arabian
dialects. During our long journey, we will encounter and analyze many examples of these mind-
boggling similarities. To give you an idea of what we mean, the Old Yemeni dialects, at one
point, used the letter h (as in hair), as a definite article to mean “the”. This was equivalent to the
Arabic prefix article al. Hence, for example, “the year” in English is equivalent to al-sanah in
Arabic, and ha-shana in Old Yemeni (the s and sh sounds often replaced each other in the old
dialects). The name Rosh Hashanah, which designates a Jewish religious holiday, would be
equivalent to rash ha-shanah in ancient Yemeni, which means “New Year”. This term is simply
an a’jami version of the Arabic ra’s al-sanah. Let’s take, as another example, “Haaretz”, the
name of the famous newspaper issued in the Zionist state. The term “aretz” is simply a
corruption of arṣ, which is the ancient Yemeni term for “earth” or “land”. This is because the
Yemeni dialect did not have the letter ḍ (ḍād) that we find in Arabic (as in Ramaḍān), so it was
replaced it with the letter ṣ (ṣād). Since the Europeans could not properly pronounce the ṣ sound,
they in turn rendered it as tz (tzad). Hence, ha-aretz is simply “the earth” (or “the land”), a
corruption of the ancient Yemeni pronunciation ha-arṣ, which corresponds to al-arḍ in Arabic.
These are but a few examples of their so-called “divine tongue” that was taught exclusively to
their “superior race”.

Now, the question is: If “Hebrew" was never a language to begin with, then what does the word
actually mean?

33
  “Hebrew” - A Name or a Description?

Whenever the word “Hebrew” is mentioned today, it immediately brings to our minds
a particular “nation” of people who identify themselves as being Jewish, descendants of the
Children of Israel, and who consider the Old Testament to be their sacred scripture. But is this
what the word really means? Or was the term given - for ideological reasons - a meaning that
was different from its original context, in order to create the illusion of a “chosen people”
racially superior to all others?

We have seen from the previous section that “Hebrew” never existed as a language in the first
place, but was created from scratch by the Zionist movement in the early 20th Century. In fact,
the elderly generations of European Jews who migrated to their alleged "Promised Land” in
Palestine had never even heard of this language, and were forced to learn it from their younger
generations.

The truth we are about to reveal, which only a handful of people are aware of, is that the word
“Hebrew” is the a‘jami equivalent of the Arabic word ‘ibri (singular), whose plural form is
‘ibrān. This word is actually an adjective, used to describe those people who often cross over, or
travel from one place to another, rarely settling down in one location. In fact, the word ‘ubūr
(crossing a street, river, valley, etc…) is a derivative of this word.

The implications of this matter lie in the concept of nomadic life in general. The question is:
How and when did this adjective become a term used exclusively to identify the Jews? This is
another of the many forgeries which they perpetrated to hide the true identity of the Israelites.
The truth of the matter is that Ibraheem (P) was described as being a “Hebrew” in certain
passages of the Old Testament. At the same time, the Bible tells us that he was a wandering
Aramean (meaning that he was looking for a place to settle). This is because Ibraheem migrated
from his homeland and settled in the mountainous Sarāt Country. Interestingly, the Bible never
uses the term “Hebrew” to describe his sons, Isma‘eel and Isḥāq. Why is that so? Could it be
because they didn’t “cross over” with their father? Could it be because they were born in the
Sarāt Country? Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read about “Isma‘eel the Hebrew” or
“Isḥāq the Hebrew” or even “Ya‘qūb the Hebrew”, for that matter. But we do read about “Yūsuf
the Hebrew”, for reasons that we will discuss very soon. This is a very important issue that
needs to be looked into. The descendants of Ibraheem did not migrate across the Arabian
wilderness to the coastal mountainous region. So, technically, they were descendants of a
Hebrew, but were not Hebrews themselves. They were simply "Israelites".

The proof that the word “Hebrew” does not indicate a language or a particular national or racial
identity is found within the passages of the Old Testament, for those who can read between the
lines, so to speak. Take a look at the following excerpt from the Old Testament, which talks
about a particular law that Mūsa (P) is claimed to have taught his people:

34
Now these [are] the judgments which you [O Moses] shall set before them: "If
you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go
out free and pay nothing. "If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if
he [comes in] married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given
him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children
shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly
says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his
master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the
doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him
forever” (Exodus 21: 2-6)

These regulations given by Mūsa to the Israelites clearly distinguish between the Israelites
themselves (who, by that time, were established in their new homeland near the ancient trade
routes), and the slaves, among whom were the Hebrews who migrated to the region. The
Hebrews were bought and sold as slaves; something that was absolutely forbidden to the
Israelites to do among themselves. Has anyone ever heard of an Israelite (a member of “God’s
Chosen People”) buying or selling another Israelite as a slave?

But then, why is Yusūf (P) described as being a “Hebrew” in the Bible? Wasn’t he also born in
the Sarāt region? This is because the inhabitants of the mountainous regions of Arabia, who had
control of the entire coastal strip (including the trade routes), still considered the later
generations of Israelites as being somewhat “beneath them”, and looked upon them with some
kind of disdain. As such, Yusūf in particular was still considered “Hebrew”, even though he was
born in the land that his ancestor Ibraheem had migrated to. This explains the following passage
in the Old Testament:

So they set him [Joseph] a place by himself, and them by themselves, and the
(Egyptians) who ate with him by themselves; because the (Egyptians) could not
eat food with the Hebrews, for that [is] an abomination to the (Egyptians).
(Genesis 43:32)

Pay attention to the context of the term “Egyptians” in the above text. In the original so-called
“Hebrew” Bible, the word we see is Msrim. What the passage is telling us is that the Msrim
could not eat food at the same table with the Hebrews. (They found the prospect repugnant
because the Hebrews were looked upon as being of lower social status). The Septuagint
criminals, however, perpetrated a blatant forgery by replacing the word Msrim (or msrm, as it
appears in the original, silent, Aramaic text), with “Aegypto". However, that still doesn’t change
the context of the passage in terms of what the term “Hebrew” really means. It is clearly
indicating a nomadic lifestyle, not any particular group or racial identity and certainly not
designative of any one specific language or dialect.

35
The Children of Israel were thus descendants of Ibraheem the Hebrew (‘ibri) who had crossed
the wilderness of Arabia and settled in the fertile region of the Sarāt Mountains, the hub of the
ancient trade routes. This region was described by Allah as being mubārakah to the inhabitants
of the ancient world, because of its rich natural resources, and many fresh water streams and
rivers). Ibraheem was not the only Hebrew, and certainly not the first. Anyone who migrated in
this same manner was given the label of “Hebrew” by the inhabitants of the region in question.
In fact, the term ‘ibran is still used even today in some Arab countries, to describe the
inhabitants of the rural areas (or small villages) who make the trip to the capital to conduct their
business, having crossed the wilderness towards the large urban centers. It is a word that is
deeply imbedded in the culture of Arabia, and provides further evidence as to where the events
of the Bible took place. This is simply all there is to it.

*****

36
 CHAPTER I

Ibraheem’s Journey: Separating the Truth from the Myth

37
He appears suddenly in the center of Arabia, to settle his “concubine” Hāgar and his infant son
Isma‘eel in the heart of some desolate valley. Then he leaves them there and travels back, at the
ripe old age of 80, to Palestine, over 1,200 kilometers away, on foot or on the back of a donkey??
He then returns again to Arabia, crossing another 1,200 kilometers, to check up on Hāgar and his
son. And again, and again, repeating the trip no less than 6 times, as the Islamic books of
tradition tell us, and as Ibn Katheer reports:

‫وقد كان إبراهيم عليه الصالة والسالم يذهب في كل وقت يتفقد ولده وأم ولده ببالد فاران (من أسماء جبال الحجاز) وينظر‬..."
"...‫في أمرهما‬

Translation: “… and Ibraheem (P) would travel repeatedly to visit his son and the mother of
his son in the Pharan country (another name they claimed belonged to the Ḥijāz mountains
around present day Makkah) to check up on them.”

This is what they have been teaching us for centuries about Ibraheem’s multiple and mysterious
journeys between the Ḥijāz and Palestine. And if we ever use our reason and contemplate these
claims, we will come to the conclusion that Ibraheem traveled a distance totaling - in the least -
15,000 kilometers on foot, or on his donkey; and that’s not including his original journey from
Mesopotamia and his alleged foray into Egypt, which we have left out of the equation to make
the calculation more simple. This means that Ibraheem’s trips to and from the Ḥijāz totaled
a distance exceeding the entire circumference of the planet, which measures about 12,800 km at
the equator. And when any person with a single brain cell still functioning in his head asks the
question of how an 80 year-old goat-herder could travel such distances across desolate
wastelands and scorching deserts, and what was the purpose of repeating the trip no less than six
times, that person would find the age-old answer also in the books of “Islamic” tradition, as Ibn
Katheer put it:

"‫"وقدّذكرّانهّكانّيركبّعلىّالبراقّسريعاّإلىّهناكّوهللاّأعلم‬

Translation: “And it was reported that he (Ibraheem) would ride the Pegasus (winged horse)
to there, and Allah knows best”

Allah knows best, indeed…

The fact of the matter is that this strange explanation puts the mind at a fork in the road. The first
branch takes the reader towards accepting the story as it is, without questioning, because its
source is considered “divine” and not to be doubted (Allah Said So!). And this is the road that
99.99% of Muslims, who have completely discarded their brains and logic, have taken. Or, the
reader can take the second road, refuse the story outright, and sound the warning buzzard to the
nations, that a great forgery was perpetrated in the account of the Patriarch. Sadly, very few
people have chosen to walk this road, despite the dozens of warnings in the Qur’ān that the

38
Jewish priests of old had tampered with the previous messages and corrupted the biographies of
the prophets - warnings which have gone unheeded for ages.

So where do we begin? And what is the solution to this puzzle?

I think the best starting point would be to ask the following question, which I am sure most
Muslims have asked at some point in their lives: Why don’t the Jews and Christians recognize
Ibraheem’s connection to Arabia? Both creeds are pretty much in agreement on the details of the
Patriarch’s life, from the time he was born (allegedly in Mesopotamia), to his migration to
ancient Palestine (the alleged “Promised Land”), to his foray into Egypt, to the identity of his
two sons (Isma‘eel and Isḥāq), to the story of his expulsion of his “servant wench” Hāgar and her
infant son at the behest of his wife Sarah.

Even the Muslims themselves agree with the Jews and Christians on 90% of these “facts”, with
the exception of some details that are really only minor issues. But there is one important episode
in the life of the Patriarch that is not commonly agreed upon by the followers of the three creeds
– an episode that only the Muslims recognize: the heart of Arabia, precisely southern Ḥijāz, the
site of the present day city of Makkah, was an important station in Ibraheem’s life.

According to the rampant “Muslim” creed, Ibraheem was indeed born in Mesopotamia, made no
more than a passing visit to the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, where he “dropped off” his
“wench” Hāgar, and his infant son Isma‘eel in the middle of a desolate valley, left them there
alone, and then went back to ancient Palestine, over 1,200 km away. Afterwards, he made
repeated visits to them, year after year, to check up on them, until Isma‘eel became of age, at
which time he and his father (who was over 90 years old by that time) rebuilt the Sanctuary
(House of Allah), which is a cubic structure located in the precise spot where the city of Makkah
lies today. Finally, Ibraheem bid farewell to his son Isma‘eel, who eventually became the “Father
of the Arabs”, and went back to Palestine (crossing another 1,200 km), to his “real” family,
Sarah and her son Isḥāq, “Father of the Jews”; died there, and his tomb is located in the city of
Hebron, Palestine.

This is the story that we must accept as the unquestionable truth, because “Allah Said So”. Even
a Muslim scientist, who holds a doctorate degree in nuclear physics, for example, believes this
story, because “religion” - as he calls it - is not a domain for logic (such is their schizophrenia).
The way we see it, dear reader, and with all due respect to your convictions, is that this story is
nothing but a mythological fairytale that reeks of Jewish rabbinical lies, and is part of a
conspiracy to hide the history of ancient Arabia, to put a big void in its place, and to project the
events that took place in the Peninsula onto the surrounding lands, for purely ideological and
political reasons (a lie created for political manipulation).

39
The next question is: Is the Old Testament - despite all the tampering that befell its texts - truly
silent on the issue of Ibraheem’s association with Arabia? Or is there something we are missing?
Let us analyze some of the passages of the Bible and see what hidden truths can still be found
underneath the pile of forgeries.

 Ibraheem’s Original Homeland

The Septuagint Bible details the voyage of Ibraheem (P) from the time he left the land of his
fathers, which it claims was in Mesopotamia, during the Chaldean era (in the city of Ur, to be
precise).

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his
daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out with them from Ur
of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt
there (Genesis 11:31)

Then He said to him, "I [am] the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the
Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." (Genesis 15:7)

The above passages are among all that the Septuagint forgers needed to transfer Ibraheem’s
name to Mesopotamia (presently Iraq), and make him an Iraqi of the Chaldean era. So let us
now ponder over this information and see if it is true, or is another one of their forgeries that they
perpetrated on some moonless night, and passed onto the world.

Scholars place Abraham to have lived anywhere between 2000 BC and 1500 BC. We will
assume that he lived around 1600 BC. In fact, this will later prove to be the most logical
estimation, as it is in line with the number of generations that presumably passed between
Ibraheem and Mūsa. And it is here that the first warning buzzard must be sounded.

When someone forges a text, they are bound to leave a clue somewhere, or to make a mistake
that eventually exposes them. The question here is: What on Earth does the era of the Chaldeans
have to do with the life of Ibraheem? It appears the corruptors forgot that the Chaldean dynasty
began somewhere around 630 BC, after the death of the last Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal, and
was ended around 539 BC, when the Persians conquered Mesopotamia. This information is
known to first-year university students of ancient history. What this means is that the Chaldean
era started and ended over 1,000 years after Ibraheem’s time, and some 600 years after Mūsa’s
age. How the Hell did the so-called “Torah” - which is supposed to have been revealed to Moses,
as they claim - know about the Chaldean period?

Believing this glaring anachronism is like believing the claim that Napoleon Bonaparte was
a member of King Herod’s court. And they want us to applaud and play the drums to this blatant
forgery and accept is as the unquestionable truth. The evidence is so clear that only an imbecile
would fail to see it. The Septuagint priests “translated” the Old Testament to the Greek language

40
sometime during the 4th Century BC. They must have known the Chaldean state very well, as it
was a world superpower barely 200 years before them. This scandalous claim that we encounter
in the Septuagint Bible, which was eventually translated into all the languages of the modern
world, has always baffled scholars and commentators, who tried to find some kind of excuse to
vindicate the mention of Chaldeans associated with the era of Ibraheem (P). The only thing they
could say was that the Jewish priests had perpetrated this forgery on purpose, in order for the
future generations to lay claim to Mesopotamia, since the Patriarch, according to them, was born
there.

In his book Myths of the Bible: How ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (pages 115,116),
Biblical scholar Gary Greenberg states: “The Jews wanted to impose themselves as part of
Mesopotamian history as a threshold towards laying claim over its entire land after the fall
of the Chaldeans at the hands of the Persians, to whom the Jewish priests were allies”.

It was indeed the Jews who had assisted the Persians in their conquest of Mesopotamia, and in
their toppling of the Chaldean reign. Consequently, the Persian monarch Cyrus the Great allowed
them to return to their ancient homeland - which we will eventually prove was in the mountains
of Yemen - and to rebuild their temple there, in the Sarāt country.

Unfortunately, the discovery of this glaring forgery in the Septuagint translation only increased
the stubbornness and pride of those who wanted to defend the Jewish deception. Eventually,
through their devious means of manipulation and propaganda, they passed the lie that Ibraheem
was born in Mesopotamia onto all the generations of the world, until it became a matter of
unquestionable belief to the members of the three “monotheistic” faiths.

To better understand how this forgery was perpetrated, we will take the same approach that we
took before, when we showed you how the Septuagint liars replaced the name Msrim in the so-
called “Hebrew” text with the name “Aegyptus” in their Greek translation, thus creating the
illusionary association between the Israelites and Egypt, in order for the later generations of
European Jews (the self-proclaimed “descendants” of the Israelites) to lay claim to the land of
the Nile as part of their “Promised Land”. (Remember the ideological motto carved on a plate
above the entrance of the Knesset: From the Euphrates to the Nile is your land, Oh Israel!).

So let us go back to the Septuagint Bible, and compare its text with the original Aramaic version,
to see what their black hands wrote to the world. The original Biblical text, written in Squared
Aramaic, designates Ibraheem’s ancestral home with a name that has absolutely no relation
whatsoever to “Chaldea”. Let’s see what the text says, taking the passage in (Genesis 11:28) as
an example:

‫וימת הרן על־פני תרח אביו בארץ מולדתו באור כׂשדים׃‬

By consulting a glossary of Aramaic, we can see that the last two words on the left are
pronounced as such: Ur - Kasdim (or Kashdim, since the ‘s’ and ‘sh’ are interchangeable in the

41
ancient dialects). How did the Septuagint rabbis translate this term in the Greek Bible, which
became the new source of religious history for the whole world at the time? Let us take a look at
the translation:

καὶ ἀπέθανεν Αρραν ἐνώπιον Θαρα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ ،ᾗ ἐγενήθη ،ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῶν
Χαλδαίων.

Again, looking up the last two words on the right in any Greek vocal glossary, we get: “Ur –
Kaledon”. Thus, the name “Ur - Kasdim” that appears in the original text became “Ur –
Kaledon” in the Greek version. Do you see, dear reader, any relation whatsoever between these
two words? (Remember that we are dealing with the proper name of a location, which essentially
makes the word untranslatable to begin with). Furthermore, the word Kasdim is the plural form
of Kasd. The ancient Yemeni dialects, like Sheban and Thamūdic, used the suffix “im” to denote
the plural. This is the same rule in the so-called “Hebrew” (eloh – elohim / cherub – cherubim /
katub – katubim / Msr – Msrim / etc…). This is but another example of the startling similarities
between what they call “Hebrew” and those ancient Yemeni dialects. Apparently, the Septuagint
“translators” replaced a plural noun, which, in the original text, indicated the name of a forgotten
or unknown tribe or clan, and replaced it with the well-known and popular name of a city that
was the capital of a recently toppled superpower: Chaldea. Political propaganda, anyone?

And so it was that the news of Ibraheem (P) being born in Iraq spread throughout the entire
world like wildfire, carried on the wings of the Greek language, and eventually infiltrated the
beliefs of the Muslims, who have been propagating this forgery and teaching it to the generations
of their children for over 14 centuries.

Because the claim of Ibraheem’s birthplace is so hard to digest, we can see its confusing effects
well documented in the books of the Arab historians of old, who found themselves having to go
to extreme lengths to vindicate and defend the ancient Jewish scribes against this scandalous
forgery, by claiming the following: “Perhaps they meant Ur of Babylon!” Now this of course
makes sense, since the Babylonians preceded the Chaldeans by many centuries, and coincided
with the time of Ibraheem (around 1600 BC). Instead of pointing out the forgery, the Arab
historians and commentators - except for a very small minority - sought to “patch it up” and
defend it!

For the sake of brevity, we will not include herein actual examples of what the Arab historians
wrote on the subject. But if you are an Arabic reader, you can go and look up the following
references, and see the conjecture and confusion that they were caught in, concerning the
birthplace of the Patriarch, which can be pretty much summed up by the allegation of “Oh, they
must have meant the Ur of Babylon!”:

Al-Muntaẓim, by Abu Faraj (volume 1, page 259); al-Bidāya wal-Nihāya, by Ibn Katheer
(volume 1, page 140) ; al-Anas al-Jaleel, by al-‘Ulaymi (volume 1, page 27).

42
What is even stranger is the road that Ibrahim (P) and his family allegedly took to reach
Palestine. The Bible states that they had a short “transit” stop in the city of Haran. To get a
clearer picture of the geographical implications of this trip, let’s look at the map below, which
depicts the Patriarch’s imaginary journey from Ur-Caledonia (which, we remind you, didn’t even
exist in his time), to ancient Palestine, passing through Haran on the way (the red arrow). The
map also shows his venture into Egypt (the blue arrow) where they claimed he reached the city
of Memphis, just south of the Nile Delta. The green arrow shows the “extra episode” added by
the Muslims exclusively, which represents his repeated voyages deep into Arabia, to the current
location of Makkah in the southern Ḥijāz region (further south beyond the border of the map).

Map #2: Ibraheem’s imaginary journey, according to popular belief; spanning distances that no sane
mind can accept.

As can be seen from the map, the city of Ur lay at the southern end of Mesopotamia (in what is
today called al-Nāsiriyyah, Iraq), near the north eastern border of Arabia; while Palestine, which
they falsely call “the Land of Caanan” (we will expose to you the fallacy of that name soon), lies
to the west, with the only thing separating the two regions being the southern part of the Levant
wilderness. It is clear that the path from Ur to Palestine is very simple and straightforward (the
black arrow); whereas Haran, their alleged transit stop, lies far far to the north of this straight
path, along the ancient Syrian-Armenian border. It is hence completely out of their way.

Here follows is what the Bible says, word for word:

Now the LORD had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and
from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great
nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.

43
I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you
all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram departed as the LORD had
spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram [was] seventy-five years old
when he departed from Haran. Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his
brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people
whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go to the land of Canaan.
So they came to the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1-5).

The Biblical text does not give any logical reason as to why Tareh would take his family on such
a long trek. Some scholars, in their explanations, went as far as claiming that Haran was Tareh’s
original hometown, and that he originally migrated south-east to Ur, so that his son, Abraham,
could be born there, before striking out again in the opposite direction! In fact the only
significant thing that happened in their transit stop at Haran was that Tareh died there (perhaps
he couldn’t bear the exhaustion from the trip anymore?), and Ibraheem then took the reins of the
family, until he eventually received the “divine promise” that his progeny would inherit the land
“from the Euphrates to the Nile”. Others claimed that it was customary in the ancient times for
people to follow rivers when travelling long distances. The direct route from Ur to Palestine,
although much shorter, was inconceivable, as it passed through dry and inhospitable desert
territory. This explanation, although logical on the surface, doesn’t explain why Haran in
particular (the name appears as ḥrn in the original text with silent Aramaic letters) was chosen as
a stop along Abraham’s journey in the first place. Why not Damascus, for instance, which was
a far more popular city? Something just doesn’t add up, here. Furthermore, is there even a single
record, in the land of Mesopotamia, from among the thousands of the Babylonian, Acadian, and
Assyrian inscriptions that have been unearthed, mentioning a man named “Tareh”, or his son
“Ibraheem”, or the name “Lūṭ”, or anything about the escape of a small clan of goat-herders from
Ur to a “Promised Land” far to the west?

The answer is none at all.

 The Location of the “Blessed Land” - Religious Confusion

Let’s see what the Qur’ān says concerning this issue:

{They said: "Did you do this to our gods, O Ibraheem?" * He said: "It was the
biggest one of them here who did it, so ask them, if they do speak!" * So they
turned and said to themselves: "It is indeed ourselves who have been wicked!" *
Then they returned to their old ideas: "You know that they do not speak!" * He
said: "Do you serve besides Allah that which does not benefit you at all nor harm
you?" * "I am fed-up of you and to what you serve besides Allah! Do you not
comprehend?" * They said: "If you are to do anything, then burn him, and give
victory to your gods." * We said: "O fire, be cool and safe upon Ibraheem." * And

44
they wanted to plot against him, but We made them the losers. * And We rescued
him and Lūṭ to the land which We have blessed for all peoples}…[21:62-71]

It is clear that Ibraheem (P), after a series of religious debates with the Imams of misguidance
from among his people, was finally forced to migrate from there, at an advanced age. The Qur’ān
also tells us that Lūṭ (a close relative of his) traveled with him initially. They left their original
home and moved to a land that Allah described as “blessed for all peoples”. Where exactly was
that land, and how did the classical commentators understand the above passage?

If you go and open the books of history and tafseer (exegesis of the Qur’ān), you will not believe
your eyes at the heap of conjecture that was put forth regarding this issue. The best summary of
the confusion can be seen in the writings of al-Ṭabari, notably in his famous Tafseer al-Kabeer.
Here follows is what he says (volume 17, page 47):

ّ.‫ّإلىّالشام‬:‫ّقال‬،‫ّفيّقولهّ"ونجيناهّولوطاّإلىّاألرضّالتيّباركنا"ّفيهاّللعالمين‬:‫ّقالّبنّزيد‬:‫ّأخبرناّبنّوهبّقال‬:‫ّقال‬،‫حدثنيّيونس‬
ّ:‫ّذكرّمنّقالّذلكّحدثنيّمحمدّبنّسعدّقال‬."‫ّ"التيّباركناّفيهاّللعالمين‬:‫ّوهيّاألرضّالتيّقالّهللاّتعالى‬،‫ّبلّيعنيّمكة‬:‫وقالّآخرون‬
ّ.‫ّ"ونجيناهّولوطاّإلىّاألرضّالتيّباركناّفيهاّللعالمين"ّيعنيّمكة‬:‫ّعنّبنّعباسّقوله‬،‫ّثنيّأبيّعنّأبيه‬:‫ّقال‬،‫ّثنيّعمي‬:‫ّقال‬،‫ثنيّأبي‬
ّ‫ّوإنماّاخترناّما‬:‫ّقالّأبوّجعفر‬."‫ّ"إنّأولّبيتّوضعّللناسّللذيّببكةّمباركاّوهدىّللعالمين‬:‫ونزولّإسماعيلّالبيتّأالّترىّأنهّيقول‬
ّ‫اخترناّمنّالقولّفيّذلكّألنهّالّخالفّبينّجميعّأهلّالعلمّأنّهجرةّإبراهيمّمنّالعراقّكانتّإلىّالشامّوبهاّكانّمقامهّأيامّحياتهّوّإن‬
ّ‫ّوهللاّإنما‬.‫ّغيرّأنهّلمّيقمّبهاّولمّيتخذهاّوط ًناّلنفسهّوالّلوط‬،‫كانّقدّكانّقدمّمكةّوبنىّبهاّالبيتّوأسكنهاّإسماعيلّابنهّمعّأمهّهاجر‬
.‫أخبرّعنّإبراهيمّولوطّأنهماّانجاهماّإلىّاألرضّالتيّباركّفيهاّللعالمين‬

To summarize what is said by al-Ṭabari in the above passage, it seems that there were two
feuding opinions as to where the Blessed Land was. One party was of the opinion that it was to
the Ḥijāz region, the site of the present-day city of Makkah, that Ibraheem and Lūṭ were rescued
by Allah; while the second party claimed that they migrated to the Levant, and that Makkah was
not their permanent residence, but merely a passing stop where Ibraheem settled his concubine
Hāgar and his son Isma‘eel. What do we conclude from this?

1- That the ancient memory of the Arabs did in fact record Ibraheem’s presence somewhere in
Arabia; however, this memory was contaminated with certain alien traditions that did not come
from Arabia; traditions claiming that the Patriarch migrated from Mesopotamia to the Levant
(Palestine, precisely). These traditions are no doubt the source of the confusion concerning this
matter. (Remember from our first book that these are the same scholars who gave the “Pharaoh”
of Mūsa’s age an Arabic name).

2- That al-Ṭabari, who is considered by the vast majority of Muslims, of all sects and creeds, to
be the supreme authority on religious history, including the seerah (biography) of Muḥammad,
could not even make up his mind, or substantiate one opinion over the other. He left the issue
open to debate.

45
3- The tyrannical expression “there is no debate among the people of knowledge that
Ibraheem and Lūṭ migrated to the Levant” pops up once again, this time in Ṭabari’s exegesis.
This is the same despotic allegation that appears hundreds of times in many of the books of
tradition, claiming the so-called ijma‘ (consensus) of the alleged ‘ulama (knowledgeable
religious elite). The aim of this expression is to simply shut the mouths of all those who seek to
doubt, enquire and ask. It is used to denote the opinion not of those who bring the logical proofs,
but of those whose opinion was supported by the tyrants of their age. As for those “misguided
souls” who don't agree, their ideas are usually restricted to forgotten books that sit gathering dust
on the shelves of old libraries, where very few people bother to read them. It is not until
hundreds or thousands of years later, when the rampant belief is proven to be false, that the old
books are brought out into the light again.

It is impossible for both parties to be right concerning the location of the “Blessed Land”. Either
one of them is right and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. There are still many facts
that must be uncovered before we can give a definitive and objective answer to this puzzling
question. However, we do respect the opinion of those “misguided souls” who defied the
tyrannical ijma‘ by claiming that Ibraheem’s ultimate destination was to the heart of Arabia, not
the Levant. In reality, they are closer to the truth than they know. The question is where exactly
was Ibraheem’s original homeland, and where exactly in Arabia did he end up? This is what we
ultimately seek to answer.

Another pressing question that Muslims have failed to provide a convincing answer to is the
following: What is the logic behind the strange story that separates between Ibraheem and his
family in this manner? It's as if Islamic creed requires us to believe that the Patriarch settled his
original wife Sarah and his son Isḥāq in the “Blessed Land” of Palestine, then traveled a distance
of over 1,200 km, across scorching deserts, with no rivers to follow, to place his “concubine”
Hāgar and his other son Isma‘eel in some desolate valley located in the “non-blessed” land of
southern Ḥijāz. Is this another case of “Allah Said So”? Or is it due to the ancient memory and
culture of Arabia being contaminated by false beliefs that have gone unchecked for ages?

It seems that the classical Arab commentators, who seemingly had no objection to using the
corrupted Old Testament texts to fill what they thought were “gaps” in the Qur’ānic account,
failed to pay attention to the very important clue given in the Bible itself, which completely
denies any wide geographical separation between Abraham’s progeny. The Old Testament
account clearly tells us that when Ibraheem (P) died, both his sons took care of burying him:

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Macphelah, which [is]
before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite (Genesis 25:9)

46
If the places mentioned in the above passage (Macphelah, Mamre, Ephron’s field) were indeed in
Palestine, how did Isma‘eel end up there? Did he also travel on the back of the Pegasus from the
Ḥijāz to Palestine, to participate in his father’s burial? Why all this confusion?

If you contemplate the story of Ibraheem’s migration from Mesopotamia to the Levant, you will
find holes in it that are so large, you wonder how it even got by the classical commentators
themselves. To sum up the reasons they gave as to why the Levant is “blessed”, we can state the
following example from al-Tūṣi’s book entitled al-Tibyān (volume 7, page 263):

‫ وإنما قال "للعالمين" لما فيها من كثرة األشجار والخيرات التي ينتفع جميع الخلق بها إذا حلوا‬.‫ أراد أرض الشام‬:‫وقال الجبائي‬
...‫ لما فيها من كثرة األشجار والثمار‬:‫ وقيل‬.‫ فلذلك كانت مباركة‬،‫ ألن أكثر األنبياء بعثوا منها‬،‫بها وإنما جعلها مباركة‬

It seems that the opinion in support for the Levant as the candidate for “blessedness” relied on
two arguments to validate itself:

1- Because the Levant had an abundance of trees and resources.

2- Because it was the land where Allah had sent all the prophets to.

And it is here where we feel we must comment briefly on these conjectures:

The first reason, which states that the Levant was the land of many trees and riches (resources)
was not only proven false by modern archeology (the same archeology that failed miserably to
find a single trace of Sulaymān's temple in Palestine), but would also have us believe the
ridiculous claim that Mesopotamia, which was the cradle of Asia’s mightiest civilizations dating
back 5,000 years; from the Sumerians, to the Babylonians, to the Assyrians, to the Acadians, to
the Chaldeans, and whose land rivaled the Nile Valley in terms of its fertility, suddenly had no
trees, and no resources to speak of! Can you believe this pile of horse manure?

As for the second reason given, which claims that the Levant was the land of the prophets;
nowhere is this even remotely alluded to in the Qur’ān. It is mentioned only in the orientalist and
colonial modern translations of the corrupted Jewish and Christian scriptures, which the so-
called “Muslims” have followed blindly. By continuing to uphold the false belief that the Levant
was the Blessed Land, and the theater of Allah’s messengers, the Muslims have been marketing
rabbinical Jewish merchandise for ages, without being aware of it, and without even being aware
that it constitutes a screaming contradiction to their own beliefs. How the Hell can the Levant be
the land of prophets, when the Qur’ān says repeatedly that Muḥammad (P) began preaching in
the Mother of Towns (which they believe to be the site of present-day Makkah), and clearly tells
us that all the messengers that were sent before Muḥammad lived and preached in the region
surrounding the Mother of Towns?

47
There is something so wrong about this creed that it simply boggles the mind just how far the
Muslims have gone astray on this issue. Here is the resounding truth that we repeat, and is for the
Muslims to hear, before anyone else: There is not one spot of land that Allah, in His Qur’ān,
described as “blessed to all peoples”, from the ancient times, except the southern regions of
Arabia; the land that was labeled as Arabia Felix (“Fortunate” or “Happy” Arabia) by the ancient
Greeks and Romans. All the prophets mentioned in the Qur’ān, from Nūḥ (P) to Muḥammad (P)
lived and died in that region, and nowhere else; period.

But the Muslims have failed to grasp this truth, as they continue reiterating their hypocritical
claim that they follow the Qur’ān, when the fact is that they recite it like automatons, and are
more content with “chanting it” eloquently, while swearing an oath to the shaytan not to ever
contemplate the meaning of its signs. Instead, 99% of what they believe in comes from
rabbinical sources that blatantly contradict Allah’s Scripture. As a result, they have allowed
others to write their history for them, and dictate to them who they are and where they came
from. And as Julius Caesar once said: “He who does not know his history remains a child”.

 The Jealous Wife

Going back to the Qur’ān, we find that Ibraheem and Lūṭ left their original homeland and made
their way towards a land that Allah described as “blessed to all peoples”. In that land,
somewhere, was a secluded and uncultivated vale, where Ibraheem settled his progeny.

{Our Rabb, I have resided of my progeny in an uncultivated valley, at your

Restricted Sanctuary. My Rabb, so that they may uphold the salat. So let the
hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits
that they may give thanks}...[14:37]

Had those who claim to be the followers of Muḥammad’s message paid close attention to the
word askantu, which appears in the Arabic text of the above passage, they would have
abandoned the Jewish myth that they have embraced for centuries, which tells them that
Ibraheem expelled his “wench” Hāgar and her infant son. The word askantu is derived from the
root skn, which carries the meaning of peaceful habitation. Hence Ibraheem settled his family
there and took care of them. Does it seem more likely to you that the Patriarch left an infant child
and his mother all alone in a strange and far away desert land to die of thirst, on the whims of his
jealous wife? Or is it more likely that he migrated and resided with them?

While you ponder over this issue, we move on to show you where the “Muslims” get their beliefs
from:

48
Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no [children.] And she had an (Egyptian)
maidservant whose name was Hāgar. So Sarai said to Abram, "See now, the LORD
has restrained me from bearing [children.] Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I
shall obtain children by her." And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. Then Sarai,
Abram's wife, took Hāgar her maid, the (Egyptian), and gave her to her husband
Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. So he
went in to Hāgar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived,
her mistress became despised in her eyes. Then Sarai said to Abram, "My wrong
[be] upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had
conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The LORD judge between you and me."
So Abram said to Sarai, "Indeed your maid [is] in your hand; do to her as you
please." And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her presence. Now
the Angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the
spring on the way to Shur. And He said, "Hāgar, Sarai's maid, where have you
come from, and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from the presence
of my mistress Sarai." The Angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your
mistress, and submit yourself under her hand." Then the Angel of the LORD said to
her, "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be
counted for multitude." And the Angel of the LORD said to her: "Behold, you [are]
with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because the
LORD has heard your affliction. He shall be a as a wild ass; His hand [shall be]
against every man, And every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the
presence of all his brethren." (Genesis 16: 1-12)

This is how the Jews distorted Ibraheem’s character; by picturing him as a weak old man, easily
swayed by his wife’s whims, and by picturing his son Isma‘eel as the wild son; the savage son;
the wild ass of a man”; the seed of a lowly maid. What is even stranger is the translation of
“Msri” to “Egyptian”, concerning Hāgar’s identity. So the Arabs, technically, are a bastard
hybrid race of half Mesopotamian half Egyptian!

Let’s read on a bit more to see what other “truths” we find in the Bible:

She also said, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children?
For I have borne [him] a son in his old age." So the child grew and was weaned.
And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. And
Sarah saw the son of Hāgar the (Egyptian), whom she had borne to Abraham,
scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son;
for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [namely] with
Isaac." And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his
son. But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because
of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen
to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. "Yet I will also make a nation of
the son of the bondwoman, because he [is] your seed." So Abraham rose early in
the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting [it] on her shoulder,
he gave [it] and the boy to Hāgar, and sent her away. Then she departed and

49
wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. And the water in the skin was used up,
and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs. Then she went and sat down
across from [him] at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, "Let
me not see the death of the boy." So she sat opposite [him,] and lifted her voice
and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad. Then the angel of God called to
Hāgar out of heaven, and said to her, "What ails you, Hāgar? Fear not, for God has
heard the voice of the lad where he [is.] "Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with
your hand, for I will make him a great nation." Then God opened her eyes, and she
saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad
a drink. (Genesis 21: 7-19)

Here we see the source of this delusion the Muslims believe in, which claims that Ibraheem cast
out his “Egyptian” maid Hāgar, and left her to become lost in the wilderness with her infant son.
Of course, the Qur’ān does not mention a “miraculous spring” by the name of Zamzam, nor does
it mention Sarah, or Hāgar, or even insinuate that the Patriarch had two wives. Although we
concur with the possibility that Ibraheem had more than one wife, to claim that the second was
a “servant wench” serves the marketing of racist allegations, which insist on attributing “purity”
to the Israelites (the seed of Isḥāq), while picturing the Arabs as bastard half-breeds, descendants
of a wild, savage man. And the Muslims are not even aware where their beliefs originate (they
insist that their creed has not been contaminated by Jewish corruption…Oh No! Allah forbid it!
They are above such allegations!)

The Bible also tells us that Ibraheem left Hāgar and her infant son to wander alone in the
wilderness of a place called "Beersheba", which, according to the Zionist and orientalist
interpretation is believed to be in Palestine. This of course is the result of hijacking the
geography of the prophets of Allah, and projecting it onto the Levant. The Muslims decided to
make small changes in the details of the story, to make it fit more with their culture. They
claimed that it was Allah who commanded Ibraheem to travel 1,200 kilometers from the Levant,
drop his “wench” and infant son in a deserted valley in the southern Ḥijāz region, then travel
back to a Jerusalem to rejoin his “real” family. [Applause and drums, please!]

Does this story sound convincing to you, dear reader? Would Allah command such a thing? Of
course, they must have found a problem with the Jewish version of the story, which speaks of
Sarah’s jealousy. They must have said to themselves: “If Ibraheem wanted to keep Hāgar away
from Sarah, he could have moved her to some other place in the Levant, not far from his home.
So why go all the way to the heart of Arabia, over 1,200 kilometers away - a trip that would take
several weeks across scorching deserts? It must be because Allah commanded it”.

Going back to the previous passage in (Genesis 21), we recall the following:

So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and
putting [it] on her shoulder, he gave [it] and the boy to Hāgar, and sent her away.

50
Then she departed and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba. And the water
in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs.

Again, the Muslim commentators changed the details a bit, replacing the loaf of bread and water
skin with a knapsack of dates and a water skin, to make the story fit better with their culture
(Apparently, they believe dates are "holy"). But what about the glaring geographical absurdness
itself? How did they go about solving that? Let’s contemplate the story a little bit:

It has become a part of the Muslims’ creed that Ibraheem cast Hāgar and her son out from his
home in Palestine, and sent her deep into the heart of Arabia. And what did he equip Hāgar with
for her trip, which was 1,200 kilometers long? A single water skin and a knapsack of dates...
And so Hāgar became lost in the wilderness, the distance required to consume a single water
skin, and lo and behold! She found herself in a valley in the southern Ḥijāz region. Our question
is: assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hāgar made the trip all by herself; how far can
a woman travel, while carrying her infant son in her arms, and equipped with a single water
skin? We will say anywhere between 5 and 20 kilometers. So how far was the distance between
Ibraheem’s tent and the valley where Allah’s Sanctuary was located? Is it 5-20 kilometers as
logic dictates, or 1,200 kilometers as the diseased traditions of the Muslims tell us?

In fact, this very question was asked by the ancient Arab historians, who found themselves
giving various outrageous explanations for it. Some claimed that Ibraheem travelled with Hāgar
from the Levant, left her near Makkah with the water skin and dates, then went back to the
Levant. Or, if you want something even better, listen to what al-Suhaily says in his book entitled
al-Rawḍ al-Anf (page 55):

ّ‫وكانّسببّإنزالّهاجرّوابنهاّإسماعيلّبمكةّونقلهاّإليهاّمنّالشامّأنّسارةّبنتّعمّإبراهيمّعليهّالسالمّشجرّبينهاّوبين‬
ّ،‫ّفاحتملهاّعلىّالبراقّواحتمل ّمعهّقربةّبماءّومزودّتمر‬،‫ّفأمرّإبراهيمّأنّيسيرّبهاّإلىّمكة‬،‫ّوسماءّماّبينهما‬،‫هاجرّأمر‬
ّ .‫ّثمّولىّراجعا‬،‫وسارّبهاّحتىّأنزلهاّبمكةّفيّموضعّالبيت‬
ّ
Here follows is a paraphrase of al-Suhaily’s words (with our comments in brackets):

The reason for transporting Hāgar and her son Isma‘eel from the Levant and dropping them of
in Makkah (that’s assuming the present-day city of Makkah even existed back then), was that
a heated argument had taken place between Sarah, Ibraheem’s cousin (they made him marry his
cousin in order to maintain Israelite “purity” without being aware of it) and Hāgar, and so
Ibraheem was ordered (note how the source of the “orders” are either unknown or of “divine”
nature) to carry her on the back of the Pegasus (al-Burāq) to the location of the Bayt (the
Restricted Sanctuary) then return from whence he came (i.e. to Palestine, to rejoin his wife
Sarah).

51
These people are completely insane. There is no other explanation how a story with that many
holes in it can be adopted as the truth. What we can say here is that the Pegasus (the
mythological winged horse), which pops up every now and then in the “Islamic” books of
tradition, is not, nor was it ever, a means of transportation, but rather a means of forgery and an
insult to the intelligence of the average mind. Its purpose is to patch up a glaring geographical
plot hole, to separate between Ibraheem and his progeny, and to enforce a dogmatic traditional
belief that no sane mind can accept.

Picture #3: The Pegasus solves the geographical discrepancy!

The sane and logical version of the story is as follows: Ibraheem left his original homeland
which was somewhere in South Arabia (by the end of this book we will have deduced its
approximate whereabouts), with his wife and nephew, and migrated to the “Blessed Land”,
which was also in South Arabia, where he was bestowed, by Allah, two sons at an advanced age:
Isma‘eel and Isḥāq (in that order). The Patriarch set up his tents in the Restricted Sanctuary. He
was accompanied by Lūṭ at first, but then they parted ways shortly after they reached the Sarāt
Country. Although the Qur’ān does not mention it, it is possible that Ibraheem had two wives.
The second, however, was not a servant wench, and she most certainly was not Egyptian, as we
will soon see.

The alternative story, which we have been fed since childhood, separates Ibraheem’s family into
two branches; his “Israelite” wife Sarah with her son Isḥāq located in ancient Palestine, and his
“Egyptian” concubine Hāgar with her son Isma‘eel residing in the Ḥijāz. To insult our
intelligence even further, we read the following passage in Ibn Katheer’s Tafseer (exegesis of
the Qur’ān), wherein he says:

52
‫ ِوقد ِذكر أِنه ِكان‬...‫" ِوقد ِكان إِبراهيم ِعليه اِلصالة ِوالسلم يِذهب فِي ِكل ِوقت يِتفقد ِولده ِوأم ِولده بِبلد فِاران ِوينظر فِي أِمرهما‬
".‫يِركب ِعلى اِلبِراق ِسريعا إِلى ِهناك ِوهللاِ أعلم‬

Here follows is the translation, with our own comments in parentheses: “And Ibraheem (P)
would regularly visit his son and the mother of his son in the Pharan country (a name they
falsely attributed to the territory around Makkah) to check up on them...and it was said that
he would ride the Pegasus and fly there swiftly (from Palestine), and Allah knows best”.

How did such a ludicrous story become part of the Muslim belief system? It seems that in order
to reconcile between the “holiness” of Makkah on one hand, and the false creed that Palestine
was the land of the Israelite prophets on the other, it became necessary for the confused Arab
commentators to split Ibraheem’s family into two branches, placing one in the Levant and the
other in Arabia.

Let us open our eyes and read, straight from the Qur’ān, the truth that exposes their false creed,
and blows their argument completely out of the water:

{And We annouced to Ibraheem the location of the Sanctuary: "Do not set up
anyone with Me, and purify My Sanctuary for those who visit, and those who are
standing, and the kneeling, the prostrating * And call out to the people with the
Hajj they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from
every deep enclosure * So that they may witness benefits for themselves, and
mention the name of Allah in the appointed days, over what He has provided for
them of the animal livestock. So eat from it and feed the needy and the
poor.}...[22:26-28]

Search you soul dear reader, as you ponder over this issue. Does it seem to you, from the above
passage, that Ibraheem, whom Allah had appointed as a guide for people, and who dedicated his
life and the life of his children to serve Allah and preserve His Sanctuary, moved back to
Palestine after having established the Deen and purified the Sanctuary? Was it not Ibraheem
who, after having spent many of the autumn years of his life at the site of the Sanctuary, thanked
Allah for blessing him with two sons at an advanced age?

{And Ibraheem said: "My Rabb, make this a peaceful country, and keep me and
my sons away from serving idols * "My Rabb, they have misguided many from
among the people. So, whoever follows me, then he is of me, and whoever
disobeys me, then You are Forgiving, Merciful." * Our Rabb, I have of my progeny
in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Rabb, so that they
may uphold the salat. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and
give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks * "Our Rabb, you
know what we hide and what we declare. And nothing at all is hidden from Allah
on the Earth or in the heavens * Praise be to Allah who has granted me at my old
age Isma‘eel and Isḥāq; my Rabb is Hearer of the prayer}...[14:35-39]

53
Is there any indication, in the above passage, that Ibraheem left his son Isma‘eel alone at the site
of the Sanctuary and travelled back to Palestine? Who are the sons (in plural) mentioned in the
above passage? Was Ibraheem’s prayer and supplication only for Isma‘eel and his progeny?
What about Isḥāq? Did he not make the Hajj to the Sanctuary? Or did he live the rest of his life
in Palestine? Until when are we going to be bound by such a ridiculous creed?

{And Our messengers came to Ibraheem with the good news, they said: "Peace"
He said: "Peace," and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. * But when he
saw that their hands did not reach for it, he mistrusted them, and he began to
have fear of them. They said: "Have no fear, we have been sent to the people of
Lūṭ." * And his wife was standing, so she laughed when We gave her the good
news of Isḥāq, and after Isḥāq, Ya‘qūb. * She said: "O my! Shall I give birth when
I am an old woman, and here is my husband an old man? This is indeed a strange
thing!" * They said: "Do you wonder at the decree of Allah? The mercy of Allah and
blessings are upon you, O people of the Sanctuary. He is Praiseworthy,
Glorious.}...[11:69-73]

Who was the wife of Ibraheem, who laughed when she heard the tidings that she would give
birth to Isḥāq? Was it the “jealous” wife? Assuming her name was indeed Sarah, this would
mean that the visit by the divine emissaries took place in Palestine, since that’s where common
Muslim belief placed her. If that’s the case, then why did the emissaries salute her and her
husband as “O people of the Sanctuary”? Which Sanctuary (bayt) is being mentioned here? Is it
the one in Palestine? Have we truly been dumbed down and blinded to such an extent that we
cannot see the truth even when it is right under our noses?

 Trip to Egypt?

Let us now leave Beersheba behind, and make our way towards another important stop in
Ibraheem’s journey; a place called Beth-El. The name “Beth-El” is mentioned over 60 times in
the Old Testament, of which only twice in the story of Ibraheem. The first mention of Beth-El in
relation to the Patriarch’s journey comes in the following passage:

Abram passed through the country into the place of Sechem, as far as the oak of
Moreh. And the Canaanites were at that time in the land. And the Lord appeared to
Abram, and said to him: “To your seed will I give this land. And he built there an
altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. And passing on from thence to a
mountain, that was on the east side of Beth-El, he there pitched his tent, having
Beth-El on the west, and Aai on the east; he built there also an altar to the Lord,
and called upon his name. And Abram went forward, going, and proceeding on to
the south. And there came a famine in the country; and Abram went down into
(Egypt), to sojourn there: for the famine was very grievous in the land.…[Genesis
12: 6-10]

54
Some commentators, in their eagerness to prove that the “Blessed Land” is none other than the
southern Ḥijāz regions, were quick to conclude that Beth-El was indeed the House of Allah,
which they believe is the current city of Makkah. This opinion, although certainly closer to the
truth than that of the advocates of the Palestine theory, faces two problems:

1- The above passage from Genesis, in addition to other related passages mentioning Beth-El
that we will analyze later on, describe other locations in the vicinity of Beth-El that have
absolutely no relation to the geography of the Ḥijāz whatsoever, nor is there any mention of
those places in the history of the current city of Makkah.

2- If we assume, for argument’s sake, that Beth-El is indeed the site of Makkah, we will soon
find ourselves caught in another dilemma, which is the presence of “Egypt” in the Septuagint
translation, which claims that Ibraheem (P) sought refuge in the Nile Valley, because there was
famine in the Blessed Land (this is the land that “flowed with milk and honey!”). According to
the text, Ibraheem left Beth-El, after having built an altar to the Lord there, and went south into
Egypt to escape the famine. Another geographical discrepancy poses itself here: how did
Ibraheem cross 1,500 km, with his sheep and goats, to reach the Nile Valley? Did he travel on
foot, or ride his donkey? Or perhaps the Pegasus flew him to the land of the Pyramids? More
importantly, how could anyone travel southward from present-day Makkah, and reach Egypt? If
Ibraheem was indeed in the Ḥijāz, and traveled south from there, he would have eventually
ended up in Yemen, on the coast of ‘Ādan, and not anywhere near Egypt.

The second mention of Beth-El pertaining to Ibraheem’s journey appears in the following
passages, which describe the Patriarch’s return from Egypt, leading a large pack of livestock,
and his coffers laden with gold and silver, as he made his way back to Beth-El:

And Abram went up out of (Egypt), he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot
with him, from the south. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
And he returned by the way that he came, from the south to Beth-El, to the place
where before he had pitched his tent between Bethel and Aai. In the place of the
altar which he had made before; and there he called upon the name of the
Lord…[Genesis 13: 1-4]

The map on the next page gives us a better picture of the distances that he would have crossed, if
Beth-El is understood to be at the present site of Makkah, and Msrim is interpreted as Egypt.

Even more preposterous than Ibraheem’s alleged foray into Egypt is the Biblical explanation of
how he became rich as a result of it. Let’s read the following passage from the Septuagint Bible:

And when he was near to enter into (Egypt), he said to Sarai his wife: “I know
that you are a beautiful woman. And that when the Egyptians shall see you, they
will say: She is his wife. And they will kill me, and keep you. Say, therefore, I pray

55
you, that you are my sister; that I may be well used for you, and that my soul may
live for your sake”. And when Abram was come into (Egypt), the (Egyptians) saw
the woman that she was very beautiful. And the princes told Pharaoh, and praised
her before him: and the woman was taken into the house of Pharaoh. And because
of her, he was good to Abram, and he had sheep and oxen and asses, and men-
servants and women-servants, and camels. But the Lord scourged Pharaoh and his
house with most grievous stripes for Sarai, Abram's wife. And Pharaoh called
Abram, and said to him: “What is this that you have done to me? Why did you not
tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, She is your sister, so that I took
her as my wife? And now, behold, there is your wife! Take her, and go away. And
Pharaoh gave his men orders concerning Abram: and they led him away, and his
wife, and all that he had…[Genesis 12: 10-20].

Map #3: Ibraheem’s trail according to the rampant Muslim belief. The roundtrip distance from Makkah
to the Nile Valley and back totals 3,000 km.

Aside from the glaring Septuagint corruption which translated the name Msrim as Egypt, we
learn, from the above passage, that Ibraheem was apparently a cuckold, who sold his wife Sarah
to the “Pharaoh” of Egypt, in exchange for his own safety, and a generous gift of livestock. The
truth is that the pens of the Jewish priests wrote much worse slander about the messengers of
Allah than the heap of garbage you have just read. This is not the place however, to illustrate
with examples. What is even more outrageous is the fact that the classical commentators did not
have any reservations against using these Biblical passages to “embellish” the Qur’ānic account,
which they found to be “lacking”, or incomplete, so to speak. Would Ibraheem, who was
described in the Qur’ān as the virtual father of all the messengers; the man who set an example
for humanity and dedicated his life to the service of Allah, sell his own wife to a tyrant in
exchange for worldly material gifts?

56
The Qur’ān describes itself as recounting to the Children of Israel the true version of the events
that were disputed among them: {This Qur'an recounts to the Children of Israel most of
that which they are in dispute over}...[27:76]. It also contains the best and most accurate
accounts of the previous nations: {We recount to you (O Muḥammad) the best accounts
through what We have inspired to you in this Qur'an; and before it you were of
those who were unaware}...[12:3]. Allah describes the Qur’ān as being {A Book whose
revelations are detailed, an eloquent Qur’ān for a people who know}...[41:3]. It is,
according to the Almighty, a revelation that {No falsehood could enter it, presently or
afterwards; a revelation from One Most Wise, Praiseworthy}...[41:42].

Yet how have the so-called “Muslims” been approaching the Qur’ān throughout the ages? They
have dealt with it on the basis that it is an incomplete book that needs other sources to “explain
it”. They have gone on resorting to slanderous canonical and rabbinical scriptures as means to
“interpret” the Qur’ān and “fill the gaps” in its passages. Consequently, the Deen (divine system)
decreed for them by Allah has been corrupted, and its doctrines infiltrated by countless lies and
false concepts that have become the basis for dogmatic beliefs not open to any doubt or
discussion. Meanwhile, the Qur’ān, the only available scripture capable of exposing those false
beliefs, has been rendered to no more than a book of eloquent poetry, its passages referred to as
“verses”, to be recited without any reflection or understanding. As a result of this, the history of
our nation has been hijacked right from under our noses, and replaced with a twisted, orientalist
version that has been presented to us on a silver platter as the unquestionable truth.

So which of the two sides is correct then? Where exactly is the land that Allah described as
“Blessed to all Peoples”; the country to which Ibraheem migrated, and the site of the ancient
Sanctuary? Is it in Palestine, or in the Ḥijāz? Or is it elsewhere altogether?

We are very close to cracking this age-old puzzle.

*****

57
 CHAPTER II

Al-Hamadāni’s Testimony

58
Before revealing the details and particulars of the Biblical geography, we have to understand the
phenomenon known in Arabic as tayammun, and the role it plays in any historical or
geographical research. This phenomenon is as old as humanity itself, and will continue to exist
as long as there are humans on this Earth, and lands to explore. When populations migrate, the
first thing they do is to give the geographical features of their new territory (towns, rivers,
valleys, mountains, etc...) names that were known in their original homeland. This is done to
keep an emotional link to their past, and is believed to bring good fortune (the word yumn
actually means optimism). Although this phenomenon has been unquestionably proven by
anthropologists and linguists alike, it can cause some confusion to researchers if it is not taken
into account when studying the history of past nations, due to the similarity (duplicates) it creates
in terms of names of geographic locations.

Nowhere is the phenomenon of tayammun more evident than in ancient Arabia and the Levant
regions. Plenty of evidence for this fact can be seen in the forgotten books of history written by
Arabs scholars. For example, in his book entitled Fatḥ al-Bāri, geographer and historian Ibn Ḥijr
brings to our attention the following fact concerning the name Ṣan‘ā’ (Volume 11, page 410):

‫ واألصل فيها صنعاء اليمن لما هاجر أهل‬. ‫ احترازا من صنعاء التي بالشام‬، ‫وأما صنعاء فإنما قيدت في هذه الرواية باليمن‬
."‫اليمن في زمن عمر عند فتوح الشام نزل أهل صنعاء في مكان من دمشق فسمى باسم بلدهم‬

To paraphrase Ibn Ḥijr, there are two places bearing the name in question: there is the famous
Ṣan‘ā’ of Yemen (the capital and quite possibly the oldest city in Arabia), and there is another
small rural area on the outskirts of Damascus (capital of Syria) called Ṣan‘ā’ as well. Ibn Ḥijr
states that during the so-called “Muslim conquest” of the Levant, under ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb,
the original inhabitants who migrated from Yemen settled in that region of the suburbs of
Damascus, and gave the area the same name as their original home city.

Consequently, if news of a certain event that happened in Ṣan‘ā’ was being spread, it is
understandable that the first setting to come to one’s mind is the capital of Yemen, because of its
popularity. But the fact is that the event could very well have taken place in the other, far less
known Ṣan‘ā’, which is today an area within Damascus.

Stopping briefly to study this phenomenon in our modern age, we will find that there are
countless names of cities and towns that are duplicated all across the world, especially in the
“new” continents that were the target of exploration and colonization. The following are some
examples:

1- The city of Washington, which is today the capital of the USA, was named after a small town
of the same name on the outskirts of Newcastle, England.

59
2- The city of New Orleans, also in the USA, was named after the old (original) Orleans in
France. Everyone in the USA knows full well that a great percentage of the inhabitants of this
city are descendants of the original settlers who had migrated from France, bringing with them
all the memories and names they held dear to their hearts, as a kind of optimism charm to start
their lives in the new continent.

3- The city of New York was also named after the original (parent) York, in England.

4- There are no less than five towns by the name of “Mecca” in North America alone!

This phenomenon encompassed not only the names of cities and towns, but also of famous
landmarks or geographical features (rivers, mountains, valleys, etc...), as we will soon see.

Going back to Arabia and the Levant, we find in the phenomenon of tayammun the only
reasonable explanation for the hundreds of duplicates in the names of cities all across these
regions. And the glaring evidence is that the original name is always found to be in South Arabia
(Yemen, in particular).

There is a city called Jarash in Jordan; and there is also Jarash in Yemen. Which is the original,
and which is the tayammuni name? To answer this question, we simply need to follow the
direction of the ancient migrations. Here is what the giant Arab geographer, al-Hamādani says
about this famous Yemeni location in his book entitled (lit) Description of Arabia:

‫ وهم من ولد يريم ذي مقار‬،‫ ويسكنها وترأس فيها العواسج من أشراف حمير‬،‫ وهي من ديار عنز‬،‫ هي كورة نجد العليا‬:‫جُرش‬
‫ ولها أشراف غربية بعيدة‬،‫ ولهم سؤدد عود وجابة اليمانية في نجد إليهم وهم يقومون معهم بحرب عنز وجُرش في قاع‬،‫القيل‬
‫ ثم يلتقي‬،‫ حمومة وحمة وكولة‬،‫ بينها وبين حمومة ناصية تسمى األكمة السوداء‬،‫منها تنحدر مياهها في مسيل يمر في شرقيها‬
.‫ فجرش رأس وادي بيشة‬،‫بهذا المسيل أودية ديار عنز حتى تصب في بيشة بعطان‬

In the above passage, al-Hamadāni is describing Jarash (or Jurush, as it is commonly

pronounced) as a location containing many watery streams, that in the ancient times was settled
by the ‘Awāsij (Jewish nobles of the Ḥimyaritic line). It lay at the mouth of the Beesha valley in
Northern Yemen.

There is a town called Qāna in Lebanon (where the Zionist regime perpetrated a massacre in
1996, firing missiles at a UN building harboring refugees, and killing a hundred people, mostly
women and children). But there is also a coastal city by the name of Qāna in Yemen, which
occupied an important position on the ancient trade routes. Which of these two towns is the
original and which was given the duplicate name?

60
For now, let us look with some detail, into the ancient and ruined city of Sūr (Tyre) in Yemen.
This ancient city has been embedded in the Arabian memory for time out of mind, as an example
of the destruction which befalls human settlements, resulting from natural catastrophes. It is
located in a province known as Mikhlāf Jayshān, south of Ṣan‘ā’. Jayshān was, historically, the
greatest of the old Yemeni makhaleef (provinces or mini-kingdoms), and during the time of
Muḥammad (P), it was famous as the homeland of the Qarāmiṭa, a prestigious Yemeni clan who
were among the first to embrace Muḥammad’s message. Sūr was their capital city.

In his book Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni lists the most important locations in the mikhlāf:

‫ و جانب بلد العدويين من حب‬،‫ و بلد بني حبيش‬،‫ و ثريد‬،‫ و حضر‬،‫ و صور‬،‫ و بدر‬،‫ حجر‬:‫و يعد من مخالف جيشان‬
.‫و سخالن‬

The two underlined names are: Badr and Sūr. Apparently, there was another town called Badr,
and it was located in Yemen. This name was later projected far north onto the Ḥijāz region,
where the legendary Battle of Badr allegedly took place; the battle in which the believers, led by
Muḥammad (P), recorded a decisive victory over the idolaters from among the tribe of Quraish.

The ancient Yemeni town of Sūr perished as a result of a series of volcanic eruptions which left
a permanent trace in the tribal memory of Arabia. The town, which was originally one of the
most prosperous in the Sarāt region, tragically became an example of nature’s wrath, and a
subject of many ancient Arabian poems. Famous Yemeni poet, Ibn Ḥarmah, wrote the following
verse in memory of this doomed town:

‫رأينا بهن العين من وحش صور‬ ‫حوائم في عين النعيم كأنما‬

It appears that the fate of Sūr (Tyre) was a truly devastating event that shook the entire region,
and was considered the standard example by which natural destruction was measured. So tragic
was it, that it eventually became the stuff of legend. In fact, many of the classical commentators
of the Qur’an interpreted the passage: {We tested them like We tested those who owned
the garden, when they swore that they will harvest it in the morning}…[17:68] , as
a reminder of the fate of Tyre.

There is even a hadith attributed to the Muḥammad (P), wherein he says to ‘Ali bin abi-Ṭaleb:

‫ غفر هللا لك؟‬،‫ ثم كان مثل صور‬،‫أال أعلمك كلمات إذا قلتهن‬

Translation: "Shall I teach you some words you can say so that, if the example of Tyre
should come to pass, Allah will forgive you?"

61
This hadith narration, regardless of its authenticity, is still an indicator of the trace that the
destruction of Tyre had left in the memory of the Arabs. The point is not to determine its
authenticity, but simply to point out that the Arabian tribes were very familiar with the town of
Tyre, and knew well of its terrible fate. Furthermore, this town had absolutely no relation
whatsoever with the city of Tyre located on the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon, and falsely
believed to be the very same Tyre mentioned no less than 60 times in the Old Testament.

Again, we ask the question: which of the two cities is the original Tyre, and which bears the
tayammuni name?

What about the name “Lebanon” itself? Where did that come from?

To answer the question, there is a twin-peaked mountain in Yemen called Lebynān (the dual
form of Lebn), located in the northern part of the country, not far from the Najrān Vale, and
whose summit rises to a height of over 2,000 meters. The sight of snow on the peak of Lebynān
is not uncommon during the winter months.

Here is what al-Hamadāni says in Description of Arabia (page 283) concerning this mountain:

‫و لباخة‬...‫ شوكان و الجالليان و نفحة‬:‫فأسرار نجران‬....‫نذكر سرار وادي نجران و سوائل الجوف الصغار دون أعراضه‬
.‫ و لبينان‬،‫السفلى‬

In the above passage, al-Hamadāni names the best known peaks around the Vale, notably:
Shūkān, al-Jalāliyyān, Nafḥa … Lower Labākhah, and Lebynan.

Picture #4: Snow covering the highest peaks of the Sarāt Mountains

62
Not only was the Lebanese city of Tyre named after an older Yemeni town, but the entire
country itself, famous for its snow-covered peaks, was named after a similar mountain in the
Arabian Sarāt; another glaring example of tayammun.

The ultimate purpose of this journey is to retell the history of Arabia as it truly happened, and as
seen through the eyes of its own inhabitants, not the eyes of foreigners. Let us remove the veil
once and for all, and expose the crime of those who hijacked the geography of Allah’s
messengers, including Muḥammad (P); a crime whose effects have infested the Deen for
centuries and are still evident in today’s generation. Liberating the Arabian Peninsula from the
shackles of inherited delusions is the first step towards the liberation of Palestine’s history from
the orientalist and imperialist narration that was imposed by the Zionist movement, starting from
the end of the 19th Century.

Suppose that we successfully correct all the errors that were perpetrated by the Masoretic Order,
starting from the 6th Century AD, when they began accentuating the silent letters of the original
Aramaic text of the Old Testament, by adding vowels and dialectic marks therein. Furthermore,
suppose we are successful in identifying all the elements of the older Septuagint forgery that was
perpetrated in Egypt during the 4th Century BC, at the hands of the Jewish priests who
“translated” the Old Testament from Aramaic to Greek. What are we left with then? The answer
is quite simple: We end up with a record of events and old Arabian stories and legends whose
theater was in ancient Yemen, and not anywhere else on the planet! This is the truth that will
eventually shine forth from between the lines of the Biblical text itself. Palestine has nothing to
do with the Old Testament, in any way, shape or form. It is all a great deception that was
contrived by the orientalist imagination, with the ultimate goal of annexing Palestine and giving
credibility to their imperialist project, by finding a “divine” basis for their interpretation of the
Biblical text. In other words, the delusional connection between the Old Testament and the
Levant is a result of an orientalist deception that quite simply projected the theater of the events
surrounding the ancient Israelites onto that region.

The time has come for us Arabs to disengage our account of the region’s history from the
account that has been imposed by others. Until we do so, we will find ourselves stuck in a truly
paradoxical dilemma: How can we achieve victory in our struggle over Palestine, when we have
been sharing the same false history of its territory with our enemy? For decades, we have been
reiterating the orientalist version of Palestine’s history, without even giving it a second thought.
We have been teaching our children the same poisonous fraud concerning the history of our
lands, repeating it like parrots in our schools, colleges and universities; that Palestine is the
“Jewish Promised Land”; that Palestine is “The Holy Land” or “Land of the Prophets”; that the
current city of Jerusalem is the same Ur-Salem mentioned in the Old Testament; that the terms
“Jew” and “Israelite” are synonymous. We have been repeating this garbage for so long, that
even the so-called Muslim “scholars” have fallen victims to the great deception, claiming that the

63
1948 annexation of Palestine by Jewish pirates is a realization of an apocalyptic Qur’ānic
prophecy that Allah will eventually gather all the Children of Israel in one place! Everything that
has been taught in our educational and religious institutions concerning Palestine’s history is
quite simply false. It has all been built on orientalist delusions and racist ideologies that, in their
core, are hostile to Arabs, and to the scientific and objective truth. It is truly a mind-boggling
paradox we live in. We must disengage our account from theirs, and to declare, at the top of our
voices, the shattering truth that the geography of the Old Testament has absolutely no relation to
the landscape of Palestine whatsoever. And we defy them to prove otherwise.

From the hundreds of place names mentioned in the Old Testament, fewer than 10% have
actually been identified as places within the Palestinian territory. This relatively small percentage
is due either to the phenomenon of tayammun, which we talked about previously, or because of
fraudulent projections made by the orientalist interpretation and translations of the Biblical text.
This fraud was facilitated by a vast majority of Biblical scholars, who were aided by the Zionist
war generals as well as the traffickers of ancient Palestinian artifacts, who went to great lengths
to smuggle relics of pottery, stone, or metal out of the Palestinian territory, in order to hide the
nature of these relics from the world. As for the remaining 90% of the names, no trace has ever
been found of them in Palestinian culture or history. The mismatch between the landscape being
described in the Old Testament and the geography of Palestine is a screaming reality that will
become more and more evident as we walk along the road of this journey. The Old Testament
describes towering mountains, upon which fortifications were built, none of which have been
located in the territory of Palestine. It speaks of abundant river valleys, and types of plants and
vegetation that do not, nor have they ever grown in Palestine. And even in the rare cases where
Biblical names have been naturally identified as real places in Palestine, their surrounding
geography is completely out of context with the actual landscape.

And now, after this necessary exposition on the nature of the fraud that was perpetrated in the
geography of Allah’s messengers, we can return to retrace Ibraheem’s journey through the
highlands of the Sarāt Country of Arabia. We will prove to you, honored reader, that Ibraheem
(P) was a legendary figure of Arabia’s distant past, who lived and died in ancient Yemen, and
never set foot beyond its valleys and mountains. In this critical chapter, we will reveal
a series of “coincidences” that will expose the fallacy of the Zionist and orientalist geographical
projections, while retracing the true footsteps of the Patriarch (P) through the highlands of
Yemen, as seen through the eyes of the giant Arab geographer al-Hamadāni (died 945 AD), and
with the help of old Arabian poetry from even before the time of Muḥammad (P).

The two main Biblical locations that we will set as reference points throughout our search are
namely Beersheba and Beth-El, which were important stops in Ibraheem’s journey, and which
were mentioned in passing, in the previous chapter.

64
  Coincidences (1-20): Beer-Sheba

Let us start by going back to the controversial name “Beersheba”, which today designates an area
in Southern Palestine (according to the orientalist projections), despite the utter failure of
archeologists to find any shred of proof that the place had a connection to Ibraheem (P). The
name is mentioned over 30 times in the Old Testament, beginning with the passage in (Genesis
21), that we discussed earlier. It is worth noting that in some translations of the OT (Noah
Webster Bible, American Standard Version), the name appears in the compound form “Beer-
Sheba” - which is in fact more accurate and reflective of the original Aramaic text - while in
other translations it is rendered as “Beersheba”. In any case, the word “beer” means “well” (the
Arabic form is bi’r)

When archeologists excavated the land of Palestine for the first time, the oldest well they found
in Beersheba belonged to the Iron Age (around 700 BC), and had absolutely no relation to
Ibraheem whatsoever. The well was dug with iron tools, and reached a depth of 40 meters, after
which it ended before reaching any underground water. It is completely out of the question that
the well existed during Ibraheem’s day and age.

It is worth noting that the Arabic translations of the OT have rendered the name as Bi’r al-Sabe‘,
which can mean either “Well of the Seven” or “Well of the Wild Beast”. This translation is
actually inaccurate, as it assumes that the original “Hebrew” name had the pronoun article ha,
which is not the case. (The Arabic translation would be correct had the “Hebrew” name been
Beer ha-Sheb‘). Some Arab academics and experts in the field of linguistics, notably Kamāl
Ṣaleebi, Farajallah Deeb, and Ziād Minah - despite their different opinions regarding the actual
location of the place - agreed concerning the inaccuracy of the Arabic translation of the name,
and indicated that the correct rendering of the name must be Bi’r Shab‘ or Bi’r Shabbā‘ah
(meaning: Well of Fullness).

Bearing in mind the names of other Biblical locations in the vicinity of Beer-Sheba, of which not
one trace was found in Palestine on the one hand, while analyzing the staggering similarities
between the Biblical passages and the entries in al-Hamadāni’s book Description of Arabia
(DoA) on the other, we were finally able to locate the place in the highlands of Yemen. In fact,
talking about Bi’r Shabbā‘ah, will automatically lead us to the ancestral homes of one of the
twelve tribes of Israel, the Tribe of Simeon. The ancient Yemeni prophet Yūsha‘ (Joshua)
designated the following areas as the residence of Simeon, within the greater territory of Judah:

And the second heritage came out for the clan of Simeon by their families; and
their heritage was in the middle of the heritage of the children of Judah. And they
had for their inheritance Beersheba, and Sema, and Moladah. And Hazar-Shual and
Balah and Azem. And Eltolad and Betul and Hormah. And Ziklag and Beth-
Marcaboth and Hazar-Susah. And Beth-Lebaoth and Sharuhen; thirteen towns with
their unwalled places... (Joshua 19: 1-6).

65
Before we pinpoint the exact location of the places mentioned in the above passage, a brief word
is in order regarding the distribution of territories among the Israelite tribes. In many instances,
we find the tribal homes overlapping in certain areas, as is the case, for example, with the
biblical location of “Hormah”, which was, at the same time, a part of the territory of the great
Tribe of Judah. This in fact takes us back deep into the history of Arabia, to ages where some
tribes found themselves sharing certain territories, while bearing the exclusive rights to others.
This territorial system was known as the ḥuqūq (meaning: the rights). For example, in the books
of the Arab geographers of old, we find the ḥuqūq of clan Tameem overlapping with the ḥuqūq
of clan of Ṭa’i. What is interesting, as we will see later on, is that this exact same expression, ḥqq
(as it appears in the original, silent Aramaic text), is encountered in the Book of Joshua. The
orientalists, who obviously didn’t understand the significance of this term, interpreted it as being
the actual name of a location! The truth of the matter is that neither Palestine, nor Arabia, nor
any other corner in the entire world for that matter, ever knew a place by the name of Ḥuqūq.

Bearing this important point in mind, we can now move on to point out the actual location of the
Biblical Beer-Sheba, as well as the other places in its vicinity. Here follows then are the areas
comprising the territory of the Tribe of Simeon, as designated by Joshua.

1) Beer-Sheba:

Al-Hamadāni mentions this place by the name Bi’r Shabbā‘, and places it within the area known
today as Kareef Radā‘ (formerly Mikhlāf Radā‘), a region of ancient fortifications and water
canals located in the vestiges of Wihāẓah, which, sometime during Yemen’s past, was referred to
as Shabbā‘. The area is in the north-western corner of the province of Ibb. The ancient, ruined
fort of Wihāẓah is located in a high, mountainous region, marked by the presence of several
shallow wells, among them the well of Shabbā‘.

Take a look at the following passage in al-Hamadāni’s Description of Arabia (page 148):

ّ‫ّوّالقلعةّبطريقينّعلىّكل‬...ّ‫ّعلىّبابّالقلعةّموطأّفيّالقاع‬.‫ّوّهيّتشابهّناعطّفيّالقصورّوّالكرف‬،‫مصنعةّوحاظةّوّاسمها ش ّباع‬
ّ‫ّوّدرجّينزلّإليهّمنّرأسّالحصنّبالسُّرَ جّفي‬،‫ّوّالماءّالثانيّمنّشمالّالحصنّفيّجوفّمنّصفاّكالبئرّمطويّبالبالط‬...ّ‫طريقّماء‬
ّ .‫ّحتىّيُؤتىّبالماء‬،‫ّعلىّمسيرةّساعة‬،‫الليلّوّالنهار‬

Paraphrase: Al-Hamadāni mentions an area he calls Masna‘at Wihāẓah, (the name indicates an
ancient fortification), also known as Shabbā‘. He also describes the entire surrounding region as
having water wells. He mentions an old stairway, carved from the natural rock, which comes
down from one ancient keep, to the wells, where one could have easy access to the water.

There lies the Biblical Beer-Sheba, in a solitary mountainous region that was once, long ago, part
of the territory of the Tribe of Simeon, as Joshua recorded it, not far from the city of Ibb.

66
 2) Sema:

The second name that appears in (Joshua 19) is Sema (or Shema, in some translations). The
actual pronunciation, according to the Aramiac text, is Sema‘ (Shema‘), and properly rendered as
Sum‘ (or Suma‘) in Arabic. Has Palestine ever known a place bearing such a name? In his
description of the territories of the Hamadān landscape of Yemen, al-Hamadāni says (DoA, page
134):

ّّّّ ُ
‫يبّفيّجبالّذخار‬ َ‫شر‬ ُ ‫شعاب‬
ُ ّ‫هّذخارّو‬ ُ ّ ‫وّمساقيّ َمور‬
ُ ّ‫ّفأول‬.‫تأخذ ّغربيّهمدانّجميعا ًّوّبعضّغربيّخوالنّوّبعضّغربيّحِميَر‬
.‫سمع‬
ُ ّ‫وّمَسورّفالشوارقّو‬

According to DoA, the Mountain of Sum‘ , which lent its name to the Tribe of Simeon (Sam‘ūn)
that lived under its shadow, lies in the same geographic space as the great river valley of Mawr
(this is the Biblical Moreh/Mowreh near which Ibraheem had initially settled). In another
passage of DoA (page 151), we read the following:

.‫سمع‬
ُ ّ‫ّفالعرشّو‬،‫ّفأماّمنّناحيةّرداع‬...ّ‫ّوّهوّأعظمّأوديةّالمشرق‬،‫ثمّميزابّاليمنّالشرقي‬

Here, we see that al-Hamadāni mentions Sum‘ within the area of Mikhlāf Radā‘, the very same
location of Bi’r Shabbā‘. A coincidence, perhaps?

3) Moladah:

According to al-Hamadāni, the site known as Fajj al-Mawladah is located in the vicinity of
Ḥaleph. Interestingly, the term fajj* simply means a deep enclosure in a mountainous region. In
fact, many areas in Yemen bear the description of a fajj, and carry compound names. Examples
include: Fajj Tūlāl, Fajj Zarab, Fajj Kulayd. As for Ḥaleph (the Biblical “Haleph”), it was also
a part of the territory of the Tribe of Judah, due to the tribal system of huqūq.

Here is what DoA says regarding this place (page 218):

ُ ّ‫ثمّالجوفّاألعلى ّوّبهّمنّالقُرى‬
ّّّ،‫ّوّبهذاّالجوفّأكانطّوّمحصمّوّف ّج المولدة‬.‫ّوّالمناحيّعلىّشطّالخارد‬،‫ّوّهرانّوّالسفل‬،‫شوابة‬
.‫وّصوالنّخرفانّوّال ُكساد‬

The orientalists tried, in vain, to find a place called “Moladah” in historic Palestine, and the
Biblical archeologists were at a loss, failing to find any physical or linguistic evidence of that
name within the territory of Palestine. There is Fajj al-Mawladah, as al-Hamadāni described it, in
the highlands of Yemen.
_____________________________________________________________________________ ________________
* See, for example, in the Qur’an: {And call out to the people with the Hajj, they will come to you walking and
on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure (fajj)}...[22:27]

67
4) Haleph:

Although Haleph does not appear in the Biblical passage we are currently analyzing
(Joshua 19: 1-6), we feel it is important to mention it, in passing, due to the nature of the
territorial rights assigned to the ancient Israelites. Haleph was a location that lay within the
overlap of the territories of Simeon, Zebulun (none other than the ancient Yemeni tribe of Bani
Zubālah), Judah (the Yemeni tribe of Yahūdha) and Asher (none other than the Ash‘aris of
Yemen). Here follows is an important passage from the orientalist translations of the Old
Testament:

From Haleph...their border extended westward to Aznoth-Tabor, and went out

from there toward (Hukkok); and then joined Zebulun on the south side and Asher
on the west side…[Joshua 19:33,34].

The above translation reveals yet another spectacular case of blatant forgery committed against
the original Aramaic text itself, but this time by the orientalists. The phrase “went out from
there toward Hukkok; and then joined Zebulun” is nowhere to be found in the original text.
The Aramaic passage is as such:

‫ושב הגבול ימה אזנות תבור ויצא משם חוקקה ופגע בזבלון מנגב ובאשר פגע מים וביהודה הירדן מזרח השמש׃‬

If we transliterate the underlined part, it says precisely the following: “m - shm - hqq - Zebln”,
which, in plain English, means: “it reached the hukuk of Zebulon”. What happened was that
the diseased orientalist imagination conjured up a place called Hukkok, thinking it to be the
proper name of a location in the alleged “Promised Land”. The truth is that no such place exists
by that name. The Aramaic text is simply telling us that the territory of the tribe of Simeon
stretched until it reached the rights (huqūq) of neighboring Zebulon (Bani Zubālah) as per the
ancient tribal system of territorial rights. Use of this ancient term was evident in the Yemen, and
it was used by the Arabs, in their distant childhood, to assign the territorial rights of their tribes.
For example, in al-Bakri’s famous Glossary of Countries (entry #365), we read the following:

."‫"والتقت حقوق قيس و تميم في هضبات صغار قريب َجبلة اليمن‬

Translation: The huqūq of Qays and Tameem met in a region of small hills near the Jablah of
Yemen.

This is but one of the countless examples of deception and fraud, the hallmarks of an orientalist
obsession with the territory of Palestine as the imaginary theater of events that never happened.

68
 Going back to the above passage in Joshua, concerning the two locations named “Haleph” and
“Aznoth-Tabar”, and comparing those names with what al-Hamadāni’s description of the
Yemeni highlands tells us, we find the following (page 218):

ّ :‫ و ما بين فرعه من العقل‬.‫ العقل و َور َور و قرية في أسفل محصم‬،‫و ت ُمرّ بالمناحي و فرع الجوف األعلى‬
،‫فج المولدة‬
.‫ فكتاف و حلف‬،‫ فقصران‬،‫ فمذاب‬،‫ فطالعين‬،‫فالضرك‬

By yet another coincidence, we see the names Fajj al-Mawladah and Ḥaleph appear in the same
geographical space, together, as in the Book of Joshua.

5,6) Aznot / Tabor:

The Old Yemeni pronunciation of the name of this valley is aznat (with a “z”), because the
Yemeni dialects did not have the letter dh, as is the case in the eloquent (Arabic) dialect.
Furthermore, it seems that the interpreters merged the names of two distinct locations (Aznot and
Tabor) into one compound name: Aznot-Tabor. The correct Arabic rendering of the first name is
Adhnah. This is actually a famous valley in Yemen (Wādi Adhnah), whose name, in the ancient
Ḥimyarite Musnad inscriptions appears in the form of “Aznat” (with a solid “t” at the end). This
is due to an old Yemeni habit of sometimes replacing the closed “t” )‫ (ة‬that comes at the end of
certain words with an open “t” )‫(ت‬. Other examples: ne‘mah )‫ (نعمة‬- ne‘mat )‫ (نعمت‬/ Makkah
)‫ (م ّكة‬- Makkat )‫*(م ّكت‬.

Al-Hamadāni gives a detailed description of this famous valley in DoA (page 152), indicating its
location to be north of the famous Ma’rib Dam:

ّّّّّّّّّ،‫ ّبين ّمأزمي ّمأرب‬،‫ ّيكون ّهذه ّالسيول ّوادي أذنة ّو ّتفضي ّإلى ّموضع ّالسد‬،‫ ّو ّرمك ّو ّموضح‬...ّ ‫و ّمن ّجانب ّذمار ّو ّبلد ّعنس‬
.‫وّيميلّمنّخلفّالسد‬

As for the second name, the correct rendering in Arabic is Tabār. Due to the vulgar Masoretic
articulation of the vowel-less Tbr of the original Aramaic text, the name was interpreted as
Tabor). This valley is mentioned by the Yemeni poet al-Rājez al-Radā‘i (who, by yet another
coincidence, was a native of Mikhlāf al-Radā‘, which happens to be where the ruins of Bi’r
Shabbā‘ are located):

‫طَ َوت تبار بعد وادي المطر ِد‬ ‫حذار َملوي مم ّر ُمحص ِد‬
ِ

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Arabic readers of the Quran can verify this phenomenon in [52:29], where the word ‫ نعمت‬was written instead of ‫نعمة‬
(meaning “grace”). Likewise, in [66:10], we see the word ‫ إمرأت‬written instead of ‫( إمرأة‬meaning “woman”). This
style of writing provides subtle clues as to where the Scripture was first recorded.

69
 7-10) Azem, Hinnom, En-Rogel, Akrabbim:

According to Joshua, the territory of the Tribe of Simeon (Bani Sham‘ūn - Sam‘ūn), which he
described in several passages, encompassed a mountain by the name of “Azem”, which he placed
near Moladah. This mountain - according to another passage - also happens to be in the vicinity
of a valley called Hinnom, and a spring by the name of En-Rogel (or Rojel, in some translations).

And the border went down to the end of the mountain that is before the valley of
Hinnom, which is in the plain of Rephaim on the north, and went down the valley
of Hinnom, to the side of the Jebusite on the south, and went down to En-
Rogel…[Joshua 18:16].

Let’s see what al-Hamadāni says in DoA, concerning these locations:

‫ فالحفر من أعلى‬،‫ و نودة‬،‫ فبلد الشاكريين من أهل الدرب‬،‫ سراة عُذر و هنّوم و ظاهر بلد الجواشة‬،‫ثم يتّصل بهذه السراة‬
.‫عصمان‬

The above description mentions the mountains around Hannūm, the country of the Jawāshah
tribe (pertaining to the “Joshen-Goshen” of the Bible, as we will later prove), the Shākiriyyeen
(none other than the Tribe of Issachar-Ishachar), as well as the peak of ‘Aṣmān.

As for En-Rogel (or “Rojel”), several Old Testament translations actually rendered it more
accurately as “Fountain of Rogel”, affirming that the original so-called “Hebrew” text was in fact
describing a water spring. Al-Hamadāni (page 235) does indeed mention a place called Rujlah
which is one of several springs near the ruined city of Jurush (This is the Jurush of Yemen, not
the Jarash of Jordan, as the orientalists claimed):

ّّّّ‫ّديارّربيعةّذوّحُسوّّوّأبان‬.‫ّوّأسلعّوّالسرين‬،‫ّثمّسراةّجنب‬...ّ‫ّتخرجّمنّجرشّقص َد ّصعدةّعلىّبلدّجنب‬:‫منّجُرشّإلىّصعدة‬
ّ .‫ّوّجنباء‬،‫وّرم‬
ِ ّ‫ّماءّالحنوّمنّقضةّّوّاألبواءّوّرجله‬...ّ‫وّقرارّعمق‬

A bit further down (page 242), al-Hamadāni mentions Mount ‘Aṣmān again, in Sarāt Ḥimyar,
not far from the coast of Tihāmah and the valley of Naml (This is the same valley mentioned in
the Qur’an in the story of Sulaymān, and translated as “Valley of Ants”):

ّ‫ّوّهذهّالمواضعّزاويةّمن‬...ّ ‫ّوّعصمان‬...ّ‫ّوّأصلّقُهالّحِميَري‬،‫ ّأرهقّوّقهال‬-ّ‫عقارّيُقالّلهّواديّعقارّوّهوّمنّالبونّاألعلى‬

.‫ّوّأدرانّوّحجةّو نملّوّقيالبّوّشرسّوّهيّلمنّبحافتيّجبلّمسور‬...ّ‫ّبلدّحجور‬...ّ‫تهامةّداخلةّبينّجبالّالسراةّلهمدانّوّحِميَر‬

One notable feature of the old Yemeni dialects was the addition of the letter n at the end of some
words. This phenomenon is evident in the Thamūdic and Ḥimyaritic inscriptions that have been
unearthed in that country, and is encountered in both common and proper nouns. Notable
examples of this phenomenon are: ‘Arab - ‘Arban )‫ عربن‬- ‫ (عرب‬/ ‘Adan - ‘Adnan )‫ عدنن‬- ‫ (عدن‬/
Ṣan‘ā’ - Ṣan‘n )‫ صنعن‬- ‫(صنعاء‬. This n letter suffix is called, al-nūn al-kilā‘iyya )‫ (النون الكالعية‬,

70
 and is evident several times in the Qur’an, as we will see when the occasion calls for it.
This explains why the famous mountain referred to as ‘Aṣmān by al-Hamadāni is also mentioned
as ‘Aṣm in old Yemeni poetry. In fact, al-Rājez al-Radā‘i, the same poet who mentioned Wādi
Tabār (the Biblical “Tabor”), sang of this same mountain, and rendered its name as ‘Aṣm exactly
as it appeared in the silent Aramaic Bible. (The name is written with the letter ṣ in the Bible).

‫للتبشير‬
ِ َ‫يسمعنَهُ باشرن‬ َّ ‫لو‬
‫أن عصم شعفات النيّر‬

Even the Old Testament itself mentioned Mount Azem by the name “Azemon” in the following
passage:

And your border shall turn from the south to the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on
to Zin: its limit shall be from the south to Kadesh-Barnea, and shall go on to
Hazar-Addar, and pass on to Azemon…[Numbers 34:4]

It is one and the same place; as adding the n letter suffix to “Azm” gives “Azmon” or “Azman”
(depending on which vowel is added to the silent text)*. Furthermore, noting the name
“Akrabbim” in the above passage brings to mind the fact that the “im” suffix was indicative of
the plural form of words in the ancient Yemeni dialects (eloh - elohim / cherub - cherubim /
katub - katubim / Himyar - Himyarim). In Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni mentions
a location called ‘Aqāreb within the territory of Mikhlāf Radā‘ (where Beer-Sheba is located).
This word is the Arabic plural of ‘Aqrab. The Aramaic text renders it as “Aqrabbim” (which is
read “Akrabbim” by English speakers and European Jews, who are incapable of vocalizing the q
sound). Here follows is al-Hamadāni’s mention of this place in the same geographical domain as
Beer-Sheba:

ّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّ‫ ّعقارب‬...ّ ‫ ّو ّحبان ّكان ّأصله ّلكومان ّثم ّصار ّاليوم ّلبني ّالحارث ّبن ّكعب ّو ّأهل رداع‬...ّ ‫و ّعزان ّلبني ّسلمة ّو ّ أهل ّثات‬
.‫وّمداوخّألهلّرداع‬

The question that naturally poses itself here is: how can we explain the fact that al-Hamadāni
placed the locations of ‘Aqāreb, ‘Aṣmān (‘Aṣm), ‘Ayn Rujlah, Wādi Hannūm, and Bi’r Shabbā‘
all within the same geographical vicinity in the highlands of Yemen, while the Old Testament
talks of the territory of the Tribe of Simeon as including Akrabbim, Azem (Azemon), En-Rogel,
Valley of Hinnom, and Beer-Sheba? Is all this merely a coincidence?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* In July of the year 2011, Dr. ‘Awad ‘Ali al-Zahrāni, the chief executive of the Department of Tourism and
Antiquities in Saudi Arabia and head of the joint Saudi-American team for archeological excavations in southern
‘Aseer (near the Yemeni border), announced the discovery of ancient ruins south of the city of Abha, dating back to
the Sheba civilization. Most notable among the vestiges is a wall - once part of a military fortification - built with
stone blocks rivaling in size those of the Egyptian pyramids. Engraved on the wall was an intricate carving depicting
a lion attacking a wild bull. Underneath the engraving were the words: asadn qal‘n and thawrn na‘mn. The words
asad and thawr are Arabic for “lion” and “bull”, respectively. In the tradition of the ancient Yemeni dialects, the n
suffix was added to the words. Linguists believe that the nūn al-kilā‘iyya - still very much used today in some areas
of Yemen - may have been the precursor to the Arabic dialectic marks known as tanween.

71
 11) Beth-Lebaoth:

Another location the Biblical archeologists failed to find any trace of in Palestine is Beth-
Lebaoth. Even Kamāl Ṣaleebi, in his search for Ancient Israel within the ‘Aseer province, failed
to produce any evidence for that name there. On page 206 of his Description of Arabia, al-
Hamadāni states the following concerning the Labū’ah Mountain, a peak in the Sarāt of Ḥimyar
that lies within the Dhamār Province, in an area of shallow wellsprings and plentiful grape
orchards:

ّّ.‫ّوّرأسّمخاليفهاّبلدّعنس‬،‫ّوّيسكنهاّبطونّمنّحِميَر‬،‫ّذمارّقريةّكبيرةّجامعةّبهاّزروعّوّآبارّقريبةّيُنالّماءهاّباليد‬:‫مخالفّذمار‬
ّّّّّّ‫ّكثيرّاألعناب‬،‫ّعتيقّالخيل‬،‫ّكثيرّالخير‬،‫ّوّهوّمخالفٌ ّنفيس‬،‫ّإنهّمنسوبّلع َنسّبنّزيدّبنّ َسدَدّبنّزرعهّبنّسبأّاألصغر‬:‫وّيُقال‬
.‫ّبهّبينونّوّجبل ل ُبوءة‬،‫وّالمآثر‬

The only location, in the entire length and width of Arabia, where we can find a mountain by the
name of Labū’ah, is in the Dhamār province of Yemen. And even if we forcefully project that
name onto the Palestinian territory, it would be futile to place in the same geographic domain
that Joshua describes, which mentions other nearby place names of which there is zero trace in
Palestine. In other words, finding a territory within Palestine that encompasses Labū’ah in the
vicinity of Bi’r Shabbā‘, Fajj al-Mawladah, Aṣem, and Sum‘ is next to impossible.

12-15) Hormah, Baal, Iarim, Horeb:

Al-Hamadāni pinpoints the location of Ḥurmah (the Biblical “Hormah”) within the Hamadān
countryside of Tihāmah, directly to the north of Ṣan‘ā’, and in the same geographic domain as all
the previously-mentioned locations. Here follows are his exact words, in DoA (page 217):

ّ ‫ فأول ش‬... ‫صعدة‬

‫ق‬ َ ‫ و ما بينهما و بين‬،‫أما بلد همدان؛ فإنه آ ِخذ لما بين الغائط و تهامة من نجد و السّراة في شمالي صنعاء‬
َ ‫ و شق َمح‬،‫ و جبل َذيبان‬... ‫ الصَّمع و حدقان و بئر العرم‬:‫لبكيل‬
‫ إلى‬،‫ جبل يام‬،‫ و جبال ن ِهم إلى أصحر‬... ‫ و ُحرمة‬،‫صم الشرقي‬
.‫ إلي ُح َريب‬،‫هيالن‬

What is truly astonishing about the above passage is the mention of two other locations: Hurayb
and Bi’r al-‘Arm in the immediate vicinity of Ḥurmah!

On the other hand, Yemeni poet Kuthayr, in one of his poems, weeps in remembrance of
a place named Bi‘āl )‫(بعال‬, a vestige of a once flowering tribal home that eventually became
a ruin.

‫بفيف الخايعان إلى البِعال‬ ُ

‫عرفت الدار كالحُل ِل البوالي‬

72
This name, Bi‘āl, is the Biblical “Baal”. What is worth noting on this occasion is the fact that the
Old Testament mentions several places having compound names that include the term “Baal”.
This name actually indicates a place having a fast flowing, or gushing stream of water that runs
down a mountainside and into a valley. One of those places was called “Baal-Iarim” (or
“Yarim”, in some translations), which simply indicates a “baal” that runs by - or into - the valley
or village or Yarim. In fact, this is exactly what the Book of Joshua tells us:

Kirjath-Baal, which is Kirjath-Yarim, and Rabbah: two cities and their

hamlets…[Joshua 15:60].

Concerning the name “Yarim”, we would like to point out a very notable habit in the ancient
Yemeni dialects, which consisted of inserting the prefix y or ya in the beginning of proper nouns.
Here are some examples of this phenomenon: Tharb - Yathrb ( ‫ يثرب‬- ‫ ;) ثرب‬Karb - Yakrb ( - ‫كرب‬
‫‘ ;)يكرب‬Arb - Ya‘rb (‫ يعرب‬- ‫ ;)عرب‬Noph - Yanoph )‫ ينوف‬- ‫ ;)نوف‬Būs - Yabūs (‫ يبوس‬- ‫)بوس‬.
Following this same dialectic, we get ‘Arm - Ya’rm (‫ يعرم‬- ‫)عرم‬, which is, without the slightest
doubt, the Biblical “Yarim”. In fact, this is exactly how it is spelled in the Aramaic text: ‫יערים‬
(note the presence of the letter ‫ ע‬, which is ‘ayn ).

This name, whether rendered as ‘Arm or Ya’rm (Ya’rim), has absolutely no relation whatsoever
to the geography or culture of ancient Palestine, nor is it found in any dictionary or lexicon that
ever emerged from there. It is a name that is indicative of Yemeni culture, and brings to mind the
legendary Sayl al-‘Arm, the catastrophic flash flood that Arabian culture associates with the
collapse of the Ma’rib Dam. This event is mentioned in the Qur’an, in the Surah by the name of
Saba’ (Sheba), Yemen’s ancient civilization: {But they turned away, so We sent them
a destructive flash flood (Sayl al-‘Arm), and We substituted their two gardens with
two gardens of rotten fruits, thorny plants, and a skimpy harvest}...[34:16].

What about Mount Horeb? For over a century, Zionist propaganda has been filling people’s
heads with stories of this legendary peak as a location where God spoke to Moses. It is
mentioned over 17 times in the Old Testament, among which are:

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.
And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of
the Lord…[Exodus 3:1]

"Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike
the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did
so in the sight of the Elders of Israel…[Exodus 17:6]

The event mentioned above is also narrated to us in the Qur’an [2:60], and it happens after the
Israelites, led by Mūsa (P), fled from the fortified citadel of Miṣr. These events took place on the
slopes of the Sarāt Mountains of ancient Yemen, and were not connected to Egypt in any way,
shape or form.

73
“The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb”…[Deuteronomy 5:2]

Going back to our first book, The Search for Pharaoh, you will remember that we showed you
Midyan and Mount Shuaib to be in Yemen (the mysterious “Teman” of the Bible, the name that
has left the orientalists - indeed the whole world - dumbfounded), close to the capital Ṣan‘ā’. It
follows then, by logic, that the Biblical Mount Horeb is none other than Jabal Ḥurayb )‫(ح َُريب‬,
mentioned very clearly by al-Hamadāni, in more than one instance, as being near the site of
Ḥurmah and Ya‘rm. Again we beg to question: Is it a coincidence that the Book of Joshua
mentions Horeb, Hurmah and Baal-Yarim as being in the same geographic domain?

16,17) Beth-Marcaboth, Hali:

In the original “Hebrew” text recorded in silent Aramaic letters, the name “bt-ha-mrkbt” appears
as one of the tribal homes of Simeon. When the Masorites articulated the silent text by adding
vowels to it, they rendered the name as “Bet-ha-Markabot” (‫)ובית־המרכבות‬, where “ha” is the
article prefix (the). Our view is that this articulation is false, as there is no reason why the vowel
sound “o” must be placed before the last consonant. Furthermore, the last letter in the name (‫ (ת‬is
not a “t”, but an “h”. It follows then that the correct rendering of the name is “Bet-ha-
Markobah”. In Description of Arabia (page 232), al-Hamadāni mentions two distinct places by
the names of Rakūbah and Markūb, and locates them in the vicinity of Ḥali, in a volcanic district
of the Bani Kananah territory:

.‫ّوّالمع َقدّوّ َحليّوّمركوب‬،‫ّحرةّكنانة‬،‫ّوّالحرة‬،‫ّثمّبلدّحرامّمنّكنانة‬.‫ّمثلّالعدايةّوّالركوبة‬،‫وّببَلدّحكمّقُرىّكثيرة‬

ِ

Have the archeologists ever found, in Palestine, two neighboring locations bearing the names
Ḥali and Markūb (Markobah)? And is it by pure happenstance that Joshua names Hali as being
a location on the fringes of the Asher Tribe territory, which shared borders with the territory of
Simeon?

And their border was Helkath, and Hali, and Beten, and Achshaph…[Joshua 19:25]

For the sake of brevity, we will not analyze the place names belonging to the Tribe of Asher in
this book. However, it is worth noting that this “Hali” was also mentioned by the Yemeni poet
Umru’ al-Qays on several occasions:

‫ص‬
ِ ‫حائل و قصي‬
ٍ ‫َحلي بأعلى‬ ‫َصيَّفها حتى إذا لم يُسغ لها‬
َ ‫ت‬

Note how the poet places Ḥali and Qaseeṣ next to each other. The latter is none other than the
Bilbical “Casis”, as we will see later on.

74
In another verse, Umru’ al-Qays sings of the legendary Cedar trees of Ḥali in his native land of
Yemen:

‫من األرض حتى ِسد َر َحلي اليمانيا‬ ُ

‫أحببت ِسدرا ببلد ٍة‬ ‫فو هللا ما‬

Translation of the verse: “By Allah, I have never loved the Cedars in any land as the Cedars
of Ḥali in Yemen”.

Is this another coincidence as well?

18) Balah:

The “Hebrew” name appears as ‫( בלה‬Balah). The Arabic translations interpreted it as Bālah (with
a long a sound), as did geographer Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi in his Glossary (entry #1406). Al-Hamadāni
mentioned it as Bala in his DoA (page 283), and located it near the Najd highlands of Hamadān.

Poet ‘Umar bin abu Rabee‘a, in a nostalgic verse expressing sadness over a lost tribal home,
said:

‫هجتَ شوقا إلى الغداة طويال‬ ‫سائال الرَّب َع بالبلى و قوال‬

Another well-known poet, Jameel Buthaynah also mentioned the place:

‫ها َج منسي شوقنا و شجانا‬ ‫ش فبلَى‬

ٍ ِ‫بينَ عليا ِء واب‬

Why was this name never located in Palestine? Furthermore, what is the secret of this obsession
with places that is evident in old Arabian poetry? Did we, as Arabs, truly understand the depths
of what we invariably labeled as “Jāhiliyya Poetry”? Is there a common denominator to the
verses of “crying over vestiges” in both the old poetry of Arabia and the nostalgic Psalms of the
Old Testament that we have completely overlooked?

19, 20) Sharuhen, Hazor:

We decided to end our listing of the places surrounding Beer-Sheba with the controversial name
“Sharuhen”. The truth is that this name belongs to a tribal group from among the Ḥimyarites of
ancient Yemen, that were known locally as al-Sharāḥeen. The name also appears, in some
sources, as al-Sharāḥi (without the n suffix; a hallmark of the ancient Yemeni dialects). The
homes of these clans were in Mikhlāf Kilā‘, not far from the shadow of a mountain called

75
Jabal Haḍūr. This mountain is in fact the very same Biblical peak of Hazor (rendered with a “z”
because the ancient Yemeni dialects did not pronounce the letter ḍ ).

And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the
sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms (Joshua - 11:10).

On page 121 of DoA, al-Hamadāni states the following:

ّ‫ّثم‬،‫ّوّالعرب‬...ّ ‫ّوّجُبالنّالعركبةّوّهيّبلدّالشراحيين‬،‫ّوّنعمانّمنّغربيّهذهّالسراة‬...ّ‫ثمّيتصلّبسراةّالكالعّسراةّبنيّسيف‬
.‫سمع‬
ُ ‫ّو‬...ّ‫ّوّنقيلّالسودّوّجبلّ َحضور‬...ّ‫ّفظاهرهّضورانّوّمذاب‬،‫يتصلّبهاّسراةّالهان‬

There, in front of us, is the territory of the Sharāḥeen (the Biblical “Sharuhen”), as al-Hamadāni
described it, near Haḍūr (Hazor) and Sum‘ (the Biblical “Sema”). These were the homes of the
Tribe of Simeon (Bani Sam‘ūn) in the green highlands of Yemen.

The table below summarizes the locations surrounding the Biblical “Beer-Sheba”. The second
column (from the left) shows the Aramaic spelling of the name, followed, in the third column, by
its correct transliteration. The fourth column shows how the name was rendered in the English
translations, followed by the actual Arabic spelling of the name as it appears in the old Arabian
sources (geographical and poetic). The last column shows the correct Arabic transliteration of the
name.

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

1 ‫באר־שבע‬ bi’r shb‘ Beer-Sheba ‫بئر شبّاع‬ Bi’r Shabba‘

2 ‫שמע‬ shm‘,sm‘ Sema , Shema ‫سُمع‬ Sum‘
3 ‫מולדה‬ moldat Moladah ‫ف ّج المولدة‬ Fajj al-Mawladah
4 ‫חלף‬ ḥlph Haleph ‫حلف‬ Ḥalaf
5 ‫אזנות‬ aznot Aznoth ‫وادي أذنة‬ Wādi Adhnah
6 ‫תבור‬ tbor Tabor ‫تبار‬ Tabār
7 ‫ עצמנה‬،‫עצם‬ ‘aṣm, ‘aṣmon Azem, Azemon ‫ عصمان‬،‫عصم‬ ‘Aṣm, ‘Aṣman
8 ‫הנם‬ hnm Hinnom ‫وادي هنّوم‬ Wādi Hannūm
9 ‫עין רגל‬ ‘yn rgl En-Rogel ‫عين رجلة‬ ‘Ayn Rujlah
10 ‫עקרבים‬ ‘qrbym Akrabbim ‫عقارب‬ ‘Aqāreb
11 ‫בית לבאות‬ bet-lb’ot Beth-Lebbaoth ‫لبؤة‬ Labū’ah
12 ‫חרמה‬ ḥrmh Hormah ‫حرمه‬ Ḥurmah
13 ‫ יערים‬-‫קרית‬ qryt-y‘rym Kirjat-Yarim ‫ يعرم‬، ‫العرم‬ ‘Arm , Y‘rm
14 ‫קרית־בעל‬ qryt-b‘l Kirjat-Baal ‫ بعال‬،‫بعل‬ Ba‘l, Bi‘āl
15 ‫חרב‬ ḥrb Horeb ‫حُريب‬ Ḥurayb
16 ‫בית־המרכבות‬ Bet-h-mrkbot Beth-Marcaboth ‫ مركوب‬،‫ركوبة‬ Rakūbah, Markūb
17 ‫חלי‬ ḥly Hali ‫حلي‬ Ḥali
18 ‫בלה‬ Bala Balah ‫ باله‬،‫بلى‬ Bala, Bālah
19 ‫שרוחן‬ Shroḥn Sharuhen ‫ شراحين‬،‫شراحي‬ Sharāḥi, Sharāḥeen
20 ‫חצור‬ ḥṣor Hazor, Hatzor ‫حضور‬ Ḥaḍur

76
Is there any logical explanation, dear reader, for this similarity between the old Yemeni sources
and the Book of Joshua? Could it be due to linguistic similarities? Or is it mere coincidence? Or
is it perhaps that the names of these peoples and tribes expose the orientalist interpretation of the
Old Testament stories, and the imaginary theater it created in Palestine, as no more than
a fraudulent geographic projection?

What about the author of the Book of Joshua himself? Do we have any clues as to his identity?
It seems that the Muslim commentators are unanimous that the Joshua of the Old testament, who
led the Israelites to “conquer” ancient Palestine (as they claim), and then distributed lands among
the 12 tribes, is none other than the boy who is mentioned in the following passage: {And Mūsa
said to his young lad: "I will not stop until I reach the junction of the two baḥrs, or
I spend a lifetime trying."}...[18:60]

Is there anything in the Arabic books of tradition that mention the location of Joshua’s tomb?
Apparently, there is. Arab historian Muḥammad ‘Ali al-Akwa‘ al-Ḥawāli, in his book entitled
(lit) Green Yemen - Cradle of Civilization, states the following:

‫ و فيها مزار‬.‫ و جدرين فيها بقايا عمارة و البئر خراب‬.‫ و قُرب جدرين‬،‫"إن عشاش قرية عامرة في الجنوب الغربي من عطان‬
."‫ إنّه صاحب موسى‬.‫ و ال يعرف من هو يوشع بن نون‬.‫تُقَ َّدم له الشموع و الطيوب‬

Translation: “‘Ashāsh is a prosperous village in south-western ‘Aṭān, near Jadreen. And

among the vestiges of Jadreen are the ruins of a well, and an altar to which candles and
perfume are presented. And it is not known for certain who Yūsha‘ bin-Nūn is. He is the
companion of Mūsa”. (‘Aṭān, where the tomb of Yūsha‘ bin-Nūn is, is today a southern suburb
of Ṣan‘ā’).

As for al-Hamadāni, in his book entitled al-Ikleel (“The Wreath”), he says:

‫ فيه قبر يوشع بن‬،‫ أن بين عضدان صنعاء و جبل عيبان موضع يُقال له بئر جدرين‬،‫"ح ّدثني سُليمان ال َكندي و راشد بن شبيب‬
."‫ عليه السّالم‬،‫نون‬

Transliteration: Two of al-Hamadāni’s contemporaries informed the geographer that somewhere

near Ṣan‘ā’ is an ancient well known as Jadreen, and in it is the tomb of Yūsha‘ bin-Nūn.

What is the secret behind the connection between Yemeni culture and the Biblical Joshua? Based
on the evidence we have shown you so far, which do you think are more probably accurate; the
traditions placing Joshua’s tomb in the city of Nablus (Palestine), or the ignored and forgotten
traditions that locate it near the ancient Yemeni capital?

Let us analyze the name Yūsha‘ )‫ (يوشع‬for a moment, by recalling one of the most famous
phenomena in the Yemeni dialects; the inclusion of the letter h in the middle of both common

77
and proper nouns. This is known to linguists as al-hā’ al-waṣatiyya. To give you some glaring
examples of this style, let’s look at the names of four random Yemeni monarchs of the
Ḥimyaritic Dynasty, in the table below:

Name of monarch in English Name in Arabic Period of Reign

Shammar Yahaḥmad (Yaḥmad) )‫شمر يهحمد (يحمد‬ 230 AD - 240 AD

Shammar Yahar‘ash (Yar‘ash) )‫شمر يهرعش (يرعش‬ 275 AD - 300 AD
Yāser Yahan‘am (Yan‘am) )‫ياسر يهنعم (ينعم‬ 300 AD - 310 AD
Ḥassān Yaha’man (Ya’man) )‫حسان يهأمن (يأمن‬ 430 AD - 440 AD

The addition of this h in the middle of the names renders them rather comical to say the least,
and is something that the kings of Saba’ (Sheba) and Ḥimyar were famous for. The name
“Joshua” is in fact none other than the old Yemeni Yusha‘. Once the h is inserted in the name, it
becomes Yahusha‘ )‫ يهوشع‬- ‫)يوشع‬, which is rendered as “Jehoshua”. This name appears more
than once (as belonging to different persons) in the ancient South Arabian inscriptions. The name
is practically screaming Yemeni, and is another of the countless examples of the similarities that
Margoliouth mentioned between what is called “Hebrew” and the old South Arabian dialects.

And if the prophet Joshua is deeply imbedded in the memory of the Yemenis, then so is Shu‘ayb,
after whom the highest mountain in Arabia was named (Mountain of Nabi Shu‘ayb, west of
Ṣan‘ā’), and so is Hūd, whose tomb is believed to be somewhere in the Ḥaḍramawt Valley, as we
will see in the next chapter.

The following are photos of some of the locations encountered in the Beer-Sheba entry:

Picture #5: Wādi Adhnah (Aznot)

78
 Picture #6: Ṭūr Ḥurayb (the green Mount Horeb, where God spoke to Moses)

Picture #7: The peak of Jabal al-Nabi Shu‘ayb (Mountain of prophet Shuaib) above the cloudbank

Picture #8: A village on the peak of Jabal Ḥaḍur (Mount Hazor)

79
  Coincidences (21-31): Beth-El

Our analysis of Beth-El will be conducted while taking into mind the territorial homes of one of
the most famous tribes of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin. This name appears as “Bin Yamin” in the
original so-called “Hebrew” text, and is rendered as Bin Yameen in the Orientalist Arabic
translations.

21) Benjamin:

We have already seen that the ancient Arabian tribes often traced their origins to a legendary
fatherly figure or to a location that has been strongly associated with them. It follows then that
Bin Yamin are either the sons (or descendants) of a man named Yamin, or lived in place bearing
that name. In his book Description of Arabia (page 150), al-Hamadāni mentions a very famous
mountain by the name of Jabal Yāmin, in the southern ranges of Sarāt Ḥimyar, overlooking the
Red Sea coast:

.‫ و هو على شط َر َمع الشمالي مع عتمة‬... ‫ و من جبالن جبل يامن‬،‫صبَر‬

َ ‫ومن ناحية هذا ال َحيز جبل‬

Poet Umru’ al-Qays said:

‫دُوين الصّفا الـآلئي يَلين ال ُمشــقَّرا‬ ‫أو ال ُمك َرعات من نخيل بن يـــامن‬

A few verses down, the same poet said:

‫بأســـــــــــيافهم حتى أق َّر و أوقـــَرا‬ ‫َح َمتهُ بنـــــو الرّبداء من آ ِل يامـــن‬

In the first verse, he describes the palm trees on the slopes of the Bin Yāmin mountain. In the
second, he recounts the story of a fugitive who sought refuge from the tribe of Āl Yāmin, by
seeking sanctuary with another tribe.

Another Yemeni poet, Ṭarafa bin al-‘Abd said:

‫يَجو ُر بها المالح طورا و يَهتدي‬ ِ ‫عَدوليةٌ أو من َس‬

‫فين ابن يامن‬

The above verse gives us a very important geographical indication as to where Mount Yāmin lay.
Ṭarafa tells us that the sailors of Yemen used the green slopes of Yāmin to mark their bearings
along the Sea. Note the word ṭūr that also appears in the verse. It denotes a geographical feature
unique to Yemen. There are no green mountains anywhere in the so-called “Sinai” Pennisula, nor
anywhere around Makkah, for that matter.

80
In the Book of Joshua, we encounter the following passage defining the territorial domain of the
Bin-Yāmin tribe (Benjamin):

Now the cities of the tribe of the children of Benjamin, according to their families,
were Jericho, Beth-Hoglah, the Valley of Keziz. And Beth-Arabah, and Zemaraim,
and Beth-El…(Joshua 18: 21,22).

Let us now see where those places are located in the geography of Yemen:

22) Keziz:

In the so-called “Hebrew” Bible, this name appears as “Qṣṣ”, in the silent Aramaic letters. The
English versions rendered it as “Keziz” or “Casis”, depending on the translation. In any case, no
such name ever existed on the terrain of Palestine or Jordan.

Legendary Ḥimyarite bard Umru’ al-Qays mentions a place called Qaṣeeṣ in one of his poems,
placing it among a series of valleys paralleling the Red Sea coast, including Ḥali, which
belonged to the tribe of Simeon. (The territories of Simeon - as can be deduced from the Arabian
sources - overlapped with those of Benjamin, but the latter were generally more northernly, and
in certain places, extended all the way to the Najran Vālley).
ّ
ّ ‫بأعلىّحائلّوّ َقصيص‬
ٍ ّ‫َتصيَّفهاّحتىّإذاّلمّ ُي َسغّلهاّّّّ ّّ َحلي‬

In his book Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni also mentions the place and renders its name as
Qaṣiṣ, placing it near Wādi Ḥujlah, as we will immediately see.

23) Beth-Hoglah:

Al-Hamadāni names al-Ḥujlah as one of the seven great river valleys of Yemen, whose waters
cascade downwards into the coastal plain of Tiḥāmah and eventually connect with the Red Sea.
Here is what he says (page 186):

... ‫ و ذو ال ُذيب وا ٍد كبير ليافع و بني ُم َسيلة‬... ‫ منها الماذنة و العولة و الحجلة و َمهار و ذو زوم و ذو جيشان‬،‫سبعة أودية كبار‬
.‫صص لرُهاء و لبني زائدة‬ ِ َ‫ق‬

Note the mention of Qaṣiṣ in the same vicinity as al-Ḥujlah. Also, we should note that according
to ancient Yemeni traditions, a valley that encompasses a tribal home was often refered to as
a bayt. This is still true even in our modern times. Hence, the valley of Ḥujlah that is near Qaṣiṣ
happens - “by coincidence” - to be none other than the Bilbical Beth-Hoglah that is near Keziz
(Casis).

81
Another poet, Ibn al-Dameenah, mentions this river valley and its clear, crisp waters in the
following verse:
ّ
ّ ‫يجريّتحتّنيقّحِبابُها‬
ٍ ٌ َ ُ
‫وّماّنطفةّصهباءّصافيةّالقذىّّّّّ ّّب ُحجالء‬

24) Beth-Arabah:

The Aramaic text lists this name as “Bet-ha-‘Arba”, which plainly and blatantly means “Valley
of the Arabs”. You will not find, in the entire length and width of the the Levant a valley bearing
than name. The only location to ever carry that name is the renowned “Wādi al-‘Arab”, which
lies south-east of Ṣan‘ā’. This valley is mentioned by al-Hamadāni (DoA; page 133):

‫ و يهريق في جانبه األيمن‬.‫ إلى ما بين جنوبها و مغربها‬،‫ و رأسه نقيل السود من صنعاء على بعض يوم‬،‫ثم يتلوه وادي سهام‬
.‫ إلى البحر فيهريق وادي العرب ما بين كدراء و ُزبيد‬،‫ و يظهر بالكدراء و واقر فيسقي ذلك الصّقع‬... ‫جنوبي َحضور‬

Two points are worth noting in the above passage:

1- Al-Hamadāni describes the valley as being a yahreeq. This word, in Yemeni culture, denotes a
steep vale with a gushing river basin at its bottom. The word is actually found as yareeq in the
Arabic lexicons, but being that the writer is a Yemeni, he inserted the famous h we talked about
previously.

2- He also mentions mount Hazor (Ḥaḍūr) as being the source of the river that eventually runs
down into Wādi al-‘Arab.

Can this be another coincidence?

25,26) Jericho, Ai:

Talking about the real and original Jericho of Yemen - as opposed to the fake “Jericho” that was
projected onto Palestine - would probably require a whole chapter on its own. This is why we
will dedicate an entire section to it in our upcoming third book, wherein we will discuss the wars
of Joshua and David. It wouldn’t hurt, however, to make a brief stop at this location that is
mentioned by Joshua as being within the territory of the tribe of Bin Yāmin.

The translated texts of the Old Testament render this name as Areeḥa in Arabic, which
corresponds to Yareeḥo (Jericho) in the English translations. What is interesting is that the
ancient Arabian sources mention a tribal, war-torn territory in Yemen called Areeḥ, and in some
sources Areeḥa’. Poet Ṣakhr al-Ghayy said:

82
 ّ ‫ريح ّّّّّّحتىّباءّبكفيّوّلمّأ َكدّأج ِّد‬َ ُ ‫َف‬
ٍ ‫ليتّعنهّسيوفّأ‬

If we sift through the legendary geneological trees of Yemen, as presented by historian Wahab
bin-Manbeh, we find that the clan of Areeḥ, traces its origin to Areeḥ, son of Lāmek, son of
Urfakasd, son of Sām, son of Nūḥ. These names appear, to the letter, in the Old Testament
(Lamech, Ur-Fakashd, Sam, Noah).

Returning to the Book of Joshua, we find the following passage:

And Joshua sent men from Jericho against Ai, which is beside Beth-Aven, on the
east side of the town of Beth-El…(Joshua 7: 2).

The fact of the matter is that the territory of Palestine does not, nor has it ever, known of
locations called “Ai” and “Beth-Aven” and “Beth-El” in the vicinity of “Jericho”. Even the
Biblical scholars and commentators, after their utter failure in finding any trace of “Ai” in
Palestine, wrote the following concerning this location: “Ai: a ruined, vestigial place. The
name itself means ‘ruin’, and has been so since the time of Joshua. In our day and age, it is
just a hill. At any rate, it is difficult to give any credence to the Biblical account of Ai as
being historical”. The Orientalists used this misleading commentary as a means to hide behind
their own fingers, because they knew full-well the futility of attemting to match between the
Bilbical “Ai” and the territory of Palestine. Furthermore, there is no “Beth-Aven” or “Jericho”
near this “Ai”, except in the diseased imagination of the orientalists.

Yemeni poet Khaddāsh bin-Zuhayr al-‘Āmiri, in a rare and precious verse*, describes the wars
of the ancient tribes of Yemen near “Ai”:
ّ
ّ ‫العيّتر َتعي‬
ّ ّ‫ٍّمنّجانب‬
‫ة‬ ‫عدوتمّعلىّمواليّتهتظمونهّّّّّّّبناحي‬

The rendering of the name as ‘Ayy is far closer to the original Aramaic text, which lists the
location as ‫( העי‬pronounced: ‘Āy).

27) Beth-Aven:

Another name that the Orientalists failed to find any trace of in Palestine is “Beth-Aven”. Two
things are worth noting in this regard:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* A word of advice is in order, regarding the many verses of poetry we are quoting: For the sake of credibility, it is
indeed possible, thanks to the internet, to read these verses online. Simply copy/paste each verse in the search
address bar, and you will get the entire poem in question and, in some cases, a biography of the poet who wrote it.

83
 1- The name, as it appears in the Aramaic text, is (‫(בית און‬, which actually spells “Bet-Awn” or
“Bet-Oun”. It was rendered as “Beth-Aven” to make it easier for the European Jews to
pronounce the name.

2- According to Joshua, the place is described as being a desolate “wilderness” not far from
Beth-El and Ai (the Wilderness of Beth-Aven). Despite this clear description, the orientalist
criminals were not deterred from placing it in Palestine, near the two former imaginary sites.

According to Islamic traditions, the prophet Muḥammad, on his return from one of his “raids”,
camped at a small stream called Ūn, which the Arabian tribes avoided because its waters were
said to be undrinkable. Historians al-Ṭabari, Ibn Hishām and al-Bakri place Ūn in the Najd
highlands, along the road that leads to the Najrān province.

Al-Hamadāni, for his part, mentioned this location in DoA (page 268), and rendered it as Awān,
placing it in the Yemeni part of al-Yamāmah:

ّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّ،‫ ّو ّنجلة‬،‫ ّأمالح ّو ّنجيل‬،‫ ّمياه ّالحمادة‬:‫ ّبين ّأجلة ّو ّالفرعة‬،‫ ّسوى ّمجازة ّاليمامه‬-ّ ‫ ّمجازة ّالطريق‬-ّ ‫و ّالنقرة ّو ّالمجازة‬
.‫ّوّمياهّيُفاءّوّبُركّوّأوان‬،‫ّوّمياهّمنيمّإالّالجدعاء‬،‫ّوّ َشعبَع‬،‫ّوّالحامضة‬،‫ّوّالحفيرة‬،‫وّاآلباط‬

Geographer, Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (Glossary of Countries, entry # 79) determined its location near
another place named Lawzah. This Lawzah, as we will soon see, is none other than the Biblical
“Luza”.

To get a better grasp of where Bayt-Ūn lies, let us return to the Arabic poetry of old, which
renders its name as Ūn - exactly as it appears in the Old Testament - and describes it as a valley
(bayt).

ّ ‫أياّأُثل َتيّأونّسقىّاألصلّمنكماّّّّّّّمسي َلّالربىّوّالمُدجناتّرباكما‬

ّ ‫ُرديّلمّأكـسّعاريــاّّّّّّّّوّلمّيلقَ ّمنّطولّالبلىّخلقاكما‬
ِ ‫ّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّفلوّ ُكنتماّب‬
ّ ‫ّذكرتّفنا ُكما‬ً‫بـــاّّّّّّّّوّأصبحتّمقرورا‬ ُ
ُ ُ ٍ ّ‫ّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّّوّماّأثلَ َتي‬
‫أونّإذاّهبتّالص‬

Keeping the above verses in mind, let’s take a look at the next section, where we analyze “Luza”,
a location which Joshua desribed as being “on the road to the wilderness of Beth-Awn”:
ّ
28,29) Luza, Lachis:

We come to it at last; the elusive Beth-El, which constituted an important stop in Ibraheem’s
journey. It is the place where, according to the Book of Genesis, the Patriarch built an altar to

84
God, before he went down into the land of the Msrim in order to escape famine. Let us recall
another passage in Joshua that mentions Beth-El:
ّ
And the border passed on from thence toward Luzah, to the south side of Luzah,
which is Beth-El: and the border went down to Ataroth-Addar, near the hill that is
on the south of the lower Beth-Horon.…[Joshua 18:13]

It is worth mentioning here that the majority of translations rendered the “Hebrew” name )‫)לוזה‬
as “Luz”. This is actually incorrect, as the letter ‫ ה‬at the end of the word corresponds to h in
Arabic. The correct rendering (in English) is hence Luzah or Luwzah. Only a few translations
got it right (the Douay Rheims Bible rendered it as “Luza”).

