To understand any phenomenon, its roots must first be understood. Unfortunately, not only do all discussions on the conflict between Islam and the West tend to be limited to the modern era, but when the past, the origins, are alluded to, the antithesis of reality is proffered: we hear that the West — itself a euphemism for Europe, or better yet, Christendom — began the conflict by intentionally demonizing otherwise peaceful and tolerant Muslims and their prophet in order to justify their “colonial” aspirations in the East, which supposedly began with the Crusades.
Bestselling author on Islam and Christianity Karen Armstrong summarizes the standard view: “Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure…. The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy.”
That nothing could be further from the truth is an understatement. From the very first Christian references to Muslims in the seventh century, to Pope Urban’s call to the First Crusade more than four centuries later, the “Saracens” and their prophet were consistently abhorred.
Thus, writing around 650, John of Nikiu, Egypt, said that “Muslims” — the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word — were not just “enemies of God,” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.” The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634 — a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.” Others confirmed that “there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”
Muhammad is first mentioned by name in a Syriac fragment, also written around 634; although only scattered phrases are intelligible, they all revolve around bloodshed: “many villages [in Homs] were ravaged by the killing [of the followers] of Muhammad and many people were slain and [taken] prisoner from Galilee to Beth…” “[S]ome ten thousand” people were slaughtered in “the vicinity of Damascus…” Writing around 640, Thomas the Presbyter mentions Muhammad: “there was a battle [Adjnadyn?] between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled… Some 4,000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there … The Arabs ravaged the whole region”; they even “climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata.” A Coptic homily, also written around the 640s, is apparently the earliest account to associate the invaders with (an albeit hypocritical) piety. It counsels Christians to fast, but not “like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying, ‘we both fast and pray.’”
Towards the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth centuries, learned Christians began to scrutinize the theological claims of Islam. The image of Muslims went from bad to worse. The Koran — that “most pitiful and most inept little book of the Arab Muhammad” — was believed to be “full of blasphemies against the Most High, with all its ugly and vulgar filth,” particularly its claim that heaven amounted to a “sexual brothel,” to quote eighth century Nicetas Byzantinos, who had and closely studied a copy of it. Allah was denounced as an impostor deity, namely Satan: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad,” read one Byzantine canonical rite.
But it was Muhammad himself — the fount of Islam — who especially scandalized Christians: “The character and the history of the Prophet were such as genuinely shocked them; they were outraged that he should be accepted as a venerated figure.”… Keep Reading
Wellington says
So, Karen Armstrong is clearly guilty of either 1) mendacity; or 2) ignorance. There is no third alternative.
abad says
Armstrong was required reading back in college – she is certifiably insane.
Carol says
I guess then you can picture her addressing Salafists or a roomful of cannon-fodder-baiting-imams with her own sugary words:
“I say that religion isn’t about believing things. It’s ethical alchemy. It’s about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness.”
Karen Armstrong on Powells.com
CRUSADER says
What about a “mendicant” ?
mortimer says
Response to Wellington: since Armstrong has admitted she is not ignorant of Mohammed’s assassinations, slaughters and contract killings, she is not innocent. I present the theory that she was bribed by Gulf money. Mohammed’s paid a writer to devise insults and ‘lampoons’ against his verbal critics. I propose this is the solution to Armstrong via Ockham’s Razor.
gravenimage says
There are a lot of apologists for Islam, and most of them are not directly being paid off by the Saudis.
But there is no doubt, Mortimer, that Karen Armstrong has made a lot of money off posing as an “expert” on Islam and whitewashing that foul creed.
Carol says
As an appetizer she seems to have won the lottery – the million dollar TED prize in 2008 for her “Charter for Compassion”.
She loves posing as a great gal promulgating the Golden Rule while brooming Islam’s tracks under the rug and warmly acknowledging them as part of the Three Great Abrahamic Religions Gang! She surely has excelled as a failed nun!
gravenimage says
Laughably grotesque, Carol.
Carol says
The soothing witch swept many nasty things under her magical carpet:
Ockham’s broom is a somewhat more recent conceit, attributable to Sydney Brenner, and embodies the principle whereby inconvenient facts are swept under the carpet in the interests of a clear interpretation of a messy reality.
gravenimage says
Wellington, Karen Armstrong does not appear to be ignorant of Muhammed’s savagery–instead, she spends a lot of time bringing it up, then implausibly whitewashing it.
I think she is much worse than just an ignorant naif.
Wellington says
I think so too, gravenimage. I was “merely” interested in the only two possibilities as I saw them, theoretically speaking and all that, though “CRUSADER” did propose a third “solution” which is indeed humorous, full of pregnant implications and which only redounds to his credit.
So, of the comments here about Armstrong, I have to give “CRUSADER” “first place.” I suspect you’ll agree. And if “CRUSADER” should read what I have written here, I say to him, my compliments.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington. I appreciated CRUSADER’s witty comment, as well. 🙂
JAR says
This is a great summary. Thanks, Raymond.
He writes: “…learned Christians began to scrutinize the theological claims of Islam. The image of Islam went from bad to worse.”
Can you imagine Raymond Ibrahim being interviewed by Jake Tapper, Chris Cuomo, or someone from the BBC?
RI would trigger and unhinge them by showing them how “Islamophobia” was already taking hold in the late 7th c. Why didn’t someone tell them (ad nauseam) that “It’s a religion of peace”? Then all would have been well.
Merry 12 days of Christmas and Happy Boxing Day to all the readers and authors of JW!
And keep the truth train rolling.
mortimer says
I second JAR’s praise for Raymond’s piece.
Salome says
And I third it. One of the most helpful things I’ve read.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Fourthed. Good history, especially the early manuscript evidence.
