| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "Marxism's Successor" in FrontPage, Theodore Dalrymple discusses my new book The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.
For the second time in living memory, we find ourselves obliged by historical circumstances to examine doctrinal philosophies that, from the abstract intellectual point of view, are not worth examining. They belong, rather, to the history of human folly and credulity: which is itself, of course, an inexhaustibly interesting and important subject.The first doctrinal philosophy, now more or less defunct except in certain corners of the academy, was Marxism; the second is Islamism. Which of us would have guessed thirty years ago that an inflamed and inflammatory Islamic doctrine would soon replace Marxism as the greatest challenger to liberal democracy? Not many, I venture to suggest; but it almost seems that, in the twentieth and twenty-first century, the vacuum left by the collapse of one totalitarian doctrine is soon filled by another. I suspect that the demise of the Soviet Union was a necessary precondition of the rise of Islamism as we now see it.
Diseases of acute onset are apt to be cured quickly: if, that is, they do not kill first. And in historical terms, our preoccupation with the threat of Islamism is very acute. There is hope, therefore, that Islamism will pass from the world stage as quickly as it arrived on it. In the meantime, however, it can cause a great deal of havoc, and will not disappear spontaneously, without opposition, much of which must be conducted on the intellectual plane.
Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world to rational criticism, which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism. They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle, as communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history, it is all or nothing. They are thus more clear-sighted than moderate Moslems.The relation of Islamism to Islam is, of course, a contested matter. Some point to the peaceful nature of most Moslems, who simply go about their daily lives in a normal fashion. But Robert Spencer (who lives in hiding, an indication of how dangerous he is considered by Islamists) is uncompromising in his view. The problem with Islam is deeply rooted in its doctrines, its history and ultimately its founder, Mohammed himself. For him, Islam is like the germ of tuberculosis: it can lie dormant for a very long time, only to emerge in a drastic form when resistance is low (the metaphor is mine, not his).
It is important to understand that this book is not a biography of Mohammed. It doesn’t matter to Spencer even if there never was such a person. What he is examining is the orthodox belief about Mohammed, as derived from the Koran itself and from the hadith, the stories about him that are accepted by Moslems as authentic. Since Mohammed is believed to be a near-paragon of human virtue, a divinely-inspired example to be followed wherever possible, it is sociologically important to understand what qualities he is believed to have had, whether or not he actually had them.
To those of us who do not believe that Mohammed was divinely-inspired, the picture is not a pretty one. Of course, Spencer concentrates on the most discreditable aspects Mohammed’s ‘biography,’ demonstrating that, from our modern point of view, he connived at armed robbery, mass murder and the abduction of women. Of course, autres temps, autres moeurs: he was behaving in a way that one would expect of his time and place, and it may be that, on the whole, he sometimes behaved better than his peers. But that is not the point: it is nothing short of a moral, intellectual and indeed political disaster if his conduct is taken as a model for all time. Needless to say, Mohammed must have had many qualities out of the ordinary, some of them positive, as any earth-shaking leader must have: but a supposed paragon must be judged not by his best, but by his worst, qualities.
Among his less attractive qualities was a tendency to receive supposedly divine guidance that suited his political interests of the moment. He was, indeed, a political genius of the first water: he understood what motivated men, and he developed a system of belief and practice, of social pressure and ideological terror, that meant that islamisation once established was irreversible, at least until the present day. Leonid Brezhnev’s doctrine was that a country, once communist, could not become non-communist; how puny, historically, was the communist achievement beside that of Islam!
Spencer does not deal in this book with the attractive qualities of Islamic civilisation, or rather civilisations. A recent exhibition of Ottoman art in London, for example, demonstrated just how exquisite, at least at its summit, the Ottoman civilisation was, and how in the decorative arts at least it was Western Europe’s superior for entire centuries. But in my view Spencer is right not to drag in such a red herring: many and various have been the exquisite civilisations of the world, but the quality of a civilisation does not establish the truth of the doctrines current in it, nor the suitability of those doctrines for living in the modern world.
The author doesn’t deal quite adequately, however, with the question of the famous Islamic tolerance, which in my view is both a myth and an historical reality, and which is frequently brought into any discussion about Islam and Islamism.
