“Covering a wide array of hot-button, often polarizing subjects such as Zionism, Nazism, radical terrorists factions, and where each fits into this highly controversial picture. Livingstone has delivered an important, albeit highly subjective book that's part history, part ideology/theology and part conspiracy theory.”
RJ McGill - bloggernews.net
want to know more
http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters
Released: 5th of November, 2011. Muad'Dib's latest hard-hitting documentary about the innumerable crimes of the Ashke-Nazi Banksters.
From their historical origins down to their planned genocidal future, Muad'Dib tracks who THEY* are, how THEY operate, and most importantly, how to get rid of them once and for all.
Muad'Dib is calling on millions of people to peacefully surround the Houses of Parliament in London, England -- on the 5th of November, 2012 -- to clean it of corruption and treason, making it a day that present and future generations will never forget.
After being wrongfully arrested and falsely and maliciously imprisoned for making His "7/7 Ripple Effect" film and defending innocent people, Muad'Dib is back with no mercy for those who've shown none to others.
Cutting to the root of the problem, with the only solution. Come and be part of it.
* The Hierarchy Enslaving You – THEY.
Iluminati is a blasphemy and that video make this site satanic! walk with god and open your eyes and seek the TRUTH
Going all he way back to 9/11?
With all due respect, the reason I didn't respond directly to your comment is that you are just adding proof against yourself.
Any sincere mind who reads God referring to himself as having "hands" will just take it as is, and not seek to make further sense of it. God clearly stated that there is nothing like Him, so we leave it at that. Refence to attributes like "hands" and "face" are used to communicate some other meaning, so there is no need to seek to further the significance of the use of the words themselves.
I'm not accusing you of insincerity however. Rather, I believe you are likely sincere, but you've chosen to affiliatiate yourself to the cause of Wahhabism, and it is forcing you to rationalize ideas which are otherwise clearly deviated.
The difference with the stance of the Imams is that they avoided any such interpretation. Whereas, the use of words referring to human features as attributes of God is taken by Salafis as affirmation of these attributes as such, but with the excuse that they belong to God in a manner that is fitting to Him. Salafis hope this sideways argument saves them from anthropomorphism, when it doesn't. It opens the road to it.
In other words, as related by Imam al-Baihaqi, in Manaqib Ahmad, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal through a sahih chain of narration: “a person commits an act of disbelief (kufr) if he says Allah is a body, even if he says: Allah is a body but not like other bodies.”
is found in Abu Ameena Bilal Philips' "Fundamentals of Tawheed". Bilal Philips was trained at the University of Medinah, the great propaganda center of Wahhabism, so it is possible that he is not aware, as many aren't, how Saudi Islam deviates from true Islamic tradition.
Essentially, his book shows how dangerous it is to follow the Wahhabi methods of scholarship, as opposed to the true tradition of classical Islam found in the Matthabs.
His book is a typical example of the ruse of the Wahhabis, who focus on "Tawheed" (monotheism), and pride themselves in what they regard as greater attention to it, only to there place their deception, to ultimately undermine the true monotheism of Islam.
Philips begins his exposition by presenting what he considers the alternate view, found among the Mutazillah, where God is considered to be everywhere or at one with creation.
But rather than countering, in the manner of the great Imams of the past, that God does not have a place, he instead negates the Mutazillah argument by claiming that God cannot be "in" creation, and therefore, that He must be somewhere else!
In support, he makes reference to verses of Qur'an and Hadith where God is mentioned as being "above" creation, but takes the meaning of the word literally.
Referring to the Prophet's Night Journey, he writes:
"Therefore, the incident of the miraculous ascension of the Prophet (SAW) up through the heavens contains within it a subtle implication that Alllah is above his Creation and not part of it."
This starts to sounds very familiar to the claim that during a Khutbah, Ibn Taymiyyah descended the mimbar, and then compared his motion to that of God "descending" to the lowest heaven.
A fuller critique as been posted here.
Please do not just copy paste some so called english translation of the Quran, you and I cannot understand the real meaning behind the words and sentences used in the Quran.
Only people with certain level of Ilm could understand the deeper meaning of the Quran. And the wordings in English should not be understood on the literal/surface level.
