Ibn Warraq: The Judeo-Christian Origins of Islam (Part 1)

The Judeo-Christian Origins of Islam
by Ibn Warraq
Part 1

As Patricia Crone once put it, “new religions do not spring fully fledged from the heads of prophets, old civilizations are not conjured away.” Islam did not somehow emerge fully developed, as the Islamic traditional accounts would have us believe, but slowly, over a long period of time, as the Arab conquerors came into contact with the far older cultures and civilizations, which pushed the Arabs to question and forge their own religious and cultural identity. Ever since the Nineteenth Century, when Western scholars, especially German, but also Italian, French, Hungarian, and British, began to examine Islam and the Koran in the same manner that they had begun examining the Old and New Testament, the debate has been as to determine whether it was Judaism or Christianity that contributed most to the creation of Islam. As Richard Bell, in his The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment [Edinburgh, 1925], expressed it, “That both Judaism and Christianity played a part in forming the doctrine of Islam and in preparing the spiritual soil of Arabia for its reception has long been recognised. How much influence is to be attributed to the one, and how much to the other, is difficult to decide. For much is common to both, and we have to remember that there were many forms of Christianity intermediate between the orthodox Church of the seventh century and the Judaism out of which it sprang, and it was in the East, on the confines of Arabia, that we know these Judaistic forms of Christianity to have longest maintained themselves. Some things in the Qur'an and in Islam which appear specially Jewish, may really have come through nominally Christian channels. But even with that allowance there is no doubt about the large influence exercised by Judaism.”

A. CHRISTIANITY: APOCRYPHA

Adolf von Harnack [1851-1930], in his Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten [The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries] (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924), wrote, “The large regions south of Palestine, Damascus, and Mesopotamia which bear the name of 'Arabia' were never civilized -- they were not even subdued -- by the Romans, with the exception of the country lying east of the Jordan and several positions south of the Dead Sea. Consequently we can look for Christians during our epoch only in the districts just mentioned, where Arabian, Greek, and Roman cities were inhabited by people of superior civilization. Immediately after his conversion Paul betook himself to 'Arabia' (Gal. 1.17), i.e., hardly to the desert, but rather to the province south of Damascus. Arabians are also mentioned in Acts 2.11…. There are no Arabic versions of the Bible previous to Islam, a fact which proves irrefragably that in its primitive period Christianity had secured no footing at all among the Arabs. Indeed it never secured such a footing, for the Arabic versions were not made for Arabs at all, but for Copts and Syrians who had become Arabians.”

Nonetheless, the Christian churches on the confines of Arabia exercised a certain amount of influence, and this influence came primarily from Syria in the north-west, Mesopotamia in the north-east, and Abyssinia in the west. The latter center may have exercised its influence across the Red Sea, but more probably by way of Yemen in the south, which was under Abyssinian rule for a while. However, as ever, scholars are divided as to the extent of the Christian presence in the Hijaz, that is, that part of Saudi Arabia that accommodates the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. For example, J.S. Trimingham, in his Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic Times [London, 1979], remarks that: “Christianity was non-existent among the Arabs of western Arabia south of the Judham tribes.” In a chapter headed “Christians in the Hijaz,” after describing the history of Mecca according to the Muslim sources, plus its geographical location, he concludes that “these factors are sufficient to explain why Christianity in any of its available forms could have no influence upon its inhabitants.” Whereas another scholar, Irfan Shahid, in his Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century, observes that “Places with distinctly Christian association, such as Maqbarat al Nasara, the cemetery of the Christians, are attested in Mecca in later Islamic sources and these could not possibly have been fabricated.”

I believe that it is inadvisable, fruitless and unnecessary to rely upon late sources to establish the presence of Jews or Christians in Arabia, since, if the arguments of the revisionists inspired by the work of John Wansbrough are correct, Islam developed not in Arabia but much further north in the “the Sectarian Milieu” of Palestine and Syria. Thus we need only to examine the Koran itself to see that it is full of stories and motifs derived from the Old and New Testament. But such a scrutiny also yields further surprising results: many of the stories in the Koran, especially of Mary, mother of Jesus, have been taken from the apocryphal Gospels, which in turn derived them from older Buddhist texts.

| 35 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

35 Comments

| Leave a comment

In your newest book, Robert, I expect that you might weigh the question of Islam originating as a mutated form of heterodox Christianity.

The koran is a set of rules dreamed, conjured, or stolen by muhamed. Later authors (hadiths) sought to "improve" on the original, and the more they rewrote, it the more this "religion" became a mirror of these peoples deepest darkest souls; the hatred of women and chilfren, hatred of jews and christians, hatred of freedom and liberty among many others.

The real origin of islam,and its core beliefs is the devil himself.

When I read Rabbinic literature (Talmuds Yerushalmi and Bavli, Midrash Rabbah, Midrash Hagadol, and sundry other sources), Robert, I am simply astounded at the plethora of similarities in themes which Islam's founder seems to have lifted wholesale from the original sources.

The Quran seems to have lifted entire sentences from the Rabbis.

But Muhammed seems to miss the originator's humanistic point and subvert the message.

As far as I understand it;

Islam is basically a Christian cult.
Islam acknowledges most of the biblical prophets and lots of its history although Islam mixes a lot of stuff up.

Mohammed's teachings basically says to Christians: "I totally agree with your believe/religion EXCEPT the Trinity, Son of God, Jesus dying on the Cross and his resurrection, other than that I believe what you believe"

Islam rejects the most holy doctrines of Christianity such as:

#1: the Trinity,
#2 Jesus being the Son God
#3 Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins
#4 that Jesus rose from the dead

Those are the doctrine Christianity is based on and Islam denies all of them, Islam and Christianity are diametrical to each other. The most holy things in Christianity are the most blasphemous things in Islam and vice versa

There are parallels to Christian cults such as Arianism and Gnosticism.
The Trinity, The Son of God etc are also rejected in those early Christian cults and I believe Mohammed had his ideas from those Christian cults, Mohammed established his own religion on the teachings of heretics!

