What the Modern Martyr Should Know

The following review by Chiu ChunLing, a reader and commenter at Gates of Vienna, was done at my request. He is far more careful than I would have been and for his scholarship I am both humbled and grateful. We have amazing readers.

This book defies description but it is worth your time. The DO-NOT-TOUCH walls that fundamentalist Muslims have erected around the Koran are essentially the same as those which fundamentalist Christians build around Jewish and Christian scriptures. Despite their fears about the fragility of the texts, all such creations are worthy of examination.

In the process of our inspections and analyses we find out much about ourselves. I will continue to stand with Heisenberg on that one; his principle doesn’t hold just for physics but crosses all intellectual boundaries at some point.

Our thanks to Chiu ChunLing for his patience, too. One of us will post an excerpt at the Amazon page. (By the way, the few reviews on that page at present are all reasonable and also worth your while.)


In reviewing Norbert G. Pressburg’s book, “What the Modern Martyr Should Know: Seventy-Two Grapes and Not a Single Virgin: The New Picture of Islam”, I must begin by addressing a misconception that is likely to arise from the title.

This is not a book intended for an audience of Muslims devout enough to contemplate martyrdom. It might be better titled, “What the Modern Christian Martyr Should Know: A Hundred and One Truths Certain to Enrage Devout Muslims”, but the book is not particularly aimed at Christians either (who in any case need no help finding ways to enrage Muslims). The audience for Norbert G. Pressburg’s work is those who give primary respect to the truth claims of empirically verifiable facts, and who want an introduction to what the sciences of history and archeology currently can tell us about the origins and history of Islam. It thus ought to be titled, “The Historical Facts about Islam: What Muslims Kill to Keep Hidden”, or some more imaginative title of the same intent.

As the revised sub-title suggests, it is not the sort of book you want to discuss with any Muslims you know (and certainly not with any that you don’t know). “Norbert G. Pressburg” is a pseudonym, an unfortunate necessity for this kind of book which says much about the nature of Koranic Islam. Although Pressburg’s focus is predominantly on what can be factually established about the past rather than direct criticism of the role of Islam in the modern world, the implications for Muslims today are inescapable.

Pressburg has done an admirable job of creating an accessible guide to the verifiable historical facts about Islam for the non-expert in Semitic languages, Middle Eastern archeology, and textual criticism of primary source documents. It will not make a non-expert into an expert, but it does provide an overview of the important information that science currently has uncovered on the subject and punctures a number of commonly circulated myths which cannot be confirmed or are definitely contrary to verifiable facts. Pressburg begins with the myth that the modern Koran represents a perfectly error-free transmission of a written Qur’an codified by Mohammad’s contemporaries to correspond exactly with the revelations taught by Mohammad. The book also covers a number of other myths important to the justification of Islamic supremacy.

One of the major problems for Islam is that the Koran is largely unintelligible even to those fluent in Arabic. Moreover this has always been the case, the problem is not any evolution of the Arabic language but that the language of the Qur’an is not really pure Arabic. The Qur’an contains vocabulary and usages from several different Semitic languages, Syro-Aramaic significant among them. Koranic authorities claim that the unintelligibility is the result of the divine revelation being too advanced for the uninitiated to understand, which superficially makes sense if the Qur’an were really God’s final word on everything. It is a generally observed inevitability that the more highly literate and densely informative any fixed communication is, the more difficulty there is going to be in deciphering the contents. This is not just true of natural language, it is a scientifically established aspect of information theory itself, the more complex the message, and the higher the degree of compression, the more it will look like noise to those without the key to deciphering it.

But there are two logical consequences of this. Anyone familiar with how much more dramatically information corruption affects a highly compressed data format will realize that even minor errors in information-dense media can lead to major deviations from intended results. A high density of information not only precludes the degree of redundancy that is necessary for easy decoding, that same lack of redundancy means that even small errors in transmission result in large errors in the result of otherwise correct decoding methods.

If the Koran is claimed to be this sort of message, then the exact wording of the Qur’an must be preserved to avoid changing the message dramatically. The second consequence is that an inability to detect the presence of such errors indicates that the decoding method being used is incorrect, because robust error detection is an absolute requirement of dealing with high-density information. If the Koran is not a perfect transmission of the Qur’an (that being a perfect transcription and codification of Mohammad’s teachings), or if the Koranic authorities are demonstrably incompetent to detect errors in their interpretation, then the reliability of the message is destroyed. Pressburg provides abundant evidence that thoroughly demolishes both propositions necessary to the validity of the Koran.