Another important point is that Joshua states that Luza and Beth-El are the same place. (Meaning
that Beth-El, or some part of it, was formerly known as Luza). Here follows is another
translation of the above passage, as rendered in the Douay Rheims Bible):

And passing along southward by Luza, the same is Bethel: and it goeth down into
Ataroth-addar to the mountain, that is on the south of the nether Beth-Horon.

Here is what al-Hamadani says concerning Lawzah (DoA, page 227):

.‫ّهذهّأعدادّشماليّبنيّالحارث‬.‫ّوّالهرارّوّالبتراء‬،‫ وّالرُبيعيةّبأسفلّنجران‬،‫ّالملحاتّو لوزة‬:‫مواردّبنيّالحارثّبنّكعب‬

In the above passage, the Yemeni geographer places Lawzah as within the boundaries of the clan
of Bani al-Hareth, south of the Najrān valley.

Poet Ibn Muqbil wrote the following verse:

ّ ‫كنّلكيزاّباليمينّوّلوزة ّّّّّّشماالًّوّ َمفضىّالسيلّذيّالغذيان‬

َ َ‫َسل‬

The above verse describes Lawzah and Lakeez as being two neigbouring spots along the same
road, in a country that has nothing to do with Palestine whatosever. This matches the geography
of Joshua, who describes “Lachish” as a place the Israelites conquered within the same domain
as Jericho and Ai. (This was part of the Israelite’s campaign against the Cannanites, led by
Joshua himself, which was fraudulently projected onto ancient Palestine).

Then Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish; and they
encamped against it and fought against it…(Joshua 10:31).

The name “Lachish” is actually the English rendering of a name that appears as “Lakish” in the
original so-called “Hebrew” text. The Arab geographers and poets named it “Lakeez”. This is

85
perfectly understandable since the s, and z sounds were sometimes interchanged in the ancient
dialects (for example: Asad - Azad / Israel - Izrael).

30,31) Beth-Horon, Zin:

We have seen that Beer-Sheba and Beth-El, two locations connected to Ibraheem’s journey from
his ancestral homeland, are actually in the Ṣarāt Mountains of Yemen, and nowhere near
Palestine or the Ḥijāz. We proved this by determining the geography of the other locations
mentioned in both the Bible and al-Hamadāni’s gazetteer Description of Arabia, and supported
by old Arabian poetry.

If Ibraheem (P) was indeed a son of ancient Yemen, then what implications would this fact have
on “Haran”, which the Bible tells us was a transit stop for Ibraheem’s family on their way to the
lands of the so-called “Canaanites”? And if this “Haran” was indeed in northern Syria, near the
Armenian border, then what relation does it have to the real geography of the Patriarch’s journey
that is slowly being uncovered before our eyes?

Before we expose the misreading of the Old Testament texts for you, dear reader, it is worth
noting that in the original Aramaic scripture (without vowels), the name “Haran” actually
appears as “Ḥrn”. When the Masoritic Order of Jewish priests, working from their monasteries in
Turkey, took it upon themselves to articulate the texts, starting from around the 7th Century AD,
they began adding vowels to the silent letters. Modern Jewish scholars know full-well that the
Masoretic rendition of the Aramaic text is full of errors, and cannot be used as the basis for any
further translation into other languages. This is why many scholars have called for returning the
text to its original vowel-less form and starting again from scratch. It is beyond the scope of this
work to showcase the errors of the Masoretic rendition. To give you an example, the term “ha-
yrdn”, which appears in the original text, was rendered as “The Jordan” by the Masoretes.
Linguists and experts like Kamāl Ṣaleebi, David Margoliouth, Robert Leeman, Farajallah Deeb,
and others have pointed out this error by stating that the word simply means “the ridge” or “the
escarpment” in Aramaic. Furthermore, the context of the Biblical passages that mention “ha-
yrdn” has absolutely nothing to do with the Jordan of the Levant whatsoever. Thus, whenever we
read about the “Hebrews” (nomads) crossing the “yrdn” in the Bible, it is not the Jordan river of
the Levant that they crossed, but the Great Escarpment known as al-shafa, which separates the
highlands of Najd from the Sarāt mountain range of Yemen.

Bearing this in mind, let us turn to al-Hamadāni’s gazetteer once again, this time to examine
a rare verse of poetry that he quoted (DoA, page 334):

ّ ‫ضين ّّّّّوّفيّخصبّعثرّضوضا ُّء‬

ِّ ‫وّبحورانّلألوراكّوّال‬

86
The above verse is by the Yemeni poet Ḥazāzah al-‘Amiriy, and it mentions two places, side by
side: Ḥūrān and Ḍeen.

Could it be that the Masoretes mistakenly articulated “Ḥrn” as Haran? It appears very much so.
Furthermore, the valley of Ḍeen mentioned in the above verse is none other than the Biblical
“Zin”. The name was rendered with a “z” because of the ancient Yemeni dialects did not
pronounce the letter ḍ (ḍād). This “Zin” is mentioned in the Bible as the place where Miriam, the
daughter of Amram was burried:

And the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came kinto the wilderness of Zin
in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh. And Miriam died there and
was buried there (Numbers 20:1).

As for “Kadesh”, it is none other than Jabal Qadash in Yemen, which we will talk about in our
upcoming third book.

Is it another coincidence that the poet Ḥazāzah mentions Ḥūrān and Ḍeen to be in the same
geography? If so, then how can we explain the following passage in al-Hamadāni’s DoA (page
186)?

‫ منها المأذنه و العوله‬،‫ سبعو أودية‬.ّ‫ أودية منها ذو عرابل و حوران و رواف و قاينه و ذو حديد و رفَضه و ذو حلفان؛ كلّها لبني مر‬:‫البُضع‬
.‫الحجلة‬
ُ ‫و‬

Al-Hamadāni lists a series of valleys in the Yemeni highlands, among them Wādi Hūrān and
Wādi Hujlah (the Biblical “Beth-Hogla” that we analyzed previously). Is this a coincidence too?
It is very clear that the “Horon” (or Haran) of the Bible is not a transit stop near the Syrian-
Armenian border, in Ibraheem’s imaginary journey from ancient Iraq to Palestine, but is none
other than the valley of Hūrān in Yemen. Sadly, many commentators thought al-Hamadāni was
mentioning the Hūrān of Syria. This is completely false, as the above passage lists 10 other
valleys that are nowhere to be found in the Levant.

Legendary Himyarite bard Umru’ al-Qayṣ also sings of the ancient Arabian Hūrān in the
following verse:

‫وّلماّبداّحورانّوّاآللّدونهّّّّّّّنظرتَ ّفلمّتنظرّبعينكّمنظرا‬

There, dear reader, is the answer to this age-old puzzle.

Here follows, then, is a table showcasing the “coincidences” of Beth-El and the locations
surrounding it:

87
“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic
number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

21 ‫בנימן‬ binymn Benjamin ‫ آل يامن‬،‫بن يامن‬ Bin-Yāmin

22 ‫קציץ‬ qṣiṣ Keziz, Casis ‫ قصص‬،‫قصيص‬ Qaṣeeṣ, Qaṣiṣ
23 ‫בית־חגלה‬ bet- ḥglh Beth-Hoglah ‫وادي حجلة‬ Wādi Ḥujlah
24 ‫בית הערבה‬ bet-h-‘arbh Beth-Arbah ‫وادي العرب‬ Wādi al-‘Arab
25 ‫יריח‬ yryḥo Jericho ‫ يريح‬،‫أريح‬ Areeḥ, Yareeḥ
26 ‫עי‬-‫ה‬ h-‘y Ai ‫الع ّي‬ al-‘Ay
27 ‫און‬-‫בית‬ bet-awn Beth-Aven ‫ أوان‬،‫أون‬ Ūn, Awān
28 ‫לוזה‬ lozah Luz, Luza ‫لوزة‬ Lawzah
29 ‫לכישה‬ lkishh Lachish ‫لكيز‬ Lakeez
30 ‫צן‬ Ṣn Zin ‫ضين‬ Ḍeen
31 ‫לבית־חרן‬ bet-ḥrn Beth-Horon ‫وادي حوران‬ Wādi Ḥūrān

The existence of these locations, within the same geographical domain, in both the old Arabian
sources and the Book of Joshua cannot be due to coincidence or linguistic similarities. It is
simply not possible for pure happenstance to produce that number of matches. This enforces
what we have been saying all along, and what we will continue to reiterate until the end of our
journey: A fraudulent and deceptive rabbinical imagination, later enforced by the orientalists,
projected the names of the tribal homes, valleys and mountains of the Bible onto the territory of
the Levant, deluding the generations of the world into believing that the events surrounding the
ancient Israelites had taken place in Palestine. Unfortunately, the Arabs, who do not read their
own books, have fallen victims to this forgery, which gradually infiltrated their beliefs and ended
up turning their entire history upside down.

 Hebron

There are less than 2,000 Jewish settlers living in the town of al-Khaleel today, most of them
having come from Europe or the USA, and they have been turning the lives of some 250,000
Palestinians into a veritable hell. These settlers, under the influence of the imperialist and
Orientalist interpretation of the Bible, absolutely refuse to believe the poor, simple Palestinians,
who have never stopped telling the glaring truth, even though they do not have the linguistic or
geographical proof to back their claims: That al-Khaleel is and has always been an Arab town,
and was never known by the name of “Hebron”, and that the “Hebron” which appears in the
Book of Genesis has absolutely no relation to the geography of Palestine whatsoever, despite of
the thorough efforts invested by archeologists to locate it there.

But their cries have fallen on deaf ears, as the imperialists and orientalists have continued to
imagine Palestine and its towns as the ancient theater of events mentioned in the Old Testament.

88
This imagination has led to unpardonable injustices and persecutions, which the conspiring West
and the Zionist Arab regimes have never so much as raised a finger against. Yet it is up to us to
uncover the truth of the matter. We must believe the Palestinians for no reason other than that
what they have been saying is the truth, even though they lack the evidence to back it up. Their
blatant denial of the name “Hebron” as being related to al-Khaleel stems from their firmly-rooted
knowledge and familiarity with the land of their birth, passed down from generation to
generation.

The Book of Genesis tells us that Ibraheem the ‘Ibrāni (the “Hebrew” - meaning the nomad who
“crossed over” from the wilderness of Arabia, towards the lush mountain oases of the Sarāt
Country), after having settled for a while in the land of the so-called “Canaanites”, witnessed the
death of his wife Sarah, in a place called “Kirjat-Arba”. It also tells us that this place was known
as “Hebron”. In the orientalist Arab translations, the name “Hebron” was rendered as
“Ḥabrūn” )‫(حبرون‬.

And Sarah died in Kirjat-Arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and
Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her (Genesis – 23:2)

The first name appears in the Aramaic text as Kryt-Arb‘, which is equivalent to al-Qura al-Arba‘
in Arabic (meaning: The Four Towns). The second name was originally written as Ḥbrn. Let us
see if this name appears in the old Yemeni records.

By another coincidence, the ancient Arabian tribes did in fact know of a location called Ḥbrn,
whose name was rendered sometimes as Ḥabrān )‫ (حبران‬and sometimes as Ḥabra )‫(حبرى‬. Our
view is that they are one and the same name, once we take into consideration the Yemeni n
suffix that we talked about earlier.

Yemeni poet Zayd-al-Khayl al-Ṭā’i (died 630 AD), mentioned the place in one of his poems:

‫بحبران إرقال العقيق المجفر‬ ‫رخيخ ثم راحت عشية‬

ٍ ‫َغدَت من‬

Another poet, al-Rā‘i al-Numayri, also mentions the same place:

‫من وحش َحبران بين النقيع و الظفر‬ ‫كأنها ناشـــــط حمــــت مدامعـــــــه‬

From our understanding of the descriptions of this place by the Arab poets, we can conclude that
Ḥabrān was a mountainous place that had fallen into desolation since very ancient times, and had
become a den for wild beasts.

Have you heard of the famous Arab Jewish Rabbi by the name of Ka‘b al-Aḥbār? In case you
haven’t, here follows is a briefing on him: He was a prominent Yemeni Jewish figure who lived

89
during the time of Muḥammad (P), and later “embraced” Islam during the time of Abu Bakr (or
so the traditions claim)*. He was a Ḥimyarite Jew, hailing from Ṣan‘ā’, the historic capital of
Judaism in Arabia. The following are two passages concerning this figure, taken from the Jewish
Encyclopedia:

KA'B AL-AḤBAR: One of the most prominent fathers of Moslem tradition, and one of those
who introduced into this branch of Arab literature the method as well as many details of the
Jewish Haggadah; died 32 or 35 a.h. (652 or 655 C.E.). Of his earlier life nothing is known
except that he was a Jew, a native of Yemen...

The most prominent of Ka'b's disciples were Ibn 'Abbas and Abu Hurairah, prolific
traditionists, who developed the art of apotheosizing the prophet's life to its utmost extent,
and are therefore not very reliable authorities. Ka'b was a great favorite of the calif Omar,
who frequently consulted him, chiefly on religious matters...

Arab geographer Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (Volume 2 / pages 244,245) relates to us the following
concerning this famous Jewish Rabbi:

،‫ وكان مسكنه بناحية حبرى‬،)‫ سارة زوجة إبراهيم (ع‬،‫ "أول من مات ودفن في حبرى‬:‫وفي هذا يقول كعب األحبار األخباري‬
"....‫فاشترى الموقع بخمسين درهما‬

Translation: "According to Ka‘b al-Aḥbār, the first to ever be buried in Ḥabra was Sarah, wife
of Ibraheem, who had lived in the general area, and who had bought the place for 50
Dirhams".

Now of course, we cannot be 100% sure that this story was in fact true. We have already shown
you that history is often mixed with legends. And commentators generally agree that many
stories tend to attribute legendary events to actual, real places. The poets of ancient Yemen did
not invent place names in their poetry. This is because “crying at the ruins” was deeply
imbedded in their culture, and was a means of expressing sadness over long-lost glories and
places that had turned to dust (the tented homes of their lovers, desert oasies, tribes that migrated
away, etc...). We believe that the melancholic Psalms of the Old Testament are in fact the oldest
sample remaining today of the poetry of Arabia in its distant childhood, of which very little is
known. Although the event of Sarah’s death and burial somewhere in the desolation of Ḥabrān-
Ḥabra may have been a local legend, the actual location was very much a real place. Or else how
can we explain its mention attributed to a prominent Jewish religious figure, as related to us in
the writings of a geographer of the caliber of Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi?

Furthermore, the fact that a Jewish Rabbi of the renown of Ka‘b al-Aḥbār knew of the
story/legend of Ibraheem (P) burying his wife (and eventually being buried himself) in a place
called Ḥabrān-Ḥabra, makes it very difficult to dismiss the fact that he was familiar with the
place, and with the geography of the Biblical stories in general. Furthermore, a Yemeni Jewish

90
priest like Ka‘b - a real Israelite Jew - is more qualified to tell us about Ibraheem’s burial place
than all the Rabbis of Poland, Russia, and Lithuania, who are Khazar Jews of no relation
whatsoever to the Biblical Israelites.

The story of the burial of Ibraheem and his wife in a cave coincides with the evidence that has
been unearthed from the archeological digs conducted in South Arabia - as few as they may be -
which clearly show a trend of using caves as burial places for kings in ancient times. This
confirms the traditional legends of the region that we read in the books of the Yemeni historians,
notably Wahb bin Munabbeh’s al-Teejan fi Mulūk Ḥimyar (lit: Crowns of the Kings of
Ḥimyar) and the book Akhbār al-Yaman (lit: Stories of Yemen), by ‘Ubayd al-Jurhumi, which
also speaks of the prophet Hūd being burried in a cave, somewhere in the Ḥaḍramawt Valley.

If the “Hebron” of the OT is indeed the town of al-Khaleel in today’s Palestine, then why would
Ka‘b, who was a Yemeni, mention it? Why would the Yemeni poets mention it in their dirges?
What relation did they have to Palestine?

If you’re still not convinced, dear reader, then maybe the next “coincidences” will change your
mind.

The Book of Genesis, in its mention of Ibraheem’s wife Sarah, talks about a cave by the name of
“Macphelah”, which served as a burial site. Here are the words of the Patriarch himself, as
related by the Bible:

That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he hath, which is in the end of
his field; for as much money as it is worth he shall give it me for a possession of a
burying place amongst you (Genesis 23:9).

To summarize the story, is appears that Ibraheem (P) bought a small patch of prairie land and
a nearby cave somewhere in the desolate wilderness of Ḥabrān, from a man named Ephron son
of Zohar. (The Arabic rendering of the name is ‘Afrūn bin Ṣawḥar). As was the ancient Yemeni
tradition, the Patriarch buried his wife in this cave, which the Bible calls “Macphelah”.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* We are not denying the historical existence of Ka‘b al-Aḥbār. What we are doubting is the claim that he
“embraced” Islam. If fact, we can say with a great degree of sureness that 90% of the rabbinical lies that infiltrated
the Islamic creed can be traced back to Ka‘b, and his two “studious pupils” Abu Hurayra (the Keeper of the Kitten)
and Ibn 'Abbas (the “best” interpreter of the Qur’an). Those two liars almost single-handedly corrupted
Muḥammad’s message to the core, by mastering the rabbinical “art” of “Haggada” (transmition of oral traditions
from one generation to the next). The rampant Sunni religion is in fact nothing but a fabrication of Ka’b and his
pupils.

91
It is worth noting that the name, in the Aramaic text, appears as )‫)המכפלה‬, which is more
accurately transliterated as: “ha-Mkflh”, where “ha” is the pronoun article “the”.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Macphelah, which is
before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the (Hittite) (Genesis 25:9).

The name “Mamre” appears in other passages of the OT, where it is described as a secluded
mountainous place with many oak trees (The oaks of Mamre). Another interesting note is the
term “Hittite” in the above passage. This is but another relic of the false Masoretic rendering of
the Aramaic scripture. The original text speaks of Ephron, the owner of the cave, as being a “ḥt”.
The Masorite priests rendered “ḥt” as “Ḥittite” - one of the peoples living in Iraq and the Levant
- without so much as a second thought. Our view is that he was a Ḥūthi; i.e. a member of the
Bani Hūth, an ancient Yemeni tribe that needs no introduction. (Remember that the old Yemeni
dialects did not pronounce the “th” sound, and rendered it as “t” instead).

Did the old and forgotten Arabian sources mention al-Mqflh and Mamre?

Here are a few memorable verses by the poet al-Murār al-Faq‘aṣi, singing a eulogy for his dead
brother, who was burried in a place called al-Qufūl, and cursing the circumstances that led him to
stand at the site:

‫ت و الحـــبرى‬ ِ ‫و طيرا جرت بين السعافا‬ ‫قاتل هللا األحاديث و ال ِمنى‬

َ ‫أال‬
‫زجرت فما أغنى اعتيافي و ال زجــــرى‬ ُ ‫و قات َل تثريب العيافة بعدمـــا‬
‫و ال الحي يأتيهم و ال أوبة الســــــــــــفر‬ ‫بدر بشاشــة‬
ٍ ‫و ما للقفول بعد‬

What is truly shocking about the above verses is that the poet mentions a place called al-Ḥabra
(in the first line), where his brother was killed, then he speaks of the burial site of al-Qufūl (in
the third line). Another coincidence?

Another Yemeni poet, al-Nābighah al-Dhubiāni, also mentions al-Qufūl in one of his dirges:

‫و أمسوا و دونهم ثهالن فالني ُر‬ ‫إن القُفو َل إلى ح ّي و إن بَعُدوا‬

Yet another Arab poet, al-Aḥwaṣ al-Anṣāri, described crying at the burial site of al-Qufūl, as he
looked upon the tombs of the deceased and fallen:

ُ
‫أمسيت يعجبني القفو ُل‬ ‫فما‬ ‫ك بالقفول قري َر عَي ٍن‬
َ ‫فمن ب‬

The name al-Qufūl is actually the plural form of al-Quflah, indicating that there was more than
one burial cave at the site. (Compare al-Quflah of Arabian poetry to ha-mqflh in the Bible).

92
Apparently, the ancient Arabian traditions knew of a desolate, mountainous place called Ḥabrān-
Ḥabra, the very site of the burrial caves known as al-Qufūl. These locations had abosolutely no
relation to Palestine in any way, shape or form, and only Allah knows who is buried in the city of
al-Khaleel, in the alledged “Tomb of Abraham”.

What about the Biblical “Mamre”? Is there any mention of it in the Arabian sources?

“Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will
give it to you”. Then Abram moved his tents, and came and dwelt by the oaks of
Mamre, which are in Hebron. And he built there an altar to the Lord…[Genesis 13:
17,18].

The Old Testament also tells of another greater, and far more important event that took place at
the oaks of Mamre:

And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in
the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and behold! He saw three men
standing near him. And when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent-
door, and bowed himself to the earth, And said: “My Lord, if now I have found
favor in your sight, pass not away, I pray you, from your servant. Let now a little
water be fetched, that you may wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the
tree. I will get a morsel of bread so you can refresh your heart. After that you may
go your way, now that you have come to your servant." They said: "Very well, do
as you have said.” … And Abraham ran to the herd, and brought a calf tender and
good, and gave it to a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter
and milk and the young ox which he had made ready and put it before them,
waiting by them under the tree while they took food. And when they had eaten,
they said to him: “Where is Sara thy wife?” He answered: “There she is, in the
tent”. He (one of them) said: "I will certainly return to you when the season
comes round. Behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." Sarah heard in the tent
door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken
in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Sarah laughed
within herself, saying, "After I have grown old will I have pleasure, my lord being
old also?" And the Lord said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh, saying ‘Shall I
certainly bear a child, who am old?’”…[Genesis 18: 1-13]

This same story is repeated in the Qur’an, albeit in slightly different details, without mentioning
any names:

{Has the narrative of the noble guests of Ibraheem come to you (O Muḥammad)? *
When they entered upon him, they said: “Peace”. He said: “Peace to a people
unknown” * Then, he went to his family and brought a fat calf * He offered it to
them, he said: “Do you not eat?” * He then became fearful of them. They said: “Do
not fear”, and they gave him good news of a knowledgeable son. * His wife then

93
approached in amazement. She slapped her face, and said: “A barren old woman!”
* They said: “It was such that your Rabb has said. He is the Wise, the
Knowledgeable” * He said: “What is your undertaking, O messengers?” * They
said: “We have been sent to a deviant people” * “To send down upon them stones
of clay”}...[51:24-33]

Unlike in the OT version of the story, the “messengers” mentioned in the Qur’anic account were
strange-looking folk who were behaving in a rather strange manner. They did not eat the food
that was offered to them, as is clear from the passage. In the ancient Arabian traditions, it was
considered offensive behavior on the part of a guest to refuse food offered by his host.

Elsewhere in the Qur’an, we find another passage that adds more depth to the story:

{And Our messengers came to Ibraheem with good tidings, they said: "Peace". He
said: "Peace," and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf. * But when he saw
that their hands did not go towards it, he mistrusted them, and he began to have
fear of them. They said: "Have no fear, we have been sent to the people of Lūt *
And his wife was standing, so she laughed when We gave her the good news of
Isḥāq, and after Isḥāq, Ya‘qūb * She said: "O my! Shall I give birth when I am an
old woman, and here is my husband an old man? This is indeed a strange thing!" *
They said: "Do you wonder at the decree of Allah? The mercy of Allah and
blessings are upon you, O people of the Sanctuary. He is Praiseworthy,
Glorious}...[11:69-73].

Again, we see evidence that the guests of Ibraheem (P) were indeed odd-looking people who
were not behaving according to custom. They reassured their host that they were simply passing
by, and were on their way to wreak destruction upon the nearby town of Lūt.

Despite the Qur’an not mentioning any place names, we find, in ancient Arabian poetry, the
same name that was given by the Old Testament to the place where these events happened.
Yemeni warrior-poet ‘Amr bin-Ma‘d Yakreb (more famous by the name Karb al-Zubaydi) said:

‫ُعف و ماز ِن‬

ٍ ‫ضبني عن أبناء ج‬
َ ‫و‬ ‫و يو َم مم َر قد َح ِميَت لقائحي‬

He is remembering past events of a great battle that took place between the tribes of Hamadān
and Zubayd (the poet’s own tribe), in which their foes, the warriors of Hamadān, took refuge in a
place called “Mamr”. The day of that battle was called “Yawmu Mamr” (The Day of Mamr). In
fact, it was customary for the ancient Arabs to name every tribal battle as “Day of -” (followed
by the name of the location where the battle took place). Incidently, the verse mentions the
Arabian clans of Ju‘f and Māzen.

94
Another Yemeni poet, known simply as Dhul-Rimmah, also sings of the same legendary tree
grove - the warrior’s solace of Mamr. Readers of Arabic will note how outstanding the
description is. This is simply poetry from the soul:

‫ت الرواجع‬
ِ ‫من الصيف شل ال ُمخلفا‬ ‫كأني و رحلي فوق أحقّـــــــب الحه‬
‫يمانيّة َحلَــــــــــت جنوب المضاجع‬ ‫مم َر أمرت َمتنهُ أســــــــــــــــــــديّة‬
‫أخادي ُد عه ٍد ُمســــــــــتحيل المواقع‬ ِ ُ‫ب أصالب ُشــنط‬
‫ب‬ ِ ‫دعاها من األصال‬
‫نؤاســــــا و بقعان الظهور األقارع‬ ‫كسا األرض بُهمى غضة حبشــــــيّة‬

Here is what a third poet, Ka‘b bin Zuhair, says of this legendary tree grove:

ّ ‫ممرّالسراةّجأباًّذريرا‬ ُ
َ ‫يّكسوتّذلكّرحليّّّّّّّأو‬ ‫فكأن‬

The above verse describes “Mamr of the Sarāt”, a grove of oak trees somewhere in the green and
fertile highlands of Arabia, the site of the ancient Sanctuary, the heart of the old trade routes, and
the true land of the Prophets.

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

32 ‫חברון‬ ḥbron Hebron ‫ حبرى‬- ‫حبران‬ Ḥabrān, Ḥabra

33 ‫מכפלה‬-‫ה‬ h-mkphlh Macphela ‫ القفول‬- ‫القفله‬ al-Quflah, al-Qufūl
34 ‫ממרא‬ mmra Mamreh ‫ممر‬ Mamr
35 ‫חתי‬-‫ה‬ h-ḥty Hittites ‫الحوثيين‬ al-Ḥūthiyyeen

The story of Ibraheem and Sarah is an old Arabian legend that has been told and retold since the
distant childhood era of Arabia. It has nothing to do with Palestine or the entire Levant, for that
matter. What we call the “Old Testament” is in fact nothing but a series of ancient Arabian
stories and psalms, recounting the events surrounding the Yemeni tribe of Bani Isra’eel, and the
account of their transition from a nomadic life of livestock-herding, to a sedentary life of
agriculture and trade.

This truth has been hinted at by many Western scholars and historians, notably German
philosopher Friedrich Engels who, in his commentary of the Old Testament, stated: “The Torah
is nothing but the story of an ancient, renegade Arabian clan that split off and distinguished
itself from its original tribe”.

We cannot say for sure what prompted Engels to make that statement. It is possible that he was
able to read between the lines of the Biblical text, and to pick up the many geographical and
linguistic hints here and there, especially the phonetic links between Arabic and the offshoot
(a‘jami) dialects of the region.

95
Picture #9: The false “Tomb or Abraham” in Palestine

Picture #10: Inside the tomb - living the religious lie

*****

96
 CHAPTER III

Peoples, Tribes, and Trees

97
In the previous chapter, we showed you how the Orientalist interpretation of the Old Testament
imagined a theater for the Biblical events in ancient Palestine, while deviously hiding the true
setting of the events in Yemen, that was clearly described in the original text written in silent
(vowel-less) Aramaic. Consequently, we were able to retrace Ibraheem’s actual footsteps from
the moment he arrived to the valley of Ḥūrān (not Haran in northern Syria, as the orientalist
translations claimed), and from there on to Ḥabrān, where his wife Sarah eventually died and
was buried in the cave of Miqfalah. We did not, however, determine exactly where Ibraheem’s
original homeland of Ur-Kasdim was - a homeland that was rendered as Ur-Kaledon by the
Septuagint corruption, and placed in ancient Iraq. In order to fully draw the path that Ibraheem
took, from beginning to end, we need to look into some ancient nations whose history is
accounted for exclusively in the Qur’an; nations of whom no mention is made in the Old
Testament. These are namely the extinct tribes of ‘Ād and Thamūd, whose location will prove to
be crucial in determining where exactly Ibraheem’s original home was. We will also delve deep
into the story of Lūṭ (P) and his doomed town, while discussing one of the most prominent
geographical features of the Arabian Peninsula: volcanoes.

In this third and final chapter, we will put another nail in the coffin of the orientalist
interpretation of the Old Testament, and prove to you that this rampant interpretation is nothing
but a fraudulent projection of events and comprises a glaring, even criminal corruption of
history.

We begin by solving the small mystery of the “Canaanites” and “Egyptians”...

 Who were the Biblical Canaanites?

It is hardly possible to read any passage about Ibraheem (P) in the Old Testament, without at
least some passing mention of a people known as the "Canaanites". Ever since we embarked on
our journey, we have been seeing proof after proof that the prophets mentioned in the Qur’an
were all based in the south western corner of Arabia. It follows then that the Canaanites must
have been there as well, since we are stipulating that Ibraheem migrated to their land.

Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions
that they had gathered, and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and
they departed to go to the land of Canaan. So they came to the land of Canaan
(Genesis 12: 5,6).

Who were these people? And what role did they play in the life and times of the Patriarch?

The rampant Orientalist interpretation of the Bible has convinced the generations that the name
“Canaan” once referred to the entire region encompassing the whole of Palestine, Lebanon, and
the western parts of Jordan and Syria. The truth, however, is that there is absolutely no

98
conclusive proof for this claim whatsoever! No archeological evidence has ever been presented
to even remotely suggest the association of the name “Canaan” with a territory of that
magnitude.

Arab historian and religious researcher Aḥmad Dāwūd, in his famous book entitled (Lit): Arabs,
Semites, Hebrews, Israelites, and the Jews casts some light on this issue, when he states the
following: “How did the identity of the Syrian people, who have inhabited the region for
some 10,000 years, be simply erased and replaced with the tribal population called
‘Canaanites’, of whom there is not a single mention in any historical document other than
the Torah, and when all who ever lived in the region, Arabs or non-Arabs alike, admit that
this title was never known by any nation or group of people in the entire history of ancient
Syria?”

On the other hand, Syrian researcher, Dr. ‘Ali Abu ‘Assāf verifies Dāwūd’s claims in his book
Ruins of the Ancient Kingdoms of Syria, wherein he says: “None of these states ever called
themselves by the name ‘Canaanite’ or ‘Amorite’ ... And at the time when Herodotus
travelled over extensive areas of the Levant region, he mentioned ‘Syrians’ and
‘Phoenicians’. Not once did he mention ‘Canaanites’ anywhere”.

Although these two scholars may have been onto something, their observations are not
completely accurate. The objective fact is that there are some archeological documents - not
originally from the Levant region - notably ancient Mesopotamian inscriptions, from as early as
1800 BC, mentioning a people by the name Kinanhu (this is exactly how it is pronounced
according to the vocal glossary of the Babylonian cuneiform). In these cuneiform inscriptions,
the Kinanhu are described as bandits and thieves who were infiltrating into the regions of the
Levant. This same name appears as ki-na-ah-na in the Amarna tablets (dated 14th Century BC),
which were written in Acadian cuneiform. However, despite these records, there is absolutely
zero evidence that these peoples were the original inhabitants of the Levant region. In fact, the
tablets mention them as simply a group of people, among many, who seemed to be causing
problems for the Mesopotamian Empire.

Another thing that is certain is that the Greek geographers and cartographers, among them the
famous Herodotus, who had full knowledge of the Levant region from as early as the 7th Century
BC, left us hundreds of maps of ancient Palestine, and not one map showed the name “Canaan”
as designating the region in question. The Romans, who came later on, were also unfamiliar with
that term. The first map shown on the next page, based directly on Herodotus’ own writings,
shows that the area in question was referred to as “Phoenicia”, by the ancient Greeks, and never
as “Canaan”. In some instances, we see the name “Philistina” on the ancient maps, denoting the
southern part of Phoenicia in particular.

On the other hand, Herodotus also verified that the Phoenicians originally came from along the
Red Sea coast of Arabia. Likewise, Greek geographer, historian, and philosopher Strabo made
the same observation regarding the origins of the Phoenicians. Here is a quote from Herodotus:

99
“According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began the quarrel.
These people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erytraean Sea (the Red
Sea between Arabia and Ethiopia), having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the
parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages,
freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria”.

Herodotus’s observation, made back in the 5th Century BC, is in line with the generally accepted
fact that Arabia was indeed the primordial home of all “Semitic” people. The Phoenicians, in
their distant past, were originally masters of the Red Sea, before they moved northwards and
settled along the Mediterranean coast, and developed the Phoenician alphabet.

Map #4: Ancient Greek map of the world (450 BC).

The next map is based on the writings of the Greek philosopher Hecateus (520 BC). Again, no
mention of “Israel” or “Canaan” is ever encoutered in Hecateus’ sources.

Map #5: Ancient Greek map of the world (520 BC), showing “Phoenicia” (the red circle)

100
Not once did Herodotus or Strabo, or any other Greek historian mention “Jews”, “Israelites” or
“Canaanites” in their writings. Could it be that they overlooked the name? Or is it perhaps
because the number of Canaanites who had settled in the region was not large or substantial
enough to designate the entire territory of the Levant by their name? On the other hand, the
Romans, for a time, gave the territory the name “Provincia Syria Palaestina”, and later
designated it as “Provincia Judea”, due to the fact that a substantial Jewish presence was
established there starting around 200 BC. (Where these Jews actually came from is another
issue, altogether).

In order to solve the puzzle of “Canaan - Kananah”, a brief glimpse of a very important - and
often overlooked - aspect of the history of Arabia is in order. From the dawn of time, the entire
history of the Arabian Peninsula, its stories, legends, poetry, wars, and tribal migrations, has
revolved around one central theme: the struggle between urbanites and nomads. Many of the
names that are mentioned in the Arabian legends do not indicate particular peoples or tribes, but
rather they indicate a way of life. Let’s take, for example, the legendary struggle between
Qaḥṭān and ‘Ādnān; a rivalry that shows up innumerable times in pre-Islamic Arabian poetry.
The name Qaḥṭān (sometimes rendered as Yoqṭān) appears as “Joktan” in the Old Testament,
where he is said to be a descendant of Nūḥ (P). According to ancient South Arabian lore, Qaḥṭān
was the son of ‘Aber, the legendary father of the nomadic tribes of Ḥaḍramawt.

Now, form a purely linguistic view, the very word Qaḥṭān comes from the Arabic root qaḥṭ,
which indicates a land that has dried up and withered. What do the inhabitants of such lands do?
Naturally, they will move to places where water and vegetation are found. The people who live
in the latter places are called ‘Ādnān, which comes from the root ‘adan, indicating a stable
existence in a land of abundance. The linguistic context is too obvious be missed.

By the same logic, we have Hebrews versus Kanaanites. The word “Hebrew”, as we showed you
previously, is a corruption of the Arabic term ‘ibri, which is derived from the root verb ’abar
meaning simply: to cross over from one place to another, as evidence of a nomadic lifestyle. The
opposite of the verb ’abar is kana‘, which means: to stick or remain rooted to a place, as
evidence of a sedentary lifestyle. So we have the “Hebrews” (nomad livestock herders) versus
the “Kanaan-Canaan” (agricultural and sedentary residents who are adept at smelting iron).

Why is Ibraheem (P) described as a “Hebrew” in the Old Testament? It is because, according to
ancient Yemeni legends, he left his drying and withering land in south-central Yemen (The
Ḥaḍramawt region) and “crossed over” towards the green oases of the mountainous Sarāt
regions, the fertile coastal strip along the Red Sea, where he lived among the “Kanaan”.

The Qur’an speaks of ahl al-madeenah (residents of the urban center) vs. al-a‘rāb (technically,
nomadic Bedouins); again, mirroring this age-old struggle. Those who flocked around
Muḥammad (P) and believed in his message were of a mixed sort. This cultural hallmark of

101
Arabia enforces our theory that Hebrews and Canaanites were not a particular people. The names
are simply indicative of a lifestyle.

There is not a single document in the entire history of the ancient world that names Palestine as
“Land of Canaan”. This is another blatant orientalist manipulation that began in the late 19th
Century, when they started including maps of the Levant in every Bible (both Old and New
Testament), with the name “Canaan” printed in large crisp letters over the territory of Palestine.
These Bibles were then distributed to religious schools, churches synagogues, hospitals, even
hotels. And thus the delusion was spread.

Now if the word Canaan* does not indicate a particular people or national identity, then what
about the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets mentioning Kananah-Kinanah, who were described
as no more than wandering tribes that were infiltrating the Levant from other regions?

Kananah…The name sure does ring one very big bell…

The name Bani Kanānah (or Kinānah, as it is often pronounced) pertains to a legendary Arabian
mega-tribe whose domain was vast areas of the Tihāma mountainous regions of ‘Aseer and
Yemen. These are no doubt the same peoples that are mentioned in the Babylonian and Amarnah
tablets, small numbers of whom began migrating northwards towards the Ḥijāz and the Levant
from as early as the 19th Century BC, and infiltrating the territories of the Mesopotamian empire.
They also clashed with the Egyptians many times, when the kings of the Nile Valley launched
their campaigns to control the trade routes of Arabia. Later, during the time of King David, their
pagan clans fought many bloody wars with the monotheistic Israelites in the highlands of
Yemen, as we will see in our upcoming third book (the wars of Bani Isra’eel versus Bani
Kanānah).

Al-Hamadāni, who was native of Yemen, is no doubt very qualified to tell us where the territory
of Kanānah was. Here is what he says in DoA (page 231):

‫ و ببلد َح َكم قرى كثيرة مثل الع ّداية و الركوبة‬،‫ ثم ديار األشعريين‬،‫ و هي على مح ّجة عدن إلى ُزبيد‬،‫ بلد بني مجيد‬:‫تهامة اليمن‬
.‫ و حلي‬،‫ و المعقد‬،‫ حرّة كنانة‬،‫) و الحرّة‬...( ‫) ثم بلد حرام من كنانة‬...( ‫) و جازان و صبيا‬...( ‫) و وادي ليّة‬...(

Note, in the above passage, the mention of Ḥali, whose location we revealed to you in the
previous chapter as being within the territory of the Asher tribe, the neighbors of Simeon. The
passage also mentions Bani Majeed (the “Meggido” of the Old Testament).

___________________________________________________________________________________________

* Note that the term Kanaan (or Canaan) is rendered as ‫ كنعان‬in Arabic, and includes the letter ‘ (ayn), whereas the
name Kananah mentioned in the Babylonian and Amarnah tablets does not. Its equivalent, in Arabic, is ‫كنانه‬. The
two terms are clearly distinct.

102
Another passage from DoA mentioning Kanānah is the following (page 85):

،‫ و هو ظاهر‬،‫) و هو هابط بين نجد‬...( ‫ذلك أن جبل السراة – سراة اليمن – أعظم جبال العرب و أذكرهان أقبل من قعرة اليمن‬
.‫ك و َح َكم و كنانة‬
ّ ‫فصار ذلك الجبل في غربيه إلى أسياف البحر من بالد األشعريين و ع‬

Al-Hamadāni is talking about the Sarāt of Yemen, The tallest and most renowned mountains in
all of Arabia, and their expanse which reaches the Red Sea coast. Within these mountains are the
domains of the tribes of Ash‘ar, ‘Akk, Ḥakam, and Kanānah.

Is this a coincidence too? Or did someone hijack the entire history and geography of the Old
Testament and project it onto the Levant?

Egypt, vs. Msrim

In our previous book, The Search for Pharaoh, we showed you how the Septuagint priests, who
translated the Aramaic text of the Old Testament to Greek, replaced the word Msrm, as it appears
in the original text, with “Aegypto”, thus creating the illusion that the events surrounding the
Israelites had taken place in the Nile country. As a result, the later generations of the world have
fallen victims to this delusion, including the Muslims. We also showed you that the term Misr, as
it appears in the Qur’an, refers to a walled citadel having several gates, that stood on the trade
route, somewhere in South Arabia, and that the Qur’anic term does not necessarily appear in the
exact same context as it does in the Old Testament. This is because the Qur’an, as
a radically Arabic document, is independent in its usage of terms from the previous scriptures.
The time has come to conduct an in-depth analysis of the word Msrm, which is obviously
a proper noun, to find out what the term actually referred to, before the Septuagint corruption.

Before we start, it is worth taking note that the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) itself cast serious
doubts about the translation of the term Msrm into Egypt. Let us read the following two passages
under the heading entitled “Arabia” in the CE:

THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT MISRAIM.—The cuneiform

inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in
North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the
critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has
of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to
Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these
hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution
and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars,
a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt
and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many
of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt
(in Hebrew Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to

103
two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions
Musri or Musrim, and Chush, respectively.

According to this theory, Agar, Sarai's handmaid (Gen., xvi, 1), was not Misrite or Egyptian,
but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down
into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of
menservants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when
bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim),
but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings
(A. V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read "I am a young man of Egypt [Misraim], slave of
an Amalecite", but of Musri in north Arabia.

The insinuations made by the CE concerning the true meaning of the name Msrm as no more
than an Arabian tribal identity cannot be ignored. The problem is their assumption that the land
of the Midianites and of the Msrm (Misrim or Musrim, once the vowels are added), was in North
Arabia. From a strictly geographical perspective, this assumption is false. In our previous book,
we provided solid proofs that Mūsa (P) and the Israelites were in fact in South Arabia (Yemen),
and that the true location of both Midyan and the green mountain named Ṭūr Seena’ was in fact
not far from the city of Ṣan‘ā’ (referred to in the Bible by its ancient name, Uzal). The question
remains: who exactly were the Msrim?

Whenever a forgery is perpetrated in the translation of a text, the culprits are bound to make a
mistake somewhere that eventually gives away their crime. It appears that the Septuagint priests,
who sought to replace every instance of the term Msrm with “Aegypto”, failed to pay attention to
one incriminating passage in their translation that mentions Msrm in its true context, as no more
than a clan. The passage is the following:

If the Clan of (Egypt) will not come up and enter in, they [shall have] no [rain;]
they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not
come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Zecheriah 14:18).

Going back to the Aramaic text, we can clearly see the term Mishphaht Msrim, which any
speaker of modern “Hebrew” will tell you means precisely: family (or clan) of Egypt. This is
the meaning that all the orientalist translations of the Old Testament have confirmed. In the
Squared Aramaic letters, the phrase is written as such: ‫משפחת מצרים‬

The above passage from Zecheriah sounds the first warning buzzard on the Septuagint
translation: has anyone ever heard of Egypt being described as a “clan”? The following is
another passage from the OT, which shows just how problematic the Septuagint translation of
the name Msrim is:

The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have
deluded (Egypt), those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13)

104
The appearance of the names “Zoan” and “Noph” in the original Aramaic text of the above
passage caused enormous problems for the orientalists, since they could not reconcile those
names with the Egyptian landscape. As a result, they resorted to fraud and deception by
rendering “Noph” as “Memphis”! This is why, in some English translations of the OT, you will
see “Memphis” appear in the Book of Isaiah, while other translations remained faithful to the
original text, by keeping the name as it is: Noph. (The name appears as "‫"נף‬, and is transliterated
as “Nph”, or “Noph” - after the Masorites added vowels to the text starting from the 7th Century
AD). Furthermore, we are faced with the puzzle of Egypt being described as consisting of tribes,
in the above passage. Again, this defies our knowledge of Ancient Egypt as a powerful, unified
kingdom, ruled by a centralized monarchy, and rivaling the might - if not the brutality - of the
Assyrians and Babylonians. Egypt was not composed of tribes or clans, and neither was
Mesopotamia, for that matter.

The only region in the ancient world that did not know any form of central authority during that
era was Arabia. It was a land where fiercely independant clans lived under tribal customs, often
warring with each other. (This was the state that the region was left in ever since the dissolution
of Sulaymān’s kingdom). It was a lawless, rebellious region that had control of strategic trade
routes, and its tribes were a thorn in the side of the Assyrians and the Egyptians. We will show
you, in later releases, how the orientalists projected the Egyptian-Assyrian wars of the Biblical
era onto the Palestinian territory, when the truth is that they had taken place along the Red Sea
coast of Arabia, the site of the ancient trade routes that the two dominant powers sought to
control.

Another problematic passage bearing mention of Noph as a location in Egypt is the following
passage from the Book of Ezekiel:

Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images
to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of (Egypt):
and I will put a fear in the land of (Egypt) (Ezekiel 30:13)

The rendering of Noph as Memphis in some translations of the OT (see for example: Douay
Rheims Bible, and the American Standard Version) is truly one of the most spectacular
instances of forgery that the orientalist imagination could contrive. What these criminals failed to
realize is that the context of Ezekiel warns of the destruction and devastation that the Assyrian
King Nebuchednessar promised to inflict throughout ancient Israel. If Biblical Israel truly was in
Palestine, as we have been led to believe, then why would the Assyrians issue a warning to
Memphis, a city that lay south of the Nile Delta, and had no geographical connection to ancient
Israel?

The truth is that Noph is not Memphis, and the Msrm of the OT is simply not Egypt. The time
has come to solve this puzzle once and for all, since the issue is directly related to the journey of
Ibraheem (P).

105
Let us take into consideration the following facts concerning the so-called “Hebrew” language:

1- The ancient dialects of Yemen used the suffix im to denote the plural form. Hence, Msrim is
the plural of Msr. (Examples include: Eloh – Elohim; Cherub – Cherubim; Katub – Katubim and
Himyar – Himyarim).

2- The Arabic tongue, being the closest to the proto-toungue of the region, and hence the most
complete and articulate dialect, has 28 letters in its alphabet; whereas the alphabet of Aramaic
(an a‘jami dialect) contains only 22. This means there are 6 letters in the Arabic alphabet not
found in Aramaic. One of these letters is the ḍ, (as in Ramaḍān). Consequently the so-called
“Hebrew” dialect replaces the ḍ with ṣ (ṣād). The only thing distinguishing the two letters is the
dot. )‫ ض‬- ‫(ص‬

Taking the above two points into account, and remembering the valid observation made by the
Catholic Encyclopedia, which comes very close to the truth, we can at last solve this confusing
puzzle. Here follows is the truth that has been hidden from us:

The word Msrim, which the Septuagint forgers rendered as “Egypt”, is actually the Aramaic
spelling of the name of the Arabian tribe of Muḍar. The Arabic spelling of the word is “‫”مضر‬.
Hence: Msrim = Muḍariyyeen (plural), while Msr denotes the land of Muḍar. There, dear
reader, is the source of their great delusion. That single dot separating the two names is the
answer to this age-old dilemma. So who were these people?

The legendary Bani Muḍar need no introduction. Seldom is a tribal name more resounding in the
history of Arabia. Muḍar was a tribe that originated in Yemen, the ancestral and primitive home
of all Arabs. They were, for many centuries, a sedentary people who had control of substantially
large territories in the Tihāma region (the mountainous strip along the Red Sea Coast of Arabia).
In fact, Muḍar were a prominent branch of Bani Kanānah, whom we discussed previously. These
people, at a certain point in their history, quarreled with the nomadic “Hebrews” (‘ibrān), who
began infiltrating their lush mountain oasies. These were the very same people to whose territory
Ibraheem (P) had migrated in that bygone age. The enmity that we - the generations of today -
have been led to believe existed between ancient Egypt and the Israelites was in fact a Muḍari-
Hebrew rivalry over fertile territories in the highlands of Yemen!

Now, at last, the rabbinical illusion falls appart like the beads of a thread. Now we can
understand just who Ibraheem’s “maid”, Hāgar, was. Assuming this woman even existed, it
seems that the Septuagint forgers (and the orientalists after them) turned a Muḍari concubine into
an Egyptian servant girl! Consequently, the so-called “Pharoah of Egypt”, who pops up every
now and then in the Old Testament, was none other than a villainous Muḍari tribal chief who had
control of a walled citadel and caravan station somewhere along the trade routes of South Arabia.
In a future release, we will show you how the Bani Muḍar, despite their ancient and deep-rooted

106
hatred for the nomadic Hebrews in general, actually allied with the Israelites at one point, in
order to stave off the attack of a common enemy, the Assyrians.

Having finally cracked this puzzle, we can now return to the previously encountered passages of
the OT that bear mention of “Egypt”, and render them as they were meant to be understood:

So they set him [Joseph] a place by himself, and them by themselves, and the
Muḍaris who ate with him by themselves; because the Muḍaris could not eat food
with the Hebrews, for that [is] an abomination to the Muḍaris (Genesis 43:32).

The Msrim (Bani Muḍar) could not stand to eat at the same table as the Hebrew nomads, hence
they kept their distance from Yūsuf (P), who was, in the end, a Hebrew descendant.

And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hāgar her
maid, the Muḍari, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram
had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan (Genesis 16: 2,3).

The above passage, regarding the identity of Sarah’s “maid” is self-explanatory.

And Abram went forward, going, and proceeding on to the south. And there came
a famine in the country; and Abram went down into [the land of] Muḍar, to sojourn
there: for the famine was very grievous in the land.…(Genesis 12: 6-10).

According to the geography deduced from the above text, the Bani Muḍar, during the age when
the OT was recorded (most probably around 600 BC), still lived in the southern regions of
Tihāma, placing them close to the coast of ‘Ādan, in Yemen (the very same “Aden” or “Eden” of
the Bible).

If the Clan of Muḍar will not come up and enter in, they [shall have] no [rain;]
they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not
come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Zecheriah 14:18).

Obviously, Zecheriah was talking about the clan of Muḍar, a rival of all Hebrews, including the
Israelites. Egypt had nothing to do with the story whatsoever.

The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They
have deluded Muḍar, those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13).

Isaiah was talking about the madness and foolishness of the Muḍari tribal leaders, who were
under the delusion that they could stand against the might of the Assyrian army. This is made
very clear from the context of the book of Isaiah, which, from beginning to end, talks about
nothing but the Assyrian storm that shook the very mountains of Arabia. These are events that

107
took place in a past that the world forgot about; a past whose faint echoes can still be heard in the
books of the Arab historians, notably al-Ṭabari, and Ibn-Hishām, as we will see in an upcoming
book.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images
to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Muḍar: and
I will put a fear in the land of Muḍar (Ezekiel 30:13).

A warning is issued to Noph - a location within the domain of Muḍar - that the Lord will strike
fear into the heart of the idol-worshippers.

Here is what al-Hamadāni, writing in the 10th Century AD, says about Nūph in his Description
of Arabia (page: 294)

.‫ فيُضاف إلى ينوف و إلى مالعها‬،‫ يُقال عُقاب ينوف و عقاب مالع‬.‫ جبالن‬:‫و ينوف و القواعل‬

It is worth noting that al-Hamadāni recorded this name as Yanūph. This is completely normal
when we take into consideration that the Yemeni dialect often inserted the prefix y or ya in the
beginning of proper nouns. Here are some examples: Tharb - Yathrb ( ‫ يثرب‬- ‫ ;) ثرب‬Karb - Yakrb
(‫ يكرب‬- ‫‘ ;)كرب‬arb - Ya‘rb (‫ يعرب‬- ‫‘ ;)عرب‬arm - Ya‘rm (‫ يعرم‬- ‫ ;(عرم‬Nūph - Yanūph )‫ ينوف‬- ‫;)نوف‬
Būs - Yabūs )‫ يبوس‬- ‫(بوس‬.

Legendary Yemeni poet, Umru’ al-Qays, mentions the same Yanoph in a poem wherein he tells
the story of how one of his camels was stolen by raiders:

‫عُقابُ ينوف ال عقاب القواعل‬ ‫كأن دثارا َحلَقَت بلبون ِه‬

When the Zionists failed miserably to find any trace of the name “Noph” in Egypt, they
immediately jumped to the assumption that Isaiah and Ezekiel must have meant Memphis! This
is but an example of the length that they were prepared to go to, to convince themselves - and
indeed the whole world - of their delusions. Their ultimate purpose, of course, has always been
to lay claim to all the lands from Iraq to Egypt, as ancient theaters of “Israelite holiness”,
gradually paving the way for the annexation of all lands in the Levant. And while their plans are
slowly coming to fruition, the Arabs have been asleep in their cave for 14 centuries, and are
more concerned with whether or not water should reach their elbows when performing ablution.

As to the question of where exactly in the land of Muḍar did the Israelites reside, the following
passage from the Book of Genesis provides us with the answer:

Thus Israel settled in the land of Muḍar (Msrim), in the land of Goshen. And they
gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly (Genesis 47:27).

108
The Biblical “Goshen” (more correctly rendered as “Joshen” in some translations, since the j and
g sounds were interchangeable), which the criminal orientalists projected onto an area in the
Eastern Nile Delta region, is none other than the legendary Josh of Arabian lore, whose name
was sometimes rendered as Joshn, after adding the suffix known as al-nūn al-kalā’iyya, which
we discussed previously. The name appears several times in the Old Testament, notably in the
following passage, where it is mentioned alongside several other place names:

And in the hill-country, Shamir, and Jattir, and Socoh ... and Goshen (Joshen) ...
Arab, and Dumah, and Eshan (Joshua 15: 48-52).

In Description of Arabia (pages 127,128), al-Hamadāni states the following:

‫ و نوده فالحفر من‬،‫ فبلد الشاكريين من أهل الدرب‬... ‫ثم يتّصل بهذه السراة سراة عذر و هنّوم و ظاهر بلد الجواشة من الفائش‬
.‫ و فيه أراب‬... ‫ و بلد الجواشه‬... ‫أعلى عصمان‬

The number of “coincidences” in the above passage that match the Biblical geography to the
letter, is quite simply staggering. Al-Hamadāni is describing a countryside shared by the
Shākiriyyeen (none other than he Biblical tribe of Issachar-Ishachar), as well as the Jawāshah
(in relation to Josh), in a mountainous region comprising Hannūm (the Biblical Hinnom),
Aṣmān (the Biblical Azemon), and Ārāb (the Biblical Arab). Is it by pure chance that the country
of the Jawāshah tribe is near to Ārāb and Hannūm and not far from Mount Shamir, in both al-
Hamadāni’s text and the Book of Joshua? Furthermore, what on Earth do these names have to do
with the geograpphy of Egypt?

It is worth noting that some Arab poets mentioned Joshen as Josh (Gosh), while others added the
n at the end of the name, as was customary in the Yemeni dialects. For example, poet al-Ba’ayth
sings of the place as Joshn (Joshen) as follows:

‫هن سوام في األزمنّة كاألج ِل‬

ّ ‫و‬ ‫يُحاورنَ من َجوشن مفاز ٍة‬

On the other hand, poet al-Nābigha al-Dhubyāni mentions it as Josh:

ِ ‫ماش من رهط ربع ّي و ح ّج‬

‫ار‬ َ ‫و‬ ‫سافَ الرفيدات من جوش و من حد ٍد‬

As for Mount Shamir, it is also mentioned by al-Hamadāni in DoA (page 147), as being one
mountain peak among several, in the viccinity of the Biblical Sema (Shema), and within the
territory of the Tribe of Simeon:

ّ ‫ ال‬،‫و جبال األشعوب‬

.‫ و دُباس و ضُرعه‬... ‫ و شمير‬... ‫ سمع‬:‫صلو الجامع لهم بعد ذلك‬

109
There is Goshen, within the territories of the Msrim (Bani Muḍar), spread before us in the
ancient and forgotten Yemeni highlands.
ّ

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

36 ‫כנענ‬ kn‘n Canaanites ‫ بني كنانه‬،‫كنعان‬ Kan‘ān, Kanānah

37 ‫מצרים‬ mṣrim Egyptians ‫ المضريون‬،‫مضر‬ Bani Muḍar
38 ‫נף‬ nph Memphis ‫ينوف‬ Yanūf
39 ‫גשן‬ gshn Goshen, Gessen ‫ جوشن‬،‫جوش‬ Josh, Joshen
40 ‫שמיר‬ shmir Shamir ‫شمير‬ Shameer
41 ‫ארב‬ ārb Arab ‫آراب‬ Ārāb
ّ
ّ
 The People of Lot

We have previously seen that in his original journey from the land of his fathers - whose location
we will eventually pinpoint - Ibraheem had taken his relative, Lūṭ, along with him at first. {And
We rescued him and Lūṭ to the land which We blessed for the worlds}...[21:71].
We have also concluded that the “blessed land” mentioned in the passage is none other than the
lush, green and mountainous Sarāt highlands of Yemen, which later became the hub of the trade
routes stretching from the coast of ‘Adan all the way to Mesopotamia and the Levant.
Eventually, Ibraheem and Lūṭ parted ways. The Patriarch settled in a secluded vale somewhere in
the Sarāt mountains, dedicating his life and the life of his progeny to the service of Allah, while
Lūṭ migrated a short distance and settled in a town somewhere on the mountainous slopes, not
far from his relative.

The Qur’ān also tells us that Lūṭ’s town was eventually destroyed for its wickidness, by a rain of
sijjeel rocks (which means, literally, cooked or fiery clay): {So when Our command came,
We turned it upside down, and We rained on it with rocks of cooked
clay}...[11:82]. What is the story of these rocks, and how exactly did they “rain” down upon
the village?

Since we are adhering to the principle that the passages of the Qur’an tend to expand and explain
each other, let us look where else in the Qur’an we encounter the term sijjeel. We will find it is
mentioned also in the chapter entitled “The Elephant”: {Have you not seen what your Rabb
did to the people of the elephant? * Did He not cause their schemes to go astray?
* And He sent upon them ṭayran abābeel * Striking them with rocks of cooked clay
(sijjeel) * Until they became as the empty sheaths of hay}...[105:1-5]. (Note that we
have purposely left the phrase: "ṭayran abābeel" untranslated for now).

110
According to Islamic mythology and folklore, the “People of the Elephant” mentioned in the
above passage were the army of Abraha, who allegedly led a campaign from Ethiopia against the
“Ka‘bah of Makkah”, after having conquered Yemen, as retaliation (revenge) for the desecration
of a holy site (a church) in Yemen, by an un-named Arab man from the Ḥijāz. (This is the story
that Ibn Isḥāq reported in his commentary, and which the vast majority of Muslim scholars have
adopted as the truth). Another version of the myth states that Abraha built a magnificent Ka‘bah
in Yemen and wanted to make it the center for pilgrims. When he failed to compete with the
"original" Ka‘bah of the Ḥijāz, he decided to launch an attack against Makkah, thus incurring the
wrath of Allah, who sent flocks of birds that pelted his army with rocks. They believe this
happened on the year of Muḥammad’s birth, which became known as the “Year of the
Elephant”.

Although this fairytale has been disproved by archeological findings, which confirmed that
Abraha’s campaign was actually against South Arabia and that he never attacked the Ḥijāz
region, we will not go into the details of the Ethiopian campaign herein. We will simply reiterate
what we have been suspecting ever since we began this journey, whose ultimate purpose is to
locate the true homeland of Muḥammad (P): that the northern (Ḥijāzi) Arabs, somewhere along
the line, hijacked the history, legends, and culture of the southern Arabs, and claimed them as
their own. This truth will eventually shine as bright as the sun by the time we reach the end of
our journey. Our aim here is to disscuss the nature of this event, without going into the details of
who its target was, and to attempt to understand it from a logical and scientific perspective, in
order to separate the myth from the reality, while taking into consideration the geography and
topographical features of the Arabian Penninsula.

The key to understanding the so-called “Chapter of the Elephant” lies in the phrase ṭayran
abābeel which appears in Surah 105. We will be brief and straight to the point.

The term ṭayran in the Qur’anic language does not necessarily indicate a certain kind of creature
(birds that have feathers and can fly and land of their own free will), but can also be used in the
context of describing a certain kind of movement or motion. This can be either figuritive;
meanining something that “flies” (moves very fast), or it can be literal; meaning something that
actually flies or floats in the air, not of its own free will or ability, but because it was forced,
hurled, or ejected into the air (an involuntary movement). Techincally, it follows that anything
can be described as ṭayran if it is flying through the air as a result of being projected with force.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a bird.

To better understand this analogy, let’s look at the following:

{And We announced to Ibraheem the location of the Sanctuary: "Do not set up
anyone with Me, and purify My Sanctuary for those who visit, and those who are
standing, and the kneeling, the prostrating * And call out to the people with the

111
Hajj, they will come to you rijālan and on every transport, they will come from
every deep enclosure}…[22:26,27]

Please note the underlined word rijālan, which appears in the above verse. Although we usually
understand the word as being the plural of rajul, which means “man” (adult human male), the
context does not always indicate this. It is simply describing the way or the means by which the
people came to the Sanctuary (al-Bayt) to witness benefits for themselves. The word rijālan is
actually derived from the root rjl, which means the lower leg. The context is now clear: Allah
told Ibraheem that some people will come to the Bayt riding on mounts, while others will come
rijālan, meaning: walking on their legs. It is obviously describing a way of moving to the place,
not a particular person or visitor. This means that the rijāl being mentioned can actually be
women.

By the exact same logic, the word ṭayran which appears in the story of “The Elephant” is
describing a form of motion, not a particular creature (bird). It is talking about some form of
floating or flying thing that pelted them with rocks of cooked, firey clay.

What about the word abābeel ? Let us see what Ibn Manẓūr says in his famous lexicon entitled
Lisān al-‘Arab (Lit: The Arab Tongue):

." ‫ "جاءت إبلك أبابيل أي فرقا‬:‫و قال األخفش‬...‫ أي قطيع خلف قطيع‬،‫ يتبع بعضه بعضا إبيال إبيال‬....‫ جمع ال واحد له‬:‫األبابيل‬

He is basically telling us that the word is used to describe clusters or groups of something, of
which no singular (unit) item can be picked out. It follows then that the People of the Elephant
were bombarded with projectiles that came upon them cluster after cluster, or group after group.
Can this event be anything other than a volcanic eruption involving wave after wave (abābeel)
of volcanic clouds, showering them with fiery rocks? Is the term abābeel not accurate in its
description of the volcanic projectiles as clusters (meaning that no single or unit projectile can be
picked out?). Is the word ṭayran anything other than bursts of ash clouds that floated in the sky
and carried rocks of cooked clay (sijjeel), with which it pelted the transgressors? Is this not the
same kind of rock that destroyed Lūṭ’s town?

{He (Ibraheem) said: What is your undertaking, O Messengers? * They said: We

have been sent to a criminal people * To send down upon them stones of
clay.}…[51:31-33]

Who are the criminals mentioned in the above, if not Lūṭ’s people? And why is it that the
messengers (the Mala’ika of nature control) are saying that they are going themselves to deal
with those criminals?. Why are no birds mentioned here?

112
It appears that the the vast majority of Muslims have resigned all sense of logic centuries ago,
and have been asleep in a cave, ever since. Logic and reason are apparently not the stuff which
Hadithi Islam is based upon.

The truth is that the sijjeel rock that took the People of the Elephant is the same rock that
destroyed Lūṭ’s town. The two peoples were destroyed by volcanic eruptions that literally rained
down molten (cooked) clay on them from the sky. These projectiles burst from the core of the
earth at temperatures of 1,500ºC. If they land on a human being, they will suck up the moisture
from his/her body in seconds, leaving it resembling the dried husk of a rotten fruit, or the
wrinkled sheath of wheat blades that have been emptied or eaten. This is exactly how the Qur’ān
describes the event in Surah 105. This is what happens when all the water, which constitutes
80% of the human body, is evaporated. It will make the victims look like they were emptied
(eaten) from the inside.

As for the rampant and absurd belief that Muslims have, which mentions actual birds hurling the
stones, let’s see what is written in the traditional books of Tafseer; the so-called “commentaries”
they claim are necessary to “explain” the Qur’an:

1- Tafseer of al-Qurṭubi (as he heard it reported by Sa‘eed bin Jubayr):

‫ لها مناقير‬،‫ طيورا خضر‬...‫ "كان طيرا من السماء لم يُرى قبلها و ال بعدها مثلها‬:)‫ تفسير القرطبي (عن سعيد بن جبير‬-
".‫صفر‬

Translation: “They were birds the likes of which were never seen before, nor ever
after….they were green, and had yellow beaks”

2- Narrated by Juwayber, who heard it from al-Daḥḥak, who heard it from Ibn ‘Abbās, who
heard it from the Prophet, who said:

"‫ تعشعش و تفرخ‬،‫ إنها طير بين السماء و األرض‬:‫ "سمعت رسول هللا (ص) يقول‬:‫ قال‬،‫ و روى جويبر عن الضحاك عن إبن عباس‬-

Translation: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (P) say: They were birds not from the earth,
nor from the sky, but made their homes and hatched somewhere in between".

(Please note the presence of a figure called al-Daḥḥak in the chain of the above “holy” narration.
This name appears very often in the books of Ḥadeeth, and always involves something
outrageous or illogical. It’s actually a nickname meaning “the laugher” or “he who laughs”.
That’s right; they have been laughing at us for centuries and making a mockery of Allah’s book,
while we have been sleeping in our cave).

113
3- Also from Ibn ‘Abbās:

".‫ و أكف كأكف الكالب‬،‫ "كانت لها خراطيم كخراطيم الطير‬:‫ و عن إبن عباس أيضا‬-

Translation: "They had the beaks of birds and the shoulders of dogs!" [Applause and drums,
please!]

4- Narrated by ‘Akramah:

."‫ و لم تُرى قبل ذلك و ال بعده‬.‫ لها رؤوس كرؤوس السباع‬،‫ خرجت من البحر‬،‫ "كانت طيرا خضرا‬:‫ و قال عكرمة‬-

Translation: "They were green birds which came out of the sea, and had the heads of
wolves. They were never seen before nor after then".

5- Narrated by ‘Aishah, wife of the Prophet:

". ‫ حمراء و سوداء‬،‫ "كانت أشبه بالوطاويط‬:‫ رضي هللا عنها‬،‫ و عن عائشة‬-

Translation: "They resembled bats, and were black and red in color". (May Allah be pleased
with her, for she has truly lifted the confusion surrounding this matter!).

We believe these examples are quite sufficient to get the idea accross.

Our question to those few remaining Muslims on this Earth who refuse to put their brains to
sleep, and refuse to succumb to the tyranny of the Salafi interpretations: Must we be restrained
with the chains of these narrations and “interpretations” even now, in the 21st Century? Are
these narrations and tafseers truly the words of Allah? Don’t we have the right to refuse their
opinions and read Allah’s book through our own eyes, with the aid of scientific knowledge? Is it
possible that Muḥammad (P) did not know that the word ṭayran can also be a description of
a certain movement and not necessarily to mean birds. Is it conceivable that the authors of
Arabic lexicons knew better than Muḥammad (P), whose language was the language of the
Qur’an itself? Is it possible that all the contradicting descriptions of these mysterious “birds” that
we read in the afore-mentioned hadiths actually came from the Prophet? Or is it more likely they
are contradictory becasue they are all manmade traditions and writings that were penned during
the Ummayad and Abbasid ages, centuries after Muḥammad (P)?

{Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than Allah they would
have found in it many discrepencies}...[4:82]

114
The truth of the matter is that even the Old Testament itself describes what happened to the
people of Lūṭ in very logical terms:

Then the LORD rained down fire and sulfur (brimstone) on Sodom and Gomorrah—
from the LORD out of the heavens (Genesis 19:24)

Fire and sulphur cannot be anything other than a volcanic eruption. This means that the towns
were located in a volcanic region. Furthermore, the volcanic openings must have been of high
altitude (i.e, mountains), or the OT and the Qur’an would not have described the event as being
a “rain of rocks”.

Let’s look at the following volcanic map of Arabia:

Map #6: Tectonic map of Afro-Asian plates

Notes:

- The two red arrows point at the tectonic fault line that lies underneath the Red Sea bed, between Africa and Arabia.
- The red dots scattered over the map are epicenters of earthquakes that occurred at some point in recent history.
- The black square marks the location of the current city of Makkah.
- The triangles are obviously the volcanoes. Looking closely at the map, we will see that the biggest cluster of
volcanoes happens to be in the green circle, which is the area of Yemen-Ethiopia. On the other hand, the volcanoes
of north Arabia (the brown circle) are fewer, and not as tightly clustered together.

115
- Let us look at the Jordan-Palestine area, directly to the north of the brown circle. Do we see any volcanoes there?
The blue circle marks the location of the Dead Sea, where the conjecture-makers and forgers of history claim the
town of Lūṭ was located. Do you see any volcanic mountains around that place? The only volcanoes in the entire
Levant region are in the Golan Highland in the south of Syria (the orange circle), and nowhere near the Dead Sea
area. This is not to say that the Jordan-Palestine area did not receive its fair share of seismic activity in the past. In
fact, the areas near the Dead Sea do contain lava fields, and have been the center of earthquakes in the past.
However, there are no volcanic mountains anywhere it Palestine or Jordan. This is a topographic fact.

going back to the Qur’an, we find some very strong clues that the town of Lūṭ (P) was not far
from where Muḥammad (P) was preaching, and that Muḥammad’s people passed by it day and
night in their comings and goings:

{And Lūṭ was one of the messengers * When We saved him and all his family *
Except an old woman who perished * Then, We destroyed the rest. * And you pass
by their ruins in the morning; * And in the night. Do you not comprehend?}…[37:
133 - 138]

The above passage caused a huge problem to the classical commentators of the Qur’an, because
they analyzed it while bearing the pre-conceived belief that Palestine was the land of the
prophets. On the other hand, they understood that the verse was in fact addressing the inhabitants
of Makkah, located in the southern Ḥijāz region. So how did they deal with this discrepancy?
Apparently, they solved it by putting words into Allah’s mouth and twisting the meaning of the
āyah, as usual, to make it fit with their pre-conceived ideas. If you go now and open any book of
tafseer, you will note that they insert, in brackets, words that are not found in the original text of
the Qur’an. They render the above-passage as such:

{And you pass by their ruins (on your trade journeys from Makkah to Palestine) in
the morning; * And in the night. Do you not comprehend?}

The outlined phrase is a blatant corruption of the meaning, and this for the following reasons:

1- Nowhere is there any indication that the āyah is addressing only the traders or merchants from
among Muḥammad’s people.

2- The original text says that they pass by it day and night. This expression clearly means that
the ruins of Lūṭ’s town cannot be more than 15 to 20 kilometers from where Muḥammad (P) was
preaching.

3- It contradicts another Qur’anic passage, elsewhere, which tells us:

{So when Our command came, We turned it (Lūṭ’s town) upside down, and We
rained on it fiery clay projectiles * Marked from your Rabb, and it is not far from
the wicked.}…[11:82,83]

116
This means that the disbelievers who persecuted Muḥammad (P) and eventually forced him and
his followers out of their homes could clearly see the remains of Lūṭ’s town, which was not far
from them. Does it sound to you like it’s buried under the Dead Sea?

Even the scientific-minded Christian skeptics have long dismissed the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah as a myth. Some, however, are more reluctant to dismiss it, but seriously doubt its
geographical setting. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims are adamant that it lies burried
under the Dead Sea, and that it will someday be uncovered there. To the Christians we say:
happy hunting! As for the Muslims, who have equally been the victims of this ancient
geographical forgery, it seems they are incapable of grasping the Qur’an, which clearly told
Muḥammad (P) and his people that the ruins of Lūṭ’s town were left as a clear sign for them to
contemplate. How can it be a clear sign, when it lies burried under a large salty lake between
Palestine and Jordan?

From a first glance, the most obvious candidates for the location of Lūṭ’s town appear to be the
brown circle (North Arabia) and the green circle (Yemen). By the end of our journey, we will see
that only one can be the true location.

 The Tribe of ‘Ād

Our next stop in this tour of the ancient nations concerns ‘Ād, a people whom the Qur’ān tells us
were given high status by Allah, but eventually chose the path of transgression rather than
righteousness. To these people, Allah sent His messenger, Hūd (P) as a warner. Our aim here is
not to discuss who these people were, but rather where they lived, and what happened to them.
This subject is directly related to the geography of the region, and is of paramount importance in
determining the location of Ibraheem’s original homeland, as well as the location where
Muḥammad began preaching the Qur’ān (was it in the Ḥijāz, or in the Yemen?). Still, it wouldn't
hurt to take a brief glimpse at ‘Ād’s history:

{And to ‘Ād We sent their brother Hūd, he said: "My people, serve Allah, you have
no god besides Him. Will you not be righteous?" * The elite who rejected from
among his people said: "We see you as a fool, and we think you are one of the
liars" * He said: "My people, there is no foolishness in me, but I am a messenger
from the Rabb of all people." * "To deliver to you the messages of my Rabb, and to
you I am a trustworthy advisor." * "Are you surprised that a reminder has come to
you from your Rabb through a man from among you to warn you? And remember
that He made you successors after the people of Nūḥ, and He increased you in
status. So remember the grace of Allah, that you may succeed."}…[7:65-69]

The first point of interest here is the fact that ‘Ād were successors to the people of Nūḥ (Noah),
as is clearly evident from the passage. (Also, if we look at the āyahs immediately preceding
7:65, we can confirm that they are talking about Nūḥ and his contemporaries). It follows

117
logically that the people of Nūḥ and the people of ‘Ād lived in the same geographic region. This
is the first proof we have that the Great Flood did not take place in Mesopotamia (modern-day
Iraq), as is commonly believed. (The Qura’nic account of Nūḥ - to which we will devote an
entire chapter in a future book - makes it clear that the story took place in a volcanic region
having a rainy climate. This does not fit with the geography of Iraq).

The second mention of ‘Ād comes in the following passage:

{And to 'Ād was sent their brother Hūd. He said: "My people, serve Allah, you have
no god besides Him; you are simply conjecturing." * "My people, I do not ask you
for any wage, my wage is from the One who has initiated me. Will you not
comprehend?" * "And my people, seek forgiveness from your Rabb, then repent to
Him; He will send (from) the sky to you in abundance, and He will add might to
your might. So do not turn away as criminals." * They said: "O Hūd, you have not
come to us with any proof, nor will we leave our gods based on what you say. We
will not believe in you." * "All we can say is that perhaps some of our gods have
brought an affliction upon you." He said: "I make Allah my witness, and all of you
witness, that I am innocent of what you have set up."}...[11:50-54]

Again we see repeated mention of Hūd’s people stubbornly ignoring their messenger’s warnings.
Of specific interest to us is the underlined sentence, which again shows dependence on rain for
agriculture. By contrast, the agriculture of Iraq, for thousands of years, has depended on the
continuous flow of the Tigris and Euphrates and on irrigation. Mesopotamia is a land that, like
the Nile Valley, receives very little rain – if any – throughout the year. The Muslims fail to
notice these small, subtle, yet very important clues as to where the events surrounding these
ancient nations took place, because they have pre-conceived notions in their heads that cloud
their thinking. They read the Qur’an through orientalist lenses.

Another mention of ‘Ād can be seen in the following verse, which gives us further clues as to
their location:

{'Ād denied the messengers * For their brother Hūd said to them: "Will you not be
righteous?" * "I am to you a clear messenger." * "So be aware of Allah and obey
me." * "And I do not ask you for any wage, for my reward is upon the Rabb of all
people." * "Do you build in every high place a symbol, for the sake of vanity?! *
"And you take for yourselves strongholds, perhaps you will live forever?" * "And
when you strike, you strike ruthlessly?" * "So be aware of Allah and obey me." *
And be aware of the One who provided you with what you know." * He provided
you with livestock and sons * And gardens and springs." * I fear for you the
retribution of a great day * They said: "It is the same whether you preach or do
not preach." * "This is nothing except an invention by the people of old." * And we
are not going to be punished." * So they denied him, and We destroyed them. In
that is a sign, but most are not believers.}…[26:123-139]

118
It is evident that ‘Ād built some of their homes in high and lofty mountainous places. Certain
commentators of the Qur’an claimed it was so they could avoid the same fate as Nūḥ’s people
(thinking that they would be safe from floods in high places). However, despite the logic in that
assumption, the passage does not imply this for certain. It simply says they built these high
places out of vanity (as a show of their power). And they thought their fortresses would make
them live forever in safety. But in the end, after repeatedly ignoring Hūd’s warnings, they were
destroyed. The āyahs also tell us that they enjoyed gardens and springs. Please keep this
important point in mind, as we will get back to it later on.

Allah destroyed ‘Ād in a way that was fitting of how they built their homes. Not with a flood, but
with something else…something that their high and lofty homes and fortresses could not save
them from.

{But if they turn away, then say (O, Muḥammad): “I have warned you of a
destruction like the destruction of ‘Ād and Thamūd.” * When the messengers came
to them, publicly and privately (and they were told): ”You shall not serve except
Allah”, They said: “Had our Rabb willed, He would have sent mala’ika. We are
rejecting what you have been sent with” * As for ‘Ād, they turned arrogant in the
land, without any right, and they said: “Who is mightier than us in strength?”. Did
they not see that Allah, who has created them, is mightier than they in strength?
And they were denying Our revelations * Consequently, We sent upon them a
violent wind, for (a period) of some miserable days, that We may let them taste the
humiliating retribution in this worldly life, and the retribution of the Hereafter is
more humiliating; they can never win}….[41:13-16]

Their might and arrogance could not save them from that violent wind. This same wind is
mentioned again in Surah 54:

{We sent upon them a violent wind, on a period of continuous misery * It

uprooted the people as if they were decayed palm tree trunks}…[54:19,20]

Where exactly did this wind come from?

Each instance mentioning ‘Ād in the Qur’ān adds another dimension to the story, and provides
more detail. This is how the Qur’ān explains itself. In Surah 51, we read the following:

{And also ‘Ād, for We sent upon them the barren wind * Anything that it came
upon was utterly destroyed}…[51:41,42]

It was a wind described as barren and sterile; a wind that did not bring any blessing, cooling, nor
contribute to the pollination of plants; nor did it push rain clouds over their gardens. It brought
only destruction and misery.

{Thamūd and ‘Ād disbelieved in the Shocker * As for Thamūd, they were
annihilated by the devastation * And as for ‘Ād, they were annihilated by a furious
violent wind * He unleashed it upon them for seven nights and eight days, in

119
succession. You (O Muḥammad) could have seen the people destroyed in it, as if
they are decayed palm trunks * Do you see anything remaining of them?}…
[69:4-8]

The āyahs above are addressing Muḥammad (P) and asking him a question about one of the
nations who came before him, and who were destroyed by the violent, barren wind: “Do you, O
Muḥammad, see anything remaining of them?” This means that the empty, desolate homes of
‘Ād were very near the place where Muḥammad was preaching the Qur’an. If they were not so,
the above question would not make any sense whatsoever.

Finally, we reach a critical passage which reveals to us exactly what kind of wind it was that
destroyed these people, and where their homes were located:

{And recall that the brethren of ‘Ād when he warned his people of the aḥqāf, (giant
sand dunes), while numerous warnings were also delivered before him and with
him: “You shall not serve except Allah. For I fear for you the retribution of a great
day.” * They said: “Have you come to us to divert us away from our gods? Then
bring us what you are promising us, if you are truthful!?” * He said: “The
knowledge is only with Allah; and I but convey to you what I was sent with.
However, I see that you are a people who are ignorant” * Then when they saw it
(the retribution) heading towards their valleys, they said: “This is but a passing
cloud that will bring to us heavy rain!”. “No, this is what you had asked to be
hastened; a violent wind wherein there is a painful retribution” * It destroys
everything by the command of its Rabb. Thus they became such that nothing could
be seen except their dwellings. We thus requite the criminal people. * And We had
established them in the same way as We established you (O people of Muḥammad),
and provided them with hearing, and eyesight, and hearts. But their hearing,
eyesight, and hearts did not help them at all. This is because they used to
disregard the revelations of Allah, and they will be surrounded by that which they
used to mock * And We destroyed the towns around you (O people of Muḥammad),
and We had dispatched the signs, perhaps they would repent.}…[46:21-27].

The first major clue given here is the term aḥqāf, which appears at the beginning of the passage.
This Arabic word is derived from the root verb ḥqf (‫)حقف‬, which means: to gather together /
shovel (as in quantities dirt, or sand) / stacked on top of each other. The word is used in the
colloquial dialects of South Arabia, as indicating a region of giant sand dunes. It is worth noting
here that most of the rampant translations of the Qur’an render the opening of the passage as
follows: "‘Ād warned his people at the dunes”. This is a very grave error, because it conveys
the meaning that they were living within the area of the sand dunes itself. This contradicts the
previous āyahs we have seen concerning ‘Ād. How can they be living in the region of the sand
dunes, when the Qur’an clearly states that they built fortresses and lofty mountain homes
overlooking valleys full of springs and gardens? The correct rendering would have to be that
Hūd warned his people of the sand dunes, not at the sand dunes. Now the question is: where are
those giant sand dunes located?

120
If we look at a map of Arabia, and contemplate the Rub‘ al-Khāli Desert (the Empty Quarter),
which happens to be the largest sand desert on the planet, we will note that the more we move
southward, the less rocky the desert becomes and the more sand is accumulated, until we reach
the northern border of Yemen and Oman, where these sand dunes become monstrous in size, and
are legendary for emitting strange sounds. In fact, this area of the desert has been named
al-Aḥqāf for countless generations, and the nomads of Oman even consider it a sacred region,
barring any non-Muslim from entering it, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand,
the more northward we move (towards Saudi Arabia), the less sandy the desert becomes, and the
more we see rocks. This is why the ancient Romans gave the North of the Peninsula the name
“Arabia Petraeus” (meaning: Rocky Arabia).

Map #7: The Rub’-al-Khali Desert. Notice the dark brown area in the southern part? That's the area
known, by name, as al-Aḥqāf.

Picture #11: The sand dunes of al-Aḥqāf region, in northern Yemen.

121
This means that the remains of ‘Ād’s people (their homes and fortresses) are buried somewhere
on the southern edge of this great desert, in the western reaches of the Ḥaḍramawt Valley of
Yemen, not far from the Sarāwat mountains. Also, they cannot be very far from the vestiges of
Thamūd whom, as we will soon see, were the descendants of ‘Ād.

Going back to the subject of the barren wind, what happened was the following: Hūd warned the
people of ‘Ād that the giant sand dunes of the Aḥqāf area would be literally coming their way.
They failed to heed his repeated warnings. The consequence: they were destroyed by
a catastrophic sandstorm that blew over their green valleys continuously for a week, and all their
lofty dwellings and fortresses could not help them. (They saw the giant dust haze approaching
their green valleys from afar, pushed along by a wind from the north, and thought that it was
only a passing cloud).

The lingering doubt regarding the true geography of the messengers of Allah is not a new thing.
In fact, legendary Arabian traveler and explorer Ibn Baṭṭūtah (1304 - 1369 AD), during his
expedition to Yemen, made the following remark concerning the location of Hūd’s tomb:

‫ وهناك زاوية ومسجد على ساحل البحر وحوله قرية‬،‫ وهي منازل عاد‬،‫وعلى مسيرة نصف يوم من هذه المدينة األحقاف‬
‫ وقد ذكرت أن بمسجد دمشق أيضا‬. "‫ "هذا قبر هود بن عابر عليه افضل السالم‬: ‫ وفي زاويته قبر ُك ِتب عليه‬،‫لصيّادي السمك‬
.‫ وهللا اعلم‬،‫ واألشبه ان يكون قبره باالحقاف ألنها بالده‬. "‫ "هذا قبر هود بن عابر‬: ‫موضعا عليه مكتوب‬

Translation: “Half a day’s journey from that city (he means Zafar, Yemen), are the homes of
‘Ād. There, on a sea-side strip is a mosque in the middle of a fishermen’s village. In one
corner of the mosque is a sepulcher that reads ‘This is the tomb of the prophet Hūd (P)’.
I mentioned previously that there is a mosque in Damascus as well on which the words
Tomb of Hūd, son of ‘Āber are carved, but it is more likely the tomb in the Aḥqāf region is
the correct one, because that was his homeland, and Allah knows best”.

Do we blame Ibn Baṭṭūtah because he tipped in favor of the Ḥaḍramawt valley of Yemen as
being the correct location of Hūd’s tomb, rather than Syria? Or do we blame al-Hamadāni, who
made roughly the same observation as Ibn Baṭṭūtah? Let’s read the following passage from
Description of Arabia (page 169):

‫ قرية بسفلى حضرموت في وا ٍد ذي‬،‫ و ينحدر المنحدر منها إلى ثوبة‬،‫ و هي مدينة عظيمة‬،‫و ساكن شبام من حمير ثم تريس‬
‫ و قبره في الكثيب األحمر ثم منه في كهف مشرف في أسفل‬،‫ و يفيض وادي ثوبة إلى بلد مهرة و حيث قبر النبي هود‬،‫نخل‬
.‫ و أهل حضرموت يزورونه هم و أهل مهرة في كل وقت‬....‫وادي األحقاف‬

What al-Hamadāni is telling us is basically that there is a region of the Ḥaḍramawt valley, not far
from Shibām, called Mahrah. And in the red-rock cliffs overlooking the sand dunes of the
Ahqāf Valley is a cave containing the tomb of Hūd. And the people of Mahrah visit it regularly.
(Note: this was back in the days of al-Hamadāni, who lived around 930 AD).

122
I ask you dear reader, to carefully analyze the semi-legendary Arabian lineage of Hūd, son of
‘Āber. Who is this ‘Āber? This name is actually the origin of the description ‘Abrān (or ‘Ibrān ),
which means “Hebrews” (those who crossed over from one region to another, i.e. the nomads).
According to the Old Testament, Aber (or Eber) was an ancestor of Joktan, which is Qaḥṭān in
Arabic. Why does the same Biblical genealogical tree of Eber - Joktan - Hazarmaveth appear in
the ancient legends of Yemen? And why is Hūd designated as part of that lineage (‘Āber -
Qaḥṭān - Ḥaḍramawt - Hūd)? The more pressing question is: what on Earth does that lineage
have to do with Palestine or the Levant?

 The Tribe of Thamūd

One of Hitler’s famous officers once advised the Führer as follows: “Lie, lie, lie, and keep on
lying…eventually, the people will believe you”. And how true that motto has proven to be! In
order for a lie to spread and become part of a people’s belief system, it must indeed have two
ingredients:

1- It must be repeated over and over again to the public.

2- It must be supported by the state (political power).

Think of how the rampant Christianity of today was created: it began as no more than a story
invented by Paul, for political reasons, and preached repeatedly in Jerusalem, decades after
Jesus’ death. The story did in fact meet a lot of resistance from Jesus’ followers at first, until the
Roman Empire itself, with all its financial and political power, decided to back it up. It was then
that Constantine himself "embraced" Paul’s creed, and embellished the story with pagan beliefs
that were rampant in the region at the time…and so the lie that is Christianity spread like
a wildfire.

The Arabs of the Ḥijāz have been lying to the world for many centuries and claiming that the so-
called Madā’in Ṣāleḥ, in the north of present-day Saudi Arabia, are the ruins of the people of
Thamūd, who are mentioned in the Qur’ān, and to whom Allah’s messenger Ṣāleḥ (P) was sent.
They are fond of reciting the following passages - among others - out of context:

{And remember that He made you (O Thamūd) successors after ‘Ād, and He
established you in the land so that you make palaces on its plains, and you carve
homes in the mountains. So remember the grace of Allah, and do not roam the
land as corrupters}…[7:74]

{And Thamūd, who engraved the rocks in the valley}…[89:9]

Then, they market to the world the claim that the carved rock chambers shown in the photos
below were once the dwellings of the tribe of Thamūd:

123
 Picture #12: The so-called Madā’in Ṣāleḥ (also known as al-Ḥijr).

To support their claims, they resort to hadiths attributed to Muḥammad (P), in which he
prohibited people from settling near those structures, or even from tarrying too long in their
vicinity, because they were the site of the great chastisement of Thamūd, in the bygone days.

Until archeology proved them wrong…

Let’s read a little bit about this scandal:

In the year 2006, a team of Saudi archeologists, with the help of a European crew on the ground,
completely denied any evidence that these structures have anything to do with the Thamūd of the
Qur’an, whatsoever. The following is an excerpt from an article in the Sharq al-Awṣaṭ
Newspaper:

Title: The Ruins of Al-Ḥijr are Nabatean

Archeologists: “The structures of al-Ḥijr have no relation whatsoever with the Prophet Ṣāleḥ”
Report made by: Ḥalima Mizhfar

A team of archeologists and specialists has confirmed to the newspaper that they have found absolutely no proof
whatsoever of those people to whom the Prophet Ṣāleḥ (P) was sent, nor that the sites commonly known as
Madā’en Ṣāleḥ, in the north of Arabia, are in any way related to the tribe of Thamūd.

The following are the main points that the team of scientists mentioned:

1- The structures are actually Nabatean tomb chambers (crypts), not designed to be dwellings or homes.
2- No Thamūdic inscriptions were found at the site*.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Thamūdic is a South Arabian alphabet that originated in Yemen, the oldest inscriptions of which date back to
around the 16th Century BC. The inscriptions found at the Ḥijr site in Northern Saudi Arabia are Aramaic, not
Thamūdic. The Aramaic alphabet was developed in the area of Iraq and the Levant, and has no relation to Thamūd.

124
Assistant manager to the Ministry of Archeology, Mutlaq Suleiman al-Mutlaq, has also confirmed the findings, and
stated that the examination of the structures (of which there are some 132) and the chemical analysis of the bones
buried therein, has proven that they were made around 100 BC (give or take a few years), and that they
coincide with the era of the Nabatean kingdom.

How can these structures, which go back to the first century BC, have anything to do with
a people as ancient as Thamūd? The Qur’an tells us that Thamūd were descendants of ‘Ād who,
in turn, were descendants of Nūḥ’s people. This means is that the era of Thamūd preceded the
time of Ibraheem, which we have already estimated to be around 1600 BC. Do you see the
anachronism now, dear reader?

In fact, this scandalous discovery put the Hadithists in a very precarious situation. Prominent
Saudi Archeologist Farajallah Aḥmad Yūsef once pointed to a fatwa that was issued by the Fiqh
Council of Saudi Arabia in the year 1972, which prohibited visitors to the site from lingering too
long or eating and drinking near it, based on their interpretation of a ḥadeeth which claims that it
was the site of Prophet Ṣāleḥ’s people! This is but an example of how the religious elite resort to
lies and propaganda, inciting fear in the masses, as a means of social control.

What archeology has unquestionably shown, dear reader, is that the so-called Madā’in Ṣāleḥ in
the north of the Ḥijāz region, are Nabatean tombs. This means that the people who left us the
ruins of Petra, in Jordan, are the same ones who carved those rocks in northern Saudi Arabia.

Picture #13: (Petra, Jordan). The people who made these...

125
 Picture #14: ... Also made these.

The Sharq al-Awṣat newspaper team visited the site on May 14, 2006, and wrote a report about
the region and about the religious controversy surrounding it. The report also quoted many
western archeologists who had visited the region, notably British Professor John Healy of
Manchester University, who confirmed that the so-called Madā’in Ṣāleḥ are in fact Nabatean,
thus completely falsifying Muslim beliefs that they have anything to do with Ṣāleḥ (P) or the
people of Thamūd.

Furthermore, the Qur’an states clearly that Thamūd carved their homes from rock. It does not
say anything about tombs or crypts. The following is a photo from the interior of their alleged
Thamūdic homes.

Picture #15: Does this look like it was a home to you?

Do we believe science, or do we believe hearsay?

126
The truth is that the very name Thamūd is, to Yemen, as the Nile is to Egypt. It is a name that
identifies, even defines Yemeni culture. All you have to do, dear reader, is simply look up
“Thamudic” in any encyclopedia heading about ancient scripts, or any internet source, and you
will immediately see the relationship. In fact, there is city in Yemen, near the borders of the al-
Aḥqāf region (the region of giant sand dunes), called Thamūd. It was most probably named so in
memory of the ancient tribe whose name became legend in the Ḥaḍramawt valley.

Map #8: A map of Yemen showing the city of Thamūd (within the red circle).

Even the proponents of the Ḥijāz (North Arabia) as the setting of Ṣāleḥ’s people, know this for a
fact. If we look up “Thamud” in Wikipedia, for instance, we get the deceptive information that
they originated in Yemen, but then migrated Northwards to the Ḥijāz and carved Māda’en Ṣāleḥ
there.

Map #9: A map from Wikipedia showing the alleged migration of Thamūd to the Ḥijāz region.

127
Not only is this allegation a lie, but it also defies the Qur’an itself, which states that Thamūd
were obliterated completely. They did not migrate outside of Yemen, and they have nothing to
do with the Nabatean tombs at al-Ḥijr.

{And from Thamūd He left none}…[53:51]

It’s quite plain and simple: the Qur’ān is correct, as confirmed by archeology. The Hadithists are
wrong. Thamūd were an ancient Yemeni tribe that existed since long before 2000 BC. They
were among the perished nations of South Arabia, just like their predecessors, the people of Nūḥ
and the tribe of ‘Ād. The Qur’an names these nations al-qurūn al-ūla (meaning: the first nations
or peoples). The Qur’an also relates to us a conversation between Mūsa (P) and Far‘awn, in
which the tyrant asks Mūsa about the fate of those first nations:

{He said: "So who is the Rabb of you both, O Mūsa ? * He said: "Our Rabb is the
One who gave everything its creation, then guided all." * He said: "What then has
happened to the first nations?” * He said: "The knowledge of that is with my Rabb,
in a record; my Rabb does not err or forget. * The One who made for you the earth
habitable and He made ways for you in it, and He brought down water from the
sky, so We sprouted out with it various pairs of vegetation”}…[20:49-52]

Also, we remind you of the believing man from among Far‘awn’s people, who warned them
about the fate of those first nations:

{And a believing man from among the people of Far‘awn, who had concealed his
belief, said: "Will you kill a man simply because he is saying 'My Rabb is Allah' and
he has come to you with proofs from your Rabb? And if he is a liar, then his lie will
be upon him, and if he is truthful, then some of what he is promising you will
afflict you. For Allah does not guide any transgressor, or liar * O my people, you
have the kingship today throughout the land. But then who will save us against
the torment of Allah, should it come to us?". Far‘awn said: "I am showing you that
which I see, and I am guiding you in the right path" * And the one who believed
said: "O my people, I fear for you the same fate as the Day of the Opponents *
Like the fate of the people of Nūḥ, ‘Ād, and Thamūd, and those after them. And
Allah does not wish any injustice for the servants}...[40:28-30]

There, dear reader, is the truth that has been hidden from the awareness of the world. All the
messengers of Allah, mentioned in the Qur’an, lived and preached in the same geographical
region. The empty homes of ‘Ād and Thamūd, as well as the destroyed town of Lūṭ’s people
were all around Muḥammad and his people:

{Did you not see (O Muḥammad), what your Rabb did to ‘Ād? * Iram (Aram) of the
pillars? * The likes of which were not made in the land? * And Thamūd, who
carved the rocks in the valley * And Far’awn of the Pegs * They all transgressed in
the land * And caused much corruption therein * So your Rabb poured upon them
a measure of retribution.}…[89: 6-13]

128
{And 'Ād and Thamūd. Much was made apparent to you from their dwellings. The
devil had adorned their works in their eyes, thus he diverted them from the path,
even though they could see}...[29:38]

{And you resided in the dwellings of those who had wronged themselves, and it
was made clear to you what We did to them; and We had put forth the examples
for you}...[14:45]

This geographical region was described by Allah as consisting of “The Towns” (al-Qura),
surrounding one central town called “The Mother of Towns” (Umm al- Qura), which, as we will
prove in the future, is the first urban settlement known to mankind.

{And thus We have inspired to you an eloquent (‘arabi) Qur’ān, so that you may
warn the Mother of Towns and all around it, and to warn about the Era of
Gathering that is inevitable. A group will be in the Paradise, and a group in
Hell}…[42:7]

{And We had established them in the same way as We established you, and
provided them with hearing, and eyesight, and hearts. But their hearing, eyesight,
and hearts did not help them at all. This is because they used to disregard the
revelations of Allah, and they will be surrounded by that which they used to mock
* And We destroyed the towns around you and We had dispatched the signs,
perhaps they would repent.}…[46:26,27]

{And We have not sent before you (O Muḥammad) except men to whom We gave
inspiration, from among the people of the towns. Will they not roam the land and
see how the punishment of those before them was dealt? And the abode of the
Hereafter is far better for those who are aware. Do you not
comprehend?}…[12:109]

{Many nations have come before you (O people of Muḥammad), so roam the land and
see how the consequence was for the deniers}…[3:137]

Again, we ask the question: Where do we roam? Where is the answer to this age-old puzzle?

 Trees and Roots: The Great Scandal

The establishment of Biblical Israel along the trade routes of South Arabia is so blatantly
evident, even from the Old Testament, that the rampant beliefs placing it in Palestine are quite
simply scandalous. The OT itself, especially in its Song of Songs and Psalms (the Zabūr),
speaks of camel caravans, and mentions places rich with myrrh and frankincense. These two
almost legendary substances became the envy of all surrounding kingdoms. The Egyptians used

129
the myrrh plant as the primary ingredient for mummification, while the ancient Mesopotamians,
and later the Greeks, sought frankincense for their religious rituals, believing that the inhalation
of its fumes brought humans closer to the gods. These two substances became more valued than
gold.

Until the day breaks and the shadows flee away, I will go my way to the mountain
of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense (Song / Songs 4:6)

Spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, With all trees of frankincense,
myrrh and aloes, With all the chief spices...(Song / Songs 4:14)

And their father Israel said to them, "If it must be so, then do this: Take some of
the best fruits of the land in your vessels and carry down a present for the man a
little balm and a little honey, spices and myrrh, pistachio nuts and almonds.
(Genesis 43:11)

To those who continue to live on in stubborn arrogance and denial, we ask you: which land in the
entire ancient world was known for producing saffron, myrrh and frankincense? The answer is
quite elementary: only two regions were known as sources for these substances: Arabia Felix
(Yemen and Oman) and, to a lesser extent, The Horn of Africa.

The map below shows the areas of myrrh and frankincense production in the ancient world.

Map #10: The land of myrrh and frankincense.

On the other hand, we find that the genealogical roots of the Old Testament figures (Noah,
Shem, Eber, Joktan, Almodad, Hazarmaveth, Uzal, Shebam, Jerah, and Japeth) are found, almost
to the letter, in the legendary traditions of Yemen (Nūh, Sām, ‘Āber, Qaḥtān, al-Madād,

130
Ḥaḍramawt, Uzāl, Shibām, Yareeḥ, Yāfeth) and some of its ancient cities were named after those
figures!

And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth,
to him also were children born (Genesis 10: 21)

And Joktan was the father of Almodad and Sheleph and Hazarmaveth and Jerah
And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah (Genesis 10:26,27)

The following passage, concerning the city of Ṣan‘ā’, is straight from Encylcopedia Britannica:

SANA’A - One of the oldest populated places in the world. According to popular legend, it
was founded by Shem, the son of Noah. It was known as "Azal" in ancient times, referring
to Uzal, a son of Qahtan, who was a great-grandson of Shem.

Here follows is a passage from al-Hamadani’s Description of Arabia (page 102):

."‫ و كان إسمها في الجاهلية "أزال‬،‫ ألنها في الوسط منها ما بينها و بين عدن‬،‫ و هي أ ّم اليمن‬،‫مدينة صنعاء‬

Translation: “The city of Ṣan‘ā’ is the mother of Yemen, for it lies in its center, halfway to
‘Adan. Its name, in the jāhiliyyah era, was Azāl”.

Picture #16: Dusk over Ṣan‘ā’ - The Biblical “Uzal”

131
 Picture #17: A view of Wādi Ḥaḍramawt

Picture #18: A young frankinsence tree in Wādi Do‘an (Yemen)

The map on the next page shows the approximate coordinates of some of the Biblical locations,
as deduced from al-Hamadani’s gazetteer:

132
Map #11: Approximate coordinates of some Biblical locations

*****

133
 Conclusion

Now, at last, we can walk in the footsteps of Ibraheem (P), and retrace the road that the Patriarch
took from his original homeland to the land that was blessed by Allah to all peoples, from the
most ancient of times.

Ibraheem (P) was born somewhere in the south-central plains of Yemen, near the ruins of the
city of Iram (or Aram), on the borders of the Ḥaḍramawt Valley, in the territorial domain of the
Bani-Kasād (al-Kasdiyyeen), an ancient Yemeni tribe whose name appears in the original
(Aramaic) Old Testament as “Ur-Kasdim”. This was the same region in which the primitive
nations of Nūḥ, ‘Ād, and Thamūd had resided, in a past that is beyond memory. Ibraheem was
described in the Bible as being the “Lost Aramian” (Iramian), because he had wondered away
from his homeland, and hence became a “Hebrew” (nomad). Under the guidance of Allah,
Ibraheem migrated westwards towards the lush green Sarāt Country of Yemen, the mountainous
strip of land bordering the Red Sea coast of Tihāma, the site of the ancient Sanctuary (al-Bayt)
that was already known to the inhabitants of the region. It was there, in the highlands of Yemen,
that the Patriarch re-established the tenets of the monotheistic faith.

Ibraheem (P) spoke the Aramaic (Iramaic) dialect, an offshoot (a‘jami) vernacular of Arabic,
whose alphabet consisted of 22 letters. The people whose lands he migrated to were the Bani
Kanānah and the Bani Muḍar (Msrim); sedentary, agricultural mountain dwellers who spoke
other dialects, among them the eloquent (Arabic) proto-tongue of the region, whose alphabet
consisted of 28 letters. These people labeled any and all travelling nomads who came to their
lands with the tag of “Hebrew” (‘ibri). Hence, Ibraheem was an ancient, semi-legendary figure
from Arabia’s distant past. He never set foot outside the highlands of the Sarāt region.
The account of his life has nothing to do with Palestine, Egypt or Iraq.

Map #12: Ibraheem’s trail, and the general direction he took from his ancestral homeland.

To be continued in Book III…

134
 Notable References

1) Books:

The Qur’ān

The Old Testament

Distorting the Picture - The Tajdeed Society of Bahrain (2005)

Call of the Sarāt: Hijacking the Geography of the Prophets - The Tajdeed Society of Bahrain (2005)

Imagined Palestine: Land of the Torah in Ancient Yemen - Fadel al-Rubay’i (2008)

The Arabian Torah and the Ur-Salem of Yemen - Farajallah Saleh Deeb (1994)

The Bible Came from Arabia - Kamal Saleebi (1985)

2) Websites & Online Articles:

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/index2.htm

http://politicalislam.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/campbell-bannerman-report-1907/

http://rense.com/general89/notjws.htm

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/benjamin-freedman-ashkenazi-khazars-self-style-jews-are-not-
semitic-and-not-the-biological-descendents-of-the-12-tribes-of-israel/

http://www.mideastweb.org/thejewishstate.htm

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm

http://poetemarocain.arabblogs.com/archive/2011/5/1334105.html

http://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/sodom-and-gomorrah-they-will-never-find-it/

http://www.fotosearch.com/ICN240/f0020468/

http://www.bibleorigins.net/abrahamphilistines.html

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A9_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A3

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A9_%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%
B1

135
http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D9%85%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A9_%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A
%D8%B1

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Arabia

http://corpus.Qur’ān.com/concept.jsp?id=al-ahqaf

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/mada-in-saleh

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/420079/enlarge

http://discussingaryanism.blogspot.com/2010/10/yemenis-origin-of-all-semitics.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef3iPBQHcHw

______________

136
What happens when you lose sight of an ancient civilization? What happens when the history
of an entire era is hijacked? What happens when you take away the legacy of a nation? What
happens when you violate the sanctity of a human being; of all mankind? What happens when
all this comes to pass? Is the truth irrevocably lost? Or does it hide from sight, only to return
after a while, as the Dwellers of the Cave returned to the City? And can the people of the City
suffer the return of the Cave Dwellers? Or will darkness endure in the City? Will the Nile Valley
accept the return of the Egyptian civilization? Or will Miṣr remain in the City? Will the land of
Yemen accept the return of Ibraheem’s ancestors? Or will their memory be forever imprisoned
in Iraq? Can the Sarawāt Mountains of forgotten Arabia suffer the return of the Patriarch and
his descendants Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb? Or will their legacy be held hostage indefinitely in the
wilderness of the Levant? Will Yūsuf and Mūsa return to their homeland on the green slopes of
Ḥimyar? Or are they doomed to tarry forever in the desert of rabbinical lies? Will ancient Ṣan‘ā’
ever sing its Psalms again, heralding the return of its sons, Dāwūd and Sulaymān? Or will their
memory be eternally lost in Palestine and the passages of the Orientalist translations of the Old
Testament?

Is there anyone on this Earth who will listen to the call of the Sarawāt Mountains and pave the
way for the truth to return to the City?

And will the people of the City welcome the return of the truth?

____________

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Disclaimer 3
Dedication 4
Spelling and Transliteration 6

Preface 8

The Failure of Biblical Archeology 21

 The Search for Evidence 22
 The Bomb 25
 The Lost Ark 29

CHAPTER I: The Old Jerusalem and the Wars of David 33

 The Taking of Zion and Fall of Biblical Ur-Salem 36

 The Biblical Kadesh and the Karnak Inscription 42
 Who Were the Philistines? 51
 The Invention of the Biblical Gaza 56
 Iram and Damascus 61

CHAPTER II: Tribal Homes 65

 Coincidences (55-64): Issachar 66

 Coincidences (65-80): Zebulun

CHAPTER III: Ethiopia’s Testimony 88

 The Kebra Nagast 91

 The Many Queens of Yemen 94
 The Truth Behind the Myth 98
 The Geographic Puzzle 105
 Menelik’s Trail 116

CHAPTER IV: The Qur’ān, the Zabūr, and the Sundial 120

 Master of Winds and Demons 121

 The Zabūr 129
 Astronomical Proof – The Sundial of King Ahaz 131

CONCLUSION 135

References 137

2
 Disclaimer

This book is not the work of one person, nor can any single person lay claim to its contents. It is
a compilation of many works; an assemblage of book passages, sayings, quotes, interviews, and
articles most of which have been translated from Arabic to English for your convenience, and
compiled into one volume. It is not to be published, as those responsible for its compilation
have no legal right to publish it in any way, shape or form; nor do they seek any material gain
from it. It has been made available for free and is for you, dear knowledge-seeker, to read in
the privacy of your own home, and to share with your friends or loved ones as you see fit.

The message of this book is directed first and foremost to those who call themselves
“Muslims”, especially those among them who can read and understand Arabic, as they have the
utmost obligation and responsibility towards their non-Arab brothers and sisters in the faith.
This is because only those who can speak and read the original language of the Qur’ān are
qualified to assess the credibility of the Arabic sources used as references, and to judge the
accuracy of the translation of Qur’ānic passages to English. In no way does this imply that
Christians or Jews - especially those who are not content with the beliefs they have inherited
from their parents or communities, and who feel an urge to search for the truth - cannot
benefit from its message. The book is mainly concerned with history, geography and
archeology, and most of the information contained within it is of special relevance to the
followers of the other “Abrahamic” faiths as well.

_____________

3
We dedicate this endeavor to all of humanity.

May it contribute to our awakening.

4
 ARABIA
The Untold Story

Book 3: Israel and Sheba

Compiled by:

The Badr Society for Cultural and Theological Studies

2013

5
 Spelling and Transliteration

The following is a spelling and transliteration guide, to help non-speakers of Arabic grasp the
actual pronunciation of certain Arabic letters.

a = ‫( أ‬short alif ) when it comes at the beginning of a word. Examples: amr )‫(أمر‬, aseer )‫(أسٌر‬,
alam )‫(ألم‬.
_________
’= ‫ ( أ‬short alif ) when it comes in the middle or the end of a word. Examples: ma’kal )‫(مؤكل‬,
ma’wa )‫(مؤوى‬, Saba’ )‫(سبؤ‬, naba’ )‫(نبؤ‬.

OR, ( hamzah ). Examples: jā’ )‫(جاء‬, mā’ )‫(ماء‬, Qur’ ān )‫(قرآن‬

_________

ā = (long alif ). Examples: asmā’ )‫(أسماء‬, anwār )‫(أنوار‬, aqlām )‫(أقالم‬.

_________

th = ‫( ث‬thā’ ). Examples: Yathrib )‫(ٌثرب‬, thawāb )‫(ثواب‬, thaman )‫(ثمن‬.

_________

dh = ‫( ذ‬dhāl ). Examples: dhahab )‫(ذهب‬, ādhān )‫(آذان‬, dhakar )‫(ذكر‬.

_________

ḥ = ‫( ح‬ḥā’ ). Examples: ḥamal )‫(حمل‬, ḥoot )‫(حوت‬, Ḥimyar )‫(حِم ٌَر‬.

_________

ṣ = ‫( ص‬ṣād ). Examples: Ṣāleh )‫(صالح‬, ṣiyām )‫(صٌام‬, aṣnām )‫(أصنام‬.

_________

ḍ = ‫( ض‬ḍād ). Examples: Ramaḍān )‫(رمضان‬, ḍalāl )‫(ضالل‬, ghaḍab )‫(غضب‬.

_________

ṭ = ‫( ط‬ṭā’ ). Examples: ṭūr )‫(طور‬, bāṭil )‫(باطل‬, ṭāreq )‫(طارق‬.

_________

ẓ = ‫( ظ‬ẓā’ ). Examples: ẓaheera )‫(ظهٌرة‬, ẓalām )‫(ظالم‬, shawāẓ )‫(شواظ‬.

_________

‘ = ‫‘( ع‬ayn ). Examples: ‘iqāb )‫(عقاب‬, a‘rāb )‫(أعراب‬, Far‘awn )‫(فرعون‬.

_________

6
gh = ‫( غ‬ghayn ). Examples: ghayth )‫(غٌث‬, ghafoor )‫(غفور‬, raghd )‫(رغد‬.
__________

q = ‫( ق‬qāf ). Examples: qitāl )‫(قتال‬, qalam )‫(قلم‬, Quraysh )‫(قرٌش‬.

__________

h = ‫( هـ‬hā ). Examples: Hūd )‫(هود‬, hadiyy )ّّ‫(هدي‬, wahn )‫(وهن‬.

__________

Note: Aside from proper nouns (the names of prophets or geographical locations), certain
terms that appear in the Arabic text of the Qur’ ān have been left un-translated for the time
being, as we have yet to find accurate substitutes for them in English. Consequently, those
terms have been left as they are, and transliterated for the convenience of non-speakers of
Arabic.

__________

7
 Preface

Did al-Hamadāni really describe, in his book entitled (lit) Description of Arabia, the very same
country that was the theater of the Old Testament? This question, which had never before - to my
knowledge - been asked by anyone, kept on occurring to me as I repeatedly borrowed the book
from the library of Leiden University, in the Netherlands. Is it really possible? Or could I be
mistaken? As I flipped through the pages of al-Hamadāni‟s gazetteer - a virtual “Yellow Pages”
of the tribes of Arabia - following his footsteps in the highlands of Yemen and stopping in the
same places he had stopped in, I found myself, to my astonishment, looking at the same names of
tribes, warriors, prophets, valleys and mountains mentioned in the Old Testament, to the letter,
and without the slightest manipulation whatsoever!

At first, and despite this, there was always some lingering doubt, as I thought to myself: It can‟t
be! Something must be wrong! Until one day, while I was on vacation in Iraq, I found myself, as
if by a twist of fate, reading an old book written by a well-known Syrian scholar, Dr.
Abdulraḥmān al-Shahabandar, entitled Al-Maqālāt (lit: The Articles). My eyes fell on an
editorial he penned back in 1936, in which he commented about the memoirs of an old Syrian
explorer, Nazeeh Mou‟ayyid Al-„Aẓm, who had visited Yemen in the year 1916, and written
a diary entitled (lit) A Journey to Fortunate Arabia. One passage in Shahabandar‟s article
nearly caused me to leap from my chair. In his comment on al-„Aẓm‟s book, al-Shahabandar
wrote the following:

“And the Great Rabbi of the Jews in Ṣan‘ā’, whose name was Yeḥia Isḥāq, told him that the
Jews once had a great kingdom in Yemen, somewhere between Ṣan‘ā’ and Najrān. And that
this kingdom was established by Sulaymān, son of Dāwūd”.

Naturally, I was overtaken with curiosity and eventually decided to look for al-„Aẓm‟s book.
After an exhaustive effort, I was finally able to find a copy of it. And herein, I report to you
exactly what he wrote (pages 141,142 – Second Issue, London, 1985), about his visit to Yemen in
1916:

[In the famous Jewish District of Old Ṣan„ā‟, I met with several of the great Jewish
authorities, and asked them many questions about the origins of the Yemeni Jews, their
ways, their comings and goings. And there I was told, by the Grand Rabbi named Yeḥia
Isḥāq who hosted me in his home, that the Jews of Yemen once had a great kingdom and
an extravagant city somewhere around Ṣan„ā‟, which was built by Sulaymān, son of Dāwūd.
When I asked him if it is possible that it was in Najrān, he said: “I can‟t be certain if it
included Najrān, but I have no doubt that it was near Ṣan„ā‟ ”].

It was then that I started asking myself: “Why did the Jews of Yemen believe - and many still do -
that the land of the Bible was indeed in their country? Why had the Jews of Yemen, widely

8
considered the most devout and conservative in their faith, initially declared their reluctance -
and in some cases their downright refusal - to emigrate to Palestine, deciding instead to stick to
their land and heritage, while the other Jews of the world, especially those of European stock,
showed not the slightest hesitation to heed the call of the Zionist movement, and relocate to
Palestine?”

My interest and curiosity in this matter reached their peak when I came by a copy of Kamāl
Ṣaleebi‟s controversial book The Bible Came from Arabia, which was published in 1985. To
give credit where credit is due, Ṣaleebi‟s book, it must be said, was a genuinely pioneering
endeavor that helped answer some truly puzzling questions about the geography of the Old
Testament events, and the fact that they did not seem to fit with Palestine‟s landscape, no matter
how much the Biblical scholars of our day and age tried to interpret the events to make them fit.
The problem with Ṣaleebi however, is that very often he resorted to phonetic manipulation of
some of the names of the geographical locations in the „Aseer and Jeezān provinces of Saudi
Arabia, to make them match the Biblical names by force. Although the evidence Ṣaleebi
presented as proof that ancient Palestine could not have been the “Promised Land”, and that
Western Arabia was indeed the general setting for Biblical Israel was very convincing, his
deliberate manipulation of some of the location names tended to tarnish his credibility.

I began to have some doubts again, until I remembered a conversation about old Arabian poetry
I once had with a good friend of mine, the Lebanese writer and brilliant critic „Imād Al-
„Abdullah, whom I met back in 1995, during a short visit to Beirut. „Imād had written a very
interesting article which he later published in a prestigious cultural magazine, proving that what
we have always called “weeping at the vestiges” was far beyond simply a poetic tradition. It was
an honest and heartfelt expression from the poets, which demonstrated an almost psychotic
nostalgia for a glorious and prosperous past long gone, and for civilizations now dust. The
names mentioned in those sad poems actually belonged to very real places that had left
a profound mark in the hearts of the composers. So I found myself returning to the poetry of the
so-called “Jahiliyya Era”, while keeping in mind what my friend „Imād had told me. And lo and
behold! I found the surprise of my lifetime waiting for me; for there, buried in those old verses,
I encountered, once again, the descriptions of the famous mountains and valleys of Yemen,
matching, to the letter, their descriptions in the passages of the Old Testament and in
al-Hamadāni‟s records!

It is truly astonishing - astonishing and tragic at the same time - that for over a thousand years,
the Arabs have had, right under their noses and without them being aware of it, accurate and
authentic geographical documents in the shape of al-Hamadāni‟s books, notably Description of
Arabia and The Wreath (Al-Ikleel), two invaluable sources that described, in detail, the
geography of the Arabian tribes; while they have gone on believing the deceptions, illusions,
manipulations, and forgeries perpetrated by the Orientalists and Zionists in their interpretation
of the Old Testament texts.

9
And I didn‟t stop there. In 2003, after having reached my ultimate and unquestionable conviction
that the events of the Old Testament had never taken place in Palestine, and that someone had
tampered with our history and turned it upside down without us being aware of it, I went to
Yemen, and consulted with two of the most renowned and prestigious academic figures in the
field of history and religion, Professor Ḥussain „Abdullah al-„Omari and Doctor Yousef Nāṣer
„Abdullah - both graduates of Sorbonne University in Paris, France - concerning what I thought
was my “discovery”. Their shocking answer was simply put: “What you are saying is
elementary to us”…

(Fāḍel al Rubay„i - 2008)

Picture #1: Yemeni Jewish elders - they know the truth that has been hidden from the consciousness
of the world for centuries.

Picture #2: Yemeni Jewish youth - still clinging to their heritage and roots.

Picture #3: Yemeni Jewish children - for them, the future is uncertain.

10
What does an Arab Bedouin, wandering in the desert, do when he runs out of water and finds
himself in a life-threatening predicament? The answer, as spontaneous and surprising as it may
seem, is the following: he will raise his voice, and sing verses of old poetry which, more often
than not, bear mention of oases in the desolate wilderness. Upon doing so, the Bedouin might
discover that a source of water is nearby, thus permitting him to stave off the phantom of dying
of thirst, and to continue his journey in the unforgiving environment.

In his book entitled (lit) Poetry and the Poets (page 152), Ibn Qutaibah recounts the story of
a wandering party from Yemen who, having heard the echoes of the call to monotheism, left
their home and travelled to meet the Prophet (P). The party lost its way somewhere in the desert,
was forced to endure three grueling cold nights in the wilderness, and ran out of water soon
afterwards. On the fourth day, the travelers saw the silhouette of a man riding his camel; a site
that filled their hearts with hope. One of the members of the party then raised his voice and sang
verses from a famous poem by the legendary bard Umru‟ al-Qays, describing a water spring
within the territory of a tribe known as Ḍarij:

ِٟ‫ب كا‬ٙ‫ فوائع‬ٟ‫ـــبض ف‬١‫ أْ اٌج‬ٚ ‫ب‬ٙ‫ؼــــــخ ٘ ّّــ‬٠‫ٌّب هأد أْ اٌْو‬

ِٟ‫ب غب‬ُٙ‫ب اٌظًّ ػوِع‬ٙ١ٍ‫ ُء ػ‬ٟ‫ف‬٠ ‫ظبهط‬
ٍ ‫ ػٕل‬ٟ‫ٓ اٌز‬١‫ ّّّـــذ اٌؼ‬١‫ر‬

Upon hearing the verses, the rider called forth to the thirsty party and enquired about the author*.
“Umru‟ al-Qays” was their reply. The rider said: “He does not err, by Allah! I am of the tribe of
Ḍarij”, and pointed to a nearby pond. The party then hurriedly made their way towards the
spring, to find it exactly as the poet described, its crystal-clear waters surrounded by boulders
covered with an outgrowth of moss. They drank to their hearts‟ content, and filled their water
skins to the brim.

Ibn Qutaibah then comments by saying: “If not for the verses of Umru‟ al-Qays, the travellers
would have met certain death”.

If Arabian poetry was truly as important to the Bedouins as Ibn Qutaibah pointed out, can we,
living in the twenty-first century, use its verses as guides while navigating the wilderness of
Arabia in search of lost and forgotten places? The answer is most probably that we can indeed,
because Arabian poetry, as we will eventually realize, is the most accurate atlas we have of such
places; a veritable gazetteer penned down by a nomadic people whose very lives depended on it.

But why would we resort to old Arabian poetry to locate the places and peoples mentioned in the
Old Testament? Before answering this question, it is imperative that we make the following
preliminary observation:

______________________________________________________________________________

*The verses describe the plight of a herd of stallions that had fled from a bloody battle, to find cover near a water
spring belonging to the tribe of Ḍarij.

11
If the translations of the Old Testament we have at our disposal today, as Thompson pointed
out*, are the products of the West‟s interpretation of the manuscripts, it becomes necessary to
prove that their interpretation was indeed the result of a colonial and Orientalist imagination of
the East. This imagination was brilliantly exposed by Lebanese author Edward Sa„eed, in a book
he published in 1984 entitled Orientalism, wherein he uncovered the West‟s tendency to
perceive the East as a land of magic and mysticism, because of a deep-rooted desire to envision it
as such. Yet what Sa„eed failed to see is that it was within this imaginary East itself that a false
and fraudulent historical account of Biblical Israel was set, while the true theater of the Old
Testament was hidden from the consciousness of the generations.

It is therefore necessary that we find another, rival source; a source that is far older and more
authentic than the Orientalist imagination, to help us piece together the puzzle that has continued
to baffle archeologists, concerning the location of the Biblical kingdom of Israel. And what
better source for interpreting the Old Testament events do we have, in terms of accuracy and
credibility, than Arabian poetry?

For many centuries, the historical territory of Palestine has been imagined as the theater of the
Biblical stories, courtesy of a fraudulent and deceptive interpretation of the Old Testament.
Paralleling this imagination, a seemingly never-ending stream of ideological, political, and
military campaigns have been aimed at Palestine and its people, in an attempt to effectively erase
the history of its territory and supplant it with an imaginary Palestine; a Palestine that has been
marketed to the unaware masses as the “Promised Land” of the Jews. Within that framework, the
names of places, tribes, prophets, kings and heroes mentioned in the Old Testament were
projected onto the territory of Palestine, in what eventually became the greatest geographical and
historical forgery that mankind has ever known.

The story of this forgery does not begin in the year 1917, when British Prime Minister Arthur
James Balfour made his infamous declaration that paved the way for the colonial mandate over
Palestine. It is a multi-stage deception whose roots can be traced as far back in time as the
Septuagint translation of the Old Testament manuscript, during the 4th Century BC. Its
culmination, however, was realized in 1948, when the final stage in the scheme of erasing
Palestine from history was finally achieved, under the very eyes of an apathetic international
community represented by Zionist puppet regimes.

But the biggest tragedy of all is that the Muslims themselves ended up falling for the deception,
and unknowingly marketing the fraudulent concept of the “Jewish Promised Land”. Apparently,

_____________________________________________________________________________

*Thomas Thompson was a professor of archeology in the University of Milwaukee, USA. He lost his job in 1992,
shortly after he published his book entitled Early History of the Israelite People.