There parallels between Islam and Mormons (also a Christian cult) both J. Smith and Mohammed saw that light being and the revelation came from it, both deny the trinity, both deny the Son of God and both heavily discriminate women (bigamy, or women depend on men so they let them into heaven etc.). The big difference between Mormons and Muslims is, that Muslims are bend on ruling the world and bring it under Allah's law, Mormons don't have that sort of goal, as far as I know.

Conclusion: Yes Islam has its roots in Christianity, but its teachings are going completely in the opposite directions. One could say Mohammed and before him the Christian Heretics swapped the Good with the Bad and Bad with the Good. Ergo Islam is evil, whether one looks at it from a religious perspective or from a secular perspective, Islam is simply NOT good and there is NO way to re-interpret it to make it good!

I am looking forward to reading this series of articles by Ibn Warraq.

Proposition: Islam originated in Arabia, in particular in Mekka and Medina.

Refutation. The Arab peninsula was not christianized during the supposed life of mohammed, the supposed founder of Islam. Therefore, no christian influence on Islam is to be expected. However, the quran contains many many references to christianity.

Result: Islam did not originate in Arabia.

Well then the sirat of mohammed is a fabrication, right? Did Mohammed of Islam exist? Well, we already have the answer: No!

But, I hope Ibn Warraq doesn't stop there but tells us more;-)

In the Quran, we find "Allah" plagiarizing rabbinical commentary:

Here's Quran verse 5:32 (Shakir transl.):

"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."

Here's an article from Answering Islam, regarding the origins of Quran verses 5:31-32:

"Initially, there appears to be no connection between verses 31 and 32. Why the life or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind in not made clear in the Qur'an. When we turn to another Jewish record - the Mishnah Sanhedrin, we find the link between the story and what follows:

We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth" (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.
"
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5"

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/cain.html

Also see this
http://on1foot.org/text/mishna-sanhedrin-45

"[...] Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world. [...]"

But never forget, that the nasty part of the koran and Mohammed's deeds was from evil and savage Arabic culture - nothing to do with Judeo-Christian civilized laws and tradition that include the Ten Commandments that founded modern civilized laws and Western civilization.

An interesting quote I ran across today would prompt me to entitle it "The Jewish Origins of Christianity and Islam" ;)

"...Judaism bespoke an understanding of G-d and human nature which could hardly have been humanly inspired. Israel was practicing a just, merciful and rational religion far superior to any of the often savage practices the pagans of their time had managed to concoct. Their beliefs and practices were just and moral practically beyond the comprehension of primitive man. The world's other great religions-to-be would merely mimic and adopt Judaism's fundamental precepts; human beings on their own would never devise anything even remotely approximating. (The only possible exception is the religions of the Far East -- although there are those who suggest they stem from the descendants of Abraham's concubine -- whom Abraham sent to the East (Genesis 25:6).)

[http://roshhashanah.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-1a.html]

Looking most forward to your commentaries, Ibn Warraq!

or rather "The Jewish Origins of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam"

so... what comes after islam?

which faith bases it's theology upon islamic truth?

Islam is the excrement of a perverted, satanic, and illiterate mind.

This "religion" became a mirror of these peoples deepest darkest souls... The real origin of islam, and its core beliefs is the devil himself.

You are so right.

If you are all interested in this topic, please see the following:

Bruce, F.F., 1974, _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament_, Grand Rapaids, Eerdmans (I suspect that a British edition may have been published by Hodder and Stoughton, or someone like that).

F. F. Bruce was an important British New Testament scholar who died within the past 20 years, I believe.

In this book, he has two chapters entitled "Jesus in the Qur'an" and "Jesus in Islamic Tradition". Bruce notes that the Islamic material is way too late to embody any reliable traditions about Jesus, but he also notes the dependence on earlier apocryphal work from the early Christian centuries.

The intriguing thing for me is how Islam came up with a doctrine of a purely human Jesus (from surviving Ebionites? A garbling of Arianism?) while at the same time declaring that Jesus did not really die on the cross, which echoes an even older Docetism, in which Jesus only "seemed to be" human. As for the doctrine of Jesus' not having been crucified, I doubt that it can be a borrowing from Judaism or surviving Ebionitism, for Jewish tradition firmly asserts that Jesus was put to death (Sanhedrin 107 in the Babylonian Talmud).

But, by the time Islam was born, Docetism and kindred beliefs such as Valentinian Gnosticism was long gone; and there probably wasn't much to Arianism, either. Ebionitism was probably long gone, too. Perhaps Arabia beyond the Byzantine frontier was a refugium of odd sects?

Also, Ibn Warraq is going to have to prove the survival of such heresies in Syria and 'Eretz Yisroel to make his thesis stick.

I'm ruminating on this. Perhaps more will follow.

FreeSpirit:

I agree with you that Islam is fundamentally a Christian cult. Much of the thrust of Islam is to try to get Christians to join, hence all the talk about Jesus.

Now, I'm of the mind that both Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq may be heading towards the denial of an actual historical Muhammad in order to discredit Islam. While I am no fan of Islam, I hold that there was an Arabian leader of the 7th century named Muhammad who established the Arabian base for the later imperial expansion of the Arabs in the late 7th century. I suppose that it's a little like Marxism: I think Marx's account of historical development has its errors; Bertrand Russell (another great 20th century sophomore) was probably on to something when he said that Marx's cosmic optimism could only be justified by a theism which Marx denied; but that there actually was a German thinker named Karl Marx who wrote _Capital_ and _The Communist Manifesto_, collaborated with Friedrich Engels, and left his housekeeper unpaid (I got that from Paul Johnson).