The reality is that for several centuries Islamic polities were a good deal more religiously-tolerant than those of Christendom. For example, many Jews expelled from Spain fled to North Africa, where they helped to repel invasions by Charles V, and in Istanbul it is only now that Ladino, a form of mediaeval Spanish written in Hebrew script, is dying out – half a millennium after the original expulsion from Spain. This is surely very significant. The Islamic record with regard to Jews is much better, until very recently, than that of the west.
But it is very far from exemplary. Jews (and Christians) were always second-class citizens, and always vulnerable to changes of the ruler’s heart, or to the wrathful prejudice of the people by whom they were surrounded. Human nature being what it is, friendships could develop across confessional boundaries; but not merely were these friendships doctrinally unsanctioned in Islam, they were doctrinally frowned upon. At no time has Islam seen non-Moslems as the juridical equals of Moslems, and indeed is incapable of doing so without de-naturing itself completely, for inequality is written into the very fabric of its doctrine and, just as importantly, its law. Spencer is quite clear about this, and the conclusions that must follow from it.
Judged by the abysmal standards of fifteenth century Europe, then, Islam looks quite tolerant; but judged from the modern, post-Enlightenment perspective, it looks primitive and grossly intolerant. As for its attitude toward polytheists and atheists, it is and has always been doctrinally abominable. In other words, Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world, and as yet has no doctrinal means of dealing constructively with the inevitable diversity of human religion and philosophy, beyond the violent imposition of uniformity or second-class citizenship.
Spencer is scathing of western intellectuals’ failure to examine Islam and its founder in the same light as they would examine any other religious doctrine of comparable importance. The task of politicians, on the other hand, is more delicate than he suggests; they do not move in a world of abstractions but of concrete realities, and truth is only one of the things they must try to conserve. The responsibility of intellectuals is thus in some ways greater than that of politicians.
Spencer asks whether Moslems of moderate temperament can find some way of reconciling their faith with the exigencies of the modern world. The problem is that this reconciliation cannot be a mere modus vivendi; it has to be intellectually coherent and satisfying to last. Personally, I am not optimistic in this regard. Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion; but, as anyone who has watched a person die will attest, last gasps can last a surprisingly long time.
Posted by Robert at November 13, 2006 9:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In other words, Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world, and as yet has no doctrinal means of dealing constructively with the inevitable diversity of human religion and philosophy, beyond the violent imposition of uniformity or second-class citizenship.
What an understatement! Too bad Islam didn't simply end when the 7th century did. Instead it's still around, with its master race trying more than ever to dominate the world. Put 21st century technology into the hands of 7th century barbarians and only disaster can result. Hopefully this cult is indeed in its last gasp-my worry is that if it is, it'll go out with one hell of a bang, taking much of the infidel world with it.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 13, 2006 9:45 AM
Another powerful essay from Theodore Dalrymple ( checks name ) . He's always a great read , and here he's in his element , laying telling blows against , not only Islam , but even more importantly , it's apologists . A sorry bunch to be told , who've got nowhere to go intellectually , but since when did that stop anyone ?
Remember.
Always do what the good doc says.
Posted by: ewha1 at November 13, 2006 9:58 AM
Christians have often presented their religion as a religion of love and peace while presented Islam as a religion of war and sword.
For centuries now Christian nations have been busy beating up one Muslim nation or another. In the Middle Ages they came as crusaders. Then they colonized many Muslim countries and tried to destroy their cultures and religion.
Posted by: Ramon at November 13, 2006 11:59 AM
The Weekly Newsmagazine "TIME" dated July 15, 1974, carried a selection of opinions by various historians, writers, military men, businessmen and others on the subject: "Who Were History's Great Leaders?" Some said that it was Hitler; others said-Gandhi, Buddha, Lincoln and the like. But Jules Mass erman, a United States psychoanalyst put the standards straight by giving the correct criteria wherewith to judge. He said: "LEADERS MUST FULFIL THREE FUNCTIONS:-
(1) Provide for the well-being of the led,
(2) Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure and
(3) Provide them with one set of beliefs."