Anthropomorphism (Tajseem)! This is the concept of God (so-called tawheed!!!) according to Wahhabism! This is a heresy to the concept of God in Islam! This is an example of how the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance are pumping their oil money to produce this kind of lunatic fanatics around the globe!
http://youtu.be/yRbSc6S5D-Y
http://youtu.be/FOZONzE5SZU
Islamic creed of Ahlusunnah Waljama^ah' has nothing to do with the creed of Wahhabism! These are some excerpts in Arabic with English translation from various Sunni Islamic books on the true concept of God in Islam according to the Sunni school, which Wahhabi claim to follow but in reality they never do!
http://darulfatwa.org.au/lessons/Glimmering%20Gems/The%20Glimmerings%20G...
http://youtu.be/8wrpxUYJ5f0
Great review.
I recently finished reading this book. Even though its a good read but I believe that Angel & Demons and especially The Da Vinci Code were far better than this one. The book gets boring somewhere in the middle or maybe its just that we already knew what's gonna come out from it.
I can understand your dismay, but it's a well-known fact that the Americans produced the Taliban. They followed Pakistan's advice that the Taliban would serve to unite the coutry, and the Americans supported them in that strategy. The Pakistantis funded the rise of the Taliban, but in the end, that was all Americna money they were spending.
For Pakistan, it meant in effect colonizing the country, as the Taliban were essentially their creation, and following their particular verison of Islam. That version, propagated through the Madrassas, was the Deobandi school, funded mainly through the support of Saudi Arabia. But in all cases, though they acted somewhat within their own interests, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were acting at the behest of the Americans.
The most important lesson for Muslims to learn is to not be fooled again by leaders or groups who appear or claim to be defending Islam. In fact, it's our collective gullibility in just these cases which is continually being exploited to lure us into believing we are doing something for Islam, when in fact, we have been duped by its enemies into the very opposite.
We have been warned over and over in the Qur'an about the danger of imposters. Time we figured it out.
It's hard to tell exactly what's going without being closer to the situation, but consider the popular opinion of Afghanis themselves.
Afghans believe US is funding Taliban
It's interesting to see your conclusion, but I think it's oversimplify the problem. If all the things that u describe is true, it gives the image that USA government can manage anything perfectly, what about Taliban and Mullah Umar, are they part of the conspiracy too? Maybe it's right that Al Qaeda was the part of CIA, but don't u think that in occupied nation there are always be the rebel group, maybe in this case represented by local people, then those movement join in one command under the Global Islam Movement
I'd love 2 hear ur comment
http://adf.ly/2BdUN
THE ILLUMINATI CODE
Tnanks for this article. Interesting point of view.
First of all a great piece of research, David. Thanks for such a beautiful article. If we consider the history of human civilization, then Laden or other terrorists have been existed through out the ages. they only reflects the negative mentality of their time. After 20 or 30 years, Laden will be merely a faded figure in history book. But if anything that time carries with its flow is the cause behind such acts. If we want our world to be more safe and peaceful for our future generation, then we have to wipe out the cause from its root. And in my view, the most justifiable cause is the feeling of insecurity. Like other animals, whenever a human being feels insecure, he has to be furious and like minded persons follows him and they form a single group to justify and enhance their act. Make everyone in this world secure and the next morning you can feel the difference.
This is one of the highly attractive, informatics, well-written and highly crisp blog that has been explained in fabulous manner to help out reader and visitors. All information found here is genuine and realistic. For more visit.
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/terrorism.asp
A person taking lives of innocent people never be a martyr. A great many supporters does not mean you are a true leader. So Osama is a villain. But who is responsible for it. CIA, some clerics or others. In my view terrorism is a by product of present time of world scenario. We all are responsible for it. we put our greed in every case. Then how we can responsible a politician foe doing some fruad. We have to change our practice and thinking. A global approach will be great. social anxiety support
No dear ! Allah is not powerless .Then why should HE put the mankind to the trial of Dajjal who will be even accepted as God by many
. All such things are either punishment or a trial for mankind.
Click Here for the truths
I luv the article on Paul, the Gnostic. One question I asked myself always:"why is it that Paul had access to palaces, kings, people in authority more than the apostles who walked, lived and talked with Jesus"?
Your article does say that we should ask q's, but data lacks.I do believe reading the 4 gospels, will make us see the message of Jesus in perspective more than the Pauline epistles and its doctrine, which contradicts the message of Jesus.
I would luv to see an article or part proof of the prophet Muhammed and how his prophecies fits into the biblical age for us as christians. I do believe there is a message in his books
But here's an excellent article by an Indian scholar who has been a Post doctoral Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, and the International institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World at the University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.