This being said, I believe that Muhammad was no prophet; his "biblical" material is garbled, and that his accounts of both Jewish and Christian theologies in the Qur'an are clearly mistaken.

BTW, having had run-ins with Mormonism, I agree that there are many parallels to these two cults, although the Mormon gods, at least, have a healthy respect for the US Govvernment.

Shortly after Muhammad Manaf commenced his pollution of the world, Persians overrun and briefly held Jerusalem. I believe that islam's fake prophet deduced that that action revealed weakness in the Judeo-Christian faith. He devised to concoct a system based on the notion that the "people of the book" (ahl-kitab) had been under the influence of "satan." After his followers stabbed the Jews of Yethrib (cum medina) in the back, he presented himself as a Jewish "prophet." When he was rejected as a Fraud, he changed the direction of prayer (calima) from Jerusalem to mecca. This dehumanization of ahl-kitab formed the foundations of the 1400 year period of aggression.

As I write, the BBC has commenced a multi series fiction on the life of muhammad. No criticism. Nothing but sainthood. UK's cultural pundits present 24-7-365 diatribe against Western Civilization. Children are brainwashed into hating their founders and cultural leading lights. In contrast, the muslim enemy is colored as inherently noble, and peace-oriented.

Thoroughly excellent article! More please.

I always enjoy Ibn Warraq's comments on the topic of Islamic origins. He's done a great job in taking an otherwise obscure subject confined normally to academic circles and making it available to the rest of the world.

"The real origin of islam,and its core beliefs is the devil himself."

If you mean because the main obsession of muslim doctrine and prayer is that Jesus ia NOT the son of God, you might be on to something there! In other words Mohammad shows up on the scene perfectly timed to deny Christ. Moe intones "O Jesus, son of MARY" over and over, ie NOT the son of God. It's an obsession.

Fine, the OT and NT are "validated" by Mohammad, but you wont find muslims reading Proverbs and St Paul. The daily prayer starts by thanking Ally for not making them as stubborn as jews and as deluded as christians. But oh they love their Issa xx oo.

For what it's worth: I recently heard ex-Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo (who has been a Christian now for some 40 years) talking about the difference between Islam and Christianity, in terms of inside and outside.

At the core of Christianity is a personal relationship, one on one, with God. The external form of Christianity is varied and varies, and is developed from that inner core, outward.

At the core of Islam is...nothing. Emptiness. One is a slave of 'allah' but one cannot hold a conversation with him'; one cannot be his friend. Allah does not call you by name.

But this spiritual, relational void is surrounded by a hard, rigid outside shell of elaborate rules: in effect, Islam is an outside without an inside.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali once made a very similar point when he described a conversation he had with a Muslim, about fasting. The Muslim asked, did Christians fast, and how do they do it? Bishop Michael said, yes they do. He then explained to the Muslim the passages where Jesus talks about how if you fast, you must do so 'in secret'; don't make a big show of it.

The Muslim was utterly baffled. "But how can I know that you're fasting?" he wailed, to Bishop Michael. He just couldn't get his head around the idea of doing something like fasting a. on your own and b. without anybody else knowing that you're doing it!

Two loose observations:

For the type of heretical Christianity, I'd look for something akin to Manicheism on the Eastern borders of the Roman/Byzantine empire. The premise here is that Islam slowly developed out of this in itself already highly syncretic "religion".

Three interesting details:
1) Mani taught that he possessed the real version of the message that was corrupted by the followers of Adam, Buddha and Jesus (who were "messengers from God") and that he was the final redeemer (sound familiar?).
2) His teachings conveyed a distinctive and strong undercurrent of anti-semitism.
3) The sacred scriptures of this cult were written in Syriac Aramaic (think of the work by Luxemberg here).

I think that the main "public" for the developing Arabo-Persian Manichaean cult that would later become Islam, were Arab soldiers, more or (oftentimes) less, in the service of the Byzantine empire. That would be in tune with all of the plunder, the blood and gore emanating from the core texts of Islam.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Why is anyone concerned with the origins of Islam? Our thoughts should be about how to accomplish its elimination since there is no value in tracing where such and such an evil originates in the Quran or the hadiths. Why give credence to c**p?

Many passages of the qu'ran read like nothing more than bad rewrites of the Old and New Testaments, which is why I have always regarded as false muslim claims that the qu'ran is divinely inspired. Divinely inspired, yes, but not by mo' or the angel gabriel but rather the true divine revelations recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. The muslim spin is pure fiction.

This also might give us a place where the heretics/essenes, gnostics ects went to. People who knew the truth could not be convinced by falsehoods (like the canoe that rowed it self to france) these death cultist would also take the Davinci code as being fact for the simple reason of having nothing else to compare to. Unforunately we may be falling in to the same trap. We must insist on the truth islam cannot stand the light of day. However logically, rational arguements may not persuade them to change they have a history of being extremely violent we can not sheath our swords until 1. They are convinced by logic that their road is self destructive 2. Wait for the violence and defend outselves and do not go into the night at all. Do I advocate violence no I do not but I also do advocate survival and defense of oneself muslims have proven by their quran and history they will turn violent it is only a matter of time.

Hear hear, Jonathan -

"Do I advocate violence no I do not but I also do advocate survival and defense of oneself muslims have proven by their quran and history they will turn violent it is only a matter of time."