Carol says
One of the articles’ best sentences should be shared with present-day bloodhounds (Trudeau, Khalid, Joly) seeking to QUELL the utterly shameful and unprecedented phenomena called “Islamophobia”:
Raymond Ibrahim wrote:
“Indeed, for politically correct or overly sensitive peoples who find any criticism of Islam “Islamophobic,” the SHEER AMOUNT and VITRIOLIC CONTENT of MORE THAN A MILLENIUM of Western writings on Muhammad may BEGGAR BELIEF”
I guess there ain’t no cure for common sense.
Carol says
Definition of QUELL – “to thoroughly overwhelm and reduce to SUBMISSION or PASSIVITY”
Mohammed would have absolutely loved it but the largely white Canadian stock that created this country feel differently Justin and they should definitely vote with their feet.
MFritz says
In a historical context most Christians (and all of the other faiths) figured the “truth” out about islam between 2-3 minutes after “initial” contact. Most likely when they were slaughtered, their children enslaved, their women raped and their villages pillaged and burned to the ground.
Jaladhi says
One only needs to read Quran to see that Muhammad is a demon establishing a criminal mafia religion!!
ciudadano says
All prophets before Mohamed received public revelations accredited by prophesies, witnesses and super natural signs. How come the “final and greatest” of all prophets received a private revelation?
There are no witnesses of Mohamed revelation, neither miracles nor prophesies which give credit to Mohamed’s word. Muslims have to believe Mohamed’s own word that the coran fell from heaven into his hands. Even in islamic law you need witnesses for the smallest importance affairs, but some how Mohamed revelation is dispensed of any evidence.
So Islam foundation lays on the credibility of a quite immoral man who produced a book full of errors, contradictions and conspicuous omissions. No wonder islamic faith has to be coerced into people and draconian blasphemy and apostasy laws imposed in Islamic countries.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Cludadano, can you point at any cogent surviving eyes witness account of miracles performed by Jesus or Moses today apart from the stories contained in Christian and Jewish religious books in the same way books of Hadith contained more than 300 miracles performed by Prophet Muhammad with eye witness accounts?
LeftisruiningCanada says
Jewish sources refer to the Lord Jesus as a sorcerer, or as one who practiced witchcraft.
That sounds like an unbelieving way to described miraculous occurrences to me.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf
The four gospels were all written and in circulation earlier than the hadith collections were made, as were several of the early ‘Church Fathers” who all attest to miracles in the life of Christ. Some of the early church fathers were taught by apostles, or the students of apostles. Compared to islamic isnad chains, the evidence for Christ is far early and better attested, no contest.
Wellington says
Query for Ibrahim (and from an agnostic no less): Why should miracles mentioned in “Christian and Jewish religious books” carry less weight than miracles mentioned in the hadiths (ahadith)? Surely you’re not going to argue that the sheer number of miracles has any real weight. Surely, if miracles occur, one, just one true miracle, is worth 300 alleged miracles, no?
In the interest of full disclosure and honesty (which two, frankly, I must say Islam comes up “very short” on), I agree with David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher (1711-1776), who asserted that there is not a single miracle alleged by religious texts for which a non-religious, non-miraculous, explanation cannot be proffered. Not one. The way he more specifically put it was that the only way a miraculous explanation for an event can be accepted is if the non-miraculous explanation for said event is even more extraordinary than the miraculous one. And not one such example has ever been provided by any religion, let alone that religion which is a mortal enemy of freedom, i.e., Islam.
Put another way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religions put forth all kinds of extraordinary claims but NEVER provide extraordinary evidence. N.B., Testimonies by religious people already inclined to believe as they do does not constitute, or comes anywhere close to constituting, extraordinary evidence. Damn, too bad video recorders and the like didn’t exist 1400 years, 2000 years, 3200 years ago, etc. It would be so much simpler were this the case to figure “all this out.”
Your turn.
LeftisruiningCanada says
The agnostic position on miracles is appreciated Wellington.
I would offer the extraordinary evidence that all of the apostles bar one (John) held true to their convictions to the point of grisly martyrdom. (And Ibrahim, that is what a real Martyr is.) The following expansion and endurance of Christianity through almost 300 years of persecution (not continuous on an empire wide scale admittedly) i also submit.
Unlike the Islamic hordes, who all had much to gain materially by engaging in jihad for the sake of allah, Christians did not. Something led those ancient Jews and those they spoke with, to believe that Jesus was their Messiah…and Jews are no fools, and were often to be found rejecting false claims to messiahship.
While it’s true that we aren’t going to be able to show scientific level evidences for these historical events, as a Christian i have no reason to doubt their reality. I didn’t come to faith because of reading miracle stories, but nothing in the early accounts doesn’t ring true to me.
Islam and mo however, ring a very different note.
Wellington says
Material advantage or lack thereof aside, LeftisruiningCanada, surely one can find through the centuries mucho Muslims who suffered martyrdom for their religion. So, about even here I would argue. Ditto for tons of followers of sundry other religions.
Although I greatly admire the Judea-Christian ethic (in my way of thinking reducible to the probability, not a given but a probability, that at least one or two major religions would produce an enlightened ethic that would work quite well with democratic tenets), martyrs for even terrible religions (or very silly ones) could be found throughout history. And so here I have to ask, so what?
I would mention something else here and it is this: Before Constantine became the first Roman Emperor to initially protect and then embrace (on his deathbed) Christianity, various types of Christianity thrived. All kinds of Christian texts that didn’t eventually make it into the official 27 book canon existed, for instance, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Pilate, Secret Book of John—-over 40 of such. But the victors get to write the history, as the old line goes, and Constantine and his advisers decided at Nicaea in 325 to embrace and make official certain Christian doctrines and not others, a very important one being that argued back and forth by Christians for some three centuries before and up to Constantine, i.e., the literal versus the symbolic resurrection of Jesus. Well, the literalists won out at Nicaea as did those opposed to the Arian interpretation of Jesus, Athanasius and his gang prevailing on “the Trinity matter,” and thereafter those Christians who saw the Resurrection as “only” symbolic or spiritual were hounded and persecuted into oblivion, as were Arians. Much of this “process” is interestingly discussed by Bart D. Ehrman in his work, Lost Christianities.