With the above three criteria he searches history and analyses - Hitler, Pasteur, Gaesar, Moses, Confucius and the lot, and ultimately concludes:
"PEOPLE LIKE PASTEUR AND SALK ARE LEADERS IN THE FIRST SENSE. PEOPLE LIKE GANDHI AND CONFUCIUS, ON ONE HAND, AND ALEXANDER, CAESAR AND HITLER ON THE OTHER, ARE LEADERS IN THE SECOND AND PERHAPS THE THIRD SENSE. JESUS AND BUDDHA BELONG IN THE THIRD CATEGORY ALONE. PERHAPS THE GREATEST LEADER OF ALL TIMES WAS MOHAMMED, WHO COMBINED ALL THREE FUNCTIONS. To a lesser degree, MOSES DID THE SAME."
According to the objective standards set by the Professor of the Chicago University, whome I believe to be Jewish, - JESUS and BUDDHA are now - here in the picture of the "Great Leaders of Mankind", but by a queer coincidence groups Moses and Muhummed together thus adding further weight to the argu ment that JESUS is not like MOSES, but MUHUMMED is like MOSES: Deut.18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" - Like MOSES!
In conclusion, I end with a quotation of a Christian Reverend the commentator of the Bible, followed by that of his Master:
"THE ULTIMATE CRITERION OF A TRUE PROPHET IS THE MORAL CHARACTER OF HIS TEACHING."(Prof.Dummelow.)
"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." (Jesus Christ)
A concluding suggestion: Come let us reason together !
SAY:"O PEOPLE OF THE BOOK!
COME TO COMMON TERMS AS BETWEEN US AND YOU:
THAT WE WORSHIP NONE BUT GOD;
THAT WE ASSOCIATE NO PARTNERS WITH HIM;
THAT WE ERECT NOT, FROM AMONG OURSELVES,
LORDS AND PATRONS OTHER THAN GOD."
IF THEN THEY TURN BACK,
SAY:"BEAR WITNESS THAT WE (AT LEAST)
ARE MUSLIMS (BOWING TO GOD'S WILL)."
(Holy Qur'an 3:64)
Posted by: Ramon at November 13, 2006 12:11 PM
Ramon,
Did you even bother to read the article before commenting? So a tree should be judged by its fruits. Right, so lets apply this little test to Mohammed. Muslims sources attest to the following 'fruits' in your prophets' life:
· He regularly ordered raids (razzias) on caravans (and took part in several) in order to steal their contents and to sell people for ransom
· He forced several of his enemies (e.g. Abu Sufyan) to accept his prophethood or be executed.
· He forced his adopted son (by receiving a ‘revelation’ from God) to divorce his wife so that he could marry her (Sahih Muslim Volume 2 Number 2347; Sahih Bukhari Volume 3 Number 249; see also Qur’an 33:6-38).
· He ‘married’, and had sex with, a woman on the same day that her husband, father, brother and most of her family were slaughtered by his followers (Sahih Bukhari Volume 2 number 68 and Volume 4 number 143,280) It is clear that he considered her to be part of the ‘spoils of war’.
· Instead of only taking four wives (the amount he allowed his followers) he received a special revelation allowing him to take as many as he wished (Qur’an 33:50). Prompting his favourite wife Aisha to exclaim that it seems that God sent down revelations merely to suit the prophet (Sahih Muslim Volume 2 Number 3453)!
· He married Aisha when se was six and consummated the marriage while she was only nine (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7 Book 62 Number 64) One tradition even states that she was still playing with dolls at the time the marriage was consummated (Sahih Muslim Volume 8 Number 3311).
· He committed genocide by ordering (or at the very least allowing) the slaughter 900 unarmed male member of the Banu Qurayzah (Jewish) tribe after they refused to embrace Islam and received ‘divine sanction’ for it (Qur’an 33:25-26).
· He ordered the assassination of several people who were critical of him (e.g. the poets Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak).
· He broke a treaty (The treaty of Hudabiyyah) which committed him to live in peace with the people of Mecca. Again he conveniently receives a ‘revelation’ justifying his actions (Qur’an 60:10).
· He allowed his followers to rape captive women (Sahih Muslim Book 8 Number 3371) and to see them as part of their reward for fighting battles for the sake of Islam (Qur’an 23:5-6)
By your fruits indeed!