The fact that sections of the Qur’an are reflective of earlier Christian apocrypha and devotional liturgies should not really surprise anyone familiar with the claims of Islamic tradition to continuity with and extension of existing Judeo-Christian belief and revelation…

But comparison of the earliest texts with prior Christian devotional literature reveals that the similarities go beyond subject matter. Careful study reveals that the original language of the Qur’an was a mixture of Semitic languages in which many specific religious terms are borrowed by transliteration from their Syro-Aramaic origins. The persistent failure to recognize the original meanings of these terms has lead to extensive revisions of their meanings as later Koranic authorities limited entirely to Arabic resorted to invention to cover their simple ignorance. Pressburg has the misfortune of stretching this point to cover clearly Arabic terms that are similar to terms found in other Semitic languages, ignoring the principle that where an existing Arabic term was in known usage it should be preferred, which strains the argument but cannot abolish it, for in many instances it is quite evident that the term in question is a pure transliteration of a novel non-Arabic term which has had a convenient meaning invented by later commentators.

Due to the evolution of Arabic script writing to include “diacritical marks” to differentiate between words that would have been spelled identically despite originally having divergent pronounciations and meanings, interpolated word meanings replacing the original represents a systematic transcription error. This problem is common to written Semitic languages, which generally only have letters to represent consonants and not vowels. But the process of adding diacritical marks to disambiguate words ends up altering the text when the original term was transliterated from another language rather than being organic to Arabic. Another important factor which Pressburg addresses only in passing is that there are several significantly divergent versions of the Qur’an, resulting from the difficulty of compiling orally transmitted passages into a definitive whole (that the Koran is organized so oddly, by length of Sura rather than chronology or subject matter, could be reflective of different levels of confidence in longer Suras that would have been memorized reliably by fewer people).

These kinds of errors may seem minor in an ordinary work of prose (an altered term changing only the meaning of a single sentence, perhaps), but for a work that is claimed to be a kind of divine poetry with an extraordinary information density, the effect is magnified intensely. Pressburg presents Luxenberg’s research illustrating in detail how the invention of meaning for a transliterated Syro-Aramaic term for “pellucid” shifts the meaning of a passage about the grapes of Paradise to become a reference to the famous houris of Islam. He then shows how this false reading of one passage alters numerous other passages about the fruit of Paradise into references to the invented houris (with depictions of inviting fruit being transformed into descriptions of the houris’ attributes).

The situation of a passage about the white grapes of Paradise being misinterpreted to create a reference to the fabulous (and perpetually virginal) houris may seem quite humorous. But the consequences of such a drastic mistake on the claim that the modern Koran is a perfectly transmitted document are beyond serious.

Turning to the other major source of traditional information about the life and teachings of Mohammad, the Hadiths, Pressburg makes the crucial point that any Hadith only gives us primary information about the person who actually recorded it and introduced the fixed form into Islamic tradition. The information it provides about Mohammad and his direct associates can only be regarded as hearsay or less. The history of the introduction of Hadiths can tell us quite a bit about the various forces seeking influence within Islam at the times they were introduced, but they do not tell us anything at all about Mohammad except the general opinion of him among Muslims living several generations later.

The accounting of historical evidence, here used in the technical sense of primary recorded sources contemporaneous with the events described, shows with a high degree of certainty that the vast majority of the Islamic tradition about Mohammad is fictional. It is more plausible to say there was no such person at all than to claim that he did or said much of what tradition asserts.

What Pressburg demonstrates more conclusively is that the actual history of the time when Mohammad was supposedly carving out the initial foothold of the Arabic Caliphate is completely at odds with the traditional Islamic myth. Due to the outcome of a war between the Byzantium and Persian Empires, the Persian Empire was in a state a collapse while the Byzantium Empire was reducing its military commitment to the problematical and unprofitable areas surrounding the Holy Land. The origin of independent Arab nations was not though Mohammad’s conquests but by default as two powerful empires withdrew from a battlefield, one to die and the other to lick its wounds.