Muslims will indeed turn violent, if and when they are resisted. And while we speak, they're not, at least, not sufficiently.
For the moment (and the foreseeable future, I'm afraid) there's really no need for them to heat up their stealth jihad beyond the occasional high profile slaughtering of a Western islamorealist (by themselves, i.e. in the case of Theo van Gogh, or by one of their progressivist proxies, as with the murder of Pim Fortuyn).
So ceteris paribus, if current conditions stay as they are, the idea of waiting for Muslims to turn violent (as they will for sure, but chiefly among themselves) and then defend our homes and families, might sound like a wise option, but it might as well prove to be a recipe for the complete undoing of our own way of life, because in all probability it will then be too late.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Mohammed was illiterate, therefore every passage of his utterances was interpreted by scribes and written on stones, sheep bones and palm leaves.

It is suggested that these disparate fragments were then kept for over a hundred years before collation into what became the Koran.

How much is Mohammedan revelation or transliterary Chinese whisper whim?

"The intriguing thing for me is how Islam came up with a doctrine of a purely human Jesus (from surviving Ebionites? A garbling of Arianism?) while at the same time declaring that Jesus did not really die on the cross, which echoes an even older Docetism, in which Jesus only "seemed to be" human. As for the doctrine of Jesus' not having been crucified, I doubt that it can be a borrowing from Judaism or surviving Ebionitism, for Jewish tradition firmly asserts that Jesus was put to death (Sanhedrin 107 in the Babylonian Talmud)."

The idea of a "human" Jesus, can be viewed as a attack, to discredit the faith in Christ as the son of God.

Viewed another way, do you believe that islam is a construct of Mohammed (or others) , a invention, or was he implanted as he described, with the message? These two positions are the starting point from where one must hold their understanding. It is one or the other.

This post is leaning (IMO) in the direction that all faith is made up from early fear and fables, and describes both from that point of view.

The fact is that islam itself came up with nothing, it was sent up to Mohammed as described, or was a construct by him, or others, based on the teachings as known currently.

How did a illiterate Mohammed weave such a tale, and why did he start to build this yarn so late in his life? Why not early when he was young, as most do who seek and rise to power?

For Jesus , his death on the cross takes back "that which was lost". If true, then satan has lost, the best that can be done is to steal every soal that can be stolen.

Perhaps islam's attack on Christians, and Jews, and the world, are just that, and this would explain islam's "stealing" nd twisting of Jesus, and all the rest of the teachings of the Bible.

It is a point of view that is not even raised, making it valid, and possible.

Of all the absurdities in the Koran, the absurdest is the baseless statement out of the blue that God took Jesus off the cross and let some poor slob, who just happened to look exactly like Jesus, be crucified instead. Why? No reason other than God wouldn't let that happen to one of his wonderful prophets. In other words, with Ally youre always a "winner" and never a "loser." Pathetic but exactly suited to the mentality of mad Moe. And how does he know that Jesus was taken down from the cross? The angel Jiberish told him. That's it. Pathetic.

Islofob, similar thoughts have crossed my mind.

But, I also guess is that Muhammad had a naive view of prophets and holy persons from the Abrahamic tradition (and, I accept that he hobnobbed with Jews and Christians, albeit probably not with the learned among them). Or, perhaps it is Islam as it developed following conquest of the Fertile Crescent.

Islam seems to think that if someone is a prophet, he is infallible and all-conquering. The foibles, sins, and failures which the Bible is quite open about when describing the prophets and apostles (I am a Christian, and accept the New Testament as well as the Old) seem lacking in the Qur'an and hadith. Hence, how Jesus could be crucified with thieves is incomprehensible to someone like Muhammad,even if the atonement is such a large part of Christian theology.

Hi facebook. I sent a post on this issue to learner_hermit in a recent article of Jihad watch.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/iran-threatens-serious-action-over-bbc-muhammad-documentary.html

You are thinking in far too narrow terms when you use the term Christian and thereby deny a Christian presence.


The Gnostics Christians predated, and for a time, even outnumbered the Christian sects that would eventually lead to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Their concept of Christ and the universe was quite a bit different from ours but the underpinnings of the religion, the moral and ethical principles were the same.

Interestingly. one of the books in the new testament may be Gnostic or Gnostic derivative, "The Gospel according to John". That gospel starts off "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was divine." The 'word' in this gospel is the Greek word logos which was the term that the Gnostics used for Christ. As far as I can recall, this is the only gospel that presents Christ in this fashion.

Anyway, the Roman Catholics won, the Gnostics were all but wiped out but they had some presence in Egypt and Arabia right up to the time of Muhammad (if he existed).

Not only were the Gnostics wiped out, their books were destroyed by the Christian leaders to hide for all time a knowledge that might call the Roman Catholic teachings into serious question.

Fortunately in the 1940's the Nag Hammadi scrolls were discovered in Egypt. That brought to light a small part of the huge system of knowledge that had been lost due to the persecutions from the early Roman Catholic Church.

Have a look at the Wikipedia entry on Gnosticism. It will bear out the possibility (probability) of the Gnostic presence in that area at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#The_development_of_the_Syrian-Egyptian_school

I have been going at this problem for almost a decade now. The reason I got started on all of this was a line I came across from one of the Gnostic writings.

Specifically, the false god Yaldabaoth or Samael proclaimed "I am God and there is no one but me!" which can also be translated "I am God and there is no one like unto me." That is the Shahada, or part of the Shahada of Islam!

At that point I was sure there was a connection and I dedicated my time to finding other Gnostic works to see if I could solidify the connection. I had intended to finish off my research and publish it but too many things interfered. That's okay by me because I might have a chance of convincing learner_hermit to take it on.