Case closed.
Posted by: PJS1 at November 13, 2006 1:20 PM
From our dear friend Ramon:
"Christians have often presented their religion as a religion of love and peace while presented Islam as a religion of war and sword."
On the contrary, modern Christians and former Christians living in the West have been among Christianity's loudest and most outspoken opponents. In the Christian west, they are protected under the freedom of speech and separation of church and state. In contrast, those living in Muslim countries who make any disparaging remars about Islam or its Prophet are regularly targeted for executions due to the inseparability of mosque and state.
"For centuries now Christian nations have been busy beating up one Muslim nation or another."
Which Muslim nations would those be? Iraq? Iran? Turkey? North Africa? ALL, repeat, ALL of those lands used to be predominantly CHristian until the war hordes of Muhammad invaded, occupied, and converted the populace at the point of a sword.
"In the Middle Ages they came as crusaders."
You mean the DEFENSIVE Crusades that the Christians went on to save follow Christians from the barbaric Muslim hordes invading Christian Asia Minor (Now Turkey)? Are those the Crusades you're talking about? The ones that undoubteldy saved Western civilization as we know it?
"Then they colonized many Muslim countries and tried to destroy their cultures and religion."
Uh huh. You keep believeing that. The West is the invader. We're the enemy. Because, you know, we have SO MUCH to gain from exploiting Muslim countries. Look at all of the wonderful things it's brought us, like the atrocities of 9/11, or paying millions and millions of dollars to Muslim governments because they choose to hoard their (Westernly-provided) oil money for themselves instead of feeding the poor, hungry masses.
You know, when you put it that way, it makes SO MUCH SENSE. I'm convinced, personally.
at November 13, 2006 2:56 PM
Islam is the way of life for those who believe in God and want to live a life in worship and obedience to none but God. The reward is forgiveness from God and an everlasting life in the Heaven.
There are over one billion Muslims spread across the globe in all nationalities, languages and ethnic backgrounds. Islam was the religion of the first couple, Adam and Eve. It was also the religion of messengers of God like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The essence of their message was the same:
Believe and obey the One true God and obey His messengers.
Jesus (peace be on him) was the second-last prophet of God. He foretold the coming of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). While the mission of the earlier messengers was generally limited to their own communities, prophet Muhammad's message and mission is universal and timeless till the end of this world.
Belief in Islam means
Belief in One God
belief in all of God's messengers
belief in all the books sent down to prophets of God. These books include Torah and Gospel. Only the Holy Quran exists in its original form, however.
belief in the existence of angels
belief in the Day of Judgement, Life after Death, Heaven and Hell.
belief in the Divine Decree or Predestination, its good and its bad.
Muslims are those who declare that there is no deity except Allah (arabic for God) and that Muhammad is His messenger. They submit fully in obedience to Allah and mould their lives according to the teachings of the Holy Quran and prophet Muhammad.
Posted by: Ramon at November 13, 2006 3:58 PM
"They submit fully in obedience to Allah and mould their lives according to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Prophet Muhammad."
Yep, they sure do, and that's why we have a problem with them. Tell me, are you reading the abridged version of the Koran? If you'd like more information I'm sure Hugh, Foehammer or Alarmed Pig Farmer could direct you to a Koran that the thought police haven't gotten to already. Then you could read what your religion is really all about.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 4:43 PM
Some wisdom from our good friend Ramon:
"Islam is the way of life for those who believe in God and want to live a life in worship and obedience to none but God. The reward is forgiveness from God and an everlasting life in the Heaven."
The heaven? Ramon, I think you and I have very different ideas of what the heaven is. After hundreds of years to develop is relative isolation, what had Islamic society done in the way of religious tolerance, gender equality and slavery? No religious freedom for any religion but Islam; repression, abuse and sanctioned rape and murder of women; and slavery is still encouraged to this day. The heaven? You can the have it.
"There are over one billion Muslims spread across the globe in all nationalities, languages and ethnic backgrounds."
Ah. So you admit that anti-Islam ideas cannot, by definition, be racist, since Islam is pan-racial. Interesting.