An examination of the history of the Dome of the Rock serves to illustrate the process of mythological development that has created modern Koranic Islam by revisionist imposition of convenient interpretations on the available historical evidence. This serves as a prelude to an extended speculation on how the Monarchist Arabian Christianity which dominated the first Arabic century (622-700) might have evolved into Islam, which then redacted the existing history to fit a founding narrative for the new religion. There are some logical problems with the particulars of Pressburg’s interpolation of the event, most notably that it is frankly impossible in human terms. A real religious revolution had to have taken place to convert Monarchist Christians into followers of a relatively recent Mohammad, or the attempt to impose the newly invented history of the religion would have foundered badly across such a large geographical region. There must have already been a substantial pre-existing population of adherents to the religion that was being supported by the new narrative for it to be widely accepted and prevail over surviving Christian tradition, to suppose otherwise is to invoke a greater miracle than any attributed to Mohammad’s life and times. And even after the all the obvious hyperbole has been stripped off of his story, there does remain a picture of Mohammad (or Qutham, as he was apparently named before taking on what was originally a laudatory plaudit), and one which is simply too inconvenient to have been invented on purpose. However, despite the clear flaws in Pressburg’s speculation, it is at least as compatible with the primary contemporary historical evidence as the narrative presented by Islamic tradition. It may thus be seen as serving the purpose of an argument by analogy (though it is not obviously presented as such).

In analyzing the “Golden Age of Islam”, Pressburg clearly and convincingly demonstrates that an essential element of the circumstances which made it a golden age was the lack of thorough domination of intellectual life by Islam. This has two components, both important. One is debunking the myth that Islam contributed any serious scientific or philosophical advances to the world. The advances which Islam claims were made by non-Muslims (or apostates), often in the face of significant persecution. The other is perhaps more subtle but not less important. Pressburg presents the historical fact that it was not until the 12th century that the edifice of Islamic totalitarianism as it exists today became a significant force in Islam.

While both of these implications are connected to the history of the “Islamic Golden Age”, they are worth distinguishing. The first point is that the natural tendencies of Islam are antithetical to learning and intellectual development, which anyone might realize from the chief attributes of Mohammad’s teachings. The second point (which might also be found in an examination of the more central teachings of Mohammad after they are separated from later attributions and interpretations), is that totalitarian imposition is antithetical to Islam, it simply does not have the requisite elements to replace all other religions and life-styles. Islam as originally constituted does not contain the essential attributes necessary to maintenance of civilization, nor does it promote the kind of asceticism compatible with forsaking entirely the benefits of some association with civilized society (which is going to need distinctly un-Islamic elements to exist). And despite the extensive modification, reinterpretation, interpolation, and outright corruption, modern Koranic Islam demonstrates the same lack of civilizational attributes and value.

Those frustrated by the pervasive myth of the benevolent and tolerant reign of Islam over “Al-Andalus” (a major element in the UNESCO propaganda campaign promoting Islam as a religion of peace) will find a wealth of complex reality in Pressburg’s chapter on the subject. It is not easily summarized, except to say that it is well worth reading in its own right. The “tolerance” exercised by Muslims in dealing with Spain consisted mostly of an inability to thoroughly impose their rule, mostly because of the constant threat of expulsion by other factions in the area but also significantly because many of the Arabs were not always Muslim either. In fact during the most “tolerant” period they were Christians to the exclusion of any connection with Mohammad’s teachings. And the degree of mercy shown to the Muslims when they were finally expelled by the Spanish Christians compares very favorably to any display of forbearance by Muslim rulers on the other hand.

The final chapter treats the contemporary myth of Islam which has the most pressing consequences for our times. Islamic nations are persistently failed societies that see few of the benefits of modern civilization. In attempting to come to terms with this evident reality, Muslims of nearly all stripes have decided to look for external enemies to blame for the inevitable results of their own religion. I must presume that the potential audience for Pressburg’s work are quite familiar with this myth, in his closing chapter he does little more than show that this destructive myth is logically dependent on the idea that Islam cannot itself be the problem. This notion is propped up by the collection of myths which assert that Islam is a perfect system of divine morality which has in the past produced marvels of civilization, scientific advancement, and benevolent rule. The previous chapters having left all these other myths in ruins, there is little work to do except to call upon those who would improve the lot of Muslims to confront their guiding myths which prevent accepting anything which would actually help.

Because totalitarianism as such is by nature incompatible with human thriving and humane morality, it is the nature of every totalitarian ideology to depend on false conceptions of history and science to justify itself. Thus for those who would free themselves or others from the grip of a totalitarian ideology, learning the truth behind the propaganda is essential. The revision of history and obliteration of its artifacts by Koranic Islam cannot be successfully countered without just such information as is in this book.

