Alf Layla Wa-Layla

Now you have to say it like this - in Arabic you say the connecting word 'ow-wa...' Or, 'aou-wa.' So it's Al'f La'y-la OW wa-La'y'la.

That's how you say it.

Who authored it seems entirely lost in the mists of time.

Al-Mas'udi, the 9th century Arabic Historian, refers to a much earlier work existing in Persia, and at one time cataloged in the Grand Library of Baghdad, known as 'the Thousand Tales' - which the Sassanian aristocrats liked to read in the evenings and at night.

Precious Oud

The British East India Company printed a version (entirely the same as the 'common' Arabic versions) in India from 1825 - 1838. This is not the same as the Richard Burton translation, which was first published in 1885 and contains a similar 'earthy' language as the actual Arabic language versions.

The basic text that was written about for the first time by an Arabic historian - Al-Mas'udi - is known as Kitab Hadith Alf Layla wa-Layla (The Book of the Tales of the Thousand Nights and One).

Scholars of modern Islamic knowledge, will note that the word 'hadith' actually... ...yes, means 'tales.' Not 'reports' or 'authentic accounts' - but tales.

Sahih Bukari - as Mufti Abu Layth points out, is not so 'sahih' actually.

Sahih Bukari, however, is the book upon which the whole entirety of modern Sunni Islam rests for its popular fantasy 'beliefs' and rites and rituals. It is not the Quran itself, since no Sunni Muslim actually possesses any original copy of the Uthman Quran - and this only appears as a 'fact' (supposedly of history) more than two hundred years after Muhammad, spoken of in a 'hadith' said to be by ibn Ishaq, its recension written by a known liar according to the Arabic science of trustable sources and people, whose name was ibn Hisham.

Ballet of Count Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov;
one of his ancestors was a lover of
Catherine the Great.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever, of the existence of any 'Caliph Umar' (aka Caliph 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab) - supposedly a companion of the prophet Muhammad, and the second Caliph.

The so-called 'Treaty of Medina' is a fraud, because for one thing, there were exactly no Jews at all in Medina at the time, and one of the terms of the said 'treaty' was an agreement by the Jews, that a person, previously unknown to them and an Arab, was agreed to be the sole intermediary between them and God; this is, mind you, supposedly now agreed to by the followers of Moses, who actually met God, and who led the Jews out of Egypt away from the oppression of Pharaoh. 'Treaty of Medina' - fraud. The Jews already had an existing caste of priests who were intercessors and entered the 'holy of holies.' And now suddenly they just voluntarily agree to shoving all the Pharisees and the formal, by-birth keepers of the Torah - which apparently Muhammad himself claimed to verify - into the ditch on account of some Arab that wasn't even in Medina that long and that the Arabs there themselves did not all accept... So, did Muhammad himself keep the Torah scrolls then, after this 'treaty?' Where are they, the Torah scrolls that were in the Ark of the Covenant which contacted God inside the tent 'holy of holies' if he was now the sole intermediary/intercessor for the Jews of Medina (whoever they were)? Fair enough though, at least this was only afterall the Jews' holy scriptures and therefore not so important, right? Because, well, fair enough, Muhammad was not even capable of protecting his own precious (really really important, Allah-sent) Quran in total since his pet goat ate one third of that when he died.

I mean seriously. Yet, people are absolutely certain of the things that come out of their mouths when it comes to what they 'know' and what they 'believe' and what they are going to tell you marks the difference even between sanity and insanity. And they are going to push very hard to have you believe what they say too. Because they are sane. And their brains are fully functioning with perfect thinking and logic. Oh, oh, and not to forget, also with 'science.' Science is this thing that guarantees they know stuff.

Treaty of Medina. Never existed. Never happened; there is no original, no copy, and no signatories to it made on it (supposing that it ever existed in the first place, which it didn't), or recorded by anyone as ever having been on 'the written treaty,' later. When you have the words 'Arabic' and 'history' in the same sentence, watch out. The first exposure of this 'treaty' is hundreds of years later, by no one who was ever there at the time. It exists in no one else's recorded history at all. It is, thus, a hadith...

Truth - like sugared orange jellies,
is both sweet and bitter.

To be honest with you, people believe * anything, and with astonishing self-assurance - and they tend to want to believe the most absurd utter rubbish, too, and they will throw it in your face with idiotic scoffing about what they are absolutely sure of, while laughing at you for being so stupid as to suggest something else.

Now. Let's get back to who wrote Alf Layla wa-Layla.

...But first (anyone who picks up what was just done here gets a glossy pic in the mail of something nice), people say anything at all about books and things of the past:

A great Islamic orator repeated what thousands of people, nay probably millions say: 'God said to the Jews...'

He did?

Where? When? How did He manage this - did He have 'Radio YVHV' possibly and transmit His message that way to all the Jews who all had early forms of the transistor radio, tuned into His station, mayhaps? Is this recorded in the Bible anywhere, that He spoke to ALL the Jews? On loudspeaker, maybe? Which chapter which verse, Zakir?

Similarly, one of our very good friends here, just commented about a 'dissociative state.'

Well, KP - just go look into a mirror, and realize that what you are looking at, doesn't really exist in a stable temporal, or an absolute, or even truly 'pinned down' sense;' a hundred years from today, it will be gone. So, tell me again, what is it exactly that you are insisting on clinging on to, in order to 'associate' yourself with this thing ('associative'), versus being 'dissociated' because of some other thing? How does this work?

Cartier - perfumed clouds

We are a long way from being exact in our communications, even with the casual communications we feed ourselves, that we feed into our conscious brains, which give us emotional feelings and emotional 'certainties,' and from thence, to our minds.

But let us return to the internally described 'inventor' although not the chronicler, of the al-Kitab al-Hadith Alf Layla wa-Layla.

This person is 'Sheherazade' sister of Dunyazad. This is an actual name, whereas the sultan who is the conflicting counterpoint to the women in the story, has a most generic sort of name: 'Shah Zaman' which simply means the 'ruling light of the age.'

There are many 'sultans' and this one, is simply the most powerful of them.

As I have said many times, 'Scher' is Zahr, is Saga, is Za (which is the name in the Zohar used by the Kabbalah Hebrew scholars).

And now, we shift once again, as the light shifts through its many colors of the pinkish hues of the early evening, the vastly illuminating orb of the whole sky setting, and entering as it does, even itself, into the dark realms of mysterious night...

Giving but a wan glow, in one corner of our room, is another book, by the previously-mentioned Al-Mas'udi - 'Meadows Of Gold & Mines Of Gems.'

All the skepticism of the world of mortal men, falls like chaff before the pronouncement, that consorting with the Ze'ir Anpin, by those who greet the Light Beings from the Starry Heaven...

...leads to meadows of gold and mines of gems.

The night consumes the sun.

The magic of Alf Layla wa-Layla, begins.

A plume of smokey frankincense. A flickering flame of the Zhinn lamp, charged with sweet almond oil...