Well, we have no dispute that Christianity is a far more enlightened religion than Islam. This is why I have often written at JW that were all Muslims to wake up tomorrow devout Christians, the world would be infinitely better off. But this does nothing to prove or disprove the theological truth of what Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) contends.
Besides, and even assuming miracles and Christianity occurred and said religion is the true one, there is still no allowance for dissent, and so shame here, deep shame. For instance (and never mind that wretched work, the Koran), time and time again in the New Testament one is threatened if one dares doubt or does not accept what Jesus says, two examples being Mark 16:16 where Jesus himself says that those who do not believe and are baptized are condemned and John 3:18 which states that those who don’t believe are already judged.
Regarding the first, Jesus can’t even be clear about someone who lived five hundred years before he did and could not possibly believe and be baptized, or whether some poor Hindu living five hundred years after Jesus, who was good with his parents, wife, children and friends but never heard of Jesus (or only barely), could be saved. Bad enough to threaten eternal damnation for not believing this or doing that, but to be ambiguous about eternal salvation is simply Beyond the Pale, though this is exactly what Jesus is culpable of time and time again. As for John 3:18, unlike philosophy and science which do not threaten if one does not accept their propositions, John 3:18 illustrates in spades a terrible aspect of religion——–the use of fear to compel belief and, by implication, the non-allowance for doubt, which, quite frankly, I find terribly objectionable and even shameful but something all religions do, Islam being the worst here because it allows followers of its creed to use force in this world to eradicate doubt. Here is the single most important reason why I think Christianity (and other religions) superior to Islam, though many other reasons exist.
Well, enough for now. I have written more than I should have. But should you care to respond, I would be most grateful. Do keep in mind that I think the character of Jesus infinitely superior to the character of Mohammed. Here, I believe, we can have no disagreement.
Always good to read your posts. A belated Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and may Canada get again a PM with the sense of Stephen Harper, perhaps Harper himself. God knows, Trudeau is a disaster—-for Canada, for America, for all the West. Take care.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Merry Christmas to you and yours also Wellington.
You bring up lots of interesting things. I find it easier to quote and respond, and will try to format it for clarity.
———
“surely one can find through the centuries mucho Muslims who suffered martyrdom for their religion”
———-
Probably. We would also likely find many muslims who we would both consider to be good spiritual men who taught kind and lofty ideals. We would be equally aware that they were all those positive things in spite of mohammads example, and were doing it out of some self imagined concept of islam.
I guess my point about the martyrdom of the apostles was mainly to say that they didn’t, from a wordly stand point, get much out of holding on to their witness about Christ. The first muslims stood to gain quite a bit if successful.
We could even apply the same idea to mohammads teachings before he left for medina – 13 years was it, and but a hundred or so followers. But he did rather better after he could ‘pay the wages’ so to say. The apostles had 5000 after the first day…with no promise of riches or slaves.
The contrast between the two is notable.
It’s not offered as objective evidence, but it is suggestive at the very least.
——
“martyrs for even terrible religions (or very silly ones) could be found throughout history. And so here I have to ask, so what?”
——-
Oh yes, us humans can be very stubborn when it comes to giving up something we believe in, even when threatened with death. I’ve see buddhists bowing and kneeling their way across China to reach their sacred mountains and shrines, truly a feat of determination and commitment, second only to death in some ways.
Doesn’t mean they are right though, of course.
But, with regard to the first generation of believers in Christ, we have to be quite clear that they did what they did, and died how they died, based completely on Christ’s resurrection from the dead. It is this miracle alone which made Christianity more than just a footnote in the annals of Jewish false messiahs. Any other miracles Jesus may have done during his life would have been written off as the works of a false prophet according to the tests outlined in Deut 18:20-22, Deet 13:1-9.
To believe that these guys went off, having already been told by Jesus they would be persecuted, hated and executed, with no promises of any reward but approval by God, based on something they knew to be false (the resurrection), seems quite unlikely to me.
On the other hand, even if the first followers of mohammad (IHE – If He Existed) didn’t believe he was a prophet at all, they had a system set up which promised to make them very wealthy in all kinds of ways if they followed it, and gave them powers to control people if they asked any questions. It was a very well made dictatorship from the beginning.
I’ll leave it at that on this question for now. I’m not that well versed in apologetics to those not already Christian. There are many places to read the better thoughts of others along these lines: https://carm.org http://christianthinktank.com/
I think you’ll enjoy the second link there, though both are good.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Moving on:
——
” Before Constantine became the first Roman Emperor to initially protect and then embrace (on his deathbed) Christianity, various types of Christianity thrived. All kinds of Christian texts that didn’t eventually make it into the official 27 book canon existed, for instance, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Pilate, Secret Book of John—-over 40 of such.”
It’s debatable as to if we could say that the ‘other’ Christianities thrived. It is equally possible to say that there were several reactions against the true Christianity, along with several other misrepresentations and pretenders along side it.
It is B Erhmans position that this plurality gave way to a state enforced orthodoxy, but i’ve never found it rational, let alone convincing.
All of the other documents you mention there, plus others elsewhere, are known to be of later origin. The four Gospels in the NT have manuscript evidence going back earlier than them, and in much greater quantities. This tells us that they were considered more important. And that’s pre 300AD.
Upon reading them, they are also so very different in character than the four contained in the NT. They are often quite bizarre in fact. We know from hints in John, and much greater clarity in the writings of Church Father during the following 200 years, that Gnosticism was always of concern to Christians, and was opposed at all times by those who claimed descent from the apostles.
———–
But the victors get to write the history, as the old line goes, and Constantine and his advisers decided at Nicaea in 325 to embrace and make official certain Christian doctrines and not others, a very important one being that argued back and forth by Christians for some three centuries before and up to Constantine, i.e., the literal versus the symbolic resurrection of Jesus.