Anyway, have a look at the evidence I gave to learner_hermit and let me know what you think.

Peter Shearer

the idea that Gnosticism is the "real" secret super-special original pure Gospel teaching and that Christianity as we know it and as it has been known both in the East and in the West is merely an eeevil usurper that persecuted and destroyed wonderful wise beautiful poetical Gnosticism is, frankly ahistorical.

Read David Bentley Hart, "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies", chapter eleven, "a glorious sadness'.

There he has a very long and detailed and scholarly discussion of the Gnostics. He has read the Gnostic texts. And he finds them to be generally very dull (even, at times, revolting and silly) and - unlike orthodox Christianity, which was discomfiting and novel and a genuine revolutionary challenge to the Greco-Roman worldview - at bottom a mere repetition or reflection or outgrowth of the Zeitgeist of the age in which they appeared.

Charles Williams in 'The Descent of the Dove' has a bracing discussion of Gnosticism, too.

He remarks, in the first chapter of that book, 'the definition of Christendom', that the historic church - the one that is in thoroughly-documented historic continuity with the Eastern and Western Christendom of today - "rejected, with great energy, the idea that cause belonged to a subordinate Demiurgus and the idea that there was a special kind of superior redemption for superior people. No doubt there were prophets and speakers with tongues and teachers and so on; no doubt Almighty God operated peculiarly through certain individuals. But they repudiated any separation between faith and vision. Faith was not a poor substitute for vision; it was rather the capacity for integrating the whole being with truth. It was a total disposition and a total act. By definition, all men were in need of salvation; therefore, of faith and repentance in faith. The Gnostic view left little room for the illuminati to practise love on this earth; "they live as though they were indifferent", said Irenaeus. The Church anathematised the pseudo-Romantic heresies; there could be no superiority except n morals, in labour, in love. "See, understand, enjoy", said the Gnostic; "repent, believe, love", said the Church, "and if you see anything by the way, say so".

Williams adds: "In some sense, the Gnostics avoided any "scandal" to the mind and soul. The stones they offered fitted the corners of many temples; only not of the City of Christendom. God was not really responsible for the appalling putrescence of misery which we call the world. The soul and the body...were not responsible for each other. Men were not responsible for each other. The Gordian knot of the unity was cut, and the bits fell radically apart..."In the fifteenth year of Tiberias Caesar the Christ came down from heaven", wrote Marcion, one of the last and one of the greatest of the Gnostics, but the orthodox answer was that, years early, he had been generated on earth: "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ".

Final thought: something that may mark Islam as 'gnostic' is the sheer overwhelming arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed by Muslims: they really do see themselves as Illuminati . And the obsession with purity and impurity, and the dismissal of anything non-Islamic as 'ignorance'.

Hi DDA thanks for the reference to the books by Hart and Williams.

I trust your scholarly approach to things and my perceptions of your intellectual honesty are such that I will concede the point to you without reading the books. I will still read them however because it looks like there is a lot that I can learn from them.

Just so you know, I am not a Gnostic and I don't subscribe to their beliefs but I do think we must know them because they did have an effect on history.

I based my claims on an interview I saw 10 or more years ago of someone named Pagels, I think. She was considered one of the top authorities on Gnostic texts at the time. So my assertions (unfounded it seems) were based on my understanding (misunderstanding?) of what she was saying.

I think it was that interview that put me on to researching the connection between Islam and Gnosticism.

She never even implied such a connection but at one point, when she talked about Gnostic theology, she mentioned the 'boast of Yaldabaoth: "I am God and there is no other but me." When I heard that, a light went off in my head and I remembered the Shahada.

Offhand I cannot think of anything that is revolting or silly in the Gnostic texts that I've read but that may be because I was going through them for a different purpose than Hart was. I was looking for Islam and Hart was looking for Christianity.

I guess I will find out what revolted him when I read his book. I do have to wonder if he is trying to read these texts too literally and ignoring the fact that most of them are highly allegorical.

That, by the way, was a common 'trick' in ancient religions. The writers hid the theology in allegory and symbolism so that outsiders who might gain access to the mysteries couldn't abuse or harm them because they couldn't decipher them. I think it would be fair to say that even some of the Apostles had problems understanding theology because Jesus spoke in parables.


I did see two things in the synopses from the books that I would have a disagreement with.

1) In the synopsis of Hart's book there is the following: unlike orthodox Christianity, which was discomfiting and novel and a genuine revolutionary challenge to the Greco-Roman worldview - at bottom a mere repetition or reflection or outgrowth of the Zeitgeist of the age in which they appeared.

I don't think Christianity was viewed as novel or revolutionary to the people of that time (we may think it was but that is different.)

For example St. Augustine addressed the issue as follows in Retractiones The very thing which is now called the Christian religion, existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of the Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence began to be called Christian.

There is also the famous attack on the novelty of Christianity by Celsus in a debate with Origen. Celsus argued "The Christian religion contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with the heathen; nothing new." As far as I know, Origen never refuted that.

A former religious columnist for the Toronto Star named Tom Harpur recently published a book titled "The Pagan Christ". In this book he shows all the antecedents to Christian theology and 'proves' that it is derivative in almost every way. Communion, resurrection, the virgin birth of a savior etc. all have antecedents in other religions in that area. I think Harpur believes that Christianity is the synthesis of all those antecedents and all the hope for the human soul that those antecedents represented.

Harpur has become a bit of a nut-case (to my mind) over the years and I think he actually has become a Gnostic without saying so; but, I think his research is sound and not even particularly new.[Fraser, in his classic work The Golden Bough dealt with this issue back in the late 1800's.] Harpur is (was?) a priest and a scholar. His religious credentials are pretty sound. The following link is to the Wikipedia entry for him

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

I suspect Harpur's book is not readily available in Australia so if you decide to pursue this and you can't get the book from your local library, I would be glad to send you my copy. I'm finished with it. No Charge.