12
the vast majority of Islamic “scholars” became tools for Zionist propaganda and racist
ideologies, by continuously propagating the false belief that the Jews residing in Palestine are
descendants of the Biblical Israelites, and that their settlement there in 1948 was the realization
of a Qur‟ānic prophecy!

The time has come for the Arabs to wake up from their hibernation in the cave of ignorance and
delusion, and to read their history through their own eyes, using their own sources. It is indeed
possible to place old Arabian poetry on the same pedestal as the Biblical stories, as they both
contain astonishingly similar material, charged with vivid descriptions of places, wars and tribes,
and tales of epic heroism. What we invariably call the “Torah”*, contains the same material that
we find within the verses of old Arabian poetry, most notable being the Chronicles; diaries
describing tribal wars that the poets referred to as Akhbār al-Ayyām or Ayyām al-„Arab
(Chronicles of the Days or Days of the Arabs).

Arabian poetry is more than simply a record of tribal wars or a description of places. It is
a reflection of a heart-felt longing for past glories, and of a psychotic obsession with
geographical locations which, over time, took on human aspects. The truth that slipped by most
laymen who casually read what is invariably called “Jāhiliyyah Poetry” is that the objects of
many of the poets‟ love songs were not women at all, but actual places! The poets pictured the
beautiful sand dunes, the misty river valleys, and the majestic wooded mountains as living,
breathing entities, and very often tended to feminize their names. We assure you, honored reader,
that there is not one scholar specializing in Arabic literature who, after a careful and objective
analysis of the descriptive verses found in old Arabian poetry, can reject our observation. By the
same logic, anyone who carefully ponders over many of the songs (psalms) found in the Old
Testament, will eventually find the same patterns of obsession with places and geographical
landmarks. For example, consider the following verse of poetry by Umru‟ al Qays:

ُ
ٍٟ‫الد أه ُِوع‬٠ٌٛ‫ا‬ ‫فمبٌذ ٌه‬ ُ
‫كفٍذ اٌقل َه فل َه ػٍُُضج‬ ‫فٍّب‬

Anyone who casually reads that verse will think that the highlighted word („Unayzah) refers to
the poet‟s sweetheart (a woman). The reason is because the verse speaks of the khidr of
„Unayzah, wherein khidr is a term used to describe a tent; hence the erroneous conclusion that
the poet entered the tent of his lover, a beautiful woman named „Unayzah. This is not so, because
a few verses down (in the same poem) we come across the following:

ٍّٟ‫ فؤع‬ِٟ‫صو‬
َ ‫ذ‬
ِ ‫ اْ أىِؼ‬ٚ ًِ ٌّ‫الً ثؼط ٘نا اٌزل‬ِٙ ‫أفاط ُى‬

_____________________________________________________________________________

*We have come to the conclusion that the Old Testament we have today is not the Torah mentioned in the Qur‟ān.
The OT is simply a collection of stories, legends, poetic lamentations and moral anecdotes penned down by the Jews
of ancient Yemen, over a span of some four centuries, beginning with the period of the Babylonian Exile. In time,
dear reader, you will likely reach this same deduction.

13
Note the highlighted word Fātimu. It is actually a rendering of the name Fātimah, made
necessary by the poetic structure. So who is the lover then, „Unayzah or Fātimah?

The rampant (and false) understanding of the first verse - and of hundreds of similar verses - is
due to three reasons:

1- The casual way in which the verses are read.

2- The ignorance of the layman and indeed of most poetry scholars of our age regarding the
names of the actual locations being described.

3- A poetic expression that is so vivid, so powerful, that it gives human qualities to the locations,
making them objects of love and affection.

The „Unayzah of Umru‟ al-Qays is not a woman at all, but a valley known as Wādi „Unayz,
located in the tribal territory of Bani Tameem, in northern Yemen, not far from the city of
Najrān. In fact, Arab geographer al-Bakri mentions this valley in his famous Glossary (entry no.
976), as a place that travelers often passed through on their way to and from the city. The fact of
the matter is that Umru‟ al-Qays spoke of the valley as though it was a living being, and gave it
the feminine name „Unayzah.

The ultimate proof of what we are saying is encountered in the poetry of al-Farazdaq, who lived
during the Umayyad Dynasty (centuries after Umru‟ al-Qays), and mentioned the exact same
place in one of his poems:

‫ب‬١ٍ‫ا‬ٚ‫ ه‬ٞ‫بعو‬ٌٙ‫ك ا‬ٚ‫صالصب ً ون‬ ‫ط ػٍُُضج‬١‫ؽع‬

ِ ِٓ ‫ب‬ٙ١ٌ‫أَٔقٕب ا‬

Is it possible that two poets, belonging to two different eras, sang of their love for the same
woman? Or is it the commentators of later ages who were in error, and failed to grasp the depth
of the poetic description? The Arabic word ḥaḍeeḍ )‫ط‬١‫(ؽع‬, which appears in al-Farazdaq‟s
version, cannot possibly describe anything other than the bottom of a valley!

By the same logic, when we read the Psalms of the Old Testament, we come to the realization
that the Biblical Salmah was not a woman from Jerusalem whom Solomon had fallen in love
with. The fact is that it was an unknown poet, from Yemen‟s distant childhood, who described
the mountain in Arabia known as Jabal Salmah in one of the Psalms. And his words were
echoed, over one thousand years later, by another Arab poet, the legendary Zuhayr bin abi
Salmah, who also sang of this same mountain, and whose very name was a tribute to its majestic
peak. We also come to the realization that the Lebnon mentioned in the Song of Songs is not the
country bearing the same name (Lebanon) in the Levant, but is in fact none other than Jabal
Lebnah, a neighbor of Salmah, which the Arabian poets sang of on many occasions, as we will
see later on.

14
The fact of the matter is that the mesmerizing, almost psychotic connection that the Arabian
poets had with such places, caused them to envision the geographical locations as beautiful
women; objects of love and affection. Thus, the Salmah of the Old Testament ceased to be an
immobile mountain, and became a dusky-haired maiden who enflamed the hearts of men
travelling its green slopes, from King Solomon, to Umru‟ al-Qays. What we invariably call
“weeping at the vestiges” was far more than being merely a poetic tradition. It was a heart-felt
expression by those bards of old that reflected their longing for glories long past, and places that
were abandoned and gradually fell into desolate ruin. It is obvious that these were very real
locations that featured time and time again in both the Old Testament and Arabian poetry, and
there is absolutely no question as to the validity of resorting to those poems to draw a completely
different map of the events described in the Bible.

Picture #4: The mountains and valleys of Yemen; the true theater of the Biblical stories.

The Assyrians never marched on Palestine, nor did they vie with the Egyptians for control of its
territory. Sulaymān‟s ships never sailed the Mediterranean, nor landed at the ports of Tyre,
Lebanon. The armies of his father, Dāwūd, never clashed with the Palestinians. And while the
Zionists claim that the so-called “First Temple of God” was built in Palestine, the glaring truth
which will soon be made evident to you, honored reader, is that the Temple Mount was in Sarāt
Ḥimyar, the mountains of Yemen and site of the original Ur-Salem (Jerusalem), the ancestral
capital of the Children of Israel. Consequently, the structure that was destroyed by the Roman
Emperor Titus, when he sacked the Jerusalem of Palestine in the year 70 A.D, was not, by any
stretch of the imagination, the Temple of Sulaymān. Furthermore, that city was no more than an
insignificant hamlet before the Babylonian exile, and did not achieve any political importance
until around 300 BC. It follows then that the current Jerusalem of Palestine cannot be the Ur-
Salem of the Old Testament.

15
The time has come to expose the greatest geographical forgery ever perpetrated, and to show you
that the rampant version of history being taught today to our children, in the schools and colleges
of the world, is in fact nothing but the product of an Orientalist imagination whose prime
objective was to erase Arabia‟s past and wipe out all traces of ancient Jewish monarchies that
were established in the southern corner of the Peninsula, long before the Christian era. This was
perpetrated as a means to preserve the alleged “purity” of the so-called “Jewish Race”, ultimately
paving the way for the annexation of Palestine and the creation of an alien and racist entity in the
heart of the region.

We will provide objective and definitive geographic proofs which do not, in any way, shape or
form, stimulate emotions, nor leave room for conjecture or speculation, that the true theater of
the Old Testament stories was indeed the highlands and mountains of Yemen, the volcanic
countryside bordering the Red Sea. We will demonstrate that those who first wrote the Biblical
manuscripts were in fact descendants of an ancient Arabian tribe, having fought their wars and
built their civilization in the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, and not anywhere
near Palestine.

In this third part of our journey, we will focus mainly on the events surrounding the Biblical
figures of Dāwūd, Sulaymān, and the Queen of Sheba, as we cast further light on the deceptive
Orientalist interpretation of the Old Testament text, and demonstrate how that interpretation
succeeded in fraudulently projecting the Biblical events onto the territory of ancient Palestine.
We will hear the testimony of not only al-Hamadāni, but also the old legends of the Ethiopian
Jews, as recorded in the Kebra Nagast, the magna opus of Abyssinian religious texts.

The myths that have been established in the consciousness of the masses through Orientalist
publicity, and the numerous imperialist and Zionist interests lurking behind them, have been
nesting, for centuries, in the minds of the vast majority of the public; a public that has been the
victim of continuous brainwashing by means of a diabolical propaganda machine specialized in
the falsification of historical facts. And those Muslims who think they are above falling into such
a trap are, in reality, first and foremost among the deluded!

We have shown you how the beguiled “Followers of Muḥammad”, as a consequence of their
abandoning the Qur‟ān, and their blind belief in the conjectural stories and commentaries penned
down centuries after Muḥammad‟s death - anecdotes infested with rabbinical and canonical
delusions - ended up unknowingly marketing the fraud and transmitting it to the future
generations. This shortcoming eventually led to a catastrophic distortion of the cognitive heritage
and identity of the Arabs, especially regarding the geography of the noble messengers of Allah.
The blind allegation by the Muslims that the Levant (Palestine and Syria) is the “Blessed Land”
and the “Theater of the Prophets” is nothing but an old rabbinical illusion that slowly and
gradually infiltrated their creed, and eventually engrained itself so firmly within their
consciousness, that it has become very difficult to uproot. Their belief that Palestine is the setting
of the so-called al-Masjid al-Aqsa, mentioned in the Qur‟ān as the destination of Muḥammad (P)

16
on his Night Journey (isrā‟), is a result of this rabbinical fraud that was eventually consolidated
by the Umayyad Dynasty (for purely political reasons), the Crusaders of Europe, and later by the
Orientalists and Zionists. Their eyes - indeed the eyes of the whole world - have been blinded to
the geographical truth that is very much evident in the Qur‟ān: the forgotten mountains and
valleys of Yemen are the cradle of human civilization as we know it, and the true theater of the
Biblical stories. It is the land where the eloquent tongue („arabi) was first spoken, and is the
setting of the original urban center - the Mother of Towns (umm al-qura).

Following in the footsteps of the Yemeni prophet Yeshu„ (Joshua), al-Hamadāni described for
us, in intricate detail, the highlands and mountains of Yemen, recording the same names of
valleys, towns, and peaks that his predecessor had, in the same sequence, and the same
geographical context. We do not believe that al-Hamadāni‟s work had any deliberate religious
connotations; his aim having been to simply compose a glossary of the tribal homes of his native
land. It is very likely that al-Hamadāni was not even aware of the matches that naturally occurred
between his work and the passages of the Old Testament. The sheer number of matching names
is so spectacular, that it is quite simply mind-boggling, to say the least. The “coincidences” we
encountered in our previous book are no more than a sample of what is to come.

It is imperative for the reader to remember the following three essential axioms regarding the
Old Testament:

1- That Judaism (al-Yahūdiyyah) is an old Arabian religion that was the spiritual product of
a semi-nomadic life of hardship, struggle, and ultimately exile. In fact, it is likely that the very
term Yahūd is somehow related to the name Hūd (keeping in mind the ya- prefix, which is one of
the hallmarks of the old South Arabian dialects). It follows then that the true theater of the
Biblical events was indeed ancient Yemen.

2- That Ibrāheem (Abraham) was not a German figure and Mūsa (Moses) was not
a British general, nor was Dāwūd (David) a Danish king, nor Sulaymān (Solomon) a Dutch
sailor. These were the prophets and kings of Arabia‟s distant childhood, and their legends and
genealogical trees have featured in the tribal folk ballads (mazameer) of Yemen for generations
beyond count.

3- That Bani Isra‟eel (the Children of Israel) was an Arabian tribe of the legendary Qaḥṭan
branch (referring to Qaḥṭan, who is none other than the Biblical “Joktan”). The Qur‟ān clearly
distinguishes between the concepts of “Jew” and “Israelite”. Consequently, not every Jew is (or
was) an Israelite, and not every Israelite was a Jew. Some Israelites followed the creed of „Eesa,
the son of Maryam, and their descendants later became known as the Naṣara, (for reasons we
will explain in a future book). This is exactly similar to the comparison between Quraysh (the
name of a tribe) and Islam (with a capital “I”- the name of a religious creed). Not every member
of Quraysh was a Muslim, and not every Muslim was a Qurashi. It follows then that the Jews of
Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, Poland and Hungary are not Israelites, nor have they ever been

17
Israelites by any stretch of the imagination. They are European Jews of Khazari descent, and
they have no divine or historic right to claim any part of the Arab world as theirs. By the same
logic, a Chinese Muslim - for example - is not related in any way to the tribe of Quraysh, nor can
he or she be entitled to lay claim to Arab lands.

Those who point their accusing fingers at us, making their usual, boisterous claims that we are
calling upon the Jews to desert Palestine and settle in Yemen instead, had better read the above
three axioms very thoroughly, before launching their baseless accusations left and right.

The ancient Israelites, among them the Jews, eventually migrated, in large numbers, from their
ancestral homeland of Yemen, following in the footsteps of numerous other tribes and peoples
before them, and made their way north, towards Mesopotamia and the Levant. Some established
themselves in Iraq and Iran, while others sought refuge in Palestine. Many factors lead to this
displacement, foremost among which were the several Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns into
Arabia, as we will show you in our upcoming fourth book.

At the time of the Roman conquest of the Levant (around 100 BC), a substantial Jewish
community had already settled in a city that the Romans designated as Ilya Capitolana. This city,
which stands atop a knoll in the middle of a coastal plain, became the “New Jerusalem” - so to
speak - and an important religious center for both Jews and Christians, a status that the Yemeni
cities of Ṣan„ā‟ and Najrān had occupied previously. It was not until the 9th Century AD that
New Jerusalem took the name al-Quds, and has been known to Arabs by that label ever since.

The documented presence of Jews in Yemen - a fact that historians of the East and West are
unanimous about - is not because they had migrated to South Arabia as merchants during the era
of the Queen of Sheba (around 950 BC); nor because they had fled to there as refugees from an
imaginary Assyrian conquest of Palestine (700 - 600 BC); nor because they had sought refuge in
Arabia after the uprisings against Roman rule of Palestine were brutally crushed in the first and
second centuries AD. The explanation is quite simply that Judaism originated in Yemen. We
have been fed a lopsided version of our own history. The time has come for us to set that history
straight and to come to terms with our true past, or we will be forever lost and disorientated,
incapable of freeing ourselves from the shackles of the Orientalist delusions that have blinded us
to our true identity.

Behind all the theories explaining the origins of the Yemeni Jews is the preconception that
Palestine was the theater of the Old Testament. This is understandable, given that it is only
during the past three decades or so that demographic studies and comprehensive archaeological
surveys have revealed that ancient Palestine could not possibly have sustained the high culture
and economic prosperity of Biblical Israel. If these theories were true, history would have borne
witness to a tapered pattern of Jewish presence stretching from Palestine, through the Arabian
Peninsula, and down to Yemen, with larger and more concentrated settlements closer to
Palestine, and fewer, more scattered settlements in Yemen. American historian, archeologist and

18
scholar Charles Cutler Torrey, who presented manuscripturial evidence to support alternate
views on Christian and Islamic religious sources and origins, once commented on the rampant
theories explaining the presence of Jews in Arabia during Muhammad‟s time, by stating: “The
investigator is disappointed by the scarcity of Israelites in northern and central Arabia, and
scandalized by their apparent multitude in the Yemen”. This pattern of Jewish demographical
distribution clearly contradicts the theory of their Palestinian origins.

The time has come for the whole world to submit its official apology to the people of Palestine,
and to confess that the entire history of the Levant has been nothing but an Orientalist
fabrication. The Biblical kingdom of Israel was never in Palestine, nor were the Babylonian and
Assyrian campaigns directed at its territory. Everything that has been said about the relation
between the Old Testament and the territory of Palestine is quite simply false, and has no
scientific, historical or archeological basis whatsoever.

The Arabs must wake up and realize that they have unknowingly had a hand in the falsification
of facts and in the sabotage of their own history and culture that has been going on for centuries.
This was perpetrated namely as a result of the following:

1- They did not give their history the examination that it deserves, nor did they establish national
institutions of archeological research and study, preferring instead to let politically biased
Western missions conduct such matters.

2- They disowned their pre-Islamic history, under the excuse that it is shameful and idolatrous,
labeling all the epochs before the advent of Muhammad (P) as Jahiliyya (the so-called “Age of
Ignorance”), and treating the period as an insignificant void, not worthy of their scrutiny.

3- While the countries of the world viewed their historical legacy with the same perception as
their national identity and security, the Arabs are the only people on this planet who have been
sending their sons and daughters, even the presidents and monarchs of their artificial puppet
states, to the schools and colleges of their aspiring imperialist opponents, to learn their own
history through the eyes of those opponents.

It is our duty to place the Old Testament within its proper historical environment as a religious
document that was the product of an ancient South Arabian culture, and that bears all the
hallmarks of that culture‟s story-telling and poetic style. This is the only way to correct the false
history of Palestine that has been marketed as the truth for the past millennium.

So let us now turn to the Levant and discover together what science has revealed about its
territory during the past century. Let us listen to the voice of the Palestinian earth itself, as it
resonated from under the trowels and picks of the archeologists, and related to us its own version
of the story.
19
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he
cannot believe it exists”.

- J. Edgar Hoover
20
 The Failure of Biblical Archeology

Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth
that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and
worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find
pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls
written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the
corner candy store.

(Charles Krauthammer – The Weekly Standard; May, 1998)

Interest in the Old Testament is not merely a literary exercise. Whereas Britons may speculate
whether stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood are fantasies or exaggerations, the Old
Testament account is the raison d‟être of the state of Israel. Belief in Friar Tuck, Camelot, and
the Sheriff of Nottingham is one thing; belief in Moses, Solomon, and Ezra is another matter
entirely. If Biblical testimony is false, modern Israel could no longer present itself as the
fulfillment of divine will, but more as an imperialist, colonial settlement, comparable with
French Algeria or apartheid South Africa.

The Zionist movement, which culminated in the establishment of the so-called “State of Israel”
in 1948, and the consequent regional and global crises thereafter, takes its theological and
political inspiration from twenty references in the Old Testament books of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, concerning divine assurance to the Hebrew Patriarchs
Abraham and Moses, that their descendants would inherit a “Promised Land” flowing with milk
and honey (i.e., a land abundant with livestock-grazing grounds and producing a high quality of
honey).

Muslims have always had an aversion to archaeology, seeing it as desecration of the dead; an
attitude shared by many Jews. However, secular Jews who were prominent in the new sciences
saw archaeology as supportive of the Zionist cause. This attitude was shared by Christian
scientists and archaeologists who perceived that if the Jews fulfilled their divine mission of
reclaiming the “Promised Land”, other related holy prophecies, namely the New Testament,
might also be fulfilled. With the departure of the Muslim Turks from Palestine, archaeology
under the British Mandate became possible. It was hardly coincidental that the first
archaeologists into Palestine were actually committed Christians.

William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971) is considered by academics as the father of Biblical

archaeology. Born in Chile of Methodist missionaries, he took his doctorate in “Semitic”
languages at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1919, he became Fellow of
the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, and its director in the following year.
When he finally retired in 1958, he had established himself as the leading authority on Biblical

21
archaeology, having undertaken excavations in Palestine, Jordan, and northern Saudi Arabia. He
uncritically used the Old Testament as his guide.

The problem with Albright was that his approach to archeology (which was in its infancy stage at
the time) was not an objective one. In other words, instead of letting the finds speak for
themselves, he began to excavate the Palestinian soil with the pre-conviction that its territory
was the theater of Biblical Israel. What Albright did was that he used the OT to prove his
findings, rather than the other way around. In fact, Albright‟s own attitude towards his
professional work is encapsulated in the title of his 1942 article: Why the Near East Needs the
Jews. He saw archaeology as a means to strengthen the Jewish claim over Palestine.

 The Search for Evidence

Starting from the early 1940‟s, Palestine became the home to hundreds of thousands of Jews
traumatized by the events of the Second World War. On May 14, 1948, they and earlier settlers
proclaimed the “State of Israel”. All accepted that this land was the place given to them by God;
their ancestral home, where they would no longer be persecuted because of their birth and
beliefs.

After the establishment of this state, Jewish archaeologists set to work in Albright's footsteps,
searching for evidence from the remote past. On a yearly basis, they were joined by
archaeologists, researchers, and enthusiasts from all over the world. Their work was - and still
is - eagerly studied by millions of tourists, pilgrims, students, media personnel, and church
members, most of who will never visit the sites, but whose lives are very much governed by their
history. Archaeologists are in general agreement on the evidence that would support the Old
Testament record: the Biblical narrative speaks of a violent invasion of the Palestinian
territory (the so-called “Land of Canaan”) by an Iron Age people, led by Joshua, and the
establishment of a strong, centralized, and eventually extremely wealthy state under David and
Solomon. Archaeology would therefore have to produce evidence of a clear and sudden
transition, as a Bronze Age culture - characterized by small political groupings and a settled
agricultural population - was dramatically overwhelmed and reconstituted into a centralized Iron
Age state dominated by a huge, alien and pastoralist population undergoing urbanization,
engaging in massive public works programs, and in international trade. Archaeology would most
certainly reveal widespread destruction and relocation.

From the very beginning, archaeological investigations did not progress as hoped. Albright was
disappointed with his excavations at al-Tall (identified as the Biblical Ai), where he found no
evidence of occupation in Joshua‟s era. Kathleen Kenyon excavated the ruins of Jericho for six
years. Finding no evidence to support the Biblical references, she refused to speculate, but
concluded that Jericho had been deserted from the beginning of the 15th Century to the 11th
Century BC, and had fallen long before Joshua‟s time. Later, she gave her opinion on Old

22
Testament archaeological evidence as a whole, stating: “The united Kingdom of Israel had a life
span of only three quarters of a century. It was the only time in which the (Jews) were an
important political power in western Asia. Its glories are triumphantly recorded in the Bible,
and the recollections of this profoundly affected Jewish thoughts and aspirations. Yet the
archaeological evidence for the period is meager in the extreme”.

The Old Testament states that King Solomon fortified Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo. Jewish
politician-archaeologist Yigael Yadin was not as cautious as Kenyon. When he discovered a gate
at Hazor, constructed around the 10th Century BC, and another at Megiddo, he linked both to
a third discovered earlier at Gezer, and claimed all three were the work of Solomon; although
evidence showed they belonged to completely different periods. James Pritchard, writing in
1972, was forthright about Megiddo‟s links with Solomon: “No inscription names him and no
specific find can be definitely related to any biblical reference … The so-called cities of
Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor – all said to have been built by Solomon – as well as Gibeon, the site
of Solomon‟s holocausts, and Jerusalem itself, were in reality more like villages surrounded
by circumambulatory ramparts of roughly hewn stone. Within were relatively small public
buildings and frequently poorly constructed dwellings with clay floors ... compared with the
cultures of Phoenicia, Assyria and Egypt, the „magnificence‟ of the Age of Solomon is
parochial and decidedly lackluster”. Unfortunately for Yigael Yadin, it appears that archeology
and politics don‟t mix too well.

The Old Testament links the city of Hebron, which lies 30 kilometers south of Jerusalem, with
the Patriarch Abraham, and states that David had chosen it as his first capital. In the 1980‟s, Avi
Ofer, of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv, carried out excavations in Hebron. Ofer
concluded that Hebron was founded around 3300 BC and, by 1950 BC, it had grown into a major
urban center. It had a king, a central religious and political district, city walls, a literate
bureaucracy, buildings two or three stories high, and a palace where large numbers of animals
were sacrificed. By 1500 BC, Hebron was abandoned, almost certainly because of the climatic
changes that had desiccated the land. Therefore, when Joshua (Yeshu) was supposed to have led
an invasion of the area around 1200 BC, he would have found only a handful of nomads roaming
the ruins of Hebron, a Bronze Age city. The Old Testament account states that Joshua captured
five royal cities, including Hebron; yet Ofer found conclusive and irrefutable physical evidence
that Hebron, like Jericho, had been abandoned for hundreds of years before Joshua‟s time.

The greatest disappointment is Jerusalem itself, and no number of excuses and explanations can
suffice to detract from the archaeological indictment that it was an insignificant settlement until
around 300 BC, and was certainly never the terminus of a precious metal trade that gilded
massive public buildings and supported the powerful, literate, temple bureaucracy during
Solomon‟s supposed reign over the territory.

Scientific developments have enabled archaeologists to gain a more accurate general

demographic and climatic picture of Palestine than was available to Pritchard in the early 1970s.
The evidence shows that ancient Palestine was a peripheral region, of little or no economic or

23
strategic interest to the highly organized and powerful states of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria.
It did indeed have a mostly self-sufficient Bronze Age sedentary agricultural economy, but this
was not replaced by any large, powerful and centralized political units. Society was based on
small urban centers and hamlets with petty chiefs or headmen as rulers.

Overpopulation and agricultural recession in the third millennium BC were followed by a hot
and arid climatic change that lasted until 1950 BC, and also affected parts of Egypt. Large
sections of the population in the Levant migrated to Mesopotamia, leaving Palestine with
a declining population. The Bronze Age gave way to the Iron Age between the thirteenth and the
tenth centuries BC*, but the change was gradual, and unconnected to any nomad (Hebrew)
invasion. Obviously, states like Solomon‟s could not have existed in such a territory. As for the
investigation of individual sites, there is no archaeological evidence to support the so-called
“Golden Age” of David and Solomon. The “city-states” described in the Old Testament proved
to be little more than small market centers with populations numbering only a few thousand at
most. It is clear that the whole area was never more than a marginal part of any regional, political
or economic domain.

In the time when Joshua is supposed to have invaded and David and Solomon are supposed to
have established a large, powerful, and wealthy kingdom, Palestine endured a lengthy period of
drought that brought recurrent famine, a significant decrease in rainfall, and the decline of the
neighboring Ugaritic and Mycenaean civilizations. The people of the purported “Promised Land”
certainly did not enjoy a surfeit of milk and honey. Most of them abandoned the interior and
moved to the coastal areas, where they established smaller and more sustainable agricultural and
fishing communities. Pritchard, writing about the reputation of Solomon‟s kingdom, the zenith of
Israel‟s political power, stated: “Solomon is mentioned in no Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or
Phoenician document. Only from the Bible do we learn he lived.” He concluded by drawing
attention to “…the disparity between the cultural poverty of Palestine in that age and the
impression of grandeur and wealth presented by the biblical account … The broad
archaeological picture is clear: There is no evidence of the Exodus, the conquest of the
Promised Land, the establishment of David‟s kingdom, the grandeur of Solomon‟s public
works program, the First Temple, records from the highly organized court bureaucracy, nor
the wealth gained from control of the trade routes”.

Jerusalem, as stated earlier, is Palestine‟s greatest archaeological disappointment. Solomon

allegedly constructed a number of very large public buildings in a hilltop area. This arrangement
was common in the ancient world, and the best known example is the famous Acropolis complex
in Athens. Solomon‟s buildings were: the First Temple, the Royal Palace (which took twice as
much time as the temple to build), the Treasury, the Judgment Hall (where he placed his ivory
throne), a palace for his most prestigious wife, and an complex structure called the “House of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* The Qur‟ān implies clearly that the era of Dāwūd (David) was marked by the crafting of protective body armor, as
is stated in [21:80] and [34:10].

24
Forest of Lebanon”. No trace of any of these exists today. The archaeological record has
revealed that during the time of Solomon‟s reign, Jerusalem was no more than a hamlet; one of
about 100 small, unfortified settlements, in a very poor agricultural area inhabited by a people
indistinguishable from other residents of the region, who led a marginal existence herding goats,
sheep, and oxen. Attempts to link small public works to the Biblical record are unconvincing.

In 1992, Professor Thomas Thompson, one of the world‟s foremost Biblical archaeologists,
published his seminal Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and
Archaeological Sources. Thompson‟s survey of Palestinian archaeology cannot be faulted. He
emphasized that excavations around Jerusalem had found no evidence of any significant
settlement during the time of David and Solomon‟s powerful and wealthy united kingdom.
Conditions for such a state began to emerge centuries later, but Jerusalem only became
a relatively important urban during the Persian era (after 500 BC). Thompson dismissed the
notion that the area had any monarch on the scale of Saul, David or Solomon as “out of the
question.”

Picture #5: An artist‟s impression of the alleged “Temple of God”, supposedly built by Sulayman (P),
in Jerusalem (according to the Zionist imagination).

 The “Bomb”

Such was the title given to Professor Ze‟ev Herzog, the former head of the Middle Eastern
History and Archeology department at the Tel‟ Aviv University. So long as only non-Jewish
archaeologists questioned the rampant interpretation of the Old Testament account, Zionists
could dismiss their findings as politically biased. However, the situation changed in 1999, when
Herzog wrote an article in the Ha’aretz Newspaper, doubting that there was ever an Egyptian

25
captivity, an Exodus, or an invasion of so-called “Canaan”. The article pretty much had the effect
of a nuclear bomb on Zionist dogma.

Let us quote Professor Herzog, the voice of reason:

“The (Torah) exaggerates immensely in its description of the fortresses and strongholds of
the (Canaanites), which the Israelites are said to have conquered. It speaks of large cities,
and buttressed fortresses reaching the sky! On the other hand, every piece of archeological
evidence tells us the villages and towns of ancient Palestine were not fortified at all, except
in very rare and extreme cases. The signs are very clear: the architectural culture that was
rampant in Palestine towards the end of the Bronze Age clearly did not take the possibility
of foreign military aggression into account. The descriptions found in the (Torah) do not
even remotely match the geo-political situation of the region. Every piece of evidence
uncovered disproves the presence of any unified and mighty (Jewish) kingdom in Palestine,
during David‟s and Solomon‟s time … The people of the world - not only the (Israeli) citizens
or the Jewish population in general - will be shocked upon hearing the truths that have
become evident to the archeologists who have been working in the field for quite some
time … It is very difficult to accept this, but it has become clear to us academics and
researchers that the ancient Israelites never resided in Egypt, nor did they wander in the
desert, nor did they annex Palestine through a military operation, nor is there any sign of
the Twelve Tribes in the region”.

As a matter of fact, Herzog was never alone in his conclusions. He represented - and indeed still
does - a growing phenomenon in the field of archeology; a trend that has been referred to as the
“Neo Historians”, within the Zionist state. Among these Neo Historians is Professor Nedaf
Neiman, who firmly believes that he is a faithful seeker of the objective truth, and does not wish
to play any part in the falsification of historical facts. Neiman states that: “There are those who
believe that taking the (Torah) at face value exemplifies their faith. But we know for a fact
that the (Torah) was recorded some 600 years after its events took place. How can we
guarantee the accurate preservation and transmission of such a large number of
stories over a like period? What human memory can store such an amount of material?
... It is true that we are putting the very legitimacy of the State of Israel under question
here; however, we are ultimately seeking to establish it upon a sound basis. No one can
doubt the historicity of the Jewish presence. Both The New Testament and the Qur‟ān
mention this presence very clearly. The question is: where is the right place? What is the
basis for the holiness? Were we alone here, or have there been others who also viewed this
land as sacred, and shared with us feelings of emotional association and affiliation towards
it?”.

Neiman clarifies his sentiments, as well as the sentiments of his colleagues towards this very
delicate subject, by stating that he looks upon the Old Testament as it is, without overloading its
texts with conclusive insinuations regarding its actual theater, or the historicity of the events it
describes.

You have heard it, dear reader, straight from their own mouths: the objective and scientific truth
shows no mercy towards traditional, dogmatic beliefs. The truth is a sharp, cutting blade, which
26
makes no compromise for anyone. It is the real serpent that swallows up the illusion of the
dancing ropes. For over two decades, these brave “Neo Historians”, to whom we express our
utmost respect and admiration, have been the targets of a vicious and merciless propaganda
campaign at the hands of the Zionist elite. They have been labeled with every possible
demeaning adjective and title, not the least of which being “Anti-Jewish”, “Anti-Biblical”, or
“Anti-Semitic”. If only the Muslims would listen to the likes of Herzog and Neiman! If only they
would swallow the red pill and wake up from their delusions.

It is no small matter then, that the archaeologists working on the field in Palestine have been so
frustrated. The world described in such vivid detail in the historical narratives of the Old
Testament seems so real. Jewish and Christian traditions, as well as the raison d‟être of the “State
of Israel”, all proclaim that Palestine is the right territory. But the failure to find a single trace of
the Biblical places or events has left them frustrated to the point of madness.

The archaeological evidence reveals that, during the epoch of Solomon, Palestine was
a peripheral area in which petty chiefdoms vied for local supremacy in a drought-afflicted land
frequently plagued by maritime raiders from the Mediterranean Islands of Cyprus and Crete. In
contrast, the Arabian Peninsula possessed all the elements associated with an empire‟s
prosperity: control of highly lucrative trade routes, abundant natural resources, and oases where
urban areas developed and where wealth from trade could sustain a sophisticated, literate
bureaucracy, and a high court culture (which explains the rise of wealthy kingdoms in Yemen,
notably Sheba, Ḥimyar, Ma„in and Qatabān). But it was not only these elements that ensured the
prosperity of Solomon‟s kingdom. There was also political timing.

Solomon ruled one of the earliest Iron Age kingdoms, somewhere between 1000 BC and 900
BC. His domain was able to assert itself because of the fluctuating political fortunes of its
powerful neighbors during that period. The Egyptians had failed to inflict a decisive victory over
the Assyrians and had withdrawn to Africa. The Libyans were encroaching into western Egypt,
while the Sea Peoples (Mediterranean raiders) devastated the Levant and the Nile Delta. The
Assyrians, on the other hand, had their own hands full quelling several rebellious movements in
Mesopotamia, as well as staving off attacks by the barbaric Scythian tribes from beyond the
Caucasus Mountains. Academic authorities agree that if Solomon‟s kingdom did exist, it would
have taken advantage of Egypt‟s withdrawal from Asia and Assyria‟s preoccupation with its
domestic disorder. The timing was indeed perfect. However, the catalyst for such prosperity was
that ancient Israel must have been centered in an area controlling valuable resources or trade
routes. Palestine had neither. Arabia most certainly did.

In the Sarāt region of Arabia, the mountainous strip running along the Red Sea coast, there is
a wealth of evidence from trade routes, state building processes, linguistics, place names,
traditions, mineral deposits, environmental change, archaeological sites begging to be explored,
religious development, an ancient Ark culture, as well as an extraordinary passage in the

27
Sheba-Menelik Cycle of the Kebra Nagast* that indicate this area, not Palestine, as the true
theater of the Old Testament.

With its sparse pastures and poor resources, peripheral Palestine had no commercial importance
and was unable to control any major trade routes. This is an archeological fact. On the other
hand, Arabia contained several major routes, and it was there, not in Palestine, that large cities
grew up at oases and amassed wealth from taxing and serving the camel caravans. Solomon‟s
kingdom could only have achieved rapid wealth through control of lucrative trade routes, losing
it when those trade routes changed direction or were taken over by rival powers.

In addition, Israel was an Iron Age state. In fact, the Qur‟ān refers to Dāwūd and Sulaymān as
great armorers. Certainly, there is nothing in Palestinian archaeology that even remotely supports
the presence of an ancient iron industry of such magnitude. The strongest evidence we have
proving that a region witnessed a boom in the iron industry lies in the effect such an industry
would have had on the territory. An example of the Iron Age impact on the environment can be
seen opposite the Arabian Peninsula, across the Red Sea in Sudan, where the railway line from
Khartoum (the capital) to the north, passes by some curious flat-topped pyramid structures in
a barren, desolate landscape. These structures date from an ancient kingdom that classical
historians have designated as “Kush”; an African kingdom that not only absorbed much of
Egyptian culture, but also provided a ruling dynasty for the Nile Valley. The pyramids, which
have a distinct style of their own, built with a sharper angle than the Egyptian model, stand over
subterranean royal tombs. Sudan has other structures, also resembling squat, flat-topped
pyramids. These were constructed by the ancient irons smelters of Kush. The area once produced
so much iron, that European historians referred to it as the “Birmingham of Africa”, after the
famous English industrial center. It seems unbelievable to realize that long ago, this desolate
area, now exposed, was heavily forested, providing charcoal for the iron smelters. Forests
vanished, the iron smelters could no longer operate, and the entire countryside was reduced to
desert. A similar pattern seems to have occurred in Saudi Arabia, where the mountainous coastal
regions of the „Aseer province were once heavily cloaked in giant juniper trees. Agricultural
clearing, shipbuilding, and house construction disposed of many of these huge trees, but the
presence of iron deposits in the region suggests that most of them were reduced to charcoal for
iron-working, which ultimately devastated the landscape, as in Sudan. No trace of such an
industry has ever been found in Palestine.

______________________________________________________________________________
*The Kebra Nagast is a stunning piece of literary / legendary prose, discovered in Ethiopia in the early 16th
Century. The title means “The Glory of Kings”, and is an account of the Solomonic line of the Emperors of
Ethiopia. The ancient document tells the story of how the Queen of Sheba first met Solomon, how she moved from
her home country and relocated in Ethiopia, and how the Ark of the Covenant came to Africa with her son, Menelik.
The Kebra Nagast is not merely a literary work. It has been described as the repository of Ethiopian national and
religious feelings. We will devote an entire section of this book to the analysis of one of the Kebra Nagast‟s
chapters.

28
It follows then that the first Assyrian attack of 721 BC on Israel could not have made any sense
if Solomon‟s kingdom was in Palestine. But we do in fact have undeniable archeological
evidence from Mesopotamia which confirms the Assyrian campaigns. So how can this be?

The answer is quite simple: the campaigns were never directed at Palestine. They were directed
southward to Arabia, towards the Red Sea coastal strip, in order to discipline the rebellious tribes
who had control of the trade routes, and were impairing the interests of the Assyrians through
their imposing of high taxes and usury. These disruptive practices - among other reasons - caused
the goods to arrive to Mesopotamia at very high prices, thus incurring the wrath of Kings
Sennacherib and Esarhaddon.

There is no doubt about it; Israel is in the wrong place.

Picture #6: Professor Ze‟ev Herzog.

So much for the evidence - or lack thereof - that has been found in Palestine. What about Arabia?
Even though the Arabian Peninsula has received no more than 1% of what it deserves in terms of
archeological exploration, we will examine snippets of evidence, throughout this long journey,
that have cast serious doubt concerning the rampant version of history that has been marketed as
the truth for many generations, by the masters of political manipulation and propaganda. For
now, let us take a look at some mysterious “Hebrew” inscriptions found in an ancient temple in
Yemen, near the city of Ma‟rib.

 The Lost Ark

In November of the year 2008, during an archeological dig some 20 kilometers south of
Jerusalem, a teenage volunteer discovered a shard of pottery containing symbols that the (Israeli)
scientists believed to be of an ancient alphabet called “Proto-Canaanite”. Experts at the Hebrew
University showed, by means of accurate carbon-dating techniques, that the symbols were

29
written about 3,000 years ago, during an era that corresponded to the time of the alleged “First
Temple of Solomon”. The big shock came when these scientists found out that, seven years
earlier, a team of Canadian archeologists from the University of Calgary had uncovered
inscriptions in Yemen that were written using this exact same “Proto-Canaanite”! The
inscriptions were unearthed near the city of Ma‟rib (site of the legendary Ma‟rib Dam), and
describe the events leading to the burial of the Ark of God. The scientists, baffled by how
a “Caananite” script could have been found as “far south” as Yemen, cautioned that further study
was needed to understand this “strange” phenomenon.

Picture #7: The pottery shard discovered near Jerusalem.

The archaeological site where the Canadian team made the discovery in 2001 is located in
a region of Yemen known as the “Empty Quarter”; a very dry and desolate environment famous
for its huge sand dunes and kilometers of empty space. As the wind moved the dunes, Bedouins
would get momentary glimpses of buried foundations and walls, only to have them covered
again by time and more sand. Rumors of a large wall led archaeologists to uncover a vast
complex which, for a time, become the most secret site in the Middle East. A stone wall, some
60 feet high and 15 feet thick, forms an oval that protects a large courtyard which has yet to be
excavated. On the wall, there was a stream of mysterious symbols that, until then, no one was
able to translate.

The team from the University of Calgary briefly took control of the site and cleared the entire
wall of sand, revealing the full script. Photographs of the mural made their way to America,
where they were analyzed by professional epigraphists Gary Vey and John McGovern, who had
been working with the same alphabet for a few years and had successfully translated other
examples of the script found in the Negev desert.

The results revealed a prose describing the “Box of El” and speaking of a “Son” and “Father”.
Vey later learned, through comparing the text to several other South Arabian inscriptions, that it
was a reference to the Ark, Sheba‟s son, Menelik, and to the “father” - Solomon himself!

30
The inscription reads as follows:

“...because the Son was aware of the essence that was in him...
And when the happiness of the Son was poisoned
by the news that his father passing on
the anger lifted when the son was told
the location of the Father's great Box of EL.

And when the happiness of Son was poisoned

by the action of the beautiful Lord's movement
the Son was made happy to swear to protect the Box of EL,
and to be associated with the Lord's spirit.

And his gloom lifted.

The Son constructed a chamber for the beautiful Lord's spirit and covered it up. He
accompanied the chamber of the Lord underneath to pray and to gain understanding and to
protect...”

Picture #8: Bird‟s eye view of the ruins of the Ma‟rib temple (Yemen), where the “Canaanite”
inscription was unearthed, in 2001.

Picture #9: A photo of the section of the temple wall bearing the inscription, with Vey‟s translation of
the text appearing in the superimposed white boxes.

Apparently, the elaborate dam-wall was constructed to hide and protect a chamber where the Ark
was buried, along with Solomon and Sheba‟s son, Menelik, until such time as “friendly nations”
were overhead.

The question that naturally poses itself here is: what explanation did they give for the presence of
the so-called “Canaanite” as far south as Yemen? Better yet, why does the name “EL” (the so-
called “Canaanite” term for God) appear on an inscription of a ruined temple in Ma‟rib?

31
It is here, as always, that the presumption of Palestine as the theater of the Old Testament rears
its ugly head. Their convoluted explanation is that the Queen Sheba was invited to visit King
Solomon (making a 2000 kilometer trip from Yemen to Palestine, and leaving her seat vacant
expressly for that purpose), at which time they wed and had a son, Menelik. The “relocation” of
the legendary Ark of the Covenant to Yemen by Solomon's son, “must have” happened
following the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Assyrians!

We will not comment on their explanation of the discovery at this point. We have simply related
it to you, dear reader, so that you may ponder over its implications and decide, for yourself,
whether it is convincing or not.

The time has now come to move on with our journey, and to see what other strange occurrences
and coincidences we can uncover, as we piece together the historical and geographical puzzle of
the Old Testament events. Slowly, but surely, we approach our ultimate goal of exposing the
great Blasphemy of the Ages that was perpetrated by the Arabs themselves concerning the true
identity of Muḥammad (P) and where he actually lived and preached.

*****

32
 CHAPTER I

The Old Jerusalem and the Wars of David

33
The contemporary Zionist and Orientalist claim that Palestine is the “Jewish Promised Land”
was built upon a false pretense that sought to match the landscape described in the Aramaic Old
Testament with the territory of ancient Palestine. Based on this false allegation, the city of Ur-
Salem, mentioned numerous times in the Biblical text, and the present day Jerusalem, known to
Arabs as al-Quds, were deviously interpreted to be one and the same place. The shocking truth
that we will uncover to you, honored reader, is that the land of Palestine never witnessed the
events, nor recorded the place names mentioned in the Old Testament, and that the Arab city of
al-Quds was never, in its entire pre-Christian history, officially called “Jerusalem”. Moreover,
the OT does not even mention the current territory of Palestine at all! It was the Orientalist
imagination, based on an intentional and deceptive misreading of the Biblical texts, which
ultimately led to the prevalence of these false ideas and misconceptions. The essence of our
thesis is the following: the name Kadesh mentioned in the OT has absolutely no relation to the
current city of Jerusalem whatsoever! In other words, the Biblical text does not state, nor does it
imply, in any way, shape, or form, that Kadesh and Ur-Salem are the same place.

Through careful analysis of the relevant passages in the books of Joshua and Samuel, it becomes
quite evident that the Bible clearly distinguishes between two important yet completely separate
geographical locations that are not related to each other whatsoever. The first is called Kadesh
(or Kades in some translations - as the s and sh sounds were interchangeable in the ancient
dialects), while the second is called (or described) as being Ur-Salem. The first location is
actually the English and Latin rendering of the name Qdsh-Qds as it appears in the original
vowel-less Aramaic text (the actual spelling is with the letter q, not k), and very clearly
designates a towering mountain, the likes of which are nowhere to be found in Palestine. The
mountain took its name from the fact that it was “cleansed” or “sanctified”. The second name
refers to a city that the Israelites conquered, which has no direct geographical relation to Mount
Qdsh whatsoever. The Qdsh Mountain is in fact none other than the famous Jabal Qadas in
Yemen, located some 80 kilometers south of the city of Ta„iz. It is a mountain that is well-known
to the inhabitants of the region, and its name has been imprinted in their memory for countless
generations.

This mountain has nothing to do with the current city of Jerusalem in any way, shape or form.
This is clearly evident from the territorial features of Palestine. The city known to Arabs
worldwide as al-Quds does not stand on a mountain, and any attempt to link it to the Biblical
Qdsh-Qds is hence futile. The extremist Zionists, who have been obsessed with their so-called
“Temple Mount”, insist that Solomon‟s Temple was built on top of a mountain. Apparently, they
are incapable of grasping the insanity of their claim, as any average observer will easily note that
Jerusalem stands on a knoll in the middle of a flat coastal plain.

Another significant fact is that the Old Testament clearly relates the story of the fall of a city
designated as Ur-Salem, after King David (Dāwūd) attacked it from a nearby stronghold called
Zion. The Israelite king had occupied Zion as a prelude to conquering the city, and had
eventually changed the stronghold‟s name to the “City of David”.
34
The truth of the matter is that the territory of Palestine has never known a mountain by the name
of Zion. Neither the Arab geographers, nor their Greek and Roman predecessors, who were very
familiar with the territory of the Levant, ever mentioned such a place or marked it on the
thousands of maps and cartographical records they left behind. There is not a single historic or
archeological trace of a mountain called Zion anywhere in the Levant. This is nothing but
another fraudulent Orientalist projection, as will soon be made evident.

The very name Zion is the source of doubt, confusion, and anger to national Arab sentiments
worldwide, as it is immediately linked to the racist Zionist Movement. But what if we were to
turn those feelings - along with the rampant version of history - upside down, and prove to you,
dear reader, that the name in fact refers to one of the mountain peaks of the Yemeni highlands,
and that the Arab poets of old mentioned it in relation to the city of Najrān?

Picture #10: An aerial photo of Jerusalem taken from a plane. Does it seem to you that it stands on
a mountain? Do you see any mountain peaks near it?

In this chapter, we will reconstruct the Biblical account relating the fall of Ur-Salem at the hands
of King David, in order to demonstrate the following:

1- The Qdsh-Qds mentioned in the Old Testament is not the current city of al-Quds in Palestine,
and has no relation to the Biblical Ur-Salem whatsoever.

2- The name Qdsh-Qds refers to a mountain, as well as a town that stood upon its slopes. This
mountain was very well known to the Arabs, who sang of it in their poetry.

3- The mountain called Zion, which overlooks the city that was designated as Ur-Salem in the
Bible, is not anywhere remotely close to Palestine.
35
4- The Philistines mentioned in the Old Testament did not reside anywhere near the Palestinian
territory, during the era of King David.

The fact of the matter, as ridiculously simple as it may be, is that the Biblical text, despite all the
tampering that befell it throughout the ages at the hands of scribes and “translators”, presents
a very accurate and genuine description of a landscape and of events that are completely alien to
Palestine! The misconception that the world has been a victim of, regarding the Biblical stories,
is the result of a crafty deception that quite simply hijacked the geography of the Old Testament
and projected it onto the Palestinian territory.

 The Taking of Zion, and Fall of Biblical Ur-Salem

The most extensive description of Ur-Salem and the events surrounding it is found in the Book
of Samuel (mistakenly referred to by the Arab reporters as al-Samaw‟al al-Yahūdi), which
describes the city as being located in a high and desolate mountainous plateau, making it very
hard to reach. It also speaks of its original inhabitants, the Jebusites, a people whose name in
Arabic is rendered as al-Yabūsiyyeen. In fact, the name Ur-Salem was given to the city of the
Jebusites as a fitting description of its nearly inaccessible mountainous location, which made it
a safe and secure haven for its inhabitants.

Despite the city‟s location, Samuel tells us that David attempted to subjugate it, after the Israelite
monarch had successfully conquered a fortress that was located near it.

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the people of the land:
and they said to David: “You will not come in here, but the blind and the feeble-footed will
keep you out”; for they said: “David will not be able to come in here”. Nevertheless, David
took the stronghold of Zion; which became the city of David (2nd Samuel 5:6,7).

The above passage completely denies any relation between the Biblical Ur-Salem and the current
city of Jerusalem, namely for two reasons:

1- There is absolutely zero evidence of the presence of Jebusites anywhere in Palestine during
the age when these events happened (11th Century BC).

2- There is no mountain anywhere near present-day Jerusalem called Zion.

It is worth noting here that the name Zion is actually an inaccurate English rendering of the
Aramaic ‫ציון‬, which is actually pronounced Ṣayon-Ṣayun (with the letter ṣad). Because many
European Jews could not properly vocalize the ṣad sound, they rendered it as Zion.

In Yemen, there is a very well-known traditional saying which goes: “Every Būsi is a Jew, and
every Jew is a Būsi”. This popular maxim refers to a town south-west of Ṣan„ā‟ called Bayt Būs,

36
whose historic inhabitants were predominantly Jewish. In his book Description of Arabia (page
156), al-Hamadāni locates Bayt Būs on an elevated plateau near the Yemeni capital:

‫ ٍبِه‬ٟ‫صُت ف‬٠ ‫ا ٍك‬ٚ ٛ٘ ٚ ،‫هك‬ٚ - ‫بٖ) ِٓ ػ ّل‬١ِ( ِٓ ً‫ ِب ألج‬ٚ ٓ‫ث‬ٚ‫ أ‬ٚ ‫ٗ أٔف‬١‫ ف‬،ٓ١ٍ‫ٓ عج‬١‫ األهض ث‬ٟ‫ك ف‬ٙ‫ ِٕف‬ٛ٘ ٚ ،‫ف‬ٛ‫صُ اٌغ‬
ً‫ فغج‬،‫ي صُؼاء‬ٛ‫ّب ِٓ ؽم‬ٕٙ١‫ ِب ث‬ٚ ُ‫ عجً ٔم‬ٚ ‫ فثٍد تىط‬،‫ك‬ٌَٛ‫ً ا‬١‫ ِب ألجً ِٓ أّواف ٔم‬ٚ ،ٓ١ٌٍَٙ‫ ا‬ٚ ٓ١ٍ‫ اٌؾم‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬،‫ كُثوح‬ٚ
.‫ُمثبة‬

It is worth noting that Būs and Yabūs are actually one and the same, once we recall the famous
ya- prefix, one of the hallmarks of the old dialects of Yemen. (Examples: Hūd-Yahūd / Karb-
Yakrb / Thrb-Yathrb / „Arb-Ya„rb / Nūph-Yanūph).

Prominent Yemeni scholar and geographer of the twentieth century, Aḥmad „Ali al-Akwa„, in an
important footnote comment he made in al-Hamadāni‟s book, describes Bayt Būs as a mountain
citadel surrounded by fruit orchards:

ِٓ ٟ‫ث‬ٕٛ‫ اٌغوة اٌغ‬ٌٝ‫مغ ا‬٠ ٚ ،ٗ‫او‬ٛ‫ٗ ثؼط اٌف‬١‫ا ٍك ف‬ٚ ٚ ‫غ‬١ِٕ ٓ‫ ؽص‬.‫ ري تىط تٍ ششاحٍم‬ّٟٕ١ٌ‫ً ا‬١‫ اٌم‬ٌٝ‫َُٕت ا‬٠ ‫تٍد تىط‬
.ٓ١‫صٕؼبء ثَّبفخ ٍبػز‬

The above passage states that Bayt Būs can be traced back to a historic Yemeni Jewish ruler by
the name of Dhi Būs bin Sharāḥeel*. It is a fortress overlooking a mountainous vale, less than 10
kilometers south-west of Ṣan„ā‟.

Here is a verse by the Yemeni poet „Abdullah bin Suleymah, expressing his fond memories of
Yabūs (note how he renders the name exactly as it appears in the Old Testament):

ٌ١ٔ‫و ماد أ‬١‫طَخ غ‬٠‫بض ه‬١‫فج‬ ‫ٌغ فٍثىط‬ٛ‫به ثز‬٠‫ٌّٓ اٌل‬

As for Mount Ṣayun itself, we have a very accurate account of a historical event that has been
preserved in the memory of the Yemenis for nearly fifteen centuries, which proves, beyond any
shadow of doubt, that the mountain is located in Yemen, not Palestine.

When the Yemeni king of the Ḥimyarite Dynasty, Yūsuf bin Zar„ah bin Ḥimyar al-Asghar, more
popularly known by the name of Dhū Nawwās al-Ḥimyari, rose to the throne of Yemen in the
year 520 AD, after successfully wrestling power from the hands of his Sheban opponents, he
immediately declared Judaism the official creed in the country, calling upon all Yemenis to
return to the ancient religion of their ancestors. The classical Arab historians are in general
consensus regarding this issue. Not long after this declaration, Dhū Nawwās decided to advance

_____________________________________________________________________________

* The suffix -el (as in Sharāḥeel) is evident in many Yemeni names, and is not exclusive to Jews. Names such as
Sharḥabeel, Mahla‟eel, Karba‟eel, Madba‟eel, etc… were very familiar in Yemen, as far back as the Sheban
Dynasty. This phenomenon reminds us of an observation made by Professor Chaim Rabin in 1951, when he stated
that: “There is far too much Hebrew in certain South West Arabian dialects to be coincidental”.

37
northwards towards the city of Najrān which, at that period, was witnessing a rapid growth of
Christianity. Great churches were being built in that city, among which was the famous Ka„bah
of Najrān, a legendary (and forgotten) relic that we will talk about when the opportunity presents
itself. Naturally, the Ḥimyarites were none too happy with the spread of Christianity in Najrān,
which led to sentiments of enmity towards the intruding creed in the country. And so it was, that
sometime during the first half of the 6th Century AD, a very complicated and dangerous situation
was unfolding in Yemen, as the relations between the two rival cities Ṣan„ā‟ and Najrān reached
the point of crisis.

During that time, while the Yemeni Jewish king was preparing to march towards the Christian
capital, one very famous poet from Hamadān, known as al-A„sha, travelled in haste to Najrān,
met with its Grand Cardinal by the name of Abdul Maseeḥ bin al-Dayyān and his brother and
minister Yazeed bin al Dayyān, and there he said his famous poem warning them that the Jewish
Ḥimyarites were on their way. We present to you herein the verses of this famous poem:

‫ اػزواوّــب‬ٚ ‫ب‬ٙ‫ّب ٔبث‬١‫واً ف‬١‫ثٕغواَْ ف‬ ‫َّٕىّــب‬١‫ص‬ٚ‫ َعشاٌ ال أ‬ٞ‫ِّل‬١ٍ ‫ب‬٠‫أ‬

‫فبٔىّــــب أ٘ـــــال ٌـــــنان والوّـــــب‬ ٗ‫ب ثــــــ‬٠‫ رورل‬ٚ ً‫وا‬١‫فبْ رفؼال ف‬
‫اوّـــــــــــب‬ٛ‫فمجٍىّـــب ِب ٍــــبك٘ب أث‬ ‫ّـــ ٍخ‬١‫ب ٔغواَْ أِ َو ػظ‬١‫ اْ رىف‬ٚ
‫ن هؽــبوّــب‬ٛ‫ اٌؾوة اٌ َّلو‬ٝ‫فبْ هؽ‬ ‫ىّــب‬١ٍ‫ِب ً ػ‬ٛ٠ ٌُ‫ اْ أَعٍَجَذ صهٍى‬ٚ

Note the highlighted names Najrān (in the first verse) and Ṣahyūn (in the last). Here follows is
a rough paraphrase of the poem:

O you, Lords of Najrān … I place in your hands the safety of the city
Would you not do a thing that is valiant … For surely you are worthy of such a deed
And if you would prevent a great calamity from befalling Najran … The likes of which your forefathers knew not
For if Ṣahyūn is one day unleashed upon you … A destructive war shall surely be upon your doorstep

In his book entitled (lit) Imagined Palestine - Land of the Torah in Ancient Yemen, Iraqi
scholar and linguist Fāḍel al-Rubay„i states the following concerning the Jewish-Christian
conflict in Yemen: “And it was during that war that the historical event recorded in the
Qur‟ān took place. This event is described in the Chapter of the Quran entitled Sūrat al-
Burūj (The Constellations), as the Incident of the Trench, which recorded the terrible
persecution of the faithful of Najrān at the hands of the Ḥimyarites, when some 16,000
Christians were thrown in trenches, and had fiery oil poured on top of them”.

The Qur‟ānic passage that al-Rubay„i refers to is the following:

{Dead are the people of the trench * The fire supplied with fuel * So they were
placed in it * And they were witnesses to what they did to the
believers } …[85: 4-7].

38
Despite the fact that Dhū Nawwās‟ massacre of the Christians of Najrān is indeed a historic
event that has been accurately documented by both the Ethiopian and Roman Byzantine
churches, as well as the historians of Yemen, and despite the fact that the city of Najrān itself
became known as al-Ukhdūd (The Trench), at some point during the so-called “Pre-Islamic”
times, we cannot be absolutely certain that the passage in Sūrah 85 refers to that event in
particular (though the classical commentators of the Qur‟ān are generally unanimous that it
does). Nevertheless, the holocaust of Najrān was unlike any that history had ever witnessed (up
until then), and it shook the very consciousness of Arabia. Its repercussions would be felt later
on, when Ethiopia took vengeance on the Ḥimyarites by launching a campaign against Yemen in
the year 525 AD.

The name Ṣahyūn, which appears in al-A„sha‟s poem, is the Yemenite corruption of Ṣayūn
(Zion). This is evident once we recall the famous h letter which appears in the middle of both
common and proper nouns in the dialects of Yemen. Arabic linguists call this al-hā‟
al-waṣaṭiyyah (meaning: the “middle h letter”), to distinguish it from the h- prefix that was used
as the pronoun article “the” in the old South Arabian dialects. Countless instances of this
phenomenon are encountered in the ancient Yemeni scriptures. Examples include: Abram -
Abrahm / Yan„am - Yahan„am / Bareeq - Bahreeq / Yashū„- Yahshū „ / Ṣayūn - Ṣahyūn.

It is therefore obvious that al-A„sha, legendary bard of the historic Hamadān region of Yemen,
was warning the Christian Cardinals of Najrān that the Ḥimyarites were preparing to launch an
assault on the city from their stronghold at Ṣahyūn (Zion), which is a mountain that lies near
Būs-Yabūs (Jebus). Placing these locations within the Palestinian territory is hence tantamount to
insanity. What on Earth does the Ḥimyarite-Christian conflict have to do with Palestine? It is
evident that al-A„sha, along with the historians of his day and age, knew of Mount Ṣahyūn, from
whose slopes the armies of the mad Jewish king Dhū Nawwās* launched their campaign against
the Christians. It was the Jews of Yemen, based around Ṣan„ā‟, who sacked Najrān. These events
had nothing to do with Palestine whatsoever.

Even today, we see many families in the Levant (notably Lebanon and Syria) bearing the name
Ṣahyūn, in remembrance of their ancestral roots in the mountains of Yemen. This is a testament
to the phenomenon known as tayammun (the migration of names) that we talked about in our
previous book, and provides further evidence for South Arabia being the launching point of all
ancient migrations.

Going back to the Old Testament, we find another reference to the Jebusites as the original
inhabitants of a safe and secure mountainous town (Ur-Salem):

______________________________________________________________________________

* Dhū Nawwās is mentioned in a number of old South Arabian, Syriac and Byzantine sources. Many later Christian
sources (such as the Book of the Ḥimyarites and the Caleb Cycle of the Kebra Nagast) also refer to his war with the
Axumite Christians. In the Byzantine records, his name appears as Dunavas.

39
 Picture #11: Part of the vestiges of al-Ukhdūd, in Najrān, site of the holocaust of 520 AD.

But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so
the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day (Joshua – 15:63).

Comparing al-Akwa„s description of Bayt Būs (Yabūs) with the reference to the Jebusites in
various Biblical passages, we can see the following:

Al-Akwa’ Old Testament

Bayt Būs is an impenetrable stronghold in The city of the Jebusites fell at the hands of the
ّ a mountainous area. ّ King, who took the stronghold.

Is this another coincidence?

Picture #12: Old Bayt Būs in the Ṣan„ā‟ District of Yemen. This is the Jerusalem of the Old
Testament.

In a 2009 interview with a Palestinian newspaper, Fāḍel al-Rubay„i stated the following: “I will
let you in on a little secret. I am not the first one to have noticed the pages mentioning
Mount Ṣahyūn in Yemen - among others - to be missing from al-Hamadāni‟s Description of
Arabia. In fact, the great Saudi scholar, Ḥamad al Jāsser (1910 - 2000), once commented

40
about the fact that Orientalist researchers had torn many pages from the original
manuscript of DoA, and that those pages are probably lost forever”.

Picture #13: Ruins of an ancient fortress (left) on the outskirts of Bayt Būs.

Map #1: The path taken by Dhū Nawwās‟ army from the stronghold of Ṣahyūn to Najrān.

Famous Yemeni poet al-Rājiz al-Radā„i, native of Mikhlāf Radā„ (site of the Biblical Beer-
Sheba, as we showed you in our previous book), mentioned Ṣahyūn in the following verse,
wherein he described the road from Ṣan„ā‟ to the Yemeni coast of Tihāmah:
ً‫ِب‬ِٛ‫ب ِن‬ٙ‫صهٍا فٍف‬
ُ ‫أٌفذ‬ ً ‫ِب‬ٚ‫يي ِؤى‬٠ ٌُ ‫ل‬٠‫ش اٌجو‬١‫ؽ‬

Note the rendering of )ْٛ١ٙ‫ (ص‬as )ً‫ب‬١ٙ‫)ص‬, brought about by the necessity of the poetic structure,
and decide, for yourself, dear reader, if the term has any relation to Palestine.

41
  The Biblibal Kadesh and the Karnak Inscription

Did the ancient Egyptians venture into the Arabian Peninsula? In light of recent archeological
and linguistic evidence, they most certainly did. Whether or not the classical Biblical scholars,
ever insistent on marginalizing Arabia‟s role in history, wanted us to know about the Egyptian
presence in the Peninsula is another matter altogether. We have seen how the presumption that
ancient Palestine was the theater of the Old Testament stories has led to the utter despair of
archeologists in their attempt to reconcile between the Biblical texts and the physical evidence
that has been unearthed from the ground. This contradiction has caused many of the Neo-
Historians and scientists to dismiss the entire Biblical account as no more than a religious myth.

The fact of the matter is that Egyptologists have never discarded the possibility of an ancient
Egyptian colonial presence in Arabia. The idea that a vast, fertile peninsula - especially in its
southern quadrant - surrounded by water on all three sides, rich with plant and mineral resources,
and strategically located to form the transit hub of the trade routes, could be completely ignored
by the Egyptians is out of the question. In fact, quite a few Egyptologists even theorized that the
“mysterious” land referred to in the ancient Hieroglyphic inscriptions as Punt - the land that the
so-called “Pharaohs” often ventured into for the purpose of collecting myrrh and frankincense -
may have included parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Due to the scarcity of archeological research
in Arabia, compared to the vast and extensive excavations that have been conducted in the Nile
Valley, the Egyptologists could not confirm their theory.

Based on the evidence we have gathered lately, we can say, with utmost certainty, that the
ancient Kings of the Nile did in fact establish colonies all along the Red Sea coast of Arabia,
from as far north as the Ḥijāz, to as far south as „Adan in Yemen. We will also venture to say
that the Egyptians and Babylonians fought many wars over control of the Red Sea coast; wars
that were ignited due to the geo-political position of the two great powers with respect to the vast
pennisula that lay between their territories. Apparently, those who wrote our history for us did
not want us to know about those wars.

The subject of the Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns for control of the ancient trade routes of
Arabia will be elaborated, in detail, in our upcoming fourth book. For now however, it would be
beneficial to give a brief glimpse of what the ancient Greeks wrote concerning Egyptian
excursions across the Red Sea, and what the famous Karnak Inscription, unearthed in the Nile
Valley itself, have revealed.

Greek historian Herodotus, in his History (2:201), mentions that Senusret I (1971 BC - 1926
BC), Egyptian king of the 12th Dynasty, led several military campaigns towards the east coast of
the Red Sea. Another historian and geographer, Strabo, reiterated Herodotus‟ claims and stated
that Senusret I was indeed the first Egyptian king ever to set foot in Arabia. Diodorus Siculus
(died 20 BC), in his monumental Bibliotheca Historica, was adamant that Senusret had occupied
the entire Arabian Peninsula.

42
Apparently, the Greek historians were far from delusional. In the year 2010, the Saudi
Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA) announced that Saudi archaeologists had
discovered an ancient Hieroglyphic inscription mentioning an Egyptian king, on a rock near the
oasis city of Taymā‟. (It is probable that the discovery was actually made before 2010, but the
Saudis, ever the archeological enthusiasts, were reluctant to announce it). In a televised news
conference, SCTA Vice President for Antiquities and Museums „Ali Ibrāheem al-Ghabbān
stated: "The rock bears an inscription of King Ramses III, one of the kings who ruled ancient
Egypt from 1192 BC to 1160 BC”. Information on the Taymā‟ Inscription can be found quite
easily on the Internet.

Picture #14: A photograph of the Hieroglyphic inscription discovered in Taymā‟, Saudi Arabia.

No discussion about Egyptians in Arabia would be complete without mention of King Thutmose
III. The Temple of Karnak, one of the most prominent vestiges left behind by the ancient
Egyptians, contains crucial clues regarding certain military campaigns led by the Kings of the
Nile that have puzzled modern archeologists. On the walls of the Karnak Temple are intricate
glyphs and runes describing the Egyptian conquests of neighboring territories. Foremost among
the monarchs mentioned in those inscriptions is Thutmose III (sometimes referred to as
Tahutmose) of the 18th Dynasty, who reigned from 1479 BC until 1426 BC. The list of
Thutmose‟s military accomplishments dwarfs that of any other Egyptian king. It is for this
reason that historians have labeled Thutmose III as the “Napoleon of Egypt”.

The experts who examined the Karnak Inscription held the pre-established opinion that the
campaigns led by Thutmose III were directed either against the Levant (Palestine and Syria), or
southward towards Nubia (currently Sudan). They absolutely refused to contemplate the
possibility of any venture into the Arabian Peninsula. When they discovered, among the
Hieroglyphs, an inscription bearing a list of over 100 names of geographical locations of which

43
no trace was ever found in the Levant or Nubia during that epoch, they immediately assumed
that the royal scribes of Thutmose III were either ignorant of the actual territories in question -
which led them to perpetrate many errors in their records - or that they had simply made up the
names to exaggerate the military exploits of their king. The fact is that nothing can be further
from the truth. The Egyptian scribes knew very well what they were recording. Blinded by their
presumption that Palestine was the destination of Thutmose‟s expedition, the archeologists failed
to realize that the particular inscription actually recorded the names of places that were the
targets of a South Arabian campaign, and had no relation to the Levant whatsoever.

It is beyond the scope of this book to present the list in its entirety, as it contains a total of 119
location names. For the sake of brevity, we will include an excerpt comprising 11 names from
that list, pertaining to several areas (including the site of Qdsh-Qds), and show you exactly were
these places are, and where Thutmose‟s campaign was directed:
Name in Karnak Inscription Name in al-Hamadāni‟s Description Actual Arabic transliteration

Makat ‫اٌّقب‬ Makhā

Ḥasor ‫ه‬ٛ‫ؽع‬ Haḍūr
Sūr ‫ه‬ٛ‫ص‬ Ṣūr
„Enso ٌٕ‫ػ‬ „Ans
Khashab ‫فْت‬ Khashab
Kānaṭ ‫أوبٔػ‬ Akāneṭ
Rūs ًٚ‫ه‬ Rūs
Rams ٌِ‫ه‬ Rams
„Akd ‫ػمل‬ „Aqd
„Khaṭm ‫فطُ اٌغواة‬ Khaṭm al-Ghurāb
Kadash ‫لذط‬ Qadas

1) Makat:

The first name in the list appears in the Karnak inscriptions as Makat. This is perfectly
understandable, as the Egyptians simply recorded the names of the regions as the South Arabians
themselves pronounced them, while bearing in mind the differences in the vocal structure
between the ancient Arabian and Egyptian dialects. The name in question belongs today to
a region that lies in the southern part of the Tihāmah coastal plain of Yemen, near the Bāb-al-
Mandab strait, and site of a very famous port city that bears the same name. This is the location
where the Egyptians most probably landed. The Greek and Roman cartographers and sailors
referred to this region, and the city proper, as Mocha. The modern name in Arabic, is Makhā.
More will be said concerning this famous city in a later release.

2) Ḥasor:

This is the Egyptian rendering of the famous Mount Haḍūr in south Yemen, which we located in
our previous book (See Road of the Patriarch, pages 75, 76). Being that the Egyptians, like the

44
ancient Yemenis, could not vocalize the Arabic ḍaḍ letter, they rendered the name as Ḥasor. This
is the same Mount Hazor mentioned in the Bible.

3) Sūr:

In our previous book, we showed you that the name Ṣūr (Tyre), which designates
a Lebanese port town located on the Mediterranean coast, is in fact a tayammuni name that
belonged to an older town in southern Yemen (see Road of the Patriarch, pages 61, 62), which
al-Hamadāni mentioned in his gazetteer as being in the tribal kingdom or domain (Mikhlāf) of
Jayshān. The city was destroyed by a volcanic eruption, then partially rebuilt in a later era. By
“coincidence”, it happens to be located in the geographical vicinity of Mount Haḍūr, Mount
Qadas, and the city of Mocha, as the ancient Egyptians placed it!

Map #2: Location of the port city of Mocha, Yemen.

4) „Enso:

According to the Karnak Inscription, the Egyptian army reached as far north as the Dhamār
region, a territory which today lies just south of the Yemeni capital. Here is what al-Hamadāni
says concerning this area (Mikhlāf Dhamār) in his Description of Arabia (page 206):

‫ ِقالف‬ٛ٘ ٚ ،‫َو‬١ّ‫ْ ِٓ ِؽ‬ٛ‫ب ثط‬ٕٙ‫َى‬٠ ٚ ،‫ل‬١ٌ‫ُٕبي ِبإ٘ب ثب‬٠ ،‫جخ‬٠‫ آثبه لو‬ٚ ‫ع‬ٚ‫ب ىه‬ٙ‫وح عبِؼخ ث‬١‫خ وج‬٠‫ مِبه لو‬: ‫يخالف رياس‬
‫ ِقالف‬ٌٝ‫ ٔصف ا‬،ٓ١‫ً ُِٕمَُ ثٕصف‬١‫ عجً اٍج‬ٚ ،‫ْ و نثىءج‬ٕٛ١‫ ثٗ ث‬،‫ اٌّآصو‬ٚ ‫و األػٕبة‬١‫ وض‬،ً١‫ك اٌق‬١‫ ػز‬،‫و‬١‫و اٌق‬١‫ٌ وض‬١‫ٔف‬
.‫ػُظ‬

He is describing the Mikhlāf (as well as a large town by the same name within it) as being a very
fertile region characterized by the presence of many shallow wells whose waters can be reached
by hand, grape orchards, and famous for rearing horses. It is inhabited by many branches of
Ḥimyar. Within its boundaries are the mountains of Baynūn and Labū‟ah (the Biblical Bet-
Lebaot that we talked about in our previous book). On the edge of its territory is a mountain
called Isbeel, part of which lies within the neighbouring area of „Ans.

45
5,6) Khashab and Kānaṭ:

Continuing our scan of the list of names which archeologists utterly failed to locate within
Palestine, we find that the Karnak Inscription lists Khashab and Kānaṭ as two locations annexed
by Thutmose III‟s army. By another coincidence, we find the following passage in al-
Hamadāni‟s DoA (page 221):

.‫ذ اٌغبٌل‬١‫ ث‬ٚ ‫ؼ‬١ٌّ‫ُ ا‬ِٕٙ ‫ تأكاَظ‬ٚ ،‫ ؽبّل‬ٚ ً١‫ػ ِٓ ثى‬١ٍ‫ب ف‬ٙ‫وح ث‬١‫خ وج‬٠‫ لو‬،‫ انخشة و أكاَظ‬:ٌ‫ انثى‬ٜ‫نٖ لو‬ٙ‫ف‬

Al-Hamadāni places the two villages of al-Khashab and Akāneṭ within the general territory of
a region he calls al-Būn )ْٛ‫(اٌج‬. Please keep this name in mind, dear reader, as it will be the
subject of a future study regarding the mysterious land the Egyptians called Pewn-Pewnt (Punt),
and referred to as “Land of the Ancestors” or “Land of the Gods”.

7) Rūs:

The name that has baffled Egyptologists for decades is known to the geographers of Yemen as
Arḍ al-Rūs, )ًٚ‫(أهض اٌو‬, south of Ṣan„ā‟. Here is al-Hamadāni‟s description once again (page
216), with comments made by al-Akwa„ (in parentheses), which expose the lies that the criminal
hijackers of Arabia‟s history have perpetrated:

‫خ‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫خ األ‬١‫ ثم‬ٚ .‫وح‬١ٌْٙ‫الْ ا‬ٛ‫خ ف‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ ِٓ أ‬ٜٚ‫ لو‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ( ‫ٌخ‬ٛ‫ ِم‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ٚ ،ٜٚ‫ لو‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ :‫ ُعوّح‬ٞ‫ م‬ٚ ْ‫ال‬ٛ‫صف ِقالف ف‬ٚ ٟ‫ف‬
ٌٕ‫ ُحشٌة ػ‬ٌٝ‫ عوّح ا‬ٞ‫ ِٓ م‬ٚ .ْ‫ٍب‬ٛ‫ب ث‬ٕٙ١‫قزٍػ ث‬٠ ‫ فمل‬،‫خ ػُظ‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ أ‬ٚ ،)‫ ِٓ ُعوّح‬ٟ٘ ٟ‫ تهذ انشوط اٌز‬ٚ ْ‫ػلاك٘ب ِٓ ٍٕؾب‬
.‫ً ِغبهة صٕؼبء‬١ٍ ‫ب‬ٙ١‫الل‬٠ ٚ ‫ب اٌَو‬ِٕٙ ‫ف‬ٛ‫ فبهك اٌغ‬ٌٝ‫صتّ ا‬٠ ٞ‫ فبٌن‬:‫اظغ‬ِٛ ‫ صالصخ‬ٌٝ‫فب‬

Note how, by another “coincidence”, the valley of „Ans and Mount Ḥurayb (the Biblical Ḥoreb)
appear in the same geographical space as the country of Rūs, in al-Hamadāni‟s gazetteer. The
countryside known to Yemenis as al-Rūs (not to be confused with an administrative division by
the same name within the Ṣan„ā‟ province), lies near the northern border of the province of Ibb.

Picture #15: A view of al-Rūs region of Yemen, featuring the historic Danwah Mosque.

This means that the Egyptian army, in its advance towards Dhamār, passed through the territories
of Rūs, „Ans („Enso), as well as the locations of Khashab and Akāneṭ. There is not one region in
the entire length and width of Palestine that encompasses such a geography.

46
8,9) Rams and „Aqd:

The Egyptian campaign ecompassed an area in Yemen known locally as Radmān, which was
historically inhabited by many Ḥimyarite clans, among them Bani Rams (al-Ramsiyyeen). Here
is another passage from DoA (page 186), with comments made by contemporary scholar al-
Akwa„:

ٍٍٍ‫َخ نهشيغ‬٠‫ َؽو‬،‫ ِبٌه‬ٟٕ‫ اٌَّّك األٍفً ٌج‬ٚ ٍٝ‫ اٌَّّك األػ‬،‫خ‬١‫ ٔبع‬ٟ‫ ُ٘ ف‬ٚ ‫َو‬١ّ‫ ُ٘ ِٓ ِؽ‬ٚ ْ‫ػخ ٌغُوا‬ٛٔ :ْ‫ هكِب‬ٌٝ‫هعغ ا‬
.‫َو‬١ّ‫ ػجل ِٓ ِؽ‬ٟٕ‫ ػمذ ٌج‬ٚ ،ًّ‫ ع‬ٟ‫ُ ف‬ٙ‫ر‬ٛ‫ كػ‬ٚ ُٙ‫ ٔصور‬ٚ ‫خ‬١‫ ٔبع‬ٟ‫ ُ٘ ف‬ٚ )‫(تُى سيظ‬

It appears that Bani Rams gave their name to a certain area within the densely populated Radmān
region which, by yet another “coincidence”, happens to include a town called „Aqd.

Has anyone on this Earth located a region within Palestine encompassing the names Rams and
„Aqd side by side? Is it a wonder why Egyptolosists have been at a loss regarding the locations
listed in the Karnak Inscription?

10) Khaṭm

The Orientalist interpretation of the Old Testament, built upon the foundations of the ancient
Septuagint translation and the later Masoretic rendering of the Biblical texts, ended up imagining
an Egyptian campaign against the territory of Palestine, as part of a war that the kings of the Nile
Valley fought against the Assyrians. The truth of the matter is that no such battles were ever
fought over Palestinian territories. There is absolutely zero mention of Palestine or Palestinians
in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian inscriptions. And we defy anyone to prove otherwise. Every
archeological and geographical evidence points to the Arabian Penninsula as the actual theater of
those wars, as the Egyptians and Assyrians fought to establish their dominance over the trade
routes and subjugate the rebellious tribes who inhabited the Arabian highlands. These evidences
have been intentionally ignored or, in some cases, covered up, which lead to a catastrophic
misreading of the true history of the region, and total chaos in the projection of names. As
a result, Miṣrim became Egypt, „Uzzah became Gaza*, the ancient Yemeni city of Rafaḥ was
projected onto a coastal city in Palestine (despite the fact that the Old Testament clearly
describes it as being on a mountain!), a non-existant mountain called Zion suddenly “popped up”
near Jerusalem (a city that became synonymous with a three-thousand-meter high peak called
Qadas!). And the world has gone on believing these absurdities for ages, unaware of they true
intentions of those criminals who have been propagating them.

_____________________________________________________________________________

* The rendering of the Biblical „Uzzah as Gaza (or Ghazzah, in the Arabic translations) and placing it within the
Palestinian territory, is truly one of the most blatant cases of forgery that the Orientalist imagination perpetrated. We
will expose this outrageous geographical projection in more detail later on.

47
The names in the Karnak Inscription have absolutely no relation to Palestine whatsoever. And
here follows is more proof from al-Hamadāni‟s Description of Arabia (pages 156, 157):

ُ‫ فط‬ٌٝ‫ تٍد سفح فبٌوؽجخ ا‬ٚ ،‫ خطى ان ُغشاب‬ٌٝ‫ّب ؽمً صٕؼبء ا‬ٕٙ١‫ ِب ث‬ٚ ُ‫ عجً ُٔم‬ٚ ‫ك فثٍد تىط‬ٌَٛ‫ً ا‬١‫ِب ألجً ِٓ أّواف ٔم‬
.‫ أكاَظ و انخشة‬ٚ ،ٌ‫ انثى‬ٚ ‫ لبػخ‬ٚ ‫اٌغواة‬

Let us look at the number of occurences in the above passage, which alone is enough to condemn
the Orientalist interpretations of the Old Testament to the trash can of history. Al-Hamadāni
places Bayt-Būs (the first highlighted word) within the same geographic space as Khaṭm al-
Ghurāb (second word), Bayt Rafaḥ (third word), al-Būn (fourth word), Akāneṭ and Khashab
(fifth and sixth words respectively). How can we explain the Karnak Inscription‟s listing of these
locations, side by side, as al-Hamadāni did, some twenty five centuries later? Is this all
by coincidence? Are you not yet convinced, dear reader, that our history has been hijacked by
a pack of soulless criminals who have been resorting to systematic fraud to achieve their colonial
ambitions?

11) Kadash

We come to it at last, the enigmatic Kadesh of the Old Testament. The fact of the matter is that
various books of the Old Testament place Kadesh (or Kades, as it appears in some translations),
within the same geographical domain as Edom, Aden, Hazor, and Zin. By coincidence, al-
Hamadāni speaks of Mount Qadas as being near Mount Haḍūr, the city of „Adan, and the Valleys
of Adeem and Ḍeen. Here follows is a relevant passage from Description of Arabia:

ًّ‫ّوّالثان‬.‫ّوّمآتٌهّمنّسُراةّجنبّوّجمٌعّماّبٌنّ َعدَن ّوّواديّنخلةّمنّأرضّشرعبّالتًّنتنهًّإلىّالبحر‬،‫ثمّواديّبٌض‬

.‫ّثمّفًّ َقدَ س‬،‫ّوّهًّمنّالمعافر‬،‫ّوّهًّالتًّ ُتسمّىّالٌومّالصرٌح‬،‫ّوادي أدٌمّوّجبالّذاتّالسرٌح‬،‫منّأودٌةّالسكاسك‬

There is not, in the entire territory of Palestine, an area of land containing these same locations
side by side. The famous Qadas mountain of Yemen is a towering peak located some 80
kilometers south of the city of Ta„iz. It stands nearly 3,000 meters high, and its slopes and peaks
are dotted with many ancient fortifications, among them the famous Miṭrān Keep. This mountain
has nothing to do with the current city of Jerusalem whatsoever, and attempting to match the two
places is simply futile. Looking at the location of Ta„iz on the previous map (page 45), we can
immediately see where Thutmose III‟s campaign was directed. Mount Qadas gave its name to
one of the towns that lay on its slopes, which the Yemenis of our day and age call „Uzlat Qadas.
The town is located in a valley called Wādi al-Uhjūm.

The poets of Arabia sang of Mount Qadas and its river valleys on more than one occasion. For
example, poet al-Aswad Ibn Ya„fur al-Nahshaliy wrote:

‫ لذط‬ٚ‫و أ‬ٙ‫بٖ اٌم‬١ِ ِٓ ‫َوِط‬

ٍ ‫ ػ‬ٚ‫م‬ ٗ‫ عــبِ ًٍ وي٘ــبء ّاالة وٍّفـــ‬ٚ

Renowned poet al-Buḥturiy said:

48
 ّ ‫صعدواّجباالًّمنّعالكّكؤنهاّّّّّّهضــــباتّ َق َدسّوٌّذبـــلّوّحراء‬

Picture #16: A photo of „Uzlat Qadas on the slopes of the mountain bearing the same name.

Khafāf bin-Nadbah al-Sālmiy wrote:

‫فالطودّفالملكاتّأصبحّجونهاّّّّّّّففراعُّ َق َدسّفعمقــهاّفحســـــــــــوب‬

Apparently, these poets, among others, knew very well that Qadas had nothing to do with the
city of Jerusalem in Palestine. In fact, many of the armies that invaded Yemen throughout
different eras in history (Romans, Ethiopians, and Persians) made it a point to occupy the
strategic military forts on Mount Qadas* at some stage of their campaigns.

The Old Testament also states that Kadesh is a place near the border of Mṣrm (this is the tribal
territory of Bani Muḍar, north of „Adan, as we proved in our previous book), which fits perfectly
with the geography of the region:
When we cried to the Lord, he heard our voice and sent an angel and brought us out of
Msrm. And here we are in Kadesh, a town on the edge of your territory (Numbers 20:22).

It is also the very same place where Miriam, sister of Aaron, is believed to be buried:

______________________________________________________________________________
* Even today, the Yemenis refer to the old military forts as maḥāreeb. This term is the plural of miḥrāb, which is
derived from the root ḥrb, indicative of war. This word appears more than once in the Qur‟ān, notably in the
following: {They made for him what he desired of fortified enclosures (maḥāreeb) and statues and pools of
deep reservoirs, and heavy pots. O family of Dāwūd, work to give thanks. Only a few of My servants are
thankful.}…[34:13]. On the other hand, the Yemenis are the only people on this planet who designate ancient
temples by the term haykal. Incidentally, when you hear the term Haykal Sulaymān mentioned in Arabic sources,
you know where to start looking.

49
And the people of Israel, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the
first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh. And Miriam died there and was buried there
(Numbers 20:14).

Prepare yourself, dear reader, for another shock. Biblical scholars have long been puzzled by the
compound name Kadesh-Barnea which appears several times in the Old Testament. Here
follows is an instance:

Thus did your fathers, when I sent them from Kadesh-Barnea to see the land (Numbers
32:8).

Even today, the question of whether Kadesh and Kadesh-Barnea are one and the same is a matter
of debate. By sifting through bits of old Yemeni folklore, another glaring piece of evidence has
come to our attention. One of the most famous towns located on the slopes of Qadas is
a hamlet known to Yemenis as al-Bur„. In fact, the mountain itself is often referred to as Qadas
al-Bur„ or Qadas dhul Bur„, in the folk traditions of the region. One of the characteristics of the
dialects of southern Yemen is their addition of the -n letter suffix at the end of many words.
Local linguists call it al-nūn al-kilā„iyyah, pertaining to Mikhlāf Kilā„, one of the country‟s most
prominent tribal domains. Hence, Bur„ )‫ (ثوع‬may be rendered as Bur„n )ٓ‫(ثوػ‬, just as Ṣan„ā‟
)‫ (صٕؼبء‬is often rendered as Ṣan„an )ٓ‫(صٕؼ‬. It is therefore conceivable that the ancient Biblical
scribes rendered the silent (vowel-less) Br„n as Brn„, which eventually became Barnea. There is
no doubt however, that Kadesh-Barnea* is none other than Qadas dhul Bur„, as recorded in the
cultural memory of the Yemenis.

As for the Arabic name al-Quds, which has been falsely associated with the city of Jerusalem in
Palestine, there is a vast amount of evidence, even in the books of the Arab historians, that the
name was not used to designate that city until the late Umayyad Era. The records show that when
„Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb, allegedly the second successor of Muḥammad (P), entered Palestine, some
50 years after the so-called Hijrah, he referred to the city of Jerusalem by its original name of
Ilyā‟. Not once does the name al-Quds appear in any of the official documents that have been
attributed to „Umar. A testament to this fact can be found in the famous „Umari Treaty, in which
the Khaleefah pledged his protection to the “People of Ilyā‟ ”, whether they were Christians or
Jews. This is because at that time, the name al-Quds was not yet known to the Arabs.
Consequently, they referred to the city as Ilyā‟ )‫بء‬١ٍ٠‫(ا‬, which is the Arabic rendering of its official
Roman name of Ilya Capitolana. It follows then that the Biblical Kadesh (Kades) has nothing to
do with the current-day Jerusalem, and the Old Testament has nothing to do with Palestine.

______________________________________________________________________________

* A good example of the -n suffix phenomenon can be found in the story of Elias (P) in the Qur‟ān. In the Arabic
translations, the name appears as Elias in the following: {And Elias was one of the messengers}…[37:123]. Then,
a few passages down, it appears in the form of Eliasn, with the -n suffix: {Peace be upon the family of
Eliasn}…[37:130]. This manuscripturial evidence provides another subtle clue as to where the Qur‟ān was first
recorded.

50
Here follows is a list of the “coincidences” encountered in the above section, numbered from
where we left off in our previous book:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

36 ‫קדש‬ Qdsh / Qds Kadesh / Kades ً‫لل‬ Qadas

37 ‫עדן‬ „Adn Aden / Eden ْ‫ػل‬ „Adan
38 ‫קדש ברנע‬ Qdsh Brn„ Kadesh-Barnea ٓ‫للً اٌجوػ‬ Qadas al-Bur„un
39 ‫אדם‬ Adm / Edm Edom ُ٠‫ أك‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ Wādi Adeem
40 ‫יבוסי‬ Ybusi Jebusites ًٛ‫ج‬٠ / ًٛ‫ث‬ Būs / Yabūs

 Who Were the Philistines?

To get a better grasp of the depth of the colonial Orientalist deception concerning Palestine and
the Old Testament, we will analyze herein certain passages from the First Book of Samuel
containing an account that fully agrees with events mentioned in the records of the classical Arab
chroniclers, notably al-Ṭabari, al-Ya„qūbi, and al-Mas„ūdi.

When the Philistines captured the ark of God, they brought it from Eben-Ezer to Ashdod;
then the Philistines took the Ark of God and brought it into the house of Dagon and placed it
beside Dagon (1st Samuel 5:1,2).

From the above passage, we learn that the Children of Israel, led by King David, came into
confrontation with a pagan people known as the Philistines (the name appears as h-flstm in the
silent Aramaic text, and ha-filistim in the articulated so-called “Hebrew” version; noting that the
-im suffix is indicative of the plural). The confrontation took place on the slopes of a mountain
that is given the compound name Eben-Ezer (or Eban-Ezer), where the Philistines were able to
wrestle the Ark of the Covenant from the hands of the Israelites and move it to a place called
Ashdod. The sacred artifact eventually made its way to a place called Dagon (the name appears
as dgn in the original Aramaic scripture, before the Masoretic articulation of the text).

We can say, with utmost certainty, that the territory of ancient Palestine has never known of
places called Eben-Ezer, Ashdod, and Dagon, all in the same geographical vicinity. What we can
say, however, is that the Arabian Peninsula, in ages long past, knew of a famous people called
al-Fils, who were in fact a conglomeration of several pagan tribes, most prominent of which
were the tribes of Bani „Eezār and Ṭay‟. We also know that (by another coincidence) the territory
of the Fils comprised a mountain so famous in Arabia, that its name went on to become legend:
Jabal Abān. This majestic mountain, throughout history, became the setting of many bloody
battles between the tribes that sought control of its green, fertile slopes. The mountain is
mentioned in al-Hamadāni‟s Description of Arabia, as well as in dozens of verses of old Arabian
poetry. Famous poet Abu Tammām left us some unforgettable verses recounting the bloody
battles that took place on Mount Abān, which is without the slightest doubt, the very same place
mentioned in the Old Testament:

51
 َُ ‫ؾوٍٗ اٌل‬٠ ‫اْ اٌل ََ اٌ ُّغز َّو‬ ُ‫بفى‬١ٍ‫ا أ‬ٚ‫ رغّل‬ٟ‫ أفبفىُ و‬ٚ
ُُ ٍٍُِّ٠ ٚ ‫فبما أتاٌ لل هٍــــب‬ ٖ‫ا ػي‬ٍٛ٠‫لرـــــُ أْ ري‬ٙ‫ٌمل ع‬

One of the poets of the tribe of Ṭay‟, Ṭarramāḥ Ibn Ḥakeem al-Ṭā‟i, during his years of living in
exile in Iraq, wrote the following lines in remembrance of the famous mountain in the land
where his ancestors had come from:

ْ‫فـــط اٌمـــــــــبليا‬
ِّ ‫ؼ‬٠‫ثِفَ ِّظ اٌو‬ ًَ‫ّبله انثشق انًٍـــــا‬ٚ َ‫غ ِوثذ‬َ
ٌ‫ أتا‬َٝ‫عت ِٓ عجٍَـــ‬ٌٙ‫ٓ ا‬١‫ث‬ٚ ‫ٓ عهــــــًى‬١‫ٍّغ ث‬٠ ‫اٌجوق‬
ِ ‫ ُء‬ٛ‫ظ‬َ ‫أ‬

The above verses describe his longing for what he calls al-barq al-yamāni (the lightning displays
during storms over the mountains of Yemen), and the winds over a certain fajj (a deep gorge).
The second verse in particular mentions the neighboring mountains of Salmah and Abān, both of
which feature in the Old Testament.

By far, the most spectacular description of Mount Abān appears in the poetry of the Ḥimyarite
bard Umru‟ al-Qays:

ٍ ‫ َو أُٔب‬١‫وج‬
ًِ ِّ ‫ تعاد ِي‬ٟ‫ً ف‬ ٍَٗ‫ث‬َٚ ٓ١ٔ‫ أفب‬ٟ‫وؤْ أتاَا ف‬

The above verse describes the majestic mountain in winter, when snow covers its high peaks in
vertical patterns, making it appear, in the poet‟s imagination, as an old white-haired man, dressed
in the bajād (the highlighted word in the second half of the verse). The poet is actually referring
to the traditional striped Yemeni cloak that some Jews wear even today during their religious
celebrations. This word appears in the Aramaic Old Testament as beged (‫(כְּסּות‬, where it is used
to describe the shirt worn by the Israelite prophet Joseph.

Picture #17: The traditional Yemeni bajad pattern.

Picture #18: An old photograph of a Yemeni Jew wearing the bajad cloak.

52
In his famous book entitled Al-Aṣnām (lit: The Idols), Arab Historian Ibn al-Kalbi (of the tribe
of Kalb) mentions the tribe of Ṭay‟, and the idol they used to worship, called al-Fils. Here
follows is a passage from Ibn Kalbi‟s book (page 59):

ٖ‫ْ ػٕل‬ٚ‫ؼزِو‬٠ ٚ ، ٗ١ٌ‫ْ ا‬ٚ‫ل‬ٙ٠ ٚ ٗٔٚ‫ؼجل‬٠ ‫ا‬ٛٔ‫ وب‬ٚ ... ٍُٙ‫ٍػ عج‬ٚ ٟ‫ وبْ أٔفب ً أؽّو ف‬ٚ ،"‫مبي ٌٗ "انفهظ‬٠ ً ‫وبْ نطًء صّٕب‬
.‫ٗ اال رُ ِووذ‬١ٌ‫ب ا‬ٙ‫ٍغؤ ث‬١‫لح ف‬٠‫طوك أؽل غو‬٠ ‫ ال‬ٚ ،ٖ‫ٗ فبئفب ً اال أِٓ ػٕل‬١‫ؤر‬٠ ‫ ال‬ٚ .ُ٘‫ػزبئو‬

The passage describes al-Fils as being a red-colored, man-shaped oddity in the middle of
a mountain, a veritable pagan idol to which they made their sacrifices and offerings. It is not
known exactly when Ṭay‟ migrated from Yemen. Some historians claim it was after the final
collapse of the Ma‟rib dam, while other scholars think it may have been during an even earlier
era. According to Islamic tradition, „Ali bin abi-Ṭālib, supposedly the cousin of the prophet
Muḥammad (P), led a contingent of 150 warriors to the tribal homes of Ṭay‟*, and destroyed
their ancient idol, al-Fils.

During the time that the Old Testament events took place, the ancestors of the tribe of Ṭay‟,
among the many pagan tribes of Arabia, were still in their original homeland in the highlands of
Yemen, where they had borne witness to the dawn of a monotheistic creed whose tenets were
propagated all over the country by the ancient Israelites. It was hence natural that these tribes,
who eventually took the name of their idol and became known as al-Fils, fell into conflict with
the Children of Israel in a past age that is now beyond memory. These ancient wars were often
referred to as Ayyām‟ul „Arab (“Days / Chronicles of the Arabs”), in old poetry, where each
battle was remembered as Yawm - followed by the name of the location where it took place.

It is worth noting that the letter -t suffix which appears at the end of many proper nouns was also
a characteristic of the old Yemeni dialects. For example, the Persians (al-Frs), were often
referred to as al-Frst, while the name Quraysh is rendered as Qrsht. Even the entire central part
of the country itself is referred to as Ymnt is some South Arabian inscriptions. This is clearly
evident from an inscription that was found near the city of Zafār, on a bronze statue of the
Ḥimyarite king Dhamār „Ali Yahbur (late 3rd Century AD), proclaiming him as “King of Saba‟,
Ḥaḍramawt, Raydān, and Yemnt”. Hence al-Fils and al-Filst are one and the same.

Picture #19: Bronze statue of Dhamār „Ali Yahbur (ruler of Yemnt), on display in the National
Museum in Ṣan„ā‟.

______________________________________________________________________________
* According to the Arabian sources, the tribe of Ṭay‟ can be traced back to a legendary figure by the name of Adād
bin-Zayd, bin-Yashjub, bin-Asad, bin-Kahlān, bin-Qaḥṭān (the last is Biblical Joktan, legendary father of the
Ḥaḍramawt tribes).

53
But why did the Bible render the name of mount Aban (Eban) as Ebān-Ezer? The reason is
because the mountain stood within the territorial rights of an ancient Yemeni tribe known as Āl-
„Eezār, whose descendants today identify themselves as al-„Ayāzirah. The name „Ezer actually
begins with the letter ‫„( ע‬ayn) in the Aramaic text. The „Ayāzirah have been living in the Dhamār
province of Yemen for generations beyond count, in the very shadow of mount Abān, and not far
from a river valley known as al-Rammah, whose name also appears, by “coincidence”, in the Old
Testament.

In his book Lisān al-„Arab (lit: the Arabic Tongue), Ibn Manẓūr states the following concerning
al-Rammah (9: 166,167):

،ٖ‫ صؼل‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬ٟ‫فع‬٠ ِٕٗ ‫ك‬٠‫ اٌطو‬ٚ ،‫ط‬٠‫ ػو‬،ً٠ٛ‫ غ‬:‫ اٌو ِّخ‬...‫بْ اٌَواح‬٠‫ك‬ٚ ُ‫ ِٓ أػظ‬ٛ٘ ٚ ،‫ انش ّيح‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ‫اه‬ٛ‫ ع‬ٟ‫مغ عجً أتاٌ ف‬٠
.‫صُ رياس‬

The above passage tells us that mount Abān is near the valley of Rammah, one of the greatest
river valleys in the Sarāt Mountains…al-Rammah is long, wide, and lies on the road that joins
Dhamār to Ṣa„dah.

Interestingly, the city of Dhamār, according to the legendary genealogical trees of Yemen, can be
traced back to its founder, Shadad bin-Zar„ah, bin Ḥimyar al-Asghar. Going back to the Book of
Samuel, we recall the passage in question:

When the Philistines captured the ark of God, they brought it from Eben-Ezer to
Ashdod; then the Philistines took the Ark of God and brought it into the house of
Dagon and placed it beside Dagon (1st Samuel 5:1,2).

The above passage describes an event that happened on the slopes of mount Abān, in the Sarāt
Country of ancient Arabia, during the wars that took place between the Israelites and the Filist
tribes (Filistim), and eventually culminated in the confiscation of the Ark. These names: Eben,
Ezer, Ashdod (Shadad), and Filistim, are names that are associated with the Dhamār province of
Yemen, and have absolutely no connection to Palestine whatsoever. The claim that the Ashdod
mentioned in the passage refers to the Palestinian port town by the same name, which lies on the
Mediterranean coast, is yet another spectacular case of forgery perpetrated by the Orientalist
imagination. As for the name Dagon, which appears in the same passage, we will analyze it in
a later chapter, when we reveal to you the true home territory of the ancient Israelite tribe of
Zebulun.

Here is a passage from DoA (page 203) that is of interest to us:

.‫ هإٍبإُ٘ آل انؼٍضاس‬ٚ ‫ اٌؾبهس ثٓ وؼت‬ٟٕ‫خ ٌج‬٠‫ ؽو‬ٚ ،ُ‫ اٌؼو‬:‫ِقالف هكاع‬

The above passage talks about Mikhlāf Radā„ which, if you remember from our previous book, is
the setting of Bi‟r Shabbā„ (the very same Beer-Sheba of the Bible). Among the inhabitants of
Radā„ is the clan of Bani Ḥārith bin Ka„b, a branch of Āl-‘Eezār, who gave their name to Mount

54
Abān. This makes perfect sense from a geographic point of view, as the ancient town of Radā„
lies not more than 10 kilometers from the border of the Dhamār province, where the mountain
stands.

Another passage in the Old Testament that gives us a clue as to the theater of the events is the
following:

In those days the Philistines mustered for war against Israel, and Israel went out to battle
against them; they encamped at Eben-Ezer, and the Philistines encamped at Aphek
(1 Samuel 4:1).

The above passage mentions a place whose name appears in the original Aramaic text as aphq
(with the letter q). The English and Latin translations rendered the name as Aphek. According to
the passage, Mount Eban and Aphek were in the same geographical vicinity. By another
coincidence, al-Hamadāni mentions a hillock called Apheeq, which also happens to be within the
Dhamār province of Yemen. Here follows is the passage from Descrition of Arabia (page 207),
which locates Apheeq, and describes it as an area of fortified water canals.

ٞ‫اك‬ٛ‫ ث‬ٚ ،ٓ١َ‫خ ُهػ‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ ثؤ‬ٚ ‫ َل‬١‫ ثص‬ٚ ،‫ عّغ‬ٚ ،‫فل‬ٌّٛ‫ ا‬ٚ ،‫ح‬ٚ‫ ِب‬ٚ ،‫ ثٕب‬ٚ ،‫ ُّواك‬ٚ ‫ ٍوثخ‬ٟٙ‫ ف‬،‫ب ِطبؽٓ اٌّبء‬ٙ‫ ث‬ٟ‫خ اٌز‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ األ‬ٚ
.‫ ِصٕؼخ أفٍك‬ٟٙ‫ ف‬،‫ب‬ّٙ١‫ف رياس ِٓ غوث‬١ٌ‫ أِب ِقب‬ٚ .‫و‬ٙ‫ظ‬
َ

Poet Abu Du‟ād al-Ayādi sang of this same place, and described it as being in a very treacherous
terrain, difficult to navigate:

‫ل اٌمبصـــــواد‬٠‫صُٕزُغ اٌق ّل أ‬ ٟ‫ُلافغ هُوجزـــــ‬٠ ٞ‫ٌمل أغزل‬ٚ

‫ــــــــخ اٌضبلالد‬١ّْ‫ و‬ّْٝ ّ‫ٔز‬ ‫يع عيع أفٍــــك‬
ِ ‫ثبٌغ‬
َ ‫ أهأب‬ٚ

The place that al-Hamadāni and the poet spoke of is identified today by the inhabitants of the
Dhamār province as Khirbat Apheeq (meaning: the Ruins of Apheeq). It lies about 70 kilometers
south of Ṣan„ā‟, in the territory of the tribe of „Ans (the „Enso of the Karnak Inscription),
a region known to contain many caves and vestiges of ancient military enclosures (maḥāreeb).
The name Apheeq is very easily found in any online index of the regions of Yemen, specifically
the Dhamār province.

Picture #20: A ruined keep in Apheeq, in the Dhamār province of Yemen.

55
Finally, the Book of Samuel tells us that King David‟s original home, before his armies had
taken the stronghold of Zion, was at Ramah. This was the place the Israelite king returned to
after his campaign against the Filst.

Then he (David) would come back to Ramah, for his home was there; he administered
justice there to Israel, and built there an altar to the LORD (1 Samuel 7:17).

The Ramah mentioned in the above passage is none other than Wādi al-Rammah of ancient
Arabian folklore. The fact that the Old Testament mentions Eben-Ezer, Ramah and Aphek within
the same geographical vicinity; while the Arabian sources speak of Mount Abān, Wādi al-
Rammah, and Apheeq, as being locations within the Dhamār province, cannot be due to a mere
coincidence.

The big picture, dear reader is now very clear. The Philistines of the Old Testament were
a conglomeration of ancient Arabian tribes who were named after their idol, the pagan god
al-Fils (or Filst). During the time of King David (the 11th Century BC), these tribes were in their
homeland of the Arabian Sarāt, where they fought many bloody battles against the Israelites and
their allies on the slopes of Mount Abān, south of the Yemeni capital Ṣan„ā‟; the city that
features in the Old Testament by its ancestral name Uzal. These tribes began to migrate, en
masse, out of the Arabian Peninsula, following a road that many before them had taken, and that
many after them would continue to take. The main catalyst for this migration were no doubt the
Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns that had devastated Arabia in that bygone era, as we will
see in our next book. Eventually, around 400 BC, the Filst established their presence in
significant numbers in the Levant, in a small territory that was later named after them. When the
Romans conquered the area, they named the territory in question Provincia Filistina.

Here follows is a list of the “coincidences” pertaining to the Biblical Philistines:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

41 ‫אבן‬ Abn Eben / Eban ْ‫أثب‬ Abān

42 ‫עזר‬ „Ezer Ezer ‫بىهح‬١‫ اٌؼ‬/‫ياه‬١‫آي ػ‬ Āl-„Eezar
43 ‫פלשתם‬ Flshtm Philistines ‫ اٌفٍَذ‬/ ٌٍ‫اٌف‬ al-Fils / al-Filst
44 ‫הרמה‬ h-rmh Ramah ‫ اٌو ِّخ‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ Wādi al-Rammah
45 ‫אשדד‬ Ashdd Ashdod ‫ّلاك‬ Shaddad
46 ‫אפק‬ Aphq Aphek ‫ك‬١‫أف‬ Apheeq

 The Invention of the Biblical Gaza

One of the products of the Orientalist imagination was the projection of the name Gaza onto the
Palestinian territory, and envisioning it as a city which the army of King David entered after
a bloody war with Saul‟s henchmen for the throne of Israel. The truth of the matter is that
nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any mention of a city by that name. The word that

56
appears in the original Aramaic text is ‫עזה‬, which actually spells ‘Azzah (or ‘Uzzah - depending
on how the first letter is articulated). This name appears a total of 28 times in the Old Testament,
as being the name of a city as well as of a certain person. Despite knowing full-well that it is
spelled with the letter ‫„( ע‬ayn) in the original manuscript, the Orientalists deceptively hijacked
the name and projected it onto the Palestinian territory, claiming that it designated the current
city of Ghazzah (Gaza), which lies near the Egyptian border. From a purely linguistic point of
view, this is unacceptable, and constitutes a blatant forgery, reason being that the letter ‫ ע‬is part
of the Aramaic alphabet, and is indeed vocalized in the so-called “Hebrew” language. There is
absolutely no excuse whatsoever that justifies rendering the name as Gaza. This rendering of the
name was actually based on an even earlier Christian canonical belief, as we will see later on,
when we analyze the Ethiopian religious texts.

The purpose of this fraud was to place the events surrounding David and Saul within an
imaginary Palestinian theater. The truth is that the historic territory of Palestine never knew
a place by the name of Gaza-Ghazzah. The truth is that the name „Uzzah (or „Azzah), as it
appears in the Aramaic text, is clearly indicative of an Arabian culture, as can be proven by the
following facts:

1- The ancient Arabs, at one point, worshipped a female deity called al-„Uzzah. This has been
demonstrated by inscriptions uncovered all over the Peninsula, from as far north as Jordan, to as
far south as Zafār, in Yemen. The Qur‟ān mentions this deity, along with al-Lāt and Manāt, as
being the primary triad of idols of the Arab pagans during Muḥammad‟s time.

2- There are nearly a dozen locations within Yemen that bear the name „Azzah, in one form or
another (whether singular, or part of a compound name), and it is beyond the scope of this book
to list them all. The reader can refer to the geographical index penned by contemporary Yemeni
geographer Aḥmad „Ali al-Akwa„ to verify this fact.

One such location that is of particular interest to us is a town called „Azzah located within the
Bayḍā‟ Province of Yemen, shown on the map below. This is the same province in which the
city of Radā„ is located which, in the past, was the capital of Mikhlāf Rada„.

3- An important connection must be made between „Azzah and a well-known poet named
Kuthayr, who was so famous for his many poems mentioning the place, that he was dubbed
Kuthayr „Azzah. The commentators, in their ignorance of the poetic trends, assumed that the
object of Kuthayr‟s flirtatious songs was a maiden named „Azzah. This is in fact false, as the
poet was actually singing of a place, just as a legendary predecessor of his had flirted with the
mountain known as Jabal Salmah and was consequently given the name Zuhayr bin abi-Salmah.

Here is a famous verse of Kuthayr‟s:

‫ت‬
ِ ‫َـؾ ِط‬٠ ً١ٌٍ‫ك ثب‬ ٍ ‫َوـ ُّـؾزَط‬
َ ‫َـٍـ‬٠ ‫ت ِــب‬ ‫ ػ ّضج أَصجَ َؾذ‬ٞ
ِّ ‫عّو‬ ُ َ‫َهأ‬
َ ٌ‫ـذ اثٕخ ا‬٠

57
In another, remarkable poem, wherein he sings of his sadness and pain at parting with the
beloved places, he says:

‫كا‬ٛ‫ػـ‬ٌّٛ‫ٔغ َي ا‬ َ َ‫أ‬َٚ ‫صفـب َء‬

َ ٌ‫ق ا‬ َ ‫ص َل‬
َ َُٗ‫ـج‬١‫اِ َّْ اٌـ ُّـ ِؾـتَّ اِما أَ َؽـــتَّ َؽـجـ‬
ُ َّ
‫لا‬٠‫ َعلد َِي‬َٚ ‫ ؽُـتِّ ػـضج ِـب‬ٟ‫فـ‬ ُ ‫ أَ َه‬ٛ‫َــؼــٍَـ ُُ ٌــــ‬٠ ‫هللا‬
ً‫ــــب َكح‬٠‫كد ِى‬
‫كا‬ٛ‫ة لُــؼ‬ِ ‫َْ ِِـٓ َؽـ َن ِه اٌ َؼنا‬ٛ‫َـجى‬٠ ُُٙ‫لرُـ‬ِٙ ‫َٓ ػَـ‬٠‫اٌَّـن‬َٚ ٌٍ‫سُهـثاٌُ يـذ‬

Note, dear reader, the mention of Ruhbān Madyan (the Monks of Madyan), in the third verse.
The poet claims that even they would have weeped had they found themselves in the same
circumstances. We cannot be completely sure which „Azzah it was that Kuthayr “fell in love”
with, but we can say for certain that it was not the city of Gaza in Palestine.

A careful analysis of all the occurences of the term ‫ עזה‬within the passages of the Old
Testament reveals that the name was rendered as Gaza in the context of a city, and as „Uzzah
when identifying a certain person. Here follows are some examples:
And Joshua struck them from Kadesh-Barnea as far as Gaza, and all the country of Goshen,
as far as Gibeon (Joshua 10:41).

The above passage mentions two places that we have already located within Yemen, namely
Kadesh-Barnea (discussed previously in this book) and Goshen (see Road of the Patriarch, page
108). Elsewhere in the Bible, we encounter the same word rendered as „Uzzah, where the context
clearly shows it to be the name of a person. Here follows is an example:
And they carried the Ark of God on a new cart, from the house of Abinadab. And Uzzah and
Ahio were driving the cart (1st Chronicles 13:7).

Map #3: Possible location of the Biblical „Azzah, relative to Kadesh (Qadas) and Goshen (Joshen).

Does it seem to you, dear reader, that these passages speak of the city of Gaza in Palestine?

 The Biblical Gezer That Was Never Found

And the Philistines came up yet again and spread out in the Valley of Rephaim. And when
David went for directions to the Lord, He said: “You are not to go up against them in front;
but make a circle round them from the back and come on them opposite the mulberry trees.

58
Then at the sound of footsteps in the tops of the trees, go forward quickly, for the Lord has
gone out before you to overcome the army of the Philistines. And David did as the Lord
commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba to Gezer (2nd Samuel 5:25).

Going back to the subject of the Filis-Filist, we find, in the second Book of Samuel, an account
of one of the battles that King David fought against these pagan tribes, in a geographical region
that encompassed the locations of Rephaim, Geba, and Gezer. Archeologists who excavated the
sites of Rephaim and Geba in Palestine quickly dismissed the notion that these two places had
any relation to the Biblical story. As for the name Gezer, the archeologists were at a complete
loss as they failed to find any evidence of even the existence of that name within Palestine, and
were finally forced to declare that it must have been an outlying area that was located at the
border of the country. This conclusion, though it serves the Orientalist interpretation, clearly
contradicts Samuel‟s geography.

The name Gezer, in the unarticulated Aramaic text, appears as ‫ גזר‬, which is simply Gzr (or Jzr).
Looking through Arabian poetry, we find the name articulated as Jāzer. Yemeni poet al-A„sha of
Hamadān weeps for this place as part of a series of tribal homes that fell into ruin:

‫ِٕبىي ثبٌَّؾبح ِٓ ّػّ ظاصس‬ ٟ‫ َو ِب وبْ ِؤٌم‬١‫هَ اٌق‬١‫ٌؼّو أث‬

Al-Hamadāni, on the other hand, calls the place Dhū Jazr, and locates it within the same territory
as the valleys of Ḥūrān, Ruwāf, and Ḥujlah. Here is a passage from DoA (page 186):
... ‫و‬١ّ‫ ػجل ثٓ ؽ‬ٟٕ‫ رو ظضس ٌج‬ٚ .ٓ١١َِ‫خ ٌٍو‬٠‫ َؽو‬،‫َو‬١ّ‫ ُ٘ ِٓ ِؽ‬ٚ ‫ه‬١ٍِ ٟٕ‫ اٌَّّك األٍفً ٌج‬ٚ ‫ػخ‬ٛٔ :ْ‫ هكِب‬ٌٝ‫هعغ ا‬
.‫ انحعهح‬ٚ ‫ٌخ‬ٛ‫ اٌؼ‬ٚ ‫ٕخ‬٠‫ لب‬ٚ ‫ ُسواف‬ٚ ٌ‫حىسا‬

Let us analyze the names that appear in the above passage: could Ḥūrān (second highlighted
word) be anything other that the Biblical Ḥrn, which was rendered as Ḥarrān, projected onto the
Syrian-Armenian border, and interpreted as the transit stop of Abraham (P), on his mythical
journey from ancient Iraq to Palestine? What about the name Ruwāf (third highlighted word)? Is
it not the plural of Rūf? Is the Biblical Rphaim (articulated as Raphaim or Rephaim) not the
plural of Rph? Is the -im suffix not indicative of the plural form in the South Arabian dialects? Is
Wādi Ḥujlah (last highlighted word) not the Ḥujlah of the Old Testament, as we proved in our
previous book? Why does al-Hamadāni place Dhū Jazr within the same geographical space as
those other locations? Are all these coincidences, dear reader?

The name Jzr appears once again in the poetry of al-Aswad bin Ya„fur, another forgotten bard of
Yemen, where it is rendered as a female name (Jazrah), afforded the usual affection given by the
poets to such places, and located side by side with another place called Julājil. Here is the verse:

ُُ ِ‫ٗ إٌَبئ‬١ٍ‫ ظضسج لل ٘بعذ ػ‬ٚ ‫ٓ ُظالظم‬١‫َمٍَٓ رووَٓ اٌْب َء ث‬٠

What is this Julājil that the poet speaks of?

59
In Samuel, we come across an account of King Saul preparing to battle the Philistines in a place
called Gilgal:

I said: “Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not
sought the favor of the Lord”. So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering
(1st Samuel 13:12).

This is the same Gilgal that features in the Book of Joshua:

Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal. And Caleb the son of
Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, “You know what the Lord said to Moses the
man of God in Kadesh-Barnea concerning you and me” (Joshua 14:6).

The name appears as ‫( גלגל‬glgl or jljl) in the silent Aramaic text. The archeologists, failing to
find any trace of this place in ancient Palestine, made the following declaration: “The Gilgal of
Joshua lies somewhere between Jericho and the border of Jordan, but its exact location is not known”.
This was no more than a simple excuse to cover up the age-old delusion.

Let us read about Juljul from Umru‟ al-Qays*:

‫هعم‬
ُ ‫ ٌَ ثلاهح ُظ‬ٛ٠ ‫ّّب‬١ٍ ‫ ال‬ٚ ‫صبٌؼ‬
ِ َِٕٓٙ ‫ه‬
َ ٌ َٛ٠
ٍ ‫ُة‬َ ‫أال ه‬

In his commentary on the above verse, Arab geographer and historian Ibn al-Kalbi, a renowned
authority on the ancient idols of Arabia, states the following about Juljul in his book entitled
Al-Aṣnām (lit: The Idols):

.‫ ػٕل غّو وٕلح‬ٟ٘ ًُ‫عٍُغ‬

Meaning: Juljul is within the territories of Kindah, one of the most famous and prestigious tribes
of Yemen.

These facts, dear reader, can no longer be dismissed as coincidences. They serve to enforce what
we have been saying and will continue to say throughout our journey: Bani Isra‟eel were an
ancient Arabian tribe who lived in the highlands and mountains of Yemen. This tribe was among
the first to combat polytheism, the tenets of which were carried down from the time of the
Patriarch Ibraheem (P), the spiritual father of the tribe, and father of all monotheists in Arabia.
The events of the Old Testament have nothing to do with Palestine whatsoever; and unless and
until we accept this fact, we will remain lost and disoriented, wandering blindly in the desert of
rabbinical and Orientalist deceptions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*It is worth noting that the legendary Umru‟ al-Qays we are quoting is none other that the famous Ḥimyarite poet of
the country known as Kindah, who was given the title of Umru‟ al-Qays al-Kindiy Ākil al-Murār. This title is
a tribute to the poet being of the clan of Bani Murār, who are mentioned in the Old Testament as the Merari. Here is
a relevant passage from the Bible:

This is the service of the clans of the sons of Merari, the whole of their service in the tent of meeting,
under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest (Numbers 4:33).

60
“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic
number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

47 ‫עזה‬ „Azah Gaza ‫ػ ّيح‬ „Azzah / „Uzzah

48 ‫גזר‬ Gzr / Jzr Gezer ‫ عيه‬ٚ‫ م‬/ ‫عبىه‬ Jāzir / Dhū Jazr
49 ‫גלגל‬ Glgl / Jljl Gilgal ً‫ عالع‬/ ًُ‫عٍُغ‬ Juljul / Julājel
50 ‫רפאים‬ Rphaim Rephaim ‫اف‬ٚ‫ه‬ Rawāf

 Iram and Damascus

The territory of Biblical Aram-Iram was associated with a king by the name of Hadadezer who,
in turn, was placed within a Syrian theater, as a result of a scandalously fraudulent projection of
the Old Testament geography, in which Aram-Iram became synonymous with Syria. The fact of
the matter is, as we shall soon learn, that nowhere in the entire Biblical text does the term Syria
or Syrians appear*. Furthermore, not one archeologist was able to find any evidence of an
ancient Syrian king or hero by the name of Hadadezer. Can the allegation which equates Aram
with Syria be accepted? Has the history of Syria ever recorded the reign of a king by the name of
Hadadezer and his war against David? The truth is that no record exists of such events; a fact that
the Biblical scholars themselves know very well. So did the battle take place in an imaginary
setting, between imaginary foes? Did the author of the Book of Samuel simply invent the story?

Let us first see what Samuel tells us, in the original so-called “Hebrew” text (2nd Samuel 8:5):

‫ותבא ארם דמשק לעזר להדדעזר מלך צובה ויך דוד בארם עשרים־ושנים אלף איש׃‬

The underlined word which appears in the above passage is composed of three letters, which are
referred to in “Hebrew” as: aleph, rosh, and mem. The word thus spells Arm. Let us now see how
the Orientalist translations rendered this same passage:

King James Bible: And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king
of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

World English Bible: When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of
Zobah, David struck of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

Darby’s English Translation: And the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king
of Zobah, and David smote of the Syrians twenty-two thousand men.

This is how the word ‫ ארם‬was rendered in most translations. The only version we are aware of
which remained faithful to the original text is the following one:

______________________________________________________________________________
*The Old Testament mentions Assyrians, not Syrians.

61
Bible in Basic English: And when the Aramaeans of Damascus came to the help of
Hadadezer, king of Zobah, David put to the sword twenty-two thousand of the
Aramaeans.

We learn, from the above correct translation, that the Arameans who came to the aid of
Hadadezer (or Hadad-Ezer) against David, were inhabitants of a place called Dmsq-Dmshq.
Furthermore, Hadadezer is designated as being the king of Zobah (the word is actually ‫צובה‬,
which spells Ṣūbah, with the ṣad letter). Has the historical territory of Syria ever known of
a place called Ṣūbah? Has any trace ever been found of such a name in the Levant?

A few passages further in the Book of Samuel, we come across the following account, which
only added more strangeness to the theater of these events, as the Orientalists imagined it:

‫ויעש דוד שם בשבו מהכותו את־ארם בגיא־מלח שמונה עשר אלף׃‬

The rampant translations of the above are as follows:

And David made a name for himself when he returned, after he had smitten the
Syrians in the valley of salt, eighteen thousand men (2nd Samuel 8:13).

Aside from the glaring corruption which appears once again regarding the first underlined term
Arm (its rendering as Syria), another location is introduced as being the “valley of salt”. The
translators mistook the “Hebrew” word gya-mlḥ (second underlined word) as a common known,
and rendered it as “valley of salt” or, as in the Douay Rheims Bible, “valley of the salt pits”. The
fact of the matter is that this is not a common known, but the proper name of a place called
Valley Mlḥ.

From the context of Samuel, we learn that despite the alliance of the Arameans of Dmsq with
Hadad-Ezer against David, the Israelite king was still able to score a victory against his
opponents, and made a name for himself in a valley called Mlḥ, on his return from the battle.
This means that the locations of Arm, Dmsq, and Mlḥ are somehow interconnected.

In light of the above facts, let us see what al-Hamadāni says regarding Iram and Wādi Malāḥā,
while taking into consideration comments made by al-Akwa„ (in parenthesis). On page 215 of
his Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni locates Wādi Malāḥā as being near Ḥujlah (the very
same Biblical Ḥoglah), within the Jūf of Yemen (the great dell where all inward river valleys
eventually meet):

‫َُٕت‬٠ ‫ب‬ٙ١ٌ‫ ا‬ٚ ,‫ف‬ٛ‫ك) ثبٌغ‬ٍٛ‫ األ‬ٚ ‫ط‬١‫ٗ اٌؼٕت األث‬١‫ ف‬ٚ ،‫ تًُ شذاد‬ٟ‫ ِالؽب ف‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ‫مغ‬٠( ‫ وادي يالحا‬ٚ ،‫انحعهه‬
ُ ٖ‫ ِٓ ألصب‬ٚ
.ً‫ لزٍذ ّ٘لاْ ِٓ ِنؽظ ثْوا‬ٚ ،‫َ هىاَ ِالؽب‬ٛ٠

The above passage describes Wādi Malāḥā as being a place where orchards of white and black
grapes can be found, and locates it near al-Ḥujlah, within Bani Shadad (the Biblical Ashdod).
Also it speaks of a battle called Yawmu Malāḥā, which took place between the tribes of
Hamadān and Midhḥaj.