Ulema Rivalries and the Saudi Connection
So only David Livingstone knows the truth?Theres no doubt the Salafis are blind followers of ibn Abdul Wahab ,The barelvis are stuck in innovation and superstition. Whats the evidence against the Deobandis?The Saudis threw a few dollars their way?Why dont you present reasonable ,logical and testable proof against their aqeeda and sufi practices instead of painting whimsical ideas about them that have no basis. Produce proof from the deobandis kitabs that they are wrong.
From the Qur'an:
"There is none like Him; He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." [42:11]
"Say He is Allah The One, Allah The Eternal. He never begot, nor was begotten. There is none comparable to Him." [112:1-3]
"Nothing is like Him; and He is The Hearer, The Seer." [42:11]
"Only the Face of your Lord of Might and Glory will remain." [55:27]
"Everything will perish save His Face." [28:88]
"What kept you (Iblis) from falling prostrate before that which I have created with My Hands."[38:75]
"The Jews said: Allah's Hand is tied.' May their hands be tied and may they be accursed for the [blasphemy] they utter. Rather, both His Hands are widely outstretched; He gives and spends as He pleases." [5:64]
"Wait patiently for the Command of your Lord, [O Muhammad], for verily you are in Our Eyes." [52:48]
"We carried him [Nuh] on an [ark] made of planks and nails; It floats under Our Eyes, as a reward for him who was rejected." [54:13-14]
"Verily! Your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [7:54]
"Verily! Your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days; Then He Established Himself on the Throne." [10:3]
"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see; Then He Mounted the Throne." [13:2]
"The Beneficent One, Who is established on the Throne." [20:5]
"Then He Mounted the Throne, The Beneficent One." [25:59]
"Allah created the heavens, the earth and all that is between them in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [32:4]
"He it is Who created the heavens and earth in six days; Then He Mounted the Throne." [57:4]
"Behold! Allah has said; 'Oh Jesus! I am taking you and raising you up to Me." [3:55]
"Rather, Allah raised him up to Him." [4:158]
"To Him good words ascend, and He elevates the pious deed." [35:10]
"Do you feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes? Or do you feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not send against you a wind casting down pebbles from the sky? That is that you may know the manner of My Warning." [67:16-17]
So it seems as if someone quotes any of those said verses, they have committed anthropomorphism?
These are all verses from the Qur'an, and there are many ahadeeth that use the same wording about Allah. This is Allah speaking about Himself, not me or anyone else. So this is affirmation of what Allah has said about Himself. It only becomes anthropomorphism if you deny that Allah is unique and describe those attributes physically. Ibn Taymiyyah only confirmed this and did not give likeness to them. He wrote many books, so bring evidence from his books that he did so. And your evidence by mentioning that he was jailed is weak at best. The great imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was also imprisoned by the Amir al-Muslimeen for defending Allah's book when the Muslims (including the ruler) claimed the Qur'an was created, so is this a proof against him? Again, you fail to bring solid proof, so like anyone who cannot deal with evidence you choose a path of defaming the character of an individual. BRING YOUR PROOF FROM TEXTUAL EVIDENCES that ibn Taymiyyah believed in anthropomorphism! I don't believe Allah's attributes are physically like that of a human, nor does any salafi that I know so how can you accuse someone of something not only do they not believe but actually refute? A poet once said: "If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence."
Even Al-Baqillani, an early Ash'ari (died 1013, nearly 300 years before ibn Taymiyyah), affirms the attributes of Hand and Face and Refutes the ta'weel of the Later and Contemporary (Today's) Jahmee Ash'aris:
" Chapter: Concerning Allah Having a Face and Two Hands
So if someone said: What is the proof concerning Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, having a Face and two Hands?
It is said to him: His, the Most High's saying, for Allah: And the Face of your Lord shall remain (the Face) full of Majesty and Honor. (ar-Rahmaan 55:27). And His saying: What prevented you from prostrating to (one) whom I created with my own Two Hands? (Saad 38:75)
Hence, He affirmed for Himself a Face and Two Hands.
If they say: So what has led you to reject that the meaning in His saying, "...created with my own Two Hands..." is that He created him with His power (qudrah) or through His favour (ni'mah)? Because hand (al-yad) in the language can be with the meaning favor (an-ni'mah) and power (al-qudrah), as is said, "I have a white hand over so and so", meaning by it, a favor. And as is said, "This thing is in the hand of so and so, or under the hand of so and so", intending by it that it is under his power and ownership. And it is said, "rajulu aydin (a man of hands)" when he is capable (qaadir), as Allah, the Most High, said: "We created for them from what Our Hands have created, cattle ..." (Yaaseen 36:71), meaning We have created with our power.