While acknowledging the importance of Pressburg’s work in creating a clear and engaging text which accessibly presents the current state of scientific inquiry, I cannot conclude my review without noting some minor reservations. The first appears in the early chapters, which focus on demonstrating the unreliability of certain elements of Islamic tradition. While the evidence which proves the case is clearly presented, Pressburg repeatedly resorts to invoking the complete unreliability of Islamic tradition as an argument for the unreliability of given elements of Islamic tradition. This may be a result of difficulty in communication, the attempt to emphasize the distinction between primary sources which have been properly authenticated by textual criticism and forensic science and secondary or later material which only provides evidence of the beliefs or attitudes of a later person. It is at this point that the argument should probably begin, showing that the Islamic tradition is unsupported by historical evidence, and historical evidence indicates that the Islamic tradition begins to develop well after the events it describes and ignores or contradicts many events of that time that are soundly historically evidenced. Having thus established the unreliability of Islamic tradition, many of Pressburg’s previous arguments could have been presented on more logically secure ground. Pressburg does mention this in clearer language but does not make the connection as obvious as I feel is necessary to avoid the appearance of introducing a circular argument.

The second point is perhaps more serious, Pressburg appears to fall into the trap of allowing the lack of evidence to prove that something did not happen. This is unsound in principle, but doubly so in dealing with a field where evidence is being systematically suppressed or destroyed, which is clearly the case with regards to the true history of Islam. We can confirm very little about the life of Qutham (the historical person on whom Mohammad is apparently based) because Koranic Islam is a totalitarian ideology committed to eradicating all information which contradicts the falsehoods justifying it (it is also probably true that Qutham was at best a fairly minor historical figure before being revised into Mohammad, a religious charismatic with little influence outside of the Bedouin tribes). It is much like supposing a murder victim to still be alive because the murderer has disposed of most of the evidence against himself. The field of inquiry into the origins of Islam is hampered by the established tendency of Koranic Islam to destroy or hide evidence and murder those who ask too many questions, that does not come anywhere near a justification for asserting that the origins don’t really exist. If the world can successfully pull the teeth of those currently suppressing all research into the history of Islam, then we may find out that there is a lot of evidence to consider (or at least be able to trace what happened to it). Or we may not much care at that point, I certainly should hardly care about the story of Qutham one way or another if not for the threat Koranic Islam poses to Western Civilization.

But keeping such reservations in mind, it would be a far greater error to dismiss or ignore the importance of Pressburg’s work. For those who are interested in resisting the encroachment of Koranic Islam’s totalitarian advances on the civilized world, being armed with the facts which contradict the myths of Islam is essential.

— Chiu ChunLing

32 thoughts on “What the Modern Martyr Should Know

  1. A must buy, must read book.
    Now, who will translate it into arabic, turkish, persian and so forth….

  2. Pingback: What the Modern Martyr Should Know | The Daily Squawk

  3. Chui ChunLing, that is a very detailed analysis of that book. I hope the book becomes a best seller which is able to shed more light for those who are still mystified as to what exactly Islam is.

    Maybe the title could have hinted at the factual difference between Islamic and Christian martyrdom. Perhaps it could have included ‘Islamic Martyr’, rather than the standard ‘Martyr’ as most Westerners would understand the meaning of the word.

    The act of martyrdom in Christian and Muslim theology is world’s apart which needs to be expanded on, and is hopefully described within the pages of that book?

  4. The original work is in German. This title was foisted off on the writer by whatever editor obviously did not wish him well. Dr Pressburg’s English is good, but since it’s not his native tongue, he went along with their choice against his better judgment.

    I recommend looking at the other reviews on Amazon. There aren’t many and those who did take the trouble to leave remarks seem to have some expertise – and some sad knowledge of leftists in their field. There were evidently points at which the author was being sarcastic or acerbic and the translator (in the opinion of one reviewer) was a deliberately obtuse Lefty who didn’t want that point made as well as it was.

    That kind of thing – the malign intentions of translators and editors – is not something I would’ve thought about. However, I have sadly come to learn (as in the case of Diana West’s book) that such people have no integrity.


    • I was aware of the translation issue but decided against addressing it directly, since for those without the ability to read the original language it is an ironic non sequitur to say that they must read it thus. If a new edition is contemplated, then certainly it would be good to repair the minor deficiencies of tone and wording which sometimes undermine the cogent work presented.

  5. The DO-NOT-TOUCH walls that fundamentalist Muslims have erected around the Koran are essentially the same as those which fundamentalist Christians build around Jewish and Christian scriptures.

    Be it noted that the original “do not touch” wall around the ignoble Qur’an was erected in the Pact of Umar, imposed upon the conquered Christians of Syria in the 7th Century:

    “We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.”


    • I didn’t know you were going to actually post what you sent in the email. I came over to put up your email only to find you’d beat me to it.

      I stand corrected: the comparison I made between fundamentalist Christian fears and the strictures of fundamentalist Islam doesn’t hold at all. The former are simply fearful; the latter are downright creepy.

      It reminded me once more of the time the fB brought home the “Firefly” series so we could watch and discuss it. We did so for a long time; for us, the Reavers were too much like jihadists for comfort.


      Hard to believe that was more than seven years ago…

      That show cut across the political divide – as we discovered when young liberals would find that post over the years and be utterly appalled at our lack of political correctness.
      Here’s the whole set at Amazon, and more than 4,000 positive reviews. I was tempted to look at the 59 one-star put-downs, but I knew I wouldn’t learn anything…

      Firefly: The Complete Series

      • I haven’t seen that series, although I believe Claudia Black was in it (Vala in SG-1) so I probably should add that to my list of progs …

      • Battlestar Galactica was a great series btw, absolutely first class. Don’t know if you’ve seen that one. Edward James Olmos, Katee Sackhoff, Jamie Bamber etc.

  6. After reading Robert Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist, it would be quite the coup to have someone or a group of people take the time to write a fully transliterated and demystified version of the Koran that text by text highlights the parts/words that come from Syro-Aramaic and several different Semitic languages, unveiling its far from divine and partially Christian-sourced origins.

    • My sense of it is that Jewish Folklore and Christian Evangelism were fused into a military machine. Plus some elements of Arab tactics– hit n run, the bow, the camel that no other army had ever thought to exploit with such precision.

      Don’t forget that Islam is the codification of Arab conquests. It’s probably not the only root of those conquests.

      • There probably was an original Islam, which originated in relation to the Bedouin tribes and provided a uniting element that had previously been lacking, making their raids against civilized settlements both more frequent (due to the new prohibition against attacking co-religionists) and more successful.

        That Islam as we know it was explicitly redesigned as a “warrior religion” is fairly evident. When exactly this happened is difficult to pinpoint because it apparently has been an ongoing process, and it probably started with Mohammad/Qutham himself, it may even have been his original intention (making him something of an L. Ron Hubbard of his day). But there has not been an unbroken line of succession, Islam has been repeatedly “hijacked” and taken in new directions by relatively new converts or upstarts at the expense of existing power structures. The ideological emphasis on conquest and militancy makes this an inevitability, along with the rejection of reason in favor of will, or the jurisprudence of arbitrary convenience (to the jurist, at least) rather than fixed principles of impartial law.

        • The ideological emphasis on conquest and militancy makes this an inevitability, along with the rejection of reason in favor of will, or the jurisprudence of arbitrary convenience (to the jurist, at least) rather than fixed principles of impartial law.

          This ought to be chiseled onto the lintels of all our legislators (I was going to suggest chiseling it on their persons, but decided to be more circumspect) so they can have the pithy version of an Awful Truth.

          I’m going to make sure Steve Coughlin sees this.

          Thank you

        • If the story’s are literally true it began when Muhammad rubbed shoulders with Jewish weapon smiths in Medina. In a more general sense the weaponized Islam is a method to create perpetual war.

  7. “In the process of our inspections and analyses we find out much about ourselves. I will continue to stand with Heisenberg on that one; his principle doesn’t hold just for physics but crosses all intellectual boundaries at some point.”

    Just ask Walter White.

  8. The origins of Islam are a great mystery to me.

    They come at a time when the Myrrh and Frankincense markets from Araby collapsed as Europe switched from Temple worship to Church worship. This was a huge disruption in the Arabian peninsular. They also seem to be connected to the expulsion of Jews from the Roman Empire. As groups of Jews resettled in Arabia to get away from persecution or as a direct result of expulsion orders they settled in the Oasis and Well sites of Arabia. As the Romans and Persians fought over The Levant, including a sacking of Jerusalem by a detachment of Persian sponsored Jewish troops– they all forgot to notice that the Arabian tribes were transforming themselves into a Super Tribe that had never existed before. All their assets were pointed East West instead of South toward a new sustained threat.