62
Elsewhere, in his description of the coast of „Adan and the surrounding regions, al-Hamadani
states the following (page 94):

.ٌ‫ب انًالحٍى‬ٙٔ‫ ٍىب‬ٚ ،‫ عبٔت فالح إسو‬ٟ‫ هًِ ف‬ٟ‫ك أؽَبء ف‬١‫ُمبي ٌٗ اٌ ِؾ‬٠ ‫هك٘ب ِبء‬ِٛ ٚ ،ً‫ػ ثٗ عج‬١‫ُؾ‬٠ ً‫ ٍبؽ‬ٟ٘ ٚ ‫خ‬١‫ث‬ٕٛ‫ػذٌ ع‬

This startling passage speaks of a river which joins the sea coast near „Adan. The source of this
river happens to be an oasis within the sandy Openness of Iram, among whose inhabitants are the
Malāḥis (al-Malāḥiyyūn). The place referred to by al-Hamadāni as Falāt Iram lies in the Najd
region (the highland plateau which is separated from the Sarāt Mountains by the Great Ridge -
the yrdn - and which directly overlooks the Jūf.)

The Old Testament also designates Hadad-Ezer, the king of Ṣūbah, as being the son of Rehob:

David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah…(2nd Samuel 8:3).

By analyzing several other Biblical passages, we find that Rehob is actually the name of a place.
Here follows are examples:

So they went up, and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, to
the entrance of Hamath (Numbers 13:21).

In his listing of the homes of the Asher tribe, the Book of Joshua states the following:

And Ebron, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, as far as great Zidon (Joshua
19:28).

Hence, the statement that Hadad-Ezer was the son of Rehob, means that he hailed from that place
(it was his native town). The name appears as Rḥb in the un-articulated text.

Let us read from al-Hamadani (page 282):

.‫ اٌغبئػ‬ٟ‫بْ ف‬١ٙ‫ٕز‬٠ ْ‫ب‬٠‫اك‬ٚ ،ْ‫ ُِ َو‬ٚ ‫ هثبق‬ٌٝ‫ب ا‬ٍٙ١َِ ‫ سحىب‬ٚ ... ‫ اٌغبئػ‬ٟ‫ً ف‬١َ‫خ ر‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ اٌصّغ أ‬ٚ ‫ ػُعٍخ‬ٚ ً‫ ؽج‬ٚ

The above passage lists the river valleys that run in the gorge of al-Ghā‟eṭ, among them the
valley of Raḥūb. As for al-Ghā‟eṭ, al-Hamadāni names it among the territories of the Shabwah
province of Yemen. During his day and age, al-Ghā‟eṭ was occupied by the clan of Ibn Maljam*,
a branch of the Kindah tribe, who resided in certain areas of Ḥaḍramawt and the Jūf of Yemen.
This places the valley of Raḥūb within the same geographical space as Iram and Malāḥā, as is the
case in the Old Testament.

ُ٘ٚ ، ْ‫ؾبْ آي اٌّىوِب‬١‫هإٍبء ِواك ث‬ٚ ،‫ ِوفـخ‬ٌٝ‫هاء مٌه انغائظ ا‬ٚ ِٓ ُ‫َىٕٗ اٌّؼبعً ِٓ ٍجؤ ص‬٠ ‫اٌؼطف‬ٚ ْ‫ؾب‬١‫أٍفً ث‬ٚ
‫ ِنؽظ‬ٟ‫ِمبَ ف‬ٚ ‫ٍئكك‬ٚ ‫ي اٌّىوِبْ ّوف‬٢ٚ ، ‫ وهى تٍد أتٍ يهعى‬، ‫مبي اْ اٌقَبٍبد يٍ ونذ األششط تٍ كُذج‬٠ٚ ‫اٌقَبٍبد‬
.‫ شثىج‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟٔ‫ّلا‬ٌٙ‫ موو٘ب ا‬ٟ‫اظغ اٌز‬ٌّٛ‫ أُ٘ ا‬ٟ٘ ‫رٍه‬

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*According to Islamic folklore, „Abdullah ibn Maljam (Muljam) was the assassin who killed Imām „Ali, by striking
him with a sword while the latter was prostrating himself during prayer.

63
As for the Dmsq-Dmshq of the Old Testament; it follows then that there must have been, in the
ancient times, a city or region somewhere in the Najd or Jūf area of Yemen, to the north-west of
Ḥaḍramawt, that was known by that name, and which the Orientalists imagined as being the
Damascus of the Levant (capital of Syria). As a matter of fact, there was indeed a town called
Dmsq in the Najd highlands, which the ancient Iramaic tribes (pertaining to Iram - the same city
that is mentioned in the Qu‟rān), used as a base of operations for their attacks on the Assyrian
Empire, starting from 1100 B.C. Famous poet of the Abbasid Era, Abu‟l Ḥassan bin Muḥammad
(died around 1015 A.D), sang of the ancient ruined Damasq of Arabia:

ّ ‫ فف‬ٜ‫ف أٍو‬١‫ٌه غ‬
ٞ‫ه أٍو‬ ‫ ديغك ِٓ أسض َعذ‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟٔ‫ىاه‬

It is evidently not the Damascus of Syria that the poet speaks of in the above verse, but the
Damasq of the Najd region, a long-forgotten city that was swallowed by the sands of time. This
is the same Dmshq-Dmsq mentioned in the Old Testament, which the Orientalists projected onto
Syria, as part of their imagined Empire of David, which stretched from the Euphrates of Iraq all
the way to the Nile of Egypt.

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

51 ‫ארם‬ Arm Syria َ‫اِ َه‬ Iram

52 ‫גיא־מלח‬ Gia-Mlḥ valley of salt ‫ ِالؽب‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ Wādi Malāḥa
53 ‫רחב‬ Rḥb Rehob ‫ة‬ٛ‫هؽ‬ Raḥub
54 ‫דמשק‬ Dmsq / Dmshq Damascus ‫َك ََِك‬ Damasq

*****

64
CHAPTER II

Tribal Homes

65
In this chapter, we will make an in-depth analysis of the territories of two Israelite tribes, namely
Issachar and Zebulun, in order to get a more complete picture of the deceptive Orientalist
interpretation of the Old Testament. This rampant interpretation succeeded in consolidating, in
the awareness of the masses, a fraudulent account of Palestine‟s history, and enforcing an old
rabbinical connection with Palestine that began as far back as the 4th Century BC, when
a substantial Jewish community was settled in the country. As we did in our previous book,
wherein we located the true territories of the tribes of Benjamin (Bin Yāmin) and Simeon
(Sam„ūn), we will analyze the Biblical text by comparing it to passages from al-Hamadāni‟s
gazetteer, Description of Arabia, as well as verses from Arabian poetry.

 Coincidences (55-64): Issachar

Here follows is the relevant passage from the Book of Joshua, which designates the various
locations within the territory of the tribe referred to in the Old Testament as Issachar:

And the fourth lot came out to Issachar, for the children of Issachar according to their
clans. And their inheritance was Jezrael and Casaloth and Sunem, And Hapharaim, and Sion,
and Anaharath. And Rabbith, and Kishion, and Abez. And Ramat and En-Gannim and En-
Haddah and Beth-Pazzez. And their border reached to Tabor, and Shahazimah, and Beth-
Shemesh; and ended at the Jordan: sixteen towns and their hamlets (Joshua 19: 17-22).

Before we reveal to you the depth of the Orientalist fraud, it is worth noting that the rampant
Arabic translations of the Bible render the name of this tribe as Yaskar. It is our view that the
correct Arabic rendering is actually Shakar. Besides the fact that the s and sh sounds are
interchangeable, and were often substituted for each other in the old dialects, there is a story in
Islamic folklore that has some ring of truth to it, and is worth taking into consideration.

55) Issachar:

According to both Ibn Hishām (4:234) and Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (3:404), two of the most prominent
authorities on the seerah (biography) of the prophet Muḥammad (P), there is an account related
to the spread of Islam in Yemen that goes as such:

A Yemenite by the name of Ṣard bin „Abdullah al-Azadi, of the tribe of Azad (Asad) came to the
Prophet one day, to swear fealty and declare his embracing of the faith. Impressed by the man‟s
sincerity and apparent wisdom, the Prophet (P) sent Ṣard as an emissary to Jurush, a city known
to harbor a substantial population from among the Bani Shakar. Unfortunately, the people of
Jurush did not heed Ṣard‟s call, and caused him some hardship. When news of the Jurushites‟
defiance reached Muḥammad, the Prophet enquired of some of his companions: “Where in
Allah‟s land is the country of Shakar”?

66
According to the commentators, the Prophet asked the question not because he was ignorant of
the tribe itself, but because of the wide dispersal of its homes. This fact became more apparent
later on, as the followers of Muḥammad (P) strove to spread the message of the deen and fought
their earliest battles with the tribes of Yemen. They experienced, first hand, the difficulty of their
mission, and began to comprehend the complex and intricate structure of some of the tribes of
Yemen, whose clans were widely scattered over vast territories, their homes dispersed
throughout the mountainous country. This pattern of tribal settlement posed a serious problem to
the early standard bearers of the faith, and stood as an obstacle in the face of the propagation of
the divine message. Despite this, the people of Yemen, builders of a civilization as old as human
history, and whose culture was familiar with monotheism from the most ancient of times,
embraced the faith in large numbers, as the chronicles tell us.

The ruins of the ancient and forgotten city of Jurush lie today in the southernmost reaches of the
„Aseer province of Saudi Arabia, near the city of Abha which, until the early 1930‟s, was
actually part of Yemen, before its annexation by the Saudis. The vestiges of Jurush came under
the spotlight in the year 2011, when a joint team of Saudi and American archeologists uncovered
an ancient military fort there, built with stones rivaling in size those of the Egyptian pyramids.
During Prophet Muḥammads‟ time, Jurush was the tribal capital of Bani Shakar. However, the
city was not their only domain, as clans of the same tribe lived in the wilderness of the Jawf area
of Yemen, and some were settled as far as the Ḥaḍramawt Valley. Thus, the question “Where in
Allah‟s land is Shakar” was a well-founded one (regardless of whether or not the Prophet
actually said those words, as that is not the point of the story).

These people had no relation to Palestine whatsoever, but were in fact a Yemeni tribe. The Old
Testament, for some reason, recorded their name as one of the tribes of Israel; an ancient, South
Arabian people who, at one point in time, embraced the creed of the patriarchs Abraham (P) and
Moses (P); a creed that has absolutely no connection to the Talmudic Judaism being marketed
today as the religion of the so-called “State of Israel”.

Within the framework of a diseased Orientalist imagination, the Biblical city of Jurush was
fraudulently projected onto the Levant (Jordan in particular). The haphazardness and chaos of
this projection resulted in the utter failure of the Biblical scholars to find any trace of a tribe
called Issachar-Yaskar in the area, during Joshua‟s time. Of course, there is indeed an old city
called Jurush in Jordan (vocalized as Jaresh), but it is not the Jurush of Issachar mentioned in the
Old Testament and in Islamic folklore. (See our previous book, Road of the Patriarch, page 60
and the footnote on page 71).

On the contrary, all the evidence indicates that the clans belonging to the tribe of Shakar, whose
name is rendered as Yashkar (or Yaskar) in the old South Arabian dialects, were alive and well in
Yemen from as far back as the day when the Old Testament was being recorded (around 700
BC), to the time of the prophet Muḥammad (P). And the famous Yemeni poet of the so-called

67
“Jāhiliyyah Era”, known as al-Mukhabbal al-Yashkuri, was a living, breathing testament to this
fact, and his poetry features in the folk ballads of the region, even today.

It is for this reason that a careful analysis of the passage in Joshua which assigned the territories
of Issachar*, reveals just how widely dispersed their tribal domains were (more so than any other
of the twelve tribes).

Picture #21: Vestiges of the ancient city of Jurush in the „Aseer province (Saudi Arabia).

Picture #22: Section of the wall fortification discovered in 2011, showing a bull wrestling with a lion.

We will analyze ten locations pertaining to the tribe of Issachar herein. As for the remaining
locations, we will look into them in our upcoming fourth book, wherein we will make an in-
depth study of the homes of Biblical Israel‟s greatest and mightiest tribe, Judah (Hūdha-
Yahūdha), whose geographical domain was so vast, that it overlapped with and encompassed
homes of several other tribes, due to the territorial system of ḥuqūq that we discussed in our
previous book.
______________________________________________________________________________
* The name is written ‫ יששכר‬in Aramaic, which actually spells Yshkr. An alternate (and acceptable) rendering is
Yskr. Whether these people were true Israelites, or simply widely-scattered clans which the Biblical scribes decided
to name as one of the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, nor is it ultimately relevant to the purpose of our research.

68
56, 57) Sion / Jezreel:

For the sake of convenience, we have chosen Sion as our first location. This name appears as
Shion in some translations, which is acceptable, taking into account that s and sh were
interchangeable. This unique name has baffled Biblical scholars for decades, as they turned the
Palestinian terrain inside out in search for it. Even Kamāl Ṣaleebi failed to produce any evidence
for it in his search for Biblical Israel deep within the „Aseer Province of Saudi Arabia. It is none
other than the city of Say‟ūn, located in the province of Ḥaḍramawt (see the map at the end of
this section). Poet Ibn Muqbil mentions this township in one of his poems, and places it near
Adhru„, in the following verse:

‫ هوتٌ تغاٌىَا‬ٚ‫ّخ أ‬١ٍ‫هوتٌ ث‬ ُ

‫ب‬ٌٙ َُّ ‫أَِذ تأر ُسع أوجب ٍك فَؾ‬

There indeed is the Biblical Say‟ūn, the road to which Ibn Muqbil described as passing through
Adhru„, which in turn is the Biblical Jezreel. The name of the latter location appears as ‫יזרעאלה‬,
in Aramaic script, which actually spells Yazra„eel (note the „ayn letter). There is no j letter in the
name. The “Hebrew” word azr„ is the plural of zira„, which means “arm” (being that Hebrew
does not vocalize the dh sound, as Arabic does). The Arabic rendering is hence adhru„. The
Bible named the place Yazra‟eel, by inserting the -el suffix that was often added to proper nouns
in the old dialects of Yemen, to bestow a holy or sacred quality to certain names.

Is it by pure coincidence that an Arab poet placed these two locations side by side, within the
Ḥaḍramawt province, as Joshua did?

58) Sunem:

This name appears as either Shunem or Sunem, which is understandable. In the Arabic copies of
the Old Testament, it is inaccurately rendered as Sūnām (with a prolonged waw, rather than the
dialectic ḍammah mark abobe the s). The more correct rendering of the name is Sunum. Al-
Hamadāni speaks of a place called Yasnum, which he places within what he calls Balad Shāker
(the Country of the tribe of Shāker), in the province of Khūlan. Here is the passage in DoA
(pages 163,164):

.‫ أٍِؼ ِٓ تهذ شاكش‬ٟٔ‫ أكا‬ٚ ‫لهح‬

َ ‫ً َع‬١َ‫ ف‬... ْ‫ال‬ٛ‫ اٌقبٔك ِٓ ثٍل ف‬ٟ‫الْ صُ رقوط ف‬ٛ‫ ك ِّبط ِٓ أهض ف‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬،‫ تهذ شاكش‬ٟ‫ غوث‬ٚ
.‫ ٌغُُى‬ٚ ... ‫ اٌووت‬ٚ ... ‫ ٔؾوك‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ِٓ ‫صتُّ ثؤٍفً اٌؾوثب‬٠ ‫ً وزبف‬١ٍ ‫ب ثبٌفمبهح‬ٙ١‫ ٌم‬ٚ

There, in the country of Shāker, is Sunum-Yasnum (as in Karb-Yakrb, Būs-Yabūs, „Arb-Ya‟rb,

Shakar-Yashkar, and so on…).

69
59) En-Haddah:

The term En is an innacurate English transliteration of the Aramaic ‫עין‬, which actually spells
„ayn. Wherever this word appears in the Old Testament, it indicates a body of water, such as
a pond or a small lake. Thus, Joshua speaks of a particular place known as „Ayn Ḥadah (the
Aramaic spelling is actually with the letter ḥ, not h). Based on our knowledge of historic
Palestine, we can say for certain that its territory has never known a place by that name. On the
other hand, old Arabian poetry sang of this pond and rendered its name as Ḥadd. Here is
a verse by Ibn al-A„rābi:

ِ ٍّ‫ َػ‬ٚ ‫ٍذ ِٓ ياء ح َّذ‬َٙٔ ‫ٌمل‬

‫ذ‬ ‫وح‬١‫ وض‬َٟ ‫ب وبٔذ ٌمبؽ‬ّٙٔ‫ أ‬ٍٛ‫ف‬

The poet describes the place as mā‟ Ḥadd (meaning: the waters of Ḥadd), wherein mā‟ is the
general term often used in poetry to describe any basin in a wilderness place. The poet wished
that he could lead his camels to the pond so the beasts could be refreshed.

Al- Hamadāni‟s description of Mikhlāf Radā„, west of Dhamar, is quite expansive and thorough.
We have chosen certain passages from the pages he devoted to the rich and fertile Mikhlāf,
which we feel are worth some scrutiny. On page 203 of his Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni
states the following:

‫ىبك‬٠ ‫ ال‬ٚ .‫ عُوح ثٍل اٌؾلا‬ٞ‫ ثٍل م‬ٌٝ‫ِبْ ا‬ٛ‫ و‬ٍٟ‫ص‬٠ ٚ ،‫ صٕبثؼ‬ٚ ، ‫ عهًح‬ٚ ‫ ُ٘ ِٓ صوف‬ٚ ْ‫ِب‬ٛ‫ب و‬ٕٙ‫َى‬٠ ‫اٍغ‬ٚ ‫ِبْ ثٍل‬ٛ‫ و‬ٚ
... ِٟ‫ اٌَجغ ثبٌو‬ٍٝ‫ُ ػ‬ٙ‫لفً ثٍل اٌؾلا ٍج ٌغ ٌن٘بث‬٠

Further along, on page 208, we come across this passage:

.‫ حذّا‬ٚ ٜ‫ّٗ اٌصغو‬٠‫ ه‬ٚ ‫ ٍّؼ‬ٚ ْ‫ٗ ِؾفو اٌجموا‬١‫ف‬ٚ ،ٌٔ‫ َهِغ عجً أ‬ٌٝ‫صُتُّ ا‬٠ ٞ‫ اٌ ّْغجَخ اٌن‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ٌٝ‫بْ ا‬ٌٙ‫ ا‬ٌٟ‫ُصب‬٠ ‫ ِّب‬ٚ

Note the names Zūf (first highlighted term), Salmah (second) and Ḥaddā (third). The legendary
historian and geographer of Yemen locates these three places within Mikhlāf Radā„, the very
same province in which lies the Biblical Beer-Sheba. He also designates the wilderness around
Zūf and Salmah (the very same Biblical mountain called Salmah that Solomon “fell in love
with”), as home territories of Bani Kūmān. This Zūf that al-Hamadāni speaks of is none other
than the Biblical Zuph, mentioned in the Book of Samuel:

Now there was a certain man of Ramataim, a Zuphite of the hill-country of Ephraim, named
Elkanah; he was the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an
Ephraimite (1st Samuel 1:1).

Incidently, note how Samuel speaks of the Ramataim (plural word meaning the inhabitants of
a place called Ramat) as being connected to Zuph. This leads us to the next location within the
territories of Issachar:

70
60) Ramat:

The original “Hebrew” language did not vocalize the th sound, and hence rendered it as t.
Consequently, the name Ramat is actually Ramath, a place that the poet Mukhabbal al-Yashkuri
(by coincidence?) sings of. Here is the verse:

ُٓ‫ ظؼبئ‬ٜٛ‫ ل‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ٚ‫تزي انشيس أ‬ ‫ب ُء ِٓ اٌصَّجب‬١‫ال اٌؾ‬ٌٛ ٟٕ‫ٌمل ّبل‬

It seems that the name Dhū Ramath is associated with an acidic plant known as ramath, which
grows in certain regions of the Arabian wilderness, and which camels often feed on. Another
poet, Aws bin Ḥijr, also laments on his memories of the place:

ُ‫ رُجبٌخ ِمِٕت‬ٞ‫اك‬ٚ ِٓ ‫تزي انشيس‬ ٓ‫ ُى‬٠ ٌُ ٚ ‫صٍؼ انذُّياض‬

ُّ ٌ‫ ا‬ٍٝ‫زُُ ػ‬١‫ثى‬

According to the above verse, Ramath is situated near the valleys of Tubālah and al-Dumāj,
which can be located today on the easternmost fringes of the province of Ṣa„dah (northern
Yemen), and directly to the west of the country of the Shāker Tribe, in the Jawf area of Yemen.
In fact, this is exactly what al-Hamadāni tells us, which is further evidence of how accurate the
poets were in describing the wilderness places. Here is the passage from DoA (page 163):

.ْ‫ال‬ٛ‫ اٌقبٔك ِٓ ثٍل ف‬ٟ‫الْ صُ رقوط ف‬ٛ‫ د ّياض ِٓ أهض ف‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬،‫ تهذ شاكش‬ٟ‫ غوث‬ٚ

Yet another poet, Zuhayr bin Judhaymah, sings of this place, and names it simply Ramath
(without the dhū term):

‫ٌلا‬ٚ ٌٗ ًٌ‫ ٌُ ر ُىٓ ّؤ‬ٌٛ ‫تانشيس‬ ‫ل َؼزَٕب‬َٚ َٛ٠ ً‫وا‬١٘‫ً٘ وبْ ٍَ َّو ُى‬

In his book Glossary of Countries (3:77), Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi comments on Ramath in particular,
and mentions the Yemenis‟ tendency to add the term dhū to proper nouns (whether names of
locations or historical kings / heroes). In fact, this linguistic trend is among what identifies
Yemeni culture*.

How can we explain these occurrences? How is it possible that the Old Testament associates the
tribe of Issachar with Ramat, Zuph, En-Hadah, and Sunum, while the geographers and poets of
Yemen associate Shakar (Yashkar) with Ramath, Zūf, „Ayn Ḥaddā, and Yasnum? Could it be
that the truth regarding the theater of the Biblical stories has been right under our noses for
centuries but we have been blinded from seeing it?

______________________________________________________________________________
* A quick scan of the list of the kings of ancient Saba‟ (Sheba) and Ḥimyar will reval names such as Dhū Raydān,
Dhū Jayḥān, Dhu‟l Ādhār, Dhū Yazn, Dhū Nawwās, to name a few… The Qur‟ān also mentions Dhu‟l Kifl [21:85]
who is possibly Ezekiel, while Dāwūd (David) is given the title of Dhu‟l Ayd [38:17]. This is very conclusive proof
that David was a semi legendary figure from Yemen‟s distant past, and that the Qur‟ān used titles its audience were
very familiar with.

71
61) Abez:

In the silent (vowel-less) Aramaic text, the name is spelled ‫אבץ‬, which would be vocalized as
Abṣ (with a ṣad letter). The Orientalist translations rendered the name as Abez, because most
European dialects are unfamiliar with the ṣ sound. (This is comparable to Mṣrm-Mzrm). In our
view, the correct Arabic rendering is actually Abḍ (or Abāḍ, with the long a vowel and with the
ḍaḍ consonant, a letter that is unique to the Arabic dialect). In his Glossary of Countries (1:81),
geographer al-Ḥamwi quotes a poet by the name of Shabeeb bin Yazeed:

َِ ‫ ٌىو أتاض ام ػزب وًُّ ُِ َغ ّو‬ٚ ِ ٌَّٕ‫َ ا‬ٛ٠ َََْٕٛ‫أر‬

‫ؼف ٔؼفَ ثُياف ٍخ‬

Note how the poet mentions Yawmu Abāḍ; meaning the Day (Battle) of Abāḍ. Another poet,
„Amr bin Kalthūm displays spectacular accuracy in his mention of the place:

‫ثو‬ٚ
ِ ُ‫ثغٕت ػُىٌشض أٍواة‬ ّ
‫ ًَ أٍفً ِٓ أتاض‬١‫وؤْ اٌق‬

The above verse places Abāḍ in the vicinity of another place called „Uwayriḍ (second highlited
word). This is actually a poetic rendering of the name „Arḍ, which Ibn Kalthūm used as an
expression of his endearment of the place. Let‟s see what al-Hamadāni wrote in DoA (page 254):

ْ‫َبه مٌه اٌْؼجزب‬٠ ٓ‫ ػ‬ٚ ،‫ْىو‬٠ ٟٕ‫ٓ ٌج‬١‫ صُ اٌمٍز‬،‫ تًُ ٌشكش‬ٜ‫ لو‬ٜ‫ب اٌمو‬ٌّٙٚ ‫ فؤ‬،ٞ‫ ػَل‬ٟٕ‫ ػوض ث‬،‫ ثطٓ انؼشض‬ٟ‫صُ روعغ ف‬
.‫ صُ أتاض‬... ‫ْىو‬٠ ٟٕ‫صً ٌج‬ٌّٛ‫ ثطٓ اٌؼوض فب‬ٌٝ‫ صُ روعغ ا‬،ً‫ف ُّصؼلا‬

In the above startling passage, the great geographer of Yemen places Abāḍ near „Arḍ, just as
poet Ibn Kalthūm did, and both locations within the territories of Bani Shāker (incidentally, note
that he renders the name as Bani-Yashkar in this particular passage). Yashkar-Shakar and Shāker
are one and the same, obviously, and this is dictated by the Yemeni dialects. The author uses the
three versions of the name freely and without any constraints. This cannot be due to pure
coincidence, dear reader. The explanation, as astonishing as it may seem, is that Joshua and al-
Hamadāni were describing the same territory.

62) Beth-Pazzez:

This name was particularly troublesome for the Orientalists. In the various translations of the Old
Testament, the name features as Beth-Pazzez, Bethpezzez or, as in the case of the Douay Rheims
Bible, Bethpheses. This last rendering is actually the most accurate, because it is the closest to
the silent Aramaic ‫ בת פצץ‬, which spells Bt Phṣṣ (with two ṣad letters). It is also worth noting
that modern Hebrew, because of the influence of the German Yiddish dialect, renders the ph (or f
sound) as p. For example, the Hebrew word for “clan” or “family” is mishpaht (with the p and h
sounds). This is how the European Jews pronounce it. The more accurate pronunciation is
mishfaḥt-misfaḥt (with the f and ḥ sounds), which is how the Jews of Yemen vocalize the word.
The letter p is not voiced in the so-called “semitic” languages, which is proof that the “Hebrew”

72
we know today is a language that was fabricated from scratch by the European Zionists (please
refer to our previous book, Road of the Patriarch, wherein we exposed to you the true origin of
the term “Hebrew”).

The correct rendering of this name, as we see it, is Bayt Faḍāḍ (with the ḍaḍ letter), sometimes
rendered as Faḍeeḍ. The following is a verse for the poet Qays bin al-„Eezar (pertaining to the
clan known in Yemen today as al-„Ayāzirah):

‫لغ‬ِٛ ًّ‫ َو ػٓ و‬١‫ اٌط‬ٟ‫ٕف‬٠ ََٓ‫ثؤهػ‬ ‫ّفبرُٕب‬١ّ ‫ َهكَْ انفضاض لجٍٕب‬َٚ

Geographer al-Bakri, in his Glossary (entry 1025), attributes the above verse to Qays bin-
Khuwaylid*. Whatever the case, the verse itself indicates that Faḍāḍ is a place known for its
streams, wherein the water current is so slow that birds are naturally repulsed from it. On the
other hand, Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (4:303) tells us that there is some uncertainty as to whether the
name should be rendered Faḍaḍ or Faḍeeḍ. In either case, he defines the word as a river valley
in which the water flows sluggishly. This fits perfectly with the Biblical naming of the place as
Bet-Pheṣeṣ, knowing that the term bayt has been used by Yemenis for thousands of years to
designate a valley that was home to a tribe.

63) Kishion:

The name appears as either Kishion or Kision in the rampant translations, both of which are
innacurate. If we ignore the vowels, which the Masorites added to the text starting from the 7th
Century AD, we find that the name, in the silent Aramaic text, is written ‫קשן‬. This actually spells
Qshn (with the letter q, not k). The adjusted Arabic name, in our view, would be Qusyān (not
Qasyūn, as the rampant Orientalist Arabic translations of the Bible rendered it).

Arabic poetry also happens (by “coincidence”, of course) to know of a place within the territory
of Bani Tameem, not far from the tribal homes of Yashkar in northern Yemen, called Qusyān.
Poet Tameem ibn Muqbil mentions this place in the following verse:

ََٓ ‫ ال َؽ‬ٚ ‫ ٍء‬ٍٛ ِٓ َْ‫ أً٘ روثب‬ٟ‫ف‬ ‫ ِب ػٍِّذ‬ٚ ‫هَّد‬ٚ‫ٍَمَذ لُغٍاٌُ فبى‬

Another poet, whose name al-Ḥamwi neglects to mention, sings a sad hymn to this place:

ٟٔ‫ا‬ٌٛ‫هع ا‬ٌٛ‫ٍخ ا‬١ِ‫ىٓ ثبٌي‬٠ ٌُ ٚ ُ

ٌ‫د تمغٍا‬ٌٛٙ َٛ٠
ٍ ً‫أال هُة‬

______________________________________________________________________________
* We remind you, dear Arabic reader, that it is possible to verify all the verses of poetry we are resorting to as
references, by simply copy-pasting each verse into an Internet search bar.

73
64) En-Gannim:

The Aramaic word ‫גנם‬, which spells gnnm, is the plural form of gnn. This is in fact the Arabic
equivalent of the word ginn (or jinn). The Masoretes placed vowels in the name, and rendered it
as ‫( גנים‬gannim, the plural of gan). Hence, En-Gannim is none other than „Ayn Jinn, a mountain
pond or oasis mentioned, by name, in Arabian poetry. Here is a verse from al-Nābighah al-
Ja„diy:

‫ُوا‬ّٙ‫ف أ‬١‫ٓ عّبك انعٍِّ ثبٌص‬١‫ ث‬ٚ ٍ ‫ٓ ػبم‬١‫ب فو ٌك فال ث‬ٌٙ ّ‫أّت‬
‫ة‬

The poet is describing the waters of al-Jinn when they are so still, so at to seem solid, like
crystal, calling them Jimād al-Jinn. Al-Bakri, in his Glossary* (entries 672 and 910) states the
following:

ّ
.‫ْىو‬٠ ٟٕ‫به ث‬٠‫اٌغٓ ِٓ ك‬ ‫عّبك‬

Translation: Jimād al-Jinn is within the home territory of Bani Yashkar.

This passage needs no further comments.

The Jordan?

One of the most spectacular cases of fraud perpetrated by the Orientalist translations, is their
interpretation of the term ‫( הירדן‬h-yrdn), which appears in the Aramaic text, as “The Jordan”,
a country by the same name in the Levant. The result of this interpretation (no doubt influenced
by the false Masoretic articulation of the texts), was the creation of a mythical kingdom ruled by
David, whose boundaries stretched from Iraq, all the way to the Nile of Egypt, and encompassed
the territories of both Jordan and Palestine. This kingdom (more akin to an empire, actually) of
which there is not a single shred of evidence in any Babylonian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, or
Phoeniocian inscription, nor any archeological or historical source known to man, was the
product of a diseased imagination obsessed with the Orient, and in particular the Levant (the
Fertile Crescent). Thus, the mythical empire of David was planted in the beliefs of the masses, of
various faiths and creeds, and marketed as a reality.

The truth of the matter, dear reader, is that the term h-yrdn is not even a proper noun. Several
scholars have pointed out this fact, among them Professor Bernard Leeman, in his book entitled
Queen of Sheba and Biblical Israel, where he affirms that the “Hebrew” word yrdn is
a common noun that simply means ridge or escarpment. This can be confirmed by resorting to
any Aramaic glossary or dictionary. Hence, the passage in (Joshua 19) is simply telling us that
a certain string of locations belonging to the tribe of Issachar began in a place called Tabor, and
______________________________________________________________________________
* Al-Bakri‟s Glossary (Mu„jam al-Bakri) is not be confused with the Glossary of Countries (Mu„jam al-Buldān) by
Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi.

74
ended at the escarpment (h-yrdn), which is the great, cliff-like fault line that separates the Najd
Highlands of Arabia from the Sarāt Mountain range. This escarpment stretches almost
continuously for about 1000 km, starting from just south of the current city of Makkah, in the
Ḥijāz, all the way to the coast of „Adan in Yemen. Not once in the entire Biblical text is h-yrdn
mentioned in the context of being a river in the Levant; a fact that has always puzzled scholars
(the “Hebrew” word for river happens to be nahr, as it is in Arabic).

A more thorough analysis of the Biblical terms h-yrdn, krkmsh, m‟ab, and phrt will be made in
our upcoming fourth book.

Here follows is a list of the “coincidences” encountered in this section:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

55 ‫יששכר‬ Yshkr Issachar ‫ْىو‬٠ / ‫ّىو‬ Shakar / Yashkar

56 ‫שיאן‬ Shi‟n Sion / Shion ْٚ‫ؤ‬١ٍ Say‟ūn
57 ‫יזרעאל‬ Yzr„el Jezreel ‫أمهع‬ Adhru„
58 ‫שנם‬ Shnm Sunem / Shunem َُٕ٠ / ٍُٕ Sunum / Yasnum
59 ‫עין חדה‬ „Ayn Ḥdh En-Haddah ‫ ؽ ّلا‬/ ‫ؽ ّل‬ Ḥadd / Ḥaddā
60 ‫רמת‬ Ramat Rameth ‫ هِش‬/ ‫ هِش‬ٚ‫م‬ Ramath
61 ‫אבץ‬ Abṣ Abez ‫أثبض‬ Abāḍ
62 ‫בת פצץ‬ Bet Phṣṣ Beth-Pezez ‫ط‬١‫ فع‬/ ‫فعبض‬ Faḍāḍ / Faḍeeḍ
63 ‫קשן‬ Qshn Kishion / Kision ْ‫ب‬١َ‫ل‬ Qusyān
64 ‫עין גנים‬ „Ayn Gannim En-Gannim ّ ٓ١‫ػ‬
ٓ‫ع‬ „Ayn Ginn

By noting the locations of Say‟un, Jurush, Ṣa„dah, and the Jawf region on the map below, we can
get a rough picture as to how widely dispersed the tribal homes of Issachar (Yashkar) were.

Map #4: Territories belonging to the tribe of Issachar.

75
  Coincidences (65-80): Zebulun

The Tribe of Zebulun was associated with a territory that the Arab poets referred to as Arḍ
Zubālah, as we will see later on. The silent Aramaic construction of the name is Zbl; rendered as
Zbln, by adding the -n suffix that was a characteristic of the dialects of ancient Yemen. Here
follows is the passage in the Book of Joshua which assigned the territories of this small tribe.

And the third lot came up for the children of Zebulun according to their families; and the
border of their inheritance was unto Sarid; and their border went up westward, even to
Maralah, and reached to Dabbesheth; and it reached to the brook that is before Jokneam;
And turned from Sarid eastward toward the sunrise unto the border of Chisloth-Tabor, and
then goeth out to Daberath, and goeth up to Japhea. And from there it goes on east to Gath-
Hepher, to Ittah-Kazin; ending at Rimmon and Amthar, as far as Noah; and the border
turned about it on the north to Hannathon; and the goings out thereof were at the valley of
Iphtah-El; And Kattath, and Nahlel, and Semeron, and Idalah, and Bethlehem: twelve cities
with their villages (Joshua 19:10-16).

65) Sarid:

The name of the first location features as Sarid or Sharid, depending on the translation (most
translations actually render it with an s, rather than sh). The silent Aramaic name is simply srd-
shrd and this is precisely how the Arab poets rendered it. Al-Shanfari wrote:

‫ ثو ِك‬ٚ‫ وَب ٍء ِٓ ٍالِبْ أ‬ٞ‫ م‬ٍٝ‫ػ‬ َّ ْ‫ أ‬ٜٛ٘‫ أل‬ٟٔ‫ا‬

ٟ‫أٌف ػغبعــــــــــز‬
‫غـــشد‬ ُ ٍٍُ‫ أ‬ٚ
ّ ‫ ان‬ٚ ‫ٓ أهفب َؽ‬١‫ه خال ث‬ ُُٙ‫ ٍوار‬ٟ‫ اٌؼصلاء أثغ‬ٜ‫ ٌل‬ِْٟ‫ أ‬ٚ

The intricate map drawn by the above verses includes a mountain range known as Khāl (first
highlighted word), which is in the vicinity of Sard (second word). It just so happens that al-
Hamadāni places Sarāt al-Khāl as being on the fringe of the territory of the tribe of Shakar-
Yashkar, which shared borders with Zebulun is certain places. Here is the passage from DoA
(page 131):

ِٓ ً‫هُ٘ لجبئ‬ٛ‫ غ‬ٚ ،‫ فبٌل‬ٕٛ‫ ث‬ٚ ،‫ ِٓ األىك‬،‫هُ٘ ثبهق صُ ٍواح ٔبء‬ٛ‫ غ‬ٚ ،ُ‫ ٔغلُ٘ب فَض َؼ‬،‫ ٍواح اٌؾغو‬ٚ ،‫٘ب ٍواح ػٕي‬ٍٛ‫ز‬٠ ُ‫ص‬
.‫ صُ عشاج انخال نشكش‬،‫األىك‬

In the Glossary of Al-Bakri (entry 138), we read the following passage regarding Sard:

.ُ٠‫ّٓ اٌمل‬١ٌ‫ ا‬ٚ ْ‫ ٍُىبْ ػُّب‬،‫ األىك‬ٟٕ‫ ثالك ث‬ٟ‫اْ انغشد عجً ف‬

Translation: Al-Sard is a mountain in the country of Azad (Bani Asad), inhabitants of ancient
„Oman and Yemen.

This is perfectly in line with the geographical location of the mountain, which lies in the south of
Yemen, near the Yāfi„ highlands, not far from „Adan. This leads us to the next locations.

76
66, 67) Japhea, Nahleel:

According to both Joshua and al-Hamadāni, the tribe of Zebulun lived in a geographical region
that stretched from Yāfi„ to the Sarāt of Azad and Sarāt al-Khāl, and travelers on that road can
pass by a place called Sard, just as the poet describes. Where in Palestine do we find such
a geography?

Let‟s see what al-Hamadāni wrote in DoA (pages 182, 183):

‫ف‬ٚ‫نٖ أهض ى‬ٙ‫ ف‬.‫ٍػ أهض صوف‬ٚ ٟ‫ ُ٘ ف‬ٚ ،‫ل‬١‫ِ ِٓ ُىث‬١‫ ؽج‬ٟٕ‫ و ّياْ ٌج‬ٚ‫ م‬ٚ ‫ صٍذ‬ٚ ،‫ب ههٍم‬ِٕٙ ‫خ‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫اظغ أ‬ٌّٛ‫ْ ٘نٖ ا‬ٚ‫ ك‬ٚ
.‫ك ٌافغ‬ٚ‫ ؽل‬ٌٝ‫اال٘ب ِٓ اٌجالك ا‬ٚ ِٓ ٚ ‫ فّو‬،‫ّٕخ‬١ٌّ‫ ا‬ٟ‫ف‬

The above passage describes a territory that encompasses the valleys of Haleel (which is none
other than the Nhleel of Joshua, after removing the extinct n- prefix*), Ṣayd (which is none other
than the Biblical Sidon**), Zūf (the Zuph - Zoph of Joshua), all the way to the border of Yāfi„
(the Biblical Japhea, whose name in Aramaic is written ‫יפיע‬, which actually spells Yāfi„).

Picture #23: The highlands of Yāfi„, in southern Yemen.

68) Noah:

This troublesome name appears as ‫ נעה‬in the silent Aramaic text, and actually spells n„h (note the
„ayn letter in the middle). It appears that the Masorite scribes, who began articulating the Biblical
text during the 7th Century AD, were unsure of which vowel to insert in the name. As a result,
the term features in the Orientalist translations sometimes as Neah and other times as Noah or
Noa (see Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims Bible). Whatever the case, we can be certain that
neither of the two versions has ever been identified as a place within the territory of Palestine.

______________________________________________________________________________
* The ancient South Arabian dialects, at one point, used the n- and m- prefixes as pronoun articles, which actually
evolved from the earlier h- or ha- prefix, meaning “the”.

** In the Old Testament, the name Sidon is actually written with the ṣad letter (hence Ṣidon). This has nothing to do
with the city of Sidon in Lebanon, which is actually a port on the Mediterranean coast.

77
The correct Arabic rendering is in fact Naw„ah, a place which al-Hamadāni locates, by
“coincidence”, within the country of Bani Azad (Asad), where Sard happens to be. Here is the
passage (DoA, page 186):

ٟ‫ُ ف‬ٙ‫ر‬ٛ‫ كػ‬ٚ ًٚ‫ٌل ك‬ٚ ِٓ ٚ ،‫ صبئل ِٓ األصد‬ٟٕ‫ أغبَ ٌج‬.‫خ‬١‫ ُ٘ ِٓ ٔبع‬ٚ ،‫َو‬١ّ‫ ُ٘ ِٓ ِؽ‬ٚ ،ْ‫ َىػه ٌغوّ ا‬:ْ‫ َهكِب‬ٌٝ‫َه َعغ ا‬
.ًّ‫َع‬

69) Dabbasheth:

The “Hebrew” word dbs-dbsh can mean honey, molasses or syrup. In the Arabic translations of
the Old Testament, this Biblical name features as Dabbashet, whereas the more accurate
rendering is Dubbās. The t letter which appears at the end of the so-called “Hebrew” name
(written ‫ דבשת‬in the Aramaic script, which actually spells Dbsht), reminds us of the famous -t
suffix of the dialects of Yemen, which we talked about previously, and which features in many
of the Ḥimyarite Musnad inscriptions of South Arabia.

According to al-Hamadāni‟s Description of Arabia (page 147), the mountain known as Jabal
Dubbās lies within the Province of Laḥj, in southern Yemen, not far from the coast of „Adan, and
in the vicinity of another peak called Shameer (none other than the Biblical Shamir), and Ḍur„ah
(none other than the Biblical Zorah), in a mountain range called al-Sakāsik. Here is the passage:

‫ دُتاط‬ٚ ... ‫ شًٍش‬ٚ ... ‫ ٍبِغ‬:‫ُ ثؼل مٌه‬ٌٙ ‫ اٌغبِغ‬ٍٛ ّ‫ اٌص‬،‫ة‬ٛ‫ عجبي األّؼ‬ٚ ... ْ‫كا‬ٌَٛ‫ عجً ا‬ٚ ‫ عجً اٌصوكف‬:‫عجبي اٌَىبٍه‬
.‫ضشػح‬ُ ٚ

Note the last highlighted name, which is Ḍur„ah. This place is mentioned in Joshua 19:41 as
being within the territories of the neighboring tribe of Dan. The name is written ‫ צרעה‬in
Aramaic, which actually spells Ṣur„ah (with the ṣād and ‘ayn letters):

And the border of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-Shemesh
(Joshua 19:41).

We will analyze the territories of the Tribe of Dan (the very same Bani Adhān-Dhān of old
Yemeni folklore) in our upcoming fourth book.

The slopes of Mount Dubbās are very famous in Yemen for producing one of the best brands of
honey in the country (hence the mountain‟s name), which rivals the legendary cedar honey of
Ḥaḍramawt (the Biblical Hazarmaveth). This reminds us once again of the depth of the
Orientalist deception, which spoke of a “promised land” flowing with milk and honey; a land
that was imagined and marketed to the world as Palestine.

78
70) Kattath:

The Aramaic text lists this place as ‫קטת‬, with the letters q (qof) and ṭ (ṭaw). Kattath is the
inaccurate English rendering of the name (the letter th is nowhere to be found in the original
name). The adjusted Arabic name is actually Qaṭā (with the long a sound at the end).

Here is a verse by poet al-Akhṭal, referred to in al-Bakri‟s Glossary (entry 1081):

ًُ ‫ ًَ ؽف‬١‫ض انمطا ِٕٗ ِطبف‬ٚ‫ثو‬ ‫ أه َى َِذ‬ٚ ًَّ ‫بد ؽ‬١ٔ‫ ثبٌّؼوٍب‬ٚ

Another poet, Ḥājeb bin Ḥabeeb al-Asadi (of the tribe of Asad, whose territorial domain
encompassed the homes of their ancestors, Bani Zubālah of southern Yemen) said:

ٌ‫هكٖ تحىسا‬ِٛ ْ‫وب‬ٚ َٗ‫ٕزبةُ ِبء لطٍاخ فؤؽٍَف‬٠

In the above verse, he sings of a place he calls Qaṭayāt (which is a flirtatious, female rendering of
Qatā, used for the purpose of poetic structure and expression), and describes a river that flows
within it, whose source happens to be the famous Ḥūrān Vale. This is the same Ḥūrān of Yemen
that the Patriarch Abraham (P) stopped in, on his journey from the land of his ancestors,
somewhere on the outskirts of the Ḥaḍramawt Valley.

Nowhere in historic Palestine do we ever find any trace of such a location.

71) Rimmon:

In the silent Aramaic text, this name appears as ‫רמן‬, which spells Rmn. In the articulated
“Hebrew” scripture, it is rendered as Rammon (similar to Sidon, and Azemon), and as Rammūn
in the Orientalist Arabic translations. Rimmon is a vulgar English translation of the name. Our
view is that the silent Rmn should be adjusted to Rummān, (similar to Qaḥṭān and „Ibrān), not
Rammūn.

Poet Ibn Muqbil said:

‫ ُؼ‬١َ‫ْ ُس ّياٌ أف‬ٚ‫ ٘عتٌ ك‬ٚ ٌَ ‫ِهظب‬ ٗٔٚ‫ً ك‬١ٌٍ‫ق آفو ا‬ ُ

ٍ ‫أهلذ ٌجو‬
According to al-Bakri (entry 674), who commented on the above verse, Rummān is a mountain
that lay within the domain of Ṭay‟ (part of the pagan Fils conglomeration of pagan tribes).

A spectacular description of this same place can be found in the poetry of Abu Ṣakhr al-Hudhliy,
who said:

‫ فّب ّؼ َو اٌَــــفّ ُو‬ٜٛٙ‫ثٗ ثؼط ِٓ ر‬ ٓ‫ـ ُى‬٠ ٌُ ٚ ً‫ال‬١ٌ ‫ٕـــب مان‬٠ٛ‫ا غ‬ٛ‫فمبٌـــ‬
‫ اٌَله‬ٚ ٌ‫ ِٓ ثطٓ ُس ّيا‬ٜ‫ غٍؼ اٌ ُىل‬ٚ ‫ اٌغعب‬ٚ ‫ ُو اٌوِّش‬١‫َزغ‬٠ ً٘ ٍٟ١ٍ‫ف‬ ّ

79
The above verses describe the Rummān Valley as being covered with cedar trees, and agrees
with the early Muslim geographers‟ location of the place in Yemen, not in the Levant.

72, 73) Amthar, Yphtah-El:

Two points must be kept in mind when analyzing the name Amthar. Firstly, the actual Aramaic
text speaks of ‫המתאר‬, which actually spells h-mtar (note the h- article prefix, which corresponds
to al- in Arabic), not Amthar. Secondly, that the spelling is with a t, not a th. The correct Arabic
rendering of the place is al-Matār (with the long a sound). According to Joshua, we can locate
al-Matār in the vicinity of Nhleel (Hleel), Semeron (or Shemeron, as it appears in some
translations) and a third location listed as Iphtaḥ-El (or Yphtaḥ-El). All these locations lie on the
road to Japhea.

Take a close look, dear reader, at the following passage from DoA (pages 182-186), which
describes a single domain, centered around Yāfi„:

‫ هعغ‬... ‫ك ٌافغ‬ٚ‫ ؽل‬ٌٝ‫اال٘ب ِٓ اٌجالك ا‬ٚ ‫ ِب‬ٚ ‫نٖ أهض صوف‬ٙ‫ ف‬... ‫ب ههٍم‬ِٕٙ ‫خ‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫اظغ أ‬ٌّٛ‫ْ ٘نٖ ا‬ٚ‫ ك‬ٚ ... ٗ‫ ِٕج‬ٟٕ‫انًراس ٌج‬
ٌ‫ حىسا‬... ْ‫ َىػح ٌغُوا‬:ْ‫ هكِب‬ٌٝ‫ هعغ ا‬... ‫ح‬ٚ‫ ػو‬ٟٕ‫ انًفرح ٌج‬... ‫ اٌّْوق‬ٌٝ‫عٗ ِٓ هكاع ا‬ٚ‫َوح ػٕل فو‬١ٌّ‫ موو ا‬ٌٝ‫ا‬
.‫ انحعهح‬ٚ ‫ٕخ‬٠‫ لب‬ٚ ‫ سواف‬ٚ

Note the number of “coincidences” above: al-Hamadāni places Haleel, Zūf, Yāfi„, al-Maftaḥ,
Naw„ah, Ḥūrān, and Rawāf within the same territory. Bearing in mind the tendency of the
ancient Yemenis to add the prefix y- and/or the suffix -el to proper nouns, the assumption that
Yiftaḥ-el is none other than al-Maftaḥ mentioned by al-Hamadāni suddenly seems very logical,
and the realization that Joshua spoke of Nhleel, Zoph, Japhea, Yphtaḥ-el, No‟a and Rephaim as
being part of the same geographical space suddenly becomes very clear, and that these places are
not far from Wādi Ḥūrān and al-Ḥujlah (the Biblical Hoglah).

74 - 76) Jokneam, Semeron, Ittah-Kazin:

The name Jokneam is an innacurate rendering of the Aramaic ‫יקנעם‬, which actually spells yqn„m
(note the letters qof and ‘ayn). Because the name is difficult to vocalize by most Europeans, it
was rendered as Jokneam in the Orientalist translations. This word is the plural of qn„ - yqn„.
Here is another interesting passage from al-Hamadāni‟s Description (page 255), where he goes
on describing the chain of locations pertaining to the tribe of Azad, as well as the neighboring
Yashkar, within a region that, during his day and age, was called al-Yamāmah (not to be
confused with a region in Saudi Arabia bearing the same name):

ًٍ‫ اٌَال‬ٟ٘ ٚ ،‫ انؼصاػس‬ٌٝ‫ اٌْمبق ا‬ٚ ‫ اٌلٕ٘بء صُ رقوط ِٓ اٌغجبي‬ٟ‫ صُ رؤفن ف‬،‫ت‬ٍٙ ‫ أهض‬ٛ٘ ٚ ‫ صُ انغًشا‬ّٛ ‫صُ رمطغ ثطٓ ل‬
‫ّبِخ‬١ٌ‫ ا‬ٝ‫ ٘نٖ ِفع‬ٚ .‫ اٌوٍِخ‬ٚ ‫ اٌمبع‬ٝ‫ انمُغ ِفع‬ٚ .ًِ‫ لُغ اٌو‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٛ٘ ٚ ‫ اٌقوط‬ٚ ‫ّبِخ‬١ٌ‫ ِٓ ا‬ٜ‫ صُ أٍفً ِٓ مٌه اٌمُو‬...

80
ُ‫ ص‬... ‫ ماد ٔصت أٍفً اٌؼوِخ‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟ‫فع‬٠ ٗٔ‫ فب‬،َ‫غ األثون إٌؼب‬ٌَٛ‫ ثطٓ ا‬ٟ‫ ف‬،‫اؽل‬ٚ ‫خ ِفعب٘ب‬٠‫ك‬ٚ‫ ٘نٖ األ‬ٚ ‫ لالع‬ٚ ْٛ‫ؽص‬
‫ لشٌح تًُ عذوط‬... ‫خ‬٠‫ه اٌؼوض فزوك اٌمو‬١ٍ‫ؾجٌ ػ‬٠ ٚ ‫ هأً اٌؼبهض‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟ‫ صُ رّع‬.‫ تًُ ٌشكش‬ٜ‫ لو‬:‫ ثطٓ اٌؼوض‬ٟ‫روعغ ف‬
.‫ فإنى سيهح كصهح‬،‫ و هً لشٌح ظٍذج و فٍها لصش عهًٍاٌ تٍ داوود يثًُ يٍ انصخش يُحىخ ػعٍة خشاب‬...

Let us analyze the highlighted words and phrases in the above passage. Al-Hamadāni mentions
an elevated steppe (prairieland) called al-Samrā, which is in the vicinity of Qan„. Also, he speaks
of al-„Athā„ith (second highlighted word; a plural name whose singular form is „ath, or „athah -
with a stressed th sound - which means a sand-covered hillock). As a matter of fact, the Biblical
word ‫„( עתה‬attah) constituted a puzzle to the Orientalists who translated the Bible, so they
simply left it as it is (un-translated), thinking it to be part of the compound name Ittah-Kazin (or
Eth-Kazin, as it appears in some translations). The truth is that the Aramaic word „attah is the
equivalent of the Arabic „athah )‫ ;(ػضّخ‬a descriptive term that was mistakenly translated as being
part of a compound name. It is the sandy hill of Kazin that Joshua mentions, not a place called
Ittah-Kazin. This is an example of how the Orientalist interpreters invented place names within
the “Holy Land” of Palestine, attributing them to an ancient tribe that actually lived in the
highlands of Yemen.

The name Kazin is spelled with the qof and ṣad letters, in the Aramaic text (‫(קצין‬. Its proper
pronunciation is hence Qaṣin. The Arabic equivalent could very well be none other than the
Qaḍeen mentioned by Arab poets.

Here is a lament by Umayyah bin abi-Ṣult:

‫ لضٍُا‬ٞ‫ٕت ام رؾًُّ ثن‬٠‫ٌي‬

َ ُ
‫ٕب‬١ٍٕ ‫د‬ٛ‫ػوفذ اٌلا َه لل أل‬

And a descriptive verse by Ibn al-Dumeenah, mentioning the same place:

‫ لضٍُا‬ٞ‫ م‬ٟ‫ٓ ٍبل‬١‫ اٌَبل‬ٌٝ‫ا‬ ‫ـ‬٠‫ِو‬

ٍ ‫ِٓ إٌَل اٌّمبثً ما‬

Could this valley, nestled netween sandy hillocks, be the Qaṣin of Joshua? Could the sandy plain
of Qan„ mentioned by al-Hamadāni as being near al-Samrā, in a region bordering the territory of
Bani Yashkar, be the Yqn„m of Joshua which is near Semeron in the land of Zebulun, who shared
borders with Issachar?

The last outlined phrase in the quoted passage is worth pondering over. Here is a paraphrase of
what al-Hamadāni says: “the village of Bani Sadūs … a bountiful place in which there is a vestige of
a strange structure carved from stone; the castle of Sulaymān, son of Dāwūd. And from there on to
the sand of Kathlah”.

Where did al-Hamadāni get the notion that King Solomon, whose “empire” was supposedly
centered in Palestine, carved himself a castle out of rock, somewhere in the highlands of Yemen?
Did he hallucinate the place? Or is it perhaps due to the fact that Dāwūd and Sulaymān were
local figures deeply rooted in the folkloric memory of the Yemenis?

81
77) Bethlehem:

The last name in Joshua‟s list of the territories of Zebulun is one that the Orientalists (and their
Zionist successors) like to dwell on. Once we come to terms with the fact that not one of the
locations we mentioned in this section was ever identified in Palestine, the current city of
Bethlehem, supposedly central among those locations, suddenly seems isolated and out of place.
Could the deception truly run that deep?

There is a famous story that features in Islamic folklore, which speaks of a Yemeni man from
Ṣa„dah who visited the Prophet (P), and brought with him a gift of honey. When the Prophet
asked the man where he got it from, the latter replied: “From Wādy Waskhah”. The Prophet
smiled as he reached for the honey jar and said: “You mean Wādy Wasḥah”. The story -
irrespective of whether authentic or not - was narrated to show that the Prophet understood very
well the a„jami speech of the Yemeni man*. The tendency to vocalize the ḥ )‫ (ػ‬sound as kh )‫(ؿ‬
was very evident in Yemen. This phenomenon can be observed even today, in the so-called
“Hebrew” language. This explains why the term Ḥizbullah (the name of a Shiite armed militia
operating within the state of Lebanon), is often pronounced Khizbullah by the “Israeli” media.

Have you ever heard, dear reader, of a Yemeni tribe by the name of Laḥm? In case you haven‟t,
here follows is a briefing on this tribe:

The Old Testament books of Ezra and Nehemiah contain a long list of the names of the Arabian
tribes that were allowed to leave Babylon and return to their homeland, after the Persian king
Cyrus the Great issued his famous Decree concerning the exiled peoples. One of the names that
appear on those lists is Bani Laḥm (or Lakhm), a very famous Yemeni tribe who eventually
migrated to Palestine, where they established a town by the name of Bayt-Laḥm, in remembrance
of their original, ancestral home. A branch of this tribe settled in Iraq, and became known as al-
Lakhmiyyūn, who are credited for eventually establishing the kingdom of al-Ḥeerah (the “New
Babylon”, so to speak); while other clans were among the members of the Muslim army that
conquered Egypt, under the military command of „Amr bin al-„Ās, in the year 640 AD.

Here is what poet al-Nābighah al-Dhubyāni says of this mighty tribe, who ruled Iraq during his
time:

ُ‫اعت‬ٚ ٛٙ‫ُ لبئً ف‬ِٕٙ ‫اما لبي‬ ٌُُٙ ٝ‫ُغج‬٠ ً‫ن إٌب‬ٍِٛ ‫ نخى‬ٚ

Paraphrase of the verse: And Lakhm are the kings of people, to whom tributes are given. When one
of their order issues a decree, it becomes a duty for the subjects.

______________________________________________________________________________
* The location of Wasḥah - Waskhah is discussed in detail, on page 225 of Description of Arabia, as is the famous
story of the “Zakāt of Honey” involving the Prophet (P) and the Yemeni man. It is indeed a real place. And the
tendency of many Yemenis, even today, of vocalizing the ḥ sound as kh is quite evident as well.

82
In his book entitled Yemeni Tribes in Egypt, renowned Egyptian historian Ṭāha abu Sadeerah
states the following (under the heading “Yemeni Tribes in al-Fusṭāṭ”):

ّ ‫خ‬١‫ق‬٠‫لل موود اٌّواعغ اٌزبه‬ٚ . ‫خ‬٠‫به اٌّصو‬٠‫ فزؼ اٌل‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٌٝٛ‫ل اٌط‬١ٌ‫خ اٌّقزٍفخ ا‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫ فمل وبٔذ ٌٍمجبئً ا‬، ‫فّب وبْ األِو‬١‫و‬ٚ
ْ‫أ‬
‫رنوو‬ٚ .‫ وّب لٍٕب ٍبثمب‬،‫ وبْ ِئٌفب ً ِٓ أهثؼخ آالف‬ٞ‫ ثٓ اٌؼبٓ اٌن‬ٚ‫ِ ػّو‬١‫ ع‬ٟ‫ح اٌعبهثخ ف‬ٛ‫خ وبٔذ رّضً اٌم‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫اٌمجبئً ا‬
، ْ‫ال‬ٛ‫ ف‬- ‫ اإلغالق‬ٍٝ‫خ ػ‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫ أوجو اٌمجبئً ا‬- ‫خ‬٠‫ األىك‬:‫ً اٌّضبي‬١‫ ٍج‬ٍٝ‫ اٌفزؼ ػ‬ٟ‫ ّبهوذ ف‬ٟ‫خ اٌز‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫اٌّواعغ أٍّبء اٌمجبئً ا‬
. ٍٟ‫ اٌج‬، ‫ نخى‬، َ‫ عنا‬، ‫ غبفك‬، ‫ ِواك‬، ‫وح‬ٌّٙ‫ ا‬، ‫ وٕلح‬، َ‫ ؽعو‬، ‫ت‬١‫ رغ‬، ‫ اٌصلف‬، ْ‫ّ٘لا‬

The above passage lists the most prominent Yemeni tribes, who happened to make up nearly
80% of „Amr‟s army. Foremost among those tribes (the names of which al-Sadeerah took from
various historical references) are: Azad (Asad), Khūlān, Hamadān, al-Ṣadaf, Ḥaḍram, Tajeeb,
Kindah, al-Mahrah, Murād, Jadhām, Lakhm, Ghassān, Dūws, and Baliy.

Elsewhere, al-Sadeerah speaks of the fall of the military keep of Bablioun* in the Nile Delta
Region, wherein he states:

ً‫ ثالك اٌْبَ لج‬ٟ‫ل ف‬١‫ـ اٌجؼ‬٠‫ اٌزبه‬ٟ‫ اٍزمود ف‬ٟ‫خ اٌز‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫ُ ِٓ اٌمجبئً ا‬ٙ‫ز‬١‫ا غبٌج‬ٛٔ‫وب‬ٚ ، ‫ ِصو‬ٌٝ‫ ا‬ٞ‫صً اٌّلك اٌؼَىو‬ٚ ً‫ثبٌفؼ‬ٚ
ِٓ ‫ػخ‬ّٛ‫ ػٕلِب لبك ِغ‬، ‫خ‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫ٍخ ٌقُ ا‬١‫ل هعً ِٓ لج‬٠ ٍٝ‫ْ ٍمػ ػ‬ٛ١ٍ‫أْ ؽصٓ ثبث‬ ّ ‫رنوو اٌّواعغ‬ٚ . ‫خ‬١ِ‫ؽبد اإلٍال‬ٛ‫اٌفز‬
،ٓ‫ ٍمػ اٌؾص‬ٝ‫ّوٍخ ؽز‬ٚ ‫خ‬٠ِٛ‫ٕ٘بن كاهد ِؼووخ ك‬ٚ ٓ‫ فَّّبئخ فبهً ِمزؾّب اٌؾص‬ٌٟ‫ا‬ٛ‫ٓ ػلكُ٘ ؽ‬١١ّٕ١ٌ‫اٌفوٍبْ اٌؼوة ا‬
. ٓ١١ّٕ١ٌ‫لاء ا‬ٌْٙ‫لل رقظجذ أهض اٌؾصٓ ثلِبء ا‬ٚ

A paraphrase of the above passage: “…so it was that the spread of the military force reached Egypt,
and most of the soldiers were of the tribes of Yemen, who had settled in the Levant long before
the Muslim conquests of the land. And the various sources tell us that Bablioun fell at the hands of
a man from the Yemeni tribe of Lakhm, who led a battalion of Arab Yemeni warriors numbering
about 500, and stormed the keep after a bloody battle. And the floor of the keep became stained with
the blood of the martyrs from Yemen”.

Apparently, the Arab historians were very well aware that the Yemeni tribe of Lakhm, the very
ancestors of the warriors who conquered the Bablioun Keep in Egypt, had settled in the Levant
(Palestine-Jordan), long before the Muslim conquest of the area.

Another report which apparently supports al-Sadeerah‟s assessment features in al-Bakri‟s

geographical Glossary (entry 289), wherein we read the story of one very famous companion of
the Prophet, Tameem al-Dāri, of the Tribe of Laḥm. Tameem was a young man who was known
for his many voyages around Arabia and the Levant, and who had returned home just as
Muḥammad (P) and his followers were about to score a final and decisive victory against their
opponents. Tameem recounted to the Prophet stories of his many travels, and asked of him one
favor, as reported by al-Bakri:

ٓ‫ فٍّب اٍزقٍف ػّو ث‬.‫ب‬ٙ‫ وزت ٌٗ ث‬ٚ .‫ ٌه‬ٟ٘ :)ٓ( ٟ‫ذ ٌؾُ؟ فمبي إٌج‬١‫ ِٓ ث‬ٟ‫َز‬٠‫ لو‬ٌٟ ‫ت‬ٙ‫ ف‬،‫ب‬ٍّٙ‫ األهض و‬ٍٝ‫وُن ػ‬ٙ‫اْ هللا ُِظ‬
.‫ّب٘ب‬٠‫ فؤػطبٖ ا‬،‫ أٔب ّب٘لن‬:‫ فمبي ٌٗ ػّو‬،)ٓ( ٟ‫ ثىزبة إٌج‬ٞ‫ُ اٌلاه‬١ّ‫ عبء ر‬،َ‫ اٌْب‬ٟ‫و ف‬ٙ‫ ظ‬ٚ ‫اٌقطبة‬

______________________________________________________________________________
* Please refer to our first book, The Search for Pharaoh (page 56) for more information on this fortress.

83
Here follows is a paraphrase of al-Bakri‟s account:

[Tameem al-Dāri approached the Prophet (P) and said: “Allah has given you authority over the whole
land, would you not grant me my village of Bayt Laḥm?” The Prophet (P) said: “It is yours”, and
decreed it so in a written document. When „Umar became the khaleefah (successor), Tameem
approached him and (once again) brought forth the Prophet‟s note. „Umar said to him: “I am your
witness; it is yours”].

Regardless of whether or not Tameem al-Dāri was indeed a contemporary of the prophet
Muḥammad*, the story does in fact support the following historical truth: the city of Bayt Laḥm
in Palestine was named so by the ancient Yemeni tribe of Laḥm-Lakhm, who gave it that name
as a memorial tribute to an older Bayt Laḥm in Yemen, a place that eventually fell into ruin and
oblivion. It was the Prophet himself (or so the story-tellers would have us believe) who gifted
Tameem his ancestral village of Bayt Laḥm in Yemen, after the standard-bearers of the divine
message wrestled it from their opponents. And it was that same Tameem who, years later,
approached „Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, mastermind of the conquest of Palestine, and once again lay
claim to the “new” Bayt Laḥm in the Levant, the town that Tameem‟s own ancestors had
established when they migrated from Yemen to Palestine.

Which of the two Bethlehems is Joshua talking about as being within the territories of Zebulun?
After all you have read so far, honored reader, do you not think the answer is clear?

78 - 80) Zebulun, Megiddo, and Dagon:

In Joshua‟s description of the territorial domain of the tribe of Asher (which, for the sake of
conciseness, we did not analyze in this book), we come across the following phrase:
…and it (their border) turned toward the sun rising to Beth-Dagon, and reached to Zebulun,
and to the valley of Yphtah-El (Joshua 19:27).

From the context, we realize that the domain of Asher (none other than the ancient Ash„ari clans
of Yemen) shared borders with the territory of Zebulun, which features in old Arabic poetry as
Arḍ Zubālah. In his book Description of Arabia (page 300), al-Hamadāni quotes the following
verse by Ibn Shiryān al-Quray„i:
______________________________________________________________________________
* We have come to the conclusion, after many years of sifting through the stories and anecdotes found in the books
of Arabian history and Islamic folklore, that these books contain a mixture of truths and myths. The diligent reader
of the old chronicles will encounter true events being portrayed as having taken place in a different time frame from
the period in which they actually occured. He will encounter deeds belonging to certain peoples, being narrated as
though they were perpetrated by different - and often rival - peoples, and will come across historical figures that
have been hijacked and placed in wrong time periods (or wrong places). In other words, anachronisms and
geographical paradoxes seem to be the main features of those records, and many times we find that political motives
were behind the shortcomings.

84
 ‫َّب‬١ٍُ‫ مإاثزِ ِٗ اٌؾ‬ٍٝ‫ؾُِّ ػ‬٠ َ‫هكٖ صُتانح و ًّ ػـــب‬ٚ‫ أ‬ٚ
ً‫ّب‬٠ٛ‫ب ل‬ٙ‫ اْ وبْ اٌؼج ُل ث‬ٚ ‫هكُٖ َُثاض تًُ يعٍذ‬ٚ‫ أ‬ٚ

There is the tribe of Zubālah who, long ago, gave their name to a territory that was not far from
the domain of Bani Majeed; whose territory the poet describes as being a nubāj. This word was
often used by the Bedouins (nomads of Arabia) to describe elevated plateaus in the wilderness,
where a certain plant of the same name grew. Many wandering Bedouins found themselves
forced to eat this plant when they ran out of food. (Look up the term nubj in Ibn Manẓūr‟s
lexicon Lisān al-‘Arab - entry 374). On the other hand, the Old Testament speaks of a territory
known as har-Megido, wherein the term har refers to a high place. This word is the “Hebrew”
equivalent of the Arabic ḥarrah, which is used to describe volcanic plateaus or mesas.

Al-Hamadāni mentions Zubālah (page 300), as a place near al-Qā„ (north-east of the city of
„Adan), where a battle took place long ago between the tribes of Hamadān and Murād, not far off
the coast of Tihāmah:

‫ْ كهعخ‬ٚ‫ ػْو‬ٚ ‫ ػوض صُتانح رَؼخ‬ٚ ،ً‫ال‬١ِ ‫خ ػْوح‬١ٔ‫ صُتانح صّب‬ٌٝ‫ ِٕٗ ا‬ٚ ،‫ صٍضب كهعخ‬ٚ ‫ْ كهعخ‬ٚ‫ ػْو‬ٚ ‫ػوض اٌمبع رَغ‬
.‫ هثغ‬ٚ

These facts warrant that we make the following comparison:

Old Testament Arabian Sources

Territory (land) of Zebln (Zebulun) ّ Arḍ Zubālah

Har-Megido Nabāj (high plateau) of Bani Majeed

Arab chroniclers, geographers, and genealogical experts are in consensus that the historic
homeland of Bani Ash„ar was the Tihāma region of Yemen, near the sea coast. Al-Bakri (entry
52) tells us that the Ash„aris were forced to move toward the coast due to years of unusual
drought that had overtaken the interior lands at a certain point in time, and that many sons and
daughters of Bani Majeed mixed with the immigrants and became Ash„aris. The antiquity of the
tribe of Ash„ar is made evident by the fact that they are traced back to a legendary figure known
as Ash„ar bin Adad bin Saba‟, who was born a very hairy infant (incidentally, the word sha„r is
Arabic for hair). This legend is strikingly similar to the Biblical story of Jacob‟s twin brother
Esau who, as a baby, was red-faced and excessively hairy all over*. The similarities between the
culture of ancient Yemen (its poets, kings, genealogical trees, and tribal names) and the Old
Testament is too striking to be ignored.

______________________________________________________________________________

*The rivalry between Jacob and Esau, and their competition for the attention of their mother, is a symbolic story of
the rivalry between the gentle “family man” male, who takes care of his household and remains faithful to his wife,
and the unbridled, promiscuous macho-type male, who enjoys hunting and is more often on the road than at home.

85
One of the poets of the Ash„aris (Asher) whose name al-Bakri did not mention, expressed the
relationship between them and the Bani Majeed in the followimg verse:

‫ تُى يعٍذ‬َّٟ ٍ‫ُ ػ‬ُِٙ ‫ أو َو‬ٚ ٍٝ١ٌ ّ‫أُؽتُّ األشؼشٌٍ ٌؾت‬

This inter-mixing between the tribes of ancient Yemen, the overlapping of their territorial
domains, and the very nature of their homeland, with its towering mountains, countless river
valleys, and vast open expanses of wilderness, proves that the Isrealites did not live in total
isolation from each other, or from other peoples. Their tribes were not rigidly confined to
a limited territory, as the Orientalists pictured Biblical Israel to be. It was the colonial ghetto
mentality, which built its foundations on the principles of racial, ethnic and tribal segregation,
that envisioned the twelve tribes of Israel as having been so isolated, and having no interaction or
joint territories with others, and placed them in an imaginary Palestinian theater; the land that
became the setting of the racist and segregated state they finally established in the 20th Century.

Here follows is one of many passages in DoA (pages 191,192), which mentions Bani Majeed,
and their homes on the cliffs that overlook the sea coast, in the Laḥj Province of southern
Yemen, which also happens to be where Yāfi„ (Japhea) is located.

‫ب‬ٕٙ‫َى‬٠ ‫ه‬ٛ‫ ف‬ٚ ،ْٛ٠‫الل‬ٌٛ‫ب ا‬ٕٙ‫َى‬٠ ‫ اٌلاه‬:‫ب‬ٙٔ‫ ٍ َىب‬ٚ ‫ ٌؾظ‬.‫ اٌجؾو‬ٌٝ‫ اٌَفبي ا‬ٌٝ‫ فب‬... ‫ تًُ يعٍذ‬ٚ ‫ ػبِو‬ٟٕ‫ٓ ث‬١‫وح ث‬١‫َٓ وض‬١‫ أث‬ٜ‫ لو‬ٚ
.ْٛ١‫ب األصجؾ‬ٕٙ‫َى‬٠ ‫ ماد اإللجبي‬ٚ ،‫َ ِٓ يعٍذ‬ٛ‫ً ل‬١‫ اٌطف‬ٕٛ‫ ث‬ٚ ،‫ أثّخ ِٓ ٌافغ‬ٟٕ‫ْ ث‬ٛ١‫األصجؾ‬

As for the Biblical Dagon (a vulgar Masoretic articulation of the silent Aramaic djn-dgn), let us
hear it from Umru‟ al-Qays, once again:

ِ ُّ ٌ‫طُفَٓ ثغجبء ا‬٠

‫واق ِىَبي‬ ُُٗ‫ٌغز‬ٚ ٍ‫َ دظ‬ٛ٠ ٜ‫ذ ػناه‬١‫ ث‬ٚ

Another poet, Durayd ibn al-Ṣimmah also mentions the place:

ٌّّ
ِ ‫ء‬ٛ‫ ظ‬ٚ‫ب أ‬ُٙ‫ رألأل ثول‬ٚ ٍ‫َ دظ‬ٛ٠ ‫ب غّبِــــــــخ‬ُٙٙ‫أّــج‬
ٌ ّ ِٓ ‫ثناد انخال‬
ِ ‫ أٔــــ‬ٚ ٓ‫ع‬ ُ ‫فؤلَ ُُ ِب ٍـ‬
ٚ‫ع ِل ػّو‬ٛ‫ّؼذ و‬

The verses speak of Yawmu Dajan, a famous battle that took place long ago. Note how Durayd
locates Dajan not far from al-Khāl, which we determined previously as being within the territory
of Issachar, the neighbors of Zebulun. Here is a verse from al-Aqra„ bin Ma„ādh, describing the
gloom and moonless nights over the valley of Dajan (Bet-Dgn):

‫ٍخَ اٌجَ ْل ِه‬١ٌ ‫كاً ثلا‬ٛ‫ال اٌجل ُه ََِْؼ‬ٚ ْ َ‫ ََ دظٍ فؤّول‬ٛ٠ ‫افذ‬ٚ
‫ذ‬ ْ ٌٌُّْ‫فّب ا‬

There, dear reader, is the land of the Old Testament, spread out before us, in its true theater that
was lost to the ages. There is the land of Biblical Israel as it was recorded by Joshua, and as
al-Hamadāni and the poets of Arabia described it for us. There is the answer to the great riddle
that has mystified scholars and archeologists for the past century, while the tortured land of

86
Palestine, victim of a deluded Orientalist imagination, has been crying out for its day of
recknoning.

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

65 ‫שרד‬ Shrd Sarid / Sharid ‫ٍوك‬ Sard

66 ‫יפע‬ Yph„ Japhea ‫بفغ‬٠ Yāfi„
67 ‫נהלל‬ Nhll Nahleel ً١ٍ٘ Haleel
68 ‫נעה‬ N„h Neah / Noah ‫ػخ‬ٛٔ Naw„ah
69 ‫דבשת‬ Dbsht Dabbasheth ً‫ُكثّب‬ Dubbās.
70 ‫קטת‬ Qṭt Kattath ‫بد‬١‫ لط‬/ ‫اٌمطب‬ Qaṭā / Qaṭayāt
71 ‫רמן‬ Rmn Rimmon ْ‫ُه ِّب‬ Rummān
72 ‫המתאר‬ h-Matar Amthar ‫اٌّزبه‬ al-Matār
73 ‫יפתח־אל‬ Yphtḥ-El Yphtaḥ-El ‫اٌّفزؼ‬ Al-Maftaḥ
74 ‫יקנעם‬ Yqn„m Jokneam ‫لٕغ‬ Qan„
75 ‫שמרן‬ Shmrn Shemeron ‫اٌَّوا‬ al-Samrā
76 ‫קצין‬ Qaṣin Kazin ٓ١‫لع‬ Qaḍeen
77 ‫בית לחם‬ Bet Laḥm Bethlehem ُ‫ذ ٌق‬١‫ ث‬/ ُ‫ذ ٌؾ‬١‫ث‬ Bayt Laḥm / Lakhm
78 ‫בני־זבלן‬ Bani Zbln Zebulun ‫ ُىثبٌخ‬ٟٕ‫ث‬ Bani Zubālah
79 ‫מגדו‬ Magdo Megiddo ‫ل‬١‫ ِغ‬ٟٕ‫ث‬ Bani Majeed
80 ‫בית דגן‬ Bet Dgn Beth Dagon ٓ‫َك َع‬ Dajan

*****

87
 CHAPTER III

Ethiopia‟s Testimony

88
Ethiopia is an ancient land. Until recently, archeologists were almost certain that its territory was
the cradle of human beings (the Homo Sapien race). At any rate, it is evident that the culture and
civilization of Ethiopia are far older than those of Egypt. Across the northern Ethiopian border
lies the state of Eritrea, which shares much of Ethiopia‟s culture and history. From 1890 until the
Second World War, Eritrea was an Italian colony with a large and socially diverse Italian
population. In the 1940s, Eritrea was Africa‟s second most industrialized country and was
hopeful of attaining freedom under a democratic parliamentary system. In 1952, it became, under
controversial circumstances, a federation within autocratic Ethiopia. The Ethiopians abolished
the Eritrean assembly, turned the country into a province in 1962, and incited a vicious thirty-
year war of independence. Since 1993, Eritrea has been an independent country but deeply
scarred by the war‟s destruction and subsequent conflict. Its capital is Asmara, one of the most
beautiful and well-organized cities in Africa. Asmara has boulevards, villas, houses,
a magnificent opera house, parks, squares, government buildings, a university, a cafe society,
and an Italian style Catholic cathedral.

In Asmara, there is a fertile strip of land that begins below the Italian-built University of the city.
This strip follows an ancient watercourse, the Mai Bela. Even in the recent past, the area was
forested and well watered, but during the late 1980s, the Ethiopian army stripped the area bare of
trees for cooking fuel. Consequently, the Mai Bela stream of today can hardly be described as
a river. For most of the year, it consists of a series of pools that merge only when there is
a downpour. The old riverbed winds northeast, away from the city, across a wide, often wind-
swept plain. Twelve kilometers from Asmara, it passes below the ancient settlement of
Tsa'edakristyan, which means “White Christian” in Tigrinya, the local language. On the
riverbank facing the distant village there is a rocky outcrop on which stands an ancient memorial.
A single obelisk, erected in the antique Aksumite style, stands about six meters tall in the middle
of a small semicircular wall. Eritrean tradition claims that this is the place where the biblical
Queen of Sheba gave birth to her only child, Bayna Lekhem - better known as Menelik - after
returning from her state visit to the court of King Solomon, ruler of Biblical Israel. During
Ethiopian rule, the local Eritrean population regularly vandalized the monument, which
commemorated Menelik‟s birth, because it was associated with the hated Ethiopian emperor
Haile Selassie (1892-1975), whose authority over Eritrea was based on his claim as the
descendant of Menelik. Local tradition says that the words Mai Bela were uttered by the queen
after giving birth, and mean either “Give me water,” or “Give me a razor” (to cut the umbilical
cord).

The Eritrean-Ethiopian plateau is full of unexplored archaeological sites. Most of the remains
belong to the time when Aksum had become a large trading empire, from 200 BC and onwards.
However, there are substantial ruins dating back from hundreds of years earlier than this. At
Qohaito, overlooking the coastal plain, there are ruins of an ancient city extending twelve by six
kilometers. It was here that the Aksumites of the Red Sea port of Adulis took refuge from the
summer heat. From Qohaito inland to Aksum and Yeha, are a large number of vestiges dating

89
from this period, ruins of towns that had prospered on trade and agriculture. Many are associated
with the Queen of Sheba. At Qohaito, there is a large oval area marked by green grass that is
nurtured with underground water and edged with stones. It is known as the Queen of Sheba‟s
Bath. There is a large reservoir bearing the same name in the city of Aksum. Moreover, at
Qohaito, there is a cave that tradition says is the entrance to a labyrinth that the Queen followed
during her journey to Aksum.

Picture #24: Queen of Sheba‟s Bath at Aksum, Ethiopia.

The citizens of the Kingdom of Saba‟ are better known outside Arabia and Ethiopia by their
other name, Shebans. For many centuries, the southern Arabians shared close ethnic and
linguistic traits with the peoples of the Ethiopian plateau and Djibouti. In fact, Shebans were
found on both sides of the Red Sea in the first millennium BC, but eventually established their
separate identity in Ethiopia. Could it be that the geographic and cultural proximity of Yemen
and Ethiopia contributed to the legend of the Queen of Sheba eventually finding its way into
Abyssinian culture? Or is there perhaps another factor that we have been unaware of?

The Old Testament mentions several real, historical figures of the Middle East, prior to the
Babylonian captivity, such as Sheshonk, Shabako, and Sennacherib. The most important figure
to support the Old Testament‟s veracity is, however, the Queen of Sheba, who paid a state visit
to Solomon‟s court and is mentioned in the OT (the Book of Kings and the Book of Chronicles)
as well as in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in the writings of Flavius
Josephus (Jewish historian of the 1st Century AD), in the Qur‟ān, as well as in the Kebra Nagast,
an ancient Ethiopian religious text recorded in the Ge‟ez language.

If the story of the Queen of Sheba is true, it can therefore prove that the Old Testament is also
true. But this presents a paradox: Jewish tradition and even modern scholarship not only
denigrate and demonize the Queen of Sheba, but often dismiss her as a myth. Of all the figures in
the Old Testament, the Queen of Sheba was the only one with a truly questioning mind; the one
person who wanted to find the truth, and not have it dictated to her. Her story covers more than

90
a meeting with Solomon. It also covers the founding of a “New Zion” in Africa. But most of all,
it covers the story of her life, which is the key to understanding the history and real geography of
the Old Testament, the minds of the priests who invented Judaism, and the world that women
lost. The story of the Queen of Sheba is very much about the human spirit, freedom of thought,
intellectual inquiry, and confidence in the essential goodness of people.

The question remains: was the Queen of Sheba a real, historical figure? Or was she a myth? We
will look into this central issue, while taking into consideration what the science of archeology
has revealed. But first, it is imperative that we give a brief exposition on an important Ethiopian
religious document, of which certain passages will be studied and analyzed herein.

Picture #25: Ruins of a temple dedicated to the ancient god al-Maqah in Axum (Ethiopia), built by
the Shebans of Yemen in the 8th Century BC.

 The Kebra Nagast

The Kebra Nagast is an ancient Ethiopian religious book that was most probably compiled in
Aksum, around the year 700 AD, and then slightly enlarged in the first part of the 14th Century
AD. It is written in the Ge'ez language, and its title means Glory of the Kings. Besides
explaining the origin of the Solomonic line of Ethiopian monarchs, the book legitimized the rule
of the Christian kings of Aksum and later the emperors of Ethiopia. It was used in 1952, in the
constitutional arrangements that united democratic Eritrea and feudal Ethiopia into a federation,
and was adopted as Ethiopia‟s constitutional centerpiece until 1974, when the monarchy was
overthrown and Haile Selaisse imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

The Kebra Nagast is not easy to read, for it is a composite document drawn from three separate
eras. It attempts to unify three divergent political objectives into a single, divinely ordained
destiny. Its commentators used documents from two languages, one of them a language they did
not always understand, to “edit” the text. They were claiming the heritage of Solomon‟s kingdom

91
while, at the same time, hating the Jews. In addition, the geography of the Kebra Nagast appears,
at first glance, to be not only inaccurate, but completely absurd, to say the least. To compound all
these problems, the commentators (during the 14th Century AD) tried to pass their own
interpolations as part of the original text. Their attempts were met with dismal failure.

The Kebra Nagast has 117 sections (chapters), and is composed of more than 64,000 words. Its
chapters are grouped into two main headings, called cycles. The first cycle, which is of
importance to our study, is a purely Jewish document known as the Sheba-Menelik Cycle, whose
date of origin is not known for certain (sholars are in disagreement regarding this issue). It tells
the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba and the consequences of their relationship. There
have been several interpolations of this cycle by Christian commentators, but these are so
obvious to modern scholars, that the original text can easily be recognized. What is perhaps most
notable about the Sheba-Menelik Cycle is that its original text was evidently mistranslated from
Arabic. When the Kebra Nagast came to the attention of Western scholars in the late 19th and
early 20th Centuries, all major researchers (Bezold, Nöldeke, Praetorius, Zoltenberg, Guidi,
Dillmann, and Cerulli) noted that the Sheba-Menelik Cycle contained so many Arabic influences
that it must have been translated from that language into Ge‟ez. Praetorius, for instance, writing
in Latin, stated: “...dicti libri vocabulis arabicis valde repleta” (translation: the texts are
exceedingly replete with Arabic words); while Zoltenberg found that some Arabic proper names
had been transcribed directly into Ge‟ez. Bezold and Guidi made a list of Arabic loan words and
passages to enable researchers to understand some sections of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle.
Examples included food and utensils for Solomon‟s feast in honor of the Queen of Sheba, place
names, the queen‟s Ge‟ez name, Makeda (an Arabic term meaning “one who schemes or plots”),
and strange grammatical constructions.

There is general agreement that the Sheba-Menelik Cycle consists of chapters 22 to 28A, 29B -
34A, 35-43, 45-63A, 84-93A, and 94 of the Kebra Nagast. However, the description of the
Queen of Sheba herself (chapter 21B) should also belong to the Sheba-Menelik Cycle to form
the opening paragraph.

The second part of the Kebra Nagast is referred to as the Caleb Cycle, which is estimated to have
been written sometime during the 7th Century AD. The Caleb Cycle is a Ge‟ez text whose
contents have been verified by the Book of the Ḥimyarites, a Syriac document written around 932
AD, which explains the origins of Christian communities in Yemen. The Book of Ḥimyarites
was discovered in the early 20th Century. The Caleb Cycle forms the other half of the Kebra
Nagast and, although dependent on the obviously older Sheba-Menelik Cycle, its theological and
political environment is far removed from that of Solomon and Sheba. Its main character is
Caleb (died 540 AD), who most likely came to the throne of Ethiopia as a pagan, but in his time
was one of the world‟s two most important Christian monarchs, and Christianity‟s leading
crusader. He ruled from Aksum, and saw himself as the political heir of Solomon and the Queen
of Sheba, thereby declaring himself the king of the true Israelites and hence the rightful ruler of
Southern Arabia as well! (It seems that Caleb did not lay any claim to Palestine, but understood
92
very well the significance of South Arabia to the ancient Israelites; something that the Christian
commentators failed to grasp). Moreover, Caleb was proclaimed as the world‟s most senior
Christian leader and a blood relative of Christ. Procopius, John of Ephesus, and other
contemporary historians, recount Caleb's invasion of Yemen around 520 AD, and his war with
the Jewish Ḥimyarite king known as Dhū Nawwās who, at the time, was brutally persecuting the
Christian communities in Najrān and Zafār.

The Caleb Cycle is not relevant to our study at this point. Its implications will be elaborated on
in a future release.

Map #5: A map showing the empire of Caleb of Axum, the self-proclaimed “Rightful Heir of Solomon”,
encompassing both the Ethiopian-Eritrean plateau as well as parts of Yemen.

Our primary concern in this chapter will be the Sheba-Menelik Cycle, as it contains elements of
the story of the Queen‟s visit to Solomon that the Old Testament completely ignored. Careful
study of the Cycle not only reveals a plausible explanation for the Ark‟s “disappearance”, but
also sheds considerable light on a variety of subjects, including the origins of the Beth-Israel
(Ethiopian Jews), the explanation for the demographic distribution pattern of historic Jewish
settlements in Arabia (a pattern that clearly defies the presumption that Palestine is the original
theater of Judaism), the many Sheban ruins and inscriptions that archeologists have discovered in
Ethiopia, and a solution to the ultimate and greatest geographical puzzle that has baffled Biblical
scholars and archeologists for the past century: the true location of Solomon‟s kingdom.

The following table gives us a better idea as to how the chapters of the Kebra Nagast are
grouped, and how its component parts, belonging to different eras, were combined into one
document:

1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36
37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44 45 46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54
55 56 57 58 59 60

93
61 62 63 64 65 66
67 68 69 70 71 72
73 74 75 76 77 78
79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96
97 98 99 100 101 102
103 104 105 106 107 108
109 110 111 112 113 114
115 116 117 Colophon

Key:

Sheba-Menelik Cycle ???

Caleb Cycle ~ 650 AD
Christian Restoration / Commentary 1314 AD

Picture #26: Ethiopian Jews observing a religious ceremony.

 The Many Queens of Yemen

It seems that Yemen‟s history and culture are rich with references to female monarchs. The last
such figure to rule Yemen was the famous Queen Arwa, who reigned from 1070 until 1138 AD,
and whom the Isma„ili Shiites elevated to demigod status. Arwa is popularly referred to as
al-Sayyidah al-Ḥurrah (the Noble Lady) and occasionally as Malikat Sabaʾ al-Sagheerah (the
Lesser Queen of Sheba). There is no doubt that she was a historic figure, and that the tradition of
female monarchs in the country goes back much deeper into history.

94
The following is an excerpt from a report published by the Yemen News Agency, in March of
the year 2009:

Title: Archeologists Find Statue of Ancient Yemeni Queen

Report featured in: Saba’ News Network

March 18, 2009 – Dhamar, Yemen

A Yemeni archaeologist team has discovered a mosaic statue of a woman sitting on a throne, her chest engraved
with Musnad letters. The archaeologists also found other relics including a stone slab with religious symbols
engraved on it.

“Two bulls separated by a tree were carved on slab, a symbol that was known as the Tree of Life in ancient Yemeni
civilization”, stated director of the authority „Ali al Sanabāni. Other symbols, notably a crescent moon, were
imprinted on the relics.

The discoveries were revealed during excavations at a site in Dhamār province where the team found buildings that
were used to give sacrifices. Al-Sanabani suspected the site to be a vestige of the Yatrib city of the Sheban
civilization.

This startling news story also appeared in more detail in the Ma‟reb Press, where the findings
were analyzed as relics of the ancient South Arabian deity al-Maqah who, at one point, was
worshipped by the ancient Shebans and Ḥimyarites.

Here follows is an excerpt from the archives of the Press, on March 18, 2009.

The Governor of the Dhamār Province, Yaḥia Ali al-„Omari visited the excavation site, which is located within the
„Ans prefecture, and examined the important findings made by the archeological team. Al-„Omari, accompanied by
his depute „Abdul-Kareem Aḥmad Dha‟fān, heard the testimony made by the Director General of the Committee of
Museums and Manuscripts, „Ali al Sanabāni, concerning the discovery. Al-Sanabāni explained the importance of the
find, and stated that the preliminary results of the excavation showed the site to be one of the vestiges of the
ancient city of Yatrib, whose name appears in Inscription 77 that was mentioned by historian Muṭhir al-Aryāni.

The Governor paid tribute to the efforts that were made by the archeological team, as well as the cooperation of
the residents of the area, which contributed to the success of the dig. Al-„Omari stressed the importance of
continuing the escavation works in the area, and the necessity of preserving and documenting the works done.

What is even more important about the excavation site is the discovery of mummified corpses,
which proves that the ancient Egyptians were not the only people to have preserved their dead.
This particular subject will be discussed in more detail in a future book. For now, let us analyze
the reports that were made concerning the Sheban queen. The above news article mentions
a brilliant Yemeni historian, anthropologist and poet by the name of Muṭhir al-Aryāni who, at the
time of this writing, is still alive and over 80 years of age. Aryāni has written many books on the
ancient history of Sheba and Ḥimyar, the most important of which is entitled Al-Nuqūsh al-
Ḥimyariyyah (Ḥimyatitic Inscriptions), which contains his analysis of several inscriptions that
were unearthed in his native land. Among these was as inscription that bears mention of an
ancient town in Yemen by the name of Yatrib. It is highly probable that the city of Yathrib in the
Ḥijāz was named after its predecessor, a more ancient urban center within the Dhamār province.

95
The Qur‟ān, having been revealed in the eloquent („arabi) tongue, rendered the name as Yathrib,
being that the alphabets of most so-called “Semitic” dialects did not have the th letter. (The name
Thamūd, for example, appears as Tamud in many South Arabian and Mesopotamian
inscriptions). It is also worth noting that al-Hamadāni mentions yet another Yatrib in Yemen, in
his book Description of Arabia (page 175):

.ٞ‫اك‬ٌٛ‫بَ ا‬ٍٙ ٚ‫بَ ٌرشب أ‬َٙ‫ ث‬:ٌٗٛ‫ ثم‬ْٝ‫ب٘ب ػٕب األػ‬٠‫ ا‬ٚ ،ٚ‫و ثٓ ػّو‬١‫ اٌق‬ٛ‫ب أث‬ٙ‫ وبْ ث‬ٚ ‫ب وٕلح‬ٙ‫د ٔيٌز‬ِٛ‫ٕخ ثؾعو‬٠‫ ٌرشب ِل‬ٚ

In the above passage, al-Hamadāni places this Yatrib within the Ḥaḍramawt Province, in an area
that was once inhabitted by the tribe of Kindah. He also quotes half of a verse mentioning the
city by Yemeni poet al-A„sha, but for some unknown reason he leaves the first half of the verse
blank. Through our own research, we were able to uncover the full verse:

‫منعتّقٌاسّاآلخنٌةّرأسهّ ّّّ بسهامٌّتربّأوّسهامّالوادي‬

This archeological discovery involving Yatrib confirms that Yemen was indeed a land that was
known for having several female monarchs. It is therefore very likely that the Queen mentioned
in the Old Testament, the Kebra Nagast, and the Qur‟ān was a real figure, whose actual name has
not yet been discovered. The people of Yemen call her Bilqees, and her name and deeds have
been carried down through the generations for over three thousand years. To them, she is more
than simply a historical figure. Her legend is part of their very identity. Yemeni women look up
to her as an archetypal figure, and a role model that pretty much defines what they aspire to be.
The seat of the Queen of Sheba‟s power, known to Yemenis as Maḥram Bilqees, is believed to
be in the city of Ma‟reb. Although Ma‟reb was indeed a very important location on the ancient
trade routes, and a ruined temple was in fact discovered there and proven to be at least 3,000
years old (and hence dating back to King Solomon‟s era), it is more likely that the Queen of
Sheba‟s capital was further south, and closer to the Ḥaḍramawt valley.

Picture #27: A Sheban inscription depicting a female royal figure by the name of Ghaleelat being
attended by servants, and a prayer to the deity „Ashtar to send curses and damnation upon anyone
who disfigures the inscription.

96
It is obvious then, that the Queen of Sheba was indeed a historical person, mentioned alongside
several other figures appearing in the Old Testament, all of whom have been proven to be
authentic figures (Sheshonk, Sennacherib, Shabako, etc…). After careful analysis of the Sheba-
Menelik Cycle of the Kebra Nagast, one will eventually come to the conclusion that the Queen
began her reign in South Arabia and ended it in Ethiopia. It is for this reason that some historians
have identified the greater realm of Sheba as encompassing both Yemen and a large part of the
Ethiopian-Eritrean plateau, even though there is no conclusive proof that the Queen in question
ruled both regions simultaneously. As to exactly how and why the legendary monarch came to be
associated with Ethiopia; this is what we will look into next, as the issue contains yet another
crucial clue to the true location of Biblical Israel.

Picture #28: Part of the Maḥram Bilqees at Ma‟reb, Yemen.

Picture #29: Sheban Relief of an unidentified Yemeni female royal figure.

97
 Picture #30: Tomb of Queen Arwa in Jiblah, Yemen.

 The Truth Behind the Myth

According to ancient texts and oral traditions, the Queen of Sheba was a beautiful and brilliant
young monarch who controlled part of the immensely wealthy myrrh and frankincense trade of
southern Arabia. Around 1000 BC, she made a state visit to King Solomon, ruler of Biblical
Israel. Jewish and Christian sources say she came to seek wisdom; Islamic sources say she was
forced to make the visit. The Queen of Sheba was most probably the leader of a south Arabian
religious cult. The Kebra Nagast (chapter 27), records her description of the state religion:
“We worship the sun like our ancestors also did. We revere the sun as the most important of the gods.
There are some amongst us who acknowledge other deities from nature such as rocks and trees, while
others have carved figures representing divine forces. We worship the sun because...she lightens the
darkness and banishes fear. We call her „Our Queen‟ and „Our Creator‟”.

South Arabian inscriptions also speak of a single deity, called al-Raḥmān (translated as
“Merciful One”). In fact, the Qur‟ān refers to Allah as al-Raḥmān in numerous passages (a total
of 169 times). Use of this name was not restricted to Muḥammad‟s followers. Even the
Christians of Yemen referred to the Lord as Raḥmān. Archeologist Edward Glaser, whose team
discovered the famous Ṣirwāḥ Inscription in Yemen, brought undisputable proof of the
originality of the name Raḥmān and its deep-rooted South Arabian foundations. The Ṣirwāḥ
Inscription (dated 542 AD), opens with the following declaration: "In the power of al-Raḥmān
and His Messiah and the Holy Spirit". In fact, some critics of the Qur‟ān and of its “author”
Muḥammad (as they suppose), have gone as far as to claim that Muḥammad referred to the
supreme being as al-Raḥmān in the beginning of his preaching (when he was in Makkah), then

98
“changed his mind” and decided to switch to Allah later on, upon establishing his state in
Medina. This conjecture will be properly dealt with when the opportunity presents itself.

Another archeologist, Charles Cutler Torrey, describing inscriptions from a southern Arabian
monument near Zafār associated with al-Raḥmān, states the following in his book entitled The
Jewish Foundation of Islam (pages 18, 19): “Here we find, clearly indicated, the doctrines of the
divine forgiveness of sins, the acceptance of sacrifice, the contrast between this world and the next,
and the evil of associating other deities with the Raḥmān”.

It is beyond the scope of this book to comment on this particular issue. However, one question is
well-worth asking: if Muḥammad (P) was indeed a historical figure from northern Arabia (the
Ḥijāz), why would the Qur‟ān, which he supposedly “authored”, refer to Allah as al-Raḥmān?
We leave this question for you to ponder over for a moment, dear reader, before moving on.

The South Arabians developed an extensive irrigation system that later included the massive
earthen dam at Ma‟rib, and supported what in Arabia was a relatively prosperous agricultural
economy. Much of their society was based on cooperation in controlling and allocating water
supplies, a system that began as early as 4000 BC, when the Arabian interior began to dry up,
and became more complex and sophisticated later on. Trade routes realigned themselves closer
to the fertile highland escarpments that skirted the Sarawāt Mountains and sustained cash crops
exported to Egypt and the Mediterranean region. Camel caravans enabled the South Arabians to
engage in long-distance overland trade, while their geographic position also encouraged sea trade
with East Africa and India.

The inhabitants of the rapidly encroaching deserts adopted a nomadic lifestyle, while the settled
agricultural areas of the southern Arabian highlands and mountains developed prosperous urban
areas. Trade commodities were highly varied. The region produced gold, honey, saffron,
frankincense, and myrrh (among others), and quickly became one of the wealthiest regions in the
world. It was during that era that the Queen ruled her kingdom.

Al-Hamadāni, the great geographer, historian, and explorer of Yemen, who died in Ṣan„ā‟ in the
year 947 AD, wrote that the Queen of Sheba was born in Arabia, the daughter of Ekeye Azeb, an
Aksumite princess, and Sharḥabeel, ruler of Yemen. Al-Hamadāni reported that the Queen of
Sheba's name was Bilqees, and that she spent part of her youth in Aksum (Ethiopia), returning to
Arabia just before her father's death. A second Yemeni tradition, recorded by Sa„diyyah bint
Yūsef (around 1702 AD), states that the Queen‟s father was a chief minister to the king of Sheba,
but that her mother was a ginni. It is very likely that the term ginn-jinn, in its original meaning,
did not refer to fantastical or super-human beings. It is likely that in ancient times, farming and
pastoral societies encountered small hunter-gatherer peoples credited with magical powers - the
San of the Kalahari Desert and Namibia being modern examples of such peoples in Africa.
Perhaps the Grendel story of the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf refers to a remnant Neanderthal or
hominid hunter population now long extinct. DNA testing in Wales (Great Britain) has revealed
the existence of a pre-Celtic population remnant related to highland peoples in Papua New

99
Guinea, giving strength to the belief that thousands of years ago, there was a worldwide
population of nomadic, isolated hunter-gatherers, who were obliterated or absorbed by later
migrations of farmers and pastoralists. Their remnants still exist today in Tanzania, southern
Africa, India, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and even Sūqatra Island (south of the Yemeni
mainland). In modern Yemen, there is a caste of menial laborers called Akhdām, whose social
rank is even lower than former slaves. Marriages of these people into the higher tribal social
class are rare, the reason often being given that the Akhdām are ginn. The Akhdām have African
ancestry, but discrimination against them seems based more on caste connotations rather than
racial prejudice. Perhaps the reference to the Queen of Sheba‟s mother as being a ginni meant
not that she was a mischievous spirit, but most probably a rarely seen foreigner with unusual
powers or skills (perhaps knowledge of medicine, metal-working craft, or even divination).

When Bilqees was twelve years old (a marriageable age according to ancient Yemeni culture),
the King of Sheba, deeply impressed by her intelligence, successfully approached her father to
take her as his wife, and to make her joint ruler as Queen of Sheba. This tradition is supported by
Sheban inscriptions that have been unearthed at Abuna Garima, in northern Ethiopia, that testify
to the joint rule of Sheban kings and queens, a practice imitated in Aksum even as late as the
mid-sixth century AD, when two kings ruled jointly. The young woman remained queen after her
husband's death and was assisted by the ginn (her mother's people). The seeming “fantasy” of
this story is no doubt an account of two different groups in Arabia that the queen united, as her
parents came from each side.

A third Arabian tradition again maintains that the Queen of Sheba was the daughter of the chief
minister of Sharḥabeel, ruler of Yemen, and a ginn. When ordered to marry the king, she got him
drunk and beheaded him, after which she was proclaimed Queen. Muslim writer al-Kisā‟i (died
805 AD), speaks of Dhū-Sharkh ibn Hadād, an extremely good-looking wazeer (minister)* of the
ruler of Sheba. This young man was smitten by the beauty of `Umārah, daughter of the king of
the ginn. He obtained permission to marry „Umārah, and she bore Bilqees, the future Queen of
Sheba, who ascended to the monarchy by beheading Sharakh ibn Sharāḥeel, the tyrannical ruler
of Sheba. Nashwān ibn Sa„eed al-Ḥimyari, writing in the twelfth century AD and claiming to be
descended from the Queen of Sheba‟s family, said her father‟s name was al-Hadhad ibn Sharaḥ
ibn Dhū Saḥār.

The similarities of the traditions (the minister father, a foreign “magical” mother, links with both
Africa and Arabia, her intelligence and beauty, and her youth when she became ruler) strongly
indicate a common African-Arabian origin, which lends some credibility to the Ethiopians‟ claim
over the Queen, and their belief - however controversial it may be - that the Ark of God is buried
deep in a volcano, somewhere on the Ethiopian plateau.

_____________________________________________________________________________
* The English word wizard is no doubt related to the term vizier, whose origin is the Arabic word wazeer.

100
Prominent Yemeni historian Wahb ibn Munabbih stated that the Queen of Sheba, as a child, was
“as radiant as the brightest sun” and grew up to be the greatest beauty in the land. The traditions
of the Yemeni Jews confirm this and also testify to her intelligence, claiming that she was more
able at solving riddles even than her talented mother.

Because of the scarcity of archeological research done in Yemen, very little is known about
everyday life during the time of the Queen of Sheba (i.e. 3000 years ago). Commentators suggest
that life was probably very much the same a thousand years after her death, partly because
southern Arabia‟s geographical isolation and control of lucrative trade routes enabled the people
to maintain a prosperous, peaceful, and relatively egalitarian society. Women had far more
influence than their contemporaries in ancient Palestine or North Arabia, and this was evidently
conducive to a more balanced society. This is not to say that Sheba was some sort of utopia, for
traditions speak of power struggles and political court intrigues involving the Queen herself.
However, the relationship between men and women in Yemen was not thrown seriously out of
balance until the sixth and seventh centuries AD, when the male-dominated religions of Judaism,
Christianity, and Persian Zoroastrianism (in which Primal Woman is a prostitute), brought their
theological and political disputes to the region of South Arabia, where their beliefs later
infiltrated Islam through the books of tradition and ḥadeeth.

The reason that women retained an equitable position in societies after the introduction of
a centralized Iron Age state may be linked to the nature of the South Arabian economy. Large
numbers of both male and female workers were needed for cultivating and harvesting
frankincense, and for maintaining terraced agriculture, irrigation works, long-range camel
trading, and other activities. Since women were vital to the state‟s prosperity, it is logical that
they would have been given far more freedom than in societies where profitable activities such
as trade and the priesthood were controlled exclusively by men (as was the case in North Arabia
and the Levant at the time).

From the Queen‟s own statements in chapters 24 and 27 of the Kebra Nagast (KN), her deity was
remote, and people‟s minds were not chained by an ever-present, demanding, perhaps even
suffocating all-powerful god. This is not a fanciful picture, because it is clear from modern-day
study of religions developing in this period, that the concepts of “free will” and “liberated
women” were collectively regarded as evils to be curbed, and the Queen of Sheba became
a symbol of both. The Queen revered the sun deity, seeing it as a benign and reliable force that
did not impede the development of intellectual potential. Her words stand in sharp contrast to the
Old Testament tradition that restricted and discouraged intellectual development. It is for this
reason that the Jewish rabbinical creed of Persia and the Levant, in aparticular, demonized the
Queen. Here follows is a passage from chapter 24 of the KN:

“Listen to me, my people, and take note of what I say. I desire wisdom and my heart yearns for
understanding. I am in love with wisdom, and I am led by the leash of understanding, for wisdom is
greater than any wealth, and nothing you will find in this world can compete with it. So what can you
compare it to? It is sweeter than honey, and more enjoyable than wine. It dims the sun and devalues

101
the most precious gem. It sustains you more than oil, it‟s more delicious than the choicest food and
a wealthy man without it is nobody...No realm can survive without wisdom, nor can prosperity
continue without it”.

The Old Testament Book of Kings reports the following account:

And the queen of Sheba, having heard of the fame of Solomon in the name of the
Lord, came to try him with hard questions. And entering into Jerusalem with
a great company, and riches, and camels that carried spices, and an immense
quantity of gold, and precious stones, she came to King Solomon, and spoke to
him all that she had in her heart. And Solomon gave her answers to all her
questions: there was not any word the king was ignorant of, and which he could
not answer her. When the Queen of Sheba observed all of Solomon’s wisdom and
the palace that he had built, and the fare of his table, the seating of his retainers,
the service and attire of his attendants, his wine service, and the burnt offerings
that he offered at the House of Yhwh, it broke her spirit. She said to the king, “The
report that I heard in my own land about you and your wisdom was true. But I did
not believe the reports until I came and saw with my own eyes that what had been
told me was not even the half of it. Your wisdom and wealth surpass the reports
that I heard. How fortunate are your people and servants, those who stand always
before you and listen to your wisdom. Blessed be Yhwh your God who delighted in
you and set you on the throne of Israel. It is because of Yhwh’s eternal love for
Israel that he made you king to administer justice and rule with righteousness.
She then presented the king with 120 bars of gold and an enormous quantity of
spices and precious stones. Never again did so vast a quantity of spices arrive as
that which the Queen of Sheba gave Solomon (1st Kings 10: 1-10).

Comparing the version of the story found in the KN and the OT with the account related to us in
the Qur‟ān (which we will analyze in the next chapter), we note a clear difference: the two pre-
Christian age sources say that it was trade relations and a love of wisdom that brought the Queen
of Sheba to visit the Israelite monarch. The Qur‟ān, on the other hand, tells us that it was
Sulaymān (P) who extended an invitation to the Queen, and that she was reluctant to accept it at
first, but then realized she had no choice in the matter.

In his book entitled Queen of Sheba and Biblical Israel (2005), professor Robert Leeman states
the following concerning the Arab traditions surrounding Solomon and Sheba, that undoubtedly
trace their origins to ancient Yemeni Jewish folklore: “If the traditions are correct, Solomon
wanted to reduce Saba‟ (Sheba) to a client state or colony ruled by a child he would father
by the queen. The queen wanted to create good relations with Solomon, to learn from his
experience, and to probe the extent of his wisdom. As part of her strategy, she employed
riddles. Yemeni traditions say that riddles helped the queen gain her throne”.

The Old Testament and the Kebra Nagast do not elaborate on the riddles that the Queen tested
Solomon with. These belong to much later rabbinical texts. The following is a small sample of
some of those riddles, as reported by the Midrash Mishle and the Midrash ha-Hefez (Jewish
sources dating after the Christian era):

102
 Number Riddle Answer
Seven go out and nine go in, two offer The menstrual cycle, pregnancy, breasts and
1
drink but only one accepts. a baby.
Who was the mother that told her son that
2 his father is her father, that she is also his One of Lot‟s daughters.
sister and the daughter of his grandfather?
3 Who has neither been born nor died? God.
4 Which place has only seen the sun once? The sea bed when Moses parted the waters.
Which enclosure has ten entrances but
5 when one is open, nine close, and when The uterus.
nine open one is shut?
Who was the dead person who lived and
6 Jonah in the belly of the whale.
prayed in a moving grave?
Which three ate and drank in this world
7 The guests of Abraham.
but had no gender?
8 What was never born but was given life? The Golden Calf.
The queen presented a number of The children were offered food. The boys
youngsters in identical clothes and asked accepted them with open hands. The girls
9 Solomon to distinguish the boys from the demurely extended their hands beneath their
girls. clothes so that their uncovered hands would not
be seen.
The queen asked Solomon to distinguish Solomon ordered the Ark to be revealed. The
10 between circumcised and uncircumcised circumcised knelt on one knee; the others
boys. prostrated themselves.

The Jewish scribes abhorred women entering what they believed to be the exclusively male
domains of religion and statecraft. The Queen was an immensely proud and confident young
woman, who some traditions state rejected every offer of marriage, considering the prospect as
beneath her. She may very well have come to challenge what most of Solomon‟s court believed
was the natural order of things. What the Queen thought as the natural order and what the Jewish
rabbinical tradition thought were two different things. The Queen represented a more peaceful
and tolerant realm, a result perhaps of more equitable relations between men and women, which
supports the notion that women are influential in promoting compassion, a heightened sense of
community, and a willingness to arbitrate rather than to assert. This was not the way the Jewish
priesthood interpreted affairs. Isolated from female opinion, their collective psyche dreaded the
blurring of gender roles, fearing that the presence of an articulate, beautiful, and intelligent
female ruler meant that women wanted to become like men, even physically. Moreover,
members of the rabbinical institution were diametrically opposed to any form of
democratization, be it class or gender, which would threaten their dominance of society. It is
precisely for this reason that Jewish rabbinical scholarship denigrated and demonized the Queen
of Sheba, some even going as far as to claim that she was not a historical figure.

The Ethiopian sources, however, do not agree with that stance.

The most complete account of events regarding the remainder of the Queen‟s visit to Solomon
(events that the later Jewish scholars ignored completely) is covered in the Kebra Nagast. The
Queen spent several months in Solomon‟s court, observing the construction of the Temple and

103
the way he conducted his administration. Solomon was more liberal than his priesthood, and it is
probably his tolerance of other creeds that persuaded the Queen that adoption of the Israelite
faith might be advantageous to her realm.

The Sheba-Menelik Cycle states that the Queen stayed six months in Solomon‟s court, and when
the time came for her to leave, with her honor intact, he became quite distressed. A final
celebration was prepared, which the Queen observed from an elevated pavilion, where she was
privately served food doctored with powerful spices, before she prepared for bed. Other
Ethiopian traditions say her handmaiden slept by her side. Solomon then appeared, announcing
that he intended to sleep on the other side of the pavilion. This displeased the queen, and she
would not allow it until he gave his word that he would not attempt anything in the night. He
agreed but only on the condition that she in turn agreed not to take any of his property. The
Queen was highly contemptuous of such a suggestion, but finally yielded. In the night, plagued
by a colossal thirst from the spiced food, she crossed the floor to help herself to some water by
Solomon‟s bed. Before she could drink, Solomon grabbed her arm and reminded her that if she
drank the water, she would break her word. At last encountering the sordid dimensions of
Solomon‟s ruthless character, and with no hope of slaking her raging thirst in the room or in any
part of the kingdom without breaking her word, the Queen had to endure Solomon‟s triumph.
Next, according to the Ethiopians, Solomon slept with the handmaiden as well.

The Queen then left for the south, taking with her a ring Solomon insisted on presenting to her as
a gift for their future child. She had warned Solomon that only virgins could rule in Sheba and
a pregnancy could cost her the throne. The Kebra Nagast implies that at the beginning of her
reign, the Queen was based in Arabia, but spent her last days in Ethiopia. The general impression
evident in the text is that her visit to Solomon somewhat weakened her political power.

The next part the Queen of Sheba‟s story is so spectacular, so controversial, that many
authorities simply chose to ignore it. This is because accepting it means declaring null and void
everything that Biblical scholarship has ever claimed concerning the true geography of the Old
Testament. Those who have followed the path of the ancient Ethiopian chronicle to its
conclusion and pondered over the startling geographical revelation deduced from its text have
been vilified, marginalized, censored, unemployed, and even, like scholar Al Glock,
assassinated*. Academics find it safer not to follow where the Kebra Nagast‟s evidence leads,
even if this means the queen will never be accorded her true status as an undoubtedly real,
historic figure.

______________________________________________________________________________

* Professor Al Glock was the American director of the W. F. Albright Institute in Jerusalem, from 1978 to 1980, and
then director of the Palestinian Institute of Archaeology at Bir-Zeit, until Januray of 1992, when he was shot dead.
Glock had told his students that archaeology would reveal only Palestinian history and nothing “Israelite”.

104
  The Geographic Puzzle

It all began with a vision Solomon had on the night he slept with the Queen. According to the
KN (chapter 30), he dreamed that the sun moved from Israel and shone on Sheba‟s realm:

A brilliant sun rose up before King Solomon. It swept down from heaven and shone with a brilliant
light over his kingdom. And as he watched it hang over his realm he saw it suddenly soar away,
moving across the sky until it settled over the Queen‟s country, where it shone even brighter than
before, as if it wished to remain there for all eternity.

Meanwhile, the story continues and the Queen eventually gives birth to a son at Bala Zadisareya,
in Ethiopia. The name of the son is usually given as Menelik. The Kebra Nagast refers to him as
Bayna Lehkem, which means “son of the wise man” (this Ge‟ez name is in fact nothing but an
a‟jami rendering of the Arabic Ibn al-Ḥakeem). When Menelik reached the age of twelve, his
companions asked him who his father was. He approached his mother with this subject, but her
reply was stern (chapter 32):

The Queen spoke to him angrily, intending to discourage him from discovering the truth and visiting
Solomon, “Why do you ask me about your father? I am your father and mother, so do not mention the
subject again”.

This failed to have the desired effect, and served to only trigger the boy‟s curiousity and
persistence. Eventually, after many years, the Queen relented and was forced to accept the fact
that she could no longer hide the truth from her son. When Menelik reached the age of 22, he
went on a journey to see his father. The Queen of Sheba arranged for his passage to Gaza*,
a town on the Israelite frontier that was ceded by Solomon to the Queen. Before he left, the
Queen handed Menelik the ring Solomon gave her, along with a message to the king (chapter
33).

Solomon, amazed at the young man‟s appearance, told him that he did not so much resemble him
but his own father, King David, and arranged for Menelik to be given royal robes. When they
were alone, Menelik handed his father the ring given years before to the Queen of Sheba and
relayed to him the message from the Queen, requesting that Solomon give him a part of the
fringe of one of the three silk covers that shrouded the Ark of the Covenant.

The Sheba-Menelik Cycle seems to have been translated and incorporated into the Kebra Nagast
by Christian priests, around the year 700 AD, then copied in the first years of the 14th Century. In
Chapter 36, we learn that the Queen reluctantly agreed, in accordance with Judaic practices, that

______________________________________________________________________________
*The introduction of the name Gaza by the Christian redactors during the 14th Century has been proven to be
a forgery of the original Ge‟ez text, which spoke of a town on the border of Solomon‟s domain of influence. The KN
clearly states that the Israelite monarch relinquished control of this town to the Queen. It is absolutely crucial that
you keep this point in mind, dear reader, as it provides the ultimate clue to the location of Solomon‟s territory with
respect to Sheba‟s, while taking into consideration what we revealed to you in the previous chapter concerning the
Biblical term „Azzah (see page 57).

105
thereafter only men would be rulers. Knowing her character and experience, it is very difficult to
accept that she agreed to such a measure, especially when we know that queens later ruled in
both Ethiopia and Arabia. If it is true that the Queen lost control of Yemen to Solomon, she still
held royal rank in Ethiopia. In order to consolidate her rule there, however, she may have agreed
to concessions, including Solomon‟s designation of Menelik as future Israelite ruler, in order to
be accepted by an Israelite population on the Ethiopian plateau. Conversely, the sections of the
Sheba-Menelik Cycle stating that only men should rule thereafter may be politically motivated
interpolations of the 14th Century Christian traditions, for reasons that will soon be apparent.

Solomon, in fact, did not want his son to return to Ethiopia. At that time he only had one son,
Rehoboam (Raḥb-„Amm), who was still a child. Menelik‟s parentage gave him indubitable
dynastic advantages. Solomon entreated his son to stay in Ur-Salem, but the young man insisted
on returning to his mother, respecting an oath he had given her. Reluctantly, Solomon acceded to
his request but decided to strengthen his ties with the Queen‟s realm. Menelik said (chapter 37):

“My mother the Queen has kept her word to you and has already done away with the worship of idols.
She has brought our people to Zion [the Israelite religion] and the Torah”.

Solomon gave some thought to the matter and then came to a decision, which he announced to
the kingdom‟s leaders (chapter 38):

“I have not been able to convince this young man to stay here so this is what I‟ve decided to do. We
will make him the king of Ethiopia along with your own first born children serving him in the same
capacity as you serve me”.

Menelik‟s coronation followed. Zadok, the temple high priest, lectured him on the need to follow
the God of Israel and to obey the Torah, listing the terrors and misfortunes that would strike if
Menelik erred (chapters 39 - 42).

The twenty-one first-born males of the kingdom were extremely fearful of the dismal prospects.
Their leader was Azariah, son of Zadok. The Sheba-Menelik Cycle records Azariah‟s advice to
them, having first made them swear to secrecy (chapter 45):
“What shall we do? ... Let us take the Ark of the Covenant. You think it is not possible? Well, I will
show you. If you do as I say and God is with us we will succeed. If we are discovered and are put to
death, we will have died for Zion [the Ark]”.

Benaiah‟s son, Zechariah, was supportive but pessimistic. He said to Azariah:

“None of the priests may enter where they keep the Ark, except your father, once a year, when he
offers a sacrifice in the Holy of Holies”.

Azariah told him to keep faith and asked each first-born male to hand over ten drachmas for the
scheme he had in mind. His idea was to ostensibly commission a carpenter to build parts for an
emergency raft, the sort used by ancient mariners to serve as a life raft when a ship foundered.
He would then take the pieces into the temple, where he would assemble them as a box.

106
He would then remove the Ark and replace it with the box beneath the silk covers. The Ark
would be hidden in a hole and removed when the time came for Menelik to leave (chapter 45).

Zechariah spoke of Azariah‟s knowledge of the temple and its “hidden openings” (secret doors)
as well as his frequent custodianship of the keys, but chapter 46 of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle says
an angel revealed a plan to Azariah that was far superior to simple burglary.

Azariah, complying with the “angelic” advice, persuaded Menelik, who was ignorant of the plan,
to approach Solomon for permission to make a sacrifice with Azariah and three others before the
Ark. Permission was granted; the king and other notables attended the ceremony. What happened
next was ascribed to the angel, but it looks very much as if Azariah drugged the celebrants
(there had been a considerable feast). Chapter 47 says cryptically that Azariah mingled his
offerings with those of the king, and he did likewise with the drinks, just as the Angel of the
Lord had commanded him in the night.

Later that evening, Azariah, Elmeyas (son of the temple arch-deacon), Abesa (son of the tax
assessor), and Makari (son of the palace judge) brought the unassembled sections of the wooden
box to the temple, which they found unguarded, its doors open. They quickly assembled the box
and substituted it for the Ark, which they hid for the week prior to their departure (chapter 47).

When the time came for them to leave, Solomon blessed his son and told him to have faith in
what had made Israel great: God, the Israelite divine destiny as the Chosen People, the Torah,
and the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the tablets of the Ten Commandments. Solomon
and his people were desolate, feeling a terrible sense of loss. In the last instant, Solomon recalled
a message that had been sent with Menelik from Ethiopia, requesting a piece of the cover of the
Ark to be given to the Queen of Sheba. Solomon dispatched Zadok to deal with it. The high
priest complied without checking whether the Ark was still in place. The piece of silk was
handed over to Menelik, who was still ignorant of the theft of the Ark (chapters 48-51). At last,
Menelik‟s party left for the south.

We now come to the most delicate and most important part of the story, namely chapters 52-59
of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle.

According to the redacted Ge‟ez text, Azariah waited until the party were within the border of
Mesrin (which the Christian commentators invariably interpreted as Egypt), before telling
Menelik of the theft of the Ark.
“Can you keep a secret?” he asked. “Yes, I can,” replied the king [Menelik], “and if you tell one to me
I will keep it so until the day I die.”

Then Azariah motioned to Elmeyas, one of those who had helped him remove the Ark from the
temple, and told him to get the Ark ready for Menelik to see. Menelik was shocked but then
recovered and danced before the Ark as his grandfather David had done, accepting that divine

107
grace had delivered it to him. He then ordered the Ark to be carried openly, and the party set out
again for Ethiopia (chapters 52-55).

Meanwhile, in Ur-Salem, King Solomon was sorrowfully reminiscing to Zadok about times past,
and confided to him the vision he had experienced the night he slept with the Queen of Sheba.
Zadok was horrified, interpreting the vision correctly as a prediction that the Ark would be stolen
and taken to Ethiopia. He rushed to the temple, found Azariah‟s box, and fainted. On recovering,
he sped to Solomon to tell him the disastrous news. Solomon dispatched a cavalry force and then
he himself joined the pursuit, vowing the culprits would be butchered. It was all in vain and
Solomon returned in sorrow to Ur-Salem, blaming his deviation from the Torah for this dreadful
misfortune (chapters 56-60).