"Islam was the religion of the first couple, Adam and Eve."
No, it wasn't.
"It was also the religion of messengers of God like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus."
No. It wasn't. Adam, Eve, and Noah weren't even JEWISH, retard. How could they belong to a religion that was invented thousands of years AFTER THEY DIED? That's as ridiculous as claiming that Napoleon was a Scientologist.
"The essence of their message was the same:"
No, it wasn't.
"Believe and obey the One true God and obey His messengers.
Jesus (peace be on him) was the second-last prophet of God. He foretold the coming of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him)."
No, he didn't. Muhammad only said that he did in a desperate attempt to obtain Chrisitan legitimacy as a prophet. It's utter bullsh*t.
"While the mission of the earlier messengers was generally limited to their own communities, prophet Muhammad's message and mission is universal and timeless till the end of this world."
And that message was: Kill or dominate everyone who doesn't agree with every insane demand that I make. Such is the will of God.
"Belief in Islam means
Belief in One God
belief in all of God's messengers
belief in all the books sent down to prophets of God. "
And bellief that anyone who rejects these idea is an infidel dog who deserves humiliation, torture and death.
"These books include Torah and Gospel."
Really? So Muslims read the Torah and Bible as much as they read the Koran? Interesting. Because they don't seem to have learned ANY of its lessons, and Mohammad himself only had a dim understanding of the world's two oldest monotheistic faiths. He was under the impression that Jews worship Ezra as the son of God and Christians worship Mary as the third part of the Holy Trinity. However, anyone with a basic knowledge of either religion would immediately recognize the blatant falsehood of either statement.
"Only the Holy Quran exists in its original form, however."
Says you.
"belief in the existence of angels
belief in the Day of Judgement, Life after Death, Heaven and Hell.
belief in the Divine Decree or Predestination, its good and its bad.
Muslims are those who declare that there is no deity except Allah (arabic for God) and that Muhammad is His messenger. They submit fully in obedience to Allah and mould their lives according to the teachings of the Holy Quran and prophet Muhammad." And that's EXACTLY why it must be stopped at all costs. Muhammad was a tyrannical, mysoginistic, bloodthirsty, pedophile monster. I don't know WHAT creature he was a prophet of, but it sure as hell wasn't MY god.
Peace be upon you, Ramon. I choose to believe that we all have the power to change, we all have the power to see the truth for what it is. That is what makes it the truth. I hope that you see it one day, I really do.
Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at November 13, 2006 4:48 PM
Professor PyroSkank,
This guy didn't read the Koran. He got his information from the controlled TV in whatever Islamic country in the Middle East he lives in. Or is he perhaps one of the recent converts from the illegal aliens south of our border? His name suggests so. He probably just got the starter kit and has no clue what he has signed up for, but since he wants to be a good jihadi he feels that he must stand up to all those who stand against Islam. Yeah, that would make more sense because nobody is killing anyone in the name of Islam in America at the moment so what we say couldn't possibly be true. And since our news media is so beholdin' to the idea of a peaceful Islam, he won't hear the truth there either.
This reminds me of when my older sister told me about sex and told me that my mom and dad did that and I told her that no, I knew them and they would never do that!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 5:56 PM
"...but since he wants to be a good jihadi he feels that he must stand up to all those who stand against Islam."
God help us if this guy ever quits smoking or eating meat.
We'd never hear the end of him.
Maybe he's just suffering from NPES (New Poster Enthusiasm Syndrome).
Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 6:08 PM
Kind Isabella,
Thank you for your response, but I assure you that I have no illusions about our good buddy Ramon and his intentions. I was simply doing my part to ensure that his laughable attempt at rational discourse would not be taken mistaken for a serious argument by a visitor to this great site. Ramon is likely already lost to our cause, but we must never give up hope.
The truth is the truth. It is undeniable. It is this belief and the belief that humans are rational beings that assures me of our eventual victory. We are intelligent, we are determined, we are compassionate and we are truthful. If there really is a God, how could our victory ever be in doubt?
As an aside, I remember having a very similar discussion with my younger sister. Her horrified reaction was not much different. Heh.
Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at November 13, 2006 6:11 PM
Professor P,
I wasn't correcting you, I was just adding to your comments. ; ) And one thing that disturbs me, aside from them wanting to destroy my way of life and everything I've worked for, is that they are willfully lost in a system that will never allow them to reach their full spiritual or human potential. If I wasn't so busy trying to stave off their attacks and reverse their advances I would put more time into contemplating how to help them get out.
And regarding the other thing, even though it's been thirty-five years since my sister and I had that conversation, I can only say, E-e-e-u-u-u-w-w-w!!!!!
Eisenhoney,
NPES (New Poster Enthusiasm Syndrome).
LMBO (Laughing My Butt Off)!!!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 7:56 PM
As evidenced by his posts, his intensity and his assumed air of authority and prophethood..Ramon is a convert..
Converts (of any sort) are of necessity, fanatics, a shade more than any true believer
Chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.
Believers and especially converts have an intense need to convince themselves, and thus convince others, of the truth of that which they believe or choose to believe.
Misery loves (needs) company.
By pounding his drum (holy scriptures) he is actually striving hardest to convince himself that his choice of belief is valid and what he chooses to believe is The Truth..otherwise cognitive dissonance.. the uncomfortable and painful feeling (the basis of the lie detector) that arises when a person says one thing and believes another..and if one repeats over and over the lies that one wishes to believe, magic happens in the brain and voila one believes that which one needs and/or has chosen to believe.
And once one believes something, when information conflicts with their recall of reality, they experience real pain..
The neural network of our bodies is designed for one way traffic..information enters via our senses is received and processed by the brain.. if the input is in conflict with that which is already in storage (that which we KNOW to be The Truth) then it is rejected, and the information flows back down the neural network (designed as I said for one way traffic) and has no outlet, nowhere to exit, nowhere to go, no processing center .. the result is physical pain, felt in flushes, temperature rises, needle pricks in the nerve endings and only relieved with angry outburst, violence, thrashing and flailing of hands, mouth, eyes, tongue and in the case of the internet..angry, self righteous, self justifying typing of words that end up on a computer screen.
This applies not only to Ramon, but to all, but especially evinced in Ramone and his cohorts efforts.
Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2006 10:21 PM
Theodore Dalrymple's writing is thoughtful, insightful and almost always well worth reading. (Dalrymple is the pen name of a British doctor and social observer who spent a good deal of time working at a prison hospital.)
He has written a number of books, including "Our Culture (What's Left of it)", and "Life at the Bottom".
To find a good archive of a lot of his writing, check out the following site (go to author, and archives):
Posted by: gravenimage at November 14, 2006 1:46 AM
Come back home before it is too late Ramon. You could lose your life to this false doctrine, worse yet, you could take lives for it. Do yourself a big favor read the Bible and the Gospels. The Truth lies within. There is but one path to the Kingdom of Heaven!
Posted by: Poot at November 14, 2006 1:46 AM
-Isabellathecrusader,
Heh...
Thought you might like that one.
at November 14, 2006 2:31 AM
Ramon ,
I would have thought that the best (indeed , only) criteria for a true prophet are that his prophecies come true . Or is that too profound for you ?
If you can provide us proof that any of Mohammed's prophecies were ever verifiably confirmed (and I don't mean any that he himself caused to occur such as military concquests) then we will be pleased to hear of them . Otherwise , He's not a prophet AT ALL . I seen to remember that the Old Testament proscribes death on false prophets if even a single prophecy fails to materialise .
at November 14, 2006 4:11 AM
No one cares to mention the fact that, in essence, Muhammad started a particularly noxious cult, and through provocation, belligerency and intolerance was able to infect the surrounding illiterate populace. Thievery and brigandage was a way of life in Arabia at this time, and the overlay of religion helped to justify these vocations, done in the name of Allah, don't you know.
Think of it this way: Muhammad was nothing more than the Jim Jones of his day, albeit more clever and ruthless.
It's a wonder, as Dalrymple suggests, that the world still has to deal with patently phony, backward and destructive 7th-century religious beliefs at the beginning of the 21st century.
As comedian Mort Sahl once said, "What does this prove? Darwin was wrong!"
Posted by: prman at November 14, 2006 1:53 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)