And the poet said: Whenever a flag is raised for glory, Uraabah takes it with the right hand [meaning with strength, quwwah].
It is said (in reply) to them: This is false (baatil) because His saying, "... with my own Two Hands..." necessitates the affirmation of Two Hands which are both an attribute for Him. If the intent by them had been power (al-qudrah), it would be imperative that He has two powers, and you (referring to the Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah), you do not assert that the Creator, the Sublime, has even a single power (i.e. does not have the attribute of qudrah), so how is it permissible for you to affirm two powers for him?
And the Muslims, from the affirmers of the attributes and their deniers, are united upon it not being permitted that Allah should have two powers, thus, what you have said is falsified.
Likewise, it is not permissible that Allah, the Most High, created Aadam with two favors, because the favors of Allah, the Most High, upon Aadam and others cannot be counted. And also because it is not permitted for a person to say, "I raised the thing with my two hands", or "I placed it with my two hands", or "I took possession of it with my two hands", meaning [by that] his favor. And likewise it is not permissible for it to be said, "I have two hands over so and so", meaning two favors, rather it is said, "I have two white hands over so and so" (with the meaning I have two favors over him), because the saying "al-yad (hand)" (on its own) is not used except for the hand that is an attribute of the essence.
What also indicates the corruption of their ta'weel is that if the affair had been as they have said, Iblees would not have been unmindful of that, and [unmindful] that he should say (when asked to prostrate), "What excellence does Aadam have over me that requires me to prostrate to him, when You created me with your Hand as well, which is your qudrah (power) and with your ni'mah (bounty, favor) you created me?" With the knowledge that Allah, the Most High, favored Aadam over him (Iblees) by creating him with His Two Hands is evidence of the corruption of what they have said.
And if someone said: What has led you to deny that His Face and Hand is a limb when you do not understand hand as an attribute, and face as an attribute except [in the form of a] limb? It is said to him: That is not necessitated, just like it is not necessitated when we do not understand a living, knowing, able (being) except to be a body (jism) that we, us and you, should judge Allah with the same.
And just like it is not necessitated when He is established by His own Essence (qaa'iman bi dhaatihi) that He is substance and body just because we, and you, do not find anything established by itself (qaa'imun bi-nafsihi) in what we (outwardly) observe except that it is like that (i.e. Substance and body).
And the answer to them is likewise if they say: It becomes necessary that His knowledge, life and speech and all of His attributes belonging to His Essence (dhaat) are non-essential incidental attributes (a'raad), genuses, or occurrences (hawaadith), or changes, or coalesce (merge) in Him, or are in requirement of a heart, and they adduced the existence (wujood) [that they observe] as argument [in this regard] ." Taken from At-Tamheed al-Awaa'il wa Talkhees ud-Dalaa'il
A few points of benefit from what he said:
ONE: al-Baqillani speaks with the affirmation of the attributes of Face and Hand for Allah's Essence (dhaat) which contemporary Jahmi Ash'aris consider to be Tajseem and tashbeeh.
TWO: al-Baqillani refutes the false ta'weels of those claiming that al-yad (hand) is power (qudrah), or ni'mah (bounty, favour) - in those verses. And he is refuting the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah - whose ta'weelaat, the Later Ash'aris adopted - and declares all of that to be baatil (false).
THREE: Hypocrisy of the contemporary Jahmi Ash'aris who accuse the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others on the basis of that which is found in the works of their most prominent historical figureheads. So they do not accuse their earlier Scholars of Tajseem and tashbeeh.
FOUR: His rejection of the argument that affirmation of the attributes of Face and Two Hands for Allah necessitates their being limbs and his explanation that just because we - in the creation - do not see a living, knowing, able thing except that it has a body - this does not necessitate that we can judge Allah with the same. And this is what the Salaf are upon with respect to all the attributes such as Hands, Eyes, Face and so on.