Arab and Ethiopian scribes of the ancient times would have a basic knowledge of Middle East
geography. If they did not, later editors would correct their work. This is in fact what happened.
The commentators of the Kebra Nagast, working to assemble the scripture during the 14th
Century, took the Sheba-Menelik Cycle text and, assuming its geography was skewed, they
inserted what they thought were “helpful points” to aid the reader in coming to terms with what
they thought was a geographical mistake. Unfortunately, this only made things much worse.

The redacted text of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle (written in Ge‟ez) states that Menelik's party left
yarusalem and headed for gaza. Then, they passed to the border of mesrin, and reached the māya
kwsh, in three days. There, Menelik was told about the theft of the Ark of the Covenant. Next,
they came to the coast of the bahra‟al ‟ahmar, crossed it, arrived on the African shore opposite
of dabra sina, and traveled from there to the highlands of ityopia. If we carefully analyze this
account with the preconception that yarusalem and gaza are the present-day Jerusalem and Gaza
of Palestine respectively, that mesrin is Egypt, that kwsh (or kush) refers to the region of Nubia
(present-day Sudan and parts of Ethiopia), and that dabra sina (Mount Sinai) is where popular
belief places it, this means that Menelik‟s party would have gone from Jerusalem (the departure
point) to Gaza and then down along the Nile across Sudan, where they then crossed the Red Sea
over to Arabia and arrived in Ethiopia opposite the so-called Sinai Peninsula (arrival point). This
geography makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and neither does the account of Solomon's
pursuit.

On discovering the theft of the Ark, Solomon's troops rode out to mesr* (also Egypt?), where
they were informed that Menelik's party had left nine days earlier. Some of the troops, returning
disheartened to Solomon, reported that Menelik had taken only three days to travel from ur-
salem to the takazi (a journey that, in normal circumstances, would take no less than three
weeks!). Let‟s look at the map below and elaborate on the ludicrous implications of this trip.

_____________________________________________________________________________
* Please note that the original Ge‟ez text mentions both mesr and mesrin.

108
Map #6: The geography of Menelik‟s trail (the red line) according to the Kebra Nagast, with Jerusalem
in Palestine, Mesr/Mesrin translated to mean “Egypt”, and Kwsh understood as the region
encompassing parts of Ethiopia and Sudan.

Let us now review the text, as recorded in Ge‟ez, to expose the fallacy of the Christian
commentaries:

Chapter 53 (first section):

Xeba tawhba saragala la‟ityopya

Wabaxeba xedarusa gāzā hagara ‟emu laneguš zāwahaba soba tmasu‟e xecēhu neguš salomon
lanegušta „ityopyā. Wa‟emhya bashu ba‟ahati „elat westa dawala gebes ‟enta smā mesrin
wasoba r‟eyu daqiqa xeyalāna ‟esrā‟ ēl kama ba‟ahati „elat bashu mhwāra 13 „elat wa‟idakmu
wa‟irxbu wa‟isab‟e wa‟i‟enssā wakwilomu kama zasobē sagbu wastyu ‟a‟imaru wa‟amnu
‟emuntu daqiqa xeyl kama ‟emxeba ‟egzi‟abhēr konat zati waybēlwe lanegušmu nāwrd
saragālate ‟esma basahna māya kwsh zāti y‟eti takazi ‟enta tward ‟em‟ityopyā watsaqi falaga
gebes wa‟awradu saragalātihomu hjya watkalu dabāt rihomu. Wahoru xbura daqiqa xeyl
wasadedu kwilo ‟ahzaba. Waybēlwo lanegušmu nngrkanu nagara la‟ema tkl ta„agšo waybēlomu
‟ewa ‟ekl wala‟ema tbēluni ‟eska „elata motya ‟iyawad‟e wa‟iyāš‟e.

The above text was translated as follows:

How the Ark reached Ethiopia

They halted at Gaza, the city of the king‟s mother, which King Solomon had given to the Queen
of Ethiopia when she visited him. From there they took a single day to travel to Gebes (Egypt?),

109
the name of which is Mesrin. When the children of the leaders of Israel saw that they and their
animals had taken one day to travel a distance that usually took thirteen without getting tired or
hungry or thirsty and indeed felt that they had eaten and drunk their fill, they believed it was God‟s
work. They spoke to their king (Menelik) “Let us put our loads down for we have arrived at the
waters of Kush. This is the flow that comes from Ethiopia and waters the Brook of Gebes
(Egypt?).” And so they let down their transports and pitched their tents.

The first problem is immediately encountered with the placement of gāzā within the territory of
Palestine. What the redactors failed to realize is that King Solomon had ceded control of this
border city to the Queen. Is there anyone who can provide proof that the current city of Gaza in
Palestine was ever under the control or ownership of an Ethiopian monarch?

Secondly, the assumption that Gebes (which is Mesrin) is Egypt is not only a fallacy that proves
the Christian commentators were under the influence of the earlier Septuagint translation of the
Old Testament, but also renders the entire geography of the trip completely ludicrous, as we will
soon elaborate.

The next passage contains extracts from the Ge‟ez manuscript:

Chapter 55 (extracts):

Ba„nta zatafashu sab‟a Ityopya

Watanš‟u saragalātni kamu qadimu wagēšu basbāh yhēlyu lāti watalā„lu kwilomu matana 'emat
'enza yastafānwwomu sab‟a bhera gebes xelafu baqdmēhomu kama slalot wasagadu lomu sab‟ā
bhera gebes ‟esma r „eywā ‟enza traws kama dhay bawesta samāy wakwilomu yrawsu
basaragalā ‟enza yrawsu baqdmēhā wabedxrēhā. Wabashu bahra ‟al ‟ahmar ‟enta y ‟eti bahra
‟ireterā....…labāhra ‟Ireterā walasab‟a ‟tyopya wawad'u bāhra watafašhu fadfāda ‟emna ‟esrā‟ēl
soba ywad‟u ‟mgebes wabashu ‟ansra dabra sina waxedr westa…Wa‟emhiya sa„anu
saragalātihomu watanš‟u wehoru wuxelafwā labhēra Mdyām …hagara bēlontos ‟enta hagara
‟ityopya…

The translation reads as follows:

How the people of Ethiopia rejoiced

Then the transports rose up early in the morning and left and the people sung praises to Zion, and
they were all raised up to the height of a cubit. They passed by like shadows and the people of
Egypt called out their farewells, and the people of Egypt paid homage to Zion as she flew above
them by accompanying her transport before and behind. Then they came to the Sea of Al-Ahmar,
which is the Sea of Eritrea (the Red Sea)….…And the Sea of Eritrea was joyful as too were the
people of Ethiopia, who went to the sea and celebrated mightily with a greater pleasure than did
Israel, after the escape from Egypt. They arrived opposite Mount Sinai…. And then they loaded
their transports, rose up and departed, passing to the land of Mdyam and then the city of Belontos,
a city in Ethiopia….

110
The above passage states that Menelik‟s caravan floated about a foot off the ground, and
travelled at the speed of the winds, until it arrived at the shores of the Red Sea, crossed it at
a point near Mount Sinai, and landed in Ethiopia. Menelik‟s party eventually settled in
Belontos, a city on the Ethiopian plateau.

The question that poses itself here is the following: if Gebes is indeed Egypt, how on Earth could
anyone cross the Red Sea from Egypt and arrive in Ethiopia? Furthermore, if Mount Sinai is
truly located where we have been deluded into believing (the triangular peninsula between Egypt
and Palestine), what relation does it have to the city of Belontos in Ethiopia? And how could
Menelik‟s party end up at their final destination in Axum, and still be so close to Jerusalem?

Is there anyone in the world who can solve these discrepancies?

Furthermore, several modern scholars have postulated - probably accurately - that the “flying
chariots” is in fact an addition to the original text, made by the Christian commentators, who
thought they could conceal their corruption by inserting their “comments” in the Ge‟ez language,
to make it indistinguishable from the original content.

Finally, let us read the following passage, which describes Solomon‟s pursuit of the thieves:

Chapter 58 (sentence four and onwards):

Xaba tans'a salomon yotlomu

Wahoru wabashu hagara msr xaba ta„yanu hya sab‟a ityopya msla negušomu waxabahi
tasalamwa lasyon watafašhu wahatatu kiyahomu hara neguš waybēlwomu sab‟a bhēra gebes
„emrhuq maw ā„el bazya xlafu sab‟a ‟ityopyā ‟enza yrawsu basaragalā kama malā‟ēkt wayqallu
‟emna ‟ansrt bawesta samāy waybēlwomu mā‟azē „elat xalafu ‟emnēkmu waybēlwomu yom
tasu„e mawa„el bazu xalafu ‟emnēna. Wabo ‟emnēhomu ‟ela gab‟u wanagarwo languš salomon
kama xalafu tasu‟a mawā„el ‟emza xalafu ‟emsr wa‟abyāšinasa horu kama yxešsu ‟eska bahr
‟irtrā wanhnasa gabā‟ena kama nngrka zanta ‟esku xali lalika neguš ba„elata sanuy ‟emkama
wad‟u emxabeka bashu bašalus xaba falaga takazi hagara msr walanani soba fanawkana
‟em‟iyarusālēm basāhna ba‟elata rāb„e xalikē batbab matana ybashu ‟emuntu sab‟e.

Watam„a neguš waybē ‟axezwomu xamstihomu ‟aska nrakb sdqa qālomu. Wa‟aftanu hawira
neguš wasarawitu wabasu gaza wattas‟elomu waybelomu ma‟azē xalafa waldya ‟emanēkmu .
‟Aws‟u waybelu xalafa y‟eti šalus „elat wasoba sa„anu saragālatihomu ‟albo zayahawr mal„elta
mdr ‟alā basaragalā squlān mal„alta nafus wayqallu ‟emna ‟ansrt zawesta samay wakwilu
nwayomu yahawr mslēhomu mal„elta nafās basaragalā walanasa masalana za‟'anta rasayka lomu
batbabka kama yhoru basaragalā mal‟elta nafās. Waybēlomu bonu zahalawat syon tabota hgu
la‟egzi‟abhēr mslēhomu weybēlwo ālbo zar‟ine.

Here is the translation of the above passage:

111
How Solomon rose up to kill them

And Solomon‟s cavalry sped on and reached the city of Msr where the men of Ethiopia had camped
with their king, and where they had made peace with Zion and rejoiced. And Solomon's troops
questioned the people and the men of the region of Gebes told them "Some days ago some Ethiopians
passed through here and they traveled swiftly in wagons like angels and faster than eagles.” And the
king's men asked, “How many days ago did they leave?” And the men of Gebes told them that nine
days had passed since they left. Then some of the troops returned to Solomon and told him, “It's been
nine days since the Abyssinians left Msr. Some of our detachment have gone to look for them at the
Sea of Eretrea (the Red Sea), but we came back to report the situation. Consider the matter, my
lord: On the second day they left your territory and on the third they reached the river
Takazi at the city of Mesr. And after being sent out by you from Jerusalem we arrived on the day of
the Sabbath. And we returned today, the fourth day of the week. You can estimate just how far those
men have traveled.” At this the king became extremely angry and ordered the five cavalrymen to be
seized and held until their story was checked. Then the king set out with troops for Gaza where he
asked the people when his son had left. They replied that he had departed three days earlier, adding
“and having loaded their wagons, none of them traveled on the ground but in wagons
suspended in the air. And they were swifter than the eagles in the sky, and all their loads
traveled with them in wagons above the winds. As for us, we thought you had in your wisdom,
enabled them to travel in this way.” But when the king asked them if the fugitives were carrying Zion,
the Tabernacle of the Law of God, they replied they had seen nothing.

According to the text, Solomon's pursuing force reached the city of Msr in the region of Gebes.
It is very evident that Msr refers to a city, not the land of Egypt (the Nile Country). Furthermore,
there is not a single archeological record ever uncovered that designates Egypt by the name
“Gebes”. This is but a product of the canonical imagination that rendered the text, and was
unable to cope with the geographical implications behind it. The Msr mentioned in the Kebra
Nagast is in fact the same Miṣr that we read about in the Qur‟ān, the walled and fortified citadel
which was under the control of Far„awn, and from which Mūsa (P) and the Children of Israel had
escaped. This Miṣr was part of the land that the Israelites eventually inherited after the drowning
of Far„awn, as the Qur‟ān clearly states (please refer to our first book, The Search for Pharaoh,
for details regarding this matter).

Upon reaching Mṣr, King Solomon‟s cavalry troop was told that Menelik's party had reached the
takazi which, according to the text, was in the vicinity of Msr. This proves that the takazi
mentioned in the Sheba-Menelik cycle cannot be the Tekezze River junction of present-day
Ethiopia. The Kebra Nagast tells us that one detachment raced for the Red Sea coast to determine
whether Menelik had crossed. Confirming that he had, they returned to Solomon with the grave
news. This means that Menelik‟s party crossed the Red Sea into Ethiopia after they had been at
the takazi. How, then, could this takazi be in Ethiopia?

In his book Queen of Sheba and Biblical Israel, scholar Berbard Leeman brings to our attention
what other academics have said concerning the term Msr: [There is doubt that Mesrin, Msr, and
Gebes should all be translated as Egypt. The remark “Gebes, the name of which is Mesrin…”
seems to have been a later elaboration by the Ge‟ez scribes. Wallis-Budge and Bezold both
translated hagara msr as if Msr (Egypt) were a country. But hagar is actually the Ge‟ez word
for city. Since Menelik‟s party crossed the Red Sea after passing through Mesrin, Msr, and

112
Gebes, the three locations should be on the east side of the Red Sea, in Arabia, and the text
is speaking of a city named Msr, not a country].

Is Professor Leeman delusional for placing Msr, Mesrin, and Gebes in Arabia? Or is it perhaps
by Allah‟s will - His sunnah - that truth will always prevail in the end, no matter how long the lie
is allowed to endure?

Elsewhere, Leeman states: [Next, there are references to takazi. In chapters 53, 58, and 59,
Sir E.A. Wallis-Budge translated the word takazi to mean the Takezze River, which rises
near Lalibela in Ethiopia and joins the Atbara River at Showak in Sudan. Bezold, considered
the best authority on the text of the Kebra Nagast, would have been fully aware of the
existence of the Takezze River, but translated it as fluss (meaning watercourse or
flow)…Budge translated the text to mean “the river that watered the Valley of Egypt”, but
Bezold more accurately stated that it watered the “Brook of Mesr”. In Chapter 58, Bezold
again translated falaga takazi hagara msr as “nach dem Flusstale in‟s Land Mesr” (river
valley in the land of Msr), and in Chapter 59, westa takazi falaga msr as “zum Flusse, dem
Bach von Mesr” (to the watercourse, the Brook of Mesr). These names probably do not refer
to the Nile].

This means that the word takazi, which appears in the Ge‟ez manuscript, is a common noun
indicating a river or a flowing stream. Apparently, the Christian commentators who decided to
tamper with the text, rendered the term as a common noun, and quite simply projected it onto the
Ethiopian territory.

What about the name Kwsh (Kws) that has long been synonymous with the south Nubian regions
shared by Sudan and Ethiopia? Late British Professor Edward Ullendorf (died 2011 AD), one of
the most prominent authorities on Old Testament links with Ethiopia, concluded that Kwsh
probably referred to two locations on both sides of the Red Sea. Two centuries before him,
German scholar Johann David Michaelis (1717 – 1791 AD) arrived at the same conclusion*.

Indeed, it seems that this term, as mentioned in the Kebra Negast, actually refers to Kūth )‫س‬ٛ‫(و‬,
a tribal identity in Yemen (the Bani Kūth, or al-Kūthiyeen). The Ethiopain dialects did not
vocalize the th sound, hence they rendered the name as Kwsh (or Kws). The Bani Kūth (not to be

______________________________________________________________________________

* If we look up the “Kush” entry in Wikipedia, we get the following information: Cush (also Kush, Biblical ‫ ּכּוׁש‬Kûš)
was, according to the Bible, the eldest son of Ham, brother of Mizraim (Egypt), Canaan and the father of the
Biblical characters Nimrod, and Raamah, mentioned in the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10:6 and I Chronicles
1:8. He is traditionally considered the eponymous ancestor of the people of Cush, a dark-skinned people inhabiting
the country surrounded by the River Gihon, identified in antiquity with Arabia Felix (i.e. Yemen) and Aethiopia (i.e.
all Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the Upper Nile).

Disregarding the false statement by Wikipedia that Mizraim is synonymous with Egypt, we find reference to ancient
sources identifying the Land of Kush as encompassing territories in both Yemen and Ethiopia. This lends validity
to Ullendorf‟s conclusions.

113
confused with the Ḥūthis) are mentioned more than once in Arabian poetry, as tribes who
eventually migrated north, settling in the Ḥijāz region and in Iraq. It is also very likely that
groups of them migrated across the Bāb-al-Mandab Strait, and established their presence in
Ethiopia.

In his book entitled (lit): Glossary of Countries (page 1502), Arab historian and geographer
Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi states very clearly that Kūth is the name of a territory in Yemen, then follows
his statement with a verse of poetry by al-Ṣulayḥi, mentioning horses:

:‫ال‬١‫صف ف‬٠ ٟ‫ؾ‬١ٍ‫ لبي اٌص‬.ًٍٍ‫ تهذ تان‬:‫كىز‬

‫اكا‬ٛ‫ أػ‬ٚ‫غ اٌّجو‬ٌْٛ‫ِٓ لبؽً ا‬ ‫ـب‬ٙٙ‫ كىز رْج‬ٌٝ‫صُ اٍزّود ا‬

The passages we have extracted from the Kebra Nagast emphasize that Menelik‟s party traveled
“through the air” at great speed. Bernard Leeman comments on the misunderstood geography
and the canonical tampering (page 218), wherein he states: “However, since the people of
Gebes were stationed in front of and behind the transport carrying the Ark of the Covenant,
it seems that the references to it flying were added afterwards, to explain why the party
arrived so quickly at locations that the later redactors believed were far down the tributaries
of the Nile. The truth was probably that the locations were near each other in western
Arabia, and rather than alter the time taken to move between them, the redactors added
a divine element of air travel to explain why it took a single day from Mesrin (which they
believed meant Egypt) to the Waters of Kws (which they understood as the River Takezze in
Ethiopia). The time span must have been unacceptable to the later redactors, who knew
that the journey from the junction of the Nile at Atbara to the Takezze took thirteen days at
approximately twenty-three miles a day. The short time it took for the cavalry detachment
to report back to Solomon seems to support this”.

The Sheba-Menelik Cycle states that Menelik crossed the Red Sea and landed in Africa opposite
Mt. Sinai. This means that the Biblical Mount Sinai is located in South Arabia. There is
absolutely no doubt about this issue whatsoever. Lebanese historian and linguist Kamāl Ṣaleebi,
who was ignorant of the Sheba-Menelik Cycle when he had written his famous book The Bible
Came from Arabia in 1984, placed Mount Sinai in the volcanic ring of fire, in what is now the
northern part of Yemen, opposite Eretrea. Solomon‟s foray into “Gaza” was most probably in
order to convince himself that his errant son and the Ark were not in the area and, that being the
case, further pursuit was fruitless. Was Kamāl Ṣaleebi delusional as well, when he placed Mount
Sinai in Yemen?

Here follows is a letter from the Apostle Paul, who had spent three years in Arabia for
“mysterious reasons” that no Christian scholar in the world has ever convincingly explained,
before he began preaching Christianity in Palestine:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondmaid, the other by
a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he
of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the

114
two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to abondage,
which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children (Gal. 4 :22-25).

The above passage is from one of Paul‟s letters (in the New Testament), which claims that
Abraham‟s marriage to Hāgar, the alleged bond-maiden, is an allegory to the “bond of flesh” and
to Mount Sinai itself, which is in Arabia. In our first book, dear reader, we proved to you that the
current location of Sinai is in fact a fraudulent projection whose origin can be traced back to the
personal opinion of Emperor Constantine (died 377 AD). It was not until the 4th Century AD that
the peninsula between Egypt and Palestine began receiving veneration as a Biblical site.

The current Mount Sinai cannot be the actual mountain by the same name mentioned in the
Qur‟ān, because Allah‟s final scripture to mankind describes Seenā‟ as being a ṭūr, which as we
previously showed you, designates a green mountain located in a volcanic region. There are no
volcanic peaks or green mountains anywhere in the current so-called “Sinai Peninsula”. Also, if
you recall, we showed you that the real Ṭūr Seenā‟ was located within what the Qur‟ān called the
“Secure Country” (al-Balad‟ul Ameen), in the same geographical domain as the Forbidden
Sanctuary (al-Bayt‟ul Ḥarām) and the Mother of Towns (Umm‟ul Qura), where Muḥammad (P)
had begun preaching the Qur‟ān (see Search for Pharaoh; pages 107-109).

Let us pause and consider the following passages from the Old Testament:

Concerning Edom; thus says the Lord of Hosts: Is wisdom no more in Teman? Is
counsel perished from the prudent? Is their wisdom vanished? (Jeremiah 49:7).

It is the “Wisdom of Teman (Teyman)” that Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts is enquiring about. This
is the ancient and forgotten land of Yemen, the theater of the Prophets of Allah, which has been
hidden from the consciousness of the world by legions of human devils. Compare the above
Biblical passage with the following ḥadeeth attributed to Muḥammad (P):

.‫خ‬١‫ـّبِٔـ‬٠ ‫اٌؾىّخ‬ٚ ، ْ‫ّب‬٠ ُ ْ‫ّب‬٠‫اإل‬

Translation: “Faith is from Yemen; and wisdom is from Yemen”.

But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah (Amos 1:12).

It was the volcanic eruption that devoured the palaces of Bozrah and, before that, had destroyed
the town of Lūt (P).

The argument that the Sheba-Menelik account is genuine rests with the seemingly “ridiculous”
geographical references that have baffled scholars for many centuries. These references seem
ludicrous only when applied to Palestine and Egypt. They make perfect sense if placed in South
Arabia.

115
  Menelik‟s Trail

The highest mountain in Arabia is in Yemen. It stands nearly 3,700 meters high, and is a very
prominent landmark for sailors navigating the Red Sea. Sailing due west from the coastline
under the shadow of this mountain, one can reach the peninsula on the Eritrean coast that shelters
its most famous port of antiquity, Adulis. The mountain we are talking about is Jabal al-Nabi
Shu„ayb (Mountain of Prophet Shu„ayb). No other mountain on Earth bears that name. At first,
Shu„ayb seems a mystery, and few in the West would have heard of a prophet by that name.
Traditionally he has been identified as the figure of Jethro, mentioned in the Old Testament. The
Qur‟ān tells us that Shu„ayb was Allah‟s messenger to the people of Midyan, another ancient
name that has been lost to the ages, and the only hope of finding it lies in the South Arabian
inscriptions that we hope archeologists will someday uncover*. The same can be said regarding
the name Seenā‟.

The Old Testament tells us that Moses married a Kushite woman. According to Islamic
traditions, his wife was Ṣaffūrah, the daughter of Shu„ayb. Despite the fact that Mūsa (P) did in
fact flee to Madyan at one point in his life, to escape persecution by the militia of Miṣr, there is
no indication in the Qur‟ān that Mūsa and Shu„ayb were actually contemporaries. The territories
surrounding Jabal Shu„ayb are among the world‟s largest areas of volcanic activity. In Yemen,
there are volcanic peaks reaching altitudes of over 3,000 meters, and plateaus (harrāt) composed
of lava flows up to 1,000 meters thick. Nowhere in Palestine, Jordan, or the current Sinai
Peninsula do we see such topographical features. In the deepest sections of the Red Sea, molten
lava continues to bubble up between the African and Arabian tectonic plates. The Qur‟ān clearly
mentions this phenomenon (the sea under which fires erupt), as one which Muḥammad (P) and
his people were very familiar with:

{By the Ṭūr (green mountain) * And a recorded Book * In parchment unrolled. * And
the crowded Sanctuary * And the ceiling (sky) that is raised. * And the sea that is
set aflame. * The retribution of your Rabb is unavoidable * Nothing can stop
it}…[52:1-8].

The Qur‟ān describes Mūsa‟s flight from Miṣr to Midyan in the following passage:

{And a man came running from the farthest part of the city, saying: “O Mūsa, the
commanders are plotting to kill you, so leave immediately. I am giving you good
advice” * He exited the city, afraid and watchful. He said: “My Rabb, save me from
the wicked people”. * And as he made his way towards Midyan, he said: “Perhaps
my Rabb will guide me to the right path”}…[28:19-22].

______________________________________________________________________________
* Among the scripts of the South Arabians are inscriptions that have been identified by archeologists by the name
Zabūr. This is the name that the Yemenis themselves gave to the inscriptions. Hence, the Zabūric Alphabet is an
archaic alphabet that was used in the ancient scriptures of South Arabia. The Qur‟ān states that Dāwūd (P) was
given the Zabūr. No other inscriptions in the entire world were identified by that name. This is another overlooked
clue as to the true theater of Biblical Israel.

116
The city that Mūsa (P) fled was in fact Miṣr, the fortified citadel having several gates, which was
under the control of Far„awn. The English translation, which rendered this passage as “he made
his way towards Midyan”, does not in fact do justice to the original Arabic text, which states the
following:

.{‫}ونًا ذى ّظه ذهماء يذٌٍ لال ػغى ستً أٌ ٌهذًٌُ عىاء انغثٍم‬

The term tilqā‟ (‫ )رٍمبء‬which appears in the Arabic text, indicates that Midyan and Miṣr were in
the same geographical area. Bearing in mind the circumstances of time and place, the two cities
could not have been more than 100 kilometers apart, or the Qur‟ān would not have used that term
to describe Mūsa‟s journey.

A few passages down, we read the following:

{So after Mūsa fulfilled his obligation and was traveling with his family, he saw
a fire on the slope of the Ṭūr. He said to his family: “Stay here, I have seen a fire,
perhaps I can bring you from there some news or a burning piece of the fire so
that you may be warmed”. * So when he reached it, he was called from the edge
of the right side of the valley at the blessed area of the tree: “O Mūsa, it is I, Allah,
Rabb of all peoples”}…[28:29,30].

This event happened on the slopes of Ṭūr Seenā‟, in a spot that was very well known to
Muḥammad (P), who would walk in Mūsa‟s very footsteps, centuries later. Ṭūr Seenā‟, in turn,
cannot be very far from Midyan. Bearing in mind all the geographic clues we have encountered
so far concerning „Azzah (not Gaza), Ur-Salem, Kūth, Miṣr, Seenā‟, and noting the location of
Jabal Shu„ayb (not far south-west of Ṣan„ā‟), the riddle of Menelik‟s flight from the palace of his
father, Solomon, to his mother‟s ancestral home in Ethiopia can finally be solved.

Menelik‟s party left Yaru-Salem, an ancient city that lies today within Bayt Būs (8 kilometers
from the Yemeni capital Ṣan„ā‟), and traveled southwards towards „Azzah, an ancient Yemeni
outpost that lay along the border between Sulaymān‟s kingdom and the realm of the Queen of
Sheba. From there, Menelik made his way to the ancient fortress of Miṣr, which lay within the
Ibb province of Yemen, the ancestral home of the Bani Kūth (Kwsh), one of the many clans
branching from of tribe of Muḍar (the Biblical Mṣrim and the Mesrin of the Kebra Nagast). From
there, the party swerved west towards the coast of Tihāmah, at a point close to the slopes of Ṭūr
Seenā‟, which cannot be far from Midyan, then crossed the Red Sea into Ethiopia (see the map
below).

Supposing that Solomon‟s domain was in Palestine, Azariah‟s theft of the Ark would have been
complete madness. Azariah could not have hoped for many days‟ grace before the theft was
discovered, and Solomon‟s centralized military would have used signal fires and cavalry to cut
off any means of escape. Even if Menelik had managed to reach Egypt, the situation is very
unconvincing. Can anyone seriously imagine the authorities of dynastic Egypt, a country with
a large, dense, and heavily policed population, happily allowing passage to a small band of

117
hunted criminals fleeing from one of the most powerful monarchs in the Middle East
(supposedly), from whom they had just stolen the holiest artifact - and allegedly the most
powerful weapon - known to mankind?

Dynastic Egypt was a heavily controlled society that did not suffer transient renegades gladly. In
the first years of the 13th Century AD, during the Zagwe dynasty, the newly appointed
Monophysite bishop of Ethiopia, Michael of Fuwa, arrived at Axum from Alexandria. Five years
later, he fell out of favor and struggled back to Egypt, eventually arriving in Alexandria stripped
of his possessions and abandoned by his original retinue, except for three slaves and a pet cat.
Later, suspicious citizens forcibly drowned a West African monarch in the Nile. Such was the
fate of unsanctioned travellers in Egypt. Menelik‟s party would have been doomed if they had
chosen an Egyptian route.

Map #7: The true geography of Menelik‟s voyage (the red arrow line) according to the Kebra Nagast.
The trail is as follows: Departure around Sana‟a - „Azzah (Dhamar Province?) - Misr (Ibb Province) -
Tihāmah Coast (near Mount Sinai) - Red Sea Crossing - Arrival in Ethiopia (Eretria), opposite Mount
Sinai - Axum.

Regardless of whether the story of the Ark‟s passage to Ethiopia is a genuine account, or
an allegorical legend penned by the Ethiopian Jews and based on earlier Arabian sources, to
symbolize the Israelite (and later Jewish) presence in Abyssinia, the scribes who wrote the
Sheba-Menelik cycle were not ignorant of the geography of the events surrounding Solomon and
his renegade son. Although the story may be a fable, the geography is very much real.

118
Such is the case with all legends: symbolic stories staged in very real theaters. It is the Christian
redactors, who “edited” the Ethiopian text in the 14th Century, who were confused. And it is the
Zionist account of Palestine‟s history that later enforced this delusion in the minds of the masses.
Menelik‟s chariots did not fly from Palestine to Ethiopia, nor were they carried on the wings of
angels.

Solomon‟s kingdom was in Yemen.

*****

119
 CHAPTER IV

The Qur‟ān, the Zabūr, and the Sundial

120
In the previous chapter, we saw how the Christian redactors of the Kebra Nagast inserted “flying
chariots” into the text of the Sheba-Menelik cycle, to cover up what they thought was
a geographical inconsistency on the part of the Ethiopian scribes. We have also seen, in our
previous book, how the commentators of the Qur‟ān, most of whom were Persian scholars who
wrote their exegeses many centuries after Muḥammad, resorted to mythological creatures
(winged horses) to patch up the geographical irrationality of Ibraheem‟s multiple and
“mysterious” journeys between Palestine and the Ḥijāz.

What about the story of Sulaymān? How did the confusion regarding the location of the “Blessed
Land” manifest itself in the traditional interpretations regarding the account of the Israelite king?
Let us see what other surprises we encounter in the books of “Islamic” tradition.

 Master of Winds and Demons

{And to Sulaymān the gusting winds that run by his command to the land which
We have blessed. And We were aware of everything. * And from the shayāṭeen are
those who dive for him, and they perform other tasks, and We were guardian over
them}…[21:81,82].

Here follows is a passage from Tafseer al-Ṭabari (volume 2 / page 70), one of the most
prominent commentators of the Qur‟ān, who died around 925 A.D:

ّ‫ّشدةّهبوبها)ّ تجري ّبؤمره ّإلى ّاألرض ّالتً ّباركنا‬:ّ‫] ٌّقولّتعالىّذكرهّ"وّسخرنا لسلٌمانّّبنّداودّ الرٌح ّعاصفة" ّ )وعصوفها‬
ّ‫ّوذلكّأنهاّكانتّتجريّبسلٌمانّوأصحابهّإلى‬،ّ‫ّإلى الشام‬:ًّ‫ ٌعن‬، ‫ تجريّالرٌحّبؤمرّسلٌمانّإلى األرض التً باركنا فٌها‬: ‫ ٌقول‬،‫فٌها‬
ّّ.[‫ّإلىّاألرضّالتًّباركناّفٌها‬:‫ّفلذلكّقٌل‬،ّ‫ّثم تعود به إلى منزله بالشام‬،ّ‫حٌثّشاءّسلٌمان‬

To paraphrase al-Ṭabari, it seems the Persian scholar tipped in favor of the Levant (Palestine) as
being the destination of Sulaymān‟s wind, and at the same time, the homeland of the legendary
monarch. What al-Ṭabari is telling us here is that Allah gave Sulaymān command over the wind,
and caused that wind to blow to where Sulaymān was located. This point makes perfect sense
for a simple reason: the Qur‟ān tells us that after the drowning of Far„awn, the Israelites
eventually inherited the east and the west of the land that Allah blessed to all peoples (back
then). This was the same land to where Ibraheem and Lūṭ had migrated. It follows then that it is
the same land where Sulaymān‟s kingdom was located. Therefore, the understanding that the
wind blew towards Sulaymān‟s domain, not necessarily away from it, does not contradict the
Qur‟ānic passage. Al-Ṭabari was aware of this fact.

The problem, however, lies in placing the “Blessed Land” in Palestine, and assuming that
Sulaymān resided there. This is due, without a doubt, to ancient rabbinical and canonical
influences on the interpretation of the Qur‟ān; influences that had become deeply-rooted by the
time al-Ṭabari wrote his commentaries. Furthermore, the political machinations of the Umayyad
Dynasty, who established their seat of power in the Levant (Syria-Palestine) only served to

121
solidify this belief. The confusion becomes evident when we read al-Ṭabari‟s comments
regarding the following passage in the Qur‟ān:

{And for Sulaymān the wind was given, traveling one month coming and one
month going * And We caused a spring of brass to flow for him. And from among
the ginn are those that worked for him with the permission of his Rabb; and any
one of them who strays from Our commands, We shall cause him to taste the
retribution of the Fire. * They made for him what he desired of enclosures, and
images and pools of deep reservoirs, and heavy pots. O family of Dāwūd, work to
give thanks. Only a few of My servants are thankful}…[34:12,13].

Here follows are the comments (volume 2 / pages 363, 364):

‫ موو‬. ً٠ٚ‫ مٌه لبي أً٘ اٌزؤ‬ٟ‫ لٍٕب ف‬ٞ‫ اٌن‬ٛ‫ثٕؾ‬ٚ . ٌٗ ‫ٕب٘ب‬٠‫أعو‬ٚ ، ً‫ٓ إٌؾب‬١‫أمثٕب ٌٗ ػ‬ٚ : ‫ي‬ٛ‫م‬٠ ) ‫ٓ اٌمطو‬١‫إٍٍٔب ٌٗ ػ‬ٚ ( ٌٗٛ‫ل‬ٚ
‫ ػٓ لزبكح ( وأعهُا نه ػٍٍ انمطش ) ػٍٍ انُحاط كاَد تأسض‬، ‫ل‬١‫ ؽلصٕب ٍؼ‬: ‫ل لبي‬٠‫ي‬٠ ‫ ؽلصٕب‬: ‫ؽلصٕب ثْو لبي‬: ‫ِٓ لبي مٌه‬
.ْ‫ّب‬١ٌٍَ ‫َ ثّب أفوط هللا‬ٛ١ٌ‫ٕزفغ ا‬٠ ‫أّب‬ٚ ،ًٍٍ‫ان‬

In the above passage, al-Ṭabari brings to our attention that the melting of brass and turning it into
a flowing liquid (described figuratively in the Qur‟ān as being a “fountain”), was one of the
favors given by Allah to Sulaymān. He also proceeds to state that there seemed to be a chain of
narrators who placed the “Fountain of Brass” in Yemen, and that the people of that land were
still (during al-Ṭabari‟s day and age) reaping the benefits of this “fountain”.

The question that naturally poses itself here is: if Sulaymān was based in ancient Palestine, why
would the molten brass that Allah bestowed upon him be in Yemen? Did Sulaymān travel to
Yemen at some point in his life, and cause the brass to flow there?

Another commentator, Ibn Katheer, who likewise associated Sulaymān with Palestine, also
placed the fabled Fountain of Brass in Yemen. Here is a passage from Ibn Katheer‟s commentary
(Volume 6 / page 499), for those who can read Arabic:

‫ل‬٠‫ِبٌه ػٓ ى‬ٚ ، ٞ‫اٌَل‬ٚ ، ‫لزبكح‬ٚ ، ٟٔ‫ػطبء اٌقواٍب‬ٚ ، ‫ػىوِخ‬ٚ ، ‫ِغب٘ل‬ٚ ، ً‫ٓ اٌمطو ) لبي اثٓ ػجب‬١‫إٍٍٔب ٌٗ ػ‬ٚ ( : ٌٗٛ‫ل‬ٚ
‫صٕغ إٌبً ِّب‬٠ ‫ فىً ِب‬، ًٍٍ‫ وكاَد تان‬: ‫ لال لرادج‬. ‫ انُحاط‬: ‫ انمطش‬: ‫اؽل‬ٚ ‫و‬١‫غ‬ٚ ، ٍٍُ‫ل ثٓ أ‬٠‫ػجل اٌوؽّٓ ثٓ ى‬ٚ ، ٍٍُ‫ثٓ أ‬
.َ‫ٗ اٌَال‬١ٍ‫ ػ‬، ْ‫ّب‬١ٌٍَ ٌٝ‫أفوط هللا رؼب‬

It also appears, from Ibn Katheer‟s writings, that Sulaymān had a flying ship in the form of
a wooden plank, which he used to travel to far-away destinations in the ancient world. Here is
what he tells us in his Tafseer, (volume 5 / page 36):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

*Note how the ayah speaks of the wind as coming and going (for the period of a month in either direction). This
lends further support to our interpretation of [21:81], which is that the blowing wind - in that particular passage - is
towards Sulayman‟s realm (i.e. towards the Blessed Land), not necessarily away from it, as most readers assume.

122
ٟٕ‫ؼ‬٠ ) ‫ب‬ٙ١‫ ثبهوٕب ف‬ٟ‫ األهض اٌز‬ٌٝ‫ ثؤِوٖ ا‬ٞ‫ ( رغو‬، ‫ؼ اٌؼبصفخ‬٠‫ّبْ اٌو‬١ٌٍَ ‫ٍ ّقؤب‬ٚ : ٞ‫ؼ ػبصفخ ) أ‬٠‫ّبْ اٌو‬١ٌٍَٚ ( : ٌٗٛ‫ل‬ٚ
، ‫ ٌىضغ ػهٍه كم يا ٌحراض إنٍه يٍ أيىس انًًهكح‬، ‫مٌه أٔٗ كاٌ نه تغاط يٍ خشة‬ٚ ) ٓ١ٌّ‫ء ػب‬ّٟ ً‫وٕب ثى‬ٚ ( ، َ‫أهض اٌْب‬
، ‫ وذظهه انطٍش يٍ انحش‬، ‫ شى ذحًهه فرشفؼه وذغٍش ته‬، ‫ شى ٌأيش انشٌح أٌ ذحًهه فرذخم ذحره‬، ‫وانخٍم وانعًال وانخٍاو وانعُذ‬
...ٗ‫فْج‬ٚ ٗ‫ظغ آالر‬ٛ‫ر‬ٚ ‫ٕيي‬١‫ ف‬، ‫إنى حٍس ٌشاء يٍ األسض‬

Paraphrase of the highlighted part: “He had a plank made of wood, on which he placed all the
props of his kingdom, his horses, camels, tents, and soldiers. He would then command the
wind to lift him into the air. So the currents would flow underneath the plank, raising it into
the air, while birds would fly overhead to provide him with shade, until he reached the
destination of his choosing. Once there, he would descend from the plank and all his props
would be unloaded”.

So this, then, is the explanation for how Sulaymān traveled to Yemen.

Looking up the heading “Solomon in Rabbinical Literature and Legend” in the Jewish
Encyclopedia, we come across the following passage:

With reference to Solomon's dominion over all the creatures of the world, including spirits,
several stories are current, the best known of which is that of Solomon and the ant … It is
narrated as follows: “When God appointed Solomon king over every created thing, He gave
him a large carpet sixty miles long and sixty miles wide, made of green silk
interwoven with pure gold, and ornamented with figured decorations. Surrounded by his
four princes, Asaph Berechiah, prince of men, Ramirat, prince of the demons, a lion,
prince of beasts, and an eagle, prince of birds, when Solomon sat upon the carpet he was
caught up by the wind, and sailed through the air so quickly that he breakfasted at
Damascus and supped in Media. One day Solomon was filled with pride at his own
greatness and wisdom; and as a punishment therefor the wind shook the carpet, throwing
down 40,000 men. Solomon chided the wind for the mischief it had done; but the latter
rejoined that the king would do well to turn toward God and cease to be proud; whereupon
Solomon felt greatly ashamed”.

It seems that the rabbinical references to magical carpets that could carry 40,000 men and fly
from Damascus to Media (now part of Iran) in one day, as well as allusions to subservient
demons, eventually found their way into “Islamic” folklore. So it was narrated (does this term
sound familiar to you, dear reader?).

The next question that poses itself is: in light of the apparent confusion, how did the
commentators interpret the geography of Sulaymān‟s kingdom with respect to the Queen of
Sheba‟s? Let us first read a relevant part of the Qur‟ānic account regarding this visit (we have
left certain words un-translated at this point):

{And he inspected the ṭayr, then said: “Why do I not see al-hdhd, or is he among
those who are absent? * I will punish him severely, or I will kill him, else he
should have a clear excuse” * But al-hdhd did not soujourn far, then he said: “I
have seen what you do not know, and I have come to you from Saba’, with certain
news * I found them ruled by a woman, and she was given all possessions, and

123
she had a great throne * And I found her and her people subservient to the sun
instead of Allah! And the shayṭan had made their works appear good to them, so
he kept them away from the path, for they are not being guided” [27:20-24].

The common belief is that the terms ṭayr and hdhd (or hudhud, as it is articulated), designate an
army of birds, among which was the hoopoe, who went missing from Sulaymān‟s ranks. In his
book entitled Queen of Sheba and Biblical Israel (pages 97, 98), Professor Bernard Leeman
makes the following astute observation: “It is possible that an ancient oral tradition spoke not
of a bird but of a scout or water diviner. As the meaning of words changed over the years
however, the word became associated with the hoopoe in the same way as the Old
Testament prescription that the prophet Elijah was fed in the desert by ravens („rbm) when
Arabs (also „rbm) would seem to make more sense. As already mentioned, the Queen of
Sheba has been linked with Dhu Sharkh ibn Hadad and al-Hadhad ibn Sharah ibn Dhu
Sahar, so maybe the Arabic word for hoopoe, hudhud, has been confused with earlier
partially comprehended oral or unvocalized written traditions”.

The “unvocalized written traditions” that Leeman mentions, in passing, are in fact the solution to
this puzzle. We have already shown you many examples of the famous h letter that was often
inserted in the middle of words, in the vocal customs of the Yemenis. Linguists call this oral
phenomenon al-hā al-waṣaṭiyyah (meaning “the middle h letter”). It is enough for the reader to
look up the names of the kings of the Sheba and Ḥimyar Dynasties, as well as the prophets and
heroes of Yemeni folklore, to encounter dozens of examples of this tradition. The rendering of
the names Abram as Abraham and Yeshu„ (Joshua) as Yehshu„ (Jehoshua) are, by far, the most
famous instances thereof. Therefore, it is very likely that the name Hadad, which features very
often in ancient Yemeni traditions, is rendered as Hadhad by inserting the “middle h letter”.
This shows us that the Qur‟ān was in fact addressing an audience that was very familiar with
such linguistic traditions.

Following the course of this deduction, and taking note of Leeman‟s excellent reflection, it is
very probable that the ṭayr the Qur‟ān speaks of were not actual birds, but rather swift human
troops who may have served different functions in Sulaymān‟s army; such as cavalry, or perhaps
skilled footmen rangers or scouts who were familiar with the mountainous terrain, and could
move swiftly and onobtrusively within it. Going back to our previous book, we showed you,
honored reader, that the word ṭayr, in the Qur‟ānic language, does not necessarily designate
actual birds, but can also be used to describe a certain motion, whether in the actual, physical
sense (something that floats in the air or is hurled or projected with force) or in the figurative
sense (to fly; meaning to move very swiftly).

The classical interpreters of the Qur‟ān, however, were left seemingly puzzled by the Qur‟ānic
sentence {al-hdhd did not soujourn far}, which clearly means that the so-called “hoopoe” did
not stray far, and it wasn‟t very long before he made his appearance. It follows then, that the
domain which the “bird” scouted could not have been far from Sulaymān‟s realm.

124
How did the commentators deal with this Qur‟ānic reality? Let‟s see what Bernard Leeman says
regarding this issue (page 99): “Other Islamic written accounts concerning the hoopoe were
recorded in the eleventh century A.D. by two writers: Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ibraheem
al-Naysabūri (who wrote under the name of al-Tha`labi), and al-Kisā‟i. Both state that
Solomon, along with his extraordinary army, left Jerusalem on a giant magic
carpet for the sacred land, a reference to the area in Ḥijāz surrounding Mecca. There, he
foretold the coming of the Prophet Muḥammad and then advanced southwards towards
Yemen, which he reached in a few hours. Camping in a beautiful lush valley, the king and
his retinue were unable to find surface water; so the hoopoe, whose name was Ya‟fur, was
summoned, for it possessed the skill of seeing water beneath the ground. The hoopoe was
missing, for it had gone exploring, discovering the realm of Sheba”.

Here follows are parts of a passage from Tafseer al-Tha‘labi (volume 6 / page 196, 197), which
verify what Leeman is saying:

‫ ٍبئو‬ٚ ٍٗ٘‫ّبْ (ع) وبْ اما هوت ؽًّ أ‬١ٍٍ ْ‫ ا‬:‫ ػٓ وؼت لبي‬... ‫ ؽ ّلصٕب‬:‫ ؽ ّلصٕب ِقٍظ ثٓ عؼفو لبي‬:‫ٗ لبي‬٠ٛ‫ اثٓ فٕغ‬ٟٔ‫أفجو‬
‫ل‬٠‫و اٌؾل‬١ٔ‫ب رٕب‬ٙ١‫ ِقبثي رؾًّ ف‬ٚ ‫ لل ارّقن ِطبثـ‬ٚ ،ُٙ‫ لله كهعبر‬ٍٝ‫ق ثؼط ػ‬ٛ‫ب ف‬ٙ‫ف ثؼع‬ٛ‫ وزّبثٗ رٍه اٌَم‬ٚ ِٗ‫ فل‬ٚ ّْٗ‫ؽ‬
‫اة‬ٚ‫ اٌل‬ٞ‫ رغو‬ٚ ْٚ‫قجي اٌقجبى‬٠ ٚ ْٛ‫طجـ اٌطجبف‬١‫ ف‬،ِٗ‫اة أِب‬ٚ‫ٓ ٌٍل‬٠‫بك‬١ِ ‫ لل ارّقن‬ٚ ،‫ لله ػْوح عيائو‬ٟ‫ه ػظبَ رَغ ف‬ٚ‫ لل‬ٚ
:ْ‫ّب‬١ٍٍ ‫ي (ٓ) فمبي‬ٍٛ‫ٕخ اٌو‬٠‫ فٍَه ِل‬،ّٓ١ٌ‫ ا‬ٌٝ‫ فَبه ثّٓ أصطؾجٗ ا‬... ُٙ‫ ث‬ٞٛٙ‫ؼ ر‬٠‫ اٌو‬ٚ ‫ األهض‬ٚ ‫ٓ اٌَّبء‬١‫ٗ ث‬٠‫ل‬٠ ٓ١‫ث‬
ً‫ذ أصٕبِب‬١‫ي اٌج‬ٛ‫ ؽ‬ٜ‫ هأ‬ٚ ،ٗ‫ ث‬ٜ‫ ٌّٓ الزل‬ٝ‫ث‬ٛ‫ غ‬ٚ ،ٗ‫ ٌّٓ ارّجؼ‬ٝ‫ث‬ٛ‫ غ‬ٚ ،ٗ‫ ٌّٓ آِٓ ث‬ٝ‫ث‬ٛ‫ غ‬،ْ‫ آفو اٌيِب‬ٟ‫ ف‬ٟ‫٘نٖ ٘غوح كاه ٔج‬
ّ ‫ ٘نا‬ٟٔ‫ب هةّ أثىب‬٠ :‫ه؟ فمبي‬١‫جى‬٠ ‫ ِب‬:‫ذ‬١‫ اٌج‬ٌٝ‫ ٍجؾبٔٗ ا‬ٝ‫ؽ‬ٚ‫ فؤ‬،‫ذ‬١‫ اٌج‬ٝ‫ذ ثى‬١‫ّبْ اٌج‬١ٍٍ ‫ى‬ٚ‫ فٍّب عب‬،ٗٔ‫ْ هللا ٍجؾب‬ٚ‫رُؼجل ِٓ ك‬
ٟ‫ٔج‬
ِٓ ٌٟٛ‫ األصٕبَ رُؼجل ؽ‬ٚ ،ٟ‫ن ثؾعور‬ٚ‫نوو‬٠ ٌُ ٚ ٞ‫ا ػٕل‬ٍّٛ‫ص‬٠ ٌُ ٚ ّٟ ‫ا ف‬ٛ‫جط‬ٙ٠ ٍُ‫ ف‬،ٍٟ‫ػ‬ ّ ‫ا‬ّٚ‫بئه ِو‬١ٌٚ‫َ ِٓ أ‬ٛ‫ ل‬ٚ ‫بئه‬١‫ِٓ أٔج‬
‫ آفو‬ٟ‫ّبً ف‬١‫ أثؼش ِٕه ٔج‬ٚ ،ً‫لا‬٠‫ه لوآٔبً عل‬١‫ أٔيي ف‬ٚ ،ً‫٘ب ً ٍ ّغلا‬ٛ‫ع‬ٚ ‫ف أِألن‬ٍٛ ٟٔ‫ ا‬ٚ ‫رجه‬
ِ ‫ٗ أْ ال‬١ٌ‫ هللا ٍجؾبٔٗ ا‬ٝ‫ؽ‬ٚ‫ فؤ‬،‫ٔه‬ٚ‫ك‬
... ‫ه‬١ٌ‫ ا‬ٟ‫بئ‬١‫اٌيِبْ أؽتّ أٔج‬

Paraphrase: [It was reported (through a long chain of narrators) that Ka‟b said: “When
Sulaymān (P) rode (his gigantic flying carpet), he took along with him all his wives and
relatives, soldiers, servants, butlers, and his kitchen staff, all of whom would be seated
according to their ranks. There would also be giant ovens and pots, and animals of all kind
would run amok, as the wind carried everything between the earth and the sky … and so
Sulayman rode with his entourage to Yemen, and on his way, stopped in the city of the
Prophet (P) where he declared: „This shall be the site of migration of a prophet who will
come in the end of times. Blessed shall be those who believe in him and those who follow
him‟. And he then saw around the Sanctuary (in Makkah) many statues being worshipped
instead of Allah. And when Sulaymān flew above the site, the Sanctuary began to cry. And
so Allah inspired to it: „Why do you cry?‟ and the Sanctuary replied: „O, my Rabb! I cry
because one of Your prophets just passed overhead and did not land and pray, nor mention
Your name at my site, while these idols are being venerated all around me in Your stead‟.
And so Allah inspired to the Sanctuary (al-Bayt): „Do not cry, for I will one day fill you up
with prostrating faces, and reveal at your site a new Qur‟an, and send forth from you
a prophet at the end of times who shall be your most beloved prophet…”].

Winged horses, flying chariots, magical carpets, talking shrines…what else did they leave to our
imagination? What effect has their legacy had on the awareness and identity of our lost and

125
disorientated nation? Who was behind these atrocious fabrications? Who was the source of these
narrations? Search your soul, dear reader, and surely you will find the answer.

And so it was that Sulaymān gathered his army of demons, birds, and men, boarded his magical
carpet (a nod to Persian tapestries, perhaps?) and flew southwards from his seat in Jerusalem, all
the way to Yemen (a distance of some 2,000 kilometers). On his way, he decided to make a short
“transit” stop in the Ḥijāz region, where, out of the blue, he fortold the coming of Muḥammad,
then continued on his way down to to the border of Sheba‟s kingdom, where he disembarked,
and soon noticed the “sudden” absence of the hoopoe bird, which had decided to wander off and
scout the territory of the Queen of Sheba. [Thunderous applause and drums, please!].

Picture #31: A flying carpet solves the geographical puzzle.

A simple question is in order here: what did Sulaymān do after landing in Yemen and sending
the hoopoe on his mission to deliver the message to the Queen? Did he fly back on his carpet to
Palestine and await the Queen‟s arrival, so he could “impress” her with the grandeur of his
palace in Jerusalem? Why could she not simply have hitched a ride with him and saved herself
the trouble of making the 2,000 kilometer journey from Sheba to Palestine, across the scorching
and arid Arabian desert?

The glaring holes that are apparent in this story, and that have gone unchecked for too long, can
be explained in only one way: the commentators, who lived many centuries after the Qur‟ān was
first recorded, were confused to the point of insanity regarding the theater of Allah‟s messengers,
because they had absolutely no idea when or where the Qur‟ān was revealed. They were
commenting on a scripture whose origin went back to a time and a place that were completely
alien to them. And so they found themselves being forced to embellish the accounts with
mythological contraptions that served to only insult the intelligence of their generation and
indeed delude the future generations to this very day and age.

The “hoopoe” mentioned in the Qur‟ān was most probably a swift human emissary, who had
decided to scout out the Kingdom of Sheba; whose geographical domain very obviously shared
borders with Sulaymān‟s realm. This was a fact that was very-well known to the Ethiopian Jews

126
of old, who recorded the Sheba-Menelik cycle of the Kebra Negast, the Ge‟ez document whose
passages we analyzed in the previous chapter.

Furthermore, and on a side note, there were no demons in Sulaymān‟s court. The term shayāṭeen
which appears in [21:82] is the plural form of shayṭān, a term derived from the root shayṭ, which
means: to go far, go astray, to deviate, or to distance oneself from something. This is
a description that could very well apply to human beings who are criminals, or perpetrators of
deviant, or destructive rebellious acts*. Thus, these offenders were taken as prisoners by
Sulaymān, and forced to do labor for him (construction works). This is comparable to prisoners
in our day and age - those who have distanced themselves from the laws of society - being
imprisoned and punished with hard labor. This is made evident in the following passage:

{And to Dāwūd We granted Sulaymān * What an excellent and obedient servant * When,
before evening, well trained horses were displayed before him * He said: “I have enjoyed
materialism over the remembrance of my Rabb, until it (the sun) had set beyond the
horizon! * Send them back”. He then rubbed their legs and necks * And We tested
Sulaymān and placed a jasad upon his seat, but he then repented. * He said: “My Rabb,
forgive me, and grant me a kingship that will never be attained by anyone after me. You are
the Grantor” * So, We commissioned the wind to run by his command, raining gently where
he directed it * And the shayāṭeen, building and diving * And others, held by fetters * “This
is Our gift, so you may spend or withhold, without any repercussions”…[38:30-39].

It appears, from the above signs, that Sulaymān (P) became, at a certain point in time, pre-
occupied with petty affairs, and distracted from the remembrance of the Rabb. As a result, Allah
tested him by setting up a jasad on his throne. This term, jasad, which simply means body, and is
sometimes translated as corpse, could very well be an idiomatic expression designating an
incompetent person - a “dead man” in the figurative sense - who, for a time, took the reigns of
Sulaymān‟s domain (sat in Sulaymān‟s throne), and demonstrated his incapacity to govern. This
may have been related to Sulaymān‟s neglection of his duties. As a result, Sulaymān repented
and asked Allah, in supplication, to grant him governance over an unparalleled domain. The
passage also refers to the rebels / trouble-makers / criminals (the human shayāṭeen), who were
chained and fettered or forced to work for him as a punishment for their deviation (shayṭ) from
the laws of society.

Elsewhere in the Qur‟ān (Surah 34), these same shayāṭeen are described as being ginn, which is
possibly a reference to them being strangers, or non-urbanites (rarely seen dwellers of desolate,
mountainous places), some of whom were noteably skilled in their craft and could hence
reproduce the throne of the Queen of Sheba, in a very short time.

______________________________________________________________________________
*Incidentally, the Arabic verb shāṭa (in the past tense), used to describe kicking a ball away (putting it at a distance)
may very well have been the origin of the English verb to shoot and the noun shot. The claim that the word shayṭan
is derived from Satan is hence a complete fallacy. The word is an orginal term appearing in the Qur‟ān, which Allah
Himself describes as being a radically „arabi document.

127
As for references to demons with hooves and horns and strange names; these interpretations may
have been either figurative expressions pertaining to criminals or strange and unusual individuals
who mastered certain crafts, or were nothing but the products of an imagination that was heavily
influenced by the mythological and kabalistic traditions that were rampant throughout the ancient
world (and, by all indications, still are).

Picture #32: Demons in Solomon‟s court?

Map #8: Location of Biblical Israel.

As for the winds being made to “serve” Sulaymān, this is in fact a Qur‟ānic allusion to the
ancient Israelite monarch using his knowledge of the wind currents over the Red Sea and the
Gulf of „Adan, and his use of such currents for the navigation of ships in the waterways
surrounding the Arabian Pennisula, as shown in the map below. It was sea vessels that the winds
pushed along, not magical flying carpets. And it was the Red Sea that Sulaymān‟s ships sailed,
not the Medditerranean.

128
And the land of Sheba, which was overtaken by a colossal flash flood, and whose story the
Qur‟ān recounted as an example to Muḥammad‟s own people, that they may reflect on the fate
of those nations who, in their arrogance, viewed themselves as above showing gratitude to the
Creator, was likewise not far from the audience of the Qur‟ān.

Map #9: Wind currents over the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

 The Zabūr

On the Arabic Wikipedia website is a page that features a detailed article on the ancient history
of Yemen. One passage that is worth noting in the article is the following:

ّٓ١ٌ‫صبه للهح األػواة ِٓ أً٘ ا‬٢‫و ا‬ٙ‫ٓ ثً رظ‬١١ِ‫ٓ أ‬١١ّٕ١ٌ‫ىٓ ا‬٠ ٌُٚ .‫ه‬ٛ‫ اٌيث‬َّٝ٠ ّٓ١ٌ‫ ا‬ٟ‫ك ف‬ٛ‫ع‬ِٛ ‫ع آفو ِٓ اٌىزبثخ‬ٛٔ ‫وبْ ٕ٘بن‬
ٍٝ‫ها فغٍت ػ‬ٛ‫ٔٗ ىث‬َّٛ٠ ‫ا‬ٛٔ‫ْ وب‬ٛ١ّٕ١ٌ‫أْ ا‬ٚ ‫و‬١ِ‫ ٍفو اٌّيا‬ٛ٘ ‫ه‬ٛ‫ك ثبٌيث‬ٛ‫ْ اٌؼوة أْ اٌّمص‬ٛ‫ لبي اٌّئهف‬.‫اٌىزبثخ‬ٚ ‫ اٌمواءح‬ٍٝ‫ػ‬
‫فالي‬ٚ ‫ اٌّصبؽف‬ٚ‫ أٍؼف إٌقً أ‬ٍٝ‫ب ػ‬١ِٛ٠ ٓ١١ّٕ١ٌ‫اَ إٌبً ِٓ ا‬ٛ‫ب ػ‬ٙ‫ىزج‬٠ ٟ‫اد اٌز‬ٍٛ‫اٌص‬ٚ ‫خ‬١‫ه وبْ األكػ‬ٛ‫ اٌيث‬.‫خ‬١َّ‫اٌَفو ٘نٖ اٌز‬
‫خ‬١ٕ٠‫َذ ك‬١ٌٚ ‫ا٘ل‬ّٛ ‫َذ‬١ٌ ‫ب‬ٙٔ‫ أ‬ٞ‫وح أ‬١‫ه وج‬ٛ‫ صق‬ٚ‫اػ أ‬ٌٛ‫ أ‬ٍٝ‫ب الرىزت ػ‬ٙٔ‫ أ‬ٟ‫رقزٍف اٌيثو ػٓ اٌَّبٔل ف‬ٚ .‫خ‬٠‫ُ اٌزغبه‬ٙ‫هؽالر‬
ٓ‫ْ مٌه ػ‬ٛ‫ؼوف‬٠ ‫ٓ اٌؼوة‬١١ٍ٘‫وبْ ِبػوف ثبٌغب‬ٚ .‫هح‬ٛ‫ فبر‬ٚ‫صبال أ‬٠‫ب ا‬ٙ‫ثؼع‬ٚ ‫خ‬١‫ أكػ‬ٍٝ‫ ػ‬ٞٛ‫ؾز‬٠ ‫ب‬ٙ‫ْ ثؼع‬ٛ‫ى‬٠ ‫هح فمل‬ٚ‫ثبٌعو‬
‫ اٌموآْ ال ػاللخ‬ٟ‫ه ف‬ٛ‫ه اٌّنو‬ٛ‫ فبٌيث‬.‫اٌىزبثخ‬ٚ ‫ْ اٌمواءح‬ٛ‫ؼ‬١‫َزط‬٠ ‫ا‬ٛٔ‫ٓ وب‬١٠‫و‬١ّ‫ف أْ أغفبي اٌؾ‬١‫و‬ٚ ‫ه ثبٍُ ىثو‬ٛ‫ فنوو اٌيث‬.ٓ١١ّٕ١ٌ‫ا‬
ٕٗ‫ٌى‬ٚ ‫هح‬ٚ‫ك ثبٌعو‬ٚٚ‫َذ ِزؼٍمخ ثلا‬١ٌٚ ‫ٓ ِقزٍفخ‬١٠‫و‬١ّ‫ه ػٕل اٌؾ‬ٛ‫ّٕب وزبثبد اٌيث‬١‫ك ث‬ٚٚ‫ كا‬ٍٝ‫ه فبٌموآْ موو أٔٗ أٔيي ػ‬ٛ‫نا اٌيث‬ٙ‫ٌٗ ث‬
.‫ب‬٠‫ك‬ٛٙ٠ ْ‫ٓ وب‬١٠‫و‬١ّ‫اهك فؼلك ِٓ اٌؾ‬ٚ

Here follows is a paraphrase of parts of the passage:

There was another kind of script in Yemen (other than the Musnad script that was inscribed
on upright stones) known as the Zabūr … The Arab historians state that since the Yemenis
were accustomed to calling the Book of Psalms (in the Old Testament) Zabūr, the name
eventually became synonymous with the Psalms. Evidence has shown that the Zubur (plural
of Zabūr) were the written prayers and supplications that the common people used to scribe
on palm leaves or thin scrolls for religious purposes, or for matters related to trade, such as
commercial receipts … As for the Zabūr that is mentioned in the Qur’an, (which was
given to the prophet Dawūd), it is not necessarily related to the Zabūr of Yemen,

129
although the possibility that it is cannot be discarded, since most Ḥimyarites were
in fact Jews.

Isn‟t it interesting how they reluctantly discard the possibility of any connection between the
Zabūr of David and the Zabūric script of Yemen? The agreed upon, and logical principle, is that
the burden of proof falls on those who make the allegation. What proof do they have that there is
any other script in the world designated as Zabūr other than the ancient cursive script of Yemen?
The very name itself is as much a part of the country‟s culture as Bilqees and al-Hudhud.

The English copy of the Wikipedia page states the following:

The cursive zabūr script - also known as “South Arabian Minuscule” - was used by the
ancient Yemenis to inscribe everyday documents on wooden sticks in addition to the rock-
cut monumental musnad letters ... As yet only about one thousand such texts have been
discovered, of which perhaps some 26 have been published; this is partly due to the
difficulty of reading the minuscule script.

Has evidence ever been uncovered in Palestine that shows the term Zabūr as being associated
with the culture of that country?

Picture #33: Minuscule Yemeni Zabūr writing inscribed on wood.

Going back to the Arabic page, we read the following, sad passage:

ِٓ ‫و‬١‫ وض‬. ‫ ّجىخ اإلٔزؤذ‬ٍٝ‫ػ‬ٚ ً‫ي اٌؼبٌُ ث‬ٛ‫خ ؽ‬١ٍٕ‫ ِياكاد ػ‬ٟ‫جبع ف‬٠ٚ ‫ت‬٠‫و‬ٙ‫زؼوض ٌٍز‬٠ ‫ّخ‬٠‫خ اٌمل‬١ّٕ١ٌ‫صبه ا‬٢‫و ِٓ ا‬١‫اٌىض‬
َ‫ػل‬ٚ ‫خ‬١ٍ‫ب ثَجت االظطواثبد اٌمج‬ٍّٙ‫َ ثؼ‬ٛ‫غ أْ رم‬١‫ب الرَزط‬َٙ‫خ ٔف‬٠‫ٗ ؽواٍخ ثً اْ اٌجؼضبد األصو‬١ٍ‫خ ال رْوف ػ‬٠‫الغ األصو‬ٌّٛ‫ا‬
ٟ‫ُ ف‬ٙ‫ ِطبِؼ‬ٍٝ‫ي ػ‬ٛ‫صبه ٌٍؾص‬٢‫ٓ ا‬ٛ‫غبىف ٌص‬٠ ‫ فجبٌىبك‬.‫و٘ب‬١‫غ‬ٚ ‫ف‬ٛ‫اٌغ‬ٚ ‫ ِؤهة‬ٟ‫صبه ف‬٢‫ّخ ٘نٖ ا‬١‫ل‬ٚ ‫خ‬١ّ٘‫ أل‬ٚ‫اكهان اٌجل‬
‫خ‬١ّ٘‫ آصبها ثبٌغخ األ‬ٞٛ‫ رؾ‬ٟ‫اٌز‬ٚ ‫ اٌغجبي‬ٍٝ‫رخ ػ‬ٛ‫خ إٌّؾ‬١‫ه اٌَجئ‬ٛ‫ اٌمج‬.‫بػ‬١ٌَ‫ت رؾلس ِٓ لجً ا‬٠‫و‬ٙ‫الد اٌز‬ٚ‫و ِٓ ِؾب‬١‫وض‬ٚ ّٓ١ٌ‫ا‬
‫بة‬١‫ٍػ غ‬ٚ ‫اإلّ٘بي‬ٚ ‫ ِؼوظخ ٌٍَولخ‬،ُ٠‫ اٌؼبٌُ اٌمل‬ٟ‫ػ ف‬١ٕ‫ا اٌزؾ‬ٍٛ‫ٓ ِبه‬٠‫ٓ اٌن‬٠‫ل‬١‫ؽ‬ٌٛ‫ا ا‬ٛٔٛ‫ى‬٠ ٌُ ‫ٓ اٌملِبء‬١٠‫روعؼ أْ اٌّصو‬
‫صبه‬٢‫خ ا‬٠‫غؼً َِؤٌخ ؽّب‬٠ ‫ف صؼجخ ِّب‬ٚ‫ّو ثظو‬٠ ّٓ١ٌ‫ ا‬.‫ب‬ٙ‫ئخ إِٓخ ٌلهاٍز‬١‫و ث‬١‫ف‬ٛ‫ر‬ٚ ‫صبه‬٢‫ ٘نٖ ا‬ٍٝ‫يح األِٓ ٌٍؾفبظ ػ‬ٙ‫ربَ ألع‬
ِٓ ‫ـ‬٠‫ؾفع اٌزبه‬٠ ٗٔ‫األُ٘ أ‬ٚ ً‫اظؾخ ٌٍَّزمج‬ٚ ‫هح‬ٛ‫ هٍُ ص‬ٍٝ‫َبػل ػ‬٠ ‫صبه‬٢‫ ٘نٖ ا‬ٍٝ‫ٌىٓ اٌّؾبفظخ ػ‬ٚ ‫خ‬٠ٛٔ‫ب صب‬ٙٔ‫وؤ‬ٚ ٚ‫رجل‬
.ٗ‫ج‬١‫ لل رص‬ٟ‫ٗ اٌز‬٠ْٛ‫اٌز‬ٚ ‫و‬٠ٚ‫الد اٌزي‬ٚ‫ِؾب‬

130
Paraphrase: Many ancient Yemeni artifacts are being smuggled out of the country and sold
in auctions all around the world, and over the Internet. Many of the archeological sites are
located in tribal territories, whether in Ma‟rib, al-Jūf, or other areas, and are often left
unguarded. The excavation teams, on many occasions, cannot do their job because of the
turbulent situation between the Bedouin tribes, whose members are unaware of the value
and importance of these ancient vestiges. As a result, artifact thieves run amok in Yemen,
and very often the smuggling is perpetrated by tourists. Sheban tombs carved into the
mountains house relics which can prove that the Egyptians were not the only people who
mummified their dead in the ancient world. Due to neglect on the part of security forces,
these priceless relics are at the mercy of thieves. Yemen has been witnessing some difficult
times lately, and it appears that the safeguarding of the country‟s archeological treasures is
currently not on the agenda of priorities, despite the fact that protecting these artifacts can
help paint a clearer picture of the future, but most importantly, can help protect history
from attempts of fraudulent manipulation and forgery.

For many centuries, Yemen has lived in almost total isolation from its surroundings. It is a land
that forgot the world, and the world in turn, simply forgot its existence. It was not until lately that
news of this ancient country began to feature in the headlines; a change of fortune no doubt
brought about by foreign intervention in its affairs.

All we can do now is hope and pray that this land, whose antiquity has just recently begun to
dawn in the awareness of archeologists, and beneath whose soil are hidden secrets that will
someday turn our understranding of human origins head over heels, does not end up suffering the
same fate that Palestine has endured at the hands of those criminals who have been propagating
their colonial and racist version of history to the world.

 Astronomical Proof – The Sundial of King Ahaz

In 1984, Lebanese professor Kamāl Ṣaleebi, of the American University of Beirut, wrote
a controversial book entitled The Bible Came from Arabia. Having had unexpected access to
a geographical gazetteer of Saudi Arabian areas published in Riyāḍ in 1977, his study of it led to
his conviction that the place-names which feature in the Old Testament - the actual locations of
which have always troubled Biblical scholars when taken to apply to the territory of Palestine -
fitted perfectly if applied to the region of South Western Saudi Arabia, bordering the Red Sea
Coast.

Ṣaleebi (1929 – 2011) relied on two types of evidence to support his thesis; topographic and
linguistic:

1- The topography of the Old Testament does not match the actual landscape of Palestine.
Ṣaleebi argued that the description in the Bible is of an extensive tract of land, substantially
larger than Palestine, which includes a very varied landscape; ranging from wooded mountain
slopes, to well-watered fertile valleys and foothills, to lowland deserts. This is in fact true, and is
131
attested to by all the evidence we have uncovered for you so far, dear reader, which points to the
reality that the land described in the Old Testament is a mountainous and volcanic country that
bears no resemblance to the territory of Palestine whatsoever.

2- The inconsistencies which quickly became apparent between the rampant understanding of
Biblical place-names, and their actual locations on the ground. The truth of the matter is that of
the hundreds of names which feature in the Old Testament, no more than 10% have actually been
identified in Palestine. Ṣaleebi resorted to the similarities that are apparent between place-names
in the “Hebrew” narrative and the names of certain locations in the „Aseer and Jeezān provinces
of Saudi Arabia. The problem with the linguistic approach is that what Ṣaleebi actually found
were similarities, not actual matches. Very often he had to resort to unpersuasive - and in some
cases convoluted - phonetic manipulations of certain names to actually produce the matches.
Although the Biblical kingdom of Israel, established by David and later ruled by his son
Solomon, did in fact extend to include the southernmost parts of the „Aseer and Jeezān regions,
Ṣaleebi‟s theory that it was centered around Khamees Mushayṭ and Sarāt Ghāmid is not very
convincing. Our view is that it was centered further south, around Ṣan„ā‟ and the Sarāt of
Ḥimyar.

At any rate, we do encourage you, dear reader, to obtain a copy of Ṣaleebi‟s book (it is available
in several languages), in order to judge its credibility for yourself. Furthermore, despite the
book‟s apparent shortcomings, its author must be given credit for paving the way to a truly
important rediscovery and opening the door onto an intellectual reawakening that could very
well change the course of human history as we know it.

Ṣaleebi had made many enemies in the world, notably among the Saudis, whose government
decided to bulldoze vast regions of the mountainous „Aseer province, not long after the book was
published in 1985. But he also made some friends, among them a brilliant researcher by the
name of Anthony Lias, who wrote a post-script commentary on Ṣaleebi‟s book The Historicity
of Biblical Israel (second edition), in which he refered to the following passage in the Old
Testament Book of Kings:

And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah: “What shall be the sign that Jehovah will heal me, and that
I shall go up into the house of Jehovah the third day?” And Isaiah said: “This is the sign
Jehovah will give you, that he will do what he has said; will the shade go forward ten
degrees or back?” And Hezekiah said in answer: “It is a simple thing for the shade to go
forward; but let it go back ten degrees” Then Isaiah the prophet made prayer to Jehovah,
and he made the shade go back ten degrees from its position on the dial of Ahaz (2nd Kings
20:8-12).

To better understand the “sign of the Lord” mentioned in the Book of Kings, let us take a look at
the following passage from Isaiah:

Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the
sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward.” So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by
which it had gone down (Isaiah 38:8).

132
What exactly is the story of this “miraculous” phenomenon?

Here follows is Anthony Lias‟ explanation in his commentary on Ṣaleebi‟s book: [This
retrograde motion of a shadow cast by a gnomon (i.e. a sundial pointer) has traditionally
been regarded as a „miracle‟, because at the latitude of the present-day Jerusalem (31
degrees 47 minutes north of the Equator), such a motion would be impossible. However,
and I quote a respected figure, the English mathematician / astronomer Thomas Keith
(1759-1824), “If a horizontal dial, which shows the hour by the top of the perpendicular
gnomon, be made for a place in the Torrid Zone (i.e. the Tropics), whenever the sun’s
declination exceeds the latitude of the place, the shadow of the gnomon will go
back twice in the day, once in the forenoon and once in the afternoon, and the
greater the difference between the latitude and the sun’s declination is, the
farther the shadow will go back.” Now according to Professor Salibi, the original
Jerusalem of Isaiah‟s time will not have been in today‟s Palestine, but in Asir, and within the
Torrid Zone. Therefore the retrograde shadow on the sundial of Ahaz will not have been
a „miracle‟, but a fact. And no doubt an experiment could be set up in Asir at the
present time to prove this. (N.B: since declination is the angular distance north or south
of any heavenly body from the celestial equator, and since the highest possible declination
of the sun is 23 degrees 28 minutes, it is plain that during certain months of the year the
shadow will go back for every location within Asir.) It is possible that Professor Salibi is
unaware of these astronomical details, which I believe are a vindication of his thesis].

The latitude of the „Aseer province ranges from 17 to 19 degrees. According to the astronomical
facts given to us by Lias, if we assume an average latitude of 18, and we take the maximum
inclination of the sun on its axis (23 degrees) as the given, it would mean that the difference
between the sun‟s inclination and the latitude of „Aseer is 5 degrees. It follows then that if
Biblical Israel was in „Aseer, the sun‟s shadow would go back 5 degrees, twice each day.
However, the Old Testament is telling us that the shadow in fact went back 10 degrees, not 5.
This means that the sundial of King Ahaz and his son, Hezekiah, was located further south, at
a latitude of around 13 degrees to the equator, and hence deeper within the Torrid Zone (closer to
the Equator) than „Aseer. The map below shows that Ṣaleebi came close to the bullseye, but
didn‟t quite nail it.

The story of the odd behaviour of the sundial makes it obvious that Isaiah knew that the shadow
of the degrees on the sundial would go back, and that King Hezekiah did not. It is therefore
likely that Isaiah (who is thought by some Biblical scholars to have acquired some astronomical
knowledge from the Assyrians), duped Hezekiah into thinking he was witnessing a „miracle‟,
while in reality he was witnessing a natural phenomenon*. It scientifically impossible for such
a phenomenon to happen in Palestine, because Palestine‟s latitude is too far north.

______________________________________________________________________________
*The fact of the retrograde motion of the shadow of a gnomon within the tropics is independently confirmed and
fully explained by Denis Savoie, in his book Sundials, Design, Construction and Use (English translation by Bob
Mizon, Springer Praxis Publishing, 2009), Appendix F (6), pp.163,4.

133
Map #10: A map showing the location of the Torrid Zone, which lies between the Equator and the
Tropics. The phenomenon of the Sundial of Aḥaz* - of any sundial, for that matter - is possible only
within this region. Note the location of Palestine (the red dot), which is completely outside the Torrid
Zone. Even the sun itself bears witness to the Orientalist deception.

Picture #34: Professor Kamāl Ṣaleebi.

*****

______________________________________________________________________________
*Incidentally, note that the actual name of this Biblical king is written ‫ אחז‬in Aramaic, which actually spells Aḥaz.
To this day, many European Jews render this name as Akhaz.

134
 Conclusion

At the end of this part of our journey, it would serve us best to stop for a while, and contemplate
the following facts:

1- The Old Testament is a book of chronicles, legends, poems, and religious laws that was
penned by the ancient South Arabians, around 700 BC. It is the product of a purely Arabian
culture, and has no connection to Palestine whatsoever. The fundamental belief that the Old
Testament describes the territory of Palestine as the “Promised Land” of the Jews is nothing but
a fraudulent fabrication that was contrived by the Orientalists, and is a relic from the age of
colonialism.

2- Judaism is an Arabian religion that was born in Yemen, and the Old Testament‟s geography
was nowhere but in Yemen, along the Sarāt mountains bordering the red sea, and the highlands
of Najd; from the coast of „Adan and Ḥaḍramawt to the southernmost reaches of „Aseer. This is
the land that witnessed the birth of human civilization, the establishment of the first urban center,
and was the homeland of all the messengers mentioned in the Qur‟ān, from Noah, down the line
to Muḥammad, as we will ultimately prove.

3- Moses was not a British general, nor was he from Denmark or Poland. He was an Arabian
figure, a Yemeni. His successor and pupil, Yeshu„, who distributed lands to the twelve tribes of
Israel, was a Yemeni as well, and his name features countless times in the legendary
geneological trees of Yemen, as well as the stories of the “First Fathers”. Readers of Arabic can
research the names of the ancient pagan gods of Arabia, and confirm for themselves the presence
of the name Yeshu„ among them.

4- The time has come for Europe to submit its formal apology for the tragic results that were
brought about by its arrogant and colonial imagination, foremost among which were the
“Jewification” of Palestinian history, and creation of a racist entity within its territory. The
legacy of this imagination is the tragedy of an entire people whose history and culture were
hijacked, by force, at gunpoint.

5- The Jews of Europe must wake up and realize that they have been unknowingly used as
stooges, scapegoats in the greatest historical, geographical and cultural forgery that mankind has
ever known. They cannot possibly live for another century, trapped within a mythological and
ideological farce that was the creation of a diseased, imperialist imagination regarding
a Promised Land in Palestine. This farce has gone on for too long, and has caused enough
suffering and bloodshed for all sides involved. The Jews of Europe must rise and break the
shackles that were placed around their minds by soulless, Zionist elitists, who resorted to every

135
conceivable type of fraud, blackmail, corruption, forgery and thievery, to achieve their goals.
They must wake up to this truth, lest they themselves risk becoming victims of a tragedy that has
no definite end, and whose scenario was based on a delusional understanding of ancient religious
texts that have absolutely no relation whatsoever to European culture.

Throughout history, truth tellers have been mocked and persecuted, while Court historians
prospered. And the true story that the men of the Court have been hiding from us tells us that
there was never a Jewish promised land in Palestine, nor were the Babylonian and Assyrian
campaigns directed at its territory. This is what the Old Testament itself says. This is what the
Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets themselves, which were stolen from the museums of Baghdād,
convey. While the truth regarding the East, the Arabs and the Jews, has always been twisted and
distorted in the mind of the European (and his descendant, the American), thanks to the
machinations of the Court, it was never so in the true historical records that have been unearthed
from the ground. And it is within that shadey area between truth and illusion that the real
challenge lurks for those whose dignity cries out for justice.

Rays of the setting sun over Wādi Daw„an, Ḥaḍramawt.

136
 Notable References

1) Books:

The Qur‟ān

The Old Testament

Tafseer al-Ṭabari

Tafseer Ibn Katheer

Tafseer al-Tha„labi

Imagined Palestine: Land of the Torah in Ancient Yemen - Fadel al-Rubay‟i (2008)

Queen of Sheba and Biblical Israel - Bernard Leeman (2005)

The Arabian Torah and the Ur-Salem of Yemen - Farajallah Saleh Deeb (1994)

Geography of the Torah - Ziad Minnah (1990)

2) Websites & Online Articles:

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/index2.htm

http://www.sonna3ma.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21430

http://www.palpeople.org/atemplate.php?id=4300

http://palestine.assafir.com/article.asp?aid=171

http://viewzone.com/proto-canaanite22.html

http://ancientegyptonline.org/egyptnews/p/pharaonic-inscription-discovered-in-saudi-arabia

http://egyptology.blogspot.com/2010/11/ancient-egyptians-in-arabia.html

http://www.historytoday.com/karen-thomas/showcase-yemens-past

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/archaeologists-find-statue-of-ancient-yemeni-queen_100168596.html

http://marebpress.net/news_details.php?sid=15634

http://qadaslife.net/8.html

137
http://www.3seer.net/news-action-show-id-1257.htm

http://www.14october.com/news.aspx?newsno=57797

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9
%85%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85

______________

Badr Society

2013

138
What happens when you lose sight of an ancient civilization? What happens when the history
of an entire era is hijacked? What happens when you take away the legacy of a nation? What
happens when you violate the sanctity of a human being; of all mankind? What happens when
all this comes to pass? Is the truth irrevocably lost? Or does it hide from sight, only to return
after a while, as the Dwellers of the Cave returned to the City? And can the people of the City
suffer the return of the Cave Dwellers? Or will darkness endure in the City? Will the Nile Valley
accept the return of the Egyptian civilization? Or will Miṣr remain in the City? Will the land of
Yemen accept the return of Ibraheem’s ancestors? Or will their memory be forever imprisoned
in Iraq? Can the Sarawāt Mountains of forgotten Arabia suffer the return of the Patriarch and
his descendants Isḥāq and Ya‘qūb? Or will their legacy be held hostage indefinitely in the
wilderness of the Levant? Will Yūsuf and Mūsa return to their homeland on the green slopes of
Ḥimyar? Or are they doomed to tarry forever in the desert of rabbinical lies? Will ancient Ṣan‘ā’
ever sing its Psalms again, heralding the return of its sons, Dāwūd and Sulaymān? Or will their
memory be eternally lost in Palestine and the passages of the Orientalist translations of the Old
Testament?

Is there anyone on this Earth who will listen to the call of the Sarawāt Mountains and pave the
way for the truth to return to the City?

And will the people of the City welcome the return of the truth?

____________

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Dedication 3
Spelling and Transliteration 5

Preface 7

Assyrians and Babylonians in Arabia 16

CHAPTER I: Mesopotamian Testimonies 25

 Campaigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon 27

 Campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon II 37
 Arabian Queens and Mother Deities 43
 Another Opinion Regarding Misr 47
 Revisiting Damascus 53
 The Mysterious Pharaoh 56

CHAPTER II: Gad and Dan 61

 Coincidences (84-94): Gad 64

 Coincidences (95-104): Dan 75
 Samaria or Shemeron? 88

CHAPTER III: Wars and Correspondences 93

 Sennacherib’s Warning Letters 96

 Nebuchadnezzar’s War in the Sarāt 101

CHAPTER IV: The Returning Tribes 106

 Regarding Lakhm 120

PREVIEW CHAPTER: Prophets and Poets 122

 Did the Palestinians Come from Crete? 123

 The Fall of Moab 129

CONCLUSION 147

References 152

2
This endeavor is dedicated to all of humanity.

May it contribute to our awakening.

3
 ARABIA
The Untold Story

Book 4: The Assyrian Storm

Compiled by:

JOE ZIGGURAT

2014

4
 Spelling and Transliteration

The following is a spelling and transliteration guide, to help non-speakers of Arabic grasp the
actual pronunciation of certain Arabic letters.

a = ‫( أ‬short alif ) when it comes at the beginning of a word. Examples: amr )‫(أمر‬, aseer )‫(أسٌر‬,
alam )‫(ألم‬.
_________
’= ‫ ( أ‬short alif ) when it comes in the middle or the end of a word. Examples: ma’kal )‫(مأكل‬,
ma’wa )‫(مأوى‬, Saba’ )‫(سبأ‬, naba’ )‫(نبأ‬.

OR, ( hamzah ). Examples: jā’ )‫(جاء‬, mā’ )‫(ماء‬, Qur’ ān )‫(قرآن‬

_________

ā = (long alif ). Examples: asmā’ )‫(أسماء‬, anwār )‫(أنوار‬, aqlām )‫(أقالم‬.

_________

th = ‫( ث‬thā’ ). Examples: Yathrib )‫(ٌثرب‬, thawāb )‫(ثواب‬, thaman )‫(ثمن‬.

_________

dh = ‫( ذ‬dhāl ). Examples: dhahab )‫(ذهب‬, ādhān )‫(آذان‬, dhakar )‫(ذكر‬.

_________

ḥ = ‫( ح‬ḥā’ ). Examples: ḥamal )‫(حمل‬, ḥoot )‫(حوت‬, Ḥimyar )‫(حِم ٌَر‬.

_________

ṣ = ‫( ص‬ṣād ). Examples: Ṣāleh )‫(صالح‬, ṣiyām )‫(صٌام‬, aṣnām )‫(أصنام‬.

_________

ḍ = ‫( ض‬ḍād ). Examples: Ramaḍān )‫(رمضان‬, ḍalāl )‫(ضالل‬, ghaḍab )‫(غضب‬.

_________

ṭ = ‫( ط‬ṭā’ ). Examples: ṭūr )‫(طور‬, bāṭil )‫(باطل‬, ṭāreq )‫(طارق‬.

_________

ẓ = ‫( ظ‬ẓā’ ). Examples: ẓaheera )‫(ظهٌرة‬, ẓalām )‫(ظالم‬, shawāẓ )‫(شواظ‬.

_________

‘
= ‫‘( ع‬ayn ). Examples: ‘iqāb )‫(عقاب‬, a‘rāb )‫(أعراب‬, Far‘awn )‫(فرعون‬.
_________

5
gh = ‫( غ‬ghayn ). Examples: ghayth )‫(غٌث‬, ghafoor )‫(غفور‬, raghd )‫(رغد‬.
__________

q = ‫( ق‬qāf ). Examples: qitāl )‫(قتال‬, qalam )‫(قلم‬, Quraysh )‫(قرٌش‬.

__________

h = ‫( هـ‬hā ). Examples: Hūd )‫(هود‬, hadiyy )ّّ‫(هدي‬, wahn )‫(وهن‬.

__________

Note: Aside from proper nouns (the names of persons or geographical locations), certain terms
that appear in the Arabic text of the Qur’ān have been left un-translated for the time being, as
we have yet to find accurate substitutes for them in English. Consequently, those terms have
been left as they are, and transliterated for the convenience of non-speakers of Arabic.

__________

6
 Preface

The Babylonian enslavement did not take place in Palestine. Nor is there any record, in all of
Palestine‟s actual and physical history, of such a massive event. And everything that has been
written and propagated regarding this subject in the official academic books and media in the
East and West is quite simply the result of a fraudulent and deceptive interpretation of the event;
one that constitutes a glaring, even criminal corruption of the truth.

So where did the so-called “Exile” take place? What were the motives behind it? Of course, we
are not denying that the event did in fact happen. We are simply questioning its actual
geographical theater. The truth of the matter is that the original (Aramaic) Old Testament
scripture, which has been used by the manipulators of history as the only source of information
regarding the Exile, does not indicate Palestine or current-day Jerusalem as the setting of this
event, in any way, shape or form.

Our goal in this fourth volume is to reconstruct the events surrounding the Babylonian
enslavement by means of a precise, scientific and non-biased reading of the actual Biblical and
Mesopotamian texts, and comparing their contexts with the old Arabian chronicles often ignored
and overlooked by contemporary commentators. The classical reports are adamant in their stance
that the Exile was in fact a series of catastrophic campaigns whose theater was none other than
the lands of Yemen, as well as parts of Yamāmah and the Ḥijāz, and that its victims were not
solely the ancient Israelites, but a large number of Arabian tribes.

We will demonstrate to you, dear reader, how the Orientalist (Judeo-Christian) version of the
Levant‟s history has, throughout the generations, imposed a monopoly over the record of events,
and how successive generations of academics, laymen and religious elite have fallen victims to
this spectacular fraud, through their marketing of the Babylonian enslavement as an event which
pertained to Palestine‟s past.

We will show you how the anecdotes and lamentations of the Old Testament, which describe
vividly the destruction that befell the mountainous country of the Children of Israel, were
projected onto a false theater, and interpreted as the cultural legacy of European ethnic groups
who, at one point in history, embraced Judaism as their religious creed. This outrageous assertion
is no different than a Japanese Muslim (for example) who declares himself a descendant of the
tribe of Quraysh, and consequently claims his right to the tribe‟s heritage and to territorial rights
in the Arabian Peninsula!

We will also delve deep into al-Hamadāni‟s massive gazetteer, his Description of Arabia, and
unlock together one of the greatest mysteries that has baffled archeologists of the past

7
generations, as we uncover another important piece in the ultimate puzzle: who Muḥammad (P)
really was, and where (and when) he lived and preached.

The aim of this part of our journey shall be twofold:

First: To break the monopoly held by the Judeo-Christian Biblical interpretation regarding
Palestine‟s history, by presenting an alternative version of the story which seeks to place the
events surrounding the Babylonian enslavement in their correct geographical theater.

The Biblical scholars have, for centuries, painted a picture in the minds of the masses which
depicts the Exile as an event that was concerned only with the Jews; whereas nothing can be
further from the truth. The fact is that the Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns were directed at
the rebellious Arabian tribes in general (not just the Israelites or the Jews). This is what the
Mesopotamian scriptures and tablets, unearthed from the ruins of Iraq, clearly tell us. The
Children of Israel where but one of the many Arabian tribes who were victims of the
chastisement. These ancient scriptures, carved in stone, speak of at least eight campaigns, two of
which (namely the conquests lead by kings Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar) were so
devastating, that they shook the mountains of Arabia, and ended up changing the very
demographic foundations of the Peninsula, forever.

Second: To expose one of the goals of the Orientalist monopoly, namely the portrayal of the
Western Jews – throughout history – as the sole and exclusive targets of persecution. This is part
of the political propaganda which relies on the manipulation of base human emotions, by
painting the picture of the solitary and racially separate victims, who must always suffer under
persecution as a consequence of their beliefs. A historical and parallel reminder of this
phenomenon can be seen in the account of Hitler‟s persecution of the various European peoples
during World War II, wherein this oppression was marketed to the world as being solely directed
at the Jews (what is referred to as “The Holocaust”).

Of course, we are not denying that the Nazis perpetrated grave offenses against their opponents
during that era. We are simply pointing out the fact that monopolizing this event for political
gain and painting it as the plight of a single and particular group, while forgetting the forty
million Christians who were victims of oppression during the War (at the hands of Nazis and
non-Nazis, alike) constitutes a shameful prostitution of history.

The Orientalist scholars and clergymen – Western and Arabs alike – have torn living pieces from
the flesh of Arabia‟s memory, glued them haphazardly and fraudulently onto Palestine‟s
historical territory, and falsely presented them to the world as part of the “Legacy of the Jews”.
As a result of their shortcomings, the Babylonian exiles of the 8th and 7th Centuries BC were
portrayed as extending and continuing, down through the ages, to claim the Khazar Jews of the

8
20th Century AD. Thus, the victims who fell to the blades of Nebuchadnezzar where imagined to
be the very ancestors of the victims of the Nazi bullets and gas chambers of the 1940‟s! As for
the other casualties of these events (the remaining Arabian tribes and the millions of non-Jews
who suffered and died during WWII), their story must never be heard, and their fate must remain
buried in oblivion (it is considered “anti-Semitic” to even mention them).

In this fourth book of the series, we will show you, dear reader, how the modern Biblical
scholars inserted, into the history of the Levant that is being taught in the schools and
universities of the world, wars that never actually happened. We will show you how they
imagined heroes and kings who never set foot in Syria, Jordan or Palestine, and whose names are
not mentioned in any of the documents or records of the ancient empires which occupied that
region. We will expose to you the depth of the deception they successfully passed onto the
generations, and how they interpreted the dirges and lamentations of the Old Testament as
pertaining to an imaginary land that did not exist anywhere except in their diseased fantasies.

We will prove to you that these songs were in fact nothing but Arabian poems, composed during
a time when the tribes occupying the Peninsula spoke many different – and now almost extinct –
dialects. In fact, the songs found in the Old Testament are the last remaining vestiges of what the
Orientalists and contemporary Arab historians often refer to as the “Lost Jahiliyyah Poetry”.
These sad poems will help us paint a true picture of the nomadic tribes, during the distant age of
their infancy, when they roamed the plains and mountain ranges of Arabia, fighting wars among
each other, as well as against raiding outsiders (Egyptians and Assyrians).

We will prove to you, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the tribes who were allowed to return
from the Babylonian Exile, courtesy of the Persian monarchs who conquered Mesopotamia
during the 6th Century BC – tribes whose names are meticulously listed in the Old Testament
books of Ezra and Nehemiah – where in fact Arabian tribes who resided in ancient Yemen, and
whose vestigial homes feature in the writings of al-Hamadāni as well as other Arab narrators and
poets of the bygone eras.

Let us give you, gentle reader, an example of corruption, which will serve to paint a brief picture
of how deep the Orientalist imagination ran, and how it ended up completely distorting the
original meaning of the very accurate Biblical narrative.

In the second Book of Kings, we come across the following passage:

Now Ahaziah had a fall from the upper window of his chamber (attic / lattice) in
Samara, and was ill. And he sent men, and said to them: “Inquire of Baal-Zebub,
the god of Ekron, about the outcome of my disease, to see if I will get well or not”.

9
Biblical commentators are quick to point out that the above passage contains a derogatory
reference to Baal-Zebub, a pagan deity of the so-called “Canaanites”. Even assuming this remark
to be spot on, does the translation make any sense to you? Why would Ahaziah, who was
supposedly a monotheistic Israelite king, seek an augury from a pagan god, to find out if he
would soon recover from his illness? Furthermore, how likely is it that a king would “fall” from
an attic window and become ill? This makes absolutely no sense in the context of the passage,
which speaks of a battle between the Israelites (Ahaziah and his army) and their enemies, the
Moabites. Have you ever heard of a king falling from an attic window while he and his forces
are supposedly engaged on the battlefield?

What happened was the following: the Orientalists took the word ‫השבכ‬, which spells h-shbk, and
translated it as “the window”, while interpreting ‫בבעל זבו‬, which actually spells bi-ba‘l zbb as the
name of a pagan deity. The truth of the matter is that the Aramaic text does not speak of
a window, nor does it contain any reference to a Canaanite insect god. The original text, left
without the Orientalist tampering, speaks of two actual locations: the first is called h-shbkh.
(Note the extinct pronoun article prefix h-, which corresponds to the Arabic al-, meaning “the”).
The second location is called ba‘l Zabub, which corresponds to the Arabic ba‘l Dhabūb. (Note
how there is the prefix bi- in the second name. This is equivalent to the English “in”. Hence, the
correct rendering, in English, would be “in Baal Zebub”, not “of Baal Zebub). The Orientalists
intentionally ignored the bi- prefix, finding it troublesome and not serving their imagination of
“evil, pagan Canaanites”.

Ahaziah did not fall from his attic window, nor did he seek the guidance of an idol. The account
is as follows: Ahaziah and his men were fighting the enemies on the battlefield, in an actual
place called h-Shbkh (proper noun), where the king suffered a defeat and was cast out. He then
sent his men to seek aid from certain tribal allies, who resided in a place (river valley) called Ba‘l
Zabub. In our second book, Road of the Patriarch, we showed you how the ancient South
Arabians referred to a river valley as ba‘l )َ‫(ثؼ‬. In Arabian culture, the term also referred to male
fertility, hence the male “water” (seminal fluid).

Here is what Arab geographer, al-Hamadāni, in his Description of Arabia (pages 252, 253) says
regarding the highlands of al-Samrā‟ (the words in brackets are those of the 20th century
commentator of the text):

،‫َوح اٌؾجبن‬٤ٓ ٠ِ‫ ػ‬ٝ ،‫ٖ مُي‬٤ٔ٣ ٖ‫ ٖٓ ػ‬ٝ...)‫٘بء (اُٖؾواء‬ٛ‫ اُل‬٢‫ صْ رؤفن ك‬،‫ت‬ٍٜ ٗ‫ أه‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ صْ اٌغّشاء‬،ٞ‫صْ روطغ ثطٖ ه‬
...‫ اُؼوٓخ‬ٙ‫ب‬٤ٓ ٖٓ ٞٛ ٝ ً‫ؼب‬٤ّٝ ‫ صْ روطغ اُؼوٓخ كزوك‬.‫ اُـواثبد‬ٝ ،‫ّجبى اُؼوٓخ‬

Note how al-Hamadāni places al-Shabbāk (‫ )اُْجبى‬as being within the borders of al-Samrā’
)‫(أَُواء‬. This is not to be confused with the mountain known as Jabal Samārah, which lies in the
Ibb province of Yemen, as we will see later on.

10
Elsewhere (pages 214, 215), we find mention of a series of mountains and valleys in Yemen,
among which is a peak al-Hamadāni lists as Dhabāb (‫)مثبة‬:

َ‫ب ٖٓ عجبٍ ٓواك عجَ ثشعب‬ٜ٤‫ ك‬ٝ...ٖٔ٤ُ‫خ ا‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ٕ أ‬ٞ٤‫ ٖٓ ػ‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ثبه‬٥‫ ا‬ٝ ٕٞ٤‫ اُؼ‬ٚ٤‫ ك‬،‫ّخ‬٣ٝ‫ اَُ ّو ٍو اثٖ اُو‬١‫اك‬ٝ :‫ب‬ُٜ‫ب ٖٓ ّٔب‬ُٜٝ‫خ أ‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫األ‬
.‫ أرَش‬ٝ ‫ اُلٌِخ‬ٝ ‫ عبِه‬ٝ ‫ ٕوع‬ٝ ٍ‫ رثبة ثلزؼ اُنا‬ٝ ...‫ٖٓ اَُو‬

The passage places the mountains of Birjām (ّ‫ )ثوعب‬Dhabāb, Sāmek (‫ )ٍبٓي‬and Adheer (‫و‬٣‫ )أم‬all
within the same geographic space. The contemporary commentator of the text makes a footnote
regarding Birjām, a valley known for planting Qāt (the infamous herbal narcotic of Yemen) as
well as Dhabāb, which he describes as a large mountain overlooking ancient ruins and coal
mines. He also explains that the mountain / valley of Adheer is known today as Adeer (by
rendering the dh sound as d).Wādi Sāmek is located within the Sanḥān administrative region,
south-east of Ṣan„ā‟. The commentator of DoA notes that Sāmek was the first caravan station
travelers frequent on the road to „Adan.

If we look up Dhabāb in any geographical index or online gazetteer, we find three places bearing
that name. One is a mountain located a short distance north-east of Ṣan„ā‟, in a district called
Nahm )ْٜٗ ‫خ‬٣‫و‬٣‫(ٓل‬, another is a small administrative region within the Ta„iz Province of Yemen*.

Another important passage mentioning Dhabāb in DoA is the following, which describes a series
of ancient fortifications dotting the mountainous Sarāt landscape (page 238):

‫ ِىره‬ٝ ‫ ؽغّخ‬ٝ...ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ذ ف‬٤‫ ث‬٠ّٔ َُ٣ ٝ ‫ هأً ؽضىس‬ٝ...‫ ٕجو‬ٝ ‫ك‬ٞ‫ اُؼ‬ٝ ‫هاؿ‬ٝ ٝ ّ‫ عجَ ؽت‬ٝ ‫ اُؤو‬ٝ ‫ ٕ٘بع‬:‫هح‬ُْٜٞٔ‫ب ا‬ٜ٘ٓ ٕٖٞ‫اُؾ‬
.‫و‬ٜٙ ‫ ٕوع هِؼخ‬ٝ ‫ رثبة‬ٝ

Among the names featuring in the concise paragraph (in order) are: Ḥaḍūr (the Biblical Hazor),
Mawtak, and Dhabāb.

Yet another valley, Dhabūb (‫ة‬ٞ‫)مث‬, also features in al-Hamadāni‟s gazetteer (page 234) and is
described as being inhabited by a clan called Bani al-Asmar, and being part of a country called
Bilād al-Ḥijr )‫(ثالك اُؾغو‬.

.‫و‬ّٜ ٖٓ ‫ رثىة ٌجٍٕ األعّش‬ٝ ...‫و‬ّٜ ٖ‫ ٓبُي ث‬ٞ٘‫ ث‬ًٚ٘‫ ٍب‬،َ‫ اُؾج‬ٚ٤‫ا ٍك ك‬ٝ ،َ‫ب ػج‬ٜ٤ٗ‫ٔب‬٣ ٖٓ ‫ٍ ثالك اٌؾغش‬ٝ‫كؤ‬

The above Dhabūb lies in a region called Fayfā‟ )‫لبء‬٤‫(ك‬, within the Jeezān Province of Saudi
Arabia, a mere 10 kilometers from the Yemeni border**. This Dhabūb is most likely the one
mentioned in the Old Testament, for reasons that will become apparent in time.
______________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B0%D8%A8%D
8%A7%D8%A8
**http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A1

11
Most ancient South Arabian dialects (from which modern Hebrew was artificially constructed)
did not vocalize the dh sound, and rendered it as d or z. Also, we should bear in mind that
Dhabūb and Dhabāb are technically the same, once we revert the name to its original, vowel-
less form Dhbb (before the Masoretic tampering with the text).

Furthermore, the Aramaic expression ‫ויפל‬, which appears at the start of the Biblical verse, does
not say “and he had a fall”. The verb means “he fled” or “was driven out”. Apparently, the
Orientalists could not even fathom the absurdity of their translation, nor the fact that their
confusion of the terms made the entire passage completely nonsensical.

What about the Biblical place called Ekron, which appears in the English translations? In the
Aramaic text, it features as ‫עקרון‬, which begins with the letter ‘ayn, and contains the letter qof.
Although rendering q as k is acceptable, it would be best to revert the name to its original Arabic
counterpart: ‘Aqrūn )ٕٝ‫(ػوو‬:

Poet Sālem ba-Sha„fayn, writing in singular verse style, recounts how he was forced out of his
home in Wādi Do„an (Ḥaḍramawt) and migrated to a far mountain sanctuary in „Aqrūn:

ٍْ‫ب‬٤‫اُؼــ‬ٝ ‫اُوواثخ‬ٝ ٢ِٛ‫ ٖٓ أ‬٢ٗ‫ل أٌٗو‬٤َُ‫ا‬

ٍْ‫ب‬ٛ‫اُل‬ٝ ٢‫جبٕ كهػ‬٤ٍ ٖٓٝ ٢ٗ‫ٖٓ دوعٓ أٌٗو‬
ٍْ‫ي اُغجب‬٣‫ م‬٢‫ْ ك‬٤َ‫ أٗب ه‬ٝ ْ‫ عمشو‬٢‫ ٓبٍ ك‬٢ُ

And here follows is the correct rendering of the Biblical passage:

Now Ahaziah suffered defeat in al-Shabakh/al-Shabak in Samara, and he sent his

men, and said to them: “Go to the Dhabub Vale, and seek the aid / assistance of
the leaders of „Aqrun” (2nd Kings 1:3).

There is no “fall from an attic”, nor any pagan insect idol, nor any “illness” or “disease”
whatsoever in the Aramaic text. The only disease is in the Orientalist imagination, which
rendered the text to suit its own agenda, turned proper nouns into common words, and deviously
projected Ekron and Samara onto the Palestinian territory.

Here follows is a summary of the coincidences we encountered in this preface, picking up the
numbering from where we left off in our previous book:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

81 ‫השבכ‬ h-shbk (the window) ‫اُْجبى‬ al-Shabbāk

82 ‫עקרון‬ „Aqron Ekron ٕٝ‫ػوو‬ „Aqrūn
83 ‫בעל זבו‬ Ba„l Zbb Baalzebub ‫ة‬ٞ‫ مث‬/ ‫مثبة‬ Dhabāb / Dhabūb

12
 Photo #1: Wādi Dhabūb – Jeezan Province

The descriptions featuring in the Assyrian and Babylonian texts regarding the geography of the
conquered regions are unlike anything found in Palestine. The Mesopotamian inscriptions tell us
that the invading armies had to cross vast desert expanses and chase fleeing tribes across coastal
plains and up into mountains. These inscriptions cannot possibly be speaking of the Palestinian
landscape. Furthermore, during the reign of Kings Esarhaddon and Nebuchadnezzar, the entire
Levant area (Syria, Lebanon and Palestine) was already a part of the Mesopotamian Empire (see
the map hereafter). Why would the armies attack their own territory?

Evidence points towards Palestine as having been no more than a quiet, peaceful, backwater area
of the mighty Mesopotamian state at the time. Palestine‟s culture, terrain features, and limited
resources could not possibly have harbored the large number of rebellious tribes that were
a constant thorn in the side of the Babylonian monarchs. It was to Arabia that the campaigns
were directed, as the kings of ancient Iraq sought to discipline the tribes who controlled the trade
routes converging in Najrān and running along the Red Sea coast of Tihāmah.

Map #1: The Assyrian Empire (around 700 BC)

13
We present to you, honored reader, our fourth book of the series Arabia: The Untold Story. It is
a humble effort on our part, which calls for serious contemplation before issuing any judgment.
We believe that actual history can still be gleaned from amidst the piles of garbage, hearsay and
political manipulation that are often interwoven into it. All that one needs in order to separate the
grain from the chaff and see the truth as it actually is – not as one wishes it to be – is a measure
of patience, common sense, courage, and above all, an open mind. In the end, the correction of
history is a means towards justice.

We encourage you to thoroughly read the previous three books of the series – if you have not
done so already – as, due to the enormity of the task ahead of us, and the abundance of
information found in this volume, we will often be referring to those books (for the sake of
brevity, and avoiding repetition).

We invite you to join us in this deep historical contemplation, as we begin, bit by bit, to unravel
the true history of the Prophets, and ultimately the puzzle of Muḥammad‟s identity and the
origins of the Qur‟ān, which have always been perceived by contemporary Western scholars as
being shrouded in mystery.

The correction of Palestine‟s history is an endeavor which must be continued by future

generations, whom we hope will use our efforts as a springboard to set matters straight. This
correction will ultimately lead not only to the vindication of Arabian history from the false
presets and nonsense preconceptions which have marred its true image, but also to the
condemnation of such fraudulent concepts as the “Promised Land” and the “Divine Right of
Return”, by exposing them as no more than racist, political tools used by scheming imperialists
throughout history.

*****

14
“No army can defeat an idea whose time has come”.
- Victor Hugo

15
 Assyrians and Babylonians in Arabia

In the valleys of „Aseer, the Yemen, and the Hijaz, there are ruins which may one
day yield to the historians and the world more about the old states of the
Sabaeans, Minaeans, Himyarites, and Nabataeans and earlier kingdoms of Arabia,
and show in clearer fashion meanings in the early books of the Bible, and
historical allusions in the Koran. And who knows what ancient treasures lie buried
in the forgotten vestiges of „Aseer?

(Gerald de Gaurie – Arabia Felix; 1946)

Of the numerous Mesopotamian campaigns, the excursion of Nebuchadnezzar in particular was

afforded great importance by the Arab narrators of old. To state a few examples, historian al-
Ṭabari, in his voluminous book Siyar al-Mulūk (lit: Biography of Kings), al-Mas„ūdi, in his
Murūj al-Dhahab )‫ (مروج ّالذهب‬and al-Nuwayri, in Nihāyat al-Arb )‫(نهاٌة ّاألرب‬, all spoke very
clearly of Nebuchadnezzar‟s military excursion into the Ḥijāz and Yemen. Geographer
al-Hamadāni also made passing reference to it in his records, as did historian Ibn Sa„eed
al-Andalusi, in his famous chronicles on pre-Islamic Arabia, and Ibn Ḥabeeb, in his book Al-
Muḥabbar )‫(المحبّر‬.

With the exception of Ṭabari, the stories narrated by the above-mentioned historians focused
exclusively on Nebuchadnezzar‟s excursion, without any mention of the expeditions instigated
by other monarchs. This is despite the fact that the Mesopotamian inscriptions unearthed from
the ruins of Iraq spoke of at least eight campaigns, all of which aimed to discipline the rebellious
tribes who were a constant threat to the borders of the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires.

In the classical Arabic narrations, Nebuchadnezzar is referred to as al-Bakht Naṣṣar )‫(البختّنصر‬,

and in some texts features as Bakhtnaṣṣar )‫(بختنصّر‬, by merging the two names together, as was
common in the ancient dialects. Despite the confusion encountered in the Arabian sources, and
their tendency to mix actual historic events with legends (as we will soon see), there is no
indication whatsoever that Nebuchadnezzar‟s colossal campaign was directed exclusively against
the Jews. What these narrations clearly tell us is that the Babylonian chastisement befell the
residents of Arabia, and ultimately reached the domains in and around Ḥaḍūr )‫ه‬ٞٚ‫ (ؽ‬in Yemen,
as well as Ur-Salem (the original Jerusalem). The name Ḥaḍūr appears as Ḥaṣūr in the Aramaic
Bible, and was rendered as Hatzor by the European translations.

These old reports speak of Bakhtnassar‟s destruction of what they call Bayt al-Maqdis, and some
claim that the primary motive behind the campaign was vengeance for the blood of John the
Baptist, who was killed in the Levant by Arabs who had migrated to Palestine. This alleged
motive has no basis whatsoever, and constitutes a glaring anachronism, as John the Baptist had

16
no historical relation to the era of Nebuchadnezzar (around 600 BC). Such anachronisms are
often encountered in the classical Arabian reports; however, it does not mean that the stories
must be completely discarded, as grains of the truth can still be gleaned from within their texts.

The traditional narrations of Nebuchadnezzar‟s campaign were often tied to the motives behind
the tribes abandoning their native homelands and migrating elsewhere (namely to the Ḥijāz, Iraq,
and the Levant). And some of the accounts regarding the catalyst of this mass displacement do
indeed have a historical basis, irrespective of the reporter‟s tendency to infuse the tales with
legendary aspects. One such account was narrated to us by Ibn Ḥabeeb al-Baghdādi (died in 860
AD), in his book Al-Muḥabbar (page 6), wherein he states the following:

٠‫ق ؽز‬٤َُ‫ اٍزؼوٗ اُؼوة ثب‬ٝ ْٛٞ‫ كَبه ٗؾ‬،ْٜ‫اث‬ٞ‫ٖ ال أؿالم ألث‬٣‫ب اُن‬٣‫َ ثبػوثب‬ٛ‫ أ‬ٝ ‫ه‬ٞٚ‫َ ؽ‬ٛ‫ أ‬ٝ‫إ ثقذ ٖٗو أُٓ َو ثـي‬
‫ب‬٣‫ أثوفب‬٠ُ‫ ا‬٠‫ؽ‬ٝ‫ أ‬٠ُ‫ رؼب‬ٝ ‫ إٔ هللا رجبهى‬،ِْ‫ هللا أػ‬ٝ ‫ٔب م ًِو‬٤‫ ك‬،ِْٜ‫ هز‬ٝ ْٛٝ‫ أٓو ثقذ ٖٗو ثـي‬١‫ ًبٕ اُن‬ٝ .‫ه‬ٞٚ‫ ؽ‬٠ُ‫ ا‬٠ٜ‫اٗز‬
٠ٜ‫ اٗز‬٠‫ كَبه ؽز‬.‫ٖ مًوٗب‬٣‫ اُن‬ٝ‫ؤٓو ثقذ ٖٗو ثـي‬٣ ٕ‫ أ‬،ٙ‫ة ثؤٓو‬ٞ‫ؼو‬٣ ٖ‫ما ث‬ٜٞ٣ ‫ُل‬ٝ ٖٓ ٞٛ ٝ ،َ٤‫ب ثٖ ىهثبثَ ثٖ ّبئ‬٤٘‫ثٖ أؽ‬
،ٖٓ‫ب‬٣ ٝ ،َ٣ٞ‫ هػ‬ٝ ٕ‫ْ هلٓب‬ٛ ٝ ،ْ٤ٛ‫َ ثٖ اثوا‬٤‫ أٍبػ‬ٞ٘‫ب ث‬ٌَٜ٘٣ ٕ‫ ًب‬ٝ .‫ه‬ٞٚ‫ ؽ‬ُٚ ٍ‫ُوب‬٣ ‫ب‬ٜ٘ٓ ‫غ‬ٙٞٓ ٠ُ‫ ا‬،ٖٔ٤ُ‫ أهٗ ا‬٠ُ‫ا‬
.ٖ٤‫بهث‬ٛ ‫ا‬ٞ‫ كقوع‬.ِْٜ‫وز‬٣ َ‫ كغؼ‬،ِٕٞٔ‫ؼ‬٣ ‫ْ ال‬ٛ ٝ ‫ْ ثقذ ٖٗو‬ٜ‫ّز‬٤‫ كج‬،ٕ‫ا‬ٞ‫ْ ؽ٘ظِخ ثٖ ٕل‬ّٜ٤‫ ٗج‬ِٞ‫ٖ هز‬٣‫ْ إٔؾبة اُوًّ اُن‬ٛ ٝ

Here follows is a paraphrase of this startling passage, before we do an in-depth analysis of it:

“Bakht Naṣṣar was enjoined to invade the inhabitants of Ḥaḍūr and Ba„rbāyā, whose
doors had no locks, and so he marched upon them, putting the Arabs to the sword, until
he reached Ḥaḍūr. And the motive for this invasion, as was reported – and Allah knows best
– was that Allah had inspired to Ibrakhyā bin Aḥniā bin Zarbabel bin Sha‟eel, who was
a descendant of Ya„qūb, to instruct Bakht Naṣṣar to invade and kill those we mentioned. And
so he marched forth until he reached the land of Yemen, to a location therein called
Ḥaḍūr, which at the time was inhabited by Qadmān, Ra„ueel, and Yāmin, the descendants
of Isma„eel, son of Ibraheem, who were the inhabitants of Al-Rass, and who had
killed their prophet, Ḥinẓalah Ibn Ṣafwān. And so Bakht Naṣṣar took them unawares, and
began killing large numbers of them, until they were forced to flee”.

It is very clear, from the above passage, which was written sometime around 850 AD, that
a historic conviction existed among the classical Arab narrators which pointed to the fact that the
Babylonian enslavement took place in Yemen, not Palestine, and that its ultimate destination was
a region formerly known as Mikhlāf Ḥaḍūr, site of a mountain bearing the same name which lay
within its territory. Notwithstanding our doubts regarding the actual motives of this campaign (as
Ibn Ḥabeeb and others saw them), the geography of the event, as they reported it, has always
bewildered contemporary scholars. Consequently, old narrations like Ibn Ḥabeeb‟s were
dismissed as senseless ramblings or fantasies, because they do not conform to the Orientalist
version of events, which the modern academics have been fed.

Taking a closer look at the outlined terms and phrases appearing in Ibn Ḥabeeb‟s “ramblings”,
we come across the following:

17
 1) Ḥaḍūr and Ba„rbāya:

We have already located mount Ḥaḍūr (the Biblical Hazor) in our previous books. Al-Hamadāni,
in his Description of Arabia, mentions this famous peak many times (pages 122, 123, 157, 158,
210-213, 216, 238, 239, 310 and 366). On one particular page (210), he associates between
Ḥaḍūr )‫ه‬ٞٚ‫ (ؽ‬and „Arbāyā )‫ب‬٣‫(ػوثب‬, as follows:

،ّ‫ اَُال‬ٚ٤ِ‫ه ػ‬ٞٚ‫لّ ثٖ اُ ُٔولّ ثٖ ؽ‬ٜٓ ١‫لّ ثٖ م‬ٜٓ ٖ‫ؽ َعُت إٌجٍ اث‬
ُ ٙ‫ُل‬ٝ ٖٓ ‫ ثٖ ٓبُي‬١‫ه ثٖ ػَل‬ٞٚ‫ ؽ‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ٓقالف ؽضىس‬
.ُْٜ ‫ ًبٕ ثُ ِؼش‬ٝ ،‫َ ؽضىس و عشثبَب‬ٛ‫ أ‬ِٚ‫ هز‬١‫ اُن‬ٞٛ ٝ

Al-Hamadāni traces the name of the old Yemeni mikhlāf (small kingdom ruled by a tribal
hereditary line) to a semi legendary figure by the name of „Adiy bin Mālik, an ancestor of the
prophet Shu„ayb )‫ت‬٤‫(ّؼ‬, who was slain by the people of Ḥaḍūr and „Arbāyā. This last name is
no doubt the same Ba‘rbāyā mentioned by Ibn Ḥabeeb.

2) The Mountain Sanctuaries:

Going back to Ibn Ḥabeeb‟s passage, we find that it describes the homes of the people who were
raided by Nebuchadnezzar as having “no bars” or “no locks” (this is the Arabic phrase
ُ‫)ال أغالق ألثىاثه‬. This is a figurative expression which appears several times in the narrations of
the old historians, and it means that most of the tribes who were targeted by the Assyrian
campaigns did not live in sedentary towns of bricks and mortar, but were nomads who often
moved from one location to another, dismantling their tented villages when necessity called for
it. By contrast, the inhabitants of Palestine enjoyed a quiet and peaceful existence within the fold
of the Assyrian Empire. The exact same expression describing the tribal homes appears in
a poetic passage in the Book of Jeremiah, in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 49: 30 – 32):

“Flee you, wander far off, dwell in the depths,

Oh inhabitants of Hazor”, says the LORD;
“For Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,
Has taken counsel against you,
And has conceived a purpose against you.
Arise! Go up to the wealthy nation,
That dwells without care”, said the LORD;
“Which have neither gates nor bars,
Which dwell alone.
And their camels shall be a booty,
And the multitude of their cattle a spoil.
And I will scatter into all winds
Those that are in the utmost corners;
And I will bring their calamity from all sides”,
Thus said the LORD.

18
More will be said regarding this scandalous issue later on.

3) The Valley of Al-Rass:

Another notable revelation in the passage concerns the descendants of the Patriarch Abraham,
the spiritual father of all monotheists in Arabia. Ibn Ḥabeeb clearly states that the descendants of
Ibraheem, among whom was Yāmin - who no doubt gave his name to the tribal territory of Bin
Yāmin (the Biblical Tribe of Benjamin) - lived in the famous Al-Rass Valley. This valley is
mentioned in the Qur‟ān as home to a nation whose tragic fate was to be taken as an example by
Muḥammad (P) and his people.

{And „Ād and Thamūd and the dwellers of Al-Rass, and many generations in
between. And for each one We put forth the examples, and each one We destroyed
utterly. And they have come upon the town that was showered with a miserable
shower. Did they not see it? No, they do not expect any resurrection}...[25:38-40]

Again and again, we encounter, in the Qur‟ān, reminders to Muḥammad‟s own people, calling
for them to pause and reflect on the fate of the previous nations, whose vestiges can be seen all
around them, within the same geographical scope.

The commentators and historians of old are nearly unanimous that al-Rass )ً‫ (اُو‬is indeed in
Yemen. Among those was Ibn Khaldūn, in his famous History (1 / 72, 73) wherein he places al-
Rass somewhere between Najrān and Ḥaḍramawt. Al-Hamadāni, in his book Al-Ikleel (lit: The
Wreath), locates al-Rass in the vicinity of Ma‟rib (site of the legendary damn that collapsed), on
the road leading north to Najrān and al-„Aqeeq. Here is the passage from Al-Ikleel (1/21):

.‫د‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫ ؽ‬٠ُ‫٘بء هاعؼب ً ا‬ُٜ‫ف فٕغشاْ فبٌعمُك كب‬ٞ‫اُغ‬ٝ ‫ؾبٕ وِؤسة‬٤‫ٖ ث‬٤‫ ثِلح ٓ٘قوهخ ٓبث‬٢ٛٝ ‫ل‬ٜ٤ٕ ‫خ‬٤‫واٌشط ث٘بؽ‬

This is yet another clue as to where the Qur‟ān was first preached.

Let us now see what al-Hamadāni himself says regarding Nebuchadnezzar‟s campaign, on page
83 of his Description of Arabia:

‫ْ ٖٓ اُجالك‬ٜ٤ِ٣ ‫ٔب‬٤‫ا ك‬ٝ‫ اٗزْو‬.‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫ب ٖٓ ر‬ٛ‫ ٓب رال‬ٝ ‫ْ ٌٓخ‬ُٜ‫ ٓ٘بى‬ٝ ‫ أٗٔبه‬ٝ ‫بك‬٣‫ أ‬ٝ ‫ؼخ‬٤‫ هث‬ٝ ‫و‬ٚ َ ُٓ :‫ْ أهثؼخ‬ٛ ٝ ‫ُل ٗياه ثٖ ٓؼل‬ٝ
،‫و أؽل‬٤‫ب ًض‬ٜٙٝ‫ ػو‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ ؽغبى‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ ٗغل‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٜ‫بٓز‬ٜ‫ب ثز‬ٜ٤‫ٌ ك‬٤ُ ،‫خ‬٣ٝ‫ٓئنٕ فب‬ٞ٣ ‫ أهٗ اُؼوة‬ٝ ،ٍ‫ أُؾب‬ٝ ٍ‫ أُ٘بى‬٢‫ا ك‬َٞ‫ ر٘بك‬ٝ
ٚ٤ِ‫وله ػ‬٣ ‫ ال‬٢‫غ اُز‬ٙ‫ا‬ُٞٔ‫ ُؾن ثب‬ٝ ،‫ب‬ٜ‫ ّؼبث‬ٝ ٍ‫ً اُغجب‬ٝ‫ْ ثوإ‬ٜ٘ٓ ْٖ‫ اال ٓب ًبٕ اػز‬،‫ب‬ِٜٛ‫ اعالء أ‬ٝ ،‫ب‬ّٛ‫ب‬٣‫ُقواة ثُقذ ٖٗو ا‬
.ْٜ٘ٓ ‫ب‬ٜ٤ُ‫ كبهاً ا‬،ٙ‫ك‬ٞ٘‫ ٓز٘ ٌَجب َُٔبُي ع‬،‫ب أؽل‬ٜ٤‫ك‬

Here follows is a paraphrase of the above passage:

19
“The descendants of Nizār Ibn Ma„d were four: Muḍar, Rabee„ah, Ayād, and Anmār. Their
homes were located in Makkah and what lay beyond it of the regions of Tihāmah, and they
competed for control of the homes and domains. And this was at a time when the land of
the Arabs was desolate, with very few remaining in Tihāmah and Najd and the Ḥijāz, due to
the destruction which befell them at the hands of Bakht Naṣṣar, save for those of its
inhabitants who fortified themselves in the highest mountain peaks, and were able to evade
his armies”.