    How the Arabs united is a vexing mystery. It seems like they creatively plagiarized Jewish folklore, and Christian evangelism to create a self perpetuating Holy Army. This Army required a string of extraordinary victories without the stall of a single military setback– or the entire pyramid scheme would collapse. Nothing quite like it has ever been seen before or since that time.

    • Conversely, the growth of Christianity depressed the market for frankincense during the 4th century AD. Desertification made the caravan routes across the Rub’ al Khali or “Empty Quarter” of the Arabian Peninsula more difficult. Additionally, increased raiding by the nomadic Parthians in the Near East caused the frankincense trade to dry up after A.D. 300.

      This is from Wiki but it is standard historical understanding. After 300 years of a depressed Incense market the Arabs needed to collect booty somehow. There is a marked increase in Arab migration into Roman and Persian service, a massive slump in the strategic importance of Palestine as a conduit for the trade and this meant that the Levant was increasingly full of Arabs before the Umma even showed up.

  9. Perhaps the Cold War was just a prelude to the Islamic conquest of Russia and Europe. All that cash spent on toys and espionage missed the point that Islam was fight both sides the whole time.

    The contest between Heraclius’s Orthodox and the Persian’s Zoroastrian was simply a prelude to the Islamic Immivasions as it turns out.

  10. “The DO-NOT-TOUCH walls that fundamentalist Muslims have erected around the Koran are essentially the same as those which fundamentalist Christians build around Jewish and Christian scriptures. Despite their fears about the fragility of the texts, all such creations are worthy of examination.”

    A bit gratuitous, don’t you think?

    I’m a premillenial dispensational fundamentalist to the right, theologically, of most professing fundamentalist and FAR to the right of garden variety evangelicals and denominationalists. I assure you, neither I nor those like me have any such fear of the Scriptures being examined as thoroughly as you like.

    Please, in the interest of not marginalizing yourself needlessly, do be careful how you phrase things.

  11. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar

    One other point to consider is that the Arabs conquered North Africa and Mesopotamia in search of new areas to create Sugar Plantations. They established Sugar plantations worked by Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks and some blacks in areas like the Nile, Cyprus, Syria, Sicily, Cyrencia, Carthage and finally Andalusia. Some of the Portuguese who established the first Sugar plantations on Islands like Sao Tome and even Recife in Brazil were Marano and Converso.

  12. Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: House Republicans look to set stage for what might be called a strategic retreat | Preppers Universe

  13. Just finished reading through this book a second time, it is a great complement and companion read to Emmet Scott’s, “Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited” and for anyone interested in the early history of Islam, it should be a must read.

    Having read a number of critical comments on Amazon about this book, the only point I find agreement on is that the book’s title doesn’t match the contents. I’ve been trying to think of a better title to give it, but I haven’t been able to. The challenge is that the contents are so out of line with the mainstream historical narrative for Islam that there is not going to be any simple catch phrase, recognizable to the average reader, that will be able to capture the essence of the book’s message.

    I wish to complement the reviewer, Chiu ChunLing, for a job well done. But regarding the existence of an historical Mohammed. Having read the book now, I will have to respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s position that the “absence of evidence is not evidence absence”. In this case, I find that the author has provided evidence for the much stronger case that, in fact, a historical Mohammed couldn’t have existed. And for this case, the reviewer’s response does not provide a valid challenge. I would like to expand on this point, but this comment section is probably not the place to do that. Maybe with the Baron and Dymphna’s permission I could write a second “addendum” review for posting here at GoV.

    • Wild Iris:

      The author of the book told me the title was done by the American publishers who told him “it would sell”. He himself is either German or Austrian. The Germans are doing a lot of scholarly historical-criticism of the Koran, just as they’ve done for generations with Christian scripture.

      Thanks for your comment on this. It’s an important but overlooked book.

      I would love another review – perhaps we could use both of them to contact the publisher. I’m sure Chiu ChunLing would enjoy reading your work. too. He put a lot of work into that.

  14. Pingback: Christianity, Modern Arianism, and Islam | Gates of Vienna

  15. Pingback: Tu Huan, an 8th century Chinese Islamophobe | Gates of Vienna

  16. I found a little mistake in the article above. Islam does not claim to be the continuation of Judeo-Christian traditions, rather it claims that both Judaism and Christianity was perverted or warped by their own followers. As a “matter of fact” the Koran is the original text, which was given to Moses and later to Jesus. That means that even though some superficial people think Judaism and Christianity was first and then came Islam, no-no-no… Islam was first.
    Of course one has to be special to believe that.


Comments are closed.