———-
I’m not aware of any discussion of hermeneutics at 1st Nicea. As you rightly point out, that council was called over the disruptive Arian controversy, which was the main topic of discussion. There were also 20 Canon laws agreed upon, but they were not really theological issues as such, having to do with church discipline mostly.
—————
Well, the literalists won out at Nicaea as did those opposed to the Arian interpretation of Jesus, Athanasius and his gang prevailing on “the Trinity matter,” and thereafter those Christians who saw the Resurrection as “only” symbolic or spiritual were hounded and persecuted into oblivion, as were Arians. Much of this “process” is interestingly discussed by Bart D. Ehrman in his work, Lost Christianities.
——–
Funnily enough, 1st Nicea didn’t do a great deal to stop the controversy, at least not immediately. Through various political ploys, the Arians actually came to be the dominating influence for the next 50 years, and Athanasius was hounded out of his own bishopric 5 times through arrest attempts and such. Arianism very nearly became the officially enforced theology, using state power to get there.
The problem with Dr Erhman is simply that he doesn’t believe that the NT teaches anything in particular. How could he? He doesn’t even believe that we can know what should be written in them, despite openly admitting that the NT we have today, even with the “400,000′ textual variants he always goes on about, contains the text as it was in the 1st century. His skepticism is radical to such an extent, that is standards make it impossible for us to sure of anything written before the photocopier was invented.
I could recommend some equally well credentialed, though believing Christian, scholars on similar subjects to those Dr E writes on, for a bit of balance, if you’d like.
Daniel B Wallace is good for starters. He has debated D E before, and they can be views on youtube.
LeftisruiningCanada says
And on:
———
Besides, and even assuming miracles and Christianity occurred and said religion is the true one, there is still no allowance for dissent, and so shame here, deep shame. For instance (and never mind that wretched work, the Koran), time and time again in the New Testament one is threatened if one dares doubt or does not accept what Jesus says, two examples being Mark 16:16 where Jesus himself says that those who do not believe and are baptized are condemned and John 3:18 which states that those who don’t believe are already judged.
———-
You are right that Christ made it clear in no uncertain terms that there would be consequences for rejecting Him.
Firstly, and in relation to the paragraph previous to the one above that i did not quote, those consequences are of course only to be had after death. Islam would have those consequences be given in this life, by killing you, and in the next. If you reject islam, it’s game over right now. If you reject Christ because you don’t believe in Him…no big deal, because to you, judgment and hell are unreal fantasies.
However, what if there really is to be a judgment? If that’s the universe we find ourselves in, and Christ is what he claimed to be (the way, the truth and the life…), then it would only be correct to let you know the result of your choice, wouldn’t it?
And really, what does He ask of us? He isn’t commanding us to wage jihad by the sword, or to go bow down 5 times a day, or anything in between. Christ tells us to repent of our evil ways and to forsake ourselves and our ‘good’ works, and to instead trust in His works to make us acceptable to the Father.
His yoke is easy, and his burden is certainly light….
———-
“Regarding the first, Jesus can’t even be clear about someone who lived five hundred years before he did and could not possibly believe and be baptized, or whether some poor Hindu living five hundred years after Jesus, who was good with his parents, wife, children and friends but never heard of Jesus (or only barely), could be saved..”
———–
Understanding the NT perspective on these questions depends on also understanding NT Anthropology. It is of course based on the OT picture of man too (psalm 51). There is no doubt that, to the Bible, Man is a sinner. All of us. We’re born that way, already corrupt and spiritually dead, already condemned as you rightly note in John 3:18. This has it’s roots in Genesis, as most things in the Bible do. Romans 5:19 (most of Romans is about this).
If that is the case, then how can we be forgiven? How can all those broken universal laws of morality be paid for? Can we do enough good things to tip the scales? No. If we’ve broken one, law, we’ve broken them all, since only a dead in sins sinner could break one to begin with. Could a murderer get out of a death sentence because he gives to charity? How then to pay off our debt?
That’s where Christ comes in. He never sinned, but allowed Himself to be punished in our place. Those stripes, those slaps and curses, and thorns and nails, that death, is what we deserve. Through faith, people can be counted as being “in” Christ – His perfect life as if you lived it, your perfect life of sin His, as if He lived it and paid for it on the cross.
In that context, the answers to your questions are clearer. Those before Christ were saved from condemnation through trust in God. Abraham was counted as righteous because he trusted what God told him. (Romans 4) He also seemed to have some understanding of Christ (John 8:56-59).
Those after Christ, in the time of the new covenant, can only escape condemnation through faith in Christ. I know it sounds terrible, i still remember what i thought when i heard that before i became a believer.
But if judgment is real, then it is consistent with that reality.
We do know that God is a perfect judge, and that He will do what is right. Christians believe God is the truth of reality, and that anything good comes from Him. They believe that we can know God’s character by learning about Jesus.
But remember, God doesn’t owe us anything, so we can’t really say it’s not fair if He doesn’t save everyone. That He saves anyone is a wonder, knowing how evil are our own hearts.
——
unlike philosophy and science which do not threaten if one does not accept their propositions,
——
But interestingly, science does threaten terrible consequences if we reject it. Many drugs users have attempted to reject basic physics, and found themselves headed down from the top of a building at high speed.
For Christians, sin and judgment are just another, though ultimately more important, part of reality.
———-
John 3:18 illustrates in spades a terrible aspect of religion——–the use of fear to compel belief and, by implication, the non-allowance for doubt, which, quite frankly, I find terribly objectionable and even shameful but something all religions do
———-
In the context of the above point, if Christ is right in everything He has said, then he is no more using fear to compel belief than a father could be said to be doing the same thing when he tells his young son that touching a hot stove will cause pain and burning to the hand.
We would say that the father is being a good father by warning of a reality the son is not yet aware of.
Christians believe Christ was doing just that.
——-
Here, I believe, we can have no disagreement.
——–
Agreed many times over. And, i don’t really see this discussion as a disagreement….more of a bit of friendly back and forth. The tone is appreciated, and i always value your comments in general.