The above text paints an approximate picture of the oppression wrought by the Babylonians, and
how the chastisement encompassed the Arabian tribes in general, except for the minority who
managed to find refuge in the heights. This description perfectly matches the Biblical account,
which describes the targeted peoples fleeing from the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar‟s war machine,
and seeking refuge in the deep vales and mountain sanctuaries.

Despite the tendency of these stories to merge truths with legends, they do not leave any
impression upon the reader that the Babylonian campaign was directed solely against a particular
people (the Israelites) or against those who embraced a particular religious creed (the Jews). On
the contrary, all the evidence seems to indicate that that campaign aimed to discipline the
rebellious nomadic tribes who lived in the highlands bordering the Sarāt Mountains of Arabia
and the inland regions around Najrān, as well as their sedentary compatriots who controlled the
Red Sea coast.

Now let us turn to al-Ṭabari, and see what he had to say regarding this issue. In his History
(volume 1 / page 327), Ṭabari states the following:

٠‫ؽ‬ٝ‫ هللا أػِْ – إٔ هللا (ع) أ‬ٝ – ‫ٔب م ًِو‬٤‫ األٗجبه ٓ٘يال ك‬ٝ ‫وح‬٤‫ْ اُؾ‬ٛ‫ ارقبم‬ٝ ،‫ب‬ٜ٤‫ْ ك‬ٜ‫ر‬ٞ‫ صج‬ٝ ‫ٍ اُؼوة أهٗ اُؼوام‬ٝ‫ًبٕ ثلء ٗي‬
‫ ال‬ٝ ْٜ‫ر‬ٞ٤‫ٖ ال أؿالم ُج‬٣‫ اُؼوة اُن‬ٝ‫ـي‬٣ ٕ‫ أ‬ٙ‫ أٓو‬ٝ ‫ذ ثقزٖ٘و‬ ِ ‫ إٔ أئ‬،‫ما‬ٜٞ٣ ‫ُل‬ٝ ٖٓ َ٤‫ب ثٖ ىهثبثَ ثٖ ِّز‬٤٘‫ب ثٖ أؽ‬٤‫ ثوف‬٠ُ‫ا‬
٢‫بئ‬٤‫ْ أٗج‬ٜ‫ج‬٣‫ رٌن‬ٝ ٢ٗٝ‫خ ك‬ُٜ٥‫ْ ا‬ٛ‫ ارقبم‬ٝ ٢‫ْ ث‬ٛ‫ ًلو‬ِٚٔ‫ أػ‬ٝ .ُْٜ‫ا‬ٞٓ‫ؼ أ‬٤‫َزج‬٣ ٝ ْٜ‫وزَ ٓوبرِز‬٤‫ ك‬،‫ك‬ٞ٘‫ْ ثبُغ‬ٛ‫طؤ ثالك‬٣ ٕ‫ أ‬ٝ ،‫اة‬ٞ‫أث‬
‫ هللا‬٠‫ؽ‬ٝ‫ ثٔب أ‬ٙ‫ أفجو‬ٝ .‫ اُؼوة‬ٚ‫ كؼوّثز‬،‫فن ٖٗو‬ٞ‫ ٗج‬ٞٛ ٝ ،َ‫ ثقزٖ٘و ثجبث‬٠ِ‫ هلّ ػ‬٠‫ب ٖٓ ٗغوإ ؽز‬٤‫ كؤهجَ ثوف‬،ٍ‫ هب‬.٢ٍِ‫ ه‬ٝ
،‫ ٖٓ رغبه اُؼوة‬ٙ‫ ثالك‬٢‫ ٖٓ ًبٕ ك‬٠ِ‫صت ثقزٖ٘و ػ‬ٞ‫ ك‬،ٍ‫ هب‬.ٕ‫ ىٖٓ ٓؼ ّل ثٖ ػلٗب‬٢‫ مُي ك‬ٝ ،ٚ‫ ث‬ٙ‫ ٓب أٓو‬ٚ٤ِ‫ هّٔ ػ‬ٝ ٚ٤ُ‫ا‬
ْٜ٘ٓ ٚ‫ كغٔغ ٖٓ ظلو ث‬،‫ب‬ٛ‫و‬٤‫ ؿ‬ٝ ‫بة‬٤‫ اُض‬ٝ ‫ اُزٔو‬ٝ ‫ْ اُؾت‬ٛ‫ٕ ٖٓ ػ٘ل‬ٝ‫ٔزبه‬٣ ٝ ‫بػبد‬٤‫ اُج‬ٝ ‫ْ ثبُزغبهاد‬ٜ٤ِ‫ٕ ػ‬ٞٓ‫ُول‬٣ ‫ا‬ٞٗ‫ ًب‬ٝ
.ٝ‫ اُ٘بً ثبُـي‬٢‫ ك‬ٟ‫ صْ ٗبك‬،‫ ؽلَظخ‬ٝ ً ‫ْ ؽوٍب‬ٜ‫ ًَّ ث‬ٝ ٚ٤‫ْ ك‬ّٜٔ ٙ ْ‫ ص‬،ّٖٚ٘‫ ؽ‬ٝ ‫ اُ٘غق‬٠ِ‫واً ػ‬٤‫ْ ؽ‬ُٜ ٠٘‫كج‬

Here‟s a paraphrase of the narration:

The reason behind the settlement of the first Arab migrants in Iraq, and their establishment
of homes in al-Ḥeera and al-Anbār, as was reported - and Allah knows best - was that Allah
had inspired to Barkhiā bin Aḥniā bin Shalteel, descendant of Yahūdha, to motivate
Bakhtnaṣṣar and enjoin him to invade the Arabs whose homes had no doors or locks,
and to kill their warriors and plunder their homes. Let them suffer for their idol worship and
their taking of gods beside Me, and their killing of My prophets and messengers. And so it
was that Barkhiā travelled from Najrān to Babylon, where he sought audience with

20
Nebuchadnezzar, whose name was rendered as Bakhtnaṣṣar by the Arabs. Barkhiā related
to the king his divine call, and this was during the age of Ma„ad bin „Adnān. And so
Bakhtnaṣṣar turned to the Arab merchants who resided in his country, trading their dates
and seeds and clothes with the natives, gathered a whole lot of them in one large and
fortified encampment at the site of al-Najaf, integrated them with his own army, and called
upon the populace to start the invasion.

According to Ṭabari, Nebuchadnezzar directed his military efforts towards Arabia, having made
use of many of its merchants who had settled in the southwestern regions of Mesopotamia, as
well as the nomadic warriors who had dissented and joined his forces, and whom he eventually
assimilated into his own army of natives. The Babylonian king forced these Arabian legionnaires
to join in his campaign, because he needed them as guides to the treacherous terrain he was about
to enter. This proves, beyond doubt, that the military excursion of the Babylonian armies and
their mercenary allies could not have been directed at Palestine, because the latter was already
part of Nebuchadnezzar‟s realm, and its mostly flat, easily negotiable territory was known to
him.

An interesting aspect of Ṭabari‟s report is his reiteration of Ibn Ḥabeeb‟s mention of the
“Jewish” prophet Barkhiā, who resided in Najrān, and was a descendant of the Biblical
Zerubabel. This is one of the many instances of anachronism which very often characterizes the
reports of the classical narrators. We know for a fact that it was Zerubabel himself who would
negotiate the terms of the release of the enslaved tribes with the Persian monarch Cyrus the
Great, after the fall of Babylon in the year 539 BC. This took place nearly a century after the
death of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, Barkhiā could not have been alive to seek audience with
the Babylonian king. Some Arab chroniclers even inserted John the Baptist into the picture, and
claimed that his assassination was a motive for the Assyrian attacks!

Yet these anachronisms do not mean that we should discard the entire reports as fantasies. The
same can be said regarding the tendency of the historians to add legendary qualities to the events.
For example, who was this Ma‘ad bin ‘Adnān mentioned in several reports? Was he a real
figure? And how can we explain the way in which he was taken as a refugee to the Levant, to
escape the destruction that befell Arabia in that distant age? Let us read what al-Ṭabari himself
says regarding this issue (1/324):

‫ذ‬٣ٞٛ ٝ ،‫ٔب‬ٜ‫ ؽوإ ٖٓ ٍبػز‬٠ُ‫ب ا‬٤ٜ‫ كبٗز‬،ٚ‫ فِل‬ٚ‫ هكك‬ٝ ‫ اُجوام‬٠ِ‫ب ػ‬٤‫ ثوف‬ِٚٔ‫ كؾ‬،‫ٓئنٕ اص٘زب ػْوح ٍ٘خ‬ٞ٣ ٕ‫ ُٔؼ ّل ثٖ ػلٗب‬ٝ
.‫ ثقزٖ٘و ثناد ػوم‬ٝ ٕ‫ ػلٗب‬٠‫ كؤٕجؼ ثؾ ّوإ كبُزو‬،‫ب‬٤ٓ‫األهٗ إله‬

And Ma„ad bin „Adnān was twelve years old at the time, and so Barkhiā carried him on
the back of the Pegasus, and they both flew with all speed to Ḥarrān. As for Jeremiah,
the earth itself folded for him, and he awoke in Ḥarrān, and met with Ma„ad and
Bakhtnaṣṣar in a place called Dhāt ‘Arq.

21
The above comical narration is another testament to the confusion which characterized
al-Ṭabari‟s reports. This Dhāt ‘Arq is mentioned by several Arab geographers as a place
somewhere between Makkah and Madeenah. Ḥarrān, on the other hand, lies in the far north of
the Syrian territory, near the Turkish border. Notwithstanding the mention of the Pegasus (the
mythological winged horse) again, and the earth “magically folding upon itself”, just how did
Jeremiah end up meeting the duo of „Adnān (the alleged legendary ancestor of the Prophet
Muḥammad) and Nebuchadnezzar, near Makkah?

Despite these occasional lunacies on the part of the old chroniclers, we believe that the thread of
truth still exists in their writings, buried beneath piles of conjecture, waiting for someone to
glean the historical facts from the myths. Their stories relate to us, the generations of today,
a forgotten part of a silenced history that has been stored in the collective consciousness of the
inhabitants of Arabia, regarding the true destination of the Babylonian and Assyrian campaigns.

Another interesting aspect that we encounter in these narrations concerns the relation between
a mass Arabian migration to ancient Iraq and the campaign that was directed towards Arabia by
Nebuchadnezzar. By highlighting this relation to us, the classical narrators attempted to provide
a historical explanation for the presence of Arabs within the territory of Mesopotamia.

The truth of the matter is that the Arabian memory regarding these migrations seems to be
somewhat foggy, as the historians are not unanimous with respect to their true origins. Many
stories we read clearly give the impression that those legions of traders and mercenaries who had
moved to Iraq and later joined the raiding Assyrian armies had followed in the footsteps of much
older migrations and would, themselves, be followed by more future displacements. For instance,
the reports of Ibn al-Kalbi*, a renowned authority on ancient pagan idols and religious history,
tells us that the beginning of the Arabian presence in Iraq can be traced back to a Yemeni king
by the name of Tabbān As„ad Abū Karb (a descendant of the Tubba„ Dynasty mentioned in the
Qur‟ān), who had invaded Iraq in a bygone era. Other historians, notably Wahb Ibn Manbah in
his book al-Teejan fi Mulūk Ḥimyar (lit: Crowns of the Kings of Himyar) also points to several
campaigns led by Arabian tribes against the borders of Iraq, in different historical periods.

These reports of Arabian excursions into Mesopotamia are consistent with some Assyrian
archeological inscriptions, which clearly mention military clashes with the Aribu, finally
necessitating a vast disciplinary campaign aimed at putting an end to their threat. Also, it is
worth noting that the Mesopotamian records speak of no less than eight campaigns, a fact that is
consistent with the Old Testament scripture itself. It is preposterous to assume that the monarchs
of ancient Iraq launched these successive campaigns against a tiny territory on the
Meditteranean, which was fully under their control. If that were the case, a question would
naturally arise: when exactly did they have time to build their empire in the first place?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Ibn al-Kalbi traced his lineage to the famous tribe of Kalb, which is, without a doubt, the Biblical Kaleb.

22
What we can say for certain, is that the tendency of migration out of the Arabian Peninsula goes
back much deeper into history than the chroniclers tell us. Being that Arabia was the primordial
home of the so-called “Semitic” race (despite our reservations to the use of such a term), there is
a substantial amount of anthropological and linguistic evidence which points to the fact that the
civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant were founded by people who had originally
migrated from the mother land of Arabia, during a prehistoric age that is now beyond memory.
We will elaborate on this subject in a future release regarding Noah and the Great Flood, wherein
we will prove that the setting of the Deluge was indeed the Arabian Peninsula, and that it was the
ancient migrates from Arabia who took with them the memory of this event, in the shape of
legends, when they settled in the region of Turkey / Mesopotamia.

Going back to the Arab chroniclers, let us take a look at the following sample from Ibn Durayd‟s
(died 933 AD) book entitled Al-Ishtiqāq (entry 970), wherein the scholar and poet mentions
a province within Yemen known as Mikhlāf al-Suḥūl )ٍٞ‫(اَُؾ‬:

.ْٛ‫ْ اُجقذ ٖٗو كؤك٘ب‬ٜ٤ِ‫ كجؼش هللا ػ‬ٚٓٞ‫ ه‬ِٚ‫ هز‬،٢‫يّ اُ٘ج‬ٜ٣ ٖ‫ت ث‬٤‫ ّؼ‬:ٍٞ‫ ٖٓ اَُؾ‬ٝ

To paraphrase the above, Ibn Durayd states that the prophet known by the name of Shu„ayb Ibn
Yahzum was a native of the Suḥūl mini-kingdom, and he was killed by his people. As a result,
God made an example of them, by setting upon them Bakht Naṣṣar.

Here we find another mention of the chastisement that was inflicted by Allah upon the people of
Yemen, as a consequence of their killing of a divine emissary. This seems to be a recurrent
theme of the old Arabian reports. According to Ibn Durayd‟s version of the story, it was the
prophet Shu„ayb who was the victim of the crime. This may sound strange to you, dear reader,
but it seems there was indeed a widespread belief, among the old historians, linking Shu„ayb to
Yemen, and to an ancient mountain city near the coast, known as Midian, which appears in both
prose as well as old poetry. Yet very few sources mention the Suḥūl region, which lies not far
from the Yemeni capital. The Qur‟ān, in [8:75] and [11:84], mentions Shu„ayb in relation to
Midian, in addition to previous South Arabian nations (namely the people of Nūḥ, „Ād, and
Thamūd), and within the context of reminding its audience of the importance of justice and
equity in their dealings, and not to wreak corruption in the land.

By far the most eye-opening references to Shu„ayb appear in the records of al-Ṭabari and al-
Mas„ūdi, both of whom reported that the priest by the name of Jethro, who is mentioned in the
Old Testament, was none other than Shu„ayb himself. Moses, after having fled from “Pharaoh”,
sought refuge in Midyan and married one of Jethro‟s daughters, whose name in Arabic was
Ṣaffūrah. This means that the Arab narrators, until as late as al-Ṭabari‟s day and age, firmly
believed that Moses lived in Yemen, and resided for a time in Midyan. Consequently, they

23
sought to match between the Biblical text and the Qur‟ānic account, by claiming that Shu„ayb
and Jethro were the same person.

The old bard, Kuthayr, who composed many sad poems about a tribal ruin called „Azzah (and
became known as Kuthayr „Azzah), mentioned Midyan in a famous lamentation, wherein he
described the weeping of the “Monks of Midyan”.

At any rate, there is no region called Suḥūl )ٍٞ‫ (ٍؾ‬in Palestine, nor in the entire territory of the
Levant, for that matter. Only in Yemen does this name exist, as al-Hamadāni described it in his
gazetteer, the Description of Arabia (page 81):

.ِ‫ كبئ‬١‫غ م‬ٙٞٓ ‫ أسَبة‬ٝ ،َُ‫نا أُقالف (ٓقالف اٌغؾىي) عجَ أد‬ٛ ٖٓ ًٖ‫ أَُب‬ٝ

The above passage tells us that the two most prominent peaks in Mikhlāf al- Suḥūl were: Jabal
Adum )ّ‫ (أك‬and Jabal Aryāb )‫بة‬٣‫(أه‬. The first name is a candidate for the Biblical Edom. This
name also appears in Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi‟s Glossary of Countries, as designating both the name of
a Yemeni town as well as a mountain in the capital province:

.‫ٖٔ صْ ٖٓ أػٔبٍ ٕ٘ؼبء‬٤ُ‫ ا‬ٟ‫ ٖٓ هو‬:َ‫أد‬

Photo #2: Ruins on the summit of Mount Ariāb, Yemen.

Bearing in mind that the old Arab narrators were adamant in their stance that Nebuchadnezzar
had delved deep into Arabia, and reached the heartlands of Yemen, and recalling all we have said
so far regarding the actual geography of Biblical Israel, let us now turn to some of the physical
inscriptions left behind by the Mesopotamian monarchs, namely Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and
Sargon II. In the next chapter, we will see how two of the most prominent archeologists in the
West, Eduard Glaser and Alois Musil, working under the assumption that the Levant was the
theater of the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns, interpreted those texts.

24
 CHAPTER I

Mesopotamian Testimonies

25
Being that the Arabian Peninsula, once described by Lebanese scholar Philippe Ḥitti as the
“primordial reservoir of peoples”, has received very little of what it deserves in terms of
archeological exploration, the researcher in the subject finds himself forced to rely on the records
uncovered in ancient Iraq, in order to fill some of the gaps in Arabia‟s history. And there is
a substantial amount of such records, most of which have been stolen and are on display in the
museums of the western world.

The Red Sea was known to the ancient Greeks by the name of Sinnus Arabicus. And it was on
the coast of that sea that some of the greatest battles unfolded between the Mesopotamians and
the Egyptians, as the two dominant empires at the time vied for political influence and control of
the strategic trade routes which ran the length of the Arabian Peninsula. Palestine, on the other
hand, was little more than a quiet and peaceful backwater area, completely under the control of
the Mesopotamian Empire. And it is here that the first question poses itself: the Babylonian and
Assyrian inscriptions record no less than eight military campaigns - two of which were
catastrophic - directed against surrounding regions. This fact is completely substantiated in the
Old Testament records. Why would the Mesopotamians launch these successive campaigns, if
their target was a small strip of land that was already under their control?

There is not, outside the Orientalist version of history, any evidence of the existence of a long
struggle, spanning centuries, between the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians for the control of
Palestine or Syria. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the Red Sea coast as the subject of
these wars. Of course, this is not to say that no skirmishes were ever fought in the region of the
Levant, but to state that the military expeditions launched by the Babylonian and Assyrian
monarchs were centered solely on the ancient Syria-Palestine area is a gross error.

One of the oldest scriptures that have been unearthed regarding this subject is an Acadian
Cuneiform inscription dating back to around 2800 BC, which mentions the military exploits of
Lugal – Zaggae – Si, one of the kings of the Third Dynasty, centered in the city of Uruk. His
conquests encompassed territories extending from the “Lower Sea” to the “Upper Sea”. These
two designations are also encountered in the geographical records of the Greeks, who gave the
term “Lower Sea” to the Gulf. As for the “Upper Sea”, it is none other than the Mediterranean.

Other names appearing in the inscriptions are those of Sharru – Kin (around 2350 BC), who has
been identified as King Sargon the First, and Naram – Sin (around 2260 BC), whose inscription
clearly features the term Aribu as residents of the conquered regions along the Lower Sea and
several inland pockets. This is a clear indication that the Mesopotamian excursions aiming to
discipline the independent tribes of Arabia began as early as the Sumerian era, and that they
constituted a strict military tradition, aimed at expanding the political borders of the empire. The
Mesopotamians delved deep into Arabia and reached the coast of the Red Sea. This is the truth
that the Orientalist scholars have failed to acknowledge.

26
In this chapter, we will take a brief look at the Mesopotamian inscriptions regarding three of the
campaigns which coincided with the age of Biblical Israel, namely the excursions of Sennacherib
(and his son Esarhaddon), Sargon II, and Shalmanassar.

 The Campaigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (680 BC – 669 BC)

As a result of two consecutive military campaigns, these Assyrian monarchs were able to achieve
a large and unprecedented control over the rebellious tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Modern
Arab historian Jawād „Ali, in his voluminous encyclopedia entitled Al-Mufaṣṣal fi Tāreekh al-
‘Arab (lit: The Detailed History of the Arabs), points to the fact that Herodotus‟ designation of
Sennacherib as being “King of the Assyrians and the Arabs” is a testament to the expansionist
ideology of the monarchs of ancient Iraq (volume 3 / page 89).

Despite the difficulties of the terrain described in the Cuneiform tablets (vast deserts filled with
snakes and scorpions, and bordered by mountains), several locations fell into the hands of the
Assyrian armies. Among the names appearing in the inscriptions is a region referred to as
Adumu, which encompasses Aribu, and whose queen, Ishkallatu, a priestess of the goddess
Dibat, was taken as prisoner. The name Ishkallatu is undoubtedly related to a valley mentioned
by the geographer, al-Hamadāni, as Wādi Ashkūl, )ٌٍّٞ‫ أ‬١‫اك‬ٝ(, which also appears in the Bible as
Eshkol )‫)אשכול‬, where it designates both a person (Genesis – 14:24) and a valley (Numbers –
13:24). Al-Hamadāni referred to its residents as the Banu Shakal. The Mesopotamian
inscriptions clearly identify Iskallatu - Ishkallatu as an Arabian queen.

As for the name of the pagan deity Dibat, whose priestess was captured, it actually refers to the
ancient Arabian priestly order (title) knows as Dubbah / Dubbat )‫(كثّخ – كثّذ‬, after whom a valley
was named, in the Midhḥaj territories north of Ma‟rib. This valley also appears as Dubayyat
(a poetic rendering of the name), and is mentioned by al-Hamadāni, in his Description of Arabia
(page 178).

The interesting thing is that the Orientalist archeologists who studied the Esarhaddon inscription
assumed that Dibat was the name of the deity itself, whereas we have evidence from old poetry
that it actually refers to the title born by priests and priestesses of the ancient Arabian goddess
known as al-„Uzzah, not the name of the idol itself.

In his book entitled Al-Aṣnām (lit: The Idols), religious historian Ibn al-Kalbi talks about
al-„Uzzah, and relates the story (pages 23–25), of Khalid Ibn al-Waleed, the alleged
“companion” of the Prophet, who was sent to destroy the Ka„bah of al-„Uzzah (a small grove
formed of three palm trees in the shape of a woman), and capture or kill its caretaker. Poet Abu
Kharāsh al-Hudhliy sang the following eulogy in remembrance of the fallen priest:

27
 ‫طق‬٣
ِ ُْ ٝ ِْٔ٣ ُْ ٝ ‫ة‬ٝ‫ اَُو‬ٍٜ ٝ ُٙ‫ّ ُْ أه‬ٞ‫ـــــــ‬٤ُ‫ٓــــــب ٌذثُّخ ا‬
‫طق‬ُٜ‫ا‬
ِ ٢٘‫ ث‬ٟ‫ي‬٤ّ ٖٓ ‫ن‬٣‫اه‬ٝ‫ٖٓ اُو‬ ‫ْ ثٔزــــوػخ‬ٛ‫ّب ُ٘بكا‬٤‫ ًبٕ ؽ‬ُٞ

The above verses tell us that Dubayyah, the caretaker of al-„Uzzah, used to offer an intoxicating
drink (the wine of raisins) to pilgrims. This was the ancient function of many pagan clergy in
Arabia. The very Arabic term dabbah - dubbah (‫ )كثّخ‬also refers to the large clay urn from which
the wine was poured. Al-Kalbi then goes on to debate what the cleric‟s actual name was, proving
that Dabayyah was merely an honorary title given to all those who served the Ka„bah of al-
„Uzzah.

This leads us to recall the very important observation made by al-Hamadāni regarding the fact
that most of the geographical locations in his native country, whether towns, rivers, or
mountains, were actually named after the deities, legendary heroes, or ancient tribal figures.

Going back to the Esarhaddon inscription, we find a correlation between the names Adumu and
Aribu. By consulting al-Hamadāni‟s description of Mikhlāf al-Suḥūl, we recall the following
passage (DoA- page 81):

،ِٞ‫ؾٖت اُؼ‬٣ ٖٓ ّ‫ هأً أك‬٢‫بة ك‬٣‫ أه‬ٝ( ِ‫ كبئ‬١‫غ م‬ٙٞٓ ٝ ‫ أسَبة‬ٝ َُ‫ٍ) عجً أد‬ٞ‫نا أُقالف (ٓقالف اَُؾ‬ٛ ٖٓ ًٖ‫ أَُب‬ٝ
.)‫ل – وادٌ صُذ‬٤ٕ ً‫ هأ‬ٞٛ ٝ

Again, we see the proximity of the mountain called Adum (ّ‫ )أك‬- with Ariab (‫بة‬٣‫ )أه‬being one of
the towns nestled on its peak - to the valley of Ṣayd. These locations happen to neighbor the
famous valley known as Wādi al-„Arab (the beth h-‘Arbah of the Old Testament, which was
projected onto the Jordan). This proves that the old Arabian reports of Nebuchadnezzar marching
deep into Arabia in a later age, and reaching as far as Ma‟rib and the Suḥūl region of Yemen, are
indeed accurate.

Proof of these facts can be encountered in another inscription attributed to Sennacherib, which
Jawād „Ali mentioned in his encyclopedia (2:240). The caption tells us that Sennacherib was able
to subdue a king by the name of Karibi-ilu, who was the ruler of Saba’i, and that the latter paid
him a tribute of precious stones, silverware and rikke tabutu. „Ali acknowledges that Karibi-ilu
was a title given to the kings of Yemen, and was known in Arabic as Karb-Makrab )‫(ٌٓوة‬, and
that Saba‟i was indeed Saba‟ (Sheba). „Ali gives credit to German linguist Fritz Hommel for
making this observation, and also acknowledges that rikke tabutu indicates a certain spice or
aromatic perfume, which is most probably frankincense (tabutu is the Acadian equivalent of the
Arabic tayyib, which conveys the meaning of a fragrant smell).

Who exactly were the Makāriba of Yemen? The Ḥimyaritic texts themselves reveal to us no less
than a dozen kings who bore that title, among them Karb-el Watār )‫ربه‬ٝ َ٣‫ (ًوة ا‬and Karb-el

28
As„ad )‫َ أٍؼل‬٣‫(ًوة ا‬, also known as As„ad Abū Karb, the famous figure who, according to
Islamic folklore, was the first to dress the so-called Ka‘bah with its black cloth. Many linguists
who studied the South Arabian dialects have theorized that the title of Makrib was given to kings
who were also religious leaders said to be intermediaries to the various deities (i.e. king-priests).
It is also thought that the “Hebrew” word Cherubim (Karubim – with the Ḥimyaritic -im plural
suffix) is closely related to the title, and conveys the meaning of “those who are closer”.

Despite the obvious connotations in the Assyrian inscriptions, Jawad „Ali refused to
acknowledge the possibility that Sennacherib‟s army reached as far as Sheba, in Yemen. In his
commentary, he stated that Karbi-ilu must have been a prince who lived in North Arabia, and
that the frankincense he paid as a tribute to the Assyrians was sent from one of the caravans that
was on its way to the port city of Gaza, in Palestine. This is no doubt due to the fact that „Ali was
heavily influenced by the Orientalist interpretation of the region‟s history, as we will soon
conclude.

The inscriptions left behind by Sennacherib also tell us that the Arabs of Tel-Hunu had
substantial trade relations with Mesopotamia, and that many mercenaries joined forces with the
Babylonians against the Assyrian garrisons in the Levant. When the Assyrian monarch
Sennacherib was finally able to impose his control over Babylon in 689 B.C, he decided to
retaliate against Tel-Hunu, as revenge for their aiding of his local, Babylonian rivals.

The scriptures also tell us that civil strife had overtaken Tel-Hunu, as certain Arabian tribes
rebelled against its king, Haza’il (another Biblical figure), as a consequence of his causing the
brutal Assyrian retaliation, and for his failure to formulate a defensive strategy to stave off
Sennacherib‟s advance.

Let us see what Arab historian al-Ya„qūbi, in his History (1:198,199) states regarding the
Yemeni tribes of al-Hūn:

،‫ا وٕبٔخ‬ٞ‫ فبُل‬ٝ ،‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫ٔخ ٖٓ ر‬٣‫ أٍل ثٖ ُفي‬ٞ٘‫ ً٘بٗخ ُٔب فوعذ ث‬٢٘‫ا اُوبهح ألٕ ث‬ّٞٔ ٍ ‫ اٗٔب‬ٝ ،‫ اُوبهح‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ٔخ‬٣‫ اٌهىْ ٖٓ ُفي‬ٝ
‫ اُؼوة‬ٝ ،‫خ‬ٚ‫بَ ٓ٘قل‬ٙ‫ا أه‬ُٞ‫ٕ ٗي‬ُٜٞ‫ ا‬٢٘‫ُوبٍ إٔ إ ث‬٣ ٝ .ْٜ٘٤‫ٔخ هبهح ث‬٣‫ٕ ثٖ في‬ُٜٞ‫ ا‬٢٘‫ا ث‬ِٞ‫ عؼ‬،‫و‬٤‫ اٌُض‬٠ُ‫َ ا‬٤ِ‫ا اُو‬ٞ‫ؼ‬ٙ ٝ
ٖ‫ٕ ث‬ُٜٞ‫ كؤٓب اُؾٌْ ثٖ ا‬.ْ‫ اثٕب َضع ثٓ اٌهى‬ٝ ِ‫ كث‬ٝ َٚ‫ٔخ ػ‬٣‫ٕ ثٖ في‬ُٜٞ‫ ا‬٢٘‫ هجبئَ ث‬ٝ .‫خ اُوبهح‬ٚ‫ٕ األهٗ أُ٘قل‬ّٞٔ َ٣
.ٙ‫الك‬ٝ‫ب أ‬ٜ‫ُل ث‬ٞ‫ كؾَ ثالد ِزؽظ ك‬،ٖٔ٤ُ‫ ا‬٠ُ‫ ٕبه ا‬ٚٗ‫ٔخ كب‬٣‫في‬

The above rare passage by al-Ya„qūbi helps us unlock some of the mysteries of the Assyrian
records regarding King Hazael (Haza‟eel), who was a tribal leader of the Hūn )ُٕٜٞ‫(ا‬. These clans
were rivals of Bani Kanānah )‫ (ً٘بٗخ‬in the bygone eras, and eventually ruled the country known
as Midhḥaj )‫ (ٓنؽظ‬in Yemen. Also, make a note of the name Yatha‘ )‫ضغ‬٣(, which features in the
passage, as we will look further into it soon afterwards.

29
In his DoA, al-Hamadāni places Mikhlaf al-Hūn (or al-Hān, as its name is often rendered), as
part of the Hamadān Province, which, during his time, was inhabited by Ḥimyaritic clans.
According to the contemporary commentator of DoA, the name of this mikhlāf, in our day and
age, is Anas )ٌٗ‫(ٓقالف أ‬.

Sennacherib stole the idols of Tel-Hunu, and took the Arabs prisoners to Nineveh. Among the
captives was an ancient Arab princess called Tabua, whose name would be rendered as Zhabuah
in Arabic )‫ح‬ٞ‫(ظج‬, being that the Assyrians did not vocalize the ẓ consonant sound. As for Hazael,
he fled into the mountains, out of the Assyrian‟s reach, for a time. After Sennacherib‟s death, the
tension between the Hūn and the Assyrians subsided, and Hazael was able to return to Nineveh
and pledge his loyalty to Sennacherib‟s successor, Esarhaddon. The latter wanted to install
Tabua as a puppet ruler of Hūn, after she had been trained into civil subservience in his court.
And so it was that the Assyrians were able to assert their influence over one the most important
provinces of Yemen at the time.

However, the state of affairs would not last long, as the old hostilities began to surface again, and
the political and religious differences between the independent, troublesome Arabian tribes and
the strong, centralized Assyrians were too deep for such a fragile arrangement. To prevent
further strife, Esarhaddon acknowledged the rights of King Hazael, and gave him rule over the
tribe of Kidru (as the name appears in the Cuneiform inscription), in exchange for a yearly
tribute of camels. This tribe is none other than the Biblical Kedar, whose name appears several
times in the Old Testament as well. Here are two examples:

And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their
generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and
Mibsam (Genesis - 25:13)

Let the desert and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth
inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the
mountains (Isaiah – 42:11)

It is worth noting that the correct pronunciation of this name is actually Qedar (with the qof
letter), as the Aramaic spelling Qydr (‫ )קידר‬clearly shows. These were none other than the
Qaydār )‫لاه‬٤‫ (ه‬tribe of Yemen, whose name happens to feature in the ancestral lineages of that
country.

Here is what Ibn Khaldūn tells us, in his book entitled Al-‘Ibar, regarding the lineage of the
Patriarch Abraham (P):

.ْ٤ٛ‫َ ثٖ اثوا‬٤‫َغ ثٖ ٍالٓبٕ ثٖ ٗجذ ثٖ ؽَٔ ثٖ لُذاس ثٖ أٍبػ‬٤ُٜٔ‫ا‬

30
Paraphrase: Al-Hamaysa„ is the son of Salamān, son of Nābet, son of Ḥaml, son of Qeydar,
son of Ismā„eel, son of Ibrāheem.

This lineage, along with the mountains their descendants dwelt in, had no relation to the Levant
whatsoever. And the information we read in Wikipedia, which places the Qedarites in North
Arabia, and around the Persian Gulf and Sinai regions of Egypt, while designating Hazael as
“King of Syria”, has no basis whatsoever, and is a result of Orientalist fantasies.

According to the Assyrian inscriptions, when Hazael died, his son had to pay an even greater
tribute in exchange for Esarhaddon‟s continued recognition of his rule. This tribute included half
a ton of gold, a thousand precious stones, and fifty camels laden with frankincense. This proves
that the theater of events was indeed Yemen, because the Bedouins of North Arabia and the
Levant wilderness could not possibly have had access, on a yearly basis, to such a large amount
of riches, especially frankincense; a substance that could be obtained only in South Arabia.

Hazael‟s son, Uaita (as his name appears in Esarhaddon‟s inscription), soon had to put up with
a rebellion among the Qedarites, aimed at disposing of the Hazael line and the Assyrian
influence altogether. This new development prompted Esarhaddon to launch another attack, in
the year 676 BC, directed at the regions of Bozu, Hozu and Battana, as the inscription lists them.
The first is described by the Assyrians as a treacherous wilderness where serpents and scorpions
abound, like ants. The third name, Battana, caused enormous controversy, and to this day
archeologists are at a loss regarding its actual location. During this particular expedition, the
Assyrians killed eight tribal kings, and took, as captives, several female figures, including the
queens of Ba’ilu, and Ikilu-Ikhilu.

Archeologist Eduard Glaser (died 1908), who had “collected” thousands of inscriptions from
Yemen; artifacts that are on display today in a museum of stolen artifacts in Austria, suggested
two candidates as the locations of Bozu (or Bazu): North Arabia (the Ḥijāz region), and the
south-east corner of Najd (in modern-day Saudi Arabia), on the outskirts of the capital city of
Riyadh, not far from what is known today as al-Ḥuzwah. This is an area containing many ancient
ruins. Hence, Glaser‟s view is that the Hozu sacked by the Assyrians is the Ḥuzwah of Najd.

Archeologist Alois Musil, for his part, placed Bozu / Hozu in the Syrian wilderness, south-west
of the city of Palmyra (Tadmur) in a valley known today as Wādi Sarḥān, and stated that the
eight conquered kings mentioned in the Assyrian inscription resided in the regions surrounding
that valley. Geographically, Musil‟s identification makes no sense, because it contradicts the
inscriptions themselves, which clearly place Bozu and Hozu in Arabia. Furthermore, no trace of
these two names has ever been found in Syria. Still, other archeologists located Bozu and Hozu
near the eastern coast of the Gulf, not far from the site of modern-day Qatar and Bahrain. These
opinions serve to show us how clueless the Orientalist readings truly were, regarding the
direction of the Assyrian campaigns.
31
 Photo #3: A fragment of Esarhaddon’s inscription

What about the enigmatic Battana, which Esarhaddon‟s army conquered?

Musil‟s analysis led him to interpret Battana as Badanah, a ruin which lies at the site of the
ancient city of Dedan*, once a tiny oasis in North Arabia, now known as al-„Ula (about 400
kilometers north of Medina). The problem with this placement is two-fold: first, it contradicts
Musil‟s own location of Bozu and Hozu, which are clearly described in Esarhaddon‟s inscription
as being in a mountainous wilderness, and on the same trajectory as Battana. How can one be
near Palmyra while the other is in the Dedan ruins, when these locations are so geographically
distant from each other? The second problem is purely linguistic, as there is no logic behind
rendering Battana as Badana, being that the Assyrians could vocalize both consonants (t and d)
perfectly well.

There is not, in the entire territory of the Arabian Peninsula, two locations bearing the names of
Hozu-Hazu and Bozu-Bazu, on the same path as Battana, except in the wilderness areas around
Najrān and Ṣa„dah, in northern Yemen.

Here is what al-Hamadāni says (DoA / page 266, 267):

.َ٣ٞٛ ٙ‫ؽل‬ٝ ‫ت ٓ٘وطغ‬٤‫ ًض‬،‫ ُؽضوي‬ٝ...ْ‫ك ٖٓ أٍلَ ٔغشا‬ٝ‫غ صْ ٓن‬٤‫ ثئو اُوث‬ٝ ‫ؽبف‬ُٞ‫ ا‬٠ٔ‫صْ ؽ‬

The above passage describes Huzwa (ٟٝ‫ )ؽي‬as a wilderness place, on the outskirts of a sandy
desert located in the Najrān )ٕ‫ (ٗغوا‬basin. Legendary poet Dhul-Rummah weeps over this same
place in a poem describing tribal vestiges:

______________________________________________________________________________
* Not to be confused with the Dad-Dadn of South Arabia.

32
 ‫ٕجوا‬ ُ ُ‫ ُؽضوي كَو‬ُِٟٞ َّ َٞ٣َٝ
َ ‫ب‬َُٜ ‫ِذ‬ ‫ف‬ ِ ُٓ َ‫َّخ‬٤َْ‫ ػ‬٢َ‫َُوَل َعَْؤَد َٗل‬
ٍ ‫ْو‬

This means that Bozu – Bazu must be on the same trajectory. And indeed it is. On page 297 of
DoA, we read the following passage:

.‫ه اَُواح‬ٞ‫ ثالد ثبسق ٖٓ ؿ‬٢‫ا ِك ك‬ٝ ٞٛ ٝ ،‫ت‬٤ِ‫خ ػ‬٤‫ فجذ اٌجضواء ث٘بؽ‬ٝ

Here, al-Hamadāni mentions al-Bazwā’ )‫اء‬ٝ‫ (اُجي‬as being a location within the territories of Bani
Bāriq. It is common knowledge that this tribe, who were a branch of Kanānah, migrated from
Yemen after the collapse of the Ma‟rib Dam, settled in the „Aseer province of Saudi Arabia, and
gave their name to an administrative region in that area.

Here is what Wikipedia says regarding the Bāriq )‫ (ثبهم‬area, which was part of Yemen, until the
Saudis annexed the region in the 1930‟s:

٢ُ‫ا‬ٞ‫ب ثؾ‬ٜ‫٘خ أث‬٣‫ ّٔبٍ ٓل‬،‫خ‬٣‫ك‬ٞ‫خ اَُؼ‬٤‫ ٌُِِٔٔخ اُؼوث‬٢‫ة اُـوث‬ٞ٘‫ اُغ‬٢ٖ‫ أه‬٢‫و ك‬٤َ‫ ٓ٘طوخ ػ‬٢‫خ روغ ك‬٣‫ك‬ٞ‫ ٓؾبكظخ ٍؼ‬٢ٛ ‫ثبسق‬
.)‫ علح‬،‫ب – ٌٓخ‬ٜ‫ أث‬،ٕ‫يا‬٤‫ ع‬،ٖٔ٤ُ‫ (ا‬٢ٔ٤ِ‫ن اإله‬٣‫ب اُطو‬ٜ‫قزوه‬٣ .ً‫ٓزوا‬ِٞ٤ً 120

Paraphrase: Bāriq lies in the far South of Saudi Arabia, 120 kilometers from Abha, on the
international highway which joins Yemen, Jeezan and Abha to Jaddah

Poet Kuthayr (also known as Kuthayr „Azzah), remembers this place in one of his eulogies:

‫ب‬ُٜ‫ب كوٓب‬ٜ‫ فجز‬ٟٞٙ‫ٓقبهّ ه‬ ‫ ربهح‬ٝ َ‫ها‬ٞٛ ‫ؽبء‬ٝ‫اكغ ثبُو‬ٝ‫ك‬

‫ب‬ُٜ‫ب‬ٚ‫ٖطججٖ ك‬٣ ‫ب‬٣‫ا‬ٝ‫ٓياك اُو‬ ‫اهق‬ٝ ِ٤‫ اُغ‬ٝ ‫وجِٖ ثبٌجضواء‬٣

As for the Biblical Battana, al-Hamadāni places it in the north-western reaches of the Ṣa„dah
Province of Yemen. Here is the relevant passage (DoA, page 225):

.‫ؼخ‬٤‫ب اإلوٍُُّىْ ٖٓ آٍ هث‬ٜٗ‫ ٕؼلح ٌٍب‬ٝ .ْ‫ ٔغشا‬٠ُ‫ صْ ا‬،ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ ٠ُ‫ صْ ا‬،‫خ ٖٓ أٍلَ اٌجطٕخ‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ األ‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٙ‫ب‬٤ٓ ‫ رغزٔغ‬ٝ :‫ؽوَ صعذح‬

The passage above describes a large basin in Ṣa„dah (‫ )ٕؼلح‬known as al-Baṭnah (‫)اُجط٘خ‬, where
the waters of several rivers meet, and flow towards Hamadān and Najrān (ٕ‫)ٗغوا‬. It also mentions
that the place is inhabited by clans known as al-Ikiliyyūn (ّٕٞ٤ِ٤ً‫)اإل‬. These are none other than the
Ikilu of the Assyrian inscriptions.

The map of the Fertile Crescent shown below exposes the confusion regarding Bozu, Hozu, and
Battana; neighbouring locations which are supposed to be on the same route taken by
Esarhaddon‟s army.

33
 Map #2: In which direction did the Assyrians march?

As for the troublesome Ba’ilu, which appears in Esarhaddon‟s inscription as the name of an
Arabian queen, Eduard Glaser pointed out the possibility that the term refers to the tribe of Bāhil
who, during his time, lived in the Najd regions of Saudi Arabia, near the Gulf coast. Although
this observation is close to the mark, it does not match the trajectory of the Assyrian army. More
so, it is surprising that an archeologist of the caliber of Glaser, who was very familiar with the
Ḥimyaritic inscriptions of Yemen (which he uncovered and analyzed by the dozens), failed to
consider the following inscription:

Photo #4: Musnad Inscription no.32

The fragment shown above is taken from the book entitled Nuqūsh Musnadiyyah wa Ta‘leeqāt
(lit: Musnad Inscriptions and Comments), penned in the year 1990 by the giant Yemeni scholar,

34
historian and poet, Muṭhir „Ali al-Ariyāni (born 1933), who re-examined Glaser‟s notes.
For those who can read Arabic letters, the transliteration of the above text is as follows:

/ ‫ أػوة‬/ ًَ ٝ / ٍ‫ ىك أ‬ٝ / ٍُ‫ ثه‬ٝ / ْٓ‫ ؽو‬ٝ / ْ‫ ٓنؽغ‬ٝ / ‫ً٘لد‬ٝ / ‫ ٍجؤ‬/ ‫ ِٓي‬/ ‫ أػوة‬/ ‫ ًجو‬/ ْٗ‫ عل‬/ ٖ‫ ث‬/ ‫زِق‬٣ / ‫ٍؼل رؤُت‬
ٞٛ‫ ػجل‬/ ٢ٍ‫ ًؤ‬/ ‫ ثند‬/ ّ‫ ؽٔل‬/ ْ‫ج‬ٛ‫ مم‬/ ِْٕٔ / ّٝ‫ أ‬/ َ‫ ثؼ‬/ ٚ‫ أُو‬/ ٞٔٛ‫ ٓوأ‬/ ٢٘‫و‬ٛ / ‫ٔ٘ذ‬٣ ٝ / ‫د‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫ ؽ‬ٝ / ّ‫و‬٤ٔ‫ ؽ‬ٝ / ‫عجؤ‬
/ ‫د‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫ ؽ‬/ ٖ‫ ث‬/ ْ‫ ثْ٘و‬/ ْٗ‫ هو‬/ ْ‫ عجش‬/ ٜٞ‫ور‬ٜٔ‫ ر‬ٝ / ْٗ‫ معل‬/ ‫ ٍؼل رؤُت‬/

Anyone who utters the above words out loud will immediately note how strikingly similar they
sound, in both structure and cadence, to the so-called “Hebrew” spoken today. Here follows is
a translation of Ariyāni‟s own paraphrase of the inscription (our comments are in brackets):

[The chief, Sa„d Ta‟leb Yatlif al-Jadni, great among the Bedouins of Saba‟ (Sheba), Kindah,
Midhḥaj, Ḥaram, Bāhil, Zad‟eel, Ḥimyar, Ḥaḍramawt and Yamnat, hereby makes an offering
to his Lord, Al-Maqah, Ba„l of Awām (ancient pagan deity of Yemen); this statuette of
bronze and gold, thanking him for allowing safe passage of his servant, Sa„d Ta‟leb Dhi-
Jadn, and those with him of the „Ibrān*, who sought refuge in the city of Nashaq, on their
way from Ḥaḍramawt].

In this inscription, the Ḥimyarites of Yemen recorded the name of the tribe of Bāhil, whose
location was speculated by Glaser to be in the Najd region; a shortcoming no doubt caused by his
pre-supposition that the Assyrian march ended in that region. Although Glaser interpreted the
name correctly, he was in error regarding the location recorded in Esarhaddon‟s tablet.

By gathering all the information we have uncovered so far regarding the names featuring in the
Assyrian inscription, we can retrace a possible route taken by Esarhaddon‟s army, from Nineveh
to Battana, as shown on the topographic map hereafter.

It is probable, not certain, that Esarhaddon used the oasis city of Taymā‟, in North Arabia, as
a rallying and launching point for his army. There is archeological evidence that the city was of
great strategic importance to the Mesopotamian monarchs, and a Babylonian stele dating back to
the 6th Century BC was uncovered there. There is also evidence that the semi-legendary king
mentioned in the Roman sources as Nabonidus, who was none other than Nabû-naʾid, the last
king of Babylon, often retired to Taymā‟, where he would conduct religious ceremonies and
contemplations. In fact, it was during one of Nabonidus‟ vacations in Taymā‟ that Babylon fell
into the hands of the Persians. Using this city as a base for operations can only mean that the
campaigns must have been directed deep into the Arabian territory. It would make little sense for
a Babylonian monarch to annex Taymā‟, if his destination was the Syria / Palestine region.
______________________________________________________________________________
* Note the context of the South Arabian term ‘Ibrān, as it appears in the inscription, clearly designating the
“Hebrews”, or nomads (those who moved from one location to another, seeking a sanctuary, or to settle down in an
urban center).

35
 Map #3: Probable path taken by Esarhaddon’s army

It is also logical to assume that Esarhaddon avoided the direct route through the central Arabian
Desert, and advanced along the coastal plain known as Tihāmah )‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫(ر‬. This name appears in the
Mesopotamian inscriptions as Tiamat, which some scholars mistook for Taymā‟ itself. This is
actually a false assumption, as the name of the city appears in the Cuneiform sources as Tema,
not Tiamat.

In his pioneering book The Bible Came from Arabia, late Lebanese scholar Kamāl Ṣaleebi made
an astute observation regarding the word tehome )‫)תהֹום‬, which appears over 30 times in the Old
Testament, and is often misinterpreted by the Orientalist translations as a common noun, when in
fact it refers to Tihāmah*, the coastal strip along the Red Sea, which runs from the Ḥijāz, all the
way down past the “elbow” of Yemen, to the Gulf of „Adan, where it joins with the coast of Bani
Majeed (the Biblical Megiddo). More will be said regarding this issue in a future release. For
now, we can say that the mere mention of this name in the Bible is proof that the geography of
the Old Testament has absolutely no relation to Palestine whatsoever.

The above facts prove that Esarhaddon‟s campaign could not have been directed towards Syria,
which we remind you was already a part of the Assyrian Empire. His armies delved deep into
Arabia, on more than one occasion, aiming to discipline the rebellious tribes all the way south to
Najrān, and further into Judea (as we will see in a later chapter), just as Sargon had done before
him, and just as Nebuchadnezzar would do in a later age. The Ba’ilu and Ikilu that Esarhaddon
captured are none other than the Bani Bāhil and the Ikeeliyyūn of South Arabia, who later
migrated to the Ḥijāz, just as countless clans had done before them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://www.cyclopaedia.info/wiki/Tehom

36
 Photo #5: A picture of Muṭhir Aryāni superimposed on a South Arabian Musnad inscription

 The Campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon II (680 BC – 669 BC)

In the year 734 BC, King Tiglath-Pileser III assigned an Arab chief (Aribu) by the name of
Idiba’il as a viceroy over Musri, to govern its affairs on behalf of the Assyrians. This is the
undisputed report that we get from simply reading the Cuneiform inscription describing the
exploits of Tiglath-Pileser. Because the Orientalists insisted on interpreting Musri as being
Egypt, an unprecedented and preposterous theory was marketed by the archeologists, claiming
that the Assyrians achieved an indirect rule, through a foreign delegate (puppet) over the Nile
Country. Nowhere in the written historical archives do we have proof of this event.

When Alois Musil read the names appearing in the Cuneiform inscription, he came to the
conclusion that Tiglath-Pileser broadened the political authority of his viceroy to include an area
referred to in the text as Askelon, which he located within the Palestinian territory, and claimed
that it designates the Biblical Asheklon. This theory is reiterated by Jawād „Ali.

The question that most readers will no doubt ask at this point is: where was the Biblical
Ashkelon, if not in Palestine? The answer lies in the Ḥimyaritic inscriptions themselves which,
ironically, Jawād „Ali was quite familiar with. Let us take a look at the inscription shown below,
analyzed by al-Aryāni (page 232):

Photo #6: Musnad Inscription no.37

37
The transliteration of the above text, in which some characters are missing (due to the
deterioration of the tablet by vandalism and natural elements), is as follows:

/ ٜٜٞٔ‫ ه‬ٝ / ٖ‫ ؽغ‬/ ِٖٕٔ / ّٝ‫ أ‬/ َ‫ ثؼ‬/ ٕٜٞ‫ ص‬/ ‫ أُوخ‬/ ٞ٤٘‫و‬ٛ / ٍٓ‫ ثٍٕ عضى‬/ ْ‫ ًِج‬/ ٜٞٔ٘‫ ث‬ٝ / ّ... / ٖ‫ؼ‬ٜ٣ ٝ ‫ أه‬... / ّ‫ك‬ٍٞ
.ٍٓ‫ ثٍٕ عضى‬/ ْ‫ ًِج‬/ ٜٞٔ٘‫ ث‬/ ٠‫ك‬ٝ ٝ / ٜٞٔ٤‫ك‬ُٞ / ُٜٞ‫ ثٔؤ‬/ ‫أُوخ‬

The above inscription mentions the Bani ‘Athkln )ٌِٖ‫ (ػض‬and their offering of statues to their
patron deity, Almaqah, as a token of gratitude. These people were a famous clan in Yemen, and
their name appears no less than seven times in the Old Testament. Here follows are examples:

And Judah took „Azza and its border, and Ashkelon and its border, and Ekron and
its border (Judges – 1:18)

The following is a poetic excerpt describing the wrath of God on the Philistines.

“And I will send a fire on the wall of „Azza, burning up its great houses;
I will cut off the inhabitants from Ashdod,
and him who holds the scepter from Ashkelon;
I will turn my hand against Ekron,
and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish”
Thus says the LORD (Amos – 1:7,8)

In our third book (Israel and Sheba), we showed you how „Azza and Ashdod were falsely
projected onto the Palestinian territory. Moreover, we remind you that the actual Biblical text
does not mention Gaza, but ‘Azzah (‫)עזה‬. Previously (in this book) we located for you the ancient
town of „Aqrūn (Ekron). So how does Ashkelon fit in this geographical context?

The answer is quite simple: being that neither the Assyrians nor most of the South Arabians
vocalized the letter th, they rendered „Athkalān as Ashkelon (‫)אשקלון‬, which is how the name of
this clan appears in the Old Testament. In his comments on the inscription (page 234), al-Aryāni
identifies Bani „Athkalān )ٕ‫ (ػضٌال‬as a small conglomeration of Ḥimyarite clans, who originated
around the Ma‟rib area, were persecuted by the kings of Sheba, and were forced to move
southwards, to coastal regions. Another possibility is that the Ashkelon of the Bible is none other
than the Valley of Ashkūl )ٌٍّٞ‫(أ‬, which we mentioned earlier. The silent construction of this
name, Ashkln, could be rendered as Ashkl, by dropping the South Arabian –n suffix, which is not
part of the name.

Courtesy of the Orientalist fraud, the term Musri, which appears in the Acadian Cuneiform as
synonymous with the Biblical Misrim, was projected onto Egypt. As a result, the trajectory of the
Assyrian campaigns was deviously diverted towards Palestine. This fact becomes evident again,
once we analyze the inscription left by Tiglath-Pileser‟s successor, Sargon II.

38
According to the tablets dealing with Sargon‟s campaign, the Assyrian army, around 715 BC,
marched across the Arabian wilderness to discipline several tribes, among which were Tamudi
and Abadidi. Sargon defeated these tribes and relocated large numbers of their members to
a place called Samara, which the Orientalists assumed was in Palestine. Sargon also received
tribute from Pir’u, the king of Musri and from Uaite-Uaita, chief of Saba’i.

Despite the fact that the archeologists who examined the scriptures were practically unanimous
that Uaite referred to none other than the Arabian tribal leader by the name of Yatha„ )‫ضغ‬٣(, and
that the Assyrians sacked the territories of Sheba, they imagined Pir„u as none other than the
“Pharaoh” of Egypt. Apparently, they could not fathom the absurdity of this claim, and the
ensuing geographical chaos that their interpretation caused. This would mean that the Assyrians
were able, in a single expedition, to impose their control over regions in the Arabian wilderness
reaching all the way to Sheba and, at the same time, impose a tribute upon an Egyptian ruler!

The fact of the matter is that these events never happened, as there is no evidence in history that
Sargon was able to subjugate Sheba and Egypt – two regions that are not geographically
connected – simultaneously. It is also evident that the archeologists, save for a rare few, could
not differentiate between Musri, which we previously proved designated the Muḍar mega tribe
inhabiting the coastal regions of Arabia, and the Egyptians of the Nile. Once we understand that
the Acadians did not vocalize the ḍad (ٗ) letter, and rendered it as an s, the confusion can be
easily clarified, and we come to realize that Tiglath-Pileser III assigned a viceroy bearing the
obviously South Arabian name of Idiba‟il )َ٣‫ (اكة – ء‬over the clans of Muḍar (Musri), not over
Egypt. This means that the Assyrians subdued the Shebans and the Bani Muḍar (branches of
Kinānah), whose king was named Pir‘u (the word is a proper noun, not a title).

It is worth mentioning, at this point, that the Bani Muḍar often allied with Egypt, and their chiefs
swore fealty to the kings of the Nile on several occasions, as we will see later on. When the
kingdom of Israel fell into civil strife, during the time of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, the Bani
Muḍar, who controlled most of the coastal strip of Tihāmah, defected from the united kingdom,
and paved the way for Sheshonk, King of Egypt (the Biblical Shishak), to land his forces on the
Red Sea coast and plunder the territories of Judah and Samaria. Thus, at one point in history, the
territory of Muḍar became an Egyptian vassal province in south-western Arabia.

Photo #7: A relief of Tiglath-Pileser III, who invaded Israel in 734 BC.

39
Photo #8: Relief excavated from Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh, showing captives being marched by an Assyrian
soldier, while being forced to play the lyre. This scene is described in the Psalm 137:3

Photo #9: “So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day” (2nd Kings - 17:23)

Photo #10: A relief depicting Sargon II in his war chariot.

According to Jawād „Ali, the inscriptions of Sargon II speak of Arabs who lived along the coast,
and in the interior wilderness regions, and who had not paid tribute to anyone before.

40
The Ababidi mentioned in the Cuneiform text could very well be the „Abdiyyeen clans of Yemen
)ٖ٤٣‫(اُؼجل‬, who are believed to be descendants of the famous Jurhum )ْٛ‫ (عو‬tribe, and who later
migrated to the Jordan. Al-Hamadāni mentions these clans in DoA (page 304):

.ُ‫ب عشه‬٣‫ ٌٍعجذَُٓ ٖٓ ثوب‬٢ٛ ٝ ،‫هخ‬ٝ‫ صْ ك‬،‫ اُو٘بح‬٠َٔ‫ ر‬ٝ ،‫ٗب‬ٞ٘‫خ ٖٓ ه‬٤٘٣ٞ‫اُغ‬

The name Uaita-Uaite, which also appears in the Assyrian texts as designating a Sheban figure,
is very popular in Yemeni culture, and appears several times in the South Arabian inscriptions as
Yatha„ (‫ضغ‬٣)*. As for the Tamudi subdued by Sargon II, they are none other than Thamūd, an
extinct tribe mentioned in the Qur‟ān, who lived west of Ḥaḍramawt.

In spite of all the evidence we have shown you in this chapter regarding the trajectory of the
Assyrian campaigns, it is sad an unfortunate that a scholar and historian of the caliber of Jawād
„Ali, who was obviously brainwashed by the Orientalist version of the region‟s history,
completely discredited the old Arabian reports regarding the Assyrians reaching as far as Yemen,
and dismissed them as fallacies. Here is a sample of what „Ali wrote (Mafṣal - 1/121):

َٛ‫ه ٖٓ أ‬ٕٞ‫َ ؽب‬ٛ‫ٕ أ‬ٌٞ٣ ٕ‫و أٌُٖٔ أ‬٤‫ا إٔ ٖٓ ؿ‬ٞ٘‫لط‬٣ ِْ‫ ك‬،‫ه‬ٞٓ‫هاح ٖٓ أ‬ٞ‫ اُز‬٢‫وك ك‬٣ ‫ن ثٔب‬٤‫ٖ ػِْ كه‬٤٣‫ٌٖ ُألفجبه‬٣ ُْ ٝ
‫ ال‬ٝ ،‫ٖٗو‬-‫لح علا ػٖ اُجقذ‬٤‫ٖٔ ثوؼ‬٤ُ‫ صْ إٔ ا‬.‫وح اُؼوة‬٣‫ ّٔبٍ عي‬٢‫ْ ك‬ٜ‫ؼ‬ٙ‫ا‬ٞٓ َ‫غؼ‬٣ ‫لاه‬٤‫ْ ٓغ ه‬ُٜ ‫هاح‬ٞ‫ ألٕ مًو اُز‬،ٖٔ٤ُ‫ا‬
.‫٘بى‬ٛ ٠ُ‫ُخ ا‬َٜٞ٣ ٍُٕٞٞ‫ ا‬ّٚٞ٤‫ آٌبٕ ع‬٢‫ٕ ك‬ٌٞ٣ ٕ‫ؼوَ أ‬٣

Paraphrase: The old chroniclers did not have accurate knowledge about the events
described in the Torah. They did not understand that it would have been impossible for the
people of Hazor (Haṣūr) to be located in Yemen, because the Torah mentions them side by
side with the Qedarites, who resided in North Arabia. Furthermore, Yemen lies far beyond
the reach of Nebuchadnezzar, and it is out of the question to assume that his armies
could reach its territory.

Consequently, Jawād „Ali was forced to conceal the truth, albeit unknowingly, by manipulating
the names of the tribes and regions featuring in the Assyrian inscriptions; names like Karb-el,
Thamūd, Saba‟, and Yatha„, among others, and projecting them onto the Ḥijāz and the Syrian
Desert territories. He alleged that the Shebans must have expanded and occupied vast regions of
North Arabia, which explains the appearance of terms clearly distinctive of South Arabian
culture in the Assyrian texts. Although it is indeed likely that the Shebans may have had some
kind of influence further north, most probably due to trade relations and the wealth of their
kingdom, there is no evidence that they ever physically conquered such a vast territory.

The ancient kingdoms of Yemen, which are referred to historically as makhāleef, were mostly
small, self-contained domains, scattered around the trade routes between Ḥaḍramawt and
______________________________________________________________________________
* Recall the passage we quoted from al-Ya„qūbi, on page 29 of this book.

41
Najrān, and along the Red Sea coast and the Sarāt Mountains. These kingdoms and city-states,
often bitter rivals of each other, enjoyed vast natural resources and wealth acquired through trade
and intermediation. They did not manifest a united, or centralized political authority or any kind
of imperialist or expansionist ideals. Even when the kingdom of Israel was at its peak, during the
11th and 10th Centuries BC, it remained a relatively self-sufficient domain, occupying
a geography that was limited to south-western Arabia. It was not until the late Minean era that
the South Arabians began to expand towards the Ḥijāz and Najd regions.

The map below gives us an example of how the small, relatively contained kingdoms of ancient
Yemen were located, from a geo-political perspective:

Map #4: South Arabian Kingdoms

The previous paragraph quoted from Jawād „Ali pretty much sums up how the modern scholars
and historians viewed the works of al-Ṭabari, al-Mas„ūdi, Ibn Ḥabeeb, and others. Without proof,
they completely dismissed the old reports regarding the Assyiran presence in South Arabia as
delusional ramblings.

If we look up a brief history of the Minean Kingdom )ٖ٤‫(ٌِٓٔخ ٓؼ‬, in Wikipedia, we get the
following information:

The Minaean people were one of four ancient Yemeni groups mentioned by Eratosthenes.
The others were the Sabaeans, Ḥaḑramites and Qatabānians. Each of these had regional
kingdoms in ancient Yemen, with the Minaeans in the north-west (in Wādī al-Jawf), the
Sabaeans to the south-east of them, the Qatabānians to the south-east of the Sabaeans,
and the Ḥaḑramites east of them... The kingdom enjoyed its golden age in the 3rd
century BCE when it was able to extend its influence all along the incense trail due
to the conquest of Najrān, „Aseer and Ḥijāz.

42
It is therefore evident that the South Arabian expansions into the Ḥijāz did not take place until
some 400 years after the age of Sargon II. This tendency of Yemeni military conquests was
continued to its fullest extent under the Ḥimyarites, who succeeded the Mineans. In fact, Islamic
history books abound with references to the semi-legendary Ḥimyarite king, As„ad Abu Karb,
who conquered Makkah, and allegedly draped the so-called Ka‘bah of the Ḥijāz with its black
dress. This begs the question then, of just who were the Sabai mentioned in the Assyrian
inscriptions, and why the distinctly Yemeni names of Karb-el and Yatha‘ appear in them.

A quick scan of the names of some of the monarchs of the late Minean dynasties reveals the
following: Abiada II Yatha„, Yatha„-el Riyām, Tubba„ Karib, Ilyafā Yatha„, Hufn Yatha„,
Abukarib III Yatha„; and the list goes on...

With all due respect to Jawād „Ali and the Western archeologists in whose space he orbited,
there is no question whatsoever that Sargon II sacked Najrān.

 Arabian Queens and Mother Deities

It is evident, from the inscriptions left behind by Esarhaddon, that the island of Dilmun (modern
day Bahrain) was occupied by the Assyrians, and made into a military post for monitoring the
Gulf coast. It is also apparent that the residents of Dilmun saw it wise to accept integration
within the folds of the Assyrian Empire, rather than suffer destruction. Jawād „Ali reports that
archeologist Fritz Hommel examined an inscription mentioning an ancient female deity of
Dilmun called Lakhmu. Could this be any other than the ancient Arabian tribe of Lakhm, who
migrated to Palestine and Mesopotamia in ancient times? The Old Testament itself gives tribute
to this tribe, by stating that King David had Lakhmite roots*.

The importance of this inscription is that it casts light on the evolution of the Arabian worship of
female (mother) deities, in antiquity. Some Orientalists have claimed that the traditions of
maternal genetic affiliation can be traced back to Jewish origins. This conclusion is no doubt
superficial, as it does not take into consideration that such traditions were common to Arabians
during the age of their infancy, which proves that the original “Jews” were not Scottish, Danish,
or German peoples, nor were they some mythical “pure” race, isolated from the rest of humanity.
They were undoubtedly ancient Arabian tribes. These migrating peoples immortalized their
maternal deity, Lakhm-Lakhmu, when they gave her name to a Palestinian city which they
settled, known today by its name of Bayt Lakhm (Bethlehem). We believe that the holiness of
this city may in fact bear the vestigial undertones of the ancient maternal goddess, connecting it
to the story of Maryam, and the birth of her son.
______________________________________________________________________________
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids (please see the paragraph regarding their history).

43
Here is a quote from Jawād „Ali himself (Volume 2, page 228):

٠ُ‫خ ا‬٣‫ب "صثُجٍ" اُغي‬ٍٜٔ‫ ككؼذ ٍِىخ عشثُخ ا‬،Tiglath Pileser ،)ّ.‫ م‬525-545( ‫ اَُ٘خ اُضبُضخ ٖٓ ؽٌْ "رـالد كالٍو" اُضبُش‬٢‫ ك‬ٝ
."٢‫ج‬٤‫نا اُقجو ػٖ ٌٓبٕ األػواة أرجبع "ىث‬ٛ َ‫ ٍغ‬١‫زؾلس اُ٘ٔ اُن‬٣ ُْ ٝ .‫ اُؼوة‬١‫ أ‬،"٢‫ج‬٣‫ ًبٗذ رؾٌْ "أه‬ٝ ،‫نا أُِي‬ٛ

The above tells us that in the third year of Tiglath-Pileser‟s reign, he received tribute from an
Arabian (Aribi) queen by the name of Zebibi. The text does not tell us where exactly Zebibi‟s
domain was. However, it is obvious that Zebibi is the Assyrian rendering of the Arabic name
Zubaybah )‫جخ‬٤‫(ىث‬. The Mesopotamian languages demonstrate a tendency to vocalize Arabic
proper nouns with either a -u or an -i suffix.

King Shalmanaṣṣar III, for his part, had conquered several outposts along the Gulf, extending all
the way to what is known today as the United Arab Emirates, before directing his attention to the
interior. Jawād „Ali, quoting Alois Musil, tells us that on the ninth year of the reign of
Shalmanaṣṣar, the Assyrians conquered another Arabian queen by the name of Shamsi-Samsi
(whose name means “sun”). Here is the passage (Al-Mafṣal, 2:229):

.‫خ‬٤‫ ٓب رياٍ ؽ‬٢‫ٔخ اُز‬٣‫خ اُول‬٤‫"َّٔخ" ٖٓ األٍٔبء اُؼوث‬ٝ ,"‫ "َّٔخ‬ٝ‫ "ٌّٔ" أ‬ٞٛ ٢‫نًوٗب اٍْ أٌُِخ "ؽّغٍ" "عّغٍ" ثبٍْ ػوث‬٣ٝ
ْٜ‫كن ٗطو‬ٝ ٍْ‫ٕ اال‬ٞ٣‫ه‬ّٞ٥‫ كؾوف ا‬.‫بُت‬ٛ ٢‫ ثٖ أث‬٢ِ‫ اُؾَٖ ثٖ ػ‬١‫ل‬٣ ٠ِ‫ أٍِٔذ ػ‬،"‫ب "َّٔخ‬ٍٜٔ‫خ ا‬٤ٗ‫٘خ آوأح ٖٗوا‬٣‫ أُل‬٢‫هل ًبٕ ك‬ٝ
.ٌَُْ‫نا ا‬ٛ ٠ِ‫ ػ‬ٙٞ‫ًزج‬ٝ

Paraphrase: The name Shamsi-Samsi reminds us of the old Arabic name Shams )ٌّٔ(,
which is still used as a female name today. There are traditions of a Nazarene woman by
that name who lived in Medina, and who embraced Islam at the time of Ḥussain Ibn „Ali.
The Assyrians corrupted the name according to how they pronounced it in their speech.

Here is another, eye-opening example (2:227)

،‫ب‬ٜ‫ أٗب كٓور‬،‫ب‬ٜ‫ أٗب أرِلز‬،‫خ‬٤ٌُِٔ‫ ا‬ٚ‫ ػبٕٔز‬:‫ "هوهو‬:‫ب‬ٜ٘‫ ػ‬ُٚ‫ ٓب هب‬٠ِ‫ ٗٔ "ِّٖٔ٘و" ػٖ ٓؼوًخ "لشلش"؛ ُزوق ػ‬٢‫ي ثؼ٘ ٓب عبء ك‬٤ُ‫ ا‬ٝ
ٖٓ ٍْ‫" ا‬ٞ‫ج‬٣‫"ع٘ل‬ّٝ...٢‫ أُق عَٔ ٌغٕذة اُؼوث‬... َ‫ ٌهذد عبصس صبؽت إس‬١‫ ع٘ل‬20,000 ،ً‫ كبه‬1200 ،‫ ػغِخ‬1200 ،‫ب ثبُ٘به‬ٜ‫أٗب أؽوهز‬
.‫خ‬٣‫ه‬ّٞ٥‫ اٌُزبثبد ا‬٢‫َغَ ك‬٣ ٢‫ٍ اٍْ ػوث‬ٝ‫نا االٍْ أ‬ٛ ٌٕٞ٣ٝ ,"‫ "ع٘لة‬ٞٛ ‫كخ‬ٝ‫خ أُؼو‬٤‫األٍٔبء اُؼوث‬

Paraphrase: Concerning Shelmanaṣṣar‟s battle at Qarqar*, the Assyrian monarch boasts of

having burned it to the ground, and amassed an army of 1,200 chariots and 20,000
footmen against Hadad-Ezer**, ruler of Iram...1,000 camels were paid as a tribute by
Gindibu the Arab. This Gindibu, who appears in the Cuneiform inscriptions, is Jundub,
a very well-known Arabic name.
______________________________________________________________________________
* Recall our analysis regarding this figure, which was falsely inserted into the history of Syria (See Israel and
Sheba, page 61).
** See Qarqar )‫(هوهو‬, mentioned by al-Hamadāni as being home to the Balḥārith clans, in the Bādiah (wilderness)
areas in the south of al-Jawf, Yemen (DoA - page 283). It was not far from the site of ancient Irām.

44
In fact, the name Jundub )‫ (ع٘لة‬appears in the chain of narrations of many of the hadiths
attributed to Muḥammad (P) in the “Islamic” books of hearsay and conjecture.

Further down, we read the following passage:

‫ًّب هاًجًب‬٤‫زؼوجبٕ أػواث‬٣ ،ٖ٤‫ؾٔالٕ هٓؾ‬٣ ٖ٤٣‫ه‬ّٞ‫ٖ آ‬٤ٍ‫ ٓ٘ظو كبه‬،‫ه‬ًٞ‫ فجو االٗزٖبه أُن‬ٚ٤‫هك ك‬ٝ ١‫ػ اُن‬ُِٞ‫ ا‬٠ِ‫ه ػ‬ٕٞ ‫هل‬ٝ
٠ُ‫هل هؼل ا‬ٝ ‫ال‬٣ًٞٛ ْٛ‫ه ّؼو‬ٕٞٝ ،ٗ‫ األه‬٠ِ‫ ػ‬٠‫ا ٕوػ‬ٝ‫ٖ فو‬٣‫ٔب عضش األػواة اُن‬ٜٓ‫أٓب‬ٝ ٖ٤ٍ‫رؾذ أػوبة اُلو‬ٝ ،‫عٔال‬ ً
َّ
‫جب‬٣‫ اُواًت هو‬٢‫ األػواث‬ٙ‫و‬٣ٖٞ‫ ر‬٠ِ‫هل ؽوٓ اُل٘بٕ ػ‬ٝ .ّ‫خ اال ٖٓ ٓئيه ّل ثؾيا‬٣‫ْ كؼبه‬ٜٓ‫أٓب أعَب‬ٝ ،‫ كٌضخ‬٠‫أٓب اُِؾ‬ٝ ،‫هاء‬ُٞ‫ا‬
،‫خ‬٤‫" ؽبك‬٢ٍَٔ" "٢َّٔ" "ٌٍٔ" ‫هد أٌُِخ‬ٕٞٝ ،‫َٓزَِٔب‬ٝ ‫َٓزوؽٔب‬ٝ ‫ٍال‬ٞ‫ٔب ٓز‬ٜ٤ُ‫ ا‬٠٘ٔ٤ُ‫ ا‬ٙ‫ل‬٣ ‫ ٓب ًّكا‬،ٖ٤ٍ‫علا ٖٓ اُلبه‬
‫هل‬ٝ ،"ٝ‫ "ثبى‬٠ُ‫ب ا‬ٛ‫ كواه‬٢‫اُزؼت ك‬ٝ ‫ع‬ٞ‫ب اُغ‬ٛ‫٘ب‬ٙ‫ ثؼل إٔ أ‬،‫ ػْوح أُولٍخ‬ٟ‫ رؾَٔ عوح ٖٓ اُغواه اإلؽل‬،‫ب‬ٛ‫ٗبّوح ّؼو‬
.‫خ‬٣ٞ٘‫ب أُؼ‬ٛ‫ا‬ٞ‫فبهد ه‬

Paraphrase: The inscription depicts two Assyrian horsemen, each wielding a spear, in
pursuit of an Arab Bedouin astride his camel. Along the path of the Assyrian riders, the
bodies of the slain Bedouins can be seen, their hair long, tied into braids at the back, and
their beards unkempt. They were also naked from the waist up, wearing only their short
skirt dhotis held by belts. The artist who carved the inscription showed the camel-rider
extending his right hand in surrender, begging the Assyrians for mercy. The Queen Shamsi
was depicted bare-footed, her hair flowing freely, and carrying one of eleven holy urns. She
was hungry, as well as mentally and physically exhausted from her escape to Bozu.

Photo #11: Assyrian horsemen pursuing a camel-riding Arab Bedouin.

The Mesopotamian inscriptions also tell us that Queen Shamsi sent a delegation including
several of her clan leaders to Shelmanassar, and tried to appease the Assyrian king by offering
large quantities of gold, silver, and camels laden with frankinsense from far-away places,
including Mas’a, Saba’, and Batana. Where exactly did these “far-away” places lie, and where
did Shelmanassar‟s army march to? If we go by the Orientalist interpretations and place these

45
events in the wilderness of the Levant (Syria-Jordan), then this would constitute a glaring
contradiction with the inscriptions themselves, because the Syria is right at the doorstep of
Mesopotamia, and would not be described as being “far away”; nevermind the fact that the
Syrian Desert was never known to produce frankinsence.

For instance, where is the Mas’a which appears in Shalmanassar‟s victory stele? Jawād „Ali
(1 :157, 195, 199 and 256) states that it is the same Massah-Mashah mentioned in the Old
Testament, and identifies it as an Ismaelite tribe residing somewhere in Jordan, not far from the
Palestinian border. This conclusion contradicts the opinions of other researchers, who were
adamant that the Assyrian campaigns must have delved deep into the Arabian Desert, which lies
along a completely different trajectory than Palestine.

Archeologist Edouard Dhorme, in his book Les Pays Bibliques (page 196) admits that the term
Masa’ identifies a South Arabian tribe. Yet Jawād „Ali completely discards this possibility, and
states the following regarding Dhorme‟s opinion (Al-Mafsal - 2:231):

‫ أؽل أث٘بء‬ٞٛٝ "‫ صْ إ "َٓب‬،‫غ‬ٙ‫ا‬ُٞٔ‫ رِي ا‬٠ُ‫ مُي أُيٖٓ ا‬٢‫ٖ ك‬٤٣‫ه‬ّٞ٥‫م ا‬ٞ‫ٍ ٗل‬ٕٞٝ َ‫ؼو‬٣ ‫ كال‬،ٍ‫ل االؽزٔب‬٤‫ ثؼ‬١‫ هأ‬ٞٛٝ
٢‫ض‬٣‫ أص٘بء ؽل‬٢‫ب ك‬ٜ‫ مًور‬٢‫غ اُز‬ٙ‫ا‬ُٞٔ‫ ثَ ا‬،‫خ‬٤‫ث‬ٞ٘‫خ اُغ‬٤‫خ ُْ رٌٖ رٌَٖ اُؼوث‬٤ِ٤‫اُوجبئَ اإلٍٔبػ‬ٝ ،‫هاح‬ٞ‫ اُز‬٢‫هك ك‬ٝ ‫َ" ًٔب‬٤‫"أٍبػ‬
.ْٜ٘‫ػ‬

Paraphrase: This opinion is improbable, as it would not have been possible for the
influence of the Assyrians to reach that far during those times. Furtermore, Massa was
one of the sons of Ismael, as the Torah tells us, and the Ishmaelite tribes did not reside in
South Arabia, but in the places I previously mentioned.

This rather sad declaration by Jawād „Ali is a testament to the fact that the Arab historians have
been brainwashed by Orientalist programing, to the extent that they even disbelieve some of the
Orientalists themselves, who could not find a single trace of any of the tribes mentioned in the
Assyrian inscriptions in Syria or Palestine. Thus, Saba‟, Thamūd, and the frankinsence which
came into the coffers of the Assyrian kings from “far-away places”, were audaciously projected
onto North Arabia and the Jordan, because they must conform with the rampant Orientalist belief
that the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns were directed towards the Levant, while completely
dismissing the notion that they reached as far as Yemen.

We will end this section with more “ramblings”, this time from al-Hamadāni, in his book Al-
Ikleel (lit: The Wreath), wherein he states:

.ٖٔ٤ُ‫ ا‬٠ُ‫اد اُجقذ ٖٗو ا‬ٝ‫بػذ ٓ٘ن ؿي‬ٙ ‫ٖٔ هل‬٤ُ‫خ أَٗبة ا‬٤‫إ ؿبُج‬

Paraphrase: Most of the lineages of Yemen have been lost, ever since the time of Bakht-
Naṣṣar‟s campaigns into the country.

46
  Another Opinion Regarding Misr

Contemporary Syrian scholar Aḥmad Dawūd, in his book entitled The Arabs, Semites, Hebrews,
Israelites and Jews, exposes the Orientalist falsehoods, their invention of fraudulent names, and
their projecting of those names onto the territories of the Fertile Crescent (inlcuding Dawūd‟s
native Syria). He states the following (pages 75, 76):

Paraphrase: Being that the Arabian Peninsula had become mostly an arid desert; its plains,
extending from east of the Sarāt all the way to southern Iraq, became nesting grounds for
wandering nomads and livestock herders, who were later referred to as A„rāb. These
nomads wasted no opportunity to raid the caravans carrying merchandise and riches, and
then fleeing to the many caves and holes dotting the Sarāt Mountains. These activities
posed a threat to the economic security of the two great powers at the time, Assyria and
Egypt, prompting each to establish certain stations along the trade routes. These stations
were supervised by a governor who was supported by a regiment of tribal warriors and
mercenaries, and whose function was to safeguard the station from the nomadic marauders,
and to exchange correspondences and reports with his superior liege (the king of Egypt or
Assyria), regarding the latter‟s needs for merchandise. This governor would receive a share
of the goods as payment for his loyalty and services.

Dawūd then mentions two particularly important caravan stations along the Arabian route, and
places them within the „Aseer province of what is today known as Saudi Arabia. The first station
was called Miṣr )‫(ٖٓو‬. Its governor, referred to as Far‘awn (an obviously Arabic term),
employed many mercernaries from among the „Amaleeq* tribes )‫ن‬٤ُ‫(اُؼٔب‬, and owed his
allegience to Egypt. The second station was called Dhū Msq – Dmsq )‫ َٓن‬ٝ‫(م‬, and was governed
by an Assyrian deputee.

Further down, on page 76, Dawūd states the following:

______________________________________________________________________________
*The Old Testament makes passing reference to Amalek, and records their war with the Israelites at one point.

47
Here follows is the paraphrase of the above passage (our comments are in brackets):

Historian and researcher Musil, in his book entitled The Desert, includes a detailed
reference to the many correspondences exchanged between the puppet Arabian governors
and their superior rulers in the imperial capitals, as can be deduced from the vestiges which
were explored, and the ancient inscriptions uncovered. It was common for the tribal vassals
to rebel against their masters, and confiscate the goods and merchandise for themselves. It
was also common that the trade stations would be visited upon by nomadic raiders.
Therefore, it was customary for the central rulers (Egyptians and Assyrians) to launch
frequent, disciplinary campaigns against these troubleseome regions, in order to force the
tribes (both nomadic and sedentary) into submission. This resulted either in the brutal
slaughter of the dissidents, or their capture and relocation to other areas. The Assyrians
gave the title of Qifu to their Arab representative, while the Egyptians designated their
puppet as Pir’u. In fact, the inscriptions uncovered in the temple of Akhenaton in Egypt (Tel-
Amarina) are examples of reports and correspondences exchanged between the King of the
Nile Country (Koptos-Aegypto)* and his deputee, the “Pharaoh” of Miṣr, in Arabia.

Dawūd concludes that most of these Arabian governors (sheikhs) were no more than whimsical,
petty boot-lickers and tax collectors for the Egyptian and Assyrian kings, to whom they were
associated by means of fragile fealties. Incidentally, one might pause and ask if these vassals
were any different from the Arab “Pharaos” of today, who were placed on their thrones by
foreign, imperialist powers. Such has been the history of Arabia for nearly four thousand years.

As for his actual placement of the Biblical Msrm, Dawūd states the following (page 99):

______________________________________________________________________________
* On page 78 of his book, Dawūd attests to the fact that Het-Ka-Ptah was the formal and official name of Egypt.

48
Paraphrase: The Kan„anites of Jabal Ghāmed called it the tribe of Miṣrim. Its domain lay in
a river valley which flows towards the Red Sea, and is known locally as Wādi Shayḥūr. In
fact, there are tens of instances in the Torah which clearly show that the Mṣrm lived in
a town or small province.

Photo #12: A modern-day “Pharaoh” )King Saud(, servant of Western colonialism

The mountains which Dawūd refers to are a range called Sarāt Ghāmed, in the „Aseer Province
of Saudi Arabia, to the north west of Najrān. The city of Najrān itself was a hugely important
metropolis, at whose location several trade routes from South Arabia converged, before running
along the mountainous strip, in a single route, towards the Levant. The Greek sources mention
this city under the name of Negranometropolis, while the Romans refered to it as Negrana. This
city is well over 4,000 years old, and there is no question that its history and culture predate
those of current-day Makkah, in the Ḥijāz. During the Biblical times, Najrān was part of a region
called Rabbah, whose name has been preserved in a town bearing it, which still exists today in
southern „Aseer, and is inhabited by a Qaḥṭāni clan known as Āl-Rufaydah. The Old Testament
tells us that the region of Rabbah fell into the hands of King David, and eventually constituted
part of the northern kingdom of Israel. Najrān is, without a doubt, one of the two towns
mentioned in passage [43:31] of the Qur‟an; the second being a mountainous and almost
impregnable fortress city known today as Ṣan„ā‟*.

Two other authors, namely Ziād Mina and Farajullah Ṣaleḥ Deeb, have positively and accurately
identified other locations within Yemen called Miṣr. In his book Geography of the Torah, Ziād
Mina brings to our attention the following indisputable archeological fact (page 55):

______________________________________________________________________________
* The name Ṣan‘ā’ )‫ (ٕ٘ؼبء‬is derived from the root ‫ع‬-ٕ-ٓ which conveys the meaning of a lofty fortress or barrier.
In ancient times, the city was known as Uzal; a name that appears in the Old Testament.

49
Paraphrase: What is of importance to us from among the vestiges uncovered in Ma‟in is the
inscription given the tag GL1155, pertaining to Austrian archeologist Eduard Glaser, who
found it in Yemen, at the turn of the century. In this relatively long inscription we can read
the following sentence: ‘amṣdq...kabri mṣrn wa ma‘n mṣrn*, which basically says: “‟Am
Sadq (was) the ruler (or high authority) of Miṣr, and the Miṣris of Ma„in”. This startling
discovery caused a wave of debate, back then, between various schools of Biblical sciences.

This proves, without a shadow of doubt, that there was a city within the territory of the Minean
Kingdom in northern Yemen, known as Miṣr. Incidentally, dear reader, note the Yemeni name
„Am Ṣadq )‫(ػْ ٕلم‬, which is often rendered in the single form „Amṣdq )‫(ػٖٔلم‬. This is
comparable with Ma„d Yakrab )‫ٌوة‬٣ ‫ (ٓؼل‬rendered as Ma„dikarb )‫ٌوة‬٣‫(ٓؼل‬, as well as the name of
Solomon‟s son, Rehoboam, which appears in the Arabic sources under the compound form of
Raḥb „Am )ْ‫(هؽت ػ‬. Another example is the Biblical name Melchisedek, which can be written
as (‫ٖلم‬٣ ‫ (ِٓي‬and )‫ٖلم‬٤ٌِٓ). This reminds us of the remark once made by British linguist David
Margoliouth, regarding the eye-opening similarities between “Hebrew” and the South Arabian
dialects.

Photo #13: Forest mountains of ancient Rabbah, north of Najrān.

50
Further down (page 56), Minah reminds us of a very rare academic opinion registered by
a German Biblical scholar, in the beginning of the 20th Century:

Paraphrase: ...And this was the opinion of German Orientalist and Biblical scholar Hugo
Winckler, at the turn of the century, when he noted that the two Israelite Kingdoms
(meaning Israel / Judea) were autonomous regions within the borders of the Minean
Kingdom.

Finally, Mina goes on to make the following conclusion (page 58):

Paraphrase: ...on the other hand, some of the experts in the field have speculated that the
term Mu-us-ri was used by the Assyrians to designate an area of the Arabian Desert and
northern Ḥijāz. This specification is in fact inaccurate, as it is not supported by any scientific
evidence. In my opinion, this Mu-us-ri is none other than the territory of Miṣr, which was
located in western / south-western Arabia.

In his book Yemen and the Prophets of the Torah (published in 2012), Lebanese scholar
Farajullah Deeb, for his part, brings to our attention the following fact (page 77):

،‫ آٌُّ اٌخضشاء ِهذ اٌؾضبسح‬٢‫ ك‬٢ُ‫ا‬ّٞ ‫ع اُؾ‬ًٞ‫ األ‬٢ِ‫هك ٓؾٔل ثٖ ػ‬ٞ٣ ،٢ُ‫ٖٔ أُْب‬٤ُ‫خ ا‬٤ُٝ‫ أ‬ٝ‫ٖٔ أ‬٤ُ‫ ػٖ ٓؾبكظبد ا‬ٚ‫ض‬٣‫ ؽل‬٢‫ك‬
،‫ ٓقالف اٌُالع‬٢ّٔ ٍ ْ‫ ص‬،‫ٔب ًبٕ َغ ًّّ ِخالف اٌغؾىي‬٣‫ هل‬ٝ ،‫و‬ٚ‫ْ األف‬٤ِ‫ف ثبإله‬ٝ‫ أُؼو‬ٞٛ ‫ أُؾبكظخ‬ٝ‫اء اَُبكً أ‬ُِٞ‫"إٔ ا‬
."ٌُّٓ‫ب "ِصش ا‬ٚ٣‫وبٍ أ‬٣ ٝ ٖٔ٤ُ‫ ٍوّح ا‬٠ّٔ َ٣ ١‫ اُن‬ٞٛ ٝ

Paraphrase: In his discourse about the provinces of his native country, geographer and
scholar Muḥammad bin „Ali al-Akwa„ al-Ḥawwāli states in his book entitled Green Yemen –
Craddle of Civilization that the sixth province, known in the old times as Mikhlāf al-Suḥūl,
and then subsequently as Mikhlāf al-Kilā‘, was labeled as Surrat al-Yaman, and also as Miṣr
al-Yaman.

This observation no doubt brings to mind the reports penned by the old Arab chroniclers, who
stated that Nebuchadnezzar had reached as far as Mikhlāf al-Suḥūl and Jabal Ḥaḍūr in Yemen.

51
It is also in line with the Old Testament text itself, which tells us that the Assyrian kings took the
men of Misrm and Cush as prisonners:

So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Msrm, and the exiles of
Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the
shame of Msrm (Isaiah – 20:4)

The Orientalist rendering of the above passage, building upon the fraudulent Septuagint
transtlation, is as such:

So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of (Egypt), and the exiles of
(Ethiopia), young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to
the shame of (Egypt).

This outrageous assertion would have us believe that the king of Assyria, whose aim was to
destroy Israel, delved deep into Africa, taking the Egyptians and the Ethiopians as captives on
his way? There is absolutely zero evidence of this claim whatsoever, nevermind the geographical
insanity resulting from it.

Let us read the following passage:

Thus saith the Lord, The labor of Msrm, and merchandise of Cush and of the
Sabeans (Shebans), men of stature, shall come over to thee, and they shall be
thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall
fall down to thee, they shall make supplication to thee, saying: “Surely God is in
thee; and there is none else; there is no other God” (Isaiah – 45:14).

God promises the Children of Israel that they shall inherint the riches of the Msrm, the Cushites
and the Shebans (Saba’im, as the name appears in the Aramaic text). If we translate Msrm as
Egypt and Cush as Ethiopia, the question which begs itself is: how does Sheba (Yemen) fit into
the picture?

The Book of Chronicles also tells of a war that took place between the armies of Asa, king of
Judea, and the Ethiopians (?) at one point, describing the spoils of war that fell into the hands of
the Israelites, as follows:

Asa and the people who were with him pursued them to Gerar: and there fell of
the Cushites so many that they could not recover themselves; for they were
destroyed before the Lord, and before His host; and they carried away very much
booty. They struck all the cities round about Gerar; for the fear of the Lord came
on them: and they despoiled all the cities; for there was much spoil in them. And
they made an attack on the tents of the owners of the cattle, and took away great
numbers of sheep and camels and went back to Ur-Shalem (2nd Chronicles: 13-15)

52
Not one archeologist in the world has positively identified the Biblical town of Gerar as being
within the Palestinian territory. Furthermore, if Cush is taken to mean Ethiopia, how did Asa and
his forces reach so far into Africa, and what were camels doing there? Did the Ethiopians
domesticate camels during Biblical times? Or did the Ethiopians expand north to Palestine,
crossing over Sudan and Egypt in the process? Such nonsense.

And they shall be terrified and ashamed of Cush their confidence, and of Msrm
their boast. And the inhabitant of this coast-land shall say in that day, “Behold,
such is our expectation, whither we fled for help to be delivered from the king of
Assyria: and we, how shall we escape?” (Isaiah – 20:5,6)

The coastland mentioned in the above passage cannot be the Mediterranean. It is the Red Sea
coast and / or Gulf of Aden. And the theater of the Bible was nowhere near Palestine. End of the
story.

Despite there being no less than three locations in Arabia bearing the name Miṣr, in one form or
another, we believe that the actual term ultimately refers not to a particular town or city, but
more probably a territory / nation of clans, namely Muḍar, for reasons we have already
explained. These mostly sedentary tribes, which feature in the Old Testament as the Clans of
Msrm, were the undisputed masters of Tihāmah, the coastal plain which ultimately ended up
being named the Coast of Muḍar )‫و‬ٚٓ َ‫ (ٍبؽ‬after its historic inhabitants.

 Revisiting Damascus

Regarding the ancient capital of Syria, Aḥmad Dawūd, who devoted decades of his life to
researching the history of his native country, states the following in his book (pages 199, 200):

53
Here follows is a paraphrase of this stunning revelation from Dawūd, with our comments in
parentheses.

[In the Greek Septuagint text, the name appears as du-mishku, which literally means “the
collector of tax or tribute”. This is a reference to the Aramian depute who was in charge of
the caravan station on the international trade route which passed alongside the Zahrān and
Ghāmed areas („Aseer Province of current-day Saudi Arabia), and who was causing hardship
to the neighbouring Egyptian delegate. And if we open any dictionary of the Chaldean
language, we would find that the term du means “lord of” or “owner of”, which corresponds
to the Arabic dhū. As for di, it is the female version of the term. This brings to mind the
name Du-Mitra and Di-Mitra, being the lord / mistress of fertility and bounty, which we
discussed in a previous chapter. This explains why both (male and female) versions of the
name appear in the complaint letters sent to the Egyptian King Akhneton, by his Arabian
viceroy, depending on whether the troublesome tribute collector was male or female. And it
is from the Arabic term dhū that the French word “Dieu” – meaning Lord or God - was
derived. As for the historic city of Damascus (Dimashq), its actual name, diring the Biblical
times, was Dumishta, meaning “lord of domes, castles and temples”.

It is also common knowledge that the (Torah) was first recorded in Greek, close to the 3rd
Century BC, during the reign of Ptolemy. And since the Aramaic title Dumishku (owner of
the tribute) appears several times in the Biblical text as designating the caravan spot east
of Ghāmed and Zahrān, the ensuing confusion caused by the translation of the text into
several other languages (Syriac, Latin, etc...), resulted in a mix-up which projected the
Dumishku of South Arabia onto the Dumishta of the Levant (i.e. the city of Damascus)].

In his book entitled Geography of the Torah, Ziād Mina also mentions a lost and forgotten place
in Jeezan, by the name of Dhū-Misk )‫ َٓي‬ٝ‫(م‬, which was a location that fell to the Egyptian
armies of Thutmoses III, when they sacked the Red Sea coast in a bygone era. Here is the
passage from Mina‟s book (page 72):

.‫خ‬٣‫نا ػلا ػٖ لجٍُخ اٌذِبؽمخ اُؾغبى‬ٛ ،ٕ‫يا‬٤‫ ر ِغه ثغ‬/ ‫ را ِغه‬ٝ ‫ش‬٤ُِ‫ ا‬٢‫ ْٓوذ ك‬/ ‫أُْوخ‬

54
Paraphrase: Al-Mishqah (Mishqat)* in the Layth region, as well as Dhū-Misk in Jeezan.
There is also the tribe of al-Damāshiqah who resided in the Ḥijāz.

The Damāshiqah tribe still exists today, in small pockets, all over Arabia, giving us a testament
to the origins of its namesake. Recently, members of a clan bearing the same name attacked and
vandalized a power station in the Ṣa„ḍah Province, in the north of Yemen, and were involved in
armed skirmishes with the „Awlaqi clan, who sought revenge for one of their members who was
killed by the Damāshiqah. In another instance, intermediation was sought to bring peace between
the Saudi tribe of Balḥārith and the Damāshiqah of Yemen, after a member of the former clan
was killed by the latter, near Najrān. To those who can read Arabic, the links posted at the
bottom of this page are snippets from news articles regarding these events.

The previous passage from Mina‟s book is actually an excerpt from the Karnak inscription
discovered in the Nile Valley, which lists over 100 geographical locations conquered by the
Egyptian army. One of the places appears under the name Tmsq )‫(رَٔن‬. The archeologists who
studied the hieroglyphic inscription were at a complete loss regarding this name, as not a single
trace of the other locations on that particular list were identified in Syria, thus leading them to
conclude that the Egyptian scribes were either ignorant of the geography of the Levant, or simply
invented the names to exaggerate the military achievements of their king.

______________________________________________________________________________
* Note the tendency to render the closed t letter (‫)ح‬, as a long, open )‫)د‬. This is a distinctly South Arabian
phenomenon, and appears in hundreds of inscriptions as well as several instances in the Qur‟ān.

News Articles featuring the Damāshiqah clan:

http://shabwaahpress.net/news/1760/
http://www.okaz.com.sa/new/Issues/20091227/Con20091227323258.htm
http://hournews.net/news-30148.htm

55
It is evident that the archeologists, bearing the unshakable and preconceived notion that the
Egyptian campaigns were directed solely at Syria, failed to consider any other possibility, thus
making it seem that the Tmsq which features in the Hieroglyphic text was isolated, and placed
alongside non-existant locations. The fact of the matter is that every one of the 112 names on
that list has been identified in Southern Saudi Arabia (Jeezan, „Aseer), as well as Yemen, with
some as far south as the city of Mocha, on the Red Sea coast.

Photo #14: Scenery from the Miṣr of Yemen.

 The Mysterious Pharaoh

Among the most scandalous Orientalist fabrications regarding Biblical events is the story we
read in the book entitled The Greatness that was Babylon, by Harry William Saggs (1920-
2005), which recounts the defeat of an Egyptian “Pharaoh” by the name of So, at the hands of
Sargon II. The claim made by Saggs is that this battle was referred to in the poetic passages of
Isaiah and in the second Book of Kings. The problem with this allegation is that not one
archeologist in the West has ever positively identified an Egyptian ruler named So, to whom the
Israelite king Hoshea offered an alliance. It is a name that has been the subject of debate and
controversy for decades.

The following are excerpts from various online articles regarding the identity of this elusive
Egyptian ruler*:

Who was pharaoh So, to whom the king of Israel gave allegiance? He was not identified by
the historians. Many efforts were made and no acceptable assumption reached. Since most

______________________________________________________________________________
* Wikipedia lists So, along with Sheshonk, as two conjectural “Pharaohs”.

56
of the eighth century before the present era Egypt was dominated by the kings of the
Libyan Dynasty, and the time when Hoshea dispatched messengers to So, king of Egypt,
was about -726, the simple solution is to identify one of the Shoshenks as the biblical So,
king of Egypt. And further, since on the walls of the Amon temple at Karnak a bas-relief
with Israeli cities depicted as tributaries to Shoshenk Hedjkheperre of the Libyan Dynasty is
a well-known and much discussed archaeological relic, the identification of the pharaoh So
should be simple. Then why was this identification not made?1

The following are two passages gleaned from the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky, one of the
most prominent, independant Jewish scholars of the Bible. Let us see what he had to say
regarding the two troublesome namesakes, So and Sheshonk:

On the other hand, Shoshenk left no record of any campaign in Palestine. Next to his relief
in Karnak there is only a brief mention of tribute from Syria (Kharu) received by Shoshenk.
Therefore it was also repeatedly said that the relief does not convey anything beyond the
fact that cities in the northern part of Palestine were claimed as paying tribute to Shoshenk
and that on the basis of his relief we could not learn anything about a military conquest of
Palestine...

Since, in accordance with the conventional scheme, Shoshenk of the Karnak relief was made
to Shishak (this in violation of the way Hebrew letters are transcribed in hieroglyphics) there
was no way to identify pharaoh So as another Shoshenk of which there were more than one
in the Libyan Dynasty: the name Shoshenk could not be transcribed as both, Shishak and
So. Thus the identity of So became an unsolved, and in the frame of that scheme, an
unsolvable problem.2

Biblical Scholar Duane L. Christensen states, regarding the identity of King So:

The problem of “King So” was once likened to an endless snake which ever assumes its
form again. And so it seems; for every time the identity of the elusive personage is assured,
a new challenge appears that, on closer inspection, seems to be merely the reconstruction
of another opinion.3

The truth of the matter, dear reader, is that they are looking for a mirage, and nothing more.
Because no “Pharaoh” by the name of So ever existed, and the Biblical passages in question are
not describing an Egyptian ruler.

Let us take an in-depth look into this matter, to solve the puzzle that has bewildered the
Orientalists for the past century.
______________________________________________________________________________
1.http://pharaohso-amaic.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-was-biblical-so-king-of-egypt.html
2.http://www.varchive.org/tac/so.htm
3.http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1519572?uid=3738432&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=2110458
1026477

57
According to Saggs, the city of Gaza (in Palestine), besieged by the Assyrians, had relied on
military backing from the Egyptian Pharaoh So. But when the time for actual confrontation
came, So and his forces were defeated at the battle of Rafaḥ - as the Assyrian inscriptions clearly
tell us - and he betrayed the alliance in a cowardly manner, leaving the king of Gaza to his doom.

First, let us look at a relevant Biblical passage from the Book of Kings, relating to us how
Hoshea failed to pay his yearly tribute to the Assyrian monarch:

In the twelfth year of Ahaz, king of Judeah, Hoshea, the son of Elah, became king
in Samaria, ruling for nine years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, though not
like the kings of Israel before him. Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of
Assyria, and Hoshea became his servant and sent him offerings. But Hoshea's
broken faith became clear to the king of Assyria because he had sent
representatives to So, king of Msrm, and did not send his offering to the king of
Assyria, as he had done year by year: so the king of Assyria had him shut up in
prison and put in chains. Then the king of Assyria went through all the land and
came up to Samaria, shutting it in with his forces for three years (2 nd Kings -
17:1-5).

The first point worth noting is that the title Pharaoh does not appear in the original Aramaic text
as designative of So. The actual text speaks of ‫מלך־מצרים‬, which spells mlk-mṣrim, meaning “the
king of Miṣrim”. Secondly, the name of this obviously tribal ruler appears as ‫( סוא‬in the silent
letters) which is actually pronounced Sū’. Here is the Latin Vulgate rendering of the relevant
portion:

...cumque deprehendisset rex Assyriorum Osee quod rebellare nitens misisset nuntios ad Sua
regem Aegypti.

This name would be spelled as )‫ء‬ٍٞ) or )‫اء‬ٍٞ( in Arabic, a language far more capable of
accurately rendering the Aramaic name than either Greek or Latin. The conclusion is that the text
is not speaking about a ruler of the Nile Valley who fled the scene of battle to avoid
confrontation with the Assyrians. Nowhere in the Cuneiform inscriptions is there any indication
that Sū‟-Suā‟, who was himself ultimately captured, was an Egyptian king. The ancient
Mesopotamian text talks about an alliance that was formed between the Judeans and their
neighbours – and once staunch enemies – the Bani Muḍar (Mṣrim), and their king, Sū‟. This
fragile alliance was crushed at the Battle of Rafaḥ, a mountainous place near Ur-Salem.
Nowehere in the text is there any mention of Gaza, or of Egyptians, as Saggs and the Orientalist
Arab historians imagined.

It is evident, from simply glimpsing the giant, extravagant victory murals and carved reliefs left
behind by the Assyrians, that they were describing wars against two kinds of Arabs (Aribu):
Bedouins (scantily clothed, with wild, unkempt beards), and more sedentary groups, dressed in

58
different attire. Nowehere do we see any indication of the presence of Egyptians in these
inscriptions. Furthermore, there is no mention of Gaza in either the Biblical account, or the
Cuneiform records. Who is King Sū‟ then, and where exactly was the Rafaḥ which the Assyrians
laid waste to?

Let us turn to the writings of the giant geographer, al-Hamadāni, and the forgotten bits of
Arabian lore, for an answer to this age-old puzzle.

On pages 156-159 of his Description of Arabia al-Hamadāni describes several tribal homes in
the mountainous regions surrounding Ṣan„ā‟. Here is an excerpt from those passages:

،ْ‫ هبػخ اٌجى‬ٝ...‫ ثُذ سفؼ كبُوؽجخ‬ٝ ،‫ خطُ اٌغشاة‬٠ُ‫ٔب ؽوَ ٕ٘ؼبء ا‬ٜ٘٤‫ ٓب ث‬ٝ ْ‫ عجَ ُٗو‬ٝ ‫ك فجُذ ثىط‬َُٞ‫َ ا‬٤‫ٓب هجَ ٖٓ أّواف ٗو‬
.‫ اٌخؾت‬ٝ ‫و أوبٔظ‬

What is truly astonishing about this passage is not only the presence of a location named Bayt
Rafaḥ (‫ذ هكؼ‬٤‫)ث‬, but the fact that all the other highlighted areas also feature, in the same
sequence, in one of the Karnak inscriptions listing the conquests of the Egyptian King
Thutmoses III, which reached as far as „Adan (see Israel and Sheba, page 44).

The Biblical Rafaḥ is a valley located in the proximity of Ṣan„ā‟, Yemen‟s capital, whose
province today encompasses many districts, among them Bayt-Būs (named after the Jebusites
who inhabited the region during the era of David), as well as Dar-Slm* )ٍِْ ‫(كاه‬, which may very
well be the Ur-Salem of the Old Testament.

Elsewhere, (DoA – pages 130, 131) al-Hamadāni introduces us to a small congregation of clans
belonging to the Bani „Āmer tribe, who are descendants of Muḍar:

،‫ صْ ٍواح اُقبٍ ٌؾىش‬،‫ْ هجبئَ ٖٓ األصد‬ٛ‫ه‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ ْ‫ْ فضؼ‬ٛ‫ ٗغل‬،‫ فبُل‬ٞ٘‫ ث‬ٝ ...‫ ٍواح اُؾغو‬ٝ ،‫ب ٍواح ػ٘ي‬ِٛٞ‫ز‬٣ ْ‫ص‬...‫صْ ٍواح ع٘ت‬
.‫خ‬٣‫ ػبٓو‬،‫ح‬ٞ‫ اُلػ‬٢‫ط‬٤ِ‫ ثٕى عىاءح ف‬ٝ

The above passage pinpoints the home of certain Azad )‫ (أىك‬clans, as well as Shakar-Yashkar
(the Biblical Ishaccar), and the Bani Suwā‟ah )‫اءح‬ٍٞ ٞ٘‫(ث‬, mixed clans who belong to the „Amer
tribe )‫(ػبٓو‬. We can also find substantial information regarding the Bani Suwā‟ah clans in the old
Arabian records. What is relevant is their lineage, which any reader can confirm by referring to
the books of Arabian ancestries:

.‫ه ثٖ ػٌوٓخ ثٖ فٖلخ ثٓ لُظ عُالْ ثٓ ِضش‬ٖٞ٘ٓ ٖ‫اىٕ اث‬ٞٛ ٖ‫خ ثٖ ثٌو ث‬٣ٝ‫ عىاءح ثٓ عبِش ثٖ ٕؼٖؼخ ثٖ ٓؼب‬ٞ٘‫ث‬

______________________________________________________________________________
* Arabic readers can simply type "‫ "كاه ٍِْ – ٕ٘ؼبء‬in any online search engine, and confirm the existence of the
district of Dar-Slm within the capital precinct.

59
The above lineage links Suwā‟ah bin „Amer to the semi-legendary figure of Qays „Eelan, son of
Muḍar, the grandfather of the tribe.

It is worth noting, incidentally, that the name Qays )ٌ٤‫ (ه‬was known among Bani Israel
themselves. The Old Testament even designates their first king, Saul, as being Saul son of Kish,
who was member of a clan known as the Matrites. Kish is the equivalent of Qays, hence
explaining the legendary Arabian lineage of Ṭalūt Ibn Qays )ٌ٤‫د اثٖ ه‬ُٞ‫ب‬ٛ(. Wikipedia gives us
the following definition: Kish (‫ קיש‬qish; Kis, Keis, meaning "bow" or "power"). The
allusion to “bow” is reminiscent of the Arabic qaws )ًٞ‫ (ه‬which bears the same meaning.

As for the Matrites, they are none other than the Maṭrah-Maṭrān clan of Yemen )‫ِخ ٓطوح‬٤‫(هج‬, who
originated in Ḥaḍramawt, and after whom an ancient fortress on one of the peaks of Mount
Qadas (the Biblical Kadesh) was named: Ḥoṣn Maṭrān )ٕ‫(ؽٖٖ ٓطوا‬.

And so, at last, the puzzle is unravelled. A conglomeration of Israelite, Bedouin, and Muḍari
(Mṣrim) clans, the latter led by their king Sua‟ (So), were defeated at Bayt Rafaḥ, on the
outskirts of Ṣan„ā‟, by the army of Sargon II (Shalmanassar‟s successor), and their leaders were
taken captives to Nineveh. These events had no relation to Palestine or Egypt whatsoever, nor
were any Egyptian “Pharaos” directly involved. And many of the same locations which were
conquered by the Mesoptamian kings had also fallen under the hands of the Egyptian armies led
by Thutmoses III and Sheshonk, centuries earlier.

Photo #15: Hoshea offering obedience to Shalmanassar.

Photo #16: Ruins of the Maṭrān Keep (Ta‘izz Province)

60
CHAPTER II

Gad and Dan

61
The united kingdom of Israel, under monarchs Dawūd and Sulaymān, barely lasted three quarters
of a century, having succeeded in preserving a very fragile unity among clans whose leaders had
varying political and religious motives and affiliations. This delicate balance of interests,
threatening to implode at any moment, has always been a characteristic of many of the tribal
societies in Arabia throughout history, even up until our present day and age.

A gradual deterioration of Greater Israel‟s unity began during the reign of Sulaymān‟s son,
Rehoboam (whose name appears in the Arabian sources in the compound form of Raḥb ‘amm*).
Eventually, this unrest led to the once united kingdom dividing into two rival and often bickering
states: Judea (Judah) in the south, and Israel / Samaria in the north.

To compound matters further, Egypt, seeking to establish a vassal state along the strategic trade
routes of the Arabian Peninsula in order to gain a foothold over its Mesopotamian rivals, began
tampering with the internal affairs of Israel. Consequently, the Bani Muḍar confederation of
sedentary clans (the Biblical Mṣrim), who controlled substantial regions of the Tihāmah coastal
strip along the Red Sea, started a rebellion during Rehoboam‟s reign. The Bani Muḍar ultimately
swore their full allegiance and fealty to Egypt, whose king, Shishak (in some sources, Sheshonk)
launched a military expedition against Israel around 930 BC, plundering Ur-Salem in the
process. This campaign is mentioned clearly in the Old Testament Book of Chronicles:

Now when Rehoboam's position as king had been made certain, and he was
strong, he gave up the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. And it came to pass
in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Msrm came up against
Jerusalem, because they had trespassed against Jehovah (2nd Chronicles - 12:1,2)

In a later era, the Assyrians devised their first excursion into Israel in 722 BC, and annexed
Samaria after a lengthy siege. They took many of the city‟s residents captive, and forcefully
displaced them to other regions.

The ultimate destruction of the former Israelite states came at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, who
marshaled an army of some 120,000, succeeded in subduing the Muḍar clans, and stormed into
the territory of Judah in the year 587 BC. His army effectively wiped it off the map, and took
many of its residents captives to Babylon.

______________________________________________________________________________
* See, for example, the book entitled Al-Teejān fi Mulūk Ḥimyar )‫و‬٤ٔ‫ى ؽ‬ِٞٓ ٢‫غبٕ ك‬٤‫(اُز‬, by Ibn Hishām, which
describes the various monarchs who ruled Yemen, from antiquity. In the book is an entire chapter dedicated to Raḥb
„Amm )ْ‫(هؽت ػ‬, king of Yemen. The question which naturally arises here is the following: if Rehoboam was king of
Yemen, then what was his father doing in Palestine? This is but a small testament to the geographic confusion which
characterized the old chronicles.

62
The truth of the matter, as shocking as it may seem to many readers, is that the current city of
Jerusalem was not known by that name during the Greek era. In the age of the Assyrian
campaigns, it was little more than an insignificant, quiet hamlet, built atop a knoll in the middle
of a coastal plain along the Mediterranean. The “holiness” of this city began shortly after the
Roman era, by which time many Jewish tribes, mostly migrates from Arabia who carried with
them some of the ancient names of locations from their lost homeland, had settled it and the
regions surrounding it. We will elaborate further regarding this important historical fact later on.
Consequently, the Jerusalem of Palestine did not burst onto the world‟s political scene until some
400 years after Nebuchadnezzar‟s campaign. This is conclusive proof that the Ur-Salem
mentioned in the Old Testament and the Mesopotamian inscriptions could not have been the
current-day city in Palestine.

By means of a devious corruption which has succeeded in hiding the true theater of the Biblical
events from the consciousness of the generations, the histories of two distinct cities, located two
thousand kilometers apart, were merged together into one account. Thus, the Ur-Salem
mentioned in the ancient inscriptions was interpreted as the same Jerusalem which emerged
during the Roman age! This alone explains the as-yet unsolvable discrepancies between the
soaring and rugged mountainous geography described in the Bible, and the physical terrain of
Palestine.

The map below shows the geographical domain of Greater Egypt, which encompassed
a substantial portion of the Tihāmah Coast, from whose territory Sheshonk launched his assault
inland into Judea. The points “A” and “B” mark the possible (approximate) locations of the
Biblical Damask, which King David had fought to include within the territory of Israel.

Map #5: Sheshonk’s Arabian domain.

63
In this chapter, we will make an in-depth analysis of the territories of two of the tribes
comprising the Biblical nation of Israel (the northern kingdom). In particular, we will locate the
homes of the tribe of Gad, and the domain of the tribe of Dan, both of which were in the vicinity
of Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom conquered by Sargon II. This is contrary to
where the fraudulent projections place them, in central Palestine. The geography we will analyze
here will be essential for our understanding of where the Biblical Exile actually took place, and
will serve as to further expose the fraudulent, Judeao-Christian interpretation which imagined
a Palestinian theatre for this event.

 Coincidences (84-94): Gad

It is a question worth looking into: where exactly did the name Gad come from? The goal,
honored reader, is to identify the culture from which the name emerged, in order to firmly grasp
the hidden allusions within the OT, to which we have been blinded. The truth of the matter is that
the name Gad, which is spelled ‫ גָּד‬in the so-called “Hebrew”, has been somewhat of an enigma to
Biblical scholars. Aside from the simple definition of the term, and the apparently fraudulent
projection of the tribe‟s home territory, not one scholar has given us a convincing account as to
its origins.

Let us see what Wikipedia says regarding this issue:

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tribe of Gad (Hebrew: ‫גָּד‬, Modern Gad Tiberian Gāḏ;
“soldier” or “luck”) was one of the Tribes of Israel...However, on the accession of
Rehoboam, David's grandson, in c. 930 BC the northern tribes split from the House of David
to reform a Kingdom of Israel as the Northern Kingdom. Gad was a member of the kingdom
until the kingdom was conquered by Assyria in c. 723 BC and the population deported. From
that time then, the Tribe of Gad has been counted as one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

First, we should bear in mind that the letter g can be pronounced as a hard sound (as in girl,
goose, and game), or in the soft manner (as in giraffe, beige, and genre). This is not to be
confused with the actual j letter, which more often corresponds to y in Arabic (as in Jebusi –
Yabūsi).

Let us now quote snippets from the writings of Iraqi scholar Fāḍel al-Rubay„i, who brings to our
attention the following facts on pages 46-48 of his book entitled (lit) The Myth of Crossing the
Jordan and the Fall of Jericho (published in 2013):

،‫ب‬٣‫ه‬ٞ‫ ثطال أٍط‬ٚ‫ٕل‬ٞ‫ ث‬/ ْ / ‫وح ُِِٔي رٌ عذ‬٤‫هح أص‬ٖٞ‫ ث‬٢‫ق‬٣‫ْ اُزبه‬ٜ‫ رواص‬٢‫ٕ ك‬ٞ‫ؾزلظ‬٣ ٖ٤٤٘ٔ٤ُ‫ إٔ ا‬،‫ء‬٢ّ ًَ َ‫ هج‬،‫ ُ٘زنًو‬ٝ
.ٖٔ٤ُ‫ َٗبّثخ ا‬ٚ‫ ثبٍزض٘بء ٓب ًزج‬،‫خ‬٤ٖ‫ اُْق‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ‫خ‬٤‫ق‬٣‫ئًل ربه‬٣ ‫ٕ ٓب‬ٌِٞٔ٣ ‫ْ ال‬ٌُٜ٘

64
Paraphrase: Before we start, let us remember that the Yemenis have preserved, in their
historical folklore, an ethereal memory of a legendary hero and king by the name of Dhi
Jad-Jadn )ٕ‫ عل – عل‬١‫(م‬, of whom very little is known outside the annals of the lineage experts.

ٍْ‫ اإل‬٢‫ األَٕ ك‬ٝ ...ٍ‫ال‬ٛ‫ األ‬٠ِ‫ ػ‬ٚ‫ ٌُضوح ثٌبئ‬،"‫و‬٤ٔ‫اؽخ ؽ‬ٞٗ" ‫ؼوف ثـ‬٣ ٕ‫ ًب‬ٝ ... ٌ‫ اُْبػو ػِؤخ ثٓ رٌ عذْ اٌؾُّش‬،‫ٓضال‬
.)‫ اُغل‬:‫خ‬ٙ‫ق ٓ٘وو‬٣‫خ أكاح رؼو‬٤‫ٕ اٌُالػ‬ُٞ٘‫ ا‬ٝ( "‫"عل‬

Paraphrase: An example is encountered in the Ḥimyarite poet „Alqamah bin Dhi Jadn, who
was famously labeled as the “Weeper of Ḥimyar”, due to his numerous dirges lamenting
ruined tribal homes. The origin of the name is undoubtedly Jad (the –n suffix is thought to
be an extinct definitive pronoun which corresponds to the prefix al-, hence al-Jad).

‫ب‬٣‫ؾَٔ ثوب‬٣ ٍ‫يا‬٣ ‫ٖٔ ال‬٤ُ‫ ا‬٢‫غ ك‬ٙ‫ا‬ُٞٔ‫ إٔ ثؼ٘ ا‬ٝ ،ٟ‫خ أفو‬٣‫ُ َٓ٘ل‬ٞ‫ ٗو‬٢‫هك ك‬ٝ ٍْ‫وخ إٔ اإل‬٤‫ ٌٗوإ ؽو‬٢‫٘جـ‬٣ ‫ ال‬،َ‫ أُوبث‬٢‫ ك‬ٝ
َ‫ ٍبؽ‬٠ِ‫ رطَ ػ‬٢‫ اُز‬،‫خ‬٣‫ك‬ٞ‫خ اَُؼ‬٤‫ أٌُِٔخ اُؼوث‬٢‫٘خ ع ّلح ك‬٣‫ اٍْ ٓل‬٢‫نا اإلٍْ ك‬ٛ ٖٓ ‫ٌٔ٘٘ب إٔ ٗغل ػ٘بٕو‬٣ ‫ ًٔب‬.ٚ٘‫بد ػ‬٣‫مًو‬
‫ رؼوف‬٢‫ اُز‬،‫خ‬٤٘ٔ٤ُ‫الٕ ا‬ٞ‫ِخ ف‬٤‫ ثبُزالىّ ٓغ اٍْ هج‬َٚ‫ اإلٍْ ٗل‬٠ِ‫ٌٔ٘٘ب إٔ ٗؼضو ػ‬٣ ،‫وا‬٤‫ أف‬ٝ .ٖٔ٤ُ‫اُجؾو األؽٔو أُزَٖ ثب‬
.‫خ‬٤٘ٔ٤ُ‫اٍؼخ ٖٓ ٓؾبكظخ ٕؼلح ا‬ٝ ‫ٔخ رَْٔ ٓ٘طوخ‬٣‫ب اُول‬ًٜ٘‫ َٓب‬ٝ...ٕ / ‫ ك‬/ ‫الٕ – عل‬ٞ‫ثق‬

Paraphrase: On the other hand, we cannot deny that this name appears very clearly in
other Musnad inscriptions, and that some locations within Yemen still bear it. We can also
find traces of the name in the city of Jaddah, in Saudi Arabia, which is located on the Red
Sea coast. Finally, we find a clear association between this name and the ancient Yemeni
tribe of Khūlān, known historically as Khūlān-Jad (‫الٕ عل‬ٞ‫)ف‬, and their old domains lay
scattered around vast expanses of the province of Ṣa„dah.

On page 35 of this book, we featured a fragment of an inscription, listed by Yemeni historian

Muṭhir al-Aryāni, which mentions a real figure by the name of Sa„d Ta‟leb dhi Jadn. Here is
another inscription, taken from Aryāni‟s book (page 467), which bears mention of the tribe:

Photo #17: Musnad inscription no.Y.85 AQ/2,

Al-Aryāni‟s translation of the text is as follows:

.‫لح‬٣‫و‬ٛ َٕٞٔ‫ ف‬ٝ ‫ مُي ٓبئخ‬ٝ ١‫ل‬٣‫ أه‬ٝ ْٗ‫ ك‬٢‫ربه ٖٓ ٓ٘طوز‬ٝ َ٣‫ ثٖ عذْ ٓغ ًوة ا‬ٞٔٛ‫ ث ّو‬ٙ‫نا ٓب ٕبك‬ٛ

65
Paraphrase: Thus, Barrahumu, son of Jadn )ٕ‫ (عل‬and Karb-el Watar were able to hunt down
one hundred and fifty of their prey, from the regions of Dunm and Areedy.

Aryāni then gives a brief exposition of the history of the tribe of Jadn, whose descendants
eventually rose to prominence in the northern part of the country.

Even scholar Jawād „Ali, in his Mafsal (page 737), made passing reference to Jadn, and
postulated a relation between the name and the Israelite tribe of Gad. He also pointed out that
remnants of this name were still apparent in Arabian culture, up until shortly before the time of
Muḥammad (P), notably in proper names such as ‘Abd Jad )‫(ػجل عل‬. In fact, the Thamudic
inscriptions have preserved the names of numerous pagan South Arabian deities, among them
Jad, who was worshipped as the god of good luck or good fortune. A conglomeration of these
tribes later migrated to the Ḥijāz, and settled along the Red Sea coast, where they gave their
name to the city of Jaddah (meaning: City of Good Fortune).

These facts serve to enforce our understanding of the name Gad-Jad as belonging to an ancient
Arabian culture, and identifying a deity that was worshipped by the nomads, during the age of
their infancy, when they gave the names of gods and ancestors to their semi-legendary poets and
heroes. And since the most popular tribe to ever carry that name happens to be the Yemeni tribe
of Khūlān-Jad )‫الٕ عل‬ٞ‫(ف‬, it would be possible to prove that the Biblical Gad were indeed
ancestors of Khūlān, if we could show that the territories of the latter (in the Ṣa„dah Province of
northern Yemen), were near or coincided with the territories of the former.

Map #6: Location of the Ṣa‘dah Province (A) neighbouring Al-Jawf (B) and Najran (C)

Photo #18: Jews of Ṣa‘dah

66
So let us turn to the Old Testament, to see where exactly was the territory of this small and
allegedly “lost” tribe.

The first interesting point worth mentioning regarding the homes of Gad is the fact that it was
Moses himself, not Joshua, who actually assigned the territories of this tribe. The significance of
this point lies in that it helps us better understand the ancient tribal patterns of settlement, which
coincided with the nomadic migration from inorganic, desert lands to lush, green territories.