2)In the synopsis of Williams' there is the following statement:
The Gnostic view left little room for the illuminati to practise love on this earth; "they live as though they were indifferent"

An immediate counter (I'm sure there are others) to this assertion came to mind from the The Secret Book of James "Be eager for the word. The first aspect of the word is faith, the second word is love, the third is works, and from these comes life" Remember, the term 'the word' in Gnostic literature meant 'the Messiah' and by extension Jesus.

I think the problem, even for the early Church was the literature 'categorized' as gnostic was so variant.

It is obvious from going through the small amount of non-canonical Christian writing that have come to light that they are in no way synoptic. Some texts appear to be not much different from the standard gospels that have been canonized.Others were quite a bit different. These may represent two or more different branches of Christianity but the Roman Church or at least Irenaeus, treated them as if they were one. I suspect that would make sense as he would also think of them as one (i.e. heretical)

With respect to the association of Gnosticism and love, I am forced to defend that association because part of my premise for the connection between Islam and Gnosticism is the transmission of a theology of love to the Arabs in the so-called Meccan period. The morphing into the bad religion happens later as Medina comes into the picture. I would argue that the change has nothing to do with any historical figure named Muhammad. It has to do with heated arguments over the oneness of God etc. You can well imagine if the Catholic Church rejected the theology of the demiurge (as described by Williams above) then the Jewish community of Medina was going to go ballistic over it. To them, this 'new' religion would be the epitome of blasphemy.

That may have forced the pseudo-Gnostic arabs from Mecca to change their religion to become more polemic. This would be allowed because Gnosticism, being based on Greek philosophy was allowed to do this as an act of philosophical inquiry.

I also would find it easier to argue the preceding if I could prove the 'factuality' of what you postulate below.

Also Sprach DDA
Final thought: something that may mark Islam as 'gnostic' is the sheer overwhelming arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed by Muslims: they really do see themselves as Illuminati . And the obsession with purity and impurity, and the dismissal of anything non-Islamic as 'ignorance'.

Wow! I hadn't even thought of pursuing the connection along such a path. I'm the type that puts a lot of effort into thinking outside the box but this one has taken me quite by surprise.

I can certainly say that the ancient Greeks, who are one part of the fathering of Gnosticism, were about as arrogant, condescending and racist a group of people as the world has ever known.

Pericles, the great Athenian statesman, was constantly under attack due to his association or possible marriage to Aspasia a foreign and possibly non-Greek intellectual who was famous for creating salons along the lines of of those in France during the Enlightenment.

Pericles' opponents defamed her salons as brothels and defamed her as a prostitute. The main reason for them doing this was the fact that she, being foreign, wasn't subject to Athenian customs for women. She could walk free and speak her mind and dress as she liked and say what she thought. This incensed Pericles enemies because they felt she didn't know her place as a foreigner and as a woman. That sure sounds like the mindset of a misogynistic society you and I know today.

The Illuminati aspect is an original one (for me) and you've caught me way off guard in introducing it.

I can't even begin to analyze something that complex. I will, however, try to pursue it because it would put a new face on the direction I was going with my original research. If I can confirm it then I actually have a valid way of plugging a known hole in my overall premise.

Anyway, good post DDA. Thanx for the help

Peter Shearer (and Dumbledore's Army)

I read Pagels' _Gnostic Gospels_, and, frankly, was shocked that the author could get tenured at a prestigious college. The book was a mixture of large-scale historical revisionism leavened with a bit of feminist wishful thinking.

Pagels sees the Nag Hammadi library as hidden by Egyptian monks being persecuted by Athanasius. Unfortunately, Athanasius himself was persecuted by Arians and Semi-Arians (who had the ear of the Constantinian dynasty at the time) and exiled several times. As a defender of the Trinity and the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Spirit, Athanasius received the support of the Coptic Hermit Anthony and other early Egyptian monks, who were also dead-set against Arius' turning the Son into a subordinate, second deity. Add to this, the conflict between orthodoxy and Gnosticism marked the 2d century rather than the 4th; with Irenaeus of Lyon as the main orthodox protagonist (and Irenaeus was said to have known Papias and Polycarp, who had known the Apostle John in his later years).

Further, Pagels somehow found feminism in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas is quite baffling to me. In the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (which, to my knowledge, is named for the language it was written in, and is NOT canonical in the Egyptian church) the Gnostic Jesus re-assures the disciples that Mary will share in salvation because she will become male. This is a very far cry from Paul's declaration that there is neither male nor female in Christ (Galatians) or Peter's admonishing us men to live considerately with our wives, who are joint-heirs of the grace of life (I Peter 3:7).

My guess is that a lot of people (including the learned heads of the Jesus Seminar, who really ought to know better) have latched onto Gnosticism because they (a) like syncretism, (b) want something mystical, and (c) have come to the very justifiable conclusion that the 27 books of the canonical New Testament offer no support at all for theological liberalism.

If you ask me why Pagels' book left such an impression on me is because back when I was a young Christian, well-meaning relatives who wanted to set me straight gave it to me as a gift.

Come to think of it, the Gnostic Jesus is a little like the Muslim Jesus. The Gospel went out from Jerusalem to the far corners of the Roman Empire and even beyond, and Jesus became a very popular figure. Certain persons wanted to have him on their side without truly being his disciples, and came up with a counterfeit Jesus to fob off on the unsuspecting.