That’s definitely enough from me too!
Wellington says
Thank you for your numerous comments, LeftisruiningCanada. They are appreciated. And yes, no disagreement, or, if so, done quite amicably. Besides, I have to admit the possibility you could be right in all you put forth. At the very least, I can’t disprove what you asserted. It’s at this point that faith must “kick in.” Anyway, thanks again. Now, back to the fight where we are indeed completely on the same side..
LeftisruiningCanada says
Sure thing. Thanks for the questions, was interesting to think about what you had to say.
LeftisruiningCanada says
So interesting in fact, that the replies were perhaps a little to numerous!
Ah well.
LeftisruiningCanada says
*too*…shakes head…
gravenimage says
What miracles did the “Prophet” Muhammed perform?
An illiterate producing the incoherent Qur’an is deemed a miracle in Islam, as is his dream that he flew on donkey with a human head. (His child bride Aisha confirmed that he has not left his pallet).
The only other “miracles” seem to be his blinding some Qurashite warriors, and causing another enemy’s horse to stumble.
Not exactly healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and raising the dead. And not just in terms of the scope of the miracle, but its intent–helping people versus harming them.
Compare and contrast.
ciudadano says
Ibrahim. Why don’t you answer my initial question?
Faith is based on credibility rather that irrefutable historic evidence.
Jesus Christ revelation, who he is, the miracles he performed and what he taught is witnessed by his twelve disciples who abandoned everything to follow him, expecting no earthly profit and who ended up killed for sticking to their faith in Jesus. The New Testament was written by several people who knew Jesus or the disciples and who were persecuted and killed for their faith.
There are hundreds of prophesies in the Torah that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Also there are several historical references from non Christians sources which support the historicity of persons and events of the New Testament.
For the first 4 centuries Christians were persecuted and killed for their faith in Jesus, son of god, who incarnate to bring salvation from sin to humanity.
In summary Jesus public revelation is witnessed by his disciples and many prophecies of the old testament. The credibility of the disciples’ and evangelists account lays on their personal unselfish sacrifice. Additionally there are many non Christians references that corroborate key events and persons in the New Testament.
Even the coran at least is right on that Jesus performed many miracles!
Now answer my question: who is the witness of Mohamed private revelation? why people should believe in Mohamed word that he received the coran from god?
To me a man who commands killings and authorizes his followers to raid caravans, take booty and slaves has zero credibility as a messenger of God.
The worse of all is that mohamed’s own revelation, the coran, testifies against him. How come the unadulterated word of god has so many errors and omissions?
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Cludadano, those more than 300 miracles performed by Prophet Muhammad reported in Hadith books were also witnessed by his companions and other people including critic unbelievers who dismissed it as magic in the same way some Jews dismissed miracles performed by Jesus to be magical.
LeftisruiningCanada says
The Bible has a category for people who work signs and wonders, but who arn’t to be listened to. They are called False Prophets. (Deuteronomy 13:1-9, 18:20-22)
I’m sure that Ibrahim will be certain of the corruption of these texts upon no evidence whatsoever.
Champ says
The imbecile wrote:
…”in the same way some Jews dismissed miracles performed by Jesus to be magical.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the one hand “ibrahim itace muhammed” acknowledges that Jesus performed miracles–although he marginalizes them as mere magic; and yet on the other hand he claims that Jesus is just a “myth” …
Seems the imbecile can’t keep track of his own lies & half-truths. Poor dear.
ciudadano says
Ibrahim,
You are still missing the point. No list of miracles will be long enough if you don’t have credibility. You need credibility to convince people to believe in supernatural revelations.
Christians believe in Jesus miraculous deeds and teachings because his righteous life, his sacrifice on the cross and his resurrection. People believe on the testimony of the disciples about Jesus because they abandoned everything they possessed to follow Jesus, expecting no earthly profit and were executed for peacefully preaching their faith on Jesus Christ, praying for and forgiving their enemies.
The Gospel shows that after Jesus crucifixion the disciples were utterly devastated. They were hiding in shame. They were cowards. Peter even denied Jesus three times. They had lost hope even after all the miracles Jesus performed before them. In theirs minds Jesus had failed.
Then they witnessed something amazing that turn them, from coward ignorants, into brave men preaching before an incredulous and hostile audience, willing to surrender their lives for their new faith. They witnessed Jesus resurrection and received the Holy Spirit.
Christians believe in Jesus and his disciples’ testimony because the quality of their witnessing. There is no conflict of interest. No disciple got rich, powerful or got more chicks following Jesus, rather the other way around.
There is nothing in Mohamed life nor his companions’ lives that gives credibility to anything Mohamed has to say. Mohamed lose any credibility and moral authority when he authorizes his companions to raid caravans, kill people, take booty, etc. Mohamed lose credibility when he acknowledges that the devil tricked him. His companions lose any credibility when they become wealthy war lords that crush and plunder tribes all over Arabic Peninsula. The power struggle among M’s companions that follows his death is not exactly a testimony of piety.
The story of Islam shows you need a good deal of coercion to have people believe in plunders, killers and rapists.
By the way, the coran states that Mohamed was unable to perform miracles (S. 13:7, 10:20, etc, etc).
J D S says
Of course muhammad did no miracles..a myth can not do miracles…No. one has ever proved that muhammad ever existed…therefore no miracles.
Champ says
The lying snake oil saleman wrote:
“Jewish religious books in the same way books of Hadith contained more than 300 miracles performed by Prophet Muhammad with eye witness accounts?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
allah didn’t believe in previous prophets as stated in the unholy quran, so allah (aka satan) doesn’t subscribe to miracles.
I suppose the one and *only* miracle that the perverted-prophet muhammad “performed” was to convince people that he was a true prophet of God. When, of course, he is not; but in fact an evil prophet of doom.
allah and muhammad are both a false god and a false prophet, and the unholy quran is merely a manual for murder & mayhem.