What we can say, with certainty, is that the homes of Gad extended from the area known
historically as Rabbah, in the vicinity of Najran, to the northern parts of the Jawf area of Yemen.
Going back to the Book of Joshua, in the Old Testament, we encounter the following passage,
which relates to us how the territories of this tribe, who are none other than the legendary Jad-
Jadn clan of Yemen, were assigned:

And Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, and to their children and kindred; their border
was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon,
to Aroer that is before Rabbah; and from Heshbon to Ramath-Mizpheh, and
Betonim; and from Mahanaim to the border of Debir. And in the valley, Beth-Harm,
and Beth-Nimrah, and Succoth, and Zaphon(?), the rest of the kingdom of Sihon,
king of Heshbon, having (Jordan?) for its limit, to the end of the sea of Chinnereth
on the east side of Jordan. (Joshua - 13:24-27)

It is worth noting that the Orientalist translation of the above passage, due to the redactors‟
ignorance of tribal terms and habitation patterns, perpetrated some grave errors by rendering
certain common nouns as proper names of actual places, and vice versa. We should also bear in
mind that due to the antiquity of the text, some of the names were eventually changed over the
course of the centuries leading up to al-Hamadāni‟s time, or merged with the names of
neighbouring locations and dissapeared altogether. For example, while Bayt Būs, Dār Salm and
Uzāl were names of three distinct towns during Biblical times, they merged together under the
umbrella of Ṣan„ā‟ and became districts within the Yemeni capital precinct, which eventually
expanded to encompass the three towns. On the other hand, new names appeared, as relatively
new settlements were established, side by the side with the older names featuring in the Bible.

84, 85) Aroer and Beth-Nimrah.

Midway through the passage, we encounter the word valley which is a translation of the Hebrew
term ‫עמק‬. Use of this expression merits a pause. Could it be related to the Arabic term jawf
)‫ف‬ٞ‫(ع‬, which means a deep enclosure or fissure full of water? The interesting point here is that
the term in question spells ‘amq which, in Arabic, conveys a meaning of depth. By looking up
jawf in the classical lexicons, as well as instances of its usage in poetry, we can conclude that the
Arabs used the term to describe a large, deep ravine, where several river valleys converged.

67
The South Arabians often used the term bayt to describe tribal habitations in valleys.
Furthermore, the location in question is not just some random vale, but a very large and
geographically prominent basin in which were located the towns Beth-Haram, Beth-Nimrah, and
Succoth. This deep valey (‘amq), is a stone‟s throw away from the region of Rabbah (Najran and
its environs). Finally, the locations listed in the Biblical text have no relation to the Jordan of the
Levant, but to the h-yrdn, meaning: the escarpment. We will devote a separate book, to be
released at a future date, wherein we will disscuss the myth of the so-called “Crossing”, as well
as the controversial Mesha Stele.

On pages 280-282 of his Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni brings to our attention the
following facts regarding the Jawf area of northen Yemen, and the many ruins scattered therein.

ِٚ‫ائ‬ٍٞ ‫ هل مًوٗب‬ٝ ...‫ ثشالؼ‬ٝ ُٓ‫ صْ ِع‬... ْ‫ ثُذ ّٔشا‬:‫ف‬ٞ‫بٕ اُغ‬ٛٝ‫ ٖٓ أ‬٢ٛ ‫ ٗنًو ٓب‬ٝ ‫ه‬ٞٔ‫ اُؼ‬ٝ ‫صبه‬٥‫ٗنًو ٓب ثبٌغىف ٖٓ ا‬
.َٓ‫ عشعش‬ٝ ٖ‫ث‬ٝ‫ أ‬:‫ف‬ٞ‫ْ ٖٓ اُغ‬ٜٗ ٕ‫ب‬ٛٝ‫أ‬...‫ فبهك‬ٝ ِ‫ فج‬ٝ ،‫ ٓناة‬٢ٛ ٝ ،‫اٌُجبه‬

Paraphrase: Among the ruins of the Jawf (Jūf) area are: Bayt Nimrān...Ma„in and
Barāqish...and we have previously listed its large river valleys, notably Madhāb, Khabsh
and Khāred...therein lie the homes of the Nahm Clan, notably Ūban and „Ar„areen.

Note how Hamadāni places Bayt Nimrān )ٕ‫ذ ٗٔوا‬٤‫ (ث‬and „Ar„areen )ٖ٣‫ (ػوػو‬in the same
geographical vicinity as Barāqish )ِ‫(ثواه‬. The latter refers to a ruined city named after the clan of
Barqos, which also features in the Old Testament. Please keep this name in mind, as we will
disscuss its implications in a later chapter. The three names in question appear in the Old
Testament as „Aro„er )‫)ערוער‬, Beth Nimrah )‫ (בית נמרה‬and Barqos )‫)ברקוס‬. As for Ma„in )ٖ٤‫)ٓؼ‬, it
is none other than the territory desribed in the Old Testament as being home to the Ma„inim,
which the Orientalist deceivers imagined as the Ma„ān )ٕ‫ (ٓؼب‬of Jordan, near the Dead Sea.

Al-Hamadāni Joshua
And in the Jawf, Bayt Nimran... „Ar„arn... And in the Valley („amq)...Beth-Nimrah... „Aro„er

86, 87) Succoth and Zaphon:

No trace of either of these names has been uncovered in Palestine. The Orientalist translators,
buidling on the assumption that the h-yrdn of the Old Testament is none other than the Jordan of
the Levant, assigned the Jordan River to mark the borders of Gad-Jad, and mystified the name of
Zaphon.

If we look up Zaphon in Wikipedia, we get the following deceptive information:

68
According to Isaiah 14:13 the mountain Zaphon is the location where the gods assembled.
The old Semitic name Ṣapānu was used by the conquering Assyrians in the 8th century BCE
and by the Phoenicians. As a prominent peak in the northern part of the Canaanite
world, its name was used, for example in Psalm 48, Genesis 13:14 and Deuteronomy 3:27,
as a synonym for the direction north. Tzaphon (‫ )צפון‬is in fact the basic word for “north” in
Hebrew, due to the location of the mountain and the relation between the Hebrew and
Canaanite languages.

We have already proven that the so-called “Land of Canaan” had no relation to Palestine
whatsoever. Furthermore, there is not one instance in the Biblical text which suggests that
zaphon is a proper noun. Let us quickly scan through the relevant Biblical passages featuring the
term ṣaphon ‫( צפון‬or tzaphon, as it is vocalized by European Jews) to verify this fact:

You said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of
God; and I will sit on the mountain of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north;
(World English Bible).

For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north
(Noah Webster Bible).

And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the
north; (American Standard Version).

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(King James Bible).

qui dicebas in corde tuo in caelum conscendam super astra Dei exaltabo solium meum
sedebo in monte testamenti in lateribus aquilonis (Latin Vulgate).

The same can be said of the passage in question in both Deuteronomy and Psalms. We urge you,
honored reader, to verify this fact by simply looking up the text in the links provided at the
bottom of this page. There is no Zaphon mentioned in any translation of the passage. The actual
rendering of the word (‫ )צפון‬is north / northwards.

In the light of the above, the Orientalist corruption becomes evident. Their rendering of zaphon
is another example of the tendency to invent mystical or “holy” names from common nouns, and
project them onto a false territory. If, for argument‟s sake, the passage in Joshua truly speaks of
a place called Zaphon as being in northern Canaan, then this would certainly fit with the Arabian
theater of Gad, whose territory was located around the Jawf and Najrān (Rabbah) areas.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C003.htm#V27 (Deuteronomy 3:27)
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C013.htm#V14 (Genesis 13:14)
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C048.htm (Psalm 48)

69
During Biblical times, these were indeed parts of the northern Kanānah lands. And the fact that
the legendary decendants of these peoples, namely the tribe of Khūlān-Jad, resided in the Ṣa„dah
Province of Yemen, just to the west of the Jawf, cannot be due to a mere coincidence.

As for the Biblical Succoth, this is another name that was all but burried beneath the sands of
time. The only remnants of it can be found today in some of the residents of the „Aseer Province,
noteably the clan of Āl Sukūt )‫د‬ٌٍٞ ٍ‫(آ‬. This clan is a member of the historic Bani „Amro tribe
)ٝ‫ ػٔو‬٢٘‫(ث‬. Here follows are selected passages from Arabic online articles regarding this name:

ٍ‫ب ّٔبالً آ‬ٛ‫ؾل‬٣ ‫ ثٍٕ عّشو‬ٟ‫ ٖٓ هو‬ٟ‫خ ًجو‬٣‫ هو‬٢ٛٝ ، ‫ْ ػجلهللا ثٖ عىىد‬ٜ‫ق‬٤ّ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ْ كج‬٣‫ ًو‬٢٘‫ِخ ث‬٤‫قخ هج‬٤ْٓ ‫ ٓوًي‬: ‫آي عىىد‬
.ٍٞ‫ّوهب ً آٍ ٓوج‬ٝ ‫ق‬٣‫ؿوثب ً اُٖو‬ٝ ‫ل‬٣‫ثب ً ٕله‬ٞ٘‫ع‬ٝ ‫اُخ‬ٞ‫ؿ‬

٢‫ك‬ٝ ‫وــخ‬ٛ‫اد اُْــب‬ٝ‫ هْٔ عجبٍ اَُو‬٢ُ‫ أػــب‬٢‫خ ك‬٣‫ك‬ٞ‫خ اَُؼ‬٤‫ة ؿوة أٌُِٔخ اُؼوث‬ٞ٘‫ب ع‬ٛ‫به‬٣‫ِخ روغ ك‬٤ٕ‫خ أ‬٤‫ِخ ػوث‬٤‫عّشو هج‬
.‫خ‬٣‫ْ َػ َٔبه‬ٜ‫عٔؼ‬ٝ ْ٤ُٔ‫اٌٍبٕ ا‬ٝ ٖ٤‫ أؽل هجبئَ األىك وإٌّزغت ٌٍمجٍُخ َغًّ عَّشٌ ثلزؼ اُؼ‬٢ٛٝ ‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫ر‬

Note how the second passage states that members of the Bani „Amro tribe were called ‘Amris,
and assigns to them homes in the mountains of south-western Saudi Arabia. Keeping this title in
mind, we can make a safe assupmtion that the Isrealite king mentioned in the Bible by the name
of ‘Omri, may very well have been a distant ancestor of this tribe.

88) Betonim:

The Aramaic spelling of Betonim is ‫ בטנים‬with the taw letter, which is equivalent to the Arabic ṭ
consonent. We have already seen that the ancient Yemeni dialects designated the plural form of
words with the –im suffix. Hence, a correct rendering of Betonim in the Arabic language would
be Baṭanāt )‫(ثط٘بد‬, an obviously plural name. Here is what al-Hamadāni says of this place in his
DoA (pages 162,163), regarding the many tributaries of the Najrān vale, and the neighbouring
countries of al-Jawf )‫ف‬ٞ‫(اُغ‬, Ma‟rib )‫ (ٓؤهة‬and Balad Yām (ّ‫ب‬٣ ‫)ثِل‬.

ٜ‫ عبٗت اُـبئ‬ٞٛ ٝ ٛ‫ اُلُو‬٠ِ‫ْوع ػ‬٣ ْ‫ ص‬،ٖ‫ث‬ٝ‫خ ُطبف ٓضَ أ‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ ثؤ‬٢ُ‫ْ أُْب‬ٜٗ َ‫ هبث‬٢‫ؤر‬٣ ٝ ،ٕ‫ ثوّا‬ٝ ‫ ِٓؼ‬،‫ٔخ‬٣‫ ٖٓ ثِل َبَ اُول‬ٝ
‫ كؤٓب‬.‫اكػخ‬ٝ ٖٓ ‫ اُؾ٘بعو‬ٝ ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ ٖٓ ف‬،ٚ‫ػ‬ٝ‫ كو‬ٝ ْ‫ ٔغشا‬١‫اك‬ٝ ْ‫ ص‬. ّ‫ فت‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٖٓ ‫ ِؤسة‬ٝ ‫ اٌغىف‬٠ُ‫ن ا‬٣‫لزوم اُطو‬٣ ٚ‫ ث‬ٝ
.‫ اٌجطٕبد‬ٝ ٕ‫ح هؽجب‬ُٜٞ ٢‫قوط ك‬٣ ْ‫روإ ص‬ٝ ٢ُ‫ب ٖٓ ّٔب‬ٜٗ‫ كب‬،‫اُْؼجخ‬

89) Gilead:

This name is actually spelled Gl‘ad, (with the ‘ayn letter), in the Aramaic text. It is also a very
famous Hebrew male proper noun. We find mention of this lost place in the poetry of Jareer:

‫ عٍعذا‬ٝ ‫إ ّئذَ أعياع اٌعمُك‬ ُ

َُٚٗ‫ َؽي‬ٝ ‫بك‬٣‫ّئذ اإل‬ ‫أُؽ َّ اما‬

70
The above verse places al-„Aqeeq )‫ن‬٤‫(اُؼو‬, a region south of Najrān, next to Gil„ād )‫(عِؼبك‬, thus
confirming that the territory of Gad was indeed in Northern Yemen and the „Aseer province of
what is today known as Saudi Arabia. This name should not be confused with Wādi al-„Aqeeq,
in the Ḥijāz, near Medina.

90) Ramath-Mizpeh:

As for the troublesome Ramath-Mzpheh, this is a name that has always baffled the Biblical
scholars, who found no trace of it in Palestine. The name appears in no less than three different
forms, sometimes designating the compound name of a single place, sometimes as one simple
name (Ramatmzpheh), and sometimes as two distinct places (Ramat-Ramath and Mzpheh-
Mzpeh). The truth of the matter is that the term ramat is not a proper noun at all, but
a description of a sloping landscape. This is precisely what the word means in the so-called
“Hebrew” language. Hence, the passage in Joshua speaks of a vast slope called Mzpheh. The
second term is spelled )‫(המצפה‬, which is h-Mṣfat (note the ṣad letter, which is rendered as z or tz,
due to the Yiddish influence). Hence, the complete name is (‫(רמת המצפה‬, which spells ramat h-
Mṣfah. Let us take a look at the following verses of poetry from Umayyah al-Hudhly:

ٓ‫كبألٗؾـــــــــــب‬
ِ ‫فبٌّٕش كبُجوهبد‬ ُ‫ب أظِْ فبٌٕطىف كٖـــــــبئق‬ُٜٚ‫ك‬
ّ
ٓ‫هضت اٌصفب أُزيؽــــِق اُلال‬ ٠ُ‫ عـــــبىد ا‬٢‫أٗؾبٓ َُٓوػخ اُز‬

The first verse mentions Naṭūf (please keep this name in mind for later on), and a valley called
al-Namr. This is in fact none other than the Biblical Beth-Nimrah which we listed hereinabove,
and which was sacked by Nabuchednessar on his march into Judea. It was rendered as al-Namr
by dropping the –n suffix, due to the necessities of the poetic structure. The second verse
describes the slopes of al-Ṣafā as a volcanic incline dotted with black rocks, around which camel
caravans pass. Old Arabian poets always referred to such black quartz formations as ṣafāt. As for
the m- prefix in the word Mṣfat, this is in fact a vestige of a nearly extinct South Arabian article
prefix, which either gave way to the Arabic grammatical al- (meaning “the”), or was merged
with the words / names themselves. Hundreds of instances of this linguistic phenomenon can be
encountered in the Ḥimyaritic and Sheban inscriptions unearthed in Yemen. Hence, the Slopes of
al-Safā mentioned by Umayyah are none other than the ramat h-Mṣfat of the Bible. And these
volcanic plateaus of black quartz rock prove that the environment which gave birth to the Old
Testament could not have been in Palestine.

91) Debir:

The problems caused by the fraudulent translation of the passage in Joshua often go beyond
simple geographical projections, and involve either false descriptions of terrain features or the
outright inventions of non-existant places. To start with, the mountain known to the inhabitants

71
of the Khūlān region of northern Yemen as al-Dubr features several times in Arabian poetry.
One famous bard, Ibn Suḥayyah, sang of this slope along which camels often rode, in the
following verse:

‫وا‬٣‫ُٖ اُ٘ن‬ٝ‫ُؼب‬٣ ‫ُمها دثش‬ ‫د‬

ٍ ‫رَـلٖ اُغ٘بة ٌُٓ٘جب‬

Another poet, Abu Dhu‟ayb al-Hudhly also remembered this mountain:

‫ ُظ‬٤ٔٛ ٖ٤‫ؽْخ ثبُطوك‬ٞٓ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ز‬٤‫ُو‬ ّٞ‫ــ‬٣ ٢‫ٔــ‬ٜ‫ًؤٕ اث٘خ اَُـــــــــــــ‬

‫ط‬ِٞ‫ فـــ‬٢ٜ‫ٖ ك‬٤ٓٞ٣ ‫ذ‬ُٜٝ ‫كول‬ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ثؤٍــلَ ماد اٌذثش أكوك عؾْــ‬

Here follows is a passage from DoA (page 244), which mentions the mountain known as Jabal
al-Dubr )‫ (اُلثو‬in the territories of Khūlān )ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫(ف‬:

.٢ٗ‫ كال‬ٍٚٔ‫ ا‬ٝ ‫م‬ٍٞ‫ عجَ األ‬ٝ ‫ عجَ اُ ّوػب‬ٝ ‫ اٌذثش‬ٝ ‫ ؿواثن‬ٝ ٢ٓ‫ ػوا‬ٝ ٛٞ‫ ك‬:ْ‫ فبٕخ ٖٓ ثِل خىال‬ٝ ،‫ب‬ٜ٘ٓ ‫اد اُ٘جغ‬ٝ‫م‬

Let us now take a closer look at the word maḥanaim. In the Aramaic text, it is spelled (‫)מחנים‬.

The first point worth noting is that this exact same word also appears in the second Book of
Samuel, where some translations maintain it as a proper noun, whereas others render it as
a common noun meaning “camps”.

Then David came to Mahanaim. Absalom passed over the (Jordan), he and all the
men of Israel with him (2nd Samuel 17:24) - World English Bible.

But David came to the camps, and Absalom passed over the (Jordan), he and all
the men of Israel with him - Douay Rheims Bible

The Latin Vulgate translation takes an unclear middle road between the two, by rendering the
word maḥanaim in the same passage as “Castra”.

David autem venit in Castra et Absalom transivit Iordanem ipse et omnis vir
Israhel cum eo

The Latin term castra does indeed mean an encampment / temporary fortification / bivouac
(according to any Latin-English dictionary). The question is: why was it rendered a proper noun,
by giving it a capital c letter? Our view is that there is something foggy about this translation.

The truth is that this word is closely related to the ancient Arabic verb ḥanā (past tense) -
yaḥnū (present tense) ٞ٘‫ؾ‬٣ – ‫ؽ٘ب‬. The word literally means: to camp / to settle (as in a military

72
encampment), in both Arabic as well as what they call “Hebrew”. The noun form of this term is
ḥanah (singular) – hanāt (plural). In his book entitled The Bible Came from Arabia, Kamāl
Ṣaleebi made an astute observation when he rendered maḥanaim as “camps”. The fact of the
matter is that the ancient Yemeni dialects used the –im suffix to denote the plural and, for
a time, used the m- prefix as a pronoun aticle, similar to the h- prefix. The only difference
between the latter two is that the m- prefix eventually merged with and became part of the words,
whereas h- gradually gave way to the al- prefix.

This fact proves the ignorance and arrogance of the European redactors, who hijacked a text that
was born in a mostly tribal environment which they knew nothing about. In their blind rush to
project the names onto the territory of Palestine, they failed to grasp the subtle, yet crucial
connotations of the Biblical terms, which today serve to expose the fallacious allegations of their
Orientalist imagination. To the warring, and semi-nomadic clans, the Arabic / Hebrew verb ḥana
is a very honest and accurate term which clearly conveys the meaning of a mobile army settling
in a temporary camp or tented stronghold, in preparation for a battle. This is a point which
completely slipped by the European hijackers of the Biblical culture.

92, 93) Yam and Chinnereth:

In this same context, the Aramaic expression (‫(ים־כנרת‬, which spells yam-kanrat or yam-kanrut
(the actual spelling being a silent knrt) was erronuously interpreted as the Sea of Chinnereth, and
imagined as a mystical basin east of the Jordan River. The very spelling of the name in the
English translations (Chinnereth) serves to solidify this fraud. The truth is that no such place or
sea exists anywhere in the Levant. On the contrary, we can find more than one territory bearing
the actual name of Yām )ّ‫ب‬٣(, one of which lies east of the great escarpment (h-yrdn) which
passes through both Najrān and the Jawf provinces of Yemen. And near the border of Yām, there
is indeed an ancient ruin known to the Arabs of old as Kanāyir )‫و‬٣‫(ً٘ب‬, which is a plural form of
Kanr. This vestige was mentioned by the poet Nusayb, in the following verse quoted in Yāqūt
al-Ḥamwi‟s Glossary of Countries (4:545):

‫ائـــو‬ٝ‫اُل‬
ِ ٘‫ـــ‬٤‫ سغّبْ ث‬ٝ‫وٕبَــش أ‬ ِْٜ‫ ُٓوج‬٠ٗ‫ أك‬٢‫اُؾ‬
ّ ٕ‫ أ‬١‫كال ّي ػ٘ل‬

Note how the poet places Kanāyer in the vicinity of Raghmān (ٕ‫)هؿٔب‬. The latter is also
mentioned by al-Hamadāni (DoA: pages 254 and 266) as being within the territory of Balad
Yām, near Najrān.

94) Heshbon:

This is another mysterious name which has long baffled Biblical scholars, as no trace of it (nor of
its supposed king, Sihon) has ever been uncovered in Palestine. Our view is that this is another

73
name which eventually receded into oblivion. Yet the construction of the term Ḥshb-Ḥshbn, as it
appears in the silent Aramaic text, bears a striking resemblance to an old Yemeni tribe by the
name of al-Ḥawāsheb )‫اّت‬ٞ‫(اُؾ‬. These people had their own political canton in Yemen, in the
1950‟s, when the country became a protectorate under British mandate. Whether there is any
relation between the Biblical Ḥshb and the Ḥawāshib of Yemen remains to be seen. What we can
say for now is that the Arabic term is indeed a plural form of Ḥshbon, and the name rings
distinctly of a South Arabian culture.

Here follows then is a more plausible rendering of the relevant passage in the Book of Joshua:

And Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, and to their children and kindred; their border
was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon,
to Aroer that is before Rabbah; and from Heshbon to the slopes of Mizpheh, and
Betonim; and from the encampments to the slope of Debir. And in the Great
Canyon, Beth-Harm, and Beth-Nimrah, and Succoth, and northwards, the rest of
the kingdom of Sihon, king of Heshbon, having the escarpment for its limit, to the
end of Yam-Kanrat, on the east side of the escarpment (Joshua - 13:24-27).

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

84 ‫גד‬ Gd-Jd Gad ‫علٕ – آٍ عل‬ Jadn / Āl Jad

85 ‫ערוער‬ „Aro„er Aroer ٖ٤‫ ػوػ‬- ‫ػوػو‬ „Ar„ar / „Ar„arin
86 ‫בית נמרה‬ Bet Nmrh Beth-Nimrah ٕ‫ذ ٗٔوا‬٤‫ث‬ Bayt Namrān
87 ‫סכות‬ Skut Succoth ‫د‬ٌٍٞ Sukūt
88 ‫בטנים‬ Bṭnim Betonim ‫اُجط٘بد‬ al-Baṭanāt
89 ‫גלעד‬ Gl„d Gilead ‫عِؼل‬ Jal„ad
90 ‫רמת המצפה‬ rmt h-Mspht Ramath-Mizpeh ‫ت اُٖلب‬ٚٛ slopes of al-Safā
91 ‫דבר‬ Dbr Debir ‫ كثو‬- ‫اُلثو‬ Dubr
92 ‫ים‬ Ym Yam ّ‫ب‬٣ Yām
93 ‫כנרת‬ knrt Chinnereth ‫و‬٣‫ً٘ب‬ Kanāyer
94 ‫חשבון‬ Ḥshbon Heshbon ‫اّت‬ٞ‫ؽ‬ Ḥawāshib

The following map shows the central part of the territory of the Biblical tribe of Gad, between
the Najrān and Jawf areas.

Map #7: The territories of Gad-Jad

74
  Coincidences (95-104): Dan

The conclusive testimonies we have been gleaning from the rediscovered writings of al-
Hamadāni and from the verses of old Arabian poetry, as well as the geographical hints we have
uncovered throughout our journey, do not leave any doubt whatsoever that the stories of the Old
Testament took place in a theater that did not even remotely resemble a Mediterranean country.
These testimomies have allowed us to liberate Palestine, its people, its culture and its history
from the clutches of a diseased Orientalist imagination, and to expose to our readers the depth of
the fraud that has engrained itself in the consciousness of the masses, throughout centuries of
false, malicious and imperialist propaganda.

This meticulous reconstruction of the Biblical story identifies the Israelites as an ancient, South
Arabian conglomeration of tribes, whose ancestors gradually transitioned from a fully nomadic
life to a more sedentary existence in the mountainous Sarat region of the Arabian Pennisula. The
homes of these tribes are the homes of now extinct Arabian peoples, no different than „Ād,
Thamūd, „Amāleeq and Tubba„, and their vestiges are preserved even today in the collective
memory of the Arabs, in the form of names, legendary lineage trees, and poems of heroism and
tragedy, if not burried and forgotten under the earth.

And so came and passed the small tribe of Dan, having left behind a series of vestiges in the
southern reaches of the Sarāt and along the Tihāmah coast of „Aseer and Yemen; echoes of
a distant and all but forgotten era. Although the identity of this small tribe has never been
identified, traces of its name still exist in several clans known today as Āl-Dandan )ٕ‫(آٍ كٗل‬, who
reside in that same region, as well the town of al-Danādinah* )‫ (اُلٗبكٗخ‬in the Mikhwāt )‫اح‬ٞ‫(أُق‬
region of Sarāt Zahrān**.

According to Joshua, the homes of this tribe were also located within the borders of the northern
kingdom, along with their neigbours Yshakkar (Bani Yashkar), whose territories were scattered
throughout the lands, and Nphtali (al-Futūl). This was due to the overlapping system of ḥuqūq
which characterized tribal homes, and which we explained in our previous book.

Here follows is the relevant passage from the Book of Joshua, detailing the homes of Dan:

The seventh lot came out to the tribe of the children of Dan by their families. And the
territory of their inheritance was Zorah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-Shemesh, and Shaalabbin, and
Ajalon, and Jithlah, and Elon, and Timnah, and Ekron, and Eltekeh and Gibbethon and
Baalath, and Jehud, and Beneberak, and Gath-Rimmon, and Me-Jarkon, and Rakkon, with
the border over against Japho (Joshua 19: 40-46)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://www.marefa.org/index.php/%D8%B2%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86
**http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D
9%85%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A9

75
95) Ir-Shemesh:

What is the significance of the “Hebrew” term ‫„( עיר‬ir) appearing in the Old Testament? What
bearing does it have on the geography of the Biblical events? Before answering these questions,
let us tale a look at how the term was translated in the different versions:

And the territory of their inheritance was Zoreah, and Eshtaol, and Ir-shemesh (Darby’s English
Translation)

And the border of their possession was Saraa and Esthaol, and Hirsemes, that is, the city of
the sun (Douay Rheims Bible)

et fuit terminus possessionis eius Saraa et Esthaol et Ahirsemes id est civitas Solis (Latin
Vulgate)

Is the term “city” an accurate rendering of the word ‘ir? Does it truly describe the type of
dwelling that the Israelites lived in? The reality is that during the era of Joshua, the Israelites
were just beginning to settle in permanent towns built with bricks and mortar. If we look deeply
into the connotations of this Biblical term, we will quickly realize two things:

1) That the term is exactly similar to the Arabic word ‘eer )‫و‬٤‫(ػ‬, which appears in many
instances of both prose and poetry, and is designative of a semi-nomadic, tribal village composed
mostly of tented homes.

2) The depth of the Orientalist ignorance and fraud, and the utter failure of the redactors to
understand the true nature of the Biblical theater. The Arab bedouins have used the term ‘eer for
millenia to describe their homes; the places where the pegs of their tents are struck. One poet,
namely al-Ḥārith ibn Ḥalzah al-Yashkuri*, employed this ancient term beautifully in a verse
describing the nomadic sanctuaries:

‫الء‬ٞ‫ اُــــــ‬٠‫ أّٗـــ‬ٝ ‫اٍ ُـــ٘ــــب‬ٞٓ

ٍ ‫ة اٌعُ َش‬
َ ‫ َو‬ٙ
َ ٖٓ ًَ ٕ‫ا أ‬ٞٔ‫ ىػ‬ٝ

The above verse exposes the true implication of the Biblical term ‘ir better than any European
redactor ever could. It is the tribal home, borne on constantly moving caravans, where strangers
come from far away places, hammer the pegs of their tents, ask to be recognized among the
neighboring inhabitants, and leave traces of their legacy in the poetic memory of those who
would come after them. In fact, this same term is used in the Qur‟ān, in the story of Joseph and
his brothers. This is the culture of the Old Testament. It is not the culture of European
imperialists hailing from Russia, Ukraine, Hungary and Poland, who hijacked the scripture,
claimed it as their birthright, and proclaimed themselves the Biblical descendants of Jacob.
______________________________________________________________________________
* Note the lineage of this poet, Yashkar, and remember the Biblical tribe of Yshaccar.

76
Although it is nigh impossible to pinpoint the actual „Ir Shemesh mentioned in the Biblical
passage, we do know that worship of the sun (shemes – ٌّٔ) was one of the most prominent
religions in South Arabia during the era in question. Testament to this fact is evident in the
names of some of the tribes that originated in Yemen, foremost among which were the Bani
„Abd Shams )ٌّٔ ‫ ػجل‬٢٘‫(ث‬, as well as some clans of Sheba and Quraysh.

The Old Testament refers to more than one geographical location that was named in honor of the
sun. An example would be ‫„( עין שמש‬Ayn Shams), mentioned in Joshua (18:17) as belonging to
the territories of Benjamin (Bin Yāmin). Famous poet Kuthayr „Azzah sang of this lost and
forgotten place in a rare verse, locating it near al-Shabā* )‫(اُْجب‬.

‫ػٔبك اُْجب ٖٓ عُٓ ؽّظ كؼبث ُل‬ ٚٗٝ‫ ك‬ٝ ٍَٞ

ٍ ‫ ثَطٖ ؿ‬٢ٗٝ‫ ك‬ٝ ٢ٗ‫أرب‬

Another poet, al-Rā„i al-Numayri, boasts of his voice thundering across the fortresses of Ma‟rib
)‫ (ٓؤهة‬and the surrounding highlands, in the following verse:

١‫و‬٣‫ل‬ٛ ِٖٜٛ‫ أ‬ٝ ‫ لشي اٌؾّىط‬ٝ ‫ ٍٔؼذ ٖٓبٗغ ِؤسة‬١‫ أٗب اُن‬ٝ

Note the second highlighted term, Qura al-Shumūs (lit: hamlets / villages of the suns). It is
a plural term denoting several ruins and vestiges that were once dedicated to the sun, somewhere
east of Yemen‟s ancient capital.

Throughout history, many places whose names featured the term Shams appeared and fell into
oblivion. One such place is Bayt Shams** )ٌّٔ ‫ذ‬٤‫(ث‬, a tiny village in the Ṣan„ā‟ precinct.
Interestingly, the Old Testament also speaks of a place called Beth-Shemesh, within the
territories of Judah:

So Joash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one
another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah (2nd Chronicles –
25:21).

These vestigial names serve as recurrent reminders of the fact that the culture which produced
the Old Testament could not have been a Palestinian one.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
* According to DoA (page 161), al-Shabā lies in the Najd area of Yemen, near the border of Ṣa„dah.
**http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AA_%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%B3_(%D8%A7%D9%84
%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%
D8%A9)

77
 Photo #19: Vestiges of the Sun Temple, near Ma’rib.

96, 97) Shaalabbin and Timnah:

Among the semi-legendary figures of Arabian folklore was a Yemeni tribal leader by the name
of „Amro bin „Āmer, of the clan of Azad-Asad, who bore the title Mazeeqiā’ )‫بء‬٤‫و‬٣‫(ٓي‬. The
stories, which no doubt ring of some historic truths, tell us that „Amro saw a vision, in a dream,
of the collapse of the Ma‟rib Dam. Consequently, he led his people from the inland regions
towards the Tihāmah coast, in order to find refuge from the ensuing catastrophy. On his way to
the coastal areas, Mazeeqiā‟ camped at the base of a mountain called Jabal Barq.

The old poems tell us that Mazeeqiā‟ finally landed with his displaced subjects in a place called
Tha‘ālibāt )‫ – (صؼبُجبد‬Tha‘ālib )‫(صؼبُت‬, not far from the sea.

Regarding the title given to „Amro, the Arabic word mzq conveys the meaning of ripping or
tearing. Apparently, the old kings and tribal heads of Yemen were famous for a unique and very
strange ritual of rending their robes to shreds, as a sign of their discontent with certain news or
events, or as a symbolic gesture proclaiming their undisputed rule. For example, in his book on
pre-Islamic history entitled Nashwat al-Ṭarab (page 140), scholar Ibn Sa„eed al-Andalusi states
the following:

٢‫ ك‬ٚ٤ِ‫ ػ‬٢‫ اُ ُؾِّخ اُز‬٠ٓ‫ ه‬َِٚ‫ ٓغ‬٠ُ‫ٍ ا‬ٞ‫ كبما أهاك اُلف‬.‫ اَُ٘خ‬٢‫ٕ ُؽِّخ ك‬ٞ‫ ٍز‬ٝ ‫ صالصٔبئخ‬ُٚ ‫ ًبٗذ رَ٘ظ‬ٚٗ‫ أل‬،‫بء‬٤‫و‬٣‫ ٓي‬ُٚ َ٤‫اٗٔب ه‬
.ٙ‫ ثؼل‬َٚ‫ِج‬٣ ‫ب ٓب‬ٜ٤‫غل أؽل ك‬٣ ‫ ال‬٢ً ،ً‫ كوطًؼذ ٓيهب‬،ّٞ٤ُ‫مُي ا‬

Paraphrase: He was named Mazeeqiā‟, because 360 garments would be tailored for him
each year. Whenever he would attend a council, he would discard his garment for the day
and tear it up so that no one would ever wear it after him.

78
Interesting, isn‟t it? Now let us read the following passage from the Old Testament, describing
King Hezekiah‟s reaction when he received Sennacherib‟s warning message that the Assyrians
were coming to lay waste to Ur-Salem:

And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and
covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of Jehovah (2 nd Kings
19:1)

It is our view that the Biblical name Shaalabbin, as rendered by the Masorites, is a corruption of
the Arabic Tha‘ālibāt or Tha‘ālib, both plural forms of Tha‘lab or Tha‘labah, bearing in mind
that the Aramaic dialect did not vocalize the th sound, and rendered it sometimes as t and
sometimes as sh. And it just so happens that old Arabian poetry has preserved this strange name
for us, in more than one poem, as denoting a location in the Tihāmah region, and home to
migrating South-Arabian clans.

Famous poet „Ubayd Ibn al-Abraṣ sang of this place in a dirge that few narrators cared to
remember or refer to:

ُ‫ة‬ٞ‫ّــبد كبُنٗـــ‬٤‫كبُوطج‬ ‫ة‬ٞ‫ ِٓؾ‬ِٚٛ‫أهل َو ٖٓ أ‬

ُ‫ت‬٤‫ٖ كبُوَِـــ‬٣‫كناد كِوهَل‬ ‫فشاوـــــــظ فضعٍجُّبد‬
ُ‫ت‬٣‫ْ ػو‬ٜ٘ٓ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ـــٌ ث‬٤ُ ‫كَؼوكَح كـــولــب ػــــــجو‬

This rare verse of poetry describes vestigial, tribal homes, all located within the same general
geography, and listed in the precise order that a traveller would pass through them. Also, note
how the poet places Rākis )ًٌ‫ (ها‬in the vicinity of Tha„labiyyāt )‫بد‬٤‫(صؼِج‬.

On the other hand, al-Hamadāni mentions this same Rākis as being within the territories of Bani
Mālek, and neighboring Timnah )‫(رٔ٘خ‬. Here follows is the passage (DoA, page 231):

ٞ٘‫ب ث‬ٌَٜ٘٣ ‫ رٔ٘خ‬ٝ .‫ رّٕخ‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤‫ٖ اُوك‬٤‫ ػ‬ٝ ٖ٤‫ اُؼ‬ٝ ‫ اٌشاوظ‬ٝ ‫ ػ٘وخ‬ٝ ١‫ أكا‬ٝ ٓٞ‫ اُؼ‬ٝ ‫ل‬٤‫ ع٘ت ٖٓ ػ٘ي كبُوك‬٢ُ‫ُٖب‬٣ ١‫ اُن‬ٝ
.‫ٓبُي‬

Speaking of al-Hamadāni, the geographer also quotes a famous poem (page 355), entitled
Urjūzat al-Ḥajj (lit: Hymn to the Pilgrimage), by Yemeni poet Aḥmad al-Radā„i. Here follows
are two verses from the Hymn:

‫ اُْــغبة‬٠ُ‫ٖ ا‬٤ٗ‫ٔب‬ُٚ‫كب‬ ‫ أًـــواة‬٠ٔ‫ٖ كؾ‬٤َ‫كبألعوػ‬

َ
‫ـئب ً ٌُِٓئــخ اُغ٘ـــبة‬ٛ‫ا‬ٞٓ ‫ اٌضعالة‬٠ُ‫ـــب ا‬ٜ٘ٓ ً ‫كؤؽوُٓب‬

Note how the name appears once again, this time in the form of Tha„lāb )‫(صؼالة‬, as designating
a location that lies on the Pilgrimage Road (al-Maḥajjah).

79
Yet another poet, Ja„far bin Kallāb, mentions this same place in one of his dirges:

‫ٗب‬ٞ‫ب ُُغت ُىث‬ُٜ ‫ُِِٓٔٔخ‬ ‫ْ ؿلاح ُ صعبٌجبد‬ٛ‫ٕجَؾ٘ب‬

َ

This place, Tha„ālibāt, over whose ruins Ibn Kallāb weeped, does not exist, nor did it ever exist
in the entire length and width of Palestine. And the minor variations in the rendering of this name
)‫(صؼبُت – صؼبُجبد – صؼالة‬, attest to the fact that it is indeed a lost place near Tihāmah, whose distant
echoes rang for a time in the memory of the poets.

Now ask yourself the following questions: How can we explain the fact that Joshua places
Shaalabbin, Beth-Shemes and Timnah within the territory of the Tribe of Dan, while the Arabian
sources speak of Tha„ālibāt, Bayt-Shams and Timnah within the same geographic space? What
are the odds of that being a coincidence?

98) Eltekeh:

The actual Aramaic spelling of this name is (‫(אלתקה‬, which spells Altqh (with the qof letter).
Most English versions render it as Eltekeh-Elteceh, and some few (notably Darby's English
Translation) as El-Tekeh. In the Arabic Orientalist translations of the Old Testament, the name
appears as ّٚ٤َ‫( اُزُو‬Al-Tuqayyah). This last rendering is innacurate, because it fails to take into
consideration that the final h letter, in the “Hebrew” language, originally served as a dialectic
mark which was the product of ancient vocal traditions that tended to feminize places. Countless
examples of this –h suffix are encountered in both the OT and old Arabian prose and poetry. Yet
even the innacurate Arabic Orientalist rendering of the name failed to produce any historic or
linguistic evidence of such a place in Palestine.

Poet al-Ḥusayn bin Muṭayr sings of a lost and forgotten tribal home by the name of al-Taqiyy
)٢‫(اُزو‬,
ّ and places it in the vicinity of Dār-al-Salām )ّ‫ (كاه اَُال‬and Dūr )‫ه‬ٝ‫(ك‬.

‫ ُو‬٤‫َزط‬٣ ُٟٜٞ‫ هل ًبٕ ا‬٢َ‫ ٗل‬ٝ ً ‫ذ هاعؼــب‬

ُ ‫ٖ أّوك‬٤‫ ؽ‬٢َ‫ٍ ُ٘ل‬ٞ‫أه‬
‫ ػَبء اٌزم ٍّ فذوسهب‬ٝ ‫أعبهع‬ ‫ ؽجــــّنا‬ٝ َ‫أال أؽجّنا داس اٌغــــال‬

The majority of contemporary scholars who analyzed the above verses falsely assumed that the
last word )‫ب‬ٛ‫ه‬ٝ‫ (ك‬refers to the abandoned homes (tents) of al-Taqiyy. But this is actually not the
case. In truth, the word is used to describe a seperate place called Dūr )‫ه‬ٝ‫ (ك‬which is very closely
associated with Taqiyy (meaning that they were located side by side). Any astute Arabic reader
can immediately note the cunning, expressive poetic use of the name.

This same place, Dūr, also appears, by yet another coincidence, in the Old Testament. Here is
a passage from the Book of Judges, which lists Dor, alongside other places Yemen, noteably

80
Meggiddo (see Israel and Sheba, page 85). The actual spelling of the name, in Armaic, is ‫דור‬
(dal-waw-rosh). This is exactly identical to the Arabic Dūr.

And Manasseh did not dispossess Beth-shean and its dependent villages, nor
Taanach and its dependent villages, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its dependent
villages, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its dependent villages, nor the
inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependent villages; and the Canaanites would dwell
in that land (Judges 1:27).

As for Dār-al-Salām, there are several locations in Yemen that were given this tag. The
description was used to designate any safe and hard-to-reach mountainous haven. It is unlikely
that the poet meant the Dār-Slm which is today within the Ṣan„ā‟ district, because the latter was
part of the Southern Kingdom of Judea, whereas Dan were located to the west of Gad, around
„Aseer and Jeezān. But whatever the case may be, it is certain that he did not mean the Jerusalem
of Palestine, nor the city of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, Africa.

99) Beneberak

The various translations of the Old Testament are divided regarding the rendering of this name.
In some texts, it appears in the compound form of Bani-Berak or Bani-Barak, which is a more
accurate representation of the “Hebrew” ‫( בני־ברק‬note that the name is actually spelled with a qof
letter, hence Bani Brq).

There is no evidence, whether archeological, cultural or historical, linking this name to ancient
Palestine. On the contrary, we have plenty of Arabian sources referring to Bāriq as both the name
of a mountain as well as a small clan who lived in its shadow. We have already located the
territory of Bilād Bāriq near Abha, in southern Saudi Arabia (see page 33). Al-Hamadāni (DoA –
page 130) speaks of Bāriq )‫ (ثبهم‬as being a mountain which, during his day and age, was famous
for harbouring clans from the Azad-Asad )‫ (أىك‬tribe. The mountain is not far from the Sarāt
al-Khāl range, home to the Shakar clan (‫)ٌّو‬, who were none other than the Biblical Yshaccar:

ْ‫ْ فضؼ‬ٛ‫ ٗغل‬،‫ فبُل‬ٞ٘‫ ث‬ٝ ،ٕ‫ اُوو‬ٞ٘‫ ث‬ٝ ‫ ٖٓ األصد‬ٙ‫ صْ ٍواح ٗب‬،‫ْ ثبسق‬ٛ‫ه‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ ْ‫ب فضؼ‬ٛ‫ ٍواح اُؾغو ٗغل‬ٝ ‫ب ٍواح ػ٘ي‬ِٛٞ‫ز‬٣ ْ‫ص‬
.‫ صْ ٍواح اُقبٍ ٌؾىش‬،‫ْ هجبئَ ٖٓ األىك‬ٛ‫ه‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ

In his other book entitled Al-Ikleel (2:360), al-Hamadāni states the following regarding the clan
of Bani Bāriq:

.‫ا اُجوم‬ٞ‫ْ ارّجؼ‬ٜٗ‫ أل‬،‫ ثوم‬- ٍْٜٔ‫ اُغجَ ثب‬٢ٍُٔ ،‫ْ ثٕى ثشق ٖٓ هجبئَ األىك‬ٛ :‫ثبهم‬

Paraphrase: Bāriq - They are the Banu Barq, Azadeans, and the mountain was named after
them, Barq, because they followed the lightning flashes above its peak.

81
Hamadāni‟s rendering of Bāriq as Barq )‫ (ثوم‬is in line with Joshua‟s reference, as well as verses
of old Arabian poetry, notably by Ibn Suhayyah:

٢‫على ّبئو‬ٝ
ِ ٕ‫ٖ كب‬٤٘‫ثؼ٘ اُؾ‬ ‫ــــب‬ُٜ ‫ ثشق كوـــِذ‬٠ُ‫َؽّ٘ـــذ ا‬

The above verse describes the poet‟s sad remembrance of the tribal homes nestled along the
slopes of Bāriq, slowly dwindling into oblivion. This same nostalgia was expressed beautifully
by legendary bard Umru‟ al-Qays, in the following verse, which describes lightning displays in
the night sky above the peak of Bāriq, in the northernmost reaches of Sarāt Ḥimyar )‫َو‬٤ٔ‫( ِؽ‬.

‫َ ػٖ عشو ِؽَُّ َش‬٤ُِ‫ ثب‬٠‫ء اُ ّلع‬٢ُٚ٣ ّ ‫رج‬

‫ء ثبسق‬ٞٙ ٟ‫َ رو‬ٛ ٢ِ٤ِ‫ٖو ف‬

This Bāriq-Barq is no doubt the very same peak that was associated with the semi-legendary
tribal patron Mazeeqiā‟, who led his people northwards to a coastal refuge in the Tihāmah
region, as we saw earlier.

The above facts merit a short pause, as we ponder the meaning of the poem which features in the
Old Testament Book of Judges, known as the “Song of Deborah and Barek”. This ancient poem,
imagined by the Orientalist interpretation as being an Israelite victory song, is actually one of
the few remaining vestiges we have at our disposal today of the Pre-Islamic poetry, in its pure
and pristine form, which has been all but lost to the ages. It is the oldest song we can read about
the tribes and their migrations towards safer regions, and their longing for lush, organic havens.
Arabian legends abound with references to a catastrophic flood known to the narrators as Sayl
al-‘Arm, and often associated with the collapse of the Ma‟rib Dam.

The fact of the matter is that the Song of Deborah and Barek was not actually written by
a particular poet called Barek, who was allied to an Israelite judge and prophetess by the name of
Deborah, as the Orientalists imagined. The song is but an example of an ancient nomadic dirge,
traditionally reiterated by South Arabian tribes, during the age of their infancy, when they
migrated from a particular place known as Dabrah, to a coastal mountain called Bāriq. Both
these locations are described by Arab geographers*. The old poets and story-tellers, following in
the tradition of their ancestors, simply anthropomorphized real places as legendary figures:

And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah;

As Issachar, so was Barak
Sent into the valley under his command;
Among the divisions of Reuben
There were great resolves of heart (Judges 5:15)

______________________________________________________________________________
* See DoA (pages 156 and 216) for a description of Wādi Dabrah, which lies on the road from Ma‟rib to Ṣan„ā‟.

82
As for the Biblical Reuben ‫( ראובן‬another northern tribe), the name denotes a microscoping clan
whose trace was all but wiped from memory, after the tribal migrations. Today, tiny remnants
bearing the name al-Rawābeen )ٖ٤‫اث‬ٝ‫ (اُو‬still exist as scattered clans in parts of Saudi Arabia and
Jordan.

And if we are to buy the Orientalist merchandise claiming that Deborah was a judge among the
Israelites, then we would have to concede that the Judges resided in Yemen, not in Palestine. In
fact, the very title of “Judge”, which is equivalent to the Arabic term Qādi (٢ٙ‫)هب‬, has been used
for centuries uncounted to denote important figures in that country. The title is not necessarily
related to any judiciary process or system, and many important Yemeni scholars, academics, and
even artists bore it, eventhough they were not actually judges in the legal sense*. For example,
the historian who commented on Description of Arabia, Isma„eel „Ali al-Akwa„
al-Ḥawāli** (died 2008), bore the honorary title of al-Qādi. No other country on the planet is
known for this tradition.

100) Rakkon:

Again, we encounter inaccurracies in the way this name was interpreted in the modern
translations. The actual spelling, in the silent Aramaic, is h-rqn (note the qof letter). The
Masoretic rendering is ‫הרקון‬, which would be transliterated as h-rqun. Bearing in mind that the
–h prefix is an extinct, South Arabian pronoun article, the actual Arabic rendering of this name
would be al-Raqqūn, or simply al-Raqq, by droping the –n suffix. In fact, all the Biblical names
which are similar in construction can be correctly reverted to their original forms. Here are some
examples:

Sidon – Ṣaydūn )ٕٝ‫ل‬٤ٕ( – Ṣayd )‫ل‬٤ٕ( / Ekron – „Aqrūn )ٕٝ‫„ – (ػوو‬Aqr )‫ (ػوو‬/ Heshbon –
Ḥashbūn )ٕٞ‫ – (ؽْج‬Ḥashb )‫ (ؽْت‬/ Elon – Elūn )ِٕٞ٣‫ – (ا‬Elah )ِٚ٣‫ (ا‬/ Azemon – „Aṣmun )ٕٖٞٔ‫– (ػ‬
„Aṣm )ْٖ‫(ػ‬.

Sifting through the old Arabian records, we find the following verse of poetry by the female
bard, Layla al-Akhiliyyah, who recalled a scene of horses charging across a desolate place called
al-Ruqiy )٢ّ ‫(اُوه‬.

‫ارو‬ٞ‫ب ٓضَ اُوطب أُز‬ٜ‫اثو‬ٍٞ ‫وح‬٤‫ال ثبٌشل ٍّ ُٓـ‬٤‫كآَٗذ ف‬

Another poet, Ibn Muqbil, mentions this same place in the viccinity of Rakis )ًٌ‫(ها‬, which we
previously (page 79) located within the territory of Dan, not far from Tha„ālibāt (Shaalabin):

______________________________________________________________________________
*An example is al-Qādi Muḥammad al-Ḥārithi )٢‫ك اُؾبهص‬ٞٔ‫ ٓؾٔل ٓؾ‬٢ٙ‫(اُوب‬, a singer who lived in Ṣan„ā‟.
**The reader can verify by looking up the name "‫ع‬ًٞ‫ األ‬٢ِ‫َ ػ‬٤‫ "أٍبػ‬on Facebook.

83
 ٠ُ‫ا‬ٞ‫ب ثٖؾواء اٌ ّشلٍ ر‬ُٜ ٝ ‫ اما ثِـــــذ ساوظ‬٠‫ؽز‬

101) Japho:

According to Joshua, Me-Jarkon lies near Japho. The first term is actually a mistranslation of
“water of Jarkon”. This is attested to by the actual “Hebrew” term ‫ הירקון‬-‫( מי‬ma‟ h-yrqn), which
desribes a basin of water (spring, natural pool, pond, etc...) named Yrqn (spelled with a qof
letter). Although no actual trace of this name exists today, it is worth mentioning that the Arabic
rendering would be mā’ al-Yarqūn )ٕٞ‫وه‬٤ُ‫(ٓبء ا‬, which clearly exhibits the South Arabian y- prefix
(Rqūn – Yrqūn).

As for Japho, its actual name is ‫יפו‬, which spells Yapho. Regardless of the fact that several
translations rendered the name as Japha – Yapha (including the Arabic Orientalist text), which is
accceptable since the aliph and waw vowels at the ends of names are interchangeable, the place
was imganied as a coastal town in Palestine, despite the original text describing it as a internal
basin of water.

On page 268 of his Description of Arabia, under the heading "‫ األٓالػ‬ٙ‫ب‬٤ٓ", al-Hamadāni descripes
ponds or pools of water having a salty, or bitter taste, possibly due to the volcanic nature of the
surrounding terrain. Here follows is a passage listing a series of such cisterns and pools (miyāh
al-amlāḥ), located on the road leading to a town known as al-Phar‘ah )‫(اُلوػخ‬:

‫ْ اال اُغلػبء وِبء‬٤٘ٓ ٖ‫ ُِب‬،‫ّؼجؼت‬ٝ ‫خ‬ٚٓ‫اُؾب‬ٝ ‫وح‬٤‫اُؾل‬ٝ ٛ‫ثب‬٥‫ا‬ٝ ‫ٗغِخ‬ٝ َ٤‫ ُِبٖ اُؾٔبكح أِالػ ٗغ‬- ‫ٖ اٌفشعخ‬٤‫ث‬ٝ ‫ٖ اعِخ‬٤‫ث‬
.‫ فِلخ‬٠ُ‫ ثنهإ فمجخ أساَ ا‬ٚ‫ٓب اؽزبىر‬ٝ ‫طخ‬٤‫اُِو‬ٝ ‫وخ‬٤ُٜ٘‫ا‬ٝ ‫خ‬٤ٗ‫ب‬٤‫اُق‬ٝ ٕ‫ا‬ٝ‫أ‬ٝ ‫ثوى‬ٝ ‫َفبء‬

Among these cisterns is one named mā‟-Yaphā‟ )‫لبء‬٣ ‫(ٓبء‬, which lay in the vicinity of Qibbat Irām
)ّ‫(هجخ أها‬.

Do such geographical features exist in Palestine?

Photo #20: Ancient town of al-Phar‘ah )‘Aseer(

84
102, 103) Jithlah and Gibbethon

Bearing in mind the tendency to express the y sound as a j, the correct spelling of the first name
is Yatlah-Yatlat, as is evident from the actual spelling: ‫יתלה‬. As for the second name, it is ‫גבתון‬,
which spells Jbtun-Gbtun. Again, the archeologists failed to provide proof of the existence of
these two locations side by side, within the historic territory of Palestine. But we have plenty of
evidence, from the Arabian sources, that they existed indeed in South Arabia.

It is worth noting that the Aramaic alphabet does not contain the letter kh, even though most
modern Jews can vocalize it. The letter is most often rendered as a ch, or a hard g sound
(compare, for example, Khūlān – ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ ف‬with Golan – ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫)ع‬. Al-Hamadāni places the valley of
Khabt )‫ (فجذ‬in the territories of Bani Mālek, famous clans who eventually migrated to the Ḥijāz,
and whose ancestral homes lay within the same geographic space as the valleys of the Kahlān
)ٕ‫ال‬ًٜ( Country, and Wādi Tathleeth )‫ش‬٤ِ‫(رض‬. Here follows is the passage from DoA (pages 163,
164), describing the terriories abundant with river valleys:

ٖٓ ‫لػ‬ٙ ٢ٗ‫ أكا‬ٝ ‫ أِٓؼ‬٢ٗ‫ أكا‬ٝ ‫َ علهح‬٤َ‫ وهالْ ك‬٢‫ٍ ّوه‬ٞ٤ٍ ٝ...‫ ٓبُي‬٢٘‫ كجِل ث‬،‫بٕ فبٌخجذ‬٤‫ؾ‬ٙ ٝ ‫ل‬٣‫اه‬ُٞٔ‫كٖؾٖ كلهواه كب‬
.‫ رضٍُذ‬ٝ ْ‫ٖ ٔغشا‬٤‫ ث‬ٚ٤‫َو‬٤‫ ك‬،ٕ‫ ٗغوا‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٠ِ‫ًبٕ ٖٓ أػ‬ّٞ ٢‫زولّ ك‬٣ ٝ ٗ‫ ٖٓ أٍلَ اُؼو‬ٙ‫ب‬٤ُٔ‫ ا‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ًَ ‫غزٔغ‬٤‫ك‬...‫ثِل ؽبوش‬

We have already established the widely scattered territories of Shāker – Yashkur )‫(ّبًو‬, which
were none-other than the tribe of Yshaccar-Yssaccar. As for the tribes of Kahlān, they need no
introduction to most Arab readers, as their name is beyond legendary, and the lineage narrations
trace them to a grandfather figure by the name of Kahlān bin Saba’ bin Qaḥtān.

Now let‟s pause and consider the following: is it by pure coincidence that al-Hamadāni places
Khabt and Tathleeth in the same geographic space, near Bani Shakar, while Joshua mentions
Gbton* and Ythlat within the territories of Dan, neighbours of Yashkar?

Yemeni bard Umru‟ al-Qays sang of Yathlth )‫ضِش‬٣( in one of his poems, wherein he made passing
reference to the tribe of Ḍārij )‫بهط‬ٙ(:

٘٣‫ــٖ رالع َضٍش كبُـؼو‬٤‫ ث‬ٝ ‫ٖ ضبسط‬٤‫ ث‬٢٘‫ٕ َؾج‬ ُ ‫هَ َؼ‬
َ ٝ ُٚ ‫لد‬

Incidentally, note how the poet rendered the name exactly as it appears in the Old Testament,
bearing in mind that the so-called “Hebrew” language does not vocalize the th sound. Elsewhere,
(DoA: page 227, 228), al-Hamadāni states the following regarding this place:

‫به‬٣‫خ أُٖبٓخ ٖٓ ك‬٤‫ أهاًخ ٗبؽ‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤‫ أٍلَ ثِل ىث‬٢‫ أهاًخ ك‬ٝ ،‫ أهاى‬ٝ ،‫ ًز٘خ‬ٝ ٖٔ‫اد اُو‬ٝ‫ ٖٓبثخ ٖٓ م‬ٝ ‫ت‬٣‫و‬ٛ : ‫ ٔهذ‬٢٘‫ثِل ث‬
...‫ ًبٕ ٌعّش ثٓ ِعذ َىشة‬ٝ ‫ رضٍُش‬ٝ ،‫ؼخ‬٤‫خضعُ ثٖ ػبٓو ثٖ هث‬
______________________________________________________________________________
* The Hebrew construction of Gbt-Gbton is due to the expendible –n suffix added to the names.

85
The above passage tells us that Tathleeth was settled by the Yemeni king „Amr bin Ma„d Yakrib,
and also mentions the tribes of Kath„am )ْ‫ (فضؼ‬and Bani Nahd )‫ل‬ٜٗ(.

104) Elon:

The last, and somewhat troublesome name we will look into is one that appears in several
passages of the OT scritpure, and is sometimes translated as oak (a type of tree), and sometimes
as the proper name of an actual place. The word in question is spelled ‫( אלון‬Allon – Ellon).

Here follows are several translations of another passage in the Book of Joshua (19:33) which
lists the homes of the tribe of Naphtali:

And their border was from Heleph, from Allon to Zaanannim, and Adami, Nekeb,
and Jabneel, to Lakum; and the limits thereof were at the (Jordan) (Noah Webster
Bible)

And their border was from Heleph, from the oak of Zaanannim; and Adami-nekeb and
Jabneel to Lakkum; and ended at the (Jordan?) (Darby's English Translation)

And their limit was from Heleph, from the oak-tree in Zaanannim, and Adami-hannekeb and
Jabneel, as far as Lakkum, ending at the (Jordan?) (Bible in Basic English)

And the border began from Heleph and Elon to Saananim, and Adami, which is Neceb, and
Jebnael even to Lecum: and their outgoings unto the (Jordan) (Douay Rheims Bible)

Perhaps this confusion is due to the fact that the name appears, in the actual Aramaic scripture, in
two forms: ‫( אלון‬Alon – Elon) and ‫( אילון‬Aylon – Eylon); with the latter version having a longer
(extended) vowel sound. It is our view that Ayalon, which appears in the context of Dan‟s
territories, is indeed the proper name of a coastal town on the Tihāmah coast, somewhere in
Jeezān. This town fell into ruin and oblivion long ago, and features in several songs.

The following is a verse from Ḥassān bin Thābit, who was allegedly the personal poet of the
Prophet Muḥammad (P), remembering a village by the name of Eelah )‫ِخ‬٣‫(ا‬, at the foot of
a snowy mountain peak:

‫ ُؽ ّو‬ٝ ‫ إٍَخ ٖٓ ػجل‬٢‫عبٗج‬ ٠ُ‫ٌِٓب ٖٓ عجَ اُضِظ ا‬

Another famous poet, Kuthayr, also stood by the vestiges of this coastal moutain town:

‫ة‬ُٖٞ٘ٔ‫ هل ؿبه ٗغْ اُلوهل ا‬ٝ ً ‫٘ب‬ٛٞٓ ‫ ثؤٍَخ‬٢‫ إٔؾبث‬ٝ ‫ذ‬٣‫هأ‬

We should note that this is the same poet who was given the tag of Kuthayr „Azzah, due to his
many songs describing what the modern commentators thought was a maiden by the name of

86
„Azzah. The truth, as we showed you in our previous book, was that it was not a girl that Kuthayr
sang of, but an actual place which bore that name, and fell into ruin. And this „Azzah also
happens to feature in several passages of the Old Testament, where it was interpreted by the
Orientalists as being the Gaza of Palestine, just as Elon – Eylon was projected onto what is
known today as the Gulf of „Aqabah.

Al-Hamadāni, in his DoA, mentions a mountain by the name of Aylah )‫ِخ‬٣‫ (أ‬as one of the
territories of Bani Tameem, a tribe whose homes, during al-Hamadāni‟s day and age, were
widely spread over territories of Yamāmah and Tihāmah )‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫ (ر‬as well as the edges of the Ḥijāz
)‫(اُؾغبى‬. Here follows is a part of the passage under the entry of Diyār Tameem (page 298):

.َ‫ أٍَخ عج‬ٝ ،ٟٞٙ‫ ع٘ت ه‬٠ُ‫ عجَ ا‬،ً‫ب‬ٙ ،ٕ‫َب‬٤ٍّ‫ اُو‬،‫خ رهبِخ اُؾغبى‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ا ٍك ٖٓ أ‬ٝ ‫ ُٓقبُظ‬ٝ

The map below shows us the approximate territories of the Biblical tribes of Gad – Jad (the red
circle) and Dan (the blue circle), as well as the probable location of the ancient and forgotten city
by the sea, namely Elon. It is worth noting that geographically, Dan and Jad, along with small
groups of the widely-dispersed Yashkar clans who resided around the city of Jurush („Aseer),
were the northernmost of the Isralite tribes, and hence part of the kingdom that was destroyed by
the Assyrians in 722 BC.

Map #8: Territories of Dan

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

95 ‫שעלבין‬ Sh„lbin Shaalabbin ‫ صؼبُجبد‬- ‫صؼبُت‬ Tha„ālib / Tha„ālibāt

96 ‫תמנתה‬ Tmnatah Timnah ‫رٔ٘خ‬ Timnah
97 ‫עיר שמש‬ „Ir Shemesh Ir-Shemesh ًّٞٔ / ٌّٔ Shams / Shumūs
98 ‫אלתקה‬ Altqh Eltekeh / Elteceh ٢
ّ ‫اُزو‬ al-Tuqayy
99 ‫בני־ברק‬ bani-brq Beniberak ‫ ثبهم‬- ‫ ثوم‬٢٘‫ث‬ Bani Barq / Bāreq
100 ‫הרקון‬ h-Rqun Rakkon ٢
ّ ‫اُوه‬ al-Raqqiy
101 ‫יפו‬ Yapho Japha / Japho ‫لبء‬٣ Yafā‟
102 ‫גבתון‬ Jbton / Gbton Gibbethon ‫فجذ‬ Khabt
103 ‫יתלה‬ Ytlah / Ytlat Jithlah ‫ش‬٤ِ‫ رض‬- ‫ضِش‬٣ Yathlith / Tathleeth
104 ‫אלון‬ Elon / Alon Elon / Alon ‫ِخ‬٣‫ ا‬- ‫ِخ‬٣‫أ‬ Aylah / Eelah

87
 Other Instances
“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic
number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

105 ‫דברה‬ Dbrh Deborah ٙ‫كثو‬ Dubrah

106 ‫דור‬ Dor Dor ‫ه‬ٝ‫ك‬ Dūr
107 ‫ראובן‬ R‟obn Reuben ٖ٤‫اث‬ٝ‫اُو‬ al-Rawābeen
108 ‫תְּ הֹום‬ Tehom / Tehomh (depth) ‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫ر‬ Tihāmah

Map #9: Tihāmah Coast (the Biblical Tehome, and the Tiamat of the Assyrian inscriptions)

Photo #21: Scenery from Tihāmah, in Ḥudaydah, Yemen.

 Samaria or Shemeron?

According to the Old Testament, the kingdom that was established by David and later inherited
by Solomon, split into two rival and often bickering states. The northern state came to be known
as Israel, and took Samaria as its capital, while the southern domain was named Judea (Judah),
and was centered around Ur-Salem, which was previously the capital of the unified kingdom.

Having already established that Ur-Salem, part of the ancestral home of the Jebusites
(al-Yabūsiyeen), is today located within Yemen‟s capital district, and having pinpointed the

88
territories of Dān and Jad within the Najrān, Jeezān and parts of „Aseer (Saudi Arabia), as well
as the Jawf and parts of Ṣa„dah (Yemen), respectively, we can now determine where exactly lay
the city of Samaria.

The first thing we should note is that the actual name of this city, as it appears in the so-called
“Hebrew” scripture, is ‫שמרון‬, which actually spells Shamron (or Shmrn, with the silent letters).
Bearing in mind that the sh and s sounds are technically the same, the Arabic equivalent of the
name could be either Shamrān - Samrān )ٕ‫ ٍٔوا‬- ٕ‫ (ّٔوا‬or Shamrūn – Samrūn )ٕٝ‫ ٍٔو‬- ٕٝ‫(ّٔو‬.
Furthermore, why is it that the rampant translations render it as Samaria? Did the redactors of
the scripture unconsciously discard the –n suffix from the end of the name? Or was it perhaps an
attempt to mystify the place, by projecting an aura of “holiness” onto its name?

At any rate, the construction of Shmr – Shmrn clearly identifies the name as belonging to a South
Arabian culture. This is made evident once we learn about the history of this city, and the
circumstances which led to it being given that name. Let us read a few passages from the OT
which feature Samaria:

And he (King Asa) bought the mount of Samaria of Semer for two talents of silver,
and he built upon it, and he called the city which he built Samaria, after the name
of Semer the owner of the mountain (1st Kings - 16: 24)

According to the above passage, the kings of Israel purchased a mountainous land from a man
named ‫( שמר‬Shmr(, built the city on its slopes, and named it after its original owner. Given that
the old Arabian stories often refered to entire tribes or clans by the name of the ancestors who
established those tribes, irrespective of whether said ancestors were historic or legendary
(symbolic) figures, we find plenty of evidence of the Arabic ancestral name Smr-Shmr, in many
variants, and in several locations in Western Arabia, even up to this day and age.

For instance, two mountains in Yemen, Shameer )‫و‬٤ّٔ(* and Samārah )‫(ٍٔبهح‬, have been known
by those names for centuries untold. The former is none other than the Biblical Shamir, while the
latter lies within the Ibb Province (South Yemen), and is famous for a collosal ruined fortress
that stands on its peak, at which many hikers often stop to rest. The Samārah peak, whose name
can also be rendered as Shemeron, belonged to the territories of the tribe of Zebulun (see Bani
Zubālah in Israel and Sheba, page 80). The following verse by Muzāḥim al-„Uqaily mentions
Samārah as well as memories of Ma‟rib )‫(ٓؤهة‬.

ِ ‫ٕ ّلا ثبَُجَت اُ ُٔزواؿ‬

‫ت‬ ُ ٖ٤‫ ث‬ٝ ‫ عّبسح‬ٝ ٟٝ‫ٖ ػو‬٤‫ ث‬ٙ‫ًؤٕ ٍ٘ب‬
‫ة‬
ِ ‫ـواثــخ ثبُٔـؼبم‬ٙ ‫بٌُب‬ٛ ‫ٗؼـذ‬ ‫ـلاً ِـؤسثُّـخ‬٣ ٝ‫رـٌْــق ثُـِـن أ‬
______________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1

89
Another poet, Jareer, in a derogatory satire of one of his opponents by the name of Ja„d bin Qays,
states the following:

‫ ٗيا َه‬٢٘‫اٗي َُذ ٖٓ أثــ‬ ٌ‫ـ‬٤‫ه‬

ِ ٖ‫ب عؼل اث‬٣ ‫ي‬٤ُ‫ي ا‬٤ُ‫ا‬
‫ّؼ ٖٓ ُٗٔب َه‬٤ُٖٔ‫ا ا‬ُٞ‫اما ٗي‬ ٢ّ ‫ ٌُ٘ي ٖٓ عّبسح ّ ّو ؽ‬ٝ

As for the „Aseer Province, many Saudis confirm that the territories around the city of Rijāl
Alma„ are the ancestral homes of the Shamrān Clans )ٕ‫(أُْوا‬. And there exists a town in the area
which still bears that name, even today. It is our view that this region, located near the Tihāmah
strip, a mere 50 kilometers north-west of the city of Abha, harbored the Shmrn (Samaria) of the
Old Testament, as it fits perfectly well with the geography of the tribes of Dan and Gad, whose
domains were in the northernmost fringes of the Biblical Kingdom.

It is also worth noting that in the mid 1980‟s, the Saudi government ordered the buldozing of
vast regions of the „Aseer province, thus burying many ruins and vestiges underneath tons of
rock. This fact has been confirmed by several Arab and European scholars who have visited the
region on more than one occasion in the past century, among them Professor Bernard Leeman,
Biblical historian and archeologist, and author of Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship,
who dedicated many years of his life to studying the ancient Ge‟ez religious texts of Ethiopia.

In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began
to reign over Israel in Samaria, and he reigned twenty years (2nd Kings - 17:1)

Sorrow to those who are resting in comfort in Zion, and to those who have no fear
of danger in the mountain of Samaria, the noted men of the chief of the nations, to
whom the people of Israel come! (Amos 6:1)

In our previous book, we established the location of Mount Zion in the vicinity of Ṣan„ā‟. The
actual name of this mountain is Ṣayon (Aramaic) and Ṣayūn – Ṣahyūn (Arabic), and we have
seen references to it in both poetry and prose, linking it to the Jewish Ḥimyarite war on the
Christian community of Najrān (see Israel and Sheba, pages 37 – 41). Furthermore, there are
many people living in Lebanon and Syria, who bear the family name Ṣahyūn )ٕٞ٤ٜٕ(. And if we
ask these people to research their family trees and tell us where their ancestors came from, you
can bet your bottom dollar that they will point to Yemen as their primeval homeland.

Here follows is a passage from Arabic Wikipedia regarding the tribe of Shamrān and its origins:

٢‫خ رٌَٖ ك‬٤‫ رؼزجو ٖٓ هجبئَ اُؼوث‬،‫ب‬ُٜ ٍ‫بكخ الّ اَُ٘ت آ‬ٙ‫ ثؼل ا‬٢ٗ‫ب ّٔوا‬ٛ‫ٓلوك‬ٝ ٖ٣‫ب ّٔبه‬ٜ‫ عٔؼ‬،ٕ‫ِخ ّٔوا‬٤‫ هج‬ٝ‫ؽّشاْ أ‬
٢ٗ‫ٍ اُضب‬ٞ‫اُو‬ٝ ‫خ‬٤‫ب ٓنؽغ‬ٜٗ‫ٍ أ‬ٝ‫ٍ األ‬ٞ‫ اُو‬.ٖ٤ُٞ‫ ه‬٠ُ‫ َٗت ّٔوإ ا‬٢‫ٖ ك‬٣‫ٖ أُؼبٕو‬٤‫ افزِق أُئهف‬.ٌُّٓ‫ ؽّبي ا‬،‫ٓ٘طوخ عغُش‬
ْ‫ل ثٖ وهال‬٣‫ت ثٖ ى‬٣‫ ثٖ ػو‬ٝ‫ل ثٖ ػٔو‬٣‫ل ثٖ ؽوة ثٖ ػِخ ثٖ عِل ثٖ ٓنؽظ (ٓبُي) ثٖ أكك ثٖ ى‬٣‫ي‬٣ ٖ‫ؽّشاْ ث‬...‫خ‬٣‫ب أىك‬ٜٗ‫أ‬
.ْ‫ْغت ثٓ َعشة ثٓ لؾطب‬٣ ٖ‫ثٓ عجؤ ث‬

90
 Photo #22: Mount Samārah (Ibb Province – Yemen)

Photo #23: Mount Shameer (Ta‘iz Province – Yemen)

Paraphrase: The tribe of Shamrān (plur: Shammāreen / sing: Shamrāni)...is one of the
tribes residing historically in the „Aseer Province, north of Yemen. Contemporary
historians are in disagreement regarding the origins of the tribe. Some state that they are
from the Midhḥaj lineage, while others say their roots go back to Azad. The first opinion
traces the ancestral lineage of Shamrān to Kahlān bin Saba‟ bin Ya„rub, bin Qaḥṭan.

91
 Photo #24: Heavy storm rain on the Shamrān Road leading to Abha )‘Aseer(

Photo #25: Signpost – “Welcome to Shamrān”

The following map pinpoints the location of Shamrān (the Biblical Samaria), with respect to
other important sites in Southern „Aseer, including some of those who were part of the homes of
Dan, Gad, and Bani Yashkar:

Map #10: Judah and Samaria

92
 CHAPTER III

Wars and Correspondences

93
Before we expose to you the fraudulent manipulation of the Biblical passages describing the
Babylonian attack on Judea, it would be beneficial to briefly describe the geo-political
circumstances surrounding Nebuchadnezzar‟s cataclysmic campaign.

The residents of Arabia who were a thorn in the side of the Mesopotamian monarchs consisted of
a mixture of sedentary, nomadic, and semi-nomadic tribes, whose territories stretched from as far
north as the Ḥijāz and Nejd regions, to as far south as Sheba. Of this fact there can no longer be
any doubt. Foremost among those tribes who played a role in motivating the general population
against the Assyrians / Babylonians were those residing in what was known as Ancient Judea
(Mikhlāf Yahūdha), a name that was, to the old Arab narrators, synonymous with Sarāt Ḥimyar
(the mountains of Yemen, especially around Ṣan„ā‟).

The religious clergy from among the tribesmen of Judea, save for a rare few, perpetrated
a massive political miscalculation, when they viewed the sudden death of King Nabopolassar,
who had caused them great anguish, as an opportunity to renew their allegiance with Egypt.
Among those few prophets and priests who warned against such a foolish strategy was Jeremiah.
This was during a time when Judea (the southern kingdom) was the sole remaining power and
representative of the once strong, united domain, since Sargon II‟s destruction of Israel (the
northern kingdom), around 720 BC.

Starting from the year 640 BC, some sixty years after the destruction of Israel, the Judeans began
receiving signals from Egypt that the kings of the Nile Valley were ready to help them stave off
the Assyrian threat. These political developments were in no doubt due to the vast wealth of the
region, which far surpassed that of Palestine. Of particular interest to the Egyptians were myrrh
and frankincense, two substances which the so-called “Pharaohs” were willing to spend vast
fortunes to obtain, and to concentrate all efforts towards diverting the ancient caravan routes.

The clergy of Judea could not grasp the implications of the developments surrounding their small
kingdom, leading up to Nebuchadnezzar‟s ascension to power in Babylon. Jeremiah, in his
vision, saw the event as more than merely an ordinary succession to the throne. He knew that
something big was coming, and sent grave tidings to his peers, warning them of the foolishness
and futility of defying the Babylonian monarch‟s will. Despite the warnings, the Judeans
continued to incite rebellion against Mesopotamia, enticing their sedentary neighbors along the
coast, the Bani Muḍar, as well as the nomads roaming the interior deserts to join in the
insurgence. After the Egyptians were defeated by the Babylonians at the battle of Kar-Kemish,
their control over the Arabian Red Sea coast, which had begun since the era of Rehoboam, was
effectively ended. It was then that Nebuchadnezzar decided to turn his attention against the
troublesome Judea, the serpent‟s head, and put an end to its threat once and for all. Two points
are worth noting in this regard:

94
First: During the time when Nebuchadnezzar‟s campaign was supposed to have taken place, the
entire Levant (Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and parts of Jordan) was already under the full control
of the Babylonians. There is not a single indication that the residents of the peaceful, quiet, and
pastoral area known as Palestine rebelled against Babylonian rule. On the contrary, all the
evidence points to the Red Sea coast and the highlands of the Ḥijāz, Nejd and Yemen, with their
fiercely independent, uncooperative tribes harboring a revolutionary culture, and their
mountainous terrain ideal for military concealment and ambushing strategies, as the true source
of the threat to Mesopotamian hegemony.

Second: History has borne witness to various monarchs of Mesopotamia and Persia seeking to
establish control over the regions surrounding the city of Najrān, as a threshold to gaining access
to the Red Sea coast. Even in our modern age, the researcher can find evidence that the
successive governments of Iraq, from 1914 until 1958 (when the country was under British
mandate), never seized to discuss plans of expansion involving the Arabian Peninsula, which
they considered as a natural extension of their country.

Further back in history, we find evidence of the monarchs of al-Ḥeerah, a kingdom established
by the ancient tribe of Lakhm (whose ancestors had migrated from Yemen), launching several
campaigns against Najrān and the Yemeni highlands, hoping to create a buffer zone for Iraq‟s
southern borders, and impose their surveillance of the trade routes, over both land and sea.

Similarly, the campaign launched by Umru‟s al-Qays, prince of Kindah, against Najrān, around
320 AD, was more than merely an attempt at retaliation against its king, Shamr Yahar„ash. It
represented a continuous trend in the politics of the region, and a centuries-long obsession of
many rulers of Arabia and Mesopotamia: the dream of expansion to the Red Sea coast.

It can therefore be surmised that Nebuchadnezzar‟s disciplinary campaign against the nomadic
and sedentary residents of the Arabian deserts and highlands – and not against an imaginary
Palestinian theater – was the continuation of a trend begun by his ancestors Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon and Sargon II, to name a few.

Even the Persians, who succeeded the Babylonians in the region, invaded parts of Arabia at one
stage, and made it a point to control Yemen and Oman, due to the two countries‟ strategic
positions along the entrances of continental waterways. The map below shows the extent that the
Neo Persian Empire (the Sassanid Dynasty) reached under Khosrau II.

Therefore, the claim made by some modern-day historians that the Assyrians and Babylonians
could not possibly have reached as far south as Yemen has no basis whatsoever. This allegation
contradicts some evident historical and geo-political facts regarding the exploits and ambitions of
other monarchs and rulers of Mesopotamia throughout the ages.

95
Map #11: Persian (Sassanid) Empire at its peak. Is it so far-fetched to think that the Assyrians marched on Yemen?
.

 Sennacherib‟s Warning Letters

The Old Testament Book of Kings contains several samples of correspondences exchanged
between the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib and Hezekiah, King of Judah. These letters have
always puzzled Biblical scholars, as the details found therein do not leave any impression that
the Assyrian campaigns were directed at the Palestinian territory. In the year 701 BC,
Sennacherib‟s armies advanced towards Judah, in a minor excursion aimed at curbing the
rebellious tendencies of the region‟s tribes. Hezekiah sent a letter to the Assyrian monarch,
whose army was camped at Lakish, on the coast, asking Sennacherib to spare Ur-Salem from
destruction, in exchange for a tribute. Here follows is the relevant passage:

And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to Lakish, to the king of Assyria, saying, I have
done wrong; give up attacking me, and whatever you put on me I will undergo.
And the payment he was to make was fixed by the king of Assyria at three
hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold (2nd Kings 18:14)

The tribute was extravagant, and Hezekiah had to pry gold from the doors and walls of the
Temple, to make good on his promise. Sennacherib then dispatched his armed emissaries from
Lakish, inland to the mountainous Ur-Salem, to collect the ransom. In his reply, Sennacherib
warned Hezekiah not to defy the Assyrian monarch‟s will, and expressed his dismay towards the
king of Judah, who sought to build bridges with the Miṣrim, and their so-called “Pharaoh” (and
the Egyptians who were behind them, naturally). Sennacherib admonished Hezekiah in a stern
tone for seeking such measures, and warned him of the futility of relying on his neighbours who
controlled the coast, or of trusting in his god to protect him.

96
Do not listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying: the Lord will deliver us.
Has any one of the gods of the nations kept his land from falling into the hands of
the king of Assyria? Where is the god of Emath, and of Arphad? Where is the god
of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and of Ava? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?
(2nd Kings 18: 32-34)

When Hezekiah listened to the messengers relaying Sennacherib‟s letter, he tore his clothes to
shreds and sent the emissaries away, without a reply to the Assyrian king. When the messengers
returned to Lakish, they heard news that Sennacherib had already departed and moved inland,
laying waste to several locations on his path towards Ur-Salem.

And Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah;
for he had heard that he had departed from Lakish. And he heard say of Tirhakah
king of (Ethiopia?): “Behold, he has come forth to make war with thee”. And he
sent messengers again to Hezekiah, saying: “This is what you are to say to
Hezekiah, king of Judah: „Let not your god, in whom is your faith, give you false
hope, saying, Jerusalem will not be given into the hands of the king of Assyria. No
doubt the story has come to your ears of what the kings of Assyria have done to
all lands, putting them to the curse; and will you be kept safe? Have the gods of
the nations delivered them, which my fathers have destroyed, Gozan, and Haran,
and Rezeph, and the children of Adin that were in Telassar?‟” (2nd Kings 19: 8–12).

The correspondences, which have been validated by archeological records unearthed in Iraq,
feature the names of several places targeted by the Assyrian advance. Not a single one of these
names has been positively linked to a location within Palestine. Below is a list of places that we
have not previously discussed, followed by an analysis of their actual locations in Yemen:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

109 ‫לבנה‬ Lbnh Libnah ٠٘‫ُج‬ Labna

110 ‫חמת‬ Ḥmh Hamath ‫ؽ ّٔخ‬ Ḥammah
111 ‫ארפד‬ Arfd Arphad ‫ل‬٤‫اُوك‬ al-Rafeed
112 ‫רצף‬ Rṣph Rezeph ‫هٕبكخ‬ Raṣāfah
113 ‫גוזן‬ Gozn Gozan ‫ى‬ٞ‫ع‬ Jawz
114 ‫הנע‬ Hn„ Hena ‫٘بػخ‬٣ Yanā„ah
115 ‫תלא‬ Tlā ‫صال‬ Thalā
Telasser
116 ‫שר‬ Sr ‫اَُ ّو‬ al-Sarr
117 ‫ספרוים‬ Ṣfr‟im Sepharvaim ‫األٕلو‬ al-Aṣfar

109) Libnah

In Road of the Patriarch (page 85), we located Lakish in the coastal region west of Najran. It
appears that the Assyrians used this spot as a ralying point for their army, thus avoiding the
treacherous mountain pathways and nesting grounds for ambushing clans. From there,

97
Sennacherib made his way towards Libnah, a famous mountain which features several times in
the Old Testament. The old Arabian poets also sang of Labna )٠٘‫ (ُج‬on more than one occasion,
leading modern academics to erronuously assume that the name refered to a woman. The same
can be said regarding the mountain known as Salmah (٠ٍِٔ). Furthermore, there is no Ethiopia
anywhere along the path of Sennacherib‟s march. In the original text, the name that was
mistranslated is Cush – Kush, which we have already shown corresponds to the South Arabian
nation of Kūth )‫س‬ًٞ(, whose territories lay to the south of Judah.

Here follows is a verse from Zayd al-Khayl, describing the heights of Labna )٠٘‫(ُج‬.

ِ ‫ ًُ ّٖ ُ٘ب ًَٔززو اُؾغب‬ٝ

‫ة‬ ًٕ‫كِ ّٔب ثلد أػالّ ٌج‬

110, 111) Ḥammah and Rafeed

On page 230 of his Description of Arabia, al-Hamadāni mentions Ḥammah )‫ (ؽ ّٔخ‬in the same
context as al-Rafeed )‫ل‬٤‫(اُوك‬, a territory encompassing many ancient fortifications. Both locations
are near Jarash )ُ‫(عو‬. This is of course not the Jarash of Jordan, but the older Jarash whose ruins
are located in the vicinity of Najrān.

‫ب اٌشفُذ ثِل‬ٜٗ‫ب‬ٛٝ‫ ٖٓ اُ٘غل أ‬ٝ...‫ْخ‬٤‫ فغشػ هأً ث‬،ٕ‫ رٖتّ ثؼطب‬٠‫به ػ٘ي ؽز‬٣‫خ ك‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫َ أ‬٤َُٔ‫نا ا‬ٜ‫ ث‬٢‫ِزو‬٣ ْ‫ ص‬.‫ُخ‬ًٞ ٝ ،‫ؽ ّّخ‬
.ٕٖٞ‫ؽ‬

This means that Sennacherib was reminding Hezekiah of the fate of several townships nestled in
valleys, most of which were in the lands north of Ur-Salem, including Samariah (Shemeron),
which we located previously within „Aseer. This geography has no relation to the city of Ḥamah
in Syria, which the Orientalists forced onto the theater of the events.

112) Raṣāf

Regarding the mysterious name Raṣāf )‫(هٕبف‬, of which no trace was ever found in Palestine,
al-Bakri states the following in his Mu‘jam (2:294):

.‫ ثٌو‬ٞ‫ أث‬ٙ‫غ مًو‬ٙٞٓ – ُّٚٝ ّ‫ ثٌَو أ‬:‫اٌشصبف‬

ِّ

According to Bakri, the name is rendered as Riṣāf, and refers to a location mentioned by Abu
Bakr, the alledged “companion” of Muḥammad (P). However, he does not specify its location.
We are therefore obliged to sift through the cultural and geographic resources of South Arabia
that we have at our disposal to locate it. The only possible location for Rṣf would be the valley
known as Raṣāfah (with the feminine suffix we will discuss later), in the Balassmar territory of

98
the Jeezān Province. Kamāl Ṣaleebi correctly identified it there on page 166 of his pioneering
book, The Bible Came from Arabia.

113) Gozn

According to al-Hamadāni, Jabal al-Jawz )‫ى‬ٞ‫ (اُغ‬is among the mountain ranges of the Sarāt
overlooking Najrān, along with Lebynan )ٕ‫٘ب‬٤‫(ُج‬, which is technically the dual form of Lebna. The
–n letter at the end of the name Goz is a superfluous suffix that is the hallmark of South Arabian
dialects, and many linguists believe it served as an extinct pronoun form (hence, Jawzn = al-
Jawz). Here follows is the passage (DoA, page 283):

ّ ّ ٠ٚ‫ اٗو‬.ْ‫ ٌجُٕب‬ٝ ،ّ‫ب‬٣ َ‫ هبث‬ٝ ...‫ اٌغىص‬ٝ ٕ‫ًب‬ّٞ ْ‫كؤٍواه ٔغشا‬
.ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ ‫ن‬

114) Hena

We are now directly north of Ṣan„ā‟, along the path of destruction that Sennacherib‟s fathers had
wrought. The actual “Hebrew” name is Hnā„ (with the ‘ayn letter) which can be rendered
correctly in no less than three ways, in Arabic: al- Nā„ )‫(اُ٘بع‬, Yanā„ )‫٘بع‬٣( or Yanā„ah )‫٘بػخ‬٣(.

Al-Hamadāni places Yanā„ah in the Hamadān )ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ( region, north-west of the capital, in the
vicinity of Rafaḥ )‫ (هكؼ‬and Ḥaifah )‫لخ‬٤‫(ؽ‬. Here is the passage (DoA, pages 158, 159):

١‫ م‬ٝ ‫ ٓضَ َٕبعخ‬،ْ‫و هّذا‬ٛ‫خ ٖٓ ظب‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٚ‫ ث‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤ُٖ‫ ثِل ا‬ٝ...‫ اٌؾُفخ‬ٝ ‫ ُُـبثخ‬ٝ ٖ٤‫جّبػ‬ٙ ٝ...ٙ‫ٕ ػٖ آفو‬ٞ‫ اُج‬ٝ ‫لح‬٤٘ٛ ٝ ‫ هٕذ‬ٝ
.ٖ٤‫ث‬

Incidentally, note the mention of a valley called Hind )‫٘ل‬ٛ(, which features dozens of times in
classical Arabian poetry, and has always been misinterpreted as the name of a maiden with
whom several poets fell in love. Also, the Balad Ṣayd )‫ل‬٤ٕ ‫ (ثِل‬here should not be confused with
Jabal Ṣayd - Ṣaydn (the Biblical Sidon), which lies near the coast of Bani Majeed.

115, 116) Tela and Sar

The name Telasser, which features in the corrupt translations, merits some scrutiny. It appears
that the Biblical commentators mistook this place as a town in Mesopotamia, to which
Sennacherib‟s ancestors laid waste. This begs a question: why would the Assyrian monarch
make of some location in his own home territory an example to Hezekiah? There is no place
called Telasser anywhere in Palestine, the Jordan, or Syria. And this fact is known very well to
the commentators. Let us see what rampant opinion says regarding this name:

According to those two scriptures, Tel-assar was a place inhabited by “the people of Eden”
and is mentioned along with Gozan and Haran, which are in northern Mesopotamia, and

99
Rezeph, the exact location of which is not known, several places having had this name. One
such site, thought by some to have been part of an ancient district, is identified with
modern Rusa‟feh, located West of the Euphrates about 145 km (90 mi) South of modern
Haran(1).

As we can see, they projected the names of the locations featuring in Sennacherib‟s warning
letters onto Mesopotamia, without pausing even for a second to consider the absurdity of their
interpretation. The very same passage in which Gozen, Rezaph, and the so-called “Telesser”
appear (2nd Kings 19: 8-12) states that Sennacherib left Lakish and headed towards Libnah, both
of which were projected onto the imaginary kingdom of Israel, in Palestine. Thus, the insanity of
their claim is that the Assyrian monarch marched upon Lakish and Lebnah, putting the latter to
the sword, sent warning to Ethiopia, while reminding Hezekiah of the fate of two cities in
Mesopotamia? This is comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte issuing a warning to Britain and
Russia, telling both countries to reflect upon his conquering of Morocco. And we are to digest
this garbage as true “historic” events, for no better reason than the presence of “Haran” and the
“Children of Eden” in the text?

What proof do they have that the silent name Ḥrn (‫(חרן‬, which features in the Aramaic scripture,
designates Ḥarrān )ٕ‫ (ؽوا‬on the Syrian-Turkish border? We have already shown you where Wādi
Ḥūrān )ٕ‫ها‬ٞ‫ (ؽ‬lay in Yemen. Another candidate is Ḥeerān )ٕ‫وا‬٤‫(ؽ‬, mentioned by al-Hamadāni
(DoA: pages 128, 129) as being near the homes of the Bani „Ameer )‫و‬٤ٓ‫ (أ‬clans, whose name
happens to feature in Ezra‟s list of the clans returning from Babylon, as we will see in the next
chapter.

.‫ كبُول‬،‫ أُِش‬ٝ ‫ اُؾغبثبد‬ٝ...ْ‫ ثِل ؽُشا‬ٝ ٕ‫ كٔ٘وَ ٍلوا‬،ٖ٤٣‫كجِل اُْبًو‬

Therefore, making the leap to Mesopotamia, and claiming that Sennacherib was listing towns in
ancient Iraq as examples to Hezekiah, is an unacceptable and completely fraudulent rendering of
the text. The Assyrian monarch was listing places on the road from Najrān to Ṣan„ā‟, not
Assyria. Furthermore, and on a side note, the so-called “Garden of Eden”, the earthly paradise
where Adam was “created”, was nowhere near Mesopotamia.

The actual name in question pertains to two separate places, listed in the original, Aramaic text,
without commas between them: Thulā )‫ (صُال‬and Sar )‫(ٍو‬. They were merged together by the
Masoretic redactors into the alien, compound name of Telasser – Telasher, which has no relation
to the context of the letter, and adds another level of oddness and corruption to the Biblical text.

Here follows is a description by al-Hamadāni (DoA: pages 212 - 214), who places both these
towns within the same geographical space. The first (Thulā) is to the west of Ṣan„ā‟, while the
second lies to the east thereof:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telassar

100
،‫خ‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫األ‬...‫ب‬ٜ٤‫ ّوه‬٠ُ‫ هعؼ٘ب ا‬ٝ ‫ ٓـوة ٕ٘ؼبء‬٠ٚ‫اٗو‬...ٕ‫ٔلا‬ُٜ ٕ‫ هبه‬ٝ ِِْٔ‫ ؽ‬ٝ ،ٕ‫ٔلا‬ُٜ ‫ ٗغو‬ٝ ،ْ‫ٖ ٖٓ هّذا‬٤٤ٗ‫خ ُِٔوّا‬٣‫ هو‬ٝ ٖٖ‫ صُال ؽ‬ٝ
.‫ ثشعبَ ٖٓ اٌغ ّش‬ٝ ‫ب ٖٓ عجبٍ ٓواك‬ٜ٤‫ ك‬ٝ ،‫ثبه‬٥‫ ا‬ٝ ٕٞ٤‫ اُؼ‬ٚ٤‫ ك‬ٝ ،‫ّخ‬٣ٝ‫ ٍ ّو اثٖ اُو‬،‫ اٌغ ّش‬١‫اك‬ٝ :‫ب‬ُٜ‫ٖٓ ّٔب‬

According to the passage, Thalā is a fortified town west of Ṣan„ā‟ )‫(ٓـوة ٕ٘ؼبء‬, in the Hamadān
)ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ( country, while al-Sarr )‫ (اَُو‬is to the east of the capital )‫ب‬ٜ٤‫(ّوه‬. It is a valley
encompassing several wells, and runs along the slopes of the Birjām Mountain )ّ‫(ثوعب‬.

117) Sepharvaim

This name features in the rampant English translations as a corruption of the “Hebrew” Ṣfr’m
(with the silent letters), which is rendered as Ṣafra’im, being either the dual or plural form of Ṣfr.
This type of name most often designates several neighbouring locations, each bearing the name
Ṣfr, which would be equivalent to ‫ ٕلو‬in Arabic. The only remaining vestige of such a place is
a river valley known as al-Ṣafrā )‫(اُٖلوا‬, which, according to DoA (page 145), lies near the very
famous Damt Bath* )‫(ؽٔبّ كٓذ‬, south of Ṣan„ā‟.

‫و‬ٛ‫ ظب‬ٝ ‫خ كٓذ‬٣‫خ ٖٓ هو‬٤‫ر‬٥‫ِخ ٓؼجوح ا‬٣‫ب ٍب‬ٜ٤ُ‫ْ ا‬ٚ٘٣ ْ‫ ص‬...ٖ٤‫و‬ٛ‫ٖ ّب‬٤‫و‬٤ٚٓ ٢‫ب ك‬ًِٜ ٍ‫ ر٘ي‬ٝ ،‫ ؽّبَ دِذ‬ٝ ‫ل‬٣‫ صو‬٢‫َ ث٘ب ك‬٤َ‫ ث‬٢‫ رِزو‬ٝ
.‫ اٌصفشا‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٝ...‫خ‬٤ّ‫ب‬٣‫اُو‬

As can be seen from the above geography, Sennacherib‟s campaigns against Judea were nowhere
near Palestine. And the Ur-Salem of the Old Testament was located in what is referred to today
as the Ṣan„ā‟ Precinct of Yemen.

 Nebuchadnezzar‟s War in the Sarāt

Regarding the battles that this brutal Babylonian king fought within the territories of Judea, we
will analyze a randomly selected passage from the Bible, which will expose the glaring mistakes
– intentional and otherwise – that the redactors perpetrated in their translations of the Aramaic
scripture.

In the second Book of Kings, we encounter the following passage describing events which took
place as a result of Nebuchadnezzar‟s siege of Ur-Salem, during the reign of King Zedekiah:

So an opening was made in the city wall, and all the men of war fled by night
through the doorway between the two walls which was by the king‟s garden (now
the Chaldeans were against the city round about); and the king went by the way of
the Arabah. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook
him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him (2nd Kings –
25: 4,5)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10449204

101
The above traditional interpretation of the passage is completely false and unacceptable, as it
describes events that never took place, and names locations that do not exist anywhere in the
original scripture. Furthermore, nowehere in the Aramaic text does the term Chaldeans appear.

Here follows is the correct rendering of the passage:

So an opening was made in the city wall, and all the warriors fled by night by way
of Sha„r, Bayn, and Ḥamtim which was at the peak of Gn (by then the Kasdim were
positioned over Ṣabb); and the king fled by way of the „Arbah. But the army of the
Kasdim pursued the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho; and all his
army was scattered from him (2nd Kings – 25: 4,5)

When Zedekiah fled Ur-Salem, his army collapsed around him, and became scattered throughout
a mountainous countryside that does not even remotely resemble the terrain of Palestine. The
passage in Kings describes to us the divergent routes that the fleeing Israelites took, heading out
of Ur-Salem, before the regiment which contained their king was captured at Beth „Arbah by
mercenaries within the Babylonian army who knew the countryside very well.

One of the routes taken by Zedekiah‟s force passed along the slopes of a famous mountain called
Sha„r )‫(ّؼو‬. Another route passed through a place called Bayn )ٖ٤‫(ث‬, while a third took the
besieged men through Ḥamtim (the plural form of Ḥamah). Due to their complete ignorance in
the Biblical geography, plus the fact that the original scripture did not contain any punctuation
marks, the redactors merged sentences together and failed in their attempt to interpret certain
terms which, upon close scrutiny, do not seem to fit the context of the passage. As such, they
ended up mistaking proper nouns (names of actual places) for common words.

For instance, the phrase ‫דרך שער בין החמתים אשר על־גן‬, (transliteration: drk Sh‘r Byn h-Chmthym
ashr ‘yl-Gn), does not say: “through the doorway between the two walls which was by the king‟s
garden”. The underlined terms in the “Hebrew” text (read from right to left) are, respectively:
Sh„r, Byn, Chmthym, and Gn. These are not simly random common nouns that can be played
around with according to the fantasies of the translators. These are proper nouns of actual places,
none of which can be found in Palestine.

Furthermore, the phrase vKshdym ‘yl -h‘yur sbyb does not translate as: “...and the Chaldeans
were stationed all around the city”, or “...and the Chaldeans were against the city round about”.
What it actually says is the following: “The Kasdim were stationed over Sbyb”. The two names
in question appear, respectively, as follows in the silent “Hebrew”: ‫ כשדם‬and ‫סבב‬.

In Book 2, we exposed the fraudulent translations which ended up rendering Kasdim as

Chaledon (see Road of the Patriarch, pages 40 – 42), with regard to the birthplace of Abraham.
The fact of the matter is that there were no Chaldeans in Nebuchadnezzar‟s army. The Biblical

102
passage is telling us that the Kasdim were allied to / mercenaries of the Babylonians (not the
Chaldeans). We have already identified the Bani Kasād / al-Kasdiyeen )ٖ٤٣‫ (ًَبك – ًَل‬as an
ancient Yemeni clan, and we will encounter them again hereafter. As for the term Sbb, rendered
as sbyb by the Masorites, it is none other than the valley known as al-Ḍabāb (‫جبة‬ُٚ‫)ا‬, over which
the Kasdim had set up an observation post to monitor the movements of Zedekiah‟s guard, as the
latter attempted to flee from the besieged city. Eventually, Zedekiah was captured by the Kasdim
and taken to Nebuchednezzar. The Babylonian monarch forced the Israelite king to witness the
execution of his two rebellious sons, before having his eyes gouged out.

Here follows is a dense and very detailed passage from al-Hamadāni‟s Description of Arabia
(pages 138 – 142) wherein he describes a series of valleys and fortified peaks within a geography
about which the Biblical commentators were completely clueless. The passage is spread over
three pages due the extremely long and intricate footnotes by the commentator:

ْ‫ص‬...‫بٕ اٌىالع أهٗ اُولبػخ‬ٛٝ‫جخ ٖٓ أ‬٣‫غ اُ ُغ َو‬٤ٔ‫ ع‬ٝ ٚ٤ٓ‫ ّآ‬ٝ ‫ مفو‬٢‫ ّوه‬ٝ ‫َ ثوكاك‬ٛ‫ ٖٓ ٓ٘ب‬ٝ ،‫ اُووػبء‬٠ُ‫ اٌضجبة ا‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٝ
‫ة‬ٞ٘‫ ٖٓ ع‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ًَ ٝ...‫و‬ٚ‫غ اُق‬٤ٔ‫ ع‬ٝ ‫ اُ ِؾّ٘بء‬ٝ ‫به‬ُٚٔ ُ‫ ا‬ٝ ‫ى‬ُٞٔ‫ ا‬ٚ٤‫ ٗقِخ ك‬١‫اك‬ٝ ... ‫ ٖٓ هزبة ثِل اٌىالع‬ٚ‫ ٖٓبث‬ٝ ،‫ ٔخٍخ‬١‫اك‬ٝ
‫ اٌؾّعش ٖٓ ثِل‬ٝ ٕ‫ٔب‬٣‫ ه‬ٝ ...ٙ‫ هل مًوٗب‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤‫ ىث‬١‫اك‬ٝ ْ‫ص‬...ٍ‫ ٗيا‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٝ ‫ ػُنام‬ٝ ُُّ‫ ؽ‬ٝ ‫ب عجَ دِذ‬ُٜ‫ ٖٓ ّٔب‬ٝ ،‫ ٗقِخ‬١‫اك‬ٝ
.‫م اُغئح‬ٍٞ ٝ ‫ وادٌ اٌغّٕبد‬٠ِٖ٣ ‫ب ٓٔب‬ٜ٤ُ‫ ٖٓ ّٔب‬٢ٛ ‫ ًنُي‬ٝ...ِٖٞ ّ ُ‫خ ٖٓ عجَ ا‬٤٘‫ اُوِؼخ ص‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٝ ،‫ب َٓغل عبٓغ‬ٜ٤‫ك‬...‫اٌىالع‬

The entire passage we read above describes a single geographic space within the Kilā„ )‫(ًالع‬
territories, south and south-west of Ṣan„ā‟, with river valleys diverging in many directions,
before ultimately emptying either in southern Tihāmah, or the Bani Majeed coast near „Aden.
Among these valleys is Wādi Nakhlah )‫(ٗقِخ‬, which features in Islamic folklore as a place that
once harbored the Ka„bah of al-Lāt (a tree which the pagans used to decorate, then dance naked
around). According to the traditions, Muḥammad dispatched his war general Khālid Ibn al-
Waleed to baṭn Nakhlah )‫(ثطٖ ٗقِخ‬, and ordered him to burn the tree.

What is most striking is that the passage mentions al-Ḍabāb )‫جبة‬ُٚ‫(ا‬, Ḥameem )ْ٤ٔ‫ – (ؽ‬the plural
form of Ḥamah, Sha„r )‫(اُْؼو‬, and a valley known as al-Jannāt )‫(اُغ٘بد‬, all within the same
geographical space. The Book of Kings tells us that Zedekiah )‫ب‬٤‫ (ٕله‬and his men fled along
different routes, taking them through Sha„r, Sbb, Ḥamtim, and Gn, before the Kasdim caught up
to him in „Arbah )‫)ערבה‬. This last location is none other than Wādi al-„Arab )‫ اُؼوة‬١‫اك‬ٝ(, which
the Orientalists imagined as the „Arabah of southern Jordan, on the Gulf of „Aqabah.

Here is what al-Hamadāni tells us (DoA, page 133) regarding Wādi al-„Arab, which runs south-
west of Ṣan„ā‟ )‫(ٕ٘ؼبء‬, along Ḥaḍur )‫ه‬ٞٚ‫(ؽ‬, and the Raymah border, before emptying near Zabid
)‫ل‬٤‫(ىث‬:

ٖٔ٣‫ األ‬ٚ‫ عبٗج‬٢‫ن ك‬٣‫و‬ٜ٣ ٝ .‫ب‬ٜ‫ ٓـوث‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ث‬ٞ٘‫ٖ ع‬٤‫ ٓب ث‬٠ُ‫ ا‬،ّٞ٣ ٘‫ ثؼ‬٠ِ‫ك ٖٓ صٕعبء ػ‬َُٞ‫َ ا‬٤‫ ٗو‬ٍٚ‫ هأ‬ٝ ،ّ‫ب‬ٍٜ ١‫اك‬ٝ ِٙٞ‫ز‬٣ ْ‫ص‬
.‫ل‬٤‫ ُىث‬ٝ ‫ٖ ًلهاء‬٤‫ن وادٌ اٌعشة ٓب ث‬٣‫و‬ٜ٤‫ اُجؾو ك‬٠ُ‫ ا‬،‫ مُي اُّٖوغ‬٢‫َو‬٤‫اهو ك‬ٝ ٝ ‫و ثبٌُلهاء‬ٜ‫ظ‬٣ ٝ ... ‫ َؽضىس‬٢‫ث‬ٞ٘‫ع‬

103
This „Arbah is the same place which the Old Testament designates elsewhere as Beth h-‘Arbh;
a name that corresponds to Bayt (Wādi) al-‘Arab.

What about the term bayn )‫(בין‬, which the redactors imagined as meaning “between”? We simply
need to look in the same geographical space, near the Yemeni capital, in order to locate it. Al-
Hamadāni refers to it as Dhi-Bayn )ٖ٤‫ ث‬١‫(م‬, using the famous South Arabian article dhi / dhu
often encountered in names of places as well as historical figures. He mentions the places within
the same context as al-Ḥaifah )‫لخ‬٤‫(اُؾ‬, Ḍabbā„een )ٖ٤‫جّبػ‬ٙ( – possibly the Biblical Zbo„im
(Zeboim), and Yanā„ah )‫٘بػخ‬٣(, which we previously encountered in Sennacherib‟s march. Here is
the passage:

ٌ‫ ر‬ٝ ‫ ٓضَ َٕبعخ‬،ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ ‫و‬ٛ‫خ ٖٓ ظب‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٚ‫ ث‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤ُٖ‫ ثِل ا‬ٝ...‫ اٌؾُفخ‬ٝ ‫ ُُـبثخ‬ٝ ُٓ‫ ضجّبع‬ٝ...ٙ‫ٕ ػٖ آفو‬ٞ‫ اُج‬ٝ ‫لح‬٤٘ٛ ٝ ‫٘ل‬ٛ ٝ
.ُٓ‫ث‬

Another geographer, al-Bakri, also mentions the place simply as Bayan, in his Glossary (page
298), placing it in the Yemen )ٖٔ٤ُ‫(ا‬:

Here is another passage by al-Hamadāni, placing Sayl al-Kasād )‫َ اٌَُبك‬٤ٍ(, Yanā„ah )‫٘بػخ‬٣( and
Dhi Bayn )ٖ٤‫ ث‬١‫ (م‬all in the same context (DoA, page 159):

،‫ه‬ٝ‫ه‬
َ َٝ ٠ُ‫ ا‬ٙ‫ب‬٤ُٔ‫ ا‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٌٕٞ٤‫ ك‬،‫ل‬٤ُٖ‫و ا‬ٛ‫ٔب ٖٓ ظب‬ٜ٤‫َو‬٣ ‫ ٓب‬ٝ ،ُٓ‫ رٌ ث‬ٝ ‫ ٓضَ َٕبعخ‬،ْ‫و هّذا‬ٛ‫خ ٖٓ ظب‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٚ‫ ث‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤ُٖ‫ ثِل ا‬ٝ
.‫ اٌىغبد‬ٝ ً‫َ اٌعم‬٤ٍ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ِوب‬٣ ٝ

What the passage is telling us is that the valleys of Yanā„ah and Bayn (in Hamadān) are joined
by two rivers: al-„Aql )َ‫ (اُؼو‬and Kasād, which flow into the region from elsewhere. This second
river gave its name to the Kasdim (al-Kasdiyyeen), ancient clans who lived along its banks. As
for the actual location of Ur-Kasdim (the birthplace of Abraham, according to the Biblical text),
al-Hamadāni (page 218) places it, along with „Aql, in the central Jawf area of Yemen, a territory
that became mostly desertlike (except for a few areas near its western borders) millennia ago.
This makes perfect sense with the account the Qur‟ān gives us regarding Ibraheem and Lut
migrating towards a greener, more fertile area, in the Sarāt Mountains, where the Sanctuary (al-
Bayt) was located.

There is no mention of “warriors fleeing through an opening between two walls in the garden of
the king” anywhere in the Biblical text. The redactors simply had no grasp of the geography they
were dealing with, which gave us a panoramic picture of the countryside through which

104
Zedekiah and his men fled, after the wall of Ur-Salem was breached as a result of the Babylonian
siege. The passage is not describing a dash across the king‟s front lawn. Furthermore, the
rendering of Kasdim as Kaledon is false and unacceptable from a purely linguistic perspective.

Regarding Wādi al-Jannāt (the Biblical Gn), the commentator of DoA, al-Akwa„, states the
following in his footnotes on page 143:

١‫ أثلٍ ثبُن‬ٝ ٚ٘ٓ ٠‫ كول افزل‬،‫و األػ٘بة‬٤‫ ؿ‬ٖٚ‫لول ٖٓ فٖبئ‬٣ ُْ ٝ ،‫ أُئُق‬ٚ‫ٕل‬ٝ ‫ياٍ ًٔب‬٣ ‫ ال‬ٝ ،‫ة‬ٞ‫ ػيُخ األّؼ‬٢‫نا ك‬ٛ ‫ اُغّ٘بد‬١‫اك‬ٝ
:‫ٍ ثؼ٘ األكثبء‬ٞ‫و‬٣ ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ‫ اُغ٘بد‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٢‫ ك‬ٝ .‫و‬٤‫ٖٔ ًض‬٤ُ‫ ا‬٢‫ؾَٔ اٍْ "ع٘بد" ك‬٣ ‫ ٓب‬ٝ .‫ ّغوح اُوبد‬،٠ٗ‫ أك‬ٞٛ

‫ اٌغٍىي‬ٝ ٌّّٓ‫ ا‬ٝ ‫علٗب اٌؾىس‬ٝ ‫ب هل‬ٜ‫ث‬ ٌْٙ‫ب أله‬٤‫ب ٍبًٖ اٌغّٕبد ٍو‬٣‫أ‬

What Akwa„ is telling us here is that there are several places within Yemen called jn-jannāt*, the
most famous of which lies in „Uzlat al-Ash„ūb, south of the capital. Long ago, the place was
known for its grapes, but in modern times it deteriorated and became a planting place for Qāt. He
then goes on to quote a very interesting verse by an unknown poet who sang of Jannāt as a place
ّ
containing natural resources (plants / fruits), namely ḥūr )‫ه‬ٞ‫(ؽ‬, mann )ُٖٔ‫(ا‬ and salwa )َُِٟٞ‫(ا‬.

And so came and passed the glory days of the Biblical kingdom of Judea, in the mountains of
Yemen; a kingdom whose story has been preserved for us in the culture of that ancient country.
From that point on, the history of the Biblical Israelites becomes a puzzle that has bewildered
scholars for many decades, and enflamed the imagination of the Orientalists who, in their blind
obsession with Palestine as the proposed setting for the modern poltical Zionist state, have
successfully passed their universal deception onto the unwary generations.

It is therefore our duty to reject the fraudulent, imperialist claim which matches between the
Israel of the Old Testament and the so-called “State of Israel” that was establioshed in 1948, and
to expose it for what it really is: a monstrous, colonial fabrication having no geographic or
historic basis whatsoever.

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

118 ‫בין‬ Bayn (between) ٖ٤‫ ث‬١‫ م‬/ ٖ٤‫ث‬ Bayn / Dhi Bayn
119 ‫חמתים‬ Ḥmtim (two walls) ْ٤ٔ‫ؽ‬ Ḥameem
120 ‫כשדים‬ Kasdim Chaldeans ٖ٤٣‫ اٌَُل‬/ ‫اٌَُبك‬ Kasād / Kasdiyyeen
121 ‫סבב‬ Sbb** (surrounding) ‫جبة‬ُٚ‫ا‬ al-Ḍabāb
122 ‫גן‬ Gn (garden) ‫ع٘بد‬ Jannāt

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*See for example, ‘Ayn Jnn, within the territories of Yashkur (Israel and Sheba, page 74).
**The name Sbb is written with the Samek letter )‫)ס‬, which is supposedly a throaty version of the letter s, and very
often corresponds to ṣad in Arabic (or a more guttural form of sh). To this day, many European Jews are unsure as
to the difference between the Samek and Tsade letters, other than the fact that Tsade cannot be substituted for shin.
The origins of Samek are uncertain.

105
 CHAPTER IV

The Returning Tribes

106
The lists penned by the prophet-poets Ezra and Jeremiah include the names of clans and peoples
who were liberated from the Babylonian bondage, courtesy of a royal decree issued by King
Cyrus of Persia, within one year of the Persian defeat of Babylon, in 539 BC. This royal
declaration paved the way for the exiled clans to return to their ruined homeland, and rebuild
what they could of their villages and temples.

In this chapter, we will introduce you, honored reader, to some of these clans, identify their
original, historical homeland, and prove to you, conclusively, that the so-called Babylonian Exile
had absolutely nothing to do with Palestine or its history, and that humanity has been the victim
of a colossal delusion that must be exposed once and for all.

The lists comprise names of clans and tribal leaders who resided in the Sarāt mountains and
highlands, as well as the wilderness areas (al-Bādiyah) around the Jawf, west of Ḥaḍramawt,
where they ended up captives as a result of the military campaigns launched against their
homeland by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. These exiles were South Arabian peoples, some
of whom had embraced the monotheist religion of the Israelites, in ancient Yemen.

The Old Testament Book of Ezra begins by relating the story of the exiled clans returning to
their ancestral homeland, starting from the day that the Royal Decree was announced throughout
the streets of Babylon. The Persian monarch Cyrus (Kurosh) II also commissioned the rebuilding
of the destroyed townships, especially the Ur-Salem of Judea, located in the mountains around
Ṣan„ā‟. Cyrus raised money for the project by means of donations from the people of Babylon,
and ordered the return of all the stolen relics and artifacts to the religious leaders of the tribes
(the Kingpriests, or the Makāribah, as they were known to the classical Arab narrators).

Here follows are fragments from the first two chapters of the Book of Ezra:

These are the words of Cyrus, king of Persia: “The Lord God of heaven has given
me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he has made me responsible for building
a house for him in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of
his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in
Judah, and take in hand the building of the house of the Lord, the God of Israel; he
is the God who is in Jerusalem”...Then the heads of families of Judah and
Benjamin, with the priests and the Levites, got ready, even all those whose spirits
were moved by God to go up and take in hand the building of the Lord's house in
Jerusalem...And Cyrus the king got out the vessels of the house of the Lord which
Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and put in the house of his gods...
(Ezra 1).

Now these are the people of the divisions of the kingdom, among those who had
been made prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and taken away to
Babylon, who went back to Jerusalem and Judah, everyone to his town. Those who

107
went with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan,
Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah, The number of the men of the people of Israel: the
children of Parosh, two thousand, one hundred and seventy-two; the children of
Shephatiah, three hundred and seventy-two; the children of Arah, seven hundred
and seventy-five...(Ezra 2)

Photo #26: Cyrus the Great

Let us pause for a minute, and scrutinize the highlighted names Jeshua and Seraiah. We have
previously established that Yashū‘ )‫ع‬ْٞ٣( is very much a South Arabian name, and is rendered
sometimes as Ashū‘ )‫ع‬ّٞ‫ (أ‬and sometimes as Yahwsh‘ )‫ّغ‬ٜٞ٣(, by adding the middle –h– letter,
which is a vestige of the language of Ḥimyar and Sheba. This latter form of the name
corresponds to the English Jehoshua.

Here follows is a brief passage from Arabic Wikipedia, regarding a Yemeni tribal leader by the
name of Shamayfa„ Ashū„ )‫ع‬ّٞ‫لغ أ‬٤ّٔ(:

ّ‫إسمافٌوسّ)ّوردّنص ّبخطّالمسندّبعدّمقتلّذوّنواس ٌّشٌرّفٌهاّشمٌفعّإلىّنفسهّبأنه‬: Esimiphaeus ‫شمٌفعّأشوعّ(التٌنٌة‬

ّ‫"ملكّسبأ"ّخاتماّالنصّبعبارةّأكثرّمسٌحٌوّالٌمنّمنّإستخدامهاّوهًّ"بسمّرحمننّوإبنهّكرشتسّغلبن"ّ(بسمّالرحمنّوإبنه‬
ّ‫ّحتىّإذاّقُتلّذوّنواسّتفاهم‬.‫المسٌحّالغالب)ّوهًّداللةّأنهّكانّمسٌحٌاّوقاتلّإلىّجانبٌّوسفّأسأرّ(ذوّنواس)ّوهوّمكره‬
ّ ."‫معّالملكّكالبّوأعلنّنفسهّ"ملكاّعلىّسبأ‬

Paraphrase: [Shamayfa‘ Ashū‘ (Latin: Esimiphaeus) – the name features in the Musnad
inscriptions after the death of Dhū Nawwās, wherein Shamayfa„ proclaims himself “King of
Sheba”. The inscription ends with an expression often used by the Christians of Yemen:
“Bsm Rḥmnn wa Ibnih Karshts Ghlbn”* (lit: in the name of the Rahman and His Son, the
Victorious Christ). This is a testament to the fact that Shamayfa„ was a Christian, and that
he had fought, against his will, alongside Dhū Nawwās (who was Jewish). Upon Dhū
Nawwās‟ death, Shamayfa„ reached an understanding with King Caleb (a Christian Ethiopian
monarch), and declared himself the King of Sheba].

______________________________________________________________________________
* Note the –n suffix at the end of the words Raḥmānn and ghlbn (meaning “victorious”)

108
As for ‫שריה‬, which spells Shariah, this is another 100% Yemeni name. Arab traditions abound
with references to the Yemeni narrator „Ubayd bin Shariyah al-Jurhumi, who was very famous
for recounting stories about the Jews of Yemen, until the advent of Islam. The lineage of this
narrator (Jurhum) is completely alien to the culture of Palestine.

We will take a sample gleaned from the lists of Ezrah and Nehemiah, which contain over one
hundred names, use it to reconstruct the story of the Babylonian Exile, and prove that the
liberated tribes returned to their homelands in Sarāt Ḥimyar, Najrān, al-Jawf and not anywhere
near Palestine.

Here is the sample, followed by a description of each clan‟s territory, as illustrated by al-
Hamadāni and old Arabian poetry:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

123 ‫בני גבר‬ Bani Gbr Gibbar ‫عجو‬ Jabr

124 ‫אדן‬ Adan Addan ٕ‫ أكا‬/ ٕ‫أما‬ Adhān / Adān
125 ‫כלב‬ Klb Kaleb / Caleb ‫ًِت‬ Kalb
126 ‫בני ציחא‬ Bani Ṣayḥah Ziha / Siha ‫ؾخ‬٤ٕ Ṣayḥah
127 ‫בני נציח‬ Bani Nṣiḥ Neziah / Nasiah ‫ٗبٕؾخ‬ Nāṣiḥah
128 ‫חרשא‬ Ḥarshah Harshah ِ٣‫ؽو‬ Ḥareesh
129 ‫בני חגב‬ Bani Ḥgb Hagab ‫ؽغبثبد‬ Ḥujābāt
130 ‫בני אמר‬ Bani Amr Immer / Emer ‫و‬٤ٓ‫أ‬ Ameer
131 ‫בני עדין‬ Bani „Adin Adin ٖ٣‫ػل‬ „Adeen
132 ‫בני השערים‬ Bani Sha„raim (children of the porters) ‫اُْؼواء‬ al-Sha„rā‟
133 ‫נטפה‬ Nṭphah Netuphah ‫ ٗطبف‬/ ‫ف‬ٞ‫ٗط‬ Naṭūf / Naṭāf
134 ‫בני חשם‬ Bani Ḥashm Hashim َْ‫ ؽ‬/ ْْ‫ؽ‬ Ḥashm / Ḥasm
135 ‫בני גזם‬ Bani Gzm Gazzam ّ‫عنا‬ Judhām
136 ‫בני קרס‬ Bani Qrs Ceros / Keros ٌ٣‫هو‬ Qarees
137 ‫בני חקופא‬ Bani Ḥquphah Hakuphah ‫ أؽوبف‬/ ‫ؽوق‬ Ḥaqaf / Aḥqāf
138 ‫בני ברקוס‬ Bani Barqus Barkos ِ‫ ثواه‬/ ِ‫ثوه‬ Barāqish
139 ‫בני מעינים‬ Bani Ma„inim Meunim ٖ٤‫ٓؼ‬ Ma„een
140 ‫בני סטי‬ Bani Suṭi Sotai ٍٛٞ Sūṭ
141 ‫גבע‬ Gb„ Gebaa ‫عجغ‬ Jaba„

123) Gbr:

The Bani Jabr )‫ عجو‬٢٘‫ (ث‬occupied several regions in Yemen, mostly in the lush highlands of
Yāphe„ )‫بكغ‬٣(, which is none other than the Biblical Japhea. Al-Hamadāni gives us a detailed
description of their homes, in the following passage (DoA, pages 172, 173):

‫ ٗبفت‬ٝ‫م‬...ْٜ٘ٓ ‫ه‬ٞ‫غ‬ٛ‫ اُ ِؼوخ ُأل‬،‫ َعجَو‬٢٘‫ ٍََِت ُج‬،ْٜ٘ٓ ‫ ٗبفت ٌجٍٕ َعجَش‬ٝ‫ م‬ٝ ‫ اُؼو ِراْ ٖٓ َبفع‬:ًُٚ٘‫ ٍب‬ٝ ٚ‫ز‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٝ ‫و‬٤ٔ‫ ِؽ‬ٝ‫ٍو‬
١‫اك‬ٝ ٝ ‫جبة‬ُٚ‫خ ا‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ ٖٓ األ‬.‫وح‬٤‫ َٓبًٖ ًض‬ٝ ٟ‫غ هو‬ٙ‫ا‬ُٞٔ‫ ا‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٖٓ ‫غ‬ٙٞٓ ًَ ٢‫ ك‬ٝ ،‫بكغ‬٣ ٖٓ ‫ه ٌىٍت‬ٝ‫ٕل‬...ْٜ٘ٓ ‫ عجو‬٢٘‫ُج‬
.‫خ‬٣‫ اُغؼل‬ٝ ‫ اُ َؾٌ٘خ‬ٝ ‫ ّوػخ‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٝ ،‫ ٕ٘ؼبء‬٠ُ‫ ٓؾغّ خ ػلٕ ا‬ٚ٤‫ ك‬١‫و اُن‬ٚ‫ؽ‬

109
Note the first term, Adhān )ٕ‫(أما‬, mentioned alongside Jabr, as well as the last term, Kalb )‫(ًِت‬,
which is none other than the Biblical tribe of Kaleb. This name is actually spelled klb with the
silent Aramaic letters, but was rendered as ‫( ָּכלֵב‬Kaleb) by the Masorites. This leads us to the next
name on the list.

124, 125) Adan and Klb:

The previous passage we encountered in DoA lists a series of peaks scattered around vast regions
of Yemen, among them a small mountain range known as al-‘Arr )ّ‫ (اُؼو‬which, during al-
Hamadāni‟s time, harbored members of the Adhān clans. An interesting fact presented in the
passage concerns one of the valleys in the region, namely Wādi Ḥaḍr, in which runs the old
pilgrimage road )‫ (ٓؾ ّغخ‬from „Adan to Ṣan„ā‟. It is not known for certain what Hamadāni meant
by this road, nor did the contemporary commentator, „Ali al-Akwa„, provide any explanation in
his footnotes. What al-Akwa„ did note, however, was the name Adhān, which al-Hamadāni
mentioned in another of his books, and about which al-Akwa„ wrote the following:

.‫ِٔخ‬ُٜٔ‫) ثبُلاٍ ا‬343ٓ – 2‫َ (ط‬٤ًِ‫ اإل‬٢‫ ك‬ٝ ،‫٘ب ثبُناٍ أُؼغّٔخ‬ٛ ٢ٛ ٝ ،ّٞ٤ُ‫ِخ ال رؼوف ا‬٤‫ هج‬:ْ‫أرا‬

Paraphrase: Adhān - a tribe that is unknown today. Its name was rendered here with a dh
letter, while in Al-Ikleel (2:343) it features with the letter d.

Now ask yourself the following question: is it by coincidence that the Old Testament names
Japhea, Bani Gbr, Adan and Kaleb correspond to Yāphe„, Bani Jabr, Adhān – Adān, and Kalb?

126) Ṣayḥah:

The actual name, written in Aramaic, begins with the letter ‫*צ‬, which Modern Hebrew vocalizes
as tz or ts. The Arabic equivalent of this letter is the ṣad, hence the name: Ṣayḥah )‫ؾخ‬٤ٕ(. These
clans inhabited a territory within the Hamadān )ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ( area, generally west of the capital, which
still carried their name during the time when Description of Arabia was being written.

Here follows is the relevant passage (page 158), which describes several places located along
a huge basin extending from Ṣan„ā‟, westwards to the Red Sea coast:

.ْ‫و ثِل هّذا‬ٛ‫خ ٖٓ ظب‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٚ‫ ث‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٤ُٖ‫ ثِل ا‬ٝ ٜ‫ ٗبػ‬ٝ ‫ كَٔبى كبألفجبة‬،‫فصُؾخ‬...ْٗ‫ذ ما‬٤‫ ث‬ٝ...‫ اٌؾُفخ‬ٝ ‫ ُُـبثخ‬ٝ ُٓ‫ ضجّبع‬ٝ

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Note, incidentally, that the Jews of Yemen, when they recite the so-called “Torah”, vocalize this letter properly as
ṣad, contrary to their European counterparts, who render it as tzad, due to the Yiddish influence.

110
Note how Ṣayḥah is placed along the path to Ḍabbā„een )ٖ٤‫جبػ‬ٙ(. It is very likely, not certain,
that this is none other than the Zeboim of the Old Testament. The actual name of the latter is
‫( צבעים‬note the ‘ayn letter), which spells Ṣab‘im. It is the plural form of ‫צבע‬. Hebrew does not
vocalize the ḍad letter, and renders it as a ṣad, or as a guttural s known as the Samek letter.
Hence Ṣab‘im could correctly be rendered as ٖ٤‫جّبػ‬ٙ (the plural form of ‫جغ‬ٙ). Also, note the
location of Ḥayfah )‫لخ‬٤‫(ؽ‬, whose name was undoubtebly carried to Palestine with the migration of
the Arabian tribes to the Levant, as we will see in our conclusion to this book.

We should also note that during the Biblical times, when these texts were first recorded, the
number of towns dotting the mountainous landscape was far smaller than during al-Hamadāni‟s
day and age. This is why, to the diligent readers of the Old Testament, the locations seem farther
apart than they are pictured in DoA.

At any rate, these are the territories of Bani Ṣayḥah, who returned from their exile in Babylon to
their homeland in the mountains of Yemen, not Palestine.

127) Nṣiḥ:

According to al-Hamadāni, the Bani Nāṣiḥah )‫ (ٗبٕؾخ‬lived alongside their neighbours, the Bani
Ḥareesh )ِ٣‫(ؽو‬, near the famous valleys of Beesh – Beeshah )ْٚ٤‫ِ – ث‬٤‫ (ث‬and Wadi al-Rammah
)‫ اُو ّٓخ‬١‫اك‬ٝ(, which also appears in Ezra‟s list as Ramah. Here follows is a relevant passage (DoA,
page 258):

‫ صْ روعغ‬،‫خ‬٤ٗ‫ٔب‬٤ُ‫ هوٕ ا‬٢‫ ؽٖٖ ٖٓ ّوه‬ُٚ ٝ‫جل‬٣ ٝ ،ْ٣‫ ثو‬ٝ ‫ اُجـوح‬ٝ ‫ ٔبصؾخ‬،‫خ‬٤ٗ‫ٔب‬٤ُ‫ هوٕ ا‬٠ُ‫َو ا‬٣‫ن األ‬٣‫ ٖٓ هٖل اُطو‬ٝ
.‫ٔب ثطٖ اٌش ِّخ‬ٜ٘٤‫ٔو ث‬٣ ٘٤‫ األث‬ٝ ‫ك‬ٍٞ‫ أثبٗبٕ األ‬ٝ ٖ٣ٝ‫ صْ ٍبم اُلو‬ٟ‫واف اُؼجو‬ٛ‫كزؤفن أ‬

128) Ḥarshah:

Elsewhere in DoA (pages 264, 265), we encounter the following passage:

‫صْ روك‬...‫ فِلح ٖٓ اٌؾشَؼ‬٢٘‫خ ُج‬٤٘‫ اُوط‬ٚ٤‫ٍ عيع ك‬ٝ‫ أ‬،‫لاه ثٍٕ اٌؾشَؼ‬ٛ ‫لاه‬ُٜ‫ ا‬٠ِ‫ كزؤفن ػ‬،‫فو‬٥‫ن ا‬٣‫ اُطو‬٠ُ‫هعؼ٘ب ا‬
.‫ ٔبصؾخ‬ٝ ‫اُجووح‬...ْ٣‫ ثُو‬٠ِ‫بٖٓ كؼ‬٤‫ إ ر‬ٝ ،‫بٍو‬٤‫ رُوثخ صْ ثُؾخ إ ر‬١‫اك‬ٝ َ‫و ثؤٍل‬ٚ‫األف‬

The Biblical name Ḥrshah, as it appears in the Aramaic scripture, is rendered as Ḥareesh by al-
Hamadāni, and its clans are known as Bani Ḥareesh )ِ٣‫ ؽو‬٢٘‫(ث‬. The addition of the –h suffix at
the end of the names tends to feminize the places, and is a very old tradition encountered in both
poetry and prose (Beesh – Beeshah / Nāṣiḥ – Nāṣiḥah / Ḥareesh – Ḥareeshah). These subtle
variations in the rendering of the historic names are normal, and are no doubt due to the fact that
many generations, speaking different dialects, resided within the territories in question.

111
129) Ḥgb:

The Bani Ḥujāb lived in an old valley whose name, al-Ḥujābāt )‫(اُؾغبثبد‬, no longer exists, despite
the fact that al-Hamadāni described it in detail, and placed it within the same geographic space as
the territory of Bani Ameer )‫و‬٤ٓ‫(أ‬, to the south of Sarāt Khūlān )ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ (ف‬. Here follows is the
passage (page 128):

‫ب أفوف‬ٛ‫ه‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ٍط‬ٝ ٝ ،َ٤ٌ‫ٔبٕ ٖٓ ث‬ٛ‫كغجبٍ اُل‬...‫ ّك‬ٝ ‫ كجِل ؽوة ثٖ ػجل‬،ٕ‫كٔ٘وَ ٍلوا‬...‫َ اُلهة‬ٛ‫كجِل اٌؾبوشَُٓ ٖٓ أ‬
،ْ‫ب ٍواح خىال‬ٜ‫زَّٖ ث‬٣ ْ‫ ص‬.‫ ىٗخ أكثو‬،‫ أُِش‬ٝ ...‫ ٓواهاد‬ٝ ‫ اٌؾغبثبد‬ٝ ...‫ ُّؼت ػنه‬ٝ َ‫ هٕى‬ٝ ‫وخ‬٤‫ اُْو‬ٝ ٖ‫ ٗغل أُطؾ‬ٝ
.‫ اُو ّل‬٠ّٔ َُ٣ ٝ

Aside from the fact that the widespread Biblical clan of Yashccar feature in the above passage as
al-Shākiriyyeen )ٖ٤٣‫(اُْبًو‬, note the proximity of al-Ḥujābāt from Hanūm )ّٞ٘ٛ( – the Biblical
Hinnom – as well as Ameer. Interestingly, the mountain bearing the name of Hanūm is known
today as al-Uhnūm and was, according to Yemeni historians, the childhood home of the
legendary king known as Abu Karb – Karb-el As„ad )‫َ أٍؼل‬٣‫ (ًوة ا‬of the Tubba„ Dynasty, who
was famous for cloaking the so-called Ka‘bah of the Ḥijāz with its black cloth. This leads us to
the next name.

130) Amr:

Old Arabian poetry tells us that the location of Wādi Ameer )‫و‬٤ٓ‫ (أ‬was unknown to many of the
bards of Arabia, due to the antiquity of the name, or perhaps its distance from the wilderness (al-
Bādiyah). Even the nomads were uncertain as to its whereabouts. At any rate, the historic
territory of Palestine has never known such a place, or its inhabitants, the Bani Ameer. In
contrast, the valley can be found within the geography of Yemen, as detailed in DoA (page 134),
nestled between Khūlān and the Hamadān Country, not far from Wādi Mawr )‫ه‬ٞٓ( – the Biblical
Mwreh – the greatest river valley that empties in Tihāmah )‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫(ر‬.

٢‫ ثؼ٘ ؿوث‬ٝ ،ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ ٢‫ه رؤفن ؿوث‬َٞٓ ٢‫ َٓبه‬ٝ ‫ل‬٤‫ ىث‬٢‫ ثُؼل أُآر‬ٝ َْ‫ اُ ِؼظ‬٢‫ ك‬ِٙٞ‫ز‬٣ ْ‫ ص‬،ْ‫ياة رهبِخ األػظ‬٤ٓ ٞٛ ٝ ‫ ِىس‬١‫اك‬ٝ
.‫ أُِش‬:ٚ٤ُ‫َٖ ا‬٣ ‫ ٓب‬٠ّٔ ََ ُ٣ ٝ ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ق ف‬٣‫ ًو‬ٝ ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫ف‬

Photo #27: An old, stone bridge spanning a chasm in the Hanūm (Hinnom) mountains.

112
131) „Adin:

In the old times, the territory of Bani „Adeen )ٖ٣‫ ػل‬٢٘‫ (ث‬was part of what was once known as
Mikhlāf al-Kalā‘ )‫(اٌُالع‬, south of the Yemeni capital. On page 118 of DoA, al-Hamadāni lists
several territories that were once part of the Mikhlāf, including al-Suḥūl )ٍٞ‫(اَُؾ‬, a region which
eventually split and formed its own mini kingdom. This is the same Suḥūl whose highlands were
breached by Nebuchadnassar‟s armies.

َٓ‫ اٌعذ‬٠ِ‫ْ ػ‬٣‫ اُول‬٢‫ُطِن ك‬٣ ٕ‫ اٌُالع ثبُلزؼ ًب‬ٝ ٢ُ‫ا‬ٞ‫ اُز‬٠ِ‫ب ػ‬ٛ‫ أٓبًٖ ٗنًو‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٝ – ‫ اٌغؾىي‬ٝ ‫ اُضغخ‬ٝ ٕ‫ٖٓ ثِل اٌىالع ٗقال‬
. ّ‫ ثالك اة‬ٝ ِ٤‫ ثِل ؽج‬ٝ ٍ‫ اَُلب‬١‫ ثالك م‬ٝ

It is worth mentioning that the ancestors of this ancient Mikhlāf are famous for adding the –n
suffix at the end of words in their speech; a linguistic phenomenon that has existed for centuries,
and is known to scholars as al-Nūn al-Kalā‘iyyah )‫خ‬٤‫ٕ اٌُالػ‬ُٞ٘‫(ا‬. This suffix appears countless
times in the so-called “Hebrew” names, and has always befuddled the Orientalist scholars, who
have no idea where it came from.

132) Sha„raim:

This troublesome name merits a pause, as it constitutes one of the most glaring – and somewhat
comical – examples which prove that the redactors of the Biblical text were absolutely clueless
as to the geography of the events described in the scripture. The first point worth noting is that
the “Hebrew” sha‘raim (‫ (שערים‬is actually the plural form of the term sha‘r (‫(שער‬, which does
indeed mean: opening / door / crack. It is for this reason that whenever the word sha‘raim is
encountered in the OT scripture, it is assumed to be a common noun and interpreted as “the
porters” or “the doorkeepers / gatekeepers”.

To give credit where credit is due, it was late Lebanese scholar Kamāl Ṣaleebi (died 2011), who
first became suspicious of this name, in his pioneering book The Bible Came from Arabia
(1984), wherein he noted that something about the name doesn‟t quite fit, and suspected that it
may indeed be a proper noun. However, Ṣaleebi failed to locate the place in „Aseer, wherein he
placed all the tribes of Israel. The truth of the matter is that of the twelve Israelite tribes, only
four at most resided in „Aseer (not counting Ysshaccar, whose homes were everywhere). The
remaining seven tribes were all located south of Najrān, and deep inside Yemen.

Perhaps the reason for the confusion lies in the fact that the name appears in the scripture as
h-sha‘raim, where the h- prefix is one of the extinct South Arabian pronoun articles
corresponding to the Arabic al- (“the”); hence children of the gatekeepers. Our view is that the
term h-sha‘raim corresponds to none other than an ancient Yemeni tribe known as al-Sha‘rā’
)‫(اَُْؼواء‬, whose name is in fact in plural form. This tribe took its name from the mountain in

113
whose shadow they lived: Jabal al-Sha‘r* )‫(عجَ اُ َّْؼو‬, sometimes rendered with the al- prefix,
and sometimes without.

Poet Dhul-Rammah mentions this deserted tribal home in one of his dirges:

ِّ ‫اهم ُِلؽ اٗقياّ ُٓوا‬ٞٓ ‫ب‬ٜٗ‫ق ًؤ‬٤ٕ

ٍ ‫وجِٖ ٖٓ ؽَعشاء‬٣
ّ‫ا‬ٞ‫ؽ‬
ِ ٝ ‫ب‬ٜ‫َ ٍخ أهٍب ُؿ‬٤‫ُٓق‬ ‫ثي‬ٝ‫كا‬
ٍ ٖ٤‫هاً ً٘وِ اُؼبط ث‬َٞٗ

Ibn Mufarragh described this same place, rendering its name with the al- prefix:

‫ ُو‬ُٜ٘‫ ا‬ٚٗٝ‫لػبٕ رُٖجؼ ك‬٣‫األ‬

ِ ٝ ً‫خ‬ٙ‫ اٌؾّعشاء ُٓؼو‬ٚٗٝ‫ ٖٓ ر ٌُٖ ك‬ٝ

Many scholars who analyzed the instances featuring this word, thought that it referred to any
general, unsettled place in the wilderness that is full of wild vegetation or trees, and where the
livestock of rival tribes can graze freely. For example, Abu Ḥaneefah claimed that the term sha‘r
is a simple designation of a tight cluster of trees. This is actually not the case, as al-Hamadāni
names the place, and tells us exactly where it lay (DoA, page 143), within Mikhlāf al-Kilā„:

.ٕ‫ ٍقال‬ٝ ‫ اٌؾّعش ٖٓ ثِل اٌىالع‬ٝ ٕ‫ٔب‬٣‫ ه‬ٝ ٕ‫كجؼلا‬...‫ كغجَ اُؾُْب‬،‫ٕ َوه ٖٓ أهٗ اٌَُبٍي‬
ُ َ‫كغج‬

There lies the mountain known as Jabal al-Sha‘r )‫(اُْؼو‬, and on its slopes lived the Bani
h-Sha„raim )‫ (اُْؼواء‬of the Old Testament, whose name was recorded by Ezra.

133) Nṭphah:

Poet Umayyah Ibn abi-„Ā‟ed mentions this place as one of several fondly-remembered homes
lying along the same road, and renders its name in the correct form: al-Naṭūf** )‫ف‬ٞ‫(اُ٘ط‬, by
dropping the –h suffix.

ٓ‫ا‬ٞ‫األث‬
ِ ‫ٖ كٔغٔغ‬٤‫كر‬َُٞ‫كب‬ ٓ‫كبألفـــوا‬
ِ ٢ِ‫ثؼ‬
َ ‫ب ُه‬٣‫ُٖٔ اُل‬
ٓ‫كبُ٘ٔو كبُجوهبد كبألٗـؾب‬ ُ‫بء أظِ َْ فبٌٕطىفُ كٖبئق‬ُٜٚ‫ك‬

Kuthayr cried over the same ruin, located in the Jawf area of Yemen, and rendered its name as
al-Naṭāf )‫(اُ٘طبف‬:

‫اع ُو‬ٞ‫ إٌــطبف اُؾــ‬ٚ٘ٓ ‫روث ُغ‬ ٟ‫هم اُنه‬ٝ‫جبٕ ٓـو‬ٛ‫ أػ َوٗ ٖٓ م‬ٝ

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8
%B4%D8%B9%D8%B1
**Recall this name from page 71 of this book.

114
Both forms are technically correct, being that the actual Aramaic name appears in the silent
form, Nṭf, before the Masorites inserted the vowels.

134, 135) Ḥashm and Gzm:

According to the Arab lineage narrators, the clan known as Ḥashm )ْْ‫ (ؽ‬were a branch of the
giant and legendary tribe of Judhām )ّ‫(عنا‬. The Bani Ḥashm – Ḥasm* eventually migrated to
Egypt, and settled near the Nile Delta. Here follows is a passage from Arabic Wikipedia,
regarding the tribe of Judhām:

َ‫ هجبئ‬ٟ‫ اؽل‬٢ٛ ‫الٕ ثٖ ٍجؤ‬ًٜ ٖ‫ل ث‬٣‫ت ثٖ ى‬٣‫ْغت ثٖ ػو‬٣ ٖ‫ل ث‬٣‫ ثٖ اُؾبهس ثٖ ٓوح ثٖ أكك ثٖ ى‬١‫) ثٖ ػل‬ٝ‫ (ػٔو‬ٞٛ ّ‫عنا‬
٠َٔ‫ؽ‬ٝ ٖ٣‫ب ٓلٕ ٓل‬ٛ‫اثوى‬ٝ ‫خ‬٤‫وح اُؼوث‬٣‫خ ّٔبٍ اُغي‬٤ِٛ‫ اُغب‬٢‫ِخ ك‬٤‫ اُوج‬١‫ن‬ٛ ٍ‫ًبٗذ ٓ٘بى‬ٝ ،َٕ‫خ اال‬٤ٗ‫ٔب‬٤ُ‫خ ا‬٤ٗ‫اُؼوة اُوؾطب‬
.‫ٖٓو‬ٝ ّ‫ ثالك اُْب‬٢‫ ك‬٢ٓ‫ صْ اٗزْود ثؼل اُلزؼ اإلٍال‬.ّٞ٤ُ‫ِخ (اُؼوجخ) ا‬٣‫أ‬ٝ َ‫ؽو‬ٝ ‫ى‬ٞ‫رج‬ٝ

According to the above, the tribe‟s founding father was „Amro bin „Ady bin al-Ḥārith, whose
roots can be traced back to Zayd bin Kahlān bin Saba‟. Judhām were a Qaḥṭāni tribe, who
originated in Yemen, and then migrated to the Ḥijāz during the “Jāhiliyyah” era. The tribe
eventually settled in the Levant and Egypt, after the so-called “Muslim Conquests”.

There is no doubt that the presence of both Ḥashm and Gzm** in Ezra‟s list confirms the fact
that some of the exiled tribes were related to each other, and that they returned to their ancestral
homeland which, during Ezra‟s day and age (around 540 B.C), was Yemen, the primordial
reservoir of most, if not all the tribes of Arabia.

136) Qrs:

The name appears as Qrs – Qrsh in the silent Aramaic text. According to al-Hamadāni, the name
of this clan was Qarees )ٌ٣‫(هو‬, and we can find a detailed description of their homes in what the
author calls Najd al-Yaman (not to be confused with the Najd region of Saudi Arabia). Here
follows is the passage plus the footnotes of the commentator, the late “Judge” „Ali al-Akwa„, in
square brackets (page 220):

‫ اُقوثخ‬ٝ ‫ أُلاهح‬ٝ ٕ‫ ًبها‬ٝ َٙ‫ رلب‬ٝ ‫بف‬ٙ ٟ‫ ٖٓ اُوو‬ٚ‫ كبٕ ث‬،ٕ‫وا‬ٜ‫كؤٓب ع‬. ..ٌُّٓ‫ؼبٕ ٔغذ ا‬٤‫ٍغ ه‬ٝ‫ ٖٓ أ‬ٞٛ ٝ :ٕٞ‫صْ اُج‬
،ُٚ‫ ّٔب‬٢‫ ك‬٢‫ اُجئو اُز‬٠ُ‫ اُؾٖٖ ٗلن ا‬٢‫ ًبٕ ك‬ٝ ،‫ فوائت‬ٝ ٍ‫ال‬ٛ‫ ؽٖٖ أ‬ٝ ‫خ‬٣‫ هو‬:‫ ] لَشَظ‬.‫ لشَظ‬ٝ ََْ ‫ هَوٕ َػ‬ٝ ‫ت‬٤ُِ‫ اُؼ‬ٝ
.[‫غ فوة ّٔبٍ مٓبه‬ٙٞٓ :‫لُ َشَظ‬...‫ هل كهٍذ‬٢‫ اُز‬ٝ

___________________________________________________________________________________________
*Look up “Ḥashm bin Judhām” )ّ‫ (ؽْْ ثٖ عنا‬in the Arabian lineage trees.
**The “Hebrew” language does not vocalize the dh )‫ (م‬sound, and renders it either as d or z.

115
According to al-Akwa„, there are two ruined vestiges. The first, rendered as Qarees, lies in what
is known today as Qā„ al-Būn )ٕٞ‫(هبع اُج‬. It is a ruined fortress which encompasses an ancient, dry
well. The second, rendered as Qurays, is a vestige located in the Dhamār Province. In one of
these two territories resided the Biblical clan of Bani Qrs.

137) Ḥquphah:

The famous landscape known as Wādi al-Aḥqāf, on the outskirts of Ḥaḍramawt, needs little
introduction for the reader who is familiar with our previous books. The name designates
a frontier land, considered to be part of al-Bādiyah (a nomadic domain), bordering the giant sand
dunes of the Aḥqāf region )‫(األؽوبف‬, which features in the story of the prophet Hūd. The Qur‟ān
tells us that Hūd was sent to the people of „Ād, who were eventually destroyed by a massive
sandstorm which originated in that very region (see Road of the Patriarch, pages 118 – 124).
Incidentally, the word aḥqāf is the plural of ḥaqf )‫(ؽوق‬, which would be rendered as ḥaqfah in
the feminine form.

In fact, traces of this name can be seen in the Jeezan Province of Saudi Arabia, courtesy of the
ancient migrations towards the coasts. Here follows is a snippet from DoA (page 130), describing
locations near Jurush – Jarash )ُ‫(عو‬:

‫ؽشح‬
ّ ٝ ‫ أُؼول‬ٝ ‫ اُجوى‬ٝ ْ‫ ضٕىب‬ٝ ‫ق‬٤ٗ‫ ى‬٠ِ‫ أػ‬٢ٛ ‫ اُجالك‬ٚٛ ‫ه‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ ،‫ ٖٓ أهٗ عشػ‬٢‫ ٍؼ‬ٝ ‫ اُْوواه‬٠ُ‫ك ا‬ٍٞ‫صْ اُغجَ األ‬
.‫ ٗغل اُطبه‬ٝ ْ‫ ؽمىفزب‬ٝ ‫ك‬ٞٛ ٗ‫ أه‬ٍٜ ٝ ٝ ‫وٕبٔخ‬

According to the above passage, the valley known as Ḥaqūfatān )ٕ‫كزب‬ٞ‫ (ؽو‬is in the vicinity of
Ḍankān )ٕ‫ٌ٘ب‬ٙ(. This second name designates an ancient and spectacular ruin that was once part
of a Yemeni domain by the sea, known as Mikhlāf Ḍankān, whose name vanished as a result of
the Ottoman administrative re-divison of the region. The ruins of Ḍankān are over 3,000 years
old, and have been the target of rare archeological digs in the past, along with the neighbouring
vestiges of Jarash )ُ‫(عو‬. Ḍankān was also the home territory of the tribe known as
Ghatfān, who had their own Ka„bah* in the mountains of that region. Is it the Jarash of Jordan
that al-Hamadāni speaks of here? Also, note the term ḥarrat Kanānah )‫(ؽوّح ً٘بٗخ‬, which describes
a volcanic plateau along the Tihamāh. Are these the Canaanites of Palestine?

The name Ḥaqūfatān is the dual form of Ḥaqūfah. And it was these migrates from the Aḥqāf
Valley, east of the Jawf of Yemen, who carried the name with them when they settled in the
coastal areas. And it was to that original territory that the forgotten Biblical clan bearing the
name of Bani Ḥaqūf – Ḥaqūfah was allowed to return, along with its neighbours, the Bani
Barqus. There is not a single shred of evidence, whether physical, linguistic, or cultural, that an
ancient Palestian clan was ever known by that name.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
*Look up the Ka‘bah of Ghatfān )ٕ‫ (ًؼجخ ؿطلب‬in the folklore of Jeezan.

116
138) Barqus:

Not far from the territory of Ḥaqūfah resided the Bani Barqus – Barqush, who took their name
(or gave it) to an ancient citadel known as Barāqish. The ruins of Barāqish are located on a large,
flat knoll, in the Jawf region, about 40 kilometers north-west of Ma‟rib. In the collective memory
of the Yemenis, the site was associated with stories of the prophet Luqmān, whose wife was
named Barāqish. This reminds us of the observation made by al-Hamadāni, regarding the naming
of many of the places in his homeland.

The legend of Luqmān and Barāqish contains very important symbolic connotations regarding
the life and times of the Bedouins. The story has it that on the occasion of a festival marking the
birth of Luqmān‟s son, his wife tricked him into eating the forbidden meat of the camel.
Interestingly, the very term brqsh )ِ‫(ثوه‬, according to the Arabic lexicons*, conveys a meaning
of dryness and desertification (note the deep symbolism behind the legendary figures, and the
anthropomorphosis of places and environmental conditions). Thus, the dry and barren landscape
forced the wise nomad to eat the meat of an animal that was considered prohibited to the
Bedouins as, without it, they would lose their means of contact with the organic world that they
longed for. It is this same culture which produced the scripture known as the “Torah” (al-Tawrāt)
which forbade the Israelites from eating the meat of camels.

Poet Sulaymān bin Yazeed al-Ṭā‟y, of the famous tribe of Ṭay‟ )‫ء‬٢ٛ(, who at one point in their
history worshipped the pagan Arabian deity known as al-Fils, sang of the ruined castles of
Barāqish, a site which often enflamed the imagination of the nomads who wandered the region,
and filled their minds with mystical visions of past civilizations and unknown horizons:

ِ‫ اٌَُو ًَو هْبه‬١‫اك‬ٝ ‫ك‬ٝ‫كٔؤ‬ ‫ه ثـشالؼ‬ٖٞ‫ ه‬٢‫ٖ ٓ٘ب ك‬ٛٝ‫ أ‬ٝ

ِ‫اؽ‬ٞ‫ا ثبُلٗبح اُلـ‬َٞ‫ــ‬٤ُ َ‫ــ‬٤ُ‫ب‬ٜ‫ث‬ ِ‫٘ــبٕ ًَ أؿِـــت هائــــ‬٤‫ ه‬٠ُ‫ا‬

Here follows is a significant passage from al-Hamadāni‟s Description of Arabia (page 280),
wherein he lists several prominent geographical features within the Jawf )‫ف‬ٞ‫ (ع‬province:

ْ‫ص‬...‫بء‬ٚ٤‫ اُقوثخ اُج‬ٝ ،ْ‫ ثُذ ّٔشا‬ٝ ،‫ ُْ٘ن‬ٞٛ ٝ ْ‫ عّشا‬:‫ف‬ٞ‫ ثِل ّبًو ٕلخ اُغ‬ٝ ٙ‫و‬ٛ‫ ظب‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ ثِل‬ٝ ‫بٕ اٌغىف‬ٛٝ‫ ٖٓ أ‬ٝ
.‫ ثشالؼ‬ٝ ُٓ‫ِع‬

According to the passage, these places are: „Amrān )ٕ‫(ػٔوا‬, Bayt Namrān )ٕ‫ذ ٗٔوا‬٤‫**(ث‬, Ma„een
)ٖ٤‫ (ٓؼ‬and Barāqish )ِ‫(ثواه‬. In his footnotes on the same page, al-Akwa„ brings to our attention
the following fact regarding „Amrān:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*See: Lisān al-‘Arab (Ibn Manẓūr).
**Recall the Biblical Beth-Nimrah, previously identified in this book.

117
‫نا‬ٛ ٕ‫ ػٔوا‬ٝ ...)ٓ( ‫ٍ هللا‬ٍٞ‫ ه‬٠ِ‫اكل ػ‬ُٞ‫ ا‬،٢ٗ‫ٔلا‬ُٜ‫ ا‬ٜٔٗ ٖ‫ٌ اث‬٤‫ أفجبه ه‬٢‫ ك‬ٙ‫ هل عبء مًو‬ٝ ،‫ف‬ٞ‫ ػٔوإ اُغ‬ٞٛ ‫نا‬ٛ ٕ‫ػٔوا‬
.‫ؼوف‬٣ ‫ فواة ٓ٘ن ىٖٓ ال‬ٞٛ

Paraphrase: The „Amrān mentioned here is the „Amrān* of the Jawf, and it is mentioned in
the reports concerning Qays ibn Namṭ al-Hamadāni, who was sent as an emissary to the
Messenger of Allah (P). And this „Amrān has been a ruin for ages uncounted.

Photo #28: Ruins of Barāqish.

139) Ma„inim:

This name constitutes, in our opinion, one of the biggest scandals regarding the Orientalist
interpretation of the Old Testament. The “Hebrew” text features the name as ‫מעינים‬, which spells
Ma‘inim. This is the plural form of Ma‘in, using the extinct South Arabian –im suffix. The
Orientalists interpreted this name as being Ma„ān, a city located in southern Jordan, while
completely ignoring the fact that none of the other names in Eza‟s list have anything to do with
the country of Jordan. This is a typical result of the forgery: it makes the Biblical locations seem
isolated from their geographical context.

Could this name be designative of anything other than the ancient clan of Ma„een )ٖ٤‫?(ٓؼ‬
During the era of Nebuchadnassar, the Bani Ma„een were no more than one of several clans
residing in the Jawf area, whose homes were overrun by the Babylonian army. Here follows is
a passage from an Arabic article regarding the ancient clan of Ma„een who, at one point in
history, established a prosperous kingdom in Arabia:

‫ ٓ٘طوخ اٌغىف‬٢‫ ك‬٢٘٤‫ ػبُ اُْؼت أُؼ‬.‫ٔخ‬٣‫خ اُول‬٤٘ٔ٤ُ‫بهح ا‬ٚ‫ اُؾ‬٢‫كاً ك‬ْٜٞٓ ٝ ً‫هاً ثبهىا‬ٝ‫وح ُؼجذ ك‬ٛ‫خ ٓيك‬٤‫ث‬ٞ٘‫ ٌِٓٔخ ع‬:ُٓ‫ِع‬
‫ أُ٘لن‬ٞٛ )ٖٔ٤ُ‫ّ ثٔ٘طوخ اُؾيّ ّٔبٍ ا‬ٞ٤ُ‫ُؼوف ا‬٣ ‫ف (ٓب‬ٞ‫ ػ٘لٓب ًبٕ اُغ‬،ّ.‫ ٓب هجَ اُووٕ اُزبٍغ م‬٠ُ‫ك ا‬ٞ‫ؼ‬٣ ‫ٓ٘ن ػٖو‬
‫ة‬ٞ‫و أٌُز‬٤‫ـ ؿ‬٣‫هبئغ اُزبه‬ٝ ٖٓ ‫و‬٤‫ ّٖٔ اٌُض‬ٚ‫ب رز‬ّٜٞ‫ ال رياٍ ٗو‬ٝ .‫خ‬٤‫وح اُؼوث‬٣‫ ّٔبٍ اُغي‬ٝ ‫ة‬ٞ٘‫ٖ ع‬٤‫ ث‬ٜ‫ْ اُواث‬ٛ‫ األ‬١‫اُزغبه‬
.١‫وخ هٍْ اُؾوف اُؼجو‬٣‫و‬ٛ ٚ‫ب رْج‬ٜ‫ اٍزقلٓز‬٢‫ف اُز‬ٝ‫ كبٕ ثؼ٘ اُؾو‬،‫نا‬ٛ ٠ُ‫ ا‬ٝ .‫ثؼل‬
______________________________________________________________________________
*Not to be confused with the vibrant city of „Amrān, in the province bearing the same name, north of Ṣan„ā‟.

118
Paraphrase: Ma„een – A once affluent South Arabian kingdom that played a significant role
in the ancient civilization of Yemen. The people of Ma„een lived in the Jawf region, in what
is today known as the Ḥazm territory, in the northern part of the country, from as early as
the ninth century B.C. Ma„een was considered the most important commercial center tying
the north of the Pennisula to its south. To this day, many ancient vestiges and inscriptions
lie uncovered in Ma„een, no doubt containing historical facts that are as yet unwritten. In
addition, some of the letters used in the alphabet of Ma„een bear a striking resemblance to
their Hebrew counterparts.

Photo #29: Temple dedicated to the pagan goddess ‘Athtar – ‫( عثتر‬Ashtar), in Ma‘een.

Yemeni poet „Amro bin Ma„d-Yakrib sings of both Ma„een and Barāqish in the same verse:

‫ ُغ‬٤ِٓ ‫ ارألة ث٘ب‬ٝ ‫أٍ َغ‬ ُٓ‫ ِع‬ٝ‫ثشالؼ أ‬

َ ١‫ُ٘بك‬٣

The subject of the history and culture of Ma„een is too expansive to be discussed in this book.
For now, it is enough to say that those who insist on projecting names such as Ma‘in, Ḥaqufah
and Barqos onto the territory of the Levant, for no better reason than to conform to the
Orientalist imagination of the Biblical theater, are quite simply deluded to the point of insanity.

140) Suṭi:

This clan resided in a valley bearing the same name: Wādi Sūṭ )ٍٛٞ(, located north-west of
Ḥaḍramawt )‫د‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫(ؽ‬, as al-Hamadāni tells us in DoA (page 253):

‫به عوّ أٍلَ أُغبىح‬٣‫ ك‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ ماد ٖٗت‬٢‫ ك‬٢ٚ‫ل‬٣ ٚٗ‫ كب‬:ّ‫ اُ٘ؼب‬،‫ األثوى‬،‫ ثطٓ اٌغىط‬٢‫ ك‬٠ٚ‫ ٓل‬،‫اؽل‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ب‬ٚ‫خ ٓل‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ األ‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ٝ
‫ هق‬ٞٛ ٝ ،ٗ‫ب اُؼبه‬٣‫ب ص٘ب‬٣‫ اُض٘ب‬٠ٔ‫ رض‬٢ٛ ٝ ًٖ‫ َٓب‬ٝ ‫ع‬ٝ‫ ىه‬ٝ َ‫ب ٗق‬ٜ٤‫خ ك‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫ األ‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ًَ ٝ .ّ‫ ٗؼب‬١‫اك‬ٝ َ‫ أٍل‬ٝ ‫ اُؼوٓخ‬ٝ
.‫ ؽضشِىد‬ٙ‫َ أكٗب‬٤‫َٓزط‬

119
Note the expression baṭn Sūṭ )ٍٛٞ ٖ‫(ثط‬, wherein baṭn was a famous term used to describe the
base (lowest point) of a valley or ravine.

141) Gebaa

The name appears in the Aramaic scripture as ‫ גבע‬, which spells Gb‘ (with the ‘ayn letter). This
is another Biblical place that eventually fell into ruin, and is known today by the name of „Uzlat
Jaba„ )‫*(ػيُخ َعجغ‬. It is located in the Khabt Principality of the Maḥweet Province of Yemen, to
the west of the capital**.

 Regarding Lakhm

The name Lakhm - Laḥm )ْ‫*(ُقْ – ُؾ‬, which also features in the list of returning clans, was
included in our count of “coincidences” in Book 3. The name refers to an ancient, South Arabian
tribe whose clans migrated to Palestine, where they established a town by the name of Bayt-
Laḥm, in remembrance of their ancestral home. A branch of this tribe settled in Iraq, around 140
AD, became known as al-Lakhmiyyūn, and was credited for eventually establishing the kingdom
of al-Ḥeerah )‫وح‬٤‫(اُؾ‬. Other clans of this mighty nation were among the members of the Arab
army that conquered Egypt, under the military command of „Amr bin al-„Ās, in the year 640 AD.

The Old Testament tells us that King David himself was the son of Jesse, who was from
Bethlehem (meaning that David had Lakhmite roots):

The Lord said to Samuel: “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him
from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go. I will send you to Jesse the
Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons” (1st Samuel – 16:1).

If we turn to Wikipedia and read the article on the Lakhmides, we get the following information:

The Lakhmid Kingdom was founded by the Lakhum tribe that emigrated from Yemen in
the 2nd century and ruled by the Banu Lakhm, hence the name given it.

The above information is accurate, and raises two questions: if Lakhm migrated northwards
starting from the 2nd century AD, where exactly were they when the Biblibal scriptures were first
recorded, around 700 BC? When Cyrus liberated these clans from Babylonian captivity, did they
return to their original homes west of Najrān, or to the imaginary theatre of Palestine?
______________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%AC%D8%A8%D8%B9_(%D8%A7%
D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA)
**http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D
8%AE%D8%A8%D8%AA

120
The closing passages of Ezra 2 give us the total number of people who were allowed to return to
their homeland, courtesy of King Cyrus‟s decree:

The whole congregation together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty.
Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three
hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men
and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules,
two hundred forty and five; their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses,
six thousand seven hundred and twenty (Ezra – 2: 64 - 67)

Did Biblical Palestine know a single one of these clans?

*****

121
 PREVIEW

Prophets and Poets

Note: This is an additional chapter featuring a preview of a book entitled Myth of the Crossing,
set to be released in the future. The book deals with the nation of Moab, the controversial Mesha
Stele, and the ancient, symbolic meaning of crossing running water as a means of cleansing of
the human soul and the search for new beginings. The chapter has been added here to make up
for the delay in the release of this book.

122
  Did the Palestinians Come from Crete?

Of all the transgressions perpetrated against the Biblical text by the Orientalists, none is more
blatant, more repulsive and more outrageous than their claim that the Philistines, who are
portrayed as the evil, idolatrous ancestors of all modern-day Palestinians, were actually strangers
who had come from the Mediterranean Sea, and settled like parasites in the alledged “Promised
Land” of the Jews. The goal of this fabrication was to market a presposterous ideology that the
Palestinians who were expelled from their homes at gunpoint in 1948, had no business being
there in the first place, as they are the descendants of maurauding pirates who originated
somewhere near Greece! As such, the waves of European migrants (Russian, Polish, Hungarian,
Ukranian, and German) to the so-called “Holy Land”, before and after the British Mandate, were
simply the original inhabitants of the country, returning to reclaim what was theirs. By means of
this fraudulent allegation, the Palestinians were alienated from their homeland, and their ancestry
was uprooted from the geographical theater that embraced their historical legacy. What is even
more disgraceful is the fact that many Arab scholars and academics of the modern age have gone
on reiterating this Orientalist filth, and teaching it to their students in the Arab world: that the
Palestinians originated in Crete.

The root of this delusion can be found in some passages of the Old Testament which feature the
name Krt (spelled ‫)כרת‬. Here follows is a poetic hymn from Zepheniah, promising doom and
gloom to the Philistines of Canaan:

Seek ye the Lord,

All ye meek of the earth,
Who have performed His judgment;
Seek righteousness, seek meekness:
It may be ye will be spared,
In the day of the Lord‟s anger.
For Gaza shall be forsaken,
And Ashkelon a desolation;
They shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day,
And Ekron shall be rooted up.
Woe unto the inhabitants of the sea-coast,
The nation of the Cherethites!
The word of the Lord is against you,
O Canaan, land of the Philistines.
(Zepheniah – 2: 1-3)

The term “Cherithites” which features in these verses is a Latin corruption of the Aramaic ‫כרתים‬
(Krtim), the plural of Krt. This name was interpreted as designating the prople of Crete, an island
in the Mediterranian Sea. Hence, the racist and supremacist god of the Jews promised death and

123
destruction to the Cretian invaders (the Phislistines), who inhabited the cities along the coastal
plain, namely Gaza, Ekron, Ashkelon and Ashdod.

In his book entitled The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History,
scholar Keith W. Whitelam brings to our attention the fact that the “theory” which asserts the
Mediterranean origin of the Palestinians was used to forward the following propaganda: that the
Biblical kingdom of Israel, like the modern-day Zionist entity known by the same name, claimed
its rightful ownership of a land that was originally devoid of inhabitants. What this means,
technically, is that the imaginary history of the Biblical Israelites was marketed in such a way so
as to promote an ideology for expelling the Palestinians out of their homeland in 1948; an
ideology that has no archeological basis, and is derived from a wishful and fraudulent
understanding of the silent Aramaic term Krt.

Thus, the delusion that the Israel of the Old Testament is the same Israel that was re-established
in 1948 was propagated. And the Palestinians, portrayed to the world as the modern enemies of
the illegitimate Zionist state, became the descendants of the Philistines, who were the same foes
of Israel during Biblical times, and whose only role in the universe, and throughout the ages, is to
be the enemy “outsiders”.

And the fraud goes even deeper. In an Egyptian stele traced to King Ramses III (reigned 1193 –
1162 BC), the word Phrsht appearing in the Hieroglyohic inscription was interpreted as Philist,
by simply replacing the r with an l, for no better reason than pure convenience. As such,
a devious, malicious scheme was set in place, by means of which the Palestinan people were
portrayed as “alien invaders”, whose ancestors had come to the so-called “Land of Canaan” as
pirates from the island of Crete. Consequently, every aspect of Palestnian culture; their
traditional dishes, their dress, their folk dance, and their music, became the cultural heritage of
European Jews.

The truth of the matter is that the Krtim mentioned in Zepheniah‟s poetic passage does not
designate the island of Crete, by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how diseased or
deluded that imagination may be. What the word denotes is a tribe by the name of Bani Karth -
Karath )‫(ًواس‬, who at one point in history were associated to several places in the vast coastal
territories of Yemen, among which were „Azzah, „Aqrūn, and „Athqalān. And we have already
shown you that during the Biblical times, these names had no relation to Palestine whatsoever.

Furthermore, why would the Biblical Philistines alone, from among the hundreds of clans and
tribal peoples mentioned in the OT, be of Greek origins? There is not a single shred of physical,
or archeological proof, whether in Palestine or in Crete, to support such an imaginary ideology.

124
For this reason, we shall once again resort to the old and often silenced folklore of Arabia,
wherein we will find our own “inscriptions”, not in the ground, but in the conscious memory of
the nomads, who preserved these names for us, in their poetry, down through the generations.
Upon doing that, we will construct a different version of the events.

1- Concerning the Philistines:

The Old Testament relates to us the wars that King David (Dawūd) fought with certain pagan
tribes of Arabia, on the slopes of a mountain that does not exist in the entire length and width of
Palestine: Aban-„Ezer. In our third book, Israel and Sheba, we presented proof that Jabal Abān
)ٕ‫ (عجَ أثب‬was indeed in Yemen, and among its inhabitants were the Al „Eezar )‫بىهح‬٤‫(اُؼ‬. The pagan
tribes in question were a conglomeration of unrelated peoples known by the designation of Fils –
Filst )‫(كٌِ – كَِذ‬, who worshipped a deity by the same name. Among the most popular of those
tribes was Ṭay‟ )‫ء‬٢ٛ(, who eventually migrated northwards and settled in Nejd, Iraq, and the
Levant.

2- Concerning „Azzah:

We remind you once again that nowhere in the entire OT scripture does the term Gaza actually
appear. The name which suited their phantasies was ‘Azzah, which is spelled as such: ‫( עזה‬note
the ‘ayn letter).

Further evidence of the fraud is encountered in a particular passage of the OT (Joshua – 15:47)
wherein the very same name, ‘Azzah, appears conjoined with another term: ‫חצרה‬, which spells
ḥṣrh; hence ḥṣrh-„Azzah (meaning: the ḥṣrh of „Azzah). Apparently, they did not even grasp the
implications of this term. If we look at the rampant translations, we see that most versions
rendered it simply as “hamlets” and / or “villages”.

Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; unto the brook
of (Egypt), and the great sea, and the border thereof (American Standard Bible).

Ashdod, its dependent villages and its hamlets; Gazah, its dependent villages and
its hamlets, as far as the torrent of (Egypt), and the great sea and its coast (Darby’s
English Translation).

We have already established that there is no Egypt in the picture, and that the bodies of water
mentioned in the above passage are the Brook of Msrim, and the great sea beyond (the Red Sea
or Gulf of Aden). However, special attention should be given to the term ḥṣrh, which does not
actually convey the meaning of towns / hamlets. If it did, the “Hebrew” text would have used the
term qiryat or ‘ir, which are more consistent with the context.

125
It is our view that the term ḥṣrh is nothing but the Aramaic (a‟jami) version of the Arabic term
ḥaẓeer – ḥaẓeerah )‫وح‬٤‫و – ؽظ‬٤‫(ؽظ‬, used by the Arabs during the age of their infancy, to describe
tribal settlements within isolated sanctuaries, surrounded by outcroppings of rock, or large,
shielding boulders. Another often-used term which conveys a similar meaning is ‘uzlat )‫(ػيُخ‬,
which al-Hamadāni used to describe several such places in Yemen, among them „uzlat Shabbā„*
)‫ (ػيُخ ّجّبع‬in a region containing vestiges of several water wells, near the city of Radā„.
Therefore, the rendering of the text would be: „Azzah and its sanctuaries, rather than ‘Azzah
and its villages / hamlets.

To this day, we encounter dozens of places all over Yemen, designated as ‘uzlāt, reminiscent of
the ancient tribal pattern of habitation. This precise determination of the implications behind the
Biblical use of the word ḥṣrh** proves that the „Azzah of the Old Testament could not have been
the bustling city port of Gaza on the Meditteranean Coast. The name most probably designates
a small sanctuary tucked on the slopes of a mountain or a cliff inlet overlooking a coastal plain.

Even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that the „Azzah of the Old Testament is the
Aramaic rendering of the name Ghazzah (being that Aramaic does not vocalize the gh sound) we
can say, with all certainty, that the Arabs knew of another place called Ghazzah )‫ (ؿ ّيح‬which was
nowhere near Palestine.

Here are the words of poet al-Akhṭal:

ُ ِٜ َُ ُْٟٞ‫ ا‬٢َّٞٓ ‫ؽِ غ ّضح‬ٝ ٖٓ

‫ن‬ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ ِّْ اَُزو عجِز‬ٙ ‫ب ثؼل‬ٜٗ‫ًؤ‬

The above verse describes Ghazzah as being a waḥsh )ِ‫ؽ‬ٝ(, meaning: a lonely, deserted vestige.
Does this sound to you like it is describing the bustling port city of Gaza in Palestine?

Poet Ḥassān bin Thābit also sang of this Ghazzah, and placed it in the Jawf area:

ْ‫لٕـب‬
ِ ٢٘‫ ثــ‬ٜ‫ـ‬ٛ‫ ه‬ٝ ‫ُٓـــِـــِخ‬ ٢٘‫ اٌذَّـــبْ ػ‬٢٘‫أال أثِؾ ث‬
ِْ ‫ت اٌغىف ٖٓ عجذ اٌّذا‬٤‫هؽ‬ ‫اء‬ٞ‫ــ‬ٛ ‫ أثِؾ ًَ ُٓ٘زَــقت‬ٝ
ِٕ ‫ــلا‬٤ُ‫ب ا‬ٜ‫ّ ثــ‬ٞ‫فـلــبف ال رــو‬ ‫ هٓبػ ؿبة‬ٝ ‫بٌٓ غ ّضح‬٤ٓ

The above verses feature the names of clans and places that are completely alien to the Levant.
The Bani al-Dayān (ٕ‫ب‬٣‫ )اُل‬were Christian clans that resided in Najrān. The Bani Qanān )ٕ‫ (ه٘ب‬are
unheard of in Palestine, as is the case with the Jawf area )‫ف‬ٞ‫(اُغ‬, which lies in Northern Yemen.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Recall the Biblical Bi‟r Shab„ (rendered as Beer Sheba in English), the very same Well of Shabbā„, in an isolated
mountain enclosure. We identified the location in Road of the Patriarch.
** The “Hebrew” language does not vocalize the ẓ letter )‫(ظ‬.

126
As for the clan of „Abdul Mudān )ٕ‫(ػجل أُلا‬, they were famous for being the cardinals of Najrān
and caretakers of its cathedral, the Ka„bah of Najrān, which the Wahhabis demolished.

One last, eye opening verse, by poet Abu „Alā‟ al-Ma„arri, following in the age-old tradition of
singing about migrating tribes who were forced to leave their ancestral lands, gives us the
following priceless information regarding the Ghazzah of Palestine:

‫ اٌعشَؼ‬ٝ ‫ا ُجالك غ ّضح‬ٍٞٔ ‫ والة‬٢٘‫ ث‬ٝ ‫أُْ ر َو طُئب‬

Did you not see Ṭay‟ and Bani Kalāb?

They moved to the land of Ghazzah and „Areesh.

The above verse is among the clearest proof we have of the migration of the tribes of Ṭay‟ )‫ء‬٢ٛ(
and Kalāb )‫(ًالة‬, at one point in their long history, to the Levant. These migrants settled in Gaza
ّ
)‫(ؿيح‬ and al-„Areesh )ِ٣‫(اُؼو‬, an Egyptian city not far from the Palestinian border.

3- Concerning Krtim:

In his book entitled Al-Ikleel (lit: The Wreath) al-Hamadāni states the following (10:104),
regarding the clan of Hanūm – Ahnūm )ّٞ٘ٛ‫ّ – أ‬ٞ٘ٛ(:

.‫ وشاصب‬ٝ ً‫ّ ثٖ اُؾبهس ٓبٌُب‬ٞ٘ٛ‫ُ َل األ‬ٝ‫كؤ‬...َ‫ األهٕى‬ٝ ٌّٔ ‫ ػجل‬ٝ ً‫ن ٕؼجب‬٣‫ُ َل ّبؽن ثٖ ؽن‬ٞ‫ك‬
َ

We have seen the relation between the names of places and the clans who resided therein, in the
ancestral trees of Arabia. According to al-Hamadāni, Karāth )‫ (ًواس‬was the son of Ahnūm who,
along with „Abd Shams )ٌّٔ ‫ (ػجل‬were the children of Shāḥedh )‫(ّبؽن‬.

Elsewhere (10:105), al-Hamadāni gives us more detail regarding this lineage, as he gleaned it
from the mouths of the residents of the Hamadān )ٕ‫ٔلا‬ٛ( region in Yemen:

َٛ‫ْ أ‬ٛ ٝ ،‫ ػبئن‬٢٘‫ُل ث‬ٝ‫ كؤ‬،َ‫ّ وشاس ثٓ األهٕى‬ٞ٘ٛ‫ُل األ‬ٝ‫ أ‬:ْٜ‫ْ ػٖ َٗج‬ٜ‫ هل ٍؤُز‬ٝ ،َ‫ أٓب ػوّاف األهٕى‬:ْ‫ٍ َٗبثخ هّذا‬ٞ‫نا ه‬ٛ
.‫ ٔىف‬٢٘‫ ث‬ٝ ٢٤‫ُ َل ًواس ؽ‬ٝ‫ أ‬ٝ...‫صىس‬

The name in question here is Karāth Ibn Hanūm. According to the experts on the subject of
ancestry, the Hanūm were once the inhabitants of Ṣūr (Tyre), and among their descendants are
the Bani Nawf – Nūf )‫ف‬ٞٗ(. These names designate locations as well as clans dwelling therein.

In his footnotes in DoA, al-Akwa„ points to the fact that Hanūm and Ahnūm denote the same
place. He also presents Hinwam as an alternative pronunciation of the name (depending on
where the dialectic marks are placed on the letters). In either case, there is no doubt that the
Hanūm of Yemen is the Hinnom of the Old Testament.

127
We have already shown you that the Sidon and Tyre of the Old Testament have nothing to do
with the cities known by the same name in the Lebanon of the Levant, but were in fact coastal
towns in Yemen that all but vanished from memory. Al-Hamadāni (page 203) places the ruins of
Ṣūr )‫ه‬ٕٞ( in what was once known as Jayshān, a prosperous mikhlāf that lay directly to the east
of „Adan. Today, the name Jayshān )ٕ‫ْب‬٤‫ (ع‬denotes only a tiny village in what was, long ago,
a much larger territory. The name receded from use, and gave way to the Abyan Province.

‫ٖ ٖٓ ؽت‬٤٣ٝ‫ عبٗت ثِل اُؼل‬ٝ ،ِ٤‫ ؽج‬٢٘‫ ثِل ث‬ٝ ،‫ل‬٣‫ صو‬ٝ ،‫و‬ٚ‫ ؽ‬ٝ ،‫ صىس‬ٝ ،‫ ثله‬ٝ ،‫ ؽغو‬:ْ‫ؼل ٖٓ ٓقالف عُؾب‬٣ ٝ
.ٕ‫ ٍقال‬ٝ

To those who still doubt the existence of an ancient city called Ṣaydn (Sidon) in Yemen, here are
two verses of poetry by „Ā‟edh bin „Abdullah al-Māliki (of the tribe of Asad-Azad), describing
his travels across many territories of his native homeland, as quoted by al-Hamadāni himself:

‫ٖ اُنئبة‬٤‫بٍ ث‬٤‫ اَُــــــــــ‬ٝ ‫ ُػّ٘خ‬ٝ ٙ‫ اٌغـــــؾىٌُٓ ثؼل‬ٝ ‫ُول ُه ّكد صُذا‬

‫ اَُجبٍت‬ٝ ٠‫فجود ٌُْ ٌؾظ اُوُث‬ ُ
‫لذ أثُٓ ثؼل ٓـــــب‬ٛ ٠‫ّ هد ؽز‬ٞ‫ ؿ‬ٝ

Note how the poet renders Sidon exactly as the Lebanese people spell it )‫لا‬٤ٕ(, placing it in the
same geographic space as al-Suḥūl, which he renders in the dual form Suḥūlayn (ٖ٤ُٞ‫ )اَُؾ‬for
poetic effect. The second verse tells us that the traveller delved deep into the valleys of Abyan
(ٖ٤‫ )أث‬and Laḥj (‫ )ُؾظ‬, two coastal provinces which still exist by name today, in southern Yemen.

The range known as Jibāl al-Ahnūm is composed of three peaks, and there are several legends
which associate Nār’ul Yemen (the Fire of Yemen), to those mountains. Commentators believe
that the term denotes ancient volcanic deities that were once worshipped in that area long ago.
This reminds us of the following passage from the Old Testament, describing the abominations
of idolatry perpetrated by the kings of Israel:

And he burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burned his sons in
the fire, according to the abominations of the nations that Yahweh had
dispossessed from before the children of Israel (2 nd Chronicles – 28:3).

The Hinnom of the Old Testament has nothing to do with the Jerusalem of Palestine, or the
Sidon of Lebanon. And the Biblical Kartim were not pirates who came from the island of Crete,
as the Orientalists claim. These were the Bani Karath (al-Karathiyyeen), sons of Hanūm, who at
one point in history migrated towards the coast. Their name features as Krt in the silent Aramaic,
which did not vocalize the letter th. These people gave their name to a valley, Wādi Karath,
which is no longer known by that name today.

128
As for the Nawf – Nūf )‫ف‬ٞٗ( mentioned by al-Hamadāni, it is the same place which he sometimes
designates as Yanūf )‫ف‬ٞ٘٣(, and no doubt the very same Noph which features several times in the
Old Testament scripture, and which the redactors imagined as the city of Memphis in Egypt.

Here follows is a passage from al-Bakri‟s Encyclopedia regarding this place (page 1101):

‫ ػوجخ‬:‫ف‬َٞ٘‫ ر‬٠ّ٘‫ اُلزؼ ثٖ ٍع‬ٞ‫ هبٍ أث‬.‫طٍء‬

ّ ‫غ ثجالك‬ٙٞٓ ٞٛ ٝ .٠ُٞ‫ىٕ كؼ‬ٝ ٠ِ‫ ػ‬،‫ اُزبء‬ٝ ‫بء‬٤ُ‫ ثب‬،ً‫ و رٕىف‬،ً‫ ػُوبة َٕىف‬:ٟٝ‫ُو‬٣ ٝ
.‫ذ ثبٌٕىف‬٤ٍُٔ ،‫هح‬ْٜٞٓ

Apparently, the old Arabian chroniclers spoke of this place, whose name was rendered in no less
than three forms: Tanūfa, Yanūfa (spelled with a silent alif suffix) and Nūf. Al-Bakri locates it
within the territories of Ṭay‟ )‫ء‬٢ٛ(, the chief tribe among the Filist (Philistines).

Photo #30: The middle peak of the Hanūm mountain range.

 The Fall of Moab

Another Biblical name that was the subject of horrendous manipulation and misunderstanding is
Moab. The account of Moab speaks of a Biblical nation whose clans fought many wars with their
Israelite rivals and neighbours. These wars extended from the era of King David, up until King
Omri and his descendants. Eventually, the land of Moab, with its mythical capital Qir-Hareseth
(now called al-Karak) believed to be in Jordan, was annexed by Israel, and incorporated into its
imaginary empire, which extended from the Euphrates of Iraq to the Nile of Egypt. The truth of
the matter is that the ancient history of the Levant never witnessed these wars, nor have most of
the names of locations featuring in Isaiah‟s oracle regarding Moab, which we will analyze
hereafter, been positively identified within the Palestinian or Jordanian territory.

129
Before we begin our investigation of this Biblical dilemma, we should note that the name Moab
itself was not fraudulently projected onto the Levant, but is indeed a genuine name, and does in
fact designate a historical territory within the country known today as Jordan. Our question is:
which Moab does the Old Testament speak of? Is it the Moab of Jordan? Or is it some other
country that was known by that name, and existed elsewhere? To rephrase the question: did the
presence of a city called al-Karak in the Moab of Jordan lead to a delusional projection of the
Biblical Moab, with its alledged capital of Qir-Hareseth, onto the Levant?

Our view is that this was indeed the case. And the first evidence which always points to such
false projections is that the Orientalist interpretation focused on the three names Moab, Medeba
and Dibon in particular, while completely ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that not one
of the other names in Isaiah‟s poem was confirmed by archeologists to designate a location
within that same territory. Aside from that, the claim that Qir-Hareseth (Qeer Ḥarast – ‫و ؽوٍذ‬٤‫)ه‬
corresponds to Karak )‫ (ًوى‬is unacceptable from a purely linguistic point of view. This is
because the k letter at the end of the name Karak is not a superfluous suffix that can simply be
dropped or ignored, as is the case with the –n suffix. The k is part of the name.

The second thing worth noting is that the rampant translations of Isaiah‟s lamentation of Moab
contain a number of spectacular errors which render the verses nearly unintelligible, as we will
soon see. In reality, the poem describes the final defeat of Moab, and the expulsion of its pagan
clans to arid, dry areas on the outskirts of deserts. It recounts the story of their tragic overthrow,
as seen through the eyes of Isaiah, without actually stating that it was the Israelites themselves
who directly caused this particular and final misfortune. This fact can still be gleaned, despite the
glaring errors apparent in the text.

Map #12: Imaginary Palestine (Israel / Judah) and Jordan (Moab / Ammon)

130
Here follows is our rendering of the poem (Isaiah – 15):

1- The burden of Moab;

2- For in a night, Ar of Moab is laid waste, and brought to nought;
3- For in a night, Kir of Moab is laid waste, and brought to nought;
4- The daughter of Dibon has gone up to the high places, weeping.
5- Moab waileth over Nebo, and over Medeba;
6- On all their heads is baldness, every beard is cut off.
7- In their streets they gird themselves with sackcloth;
8- On their housetops, and in their broad places, every one waileth, weeping abundantly.
9- To Heshbon it crieth out, and Elealeh; its voice is heard even unto Jahaz;
10- Therefore the armed men of Moab cry aloud; its soul doth tremble.
11- My heart crieth out for Moab; her nobles flee unto Zoar, to Eglath-shelishi-yah;
12- For by the ascent of Luhith with weeping they go up;
13- For in the way of Horonaim they raise up a cry of destruction.
14- In the desiccated waters of Nimrim;
15- Its grass withered away, its tenderness failed, there is no green thing.
16- Therefore the abundance they have gotten, and that which they have laid up;
17- Shall they carry away over the brook of the willows.
18- For the cry is gone round about the borders of Moab;
19- The wailing thereof unto Eglaim, and the wailing thereof unto Beer-elim.
20- For the waters of Dimon are full of blood; for upon Dimon;
21- Lions upon them of Moab that flee, and upon their remnant in the land.

Despite the numerous errors perpetrated by the translators, the subject of this sad poem is
strikingly similar to the old Arabian dirges, often referred to by modern scholars as “crying over
the ruins”. The song recounts the story of the fall of Moab (Mo‟b), and the scattering of its clans
to regions beyond their original territories. These are the same clans that King David subjugated,
over two centuries earlier, when he was expanding the borders of the Biblical domain. The poem
lists for us the names of the locations that witnessed the battles, describing the mountains,
valleys, and arid flatlands where the echoes of the weeping clans resounded, as they were forced
to depart their homes in disgrace, after suffering several humiliating defeats. Apparently, the
Moabites sought the aid of several neighbouring clans, but none was given.

Of all the places whose names appear in Isaiah‟s song, Medeba and Dibon stand as the foremost
“proofs” the Orientalists relied on to propagate their interpretation of Biblical history. They
claimed that the silent name Mdb of the Aramaic text, rendered as Medeba )‫)מידבא‬, is the city of
Ma‟dabā )‫ (ٓؤكثب‬in Jordan, while Debon designates Dhaybān )ٕ‫جب‬٣‫(م‬, which lies 20 kilometers south
of Ma‟dabā (see the map above).

The first dilemma encountered by the archeologists who conducted excavations in the western
Jordanian plateau overlooking the Dead Sea, was the complete absence of any of the other
locations named in Isaiah‟s poem. Besides the names of Moab itself and Ma„ān (a town lying
south-east of Petra), which are indeed genuine, in addition to al-Karak (which “became” Kir-
Hereseth), all the other names were fraudulently projected onto the territory in question.

131
Where exactly were these places? Did Isaiah invent the listed names? Or did the redactors miss
something?

Before we reveal to you where the Biblical Moab was located, it is worth noting that the original
territories of their clans did not have rigidly determined boundaries. Moab were relatively
widespread, with pockets thereof sharing often-disputed borders with the tribe of Reuben who, in
turn, where the neighbours of Gad. We encounter many passages in the OT mentioning Gad and
Reuben together, having overlapping territories beyond the h-yrdn, with Reuben‟s homes
generally being more southwardly (extending from Ṣa„ḍah to the southern parts of al-Jawf.

Here are some relevant passages, which will help us understand the geography:

Beyond the (Jordan?), in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to explain this law...
(Deuteronomy – 1:5)

And the border of the people of Reuben was the (Jordan?) as a boundary (Joshua
– 13:23)

With it the Reubenite, and the Gadite, have received their inheritance, which
Moses hath given to them beyond the (Jordan?) eastward, as Moses servant of the
LORD hath given to them (Joshua – 13: 8)

Let us begin identifying the locations that witnessed the battles of Moab, keeping in mind that
the latter were eventually expelled to desert areas far to the east of the h-yrdn.

The name Ar appears as ‫ ער‬in the Aramaic scripture, which spells ‘Ar. There are several
locations in Yemen bearing that name, among them a mountain range known as al-„Ar )ّ‫ (اُؼو‬in
Yāphe„, and a valley north of „Adan. Since Reuben were a northern tribe whose territories did
not extend further than Ma‟rib, we would therefore have to locate another place named „Ar
which corresponds to their territory. And indeed, al-Hamadāni mentions such a place as part of
the country of Khūlān )ٕ‫ال‬ٞ‫(ف‬, in Ṣa„ḍah (DoA, page 129):

ّ‫ ّفالدحض ّفالهلة ّو ّعدبوه‬،‫ ّفأولها ّمن ّظاهرها ّجبل ّأبذر ّلبنً ّعوٌّر ّمن ّآل ّربٌعة ّمن ّسعد‬.ّ‫ ّو ٌّس ّّمى ّالقد‬،‫ثم ٌّ ّتصل ّبها ّسراة ّخوالن‬
.‫فالعر‬
ّ ّ‫ّفاألسالفّفغنمّفالخنفعر‬،‫فالمطرقّجبلّلبنًّكلٌب‬

In his footnote commentary of the passage, al-Akwa„ states very clearly that al-„Ar lies in the
Ṣa„ḍah )‫ (ٕؼلح‬province:

.‫ ٖٓ صعذح‬٢‫ أُْبٍ اُـوث‬٢‫ ك‬،ٚ‫ ٓ٘ج‬٢٘‫ ث‬٢‫وغ ك‬٣ ٝ ،ٚ‫جط‬ٙ ‫نا ٍجن‬ٛ ‫اٌعش‬
ّ ٝ

Is it a coincidence then, that Moab fought a battle within the same territory that later became the
domain of the tribe of Khūlān-Jad, who are descendants of Gad?

132
The proper rendering of the name Kir is Qir (with the qof letter, as it is written: ‫)קיר‬. A point
worth noting is that there are several places in the Old Testament designated by the compound
name in the form of Qir-, or Qiryat-. The word simply describes a fertile habitation or
settlement, and its Arabic equivalent is obviously Qar )‫ (هو‬or Qaryah )‫خ‬٣‫(هو‬. The particular place
called Qir-Hareseth, which their obsessive delusions caused them to imagine as the Karak of
Jordan, is mentioned in another part of Isaiah‟s dirge (Isaiah – 16:11):

Therefore mmy inner parts moan like a lyre for Moab,

And my inmost self for Kir-Hareseth.

The name also appears in another lament, sung by the prophet Jeremiah, where it designates
a village / settlement named ‫( חרש‬Hrsh). Here are snippets from that song (Jeremiah – 48):

Moab‟s praise is no more;

In Heshbon they have devised evil against her.
Come, and let us cut her off from being a nation.
Thou also, O madmen, shalt be cut down; the sword shall pursue thee.
Moab is destroyed; her little ones have caused a cry to be heard.
For by the ascent of Luhith with continual weeping shall they go up;
For at the descent of Horonaim they have heard the distress of the cry of destruction.
Flee, save your lives, and be like the heath in the wilderness.
Therefore will I wail for Moab; yea, I will cry out for all Moab;
The horn of Moab is cut off, and his arm is broken, saith the LORD;
You inhabitants of Moab! Leave the cities, and dwell in the rocks;
And be like the dove that makes her nest over the mouth of the abyss.
For the men of Kir-Hareseth shall they mourn.

The Orientalist claim that Qir-Hrsh was the capital of the Arameans in the Levant, which later
became al-Karak, has no historical basis whastsoever.

According to the Old Testament, Medba and Debon are located in the same vicinity, in
a mountainous region, on whose peaks Moab were defeated and cast out of their home territories.
Where can such a geography be found, if not in Jordan?

Let‟s take a look at fragments from a passage in al-Hamadāni‟s gazetteer (pages 217, 218),
wherein he describes a series of river valleys originating in Ṣa„ḍah (‫(ٕؼلح‬, some of which empty
in the Jawf )‫ف‬ٞ‫ (اُغ‬region, others near Najran )ٕ‫(ٗغوا‬:

‫جبٕ اٌُجو‬٣‫ عجَ م‬٠ُ‫ ٓب اهرلغ ا‬ٝ ...ًٍ‫ صْ اٌغىف األع‬...‫ ؽ ّلح‬ٝ ‫ ٗغلح‬ٝ ٌّ ‫ رَجبْ ًو‬٢‫ ك‬ٝ ...‫ ُؽوٓخ‬ٝ ٢‫ ّن ٓؾْٖ اُْوه‬ٝ ْ‫ عجً رَجب‬ٝ
‫غ ٓب هل مًو‬٤ٔ‫كغ‬...‫بٕ ثٖ أهؽت‬٤‫َ صْ َُل‬٤ٌ‫ ُج‬ًِٚ ‫ صعذح‬ٝ ٕ‫ا‬ٞ٤‫ٖ ف‬٤‫ك ٓب ث‬ٝ‫غ ؽل‬٤ٔ‫ كغ‬،ٕ‫ب‬٤‫كؼ‬...٢‫إ اُْوه‬ٞ٤‫ِخ كٖ٘ق ف‬٤‫ اُؼ‬ٝ
.ٜ‫ اُـبئ‬٠ُ‫ ا‬ٝ ‫ اٌغىف‬٠ُ‫ ا‬ٝ ْ‫ ٔغشا‬٠ُ‫ ثِل ؽبوش رٖ٘ت ا‬ٙ‫ب‬٤ٓ ٝ ،ٜ‫ اُـبئ‬٠ُ‫خ رٖت ا‬٣‫ك‬ٝ‫صالصخ أ‬...ٕ‫فّزاة كْجؾبٕ كوٖوا‬...٢‫اُوكاػ‬

It is worth noting that the above passage is actually quite concise, but due to the extremely long
footnotes by al-Akwa„, it extends to more than two pages. At any rate, we can see the mountain

133
known as Dhaybān )ٕ‫جب‬٣‫(م‬, located within the same territory as the valley of Madhāb )‫(ٓناة‬,
between Ṣa„ḍah and al-Jawf, not far from certain pockets inhabited by Shakr (Yashkar) clans.
Incidentally, the Dhaybān of Jordan, on which the Biblical Debon was projected, is also spelled
)ٕ‫جب‬٣‫ (م‬in Arabic, being that “Hebrew” renders the dh sound as a d. The same can be said
regarding Medeba (Mdhb), which was interpreted as the city of Ma‟dabā.

Elsewhere, al-Akwa„ states the following regarding Wādi Madhāb (page 161 – footnote):

.‫ أٓبًٖ روغ أٍبكَ وادٌ ِزاة‬،ِ٤ٔ‫ ػ‬ٝ ‫ ٓغيػخ اُـواة‬ٝ ،ّْٞ‫ ؽ‬،‫وح‬٤‫ ؽظ‬...‫ه‬ْٜٞٓ ْ‫ أٍلَ ثٍذ عفُب‬٢‫غ ك‬ٙٞٓ :‫َِزاة‬

It is a very large and famous valley, with several old villages scattered along its banks. Madhāb
is located in the Sufyān Country* and empties in the upper (western) Jawf, near the borders of
the Ma‟rib territory. According to Iraqi scholar Fāḍel al Rubay„i**, its name indeed appears in
the Musnad inscriptions as Madaba.

As for Jabal Dhaybān, it is located in what is known today as „Uzlat Dhaybān, a secluded,
mountainous sanctuary in the northernmost reaches of the Ṣan„ā‟ Province, running along the
border with „Amrān, the Jawf and Ma‟rib. The area in question belongs to the Arḥab )‫(أهؽت‬
clans, and recently witnessed clashes between the locals and the troublesome Ḥuthis***. The red
line on the map hereafter marks the Great Escarpment (h-yrdn), which traces the outline of the
Sarāt Mountains.

Photo #31: An old well in ‘Uzlat Dhaybān (Debon), Yemen.

It is evident from Isaiah‟s poem that Heshbon, Elealeh, and Jahaz lay at the extreme borders of
Moab‟s general territory. This is what Isaiah means when he tells us that the weeping of the men
of Moab reached out to these places. It is also in line with the passage in Jeremiah, which tells us
that the people of Heshbon plotted and schemed against Moab.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*This is the countryside in the south-eastern strip of Ṣa„ḍah.
**See Myth of Crossing the Jordan (page 104).
***http://nashwannews.com/news.php?action=view&id=30596.

134
 Map #13: The Biblical ‘Ar, Medeba (Medhāb) and Dibon (Dhaybān).

The name Heshbon is spelled ‫חשבון‬, which is equivalent to Ḥashbūn )ٕٞ‫ (ؽْج‬in Arabic.
Historically, the famous Ḥawāshib clans of Yemen )‫اّت‬ٞ‫ (ؽ‬occupied many territories throught
the country, and it is difficult to assess where they actually originated, although the most popular
opinion places their ancestral home in Dhamār. By the time al-Hamadāni wrote DoA, pockets of
these clans existed in Laḥj, Ibb, Shabwah, and even as far as Ḥadramawt. The diligent reader
who is interested in learning more about the Ḥawāshib* can research their history on the internet.

On pages 209 and 210 of DoA, al-Hamadāni describes for us the country side formerly known as
Mikhlāf Ḥarāz )‫ (ؽواى‬north-west of Ṣan„ā‟, wherein he mentions a place called al-Ḥūrāniyān
)ٕ‫ب‬٤ٗ‫ها‬ٞ‫ (اُؾ‬as well as Shibām )ّ‫(ّجب‬.

،‫خ‬٣‫ٔب رَ٘ت اُجوو اُوّ اه‬ٜ٤ُ‫ ا‬ٝ ،‫ ًواه‬ٝ ٕ‫ى‬ٞٛ ٝ ،‫ ٍجغ ثالك ؽواى أَُزؾوىح‬١‫ ٍجؼخ أٍجبع أ‬ٞٛ :ٕ‫ى‬ٞٛ ٝ ‫ٓقالف ؽشاص‬
َ‫اُؾ َغ‬
َ ّٜ ٝ...َ٤‫ اُؾج‬ٝ َ٤‫ ؽبه اُؼو‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٖٔ‫ك‬...‫غ اٍْ ؽواى‬٤ٔ‫غٔغ اُغ‬٣ ٝ ،َ‫ ؽجب‬ٝ ‫ؼ‬٤‫ ٓغ‬ٝ ‫بة‬ُٜ ٝ ،‫ َٓبه‬ٝ ٕ‫ ٕؼلب‬ٝ
.ّْ‫ اٌؾىسأُب‬ٝ...ّ‫ اُلهفب‬ٝ ‫ أُؼْو‬ٝ...ٔ‫ األؽ‬ٝ

Let us take a look at the following passage from Isaih, regarding the exile of Moab:

Therefore I will weep with the weeping of Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; with my
tears will I water thee, Heshbon, and Elealeh, for a cry is fallen upon thy summer
fruits and upon thy harvest (Isaiah – 16:9)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*The root of the name is Hshbn or Hashb (by droping the –n suffix).

135
There are several facts which must be noted in this regard:

First: The name Sibmah is actually spelled ‫( שבמה‬Shbmh) in the “Hebrew” text. This same name
appears in another passage of the Old Testament, where it is written in the form of ‫שבם‬, which
spells Shbm. The translations rendered it as Shebam. Here follows is the occurrence:

Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and
Shebam, and Nebo, and Beon; the land which the LORD smote before the
congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle; and thy servants have cattle (Numbers
– 32: 3,4)

By simply comparing the context of the two passages (Isaih and Numbers), and noting that the
same geographical space is being described, we can easily conclude that Shbm and Shbmh
designate the same place: Shebam.

Second: Previously, we gave examples of location names rendered by adding the –h suffix at the
end (which can also substitute for the closed t in Arabic): Ḥareesh – Ḥareeshah )‫ْخ‬٣‫ِ – ؽو‬٣‫(ؽو‬,
Beesh – Beeshah )ْٚ٤‫ِ – ث‬٤‫(ث‬, Nāṣiḥ – Nāṣiḥah )‫(ٗبٕؼ – ٗبٕؾخ‬, Madhab – Madhabah )‫(ٓناة – ٓناثخ‬.
This dialectical habit tends to feminize the names.

Third: In the “Hebrew” language, the –aim (aym) suffix denotes the dual form of words or
names, whereas –im denotes the plural. Hence, the name Ḥoronaim, which is mentioned in
relation to Moab, is the dual form of Ḥorn. In Arabic, this name could be rendered as
Ḥūrāniyān, which al-Hamadāni happens to mention in relation to Shibām.

Fourth: The Shibām mentioned by al-Hamadāni in the passage in question is not to be confused
with the famous city of Shibām in Ḥaḍramawt, which was given the title of “Manhattan of the
Desert”, courtesy of its towering mud skyscrapers. The Shibām that is related to Ḥoronaim is
another Shibām altogether, which lies in the Ḥarāz Mountains, within the same geographcial
space as Dhaybān (Debon) and Madhāb (Medeba).

Here are some important remarks regarding Shabwah )‫ح‬ٞ‫ (ّج‬and Shibām )ّ‫ (ّجب‬by al-Akwa„, in
his footnotes in DoA (pages 171 and 213, respectively):

‫ روغ ّوم‬ٝ ،"‫ٗب‬ٞ‫خ ثبٍْ "ٍج‬٤ٗ‫ٗب‬ٞ٤ُ‫ األكاة ا‬٢‫ب ك‬ٛ‫عبء مًو‬...١‫به‬ٚ‫ اُؼٖو اُؾ‬٢‫د ك‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫ْ ؽ‬٤ِ‫ هب ػلح اه‬ٝ ‫ٔخ‬٣‫٘خ هل‬٣‫ ٓل‬:‫ؽجىح‬
.‫ رؼي‬٢‫ة ّوه‬ٞ٘‫ ع‬،‫ اٌؾىاؽت‬٢‫ب ثِلح ك‬ٚ٣‫ح أ‬ٞ‫ ّج‬ٝ...ّ‫ب‬٣‫ٓؤهة ثَٔبكخ صالصخ أ‬

Paraphrase: There are several locations called Shabwah in Yemen, one of which lies in the
Ḥawāshib )‫اّت‬ٞ‫ (ؽ‬territories. By far the oldest Shabwah is the one which the Greeks referred
to in their records as “Sebona”. It lies a three day jorney east of Ma‟rib, and is the capital of
the Ḥaḍramawt province during the modern era.

136
 .‫ب‬ٜ٘‫ش ػ‬٣‫ هل ٍجن اُؾل‬ٝ ،‫َو‬٤ٔ‫ ّجبّ ِؽ‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ :َ‫ؽجب‬

Apparently, al-Akwa„ differentiates between Shibām of Ḥaḍramawt and Shibām of Ḥimyar, in

the mountains north of Ṣan„ā‟. Today, this latter Shibām is known locally as Shibām-Kawkabān
)ٕ‫ًجب‬ًٞ ّ‫(ّجب‬, and has been famous for its vineyards for ages. In fact, it just so happens that the
warrior-bard Umru‟ al-Qays sang of the vineyards )ّٝ‫ (ًو‬of Shibām in one of his poems:

َ‫ وشوَ ؽجب‬ٝ‫ٖٓ فٔو ػبٗخ أ‬ ‫ٕ كّ اُـياٍ ٓؼزن‬ًِٞ ‫أٗق‬

Is it by pure coincidence that Isaiah and Umru‟ al-Qays sang of the grapes of Shibām? Or is it
perhaps that both figures were following the same, age-old tradition? Furthermore, what does
Umru‟ al-Qays, a Murāri prince of the tribe of Kindah have to do with the Jordan?

Speaking of the Murār (‫)اُ ُٔواه‬, who were none other than the Biblical Merari, the poet known to
historians as Dhul Iṣba„ al-„adwāni mentioned them in one of his poems, alongside several
locations of his ancestral homeland. Among these locations is a place he referred to as Ṣu‘r
)‫(ٕؼو‬.

‫فنح فبٌــ ُّشاس‬ٞ‫هح ك‬ٞ‫كـٔؼــ‬ ‫صع ِش‬

ُ ‫ت فج‬ٛ‫ ث ُٔو‬١‫إ كاه‬

Could this be the Biblical Ṣ„r (‫(צער‬, which the translations rendered as Zoar? Or does it make more
sense to place it near the southern borders of the Dead Sea, and claim that it was the village in
which the daughters of the Prophet Lot sought refuge, when God destroyed the wrongdoers?

Also, it is worth noting that the Ṣu„r described by the poet was a location in al-Bādiyah, far less
fertile than Moab‟s original home territories. This is apparent from the record of events gleaned
from the poems, which speak of Moab being exiled to dry, barren lands. Interestingly,
al-Hamadāni and his commentator, al-Akwa„ (DoA, page 166) speak of nomadic tribes known as
al-Ṣay„ar )‫ؼو‬٤ُٖ‫(ا‬, who roamed the plains of Shabwah and Ḥaḍramawt, and were known for
raising a very famous and sought-after breed of camels, called al-Ibl al-Ṣay‘ariah. Here is what
al-Akwa„ wrote regarding these clans:

.َ ّ‫ هؽ‬ٝ‫ اُـبُت ثل‬٢‫ْ ك‬ٛ ٝ ،‫ؼو‬٤ُٖ‫ ا‬ٝ ‫ اٌُوة‬:‫ٍ اُؼوة‬ٞ‫ كزو‬،‫ب اٌىشة‬ٜ‫ رووٕ ثؤفز‬ٝ ،‫ل‬ٜ‫نا اُؼ‬ٛ ٠ُ‫هح ا‬ْٜٞٓ ‫ِخ‬٤‫ هج‬:‫اٌصُعش‬

Paraphrase: Al-Ṣay„ar are a famous clan even unto this day and age. The clan is often
mentioned in association with its sister, al-Karb; hence the famous phrase spoken by
Arabs: “al-Karb and al-Ṣay„ar”. They were mostly wandering Bedouins.

Meaning: they were nomads („ibrān / “Hebrews”).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*The word isba‘ is Arabic for finger. The poet was given this title, as legends claim one of his feet had six toes.

137
 Photo #32: Shibām – Kawkabān.

The correct Arabic rendering of Elealeh – Elaleh is al-‘Alāyah (the silent Aramaic name ‫ אלעלה‬is
spelled with the ‘ayn letter). The al- (el-) prefix was originally part of many proper nouns, before
it emerged as a separate article to gradually replace the now extinct h- prefix. Below are three
verses from poet Kuthayr:

‫ــــبك ُه‬٣ ‫ ىههـــب ثؤصجـــبط اُجؾبه‬ٝ ُ‫ُت‬ٚ٘‫ ر‬ٝ ‫ ٖٓ أسان‬٠‫ُـبكه ٕوػ‬٣

‫ ُه‬ٝ‫ ٓزغــــب‬ٚ‫٘ــــ‬٤‫ــب ث‬٣‫ اُضــــو‬٢‫ٍو‬
ُّ ٚ‫هــ‬ٞ‫َ ؿبهد أٌُْ ك‬٤َٓ ًَ ٝ
‫ــ ُو‬ٙ‫ـب ثـبٕ ٖٓ أُـوك ٗب‬ٜ‫بع ُـ‬ٛ‫أ‬ ٍٕ ‫ ٓب أّ فْـــق ثبٌعالَـــخ ّــبك‬ٝ

The name Arāk )‫(أهاى‬, which appears in the first verse, is mentioned in the same context as
al-„Alāyah )‫خ‬٣‫(اُؼال‬. Al-Hamadāni states the following regarding Arāk:

.‫ أهاى‬ٚ٤‫ا ٍك ك‬ٝ ...‫ أسان‬ٝ ‫ ًز٘خ‬ٝ ،ٖٔ‫اد اُو‬ٝ‫ ٖٓبثخ ٖٓ م‬ٝ ‫ت‬٣‫ُو‬ٛ :‫ثِل ثٍٕ ٔهذ‬

According to the above sentence, Arāk was among the homes of the Bani Nahd clans. Today, the
place is a ruin inhabited by fiercely independent clans who are armed to the teeth. It is called
‘Uzlat Arak* )‫(ػُيُخ أهاى‬, and it is located in the Ṣirwāḥ district )‫اػ‬ٝ‫ (ٕو‬of Ma‟rib, on the borders
of al-Bādiyah. The area is full of ancient vestiges practically begging to be excavated.

According to Isaiah, Moab sought the aid of Heshbon and El-Alayah, two frontier locations, and
received none. The moans of the exiled clan were heard in the wilderness areas bordering the
deserts. This description fits perfectly with the geography of the Ma‟rib province, and the
desertlike eastern fringes of al-Jawf. Eventually, the fleeing warriors of Moab reached Eglath,
Shelishyah, Nimrim (a desolation whose ponds had dried up), and Dimon. The fugitives were
forced to leave everything behind, taking with them only whatever portion of their grains and
accumulated items that they could carry into the wilderness areas.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%83_(%
D9%85%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%A8)

138
Most translations mistook Eglath and Shelishiyah as being a single place, and rendered the name
as Eglath-Shelishiyah. Some versions rendered it as a completely nonsensical phrase. Here are
some examples:

My heart is crying out for Moab; her people go in flight to Zoar, and to Eglath-
Shelishiyah... (Bible in Basic English).

My heart shall cry out for Moab; his fugitives shall flee to Zoar, a heifer of three
years old... (Noah Webster Bible).

My heart is toward Moab; cry do her fugitives unto Zoar, a heifer of the third
year... (Young’s Literal Translation).

How does one flee into a cow named Zoar?

The word eglath – eglah corresponds to the “Hebrew” ‫„( עגלת‬glh), which does indeed mean
a young cow. This is the same as the Arabic term „jl )َ‫(ػغ‬, which can be feminized by adding
the –h, or short –t suffix ; hence: ‫ػغَ – ػغِخ‬. Due to the fact that the original text did not contain
punctuation marks, some names were inadvertently merged together. Eglah and Shelishiyah are
actually two distinct locations in the wild, neither of which was found by archeologists in the
Jordan. These places either vanished from memory, or no longer exist by their names.

In contrast, Namrim and Dimon, to where the remnants of Moab were exiled, still exist.

When the Orientalists failed to find any trace of Nimrim in the Jordan, they simply projected the
name onto Beth-Nimrah (which belonged to the tribe of Gad), and assumed the two to be
synonymous. This is in fact false, as Nimrah – Nimran (Bayt Namrān) is in the singular form,
and is located in the Jawf area. Nimrim, on the other hand, is a plural form of Nmr (which means
leopard or panther in both Arabic and Hebrew). Poet Hazāzah al-„Amiry, in a very long poem
describing desert places extending from Ḥaḍramawt all the way to the Yamāmah area, north of
the Empty Quarter, sang of a place called al-Namārāt )‫(اُ٘ٔبهاد‬, which is indeed an Arabic plural
form of Nmr, and placed it along the road to al-„Alya )‫ب‬٤ِ‫(اُؼ‬:

‫ا ُء‬ٞ‫ـــب كبُغــ‬٤ِ‫وـــبٕ ػ‬٤‫كبُؼــو‬ ٍِ ‫ ٖٓ أصب‬ُِٟٞ‫فبٌّٕبساد كب‬

‫كبء‬ٞ‫ اُو‬ٝ ‫ؽبف‬ُٞ‫و ا‬ٜ‫اٌعٍُب كو‬ ُ ‫ــ َِ كبُؾٔــوح‬٤‫كٌضجــبٕ اُلث‬

As for the Biblical Dimon, it is a name that was the subject of enormous controversy, made
apparent the minute we see how it was translated in several versions:

For the waters of Dimon shall be full of blood: for I will bring more upon Dimon,
lions upon him that escapeth of Moab, and upon the remnant of the land (King James
Version).

139
For the waters of Dibon are filled with blood: for I will bring more upon Dibon: the
lion upon them that shall flee of Moab, and upon the remnant of the land (Douay
Rheims Bible).

For the waters of Dimon are full of blood; for I will bring yet more upon Dimon, a
lion upon them of Moab that escape, and upon the remnant of the land (American
Standard Version).

quia aquae Dibon repletae sunt sanguine ponam enim super Dibon additamenta
his qui fugerint de Moab leonem et reliquiis terrae (Latin Vulgate).

In the Aramaic text, the name appears as ‫דימון‬, which clearly spells Dimon – Dimun. Yet, for
some reason, the redactors couldn‟t make up their minds whether to render it with a b or an m.
Could this have been the result of Masoretic tampering with the silent name Dmn? Here follows
is a note, gleaned from a Biblical commentary regarding this issue:

[The spelling “Dimon” results in a wordplay (“Dimon” and “blood”, which in Hebrew is
“dam”). Therefore, on account of the large number of slain Moabites, the waters of Debon
became red as blood, and the place was hence referred to as Dimon].

This arcane and finicky understanding of Isaiah‟s passage is but one example of how the
redactors approached Biblical scripture, often interpreting the passages in contradiction with
their context. How can Dimon be Debon, when the former is clearly described as a far away
place to where the Moabites were exiled, while the latter was part of their original territory? The
same commentary then goes on to state:

No definitive conclusion is possible about the place here called “Dimon”.

Why is that, you wonder? Could Dimon be any other than the Dammūn )ُّٕٞٓ ‫ (ك‬described by
Umru‟ al-Qays?

‫ٓب ً ثعٕذ ِي‬ٞ٣ ‫ ِل اُـبهاد‬ّٜ‫ ُْ أ‬ٝ ‫ٓب ً ثذ ِّىْ ٓوّح‬ٞ٣ ُٜٞ‫ ُْ أ‬٢ّٗ‫ًؤ‬

In the above verse, Umru‟ al-Qays, the poet and prince of Kindah* (a kingdom that was located
in the Yamāmah area), recalls his childhood days in Ḥaḍramawt, the country of his ancestors.
The bard vividly describes for us fond, yet sad memories of Damūn, and the bloody raids that
were carried out in a neigbouring place called „Andal )ٍ‫(ػ٘ل‬.

In another short, yet spectacular rhyme, the same poet recalls the days of his youth in the oasis of
Dammūn, writing in the ancient, single verse style:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Umru‟ al-Qays appears in authentic Roman records under the name Amorkesos.

140
 ْ‫َ د ِّــى‬٤ُِ‫ٍ ا‬ٝ‫رــطــب‬
ٕٞٗ‫ٔب‬٣ ‫د ِّىْ اٗب ٓؼْو‬
ّٕٞ‫ِـي ٓؾــج‬ٛ‫ اّٗــب أل‬ٝ

Here follows is a paraphrase of this nostalgic stanza; these few lines that remain from a lost
poem that is nearly seventeen centuries old:

The night has been long, O Dammūn;

O Dammūn, we are all Yemenis at heart;
And your people are beloved to us.

Dammūn and „Andal* are located in Ḥaḍramawt )‫(חצרמות‬, a fringe territory that is mentioned in
the Old Testament legendary lineages of Joktan (Qaḥṭān), son of „Āber )‫(هؾطبٕ اثٖ ػبثو‬, the
grandfather of many South Arabians.

Joktan begot Almodad, Saleph, Hazarmaveth, Yarakh (Genesis 10:26)

Therefore, the possibility that Moab fought a last battle in the oasis of Damūn, where the waters
turned to blood-red, suddenly seems very plausible.

As for the Biblical place designated as ‫נבו‬, which became Nebo courtesy of the Masoretic
rendering, the scripture describes it as being another location over which the defeated clans of
Moab wept. According to Biblical dictionaries**, the term Nebo means “proclaimer”, or
“prophet”. Yet, at the same time, we are to believe it designates the name of a pagan
Mesopotamean deity, as well as a mountain on the east side of the River Jordan, known as Jabal
Nebah.

In truth, the word nebo is the equivalent of the Arabic term nabi )٢‫(ٗج‬. Although the word is
traditionally understood as meaning “prophet”, it can also indicate something that is high,
elevated, or apparent (as in news being declared in a loud voice, or from atop a high place). The
verb derived from this root is naba (past tense), which conveys the same meaning in the
Accadian language. Technically, naba )‫ (ٗجب‬nabu )ٞ‫ (ٗج‬and nabi )٢‫ (ٗج‬are all the same, as the vowel
suffix has no effect on the root nb. Did the Bedouins of Arabia know of a place bearing that
name?

The answer is yes, indeed. Here follows is a verse from a wandering “Jāhiliyyah” poet known as
Aws bin Ḥajar, quoted by Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi in his Glossary of Countries (5:259):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%84_(%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B6%D
8%A9)
**See: http://eastonsbibledictionary.org/2683-Nebo.php and http://www.bible-history.com/hitchcock/N/Nebo/

141
 ‫ٌٓبٕ إٌج ٍِّ ٖٓ اٌىبصــت‬ ٠ٖ‫ألٕجَ َؼ َهرٔب ً كُهبم اُؾ‬

Yāqūt then goes on to expose the discrepencies and conjecture regarding the term, and whether it
denotes the Prophet Muḥammad himself, a simple description of an elevated sand dune, or the
actual name of a location. He finally substantiates the latter opinion, but fails to provide
conclusive evidence as to its location, despite his quoting of poet „Uday bin Zayd:

‫ َُجَت اٌىضـُت‬٠ُ‫ه ا‬ٞ‫كلبص‬ ‫ أُكبم‬٠ُ‫ ثطٖ اٌعمُك ا‬٠‫ٍو‬

‫كلِغب ً فبٌٕجٍ فزا وــشَت‬ ً‫ثال‬َٝ ٍ‫ هُِّــخ األكؽب‬ّٟٝ ‫كو‬

The above two verses describe the poet‟s travels over a substantially large terriroty, and provide
some clues as to the location of the elusive Nabi. The first thing worth noting is that
al-Katheeb )‫ت‬٤‫ (اٌُض‬is mentioned in association with Nabi, whereas in the previously-quoted verse
by Ibn Ḥajar, we have al-Kāthib )‫(اٌُبصت‬. It is certain that both names denote the same place, with
the variation in the spelling due to poetic structure. However, not one narrator or geographer
could pinpoint exactly which Katheeb is mentioned in the verses.

The most famous region known as Katheeb lies in the Nejd region (eastern-central Saudi
Arabia), in the territories of the Rabee„ah clans )‫ؼخ‬٤‫به هث‬٣‫(ك‬. When the commentators realized the
fact that Mount Nebo (where Moses supposedly died) could not be in Nejd, they resorted to the
conjecture that al-Katheeb of Arabian poetry must designate al-Katheeb al-Aḥmar )‫ت األؽٔو‬٤‫(اٌُض‬,
which was made synonymous with Nebo. However, there is absolutely zero evidence of
a historical place bearing that name in Jordan. In fact, the only Katheeb al-Aḥmar ever
mentioned by a classical geographer is a location pinpointed by al-Hamadāni as the burial site of
the Prophet Hūd. Here is the passage (DoA, page 170):

ٌ‫ أٍلَ واد‬٢‫ق ْٓوف ك‬ًٜ ٢‫ ك‬ٚ٘ٓ ْ‫ اٌىضُت األؽّش ص‬٢‫ ك‬ٙ‫ هجو‬ٝ ،‫ش لجش إٌجٍ هىد‬٤‫ ؽ‬ٝ ‫وح‬ٜٓ ‫ ثِل‬٠ُ‫ثخ ا‬ٞ‫ ص‬١‫اك‬ٝ ٘٤‫ل‬٣ ٝ
.‫هذ‬ٝ ًَ ٢‫وح ك‬ٜٓ َٛ‫ أ‬ٝ ْٛ ٚٗٝ‫ه‬ٝ‫ي‬٣ ‫َ ؽضشِىد‬ٛ‫ أ‬ٝ....‫األؽمبف‬

The passage is talking about the tomb of Hūd, which lies south of Wādi al-Aḥqāf, in what is
known as al-Katheeb al-Aḥmar, in Ḥadramawt )‫د‬ٞٓ‫و‬ٚ‫(ؽ‬. This has no realtion to Jordan
whatsoever.

Likewise, we have al-„Aqeeq )‫ن‬٤‫ (اُؼو‬which also features in the poet‟s journey. We know of three
places which bear that name. The first is a province in the Bāḥah )‫ (اُجبؽخ‬region of southern Saudi
Arabia, the second designates a valley near Madinah, and the third is located in the Jawf area, on
the road from Najrān to Ma‟rib (see page 19 of this book).

142
Finally, the name Dhā Kareeb )‫ت‬٣‫ (ما ًو‬mentioned immediately after Nabi is completely alien to
the geography and linguistic culture of the Jordan. The only place bearing that name that we
could find is „Uzlat Dhū Kareeb )‫ت‬٣‫ ًو‬ٝ‫(ػيُخ م‬, in the Ibb Province of Yemen*.

Here follows is another verse mentioning Nabi, by poet al-Qaṭāmi:

َُ ‫ؼ ُٓ٘ ََ ِؾ‬٤ّْ ُ‫ ا‬ٛٞ‫َُٓ َؾ٘لِ ٌو ًقط‬ ‫ اٍززتّ ث٘ب‬ٝ ‫ َهكٕ ٔجُّب‬َٝ ‫ُٔب‬

From the context, we can conclude, with certainty, that it is the proper name of a place. The poet
describes it as a mountain covered with sand, with water running down its slopes, leaving marks
resembling the tracks of a caravan. Although the actual location of Nebo / Nabi remains
unknown, we can say with all confidence that not one of the poets quoted above was describing
a location in the Jordan. And the city known today as al-Karak has no relation whatsoever with
the Biblical Nebo, or with Kir-Hareseth.

Originally Existing in Jordan Fraudulently Projected onto Jordan Not located / Unknown
Moab Nebo Luhith
Al-Karak Kir-Hareseth Eglath
Ma‟an Dibon Shelishiyah
Zoar Horonaim Beer-elim
Wadi Numeirah Heshbon Jahaz
Madaba Nimrim
Rabbah Dimon
Elealeh
Sibmah / Shibam

One question remains: how did names such as Mo’āb )‫(ٓئاة‬, Ma‘ān )ٕ‫(ٓؼب‬, Rabbah )ّٚ‫ (هث‬and
‘Ammūn )ّٕٞ ٔ‫ (ػ‬end up in Jordan? The answer is found in the following snippet from Arabic
Wikipedia**, regarding the history of Jordan:

‫ل‬ٜ‫ أٍلبه اُؼ‬٢‫ ك‬ٙ‫ ؽَجٔب ٗغل‬،‫ٖ ػلح‬٤ٗ‫ا‬ٞ٘‫ذ األهكٕ رؾذ ػ‬٤ِّٔ ٍُ ‫٘ٔب‬٤‫ ث‬،ٕ‫ذ أهٗ ً٘ؼب‬٤ِّٔ ٍٝ ُْٜ ً‫ٖ ثِلا‬٤‫ٕ كَِط‬ٞ٤ٗ‫ارقن اٌُ٘ؼب‬ٝ
،‫ب‬ٌَٜ٘‫ ًبٗذ ر‬٢‫ اٍْ أُٔبُي اُز‬٠ِ‫ ػ‬٠َٔ‫ ُألهكٕ كول ًبٗذ ر‬ٟ‫ آب األٍٔبء األفو‬.ٕ‫ ثالك ػجو األهك‬ٞٛ ّ‫ االٍْ اُؼب‬:‫ب‬َٜ‫ْ ٗل‬٣‫اُول‬
‫ب ثبٍْ رِي‬ٜ‫ّؼج‬ٝ ‫ذ ًَ ٌِٓٔخ‬٤ِّٔ ٍٝ ،‫ أُٔبُي‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ‫ب‬ٜ‫ هبٓذ ث‬٢‫ٗبد اُجالك اُز‬ًٞٞٓ ٢ٛٝ ‫خ‬٤‫ن اُغـواك‬ٛ‫ أُ٘ب‬ٞٛ ٓ‫االٍْ اُقب‬ٝ
،)‫خ‬٤ُ‫ٕ ـ ؽَجبٕ اُؾب‬ٞ‫ ؽْج‬٠ُ‫ٖ (َٗجخ ا‬٤٤ٗٞ‫اُؾْج‬ٝ ،)‫ ٓئاة‬٠ُ‫ٕ (َٗجخ ا‬ٞ٤‫أُئاث‬ٝ )ّٝ‫ أك‬٠ُ‫ٕ (َٗجخ ا‬ٞ٤ٓٝ‫أُ٘طوخ ٓضَ األك‬
٠ُ‫ َٗجخ ا‬ٛ‫ٌِٓٔخ األٗجب‬ٝ .)‫خ‬٤ُ‫َبٕ اُؾب‬٤‫ ث‬٢ٛٝ ٕ‫ ثبّب‬٠ُ‫ٕ (َٗجخ ا‬ٞ٤ٗ‫اُجبّب‬ٝ .)‫خ‬٤ُ‫ٕ ـ ػٔبٕ اُؾب‬ٞٔ‫ هثخ ػ‬٠ُ‫ٕ (َٗجخ ا‬ٞ٤ٗٞٔ‫اُؼ‬ٝ
ٕ‫ أهٗ األهك‬٢‫ب ك‬ُٜ‫ؽطذ هؽب‬ٝ ّ ‫وح اُؼوة‬٣‫بعوح ٖٓ عي‬ٜٓ ‫خ‬٤‫ اُوجبئَ اُؼوث‬ٙ‫ن‬ٛ ‫ كول عبءد‬.ٕ‫ اٍْ أٌُب‬٠ُ‫ٌ ا‬٤ُٝ ٍْٜٔ‫ا‬
ٛ‫ إٔ األٗجب‬٠ُ‫ْبه ا‬٣ّ ...‫خ‬٣‫ك‬ٝ ْٜ٘٤‫ٔب ث‬٤‫ًبٗذ اُؼالهخ ك‬ٝ ‫خ‬٤‫ؼ‬٤‫ج‬ٛ ُْ‫ ٓؼب‬ٟ‫ب ػٖ األفو‬ِٜٖ‫ل‬٣ ً‫بها‬٣‫ب ك‬ٜ٘ٓ ‫اؽلح‬ٝ ًَ ‫٘ذ‬ٛٞ‫اٍز‬ٝ
٠ِ‫اُ٘ؾذ ػ‬ٝ ‫اُيهاػخ‬ٝ ١‫وم اُو‬ٛ ٛ‫بط األٗجب‬ٜ‫نا األٓو اٗز‬ٛ ‫ئًل‬٣ٝ ،‫خ‬٤ّ‫خ أُب‬٣‫هػب‬ٝ ‫اُيهاػخ‬ٝ ‫ِجب ُِوىم‬ٛ ٖٔ٤ُ‫ا ٖٓ ا‬ٝ‫بعو‬ٛ
.ْٜ‫ ًزبثبر‬٢‫خ ك‬٤ٓ‫ها‬٥‫ا ا‬ِٞٔ‫إ اٍزؼ‬ٝ ،ٖ٤٤ٓ‫ا آها‬َٞ٤ُٝ ‫ْ ػوة‬ٜٗ‫ ُنا كب‬،ٖٔ٤ُ‫ ا‬٢‫كح ك‬ٞ‫ع‬ُٞٔ‫خ ا‬٤‫ل ٖٓ أُْ٘آد أُبئ‬٣‫ؿواه اُؼل‬

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B0%D9%89_%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8_(%D8%A5%D8%A8)
**http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%d8%aa%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%ae_%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%b1%d
8%af%d9%86

143
Here follows is a paraphrase of the above passage, which consists of a mixture of historical
truths and Orientalist myths:

And the Canaanites took Palestine as their homeland, whereas the country of Jordan was
given several names, as can be seen from the Old Testament texts, with “Trans-Jordan”
being the general designation thereof. The country was also known by the various names of
the people who inhabited it, such as the Edomites, the Moabites, the Heshbonites, the
Ammonites, the Bashanites, as well as the Nabateans. And all these tribes migrated from
Arabia, and settled in the Jordan, where they became neighbours, and enjoyed peaceful
dealings among each other...There can be no doubt that the Nabateans did in fact
migrate from Yemen, where they brought with them the same techniques of irrigation,
agriculture, livestock herding and sculpture that are evident in that country. Therefore, it
can be said that they were indeed Arabs, not Arameans, even though they used
Aramaic in their writing.

Disregarding the garbage about the “Land of Canaan”, the “Jordan mentioned in the Old
Testament”, or “the Aramaic nationality – as opposed to the Arabian”, we can at least understand
that these names did not come from a vacuum, nor did the inhabitants of the region in question
simply descend from a gateway in the sky to settle the land, as the vast majority of people
believe. They were migrating tribes who came from South Arabia, which is undoubtebly the
primordial reservoir of nations.

Here are some examples:

 The tribes of Kalb, Lakhm and Ṭay‟ migrated and settled along the Mediterranean coast,
with pockets of them also “popping up” in Syria and Iraq. The Lakhmides in particular
became rulers of al-Ḥeerah, the so-called “New Mesopotamia”, during the 5th and 6th
Centuries AD.
 The Bani „Ammūn (the Biblical Ammonites) left their ancestral lands of Rabbah, around
Najrān, and established the “New Rabbah” in Jordan. Today, the city is known as
‘Ammān. Branches of this once mighty nation migrated eastwards, and settled in „Omān,
also giving their name to that country. Do not be fooled, dear reader, by these names:
„Ammān )ٕ‫( َػ ّٔب‬, „Ammūn )ّٕٞٔ ‫ (ػ‬and „Oman )ٕ‫(ػُٔب‬. They are all one and the same.
 The tribe of Kindah migrated from their ancestral homeland in Ḥaḍramawt, and settled in
al-Yamāmah and Iraq, with small clans thereof moving to Oman and Syria.

The information you have read above is not exactly new. In fact, Greek historian Herodotus, in
his voluminous History, asserts that the Phoenicians, in their distant infancy, before becoming
“Kings of the Mediterranean”, were indeed inhabitants of the Red Sea coast.

Where is the truth then? Which Moab is the Old Testament speaking of? Is it the Moab of the
Levant, or the lost and forgotten Moab who once roamed the Arabian wilderness? Who were the

144
Ma„inim listed by Ezra and Nehemiah among the returning tribes? Were they the residents of
Ma„ān near the Dead Sea, or the older and original Ma„in in the Jawf of Yemen?

If you are still uncertain about the answer, the following passages will be the final nail in the
coffin of the Orientalist imagination:

Poet Ibn Muqbil once stood and weeped over the vestiges of a place he reffered to as Ḥabl )َ‫(ؽج‬,
which he placed in the vicinity of two other locations: Ma‟āb )‫ (ٓآة‬and „Arād )‫(ػواك‬. Here
follows are the two stunning verses:

‫ب‬ٛ‫ه هُوا‬ٖٞ‫ ه‬ٟ‫ ِآة رو‬٢َ‫ثؾ‬ ‫ب‬ِٜٛ‫ أ‬ٝ ‫ع‬٤‫خ َؽجً أُو‬٣‫ هو‬ٝ
‫ب‬ٛ‫ا‬ٞ‫ٓ٘ي ٗــ‬
ِ ٖ٣‫كبُٖؾٖؾبٕ كؤ‬ ِ ُِٛ‫اؽزَ ََ أ‬
‫ك عشادا‬ٞ‫ي ما اُوز‬

Where exactly are those vestiges?

Let us turn to al-Hamadāni‟, once again, to locate both Ḥabl and „Arād. On pages 281, 282 of
DoA, we encounter the following passage regarding some of the ancient ruins in the Jawf (‫ف‬ٞ‫)اُغ‬
area:

‫ف‬ٞ‫ ؽبوش ٕلخ اُغ‬٢٘‫ ثِل ث‬ٝ ٙ‫و‬ٛ‫ ظب‬ٝ ‫ب‬ٛ‫ ثِل‬ٝ ‫بٕ اٌغىف‬ٛٝ‫ أ‬٢ٛ ‫ ٗنًو ٓب‬ٝ ،‫ه‬ٞٔ‫ اُؼ‬ٝ ‫صبه‬٥‫ف ٖٓ ا‬ٞ‫كبٗب ٗنًو ٓب ثبُغ‬
‫ب‬ُٜ ،ْ‫ٖ ثٕغشا‬ٚ‫ اُؾ‬ٝ ٜ‫صْ اُـبئ‬...‫ أُٖغ‬ٝ ‫ِخ‬ٚ‫ ػ‬ٝ ً‫ َؽج‬ٝ ٢ّ‫بٕ أُوا‬ٛٝ‫ أ‬ٝ ‫ هؽت‬ٝ ‫ األعلع‬٢٘‫ب ث‬٣‫اك‬ٝ ٝ ‫ت‬ٛ ٝ...ٖ‫ث‬ٝ‫أ‬
...‫ عشاد‬ٝ ‫واة‬ٛ ٝ ‫ اَُبكح‬ٝ ‫ ٍلها‬ٝ ،‫و‬٤ٓ‫ أل‬ٝ

The above passage places Ḥabl and „Arād in the Jawf area, in the vicinity of the Bani Shāker,
with „Arād being located on the Najrān )ٕ‫ (ٗغوا‬border. Al-Hamadāni then goes on to quote poet
Mālik bin Ḥareem, who sang of „Arād in the following verse, in the context of tribal wars:

‫ ٓوـــبثِخ عـشادا‬ِٚ‫ثؤٍــــــل‬ ُٓ‫ اٌغىف ٓب كآذ ِع‬٢ٔ‫ٍ٘ؾ‬

Note how the verse mentions al-Jawf and Ma„in as facing „Arād across the wilderness landscape.
Another poet, namely al-Ḥaṭee‟ah )‫ئخ‬٤‫(اُؾط‬, also sang of the ancient Ma‟āb of Yemen:

ِ ‫ ال ٖٓ لَ َش‬ٝ ‫كال ٖٓ ِآة‬

‫ة‬ ‫اُلٓبؿ‬
ِ ‫ ثناد‬٢ِٛ‫ أ‬ٝ ٢ٗ‫أرب‬

Al-Ḥaṭee‟ah speaks of Ma‟āb )‫ (ٓآة‬and Qarb )‫(هوة‬. The latter is a valley which empties in
Tihāmah )‫بٓخ‬ٜ‫(ر‬. Al-Hamadāni (page 235) states that the inhabitants of Qarb hailed from the Ḥijr
region )‫(اُؾغو‬:

.‫ رهبِخ‬٠ُ‫ ٍبً٘خ ا‬ٚ‫ ث‬،‫ل ثٖ اُؾغو‬٣‫ ى‬،‫ ٖٓ اٌؾغش‬ِٚٛ‫ا ٍك أ‬ٝ ‫ لَشة‬ٝ

145
These were the homes of Ma‟āb al-Ūla (meaning: the original, ancient Moab of Arabia), whose
scattered inhabitants eventually migrated to Jordan.

And here is the list of the on-going coincidences:

“Coincidence” Aramaic Actual “Hebrew” English Arabian Arabic

number Spelling transliteration Translation Sources transliteration

142 ‫ער‬ „Ar Ar ‫اُؼ ّو‬ al-„Arr

143 ‫דיבן‬ Dibn Debon ٕ‫جب‬٣‫م‬ Dhaybān
144 ‫מידבא‬ Midba Medeba ‫ٓناة‬ Midhāb
145 ‫חורנים‬ Ḥornim Horonaim ٕ‫ّب‬٤ٗ‫ها‬ٞ‫ؽ‬ Ḥūrāniyyān
146 ‫ שבמה‬/ ‫שבם‬ Shbm / Shbmh Sibmah / Shebam ّ‫ّجب‬ Shibām
147 ‫צער‬ Ṣ„r Zoar ‫ؼو‬٤ٕ / ‫ُٕؼو‬ Ṣu„r / Ṣay„r
148 ‫אלעלה‬ Al„lh Elealeh ‫ب‬٤ِ‫ّاُؼ‬/ ‫خ‬٣‫اُؼال‬ al-„Alyā / al-„Alāyah
149 ‫נמרים‬ Nmrim Nimrim ‫ٗٔبهاد‬ Namarāt
150 ‫נבו‬ Nabu Nebo ٢‫ٗج‬
ّ Nabiy
151 ‫דימון‬ Dimon Dimon ّٕٞٓ ‫ك‬ Damūn
152 ‫מואב‬ Mo‟b Moab ‫ٓآة‬ Ma‟āb

*****

146
 Conclusion

Exactly how and when did Palestine become the “Holy Land”? When did the city whose name
appears in the Roman records and administrative maps as Ilya’ Capitolana become synonymous
with the Ur-Salem of the Old Testament? How did this projection end up engraining itself so
firmly in the consciousness of the generations, until it became a universally accepted truth?

In our view, the answer to these questions is quite simply politics. This leads to a necessary
query: who stood to benefit from hiding the true theater of the Biblical events and projecting it
onto the Levant?

In order for a lie or a false creed to be adopted by the masses as the truth, three conditions are
required to be fulfilled:

1- It must be big and elaborate; for the bigger the falsehood, the more people will buy into
it.
2- It must be repeated continuously, until it becomes the accepted doctrine. This is
a psychological aspect that has been shown to be effective in conditioning the recipients
of any creed or dogma.
3- It must be supported by the political establishment, which is often in symbiosis with the
religious elite of the age, and which brutally persecutes any opinion that is not in line
with the “politically correct” doctrine.

Once the above three conditions have been satisfied, there is virtually no limit as to what the
upper echelons of society, or the ruling minority, can propagate as the truth when their interests
calls for such. And the brain-washed masses will be ready to adopt pretty much any doctrine, no
matter how outrageous or illogical it will prove to be upon close scrutiny. This leads us to the
sociological aspect often referred to as the “herd mentality”, wherein the herd itself becomes its
own police, and seeks to ridicule, oppose and persecute any dissenting voice. Those who deny
that Palestine was the “Holy Land” of the Biblical prophets are hence labeled as “heretics”,
“non-conformists”, or “anti-Semites”.

The more we look at the theological history of the world, the more it becomes apparent that we
have been lied to. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the Romans were major culprits in the
blasphemies that have been propagated as unquestionable truths to the followers of the three
“Abrahamic Faiths”. And the Pharisee priesthood that was dominant in the Levant at the time of
the Roman occupation of the region certainly had a hand in establishing the doctrine of Palestine
being the Holy Land. This creed was later adopted by the Umayyad Dynasty, whose power was
centered in Syria, and enforced by Vatican propaganda, during the age of the Crusades.

147
To cast more light on this subject, let us take a look at a passage from the writings of Arab
historian Jawād „Ali (died 1987), in his voluminous History of Pre-Islamic Arabia (Al-
Mufassal), concerning the Jews of Yemen. On page 265 (Volume I), „Ali states the following:
ّ
ّ،‫ّففً ّهذه ّاألرض ّمن ّجزٌرة ّالعرب ّظهر ّالٌهود ّفٌها ّظهورا ّواضحأ‬.‫ ّهو ّالٌمن‬،‫والموضع ّالثانً ّالذي ّعششت ّفٌه ّالٌهودٌة ّوباضت‬
ّ .‫ّفلٌسّلدٌناّعلمّواضحّدقٌقّعنّذلك‬،‫ّومتىّكانّذلك‬،‫ّأماّكٌفٌةّمجٌئهاّوانتشارهاّهناك‬.‫وصارتّالٌهودٌةّدٌانةّالبالدّالرسمٌة‬

Paraphrase: Another location where Judaism established a very firm and evident presence
was Yemen. In fact, Judaism eventually became the official religion of that country. As for
how and when Judaism spread in Yemen, we do not yet have any accurate knowledge
regarding this issue.

„Ali then goes on to paragraph after paragraph of speculation, stating several explanations in the
shape of “perhaps”, “most probably”, and “most likely”, without ever giving a definitive answer
to the puzzling question.

Photo #33: Where did they come from?

Here follows is our answer to this centuries-old puzzle:

It is a historical fact that wars displace people. And massive wars cause massive displacement.
Aside from the countless wars fought among the Arabian tribes themselves, the ancient
Egyptians had interests in the Arabian Penninsula, whose trade routes they sought to control. In
addition, South Arabia was the prime source of myrrh and frankinsense, which the Egyptians
used for the purpose of mummification, and for their religious ceremonies. When the power of
Egypt began to wane, during the 8th Century BC, the Assyrians took over and attempted, on
several occasions, to reach the Red Sea coast, while making an example of the troublesome
nomadic tribes that often raided the caravan stations. And with each military incursion, a new
wave of migration from the Arabian Pennisula would take place.

148
The culmination of the Mesopotamian wars in Arabia came in the year 586 BC, when
Nebuchednassar launched his massive campaign against Judea, plundered and destroyed Ur-
Salem and its neighbouting townships, and took vast numbers of residents as captives to
Babylon. Several generations of these captives remained in ancient Iraq for over fifty years,
until they were released from bondage by the Persians, around 525 BC, and given leave to return
to their ancestral homeland.

These tribes were very optimistic at first, with the rise of Persia. The Achamenid monarchs had
favorable relations, especially with the Jewish minorities, who had offered logistical aid to the
Persians, to dispose of the Babylonians. In fact, some of the Jewish religious figures decided to
stay in the unified Mesopotamia / Persia region, and formed what would later be known as the
Pharisee Priesthood.

But the hopes of the returning tribes would eventually fade, as it became apparent that the
destruction which had been caused by the successive Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian
campaigns was too devastating to repair. They found nothing remaining of their homeland but
poverty, ruin, and despair. To make matters worse, the Achemenid administrative re-division of
the conquered territories of Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Media, and Persia - unified for the
first time into one, strong, centralized empire - brought about a diversion of the trade routes
northwards. These geo-political developments dealt another severe blow to the Arabian caravan
trade, which had been the backbone of the prosperity of the Israelites.

By the time the Romans burst onto the stage of the Mediterranean coast, around 100 BC,
substantial numbers of Israelites, Jews and non-Jews alike, had already settled in the Levant,
where they hoped for a new and more prosperous life. These migrating peoples designated the
villages and geographical features of Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with names from their
ancient, South Arabian homeland, which had gradually fallen into oblivion.

Contrary to what Zionist propaganda claims, the Romans did not re-invent or change the names
of the towns or features of the territory they colonized. They merely reconstructed the names
according to the Latin dialect. When the Roman legions first landed at the port of Gaza, the most
prominent group they encountered were the tribes of Ṭay‟ )٢ٛ(, who were identified by their
pagan Arabian deity, al-Filis )ٌِ‫(اُل‬. Consequently, the Romans named the territory Filistia, and
later Filistia Judea. This is the New Judea that history remembers, and the land that became, in
the consciousness of the generations and the romantic imagination of the Orientalists,
synonymous with Biblical Israel. This was no doubt due the machinations perpetrated by the
religious and political elite - the details of which will be discussed in a future book - which set
the stage for the New Jerusalem to inherit the role of the religious capital of the Middle-East. The
“holiness” of Palestine was hence a Roman-Pharisee invention.

149
With the defeat of the Persians at the hands of the Greeks, fortune began to smile again on
Arabia, as the new powers from Europe encouraged maritime trade, and sought to establish
control over the waterways and strategic entrance of the Red Sea, between Ethiopia and Yemen.
The myrrh and frankinsense of the region became at the forefront of interest once again, and the
Greeks sent many of their spies, in the guise of cartographers and geographers, to monitor the
entire coastal region of Arabia, all the way to the city of „Adan. Due to his untimely death in the
year 333 BC, Alexander the Great‟s dream of laying his hands on what the Greeks referred to as
Arabia Eudaemon, the almost mythical land of fabulous riches, could not be realized.

However, with the advent of the Romans, a new Jewish kingdom arose in Yemen: Ḥimyar*. And
it is precisely at this point that the manipulation of events began, and some of the greatest
mysteries of theological history lie burried.

Did the Romans try to establish control over Najrān and the ports of „Adan and Mocha and, at
the same time, impose their yoke on the Ḥimyarites? Despite the fact that the Judeo-Christian
records are mostly silent regarding this issue, we believe the answer is a resounding yes. And the
campaign of the Roman general Aelius Gallus which, despite its early success, ultimately ended
in disaster, and was recorded by the Greek historian Strabo, was not the first of such attempts,
nor would it be the last of the Roman meddling with Yemen‟s affairs. And it may have been
during that delicate time (Roman-Ḥimyarite wars) in particular, that a man who would become
known to the world by the name Muḥammad answered the divine call and preached the Qur‟ān
in the original homeland of the Jews and the Naṣāra, and nowhere else. As to exactly how and
when that happened, that remains another story for another time.

In the end, we would say that it is not a matter of mere linguistic coincidence that the Old
Testament and the classical Arabian sources are in agreement regarding the Biblical place names.
The fact of the matter is that the Old Testament and the Arabian sources were indeed describing
the same geography: South Arabia, from „Aseer to the shores of „Adan, and from the Red Sea
coast of Tihāmah to the fringes of Ḥaḍramawt, was the theater of the Biblical stories. It was there
that Judaism was born, under the influence of the priests who returned from exile in Babylon. As
for Palestine, it did not become a significant religious center until the year 100 BC at the earliest.

Finally, we urge you, honored reader, to take a look at the following photo of the so-called
“Weeping Wall” in Jerusalem, and ponder: where did this culture of standing and crying at the
ruins come from? How did it end up in Palestine?

Is it not safe to say that humanity has been the victim of a colossal deception?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*In the Greek sources, the Ḥimyarites are referred to as Omeritae.

150
Photo #34: Standing at the vestiges.

Map #14: Origins of Judaism

*****

151
 Notable References

1) Books:

The Qur‟ān

The Old Testament

Description of Arabia – Al-Hamadani

Truth of the Babylonian Enslavement - Fadel al-Rubay‟i (2009)

Detailed History of Pre-Islamic Arabia - Jawad Ali (4th Edition: 2001)

Imagined Palestine: Land of the Torah in Old Yemen - Fadel al-Rubay‟i (2008)

The Arabian Torah and the Ur-Salem of Yemen - Farajallah Saleh Deeb (1994)

Geography of the Torah - Ziad Minah (1990)

The Bible Came from Arabia – Kamal Saleebi (1984)

_________________

2) Websites & Online Articles (other than the footnote links):

http://palestine.assafir.com/article.asp?aid=171

http://ancientegyptonline.org/egyptnews/p/pharaonic-inscription-discovered-in-saudi-arabia

http://egyptology.blogspot.com/2010/11/ancient-egyptians-in-arabia.html

http://www.historytoday.com/karen-thomas/showcase-yemens-past

http://www.14october.com/news.aspx?newsno=57797

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9
%85%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85

http://www.ebadalrehman.com/t169p150-topic

http://www.the-yemen.com/vb/t41426.html

http://www.jawalyemen.com/photos/Ibb/%C5%9Eay%E1%B8%A9%C4%81n

152
http://www.14october.com/news.aspx?newsno=9320

http://alkebsi1967.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post_2800.html

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2013/01/archaeology-and-afro-arabian-context-of.html

http://www.alrahalat.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15178

http://sh.rewayat2.com/tarikh/Web/7299/002.htm

http://www.ancient.eu.com/Esarhaddon/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaeans

http://www.varchive.org/tac/esarh.htm

http://www.isaiah666.com/esarhaddon_campaign.pdf

http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/ASSYRIA/ESARHADDON.html

http://www.ancientreplicas.com/lachish-captives.html

http://www.dnaarab.com/showthread.php?t=3382

http://www.mekshat.com/vb/showthread.php?t=167647

http://www.qahtaan.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33928

https://plus.google.com/109135808831936633434#109135808831936633434/posts

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15627097?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com

http://www.sobee3.com/showthread.php?t=443

http://akifiamal.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post_06.html

____________________

153
 2014

ziggurat_joe@yahoo.com

154