Peter, and Dumbledore's:

The Gnostic attack on the supposedly arrogant Yaldabaoth seems to have come from someone who read the 40's of the Prophet Isaiah and didn't like it. By the way, those same first and last statements in Isaiah are echoed by the risen Jesus Christ in Revelation 1.

As for Gnosticism being behind the "religion of love" preached in the Meccan period before morphing into the violent religion preached at Medina, I think traditional, open-source Christianity can explain it. As John said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son..." (John 3:16), or Paul's long paean to Agape in First Corinthinas 13...

I'm not so sure that Gnosticism survived as late as the immediate pre-Islamic period in Egypt. Egypt was, after all, part of the Roman Empire, and was very heavily Christianized after the usual Eastern pattern. As for finding Gnostic and other heterodox texts buried with monks, my guess is that these leftover heretical texts from an earlier period made nice cosmetic effects for a funeral at a time when a real, actual Bible or even a small portion thereof was just too valuable to be buried with a man (after all, everything had to be copied out by hand back then).

Hi Kepha, thanks for weighing in on this. It is a difficult subject and I can use all the help I can get.

Thanx also for confirming the existence of Pagels. That was a guess on my part and I really wasn't comfortable citing a name that may have been bogus.

I personally am not worried about revisionist historians. If their 'revisions' have merit the facts and arguments will bare the revision out. If, on the other hand they pervert logic to suit something that looks like an agenda then I get p*ss*d. We should always embrace the truth even if its unpalatable to us and we should never embrace a lie even if it tastes sweet to us.

I will get back to this issue as it relates to Pagels in a moment.

Your hunch on the use of the world "Coptic" is correct. There is also a Greek Gospel of Thomas. Which is incomplete but confirms the contents of the Coptic version.

I have gone through my copy of The Gospel of Thomas but I can't confirm the existence of the passage she cites. I think it may be part of another Gnostic Gospel. It may even mean there is a version of the gospel that isn't part of the Nag Hammadi library. I will try to hunt down the quote and let you know what it really says (including context if available).

This is a very far cry from Paul's declaration that there is neither male nor female in Christ (Galatians) or Peter's admonishing us men to live considerately with our wives, who are joint-heirs of the grace of life (I Peter 3:7).

Don't forget Luke 20: 27-38.



Regarding the women's liberation connection she drew based on the passage you cited. Yes, I agree she was twisting logic to produce something she wanted to say. Offhand that seems to indicate that she has liberal left leanings towards historical analysis, not because she expresses a thought on women's lib (okay by me); but, because she is willing to pervert the intention of a statement to make it accord with a social ideology (very not okay by me). So her scholarship may be questionable. Although, I must say I just looked her up in Wikipedia and she certainly has the education and credentials. Just goes to show you what that really means.

Now I have found considerable evidence in the Gnostic Gospels that Christ considered Mary Magdalene quite important. In fact there is evidence that he might have considered her the chief disciple. This, according to the Gnostics, caused dissension in the ranks; especially because she was given more insight into the mysteries than the other disciples were given.

Usually it is Peter who calls this treatment into question but in the Gospel According to Philip all the disciples express their jealousy to Jesus. They say to him: "Why do you love her more than all of us?" To which he replies "If a blind person and one who can see are both in darkness, they are the same. When the light comes, one who can see will see the light and the blind person will stay in darkness." In other words she can see the light but they can't.

Even this is not a comment on women's liberation. It only says that Christ saw something special in her and made her a disciple.

I don't think from what I've read in the gnostic Gospels, there is enough evidence one way or the other to say anything about women's liberation. There is however enough to say that a woman can be the chief disciple.

Just as an aside to the question of women's liberation; there were 'paintings' found in the catacombs of Rome and other places which showed women presiding over the Eucharist. The Catholic Church, when confronted with this possibility, have always passed it off as a Gnostic Eucharist. If this is correct, that would suggest the possibility that there was some semblance of liberation within that religion.

I'm not so sure that Gnosticism survived as late as the immediate pre-Islamic period in Egypt. Egypt was, after all, part of the Roman Empire, and was very heavily Christianized after the usual Eastern pattern.

Yes, logic and what little history we have about that place is heavily on your side.

I don't think you can make too much of the fact that Egypt was in the Roman empire however. It's connection at the point we are talking is tenuous at best. This is not the Rome of the time of Christ. Remember in a few short years from the period we are talking, Egypt will go down like a ton of bricks. So will all the rest of the Roman 'protectorates'. But yes, the orthodox version of Christianity was certainly making Gnosticism an endangered species.

I do think, therefore the argument for the Gnostics having their last enclave in Arabia makes sense. I don't think there is too much evidence of a Catholic presence there. By Gnostic presence I don't mean a vibrant community with churches etc. I mean, the last remnants of a dying religion on its last leg; but still willing to 'save' anyone who would listen.

Anyway, thanks again for your input. I would appreciate it if you come up with anymore thoughts or counter-arguments that you let me know. If you could add them to this JW article that would be swell. I will come back here from time to time just in case you added something. Thanx again.

Thanx Kepha, I no sooner ask for help from you and I get it. I do notice your help predates my request. That probably indicates you typed faster than the speed of light and went backward in time.

The Gnostic attack on the supposedly arrogant Yaldabaoth seems to have come from someone who read the 40's of the Prophet Isaiah and didn't like it. By the way, those same first and last statements in Isaiah are echoed by the risen Jesus Christ in Revelation 1.

That is one possibility Kepha and to be honest I think it is a probability. I have been thinking along your lines for quite some time now but it never occurred to me look at Isaiah. I'm obviously going to have to figure out how to incorporate what you are suggesting into my simpler premise.

So here is the backbone of what I have been trying to do all these years.