Carol says
Per the conclusions of the “charitable”, modern historian Nathan Daniel:
“The two most important aspects of Muhammad’s life, Christians believed, were his sexual license and his use of force to establish his religion”; for Christians “FRAUD was the sum of Muhammad’s life…. Muhammad was the GREAT BLASPHEMER because HE MADE RELIGION JUSTIFY SIN AND WEAKNESS”; due to all this, “There can be no doubt of the extent of Christian hatred and suspicion of Muslims.”
Champ says
Carol wrote:
“There can be no doubt of the extent of Christian hatred and suspicion of Muslims.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed …
“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” — Romans 12:9
M says
Islam does function like a criminal mafia. It’s a cult based on death and deception. The truth about it is coming to light! And not a moment too soon. The world does NOT need ANYTHING from Islam.
No free society needs ANYTHING like sharia law. No ones needs women to wear black bags. No one needs joyless, always miserable, complaining fiends plotting violence. Goodbye Islam! And good riddance. People are waking up. No one needs a supremacist death cult. In the future, no one will tolerate such insanity.
CRUSADER says
“Muslim Mafia”
book recommended
Lydia Church says
The ones guilty of ‘demonizing’ mohammed were: the devil and his demons.
Lydia Church says
meaning “demonically inspiring”
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yes, there are sure signs of the demonic surrounding mo and the koran.
The episode in the cave is unquestionably evil all by itself.
Carolyne says
The Scientologists believe that millions of years ago a galactic warlord named “Zenu” sent millions of extra “souls” to volcanoes on the earth, then known as Teachiac, and dropped nuclear bombs on them. They then bounced out of the volcanoes and bred with earth people, and some of them just attached themselves and hung on. It is the Scientologists wish to rid themselves of these beings hanging on their every part and become “Clear.” They do this by holding two tin cans attached to a fake machine which “Tells” their monitor if they are ridding themselves of these hangers on by confessing past indiscretions and past experiences, in this life and many lives prior to this one.
That is Scientology in a nut shell.
All of this is written in Ron Hubbard’s books. The Koran is a book. The Bible is a book. Who is to say which one, if any, might be the true story?
How is it determined which book might be the real answer to life?
LeftisruiningCanada says
Pay me $100,000, and i’ll tell you. All the secrets of life, the universe and everything, shall be yours.
LeftisruiningCanada says
More seriously;
Pick the one that doesn’t ask you to work your way to heaven and God, but shows you what God has done so that He might bring you to Himself.
Those are the only two types of religion when it comes down to it. There’s a million going to tell you what rules you need to follow to please the perfect creator.
But only one that says everything you can do is not even near good enough to raise you one step of the way to His presence.
Jesus is the key. It’s ok if you want to ask Him about this. He’s better at explaining it.
Carol says
Carolyne…if an objective audience around you claims you’re living in a fool’s paradise, then it might be wise to consider the possibility. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
gravenimage says
LeftisruiningCanada, I very much take your point re works vs grace.
But for me, the worst thing about Islam is not that it is a faith of works, but the nature of what it is that it considers good works. In Islam, one is not encouraged to feed the hungry, give hope to the despairing, and heal the sick–instead, one is urged to rape children and slaughter innocent unbelievers.
LeftisruiningCanada says
The issue of morality is definitely well taken GI.
gravenimage says
Thank you, LeftisruiningCanada.
CRUSADER says
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Baphomet
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CogitoErgoSum says
So Karen Armstrong thinks the scholar monks were “envious” of the Muslims because the Pope was trying to enforce celibacy on the clergy. Interesting. Okay ……. so ……. what were the Muslims thinking when they were practicing castration on the black men they captured in Africa to take as slaves? Was that a good thing? You know, the words “cruel” and “demonic” do somehow pop into my mind when I think of that.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“So Karen Armstrong thinks the scholar monks were “envious” of the Muslims because the Pope was trying to enforce celibacy on the clergy”
Yes, interesting ‘observation’ on her part isn’t it.
Apart from the feminist angle, it’s just the kind of understanding a materialist Freudian or similar would have. I don’t know if she is any of these things by the way. Maybe she just has an overly sexualized imagination or something.
Carol says
It’s interesting that the paragraph mentioning St. John of Damascus ends with this clause (it has no quotation marks):
…; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by EASING the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and FUSING the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves.
If Mohammed was more “easeful” than “puritanical” this does help rub out any notion peddled to us that Mohammed was motivated to unite the pagan, polytheistic tribes per some social/spiritual motivation. It points instead to the materialistic bribing tactics of a man in it for the power and bounty above all else. It would be nice to see this scenario elaborated upon.
gravenimage says
And the only “easing” of sexual and moral codes involved sacralizing rape and mass murder.
Adultery or even chatting with unrelated males could still get a woman stoned to death.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Cogitoergosum, you lied. Read history about Churchmen’s treatment of slaves where they castrated male slaves for hard labor and kept female slaves by crucifying their hands and legs before penetrating,all pursuant to mithraist evil Bible. Muslims never practiced that to either to black slaves or other races. Go through Ali Mazrui’s documentary on African slavery.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Why don’t you help us to read about all of that, by providing some references to support your claims, Ibrahim?
It’s unlikely you can, or will, do so, because this stuff is simply the product of either your own, or your lying imams delusional mind.
gravenimage says
The repulsive Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Cogitoergosum, you lied. Read history about Churchmen’s treatment of slaves where they castrated male slaves for hard labor and kept female slaves by crucifying their hands and legs before penetrating,all pursuant to mithraist evil Bible.
………………………………
Ibrahim itace muhammed has made this bizarre claim before–of course, there is nothing remotely like this in the Bible. Moreover, there is no record of any churchman *ever* crucifying women.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has been called on this many times, but he keeps repeating it.
More:
Muslims never practiced that to either to black slaves or other races. Go through Ali Mazrui’s documentary on African slavery.
………………………………
Well, this is perverse. Muslims regularly castrated Black Africans–in fact, only about one in ten survived this savagery. This is amply documented. Infidels rarely did this.
The proof of this is obvious in the population–the United States has millions of African Americans who are the descendants of slaves–they make up a full 12% of the population here. Brazil also has a large Black population.
In contrast, there are *no* Black people in many of the places where they were used as slaves in the Muslim world. There is, for example, no Black population in Turkey or in Saudi Arabia. Male slaves were often used to guard Harems in Dar-al-Islam, and they were castrated as a matter of course.
Slavery was a terrible and brutal system wherever it was practiced–but there is no doubt that it was worse in some places than others. That few descendants of African slaves survive in the Muslim world, though Muslims enslaved Africans for over a thousand years (far longer than in the West) is utterly damning.
Worse yet, Muslims are *still* enslaving people in places like Mauritania and Sudan, and until recently in the Islamic State (which only ended because that state has lost most of its territory).
In fact, Ibrahim itace muhammed *himself* has affirmed that Infidels can be used as slaves and sex slaves. *Ugh*.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yep. Muslim ‘traders’ also supplied black castrated males to the far east, also to serve as palace staff as you described.
And let’s not forget, as if we could having once heard of such horrors, the sex slave markets of istanbul, featuring specials such as freshly captured white woman, or exotic Georgians picked and shipped the same week.
Ah, the glory days of the ottoman empire.
gravenimage says
Yes, LeftisruiningCanada–a lot of Muslims are pining for those dark days, and want to see them again. *Ugh*.
Wellington says
Fine rebuttal, gravenimage, and just further reason why just about the last people on the planet who should be Muslim are blacks. I look upon all Muslims as confused human beings. I look upon black Muslims as extra confused. Might as well be Jewish and be a Neo-Nazi.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington. It is, of course, the same with women who become Muslim–either ignorant or masochistic.
CogitoErgoSum says
Ibrahim, I’ve posted this video (see below) a few times before but perhaps you missed it. Take a look at it and do some further research on your own. The Muslims slavers did not only sell black Africans for use in the Americas but they also took slaves east to what is now Saudi Arabia and Turkey and other eastern Muslim lands ….. most of those who were taken east were mainly women to be use as concubines. The black men sent east were castrated first and as you can imagine very few survived the procedure. Why were they castrated ???? ……. because the Arabs had a very low opinion of the African blacks (sound racist to you?).
The lies being told to you are coming from Muslims …. in part because Muhammad said lying in order to promote or protect Islam is permissible. Think of it this way: if a man owned a car dealership and told his employees it was okay to lie to the customers if it increased car sales, would you buy a car from that dealership? Let the buyer beware, Ibrahim. Be a smart customer. Educate yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJhSejBDTPI
Timothy says
The ideas in this writing definitely need to get to the general public. Small group truths spreading outward.
Carol says
Strange choice of words Timothy. They’re not “ideas” or “small group truths”. They]re sweeping historical facts that attest to horrifying, conscienceless attacks on good, decent people. And their descendants are still casting their jealous, barbaric eyes on what we love and what we have earned.
gravenimage says
Carol, I think Timothy just meant that not enough people know about these things.
Hugo Hackenbush says
Why take the word of Christians? Let Mr. M. speak for himself. From Bukhari:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 :
Narrated by Abu Huraira
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
CogitoErgoSum says
Muhammad may not not have understood the meaning of “prophet” but he certainly understood the meaning of the word “profit.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHbFhZDe-KM
gravenimage says
True, CogitoErgoSum–the Qur’an is the only “holy book” that has a chapter titled “The Spoils”. *Ugh*.
Muhammed himself took one-fifth of all booty–including people to be used as slaves and sex slaves.
Carol says
Surely that was just the pleasant “plausible denial cover story” concocted by Abu Hurairi. More likely they were raiding Moe’s stash and stealing his muledonkeys to make their getaway. In truth didn’t Moe’s father-in-law, Abu Bakr, (the one whose arm Moe bent in order to obtain little Aisha) become the new leader and have to spend all his time chasing down apostates fleeing all over the place?
gravenimage says
Raymond Ibrahim: When and Why the West Began to ‘Demonize’ Muhammad
…………………….
Fine article by Raymond Ibrahim.
As he notes, the ugliness of this warlord, pedophile, slaver, rapist, mass murderer and conqueror were understood very early on.
The claim that antipathy for the founder of Islam only dates to after the Crusades–and, presumably, as an after-the-fact justification for them, is ahistorical bs.
commonsense says
Ibrahim’s fine article does seem to contradict Robert Spencer’s assertion that the historicity of Muhammed is suspect, as, according to Robert (in his book “Did Muhammad Exist?”), there is no mention of Muhammed until many years after the conquest of Jerusalem. Yet Raymond mentions specific references to Muslims and Muhammed, their savage prophet, dating from as early as 634. I’d love to see Robert and Raymond discuss how this seeming contradiction may be resolved. My best to both of them, in any event.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Good point. Tom Holland also seems to discount these early mentions.
Perhaps the texts mentioned, while supposedly written at those early dates, only exist in much later manuscripts.That may be enough to dissuade some from considering them as evidence, and if there is any doubt about their authenticity then it would only reinforce that opinion.
eduardo odraude says
To commonsense,
Yes, I was wondering about the same question myself.
gravenimage says
Anti-Jihadists can have different points of view on discrete issues like this.
I often refer to Muhammed’s actions inspiring Jihad terror, even though I realize that he may or may not have been a historic figure.
I think it is important to investigate such matters, because Islam should be subject to scrutiny, just like any other belief system.
But even though I am a historian myself and consider such issues of great import, it also does not matter beyond a point whether Muhammed existed or not.
Why? Because *Muslims* believe that he existed, and that he is the model for behavior for every pious Muslim. This is a serious issue whether Muhammed was a historic figure, or is a composite figure concocted from several violent warlords, or was invented out of whole cloth centuries after he was supposed to have lived.
Pious Muslims remake themselves in the model of this vicious figure–who was or was supposed to have been a pedophile, a slaver, a caravan raider, a rapist, a conqueror, and a mass murderer–and this threatens all of us.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Agreed. Answering islam on it’s own level is just fine. Hunting for the historical mo is an interesting side issue for me at the moment.
Carol says
Maybe he’s fittingly just a pile of dust in a big black garbage bag. Same thing/same effect. Makes for focused conversation.
gravenimage says
Very much agree with your points, LeftisruiningCanada.
Ren says
Muhammad does not need to be demonized because he is the demon.
Eric jones says
Good informative article by Raymond as usual. Perhaps Christians in Europe got their bad impression of Mohammad and Islam by the hundreds of years of Islamic attacks on Europe prior to the Crusades.
The Christians in Europe in those early days had sense enough to take seriously those who threaten to kill you.
Eric
LeftisruiningCanada says
“Perhaps Christians in Europe got their bad impression of Mohammad and Islam by the hundreds of years of Islamic attacks on Europe prior to the Crusades.”
For sure!
The followers of some guy called mohammad keep trying to kill or enslave you because he told them to = this mohammad guy is a bit of a jerk.
Simple as that.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Eric Jones, you mean those concocted lies by Early mithraist Christians against Islam and Prophet Muhammad justified genocidal killings of Muslims by crusaders to the extent that fighters for Christ swimmed in human bloods up-to their ankles pursuant to evil Bible as history accurate recorded from mouths of proud killers?
LeftisruiningCanada says
“mithraist Christians”
Please back up this preposterous claim you keep making, or stop making it….you just look silly.
What you posted makes almost no sense Ibrahim – so you think that ‘early mithraist’ christians, who couldn’t have been all that ‘early’ if they were making stuff up about mohammad in the 7th century, and that was what caused the crusades 400 years later?
You really do think that muslims have never set a foot wrong don’t you? The slaughter of non muslims means nothing to you but goodness and light, does it?
Hoe can you stand to follow such an evil religion ibrahim? Islam brings nothing but death. But then, you probably like that, don’t you.
gravenimage says
The repulsive Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Eric Jones, you mean those concocted lies by Early mithraist Christians against Islam and Prophet Muhammad justified genocidal killings of Muslims by crusaders to the extent that fighters for Christ swimmed in human bloods up-to their ankles pursuant to evil Bible as history accurate recorded from mouths of proud killers?
…………………………….
Once again, Ibrahim itace muhammed is babbling about Christianity being “mithraist”, even though Mithraism had absolutely no influence on Christian doctrine. The influence was confined to a limited effect on Christian art in the late Roman Empire.
But look what Ibrahim itace muhammed is claiming here–that Christians had no reason to have a problem with Muslims kidnapping, enslaving, and conquering them–as he would have it, Christians should be fine with being persecuted and brutalized by Muslims.
Interesting that in all the years he has claimed this, he has never once said what “lies” Christians told against Islam, because he is unable to.
As for the Crusades, these were a limited and much belated *response* to centuries of Jihad attacks. But then, Ibrahim itace muhammed has said before that Infidels have no right to defend themselves against Jihad terror attacks.
Carol says
Ibrahim…and can you give one good reason WHY they shouldn’t be proud??!!
Carol says
If you were in their shoes I’m sure you would have been more than a little proud also.
simpleton1 says
We must be strong, in our culture, to be a beacon, so that is ok to become an ex muslim, and they can be assured that Western Culture is strong enough to protect them.
That is why Osama bin Ladin quoted the “strong horse” “winners” that will draw people to support the islamic course.
The option is up to muslims, whether to honestly join a nation, that is forsake islam, or leave and go to one of the 57 genuine islamic states.
Spain’s “reconquista” of 700+ years, was not fast or easy.
Identify the problem, and some of the reasons.
A definition of the problem and differences, though far from perfect was
though it does have a wiki slant on Christianity history.The fact is that the Chronica Prophetica identified and named the ‘enemy’ and where the problem was.
A full translation of “Chronica Prophetica”
Where one can go easily to the heading of “HISTORY OF MUHAMMAD”, (a long paragraph) where there is a summation of just some of the deeds of Muhammad, ending in
It is the calling out of very much of what Muhammad is about, to name the differences , and in those days it was naturally from an old style Christian perspective.
The problem was named , and despite hitches, politics, it was 600 years, before the job was completed, but always with the knowledge and saying exactly that islam was not compatible with Christianity.
In today’s terms there is no getting around that islam, being in considerable part an ideology, is not compatible with democracy either!
The other major part of our problem is also how to expose the “double think” in our institutions, and through out the general public.
Calling out Mohammad is exposing both “double thinks”.
This seems to be one of the guiding beacons in defining the problems of islam, and why it had to be not only resisted but in the end proved it had to be removed from Spain.
It was done in a sense of nationalism, which today is almost forbidden in Europe or even in the UN world.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
All Mohammadans are guilty. They are guilty of teaching their children and grandchildren that Mohammad was the very best human that ever lived, that he is the ultimate example for all to emulate, and that he revealed the will of God. They do this even if they know all that he did and all that he was. That makes them all as guilty as he was.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yes. And the ones that don’t know real sunnah just project whatever they have in their own minds as being good and proper, and pour that into a mohammad shaped mold, regardless of if it has anything to do with the mohammad of the koran or not.
Usually not.
They then defend that false mohammad if anyone says islam is evil.
The worst kind of reverse strawman.
Carol says
To paraphrase what Leon Uris essentially said in his book “The Haj”:
Arabs have a poetic, fanciful version of “truth”.
awake says
The false doctrine of Islam, and the morally bereft founder of the doctrine, the false prophet, Muhammad are simply indefensible to those who are not suffused with abject evilness. That these writings originated when they did, is wholly unremarkable, and an obvious testament to Islam’s overt wickedness.
Ade Fegan says
muhammad WAS a demon
He demonized himself !