Lastly, the individual you posted in the video is not known to me and there are many individuals who hold positions of the salaf on certain issues and go against them on others, such as the takfeeris and jihadis. Usually you will see these individuals defending Sayed Qutb, whereas Salafis don't. If you want to cite real authorities of Salafiyyah (in our time) then quote the likes of Imaam as-Sadee, Abdullah ibn Baaz, Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, Muhammad Nasir ud-Deen al-Albanee, Muqbil ibn Hadee al-Wadiee, Salih al-Fawzaan and others that are from the major scholars because these are who the Salafis take their knowledge from.
The beauty of Islam, which distinguishes it from all other religions on this earth, is that it makes Allah entirely transcendent. This is the only belief system on earth that most truly accords with our "Fitrah", that is, our human nature, and purest intuitive understand about God. As you mention, the scholars of the past accepted the quotes without argumentation, and accepted them as metaphors without speculation.
The Salafis, however, do not leave these verses and traditions alone, but manipulate their ambiguity, in a way that erroneously affirms their anthropomorphic aspects.
Yes, the Salafi like to argue that Ibn Battuta's account was spurious, but in light of the usual clailms against him, it is plausible. Whatever the case may be, Ibn Taymiyyah was accused of it by the courts of his time.
And as a result, modern Salafis do rely on him as precedent for their own claims. The Salafis are the wiliest in their attempts to deny their own belief system. This comment is a perfect example. But Salafis commonly refer to a weak hadith where the Prophet supposedly asked a slave girl where is Allah, and she pointed to the heaven. As is typical, relying more heavily on hadith alone as opposed to Qu'ran or even scholarly authority.
If you read Bilal Phillips' Tawheed, who recieved a Salafi education in Saudi Arabia, he clearly emphasizes the same, as well as the supposedly physical attributes of God.
Here is a video where you will see a teacher explicating the typical Salafi doctrine:
I see you're really trying to connect the dots, even if you have to draw the dots too huh? The statement that you quoted from ibn Batutah is a fabrication upon ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah did not believe, nor do the salafis, that Allah has a body like a human being or similar. We only affirm what Allah affirms for Himself through the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah. We do not change the meaning and we do not interpret the meaning because we know Allah states for Himself that nothing is comparable to Him, he is Unique. If ibn Taymiyyah made an physical gesture and said that "this is how Allah is" then we would reject this from him, but he did not and it was lied upon him that he said this. I ask you as I have before, bring the proof from the books (of ibn Taymiyyah, Abdul-Wahhab, etc.). But rather you say there is no point to this. What? If you were in court and used this method you would certainly loose your case. The Judge: "Where is your proof that this mad committed a crime?" You: "He was born from a Jewish family" Judge: "Do you have any evidence that he committed a crime" You: "no need to look at the documents" Judge: "case dismissed!"
I see that a lot of Asharite Sufis come to this site, but it is them like the Naqshabandis who do have secretive orders (which is an innovation in the religion). And you will find them seeking aid from the dead in the grave, asking dead "pious" people to intercede to Allah on their behalf. These are actions which are clearly SHIRK (polytheism).
In ibn Taymiyyah's famous book Kitabul Wasitiyyah, he refutes Mushabbihah (those who liken the creation with God: anthropomorphism) and those who deny, negate, and resort to allegorical/metaphorical interpretations of the Divine Names and Attributes. His position was that the salaf affirmed all the Names and Attributes of Allah without tashbih (establishing likeness), takyeef (speculating as to "how" they are manifested in the divine), ta'teel (negating/denying their apparent meaning, and without ta'weel (giving it secondary/symbolic meaning which is different from the apparent meaning).
Included in the Asharite creed (of which their own leader repented from) is that they believe Allah is everywhere and in everything (whadat-ul-wujood) which some sufis made the claim such as ibn Arabi "when you see me you see Allah, we are one dwelling in the same body." However, Ahlus-Sunnah reject this and uphold what Allah says about Himself, that He is above His throne in away that befits His majesty.
Ibn Taymiyyah held the views of those who preceded him and their is no contradiction. There were some scholars who did have opposing views about some of the attributes of Allah, but as Muslims we do not hold anybody infallible except for the Prophets (upon all of them be peace). We turn to the Book of Allah, the authentic Sunnah and the understanding of the noble companions as a source of reference.
From the proofs of the early scholars is the following:
Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (radhi allahu anhu):
Abdullah Ibn Umar –May Allah be pleased with him- reported: “When the Messenger of Allah -Sallallahu Alaihi wa-Sallam- passed away, Abu Bakr - May Allah be pleased with him- ascended the minbar, praised Allah and said: «O people ! if Muhammad was your god whom you worship then your god has died, and if your God is the one above the heaven (fis-sama') then your God did not die. Then he recited: {Muhammad is not but a messenger. (Other) messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels (to unbelief)?…} [3:144]’ until he completed the ayah.» (1) Its isnad (chain) is hasan. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (20/560-562); Ar-Rad `Ala Al-Jahmiyyah by Ad-Darimi (p.44-45); Musnad Al-Bazzar (1/182-183)
Abdullah Ibn Masud –May Allah be pleased with him- said: «Between the lowest heaven and the one after it is the distance of five hundred years, and between every two heavens is the distance of five hundred years, and between the seventh heaven and the Kursi is the distance of five hundred years, and between the Kursi and the water is the distance of five hundred years, and the Throne (Arsh) is above the water, Allah the Almighty is above the Throne (fawqa Al-Arsh). And nothing is hidden from Allah of your deeds.» And in another narration «He knows what you are upon». Its grading is: hasan.Al`Adhamah by Abu Ash-Shaykh AlAsbahani (2/688-689); Al-Mujalasah wa Jawahir Al-`Ilm by Ahmad ad-Daynuri (6/406); An-Naqd by Ad-Darimi (1/422); Sharh I`tiqad Ahl AsSunnah wal Jama`ah by Al-Lalikai (3/395-396); Ithbat Sifat Al-Uluw by Ibn Qudamah (p.151-152) and others.
Abu Hanifah An-Nu`man (d. 150 H.) : At-Tahawi said in “Al-Aqeedah At-Tahawiyah”, in which he wrote the beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifah and his two companions: Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin Al-Hasan : “And the Throne and Kursi are true, and He is independent from the Throne and what is beneath it, He encompasses everything and is above it.” His saying: “And Is Above it” meaning: “He is above everything” is affirmation of the elevation of Allah Azza wa Jal above all of creation, including the Throne. And his saying in another section of the book: “Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.” Is a negation of the creations’ encompassing of Allah Azza wa Jal, for the “He is not contained by the six directions” that is creation, He is above the six directions and all creation. This is a reply to the Hulooliyah and Jahmiyyah who said that Allah is in His creation, and that He is everywhere - Exalted is Allah above that-. It was also narrated in al Fiqh Al-Akbar that Imam Abu Hanifah said: “Whoever says: ‘I do not know if Allah is above the heaven or on earth’, then he has disbelieved, Allah Ta`ala said: {The Most Gracious over the Throne Istawa (Rose)}; If he then says: ‘I do say this ayah but I don’t know if the Throne is above the heaven or on earth’ then he has disbelieved too.” And that is because in both statements he is doubting Allah’s elevation, him not knowing if Allah is above His creation or not. And in it is also the belief in the possibility of Allah being inside His creation –Exalted is Allah above that- . So by that he is denying the Islamic texts, and believing in the permissibility of Allah residing in His creation, and both are kufr (disbelief).
Malik Bin Anas (d. 179 H.): A man came to him and said: “O Abu Abdullah [Allah said:] {Ar-Rahman upon the Throne Istawa}, how was His Istiwa?
Imam Malik lowered his head and began to sweat profusely, then he said: "Istiwa is not unknown, the Kayf (how) is uncomprehendable, believing in it is obligatory, and asking about it is innovation, and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator." , then he ordered that the man be let out. Al-Asma wa Sifat by Al-Bayhaqi (2/305-306)
Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash`ari (d. 324 H.) said in “Maqalat Al-Islamiyeen”, Chapter: “Their disagreement regarding the Creator, is He in a place and not in another? Or not in a place? Or in every place?”, in which he mentions several opinions by different sects, then he says: “Ahl As-Sunnah and Ashab Al-Hadeeth said: … and that He is on the Throne as Allah Azza wa Jal- said: {Ar-Rahman Istawa (Rose) over the Throne} [20:5], and we do not speak ahead of Allah, but we say that He Istawa without (asking) how"
I know you don't believe in going to the source and would rather rely upon linage or birth place but the textual facts are compelling. Until you can refute the context of the books, your argument only appears spiteful in origin.
I did provide a source for Koestler and the CIA, it's Who Paid the Piper, by Frances Stonor Saunders. There enough if you just google it as well.
And thanks for the link the JE article, but I didn't see any controvesy mentioned there. On the contrary, the important points are:
"Jews have lived on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas since the first centuries of the common era. Historical evidence points to the region of the Ural as the home of the Chazars."