------------------------------------
The Gnostics and the Christian Gnostics were two fields of philosophical inquiry into the nature of being. Both used logic as their central tool to ascertain truth including religious truth.

Both schools relied upon a much older body of theological knowledge that descended from religious dissension within the Jewish community between the times of King Josiah and the religious reforms of Ezra.

The losing faction in this dissension was composed of Jewish Babylonians who had begun to assimilate into Babylonian culture and adopt some of the theological principles of that religious system.

The dissension eventually drove out the Jewish Babylonians from Jerusalem. Many went westward towards Greece but the majority went south to Egypt and possibly Arabia.

This migration allowed for the dissemination of their cosmology to the Hellenistic world and that either led to the birth of Gnosticism or helped enrich an already existing philosophy of that name. Also, over time it was adopted by some Christian sects who had decided to make Greek philosophy a tool for helping them to understand Christian theology.

Eventually, these Christian Gnostics came under attack and were forced to retreat to the Arabian peninsula as it was the last area in which they were relatively safe from persecution.

This retreat, brought them to Mecca and put them into contact with the descendants of the Jewish Babylonians who had created the cosmology. A new religion was created from this contact, a religion that adopted the Christian concepts of love, compassion and messiah and combined them with a religion of hope, knowledge and salvation.

When this benign religion came in contact with Medina, old wounds were reopened for some for they knew their forefathers had been forced from their rightful homeland by Jews who had left their faith and supplanted it with a false religion (under Ezra). This reawakened hatred led to the metamorphosis of a benign religion into a warlike vengeful parasitic philosophy devoid of a real God.
----------------------------------------------------
Notes: The above may explain the misquote in the Qur'an about the Jews thinking Ezra was the son of God. That may be a corrupted memory going back to the time of Ezra in which those on the losing side said that the Jews (on the other side of the argument) thought that Ezra was the son of God, merely meaning they followed his directions and beliefs without question.

Over the centuries, the original story may have got garbled. This garbling may have become part of the Qur'an.

The reason I emphasized that the story spanned Josiah to Ezra goes as follows. Josiah introduced a new book of the Torah. The book is commonly believed to be Deuteronomy.

In Deuteronomy, 6:4 we have a paraphrase of Yaldabaoth's boast Hear O Israel, the Lord God is one."

I think that Ezra enforced Deuteronomy as a canonical text and the Jewish Babylonians may have resisted this. One reason for this is they did allow in their Cosmology room for other Gods. For instance in one cosmology appropriately named On the Origin of the World, when Yaldabaoth makes his boast there is the following curious tidbit "He said, "I am God and there is no other but me." When he said this, he sinned against all the immortals who speak forth, and they watched him carefully."

Now your explanation may be the better one (right one) because Isaiah 45 does keep hammering the point home quite clearly. I went with the Deuteronomy quote for historical purposes and because this is the first time the phrase is seen, even if it is a paraphrase. The fact that it appears in the Torah also played into this decision.

The point about there being a cosmology outside of Christian myth and Greek myth is quite important because that shows there must be a link back to earlier days of Judaism

The cosmologies used by the Gnostics and Gnostic Christians do not appear to be pagan in origin. They appear to be Judaic or at least Semitic in origin.

For instance, in The Origin of the World Yaldabaoth creates 6 sons, one for each of the remaining 6 heavens.

Yao probably Ja as in Jaweh
Sabaoth as in Lord of hosts
Adonais as in King or Lord
Eloaios as in Elohim
Oraios Unknown but may refer to Horus
Astaphaios Unknown but may be Hephaestus = demiurge

I think it is unlikely that something like the above would come from a Greek mind and it certainly wouldn't come from an orthodox Jewish mind so the options for its origin are extremely limited. I think this may support my thesis for something along the lines of a sect that synthesized Babylonian and Jewish cosmological thinking, sometime between Josiah and Ezra.


Regarding your supposition of the monks and the urn. I could go for that but I have another one for you to consider. How about, the texts were kept by 'orthodox' monks who knew they were forbidden. They put them in the jar so they wouldn't get caught and be in trouble. This would be the equivalent of ancient pornography I suppose.

This suggestion is along the line of the one told in Ecco's book Name of the Rose where a book by Aristotle on Laughter starts a chain of deaths in a Medieval monastery.

Regarding your suggestion on love, citing John and Paul in that area, I've tried before and can't get anywhere. There just isn't enough history and proof of good activities on the part of the early Muslims that I can attempt to show a correspondence. If you've noticed any similarities between passages in John and Paul and the Qur'an where love is an issue. That would be great!

I think the best that anyone can do is look at the text in the Qur'an and look for antecedents in known scripture whether it be Gnostic, Christian Gnostic or orthodox Christian.

I do have several more Gnostic correspondences than I've discussed at JW but at this point I've come up short on anything I consider reliable from the standard Christian texts. I'll wait until ibn Warraq finishes his analysis in JW in case he can change my mind.

If it can ever be proved that the Christian Gnostics could not possibly have existed into the time of Muhammad I may have to give up on this but there would still be three possible avenues of inquiry.

1) the descendants of the Jewish Babylonians may be enough to explain the peaceful verses of Islam. Their hatred for 'Orthodox' Judaism alone may explain the change to a warrior cult. The only problem then is to find proof for the existence of the Jewish Babylonians.

2) The peaceful version of Islam may have spanned a larger time frame than we think. The influence of the Christian Gnostics may have taken hold long before Muhammad's time. So even if all the Christian Gnostics were gone before Muhammad's time, their philosophies may have lived on in the people of Mecca.

3)If Muhammad didn't exist, then what actually went on in the Arabian peninsula is quite plastic and there is more leeway to fit the theory into the facts.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter