What Were the True Origins of Islam?

Posted on by

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

What Were the True Origins of Islam?

by Fjordman

On September 9, 2017, there was a conference in Copenhagen about the origins of Islam. It was a collaboration between the International Free Press Society in Denmark plus the organizations Humans Rights Service and Document from Norway.[1]

The speaker was Professor Robert Martin Kerr. He participates in Inarah, a research network that is engaged in a scientific historical-critical, philological investigation into the Koran, the origins of Islam and its early history.[2]

Around 50 or 60 people attended this lecture. Not much, but still pretty good for a dense, six-hour lecture about ancient stone inscriptions and languages many people have never heard of. Multiple policemen stood guard outside. Even in Scandinavia, you now need armed police to protect you while listening to details about Aramaic grammar. Freedom is slowly slipping away in Western Europe.

Professor Kerr doesn’t seem to believe that Muhammad, the alleged founder of Islam, is a historical figure. Perhaps he never existed at all. As he points out, we have no contemporary evidence for the existence of Muhammad. None. The word “Muhammad” could be a title meaning “the praiseworthy one,” not a personal name.

Sunni Muslims believe that after Muhammad’s death, the leadership of Muslims passed to the four so-called rightly guided caliphs (successors) who had known Muhammad personally: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. Shias only recognize Ali, who was Muhammad’s son-in-law through his marriage to Fatima.

Sunnis and Shias alike take for granted that these individuals really lived. However, yet again we have no physical proof that any of these first caliphs ever existed. They may be fictional characters. We have no coins struck by any of these rulers. As far as we know, coins were not struck in Mecca or Medina until the ninth century AD. That is two centuries after Islam and the Islamic empire was supposedly born there.

Ibn Ishaq, who wrote the first purported biography of Muhammad, did so more than a century after Muhammad supposedly lived. Serious questions have been raised about the validity of this biography. The hadith literature about what Muhammad allegedly said and did was collected later. Even Muslims admit that many hadith were outright fabricated. Without these sources, we know practically nothing about Muhammad.

We know that there were big Arab conquests in the seventh century, from Persia to the Iberian Peninsula. Yet we do not know exactly what these Arabs believed in, what triggered the conquests or where they began. Non-Muslim chroniclers writing at the time of the early conquests made no mention of the Koran, Islam or Muslims, and scant mention of Muhammad. Perhaps Islam as we now know it was created after the Arab conquests, not before. Of course, that leaves the unanswered question of what was the real cause of the expansion.

The Arab conquerors themselves didn’t refer to the Koran during the first decades, quite possibly because it did not then exist in a recognizable form. A fully developed Arabic script did not yet exist at the time when the Koran was supposedly collected, either. This further introduces substantial sources of error.

According to Robert Martin Kerr, parts of the Koran may well predate the supposed life of Muhammad. Even educated, native speakers of Arabic find parts of the Koran difficult to understand. This was the case even one thousand years ago. The author Ibn Warraq has written some excellent, albeit detailed, books on this subject.

Certain sections of the Koran deviate from traditional Arabic grammar. This could be because some parts of the Koran were not originally written in Arabic. They were written in Aramaic, a related, but different Semitic language that was widely used among Christians in the region. Christoph Luxenberg belongs to those scholars who believe that longer sections of the Koran as we know it were originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. Syriac was widely used in and near Syria, but much less so in the Arabian Peninsula. The Koran seems to be a mixture of Jewish and Christian sources plus some added Arab material that is unique to Islam.

It is possible that certain Christian texts that were quoted in the Koran were written by an Eastern sect that rejected the Trinity. Some chapters of the Koran are somewhat more tolerant than others, but if we believe this non-traditional reading of history, maybe these were inspired by pre-existing Jewish or Christian texts.

Professor Kerr further noted that the important hadith collectors (for Sunnis) al-Bukhari and al-Muslim never went to Mecca or Medina to look for source material about Muhammad’s life. As Patricia Crone and other scholars have noted, Mecca is situated in a desert, not close to any river or major waterways.[3] There are no non-Islamic sources indicating that Mecca was in important source of trade in the early seventh century AD. Given the centrality of Mecca in Islamic history, this casts the entire story of the origins of Islam into doubt.

Kerr and some other scholars believe that the true origins of the Arab expansion lie further north. Not in Mecca and Medina in the Hejaz region of the Arabian Peninsula, but maybe closer to present-day Syria and Jordan.

Kerr also notes that none of the early mosques in North Africa have a qibla (direction of prayer) towards Mecca. Neither does the Umayyad mosque in Cordoba, Spain. Even traditional Islamic sources have a tradition stating that the very first direction of prayer was facing Jerusalem, not facing Mecca.[4]

The Arab conquerors may have known some vague monotheism partly inspired by Christians and Jews, but in the generations and centuries after the conquests they abandoned this and developed a more militant creed that came to function as a vehicle for Arab nationalism and imperialism. Perhaps the conquests shaped Islam more than Islam shaped the conquests.

This subject was touched upon in my review of Robert Spencer’s book Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins.[5] The foreword was written by the (now late) Dutch scholar Hans Jansen, a gifted Arabist and a Professor of Modern Islamic Thought. He points out that what sparse information and physical evidence we do have does not confirm the traditional Islamic accounts of the sixth and seventh centuries.[6]

In fact, archaeological findings contradict the traditional picture. Only further archaeological work in present-day Arabia and Greater Syria can shed more light on these issues. In Saudi Arabia, such excavations are forbidden. Wahhabi hardliners have actively destroyed a number of sites. Furthermore, Saudi religious authorities may not be interested in bringing to light findings that might contradict their religious views or undermine their country’s central status in Islam. If the history about Muhammad in Mecca and Medina is not true then Saudi Arabia is just an irrelevant desert, which unfortunately has a lot of oil.

Robert Spencer suggests that Muhammad may possibly have existed as a semi-legendary figure, comparable to Robin Hood, King Arthur or William Tell, whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations. Yet the traditional account of him as Islam’s founder is riddled with gaps and inconsistencies.[7]

But if someone invented Muhammad, wouldn’t they want to invent a more sympathetic character than the brutal warlord we see emerge from the traditional accounts? Possibly, yes. However, the Arabs of the age may have thought that such a ruthless character could serve as an inspiration for more conquest and empire-building.

It’s open to serious debate whether Muhammad ever existed. Maybe he did, at least in the vague sense of a militant Arab leader who helped unify different tribes and redirect their tribal energy outwards towards the goal of external conquest. This would not be substantially different from the way Genghis Khan managed to unify squabbling Mongolian tribes into a viable Mongol nation capable of conquering a vast empire.

The major difference is, of course, that a new religion was not built around the personality of Genghis Khan. Perhaps we should be grateful for that. Otherwise, the largest voting block at the United Nations might now have been the Organization of Mongolian Cooperation, and the BBC and the New York Times would warn us against the dangers of Genghisophobia.

Some of the traditional stories about the early days of Islam and its greatest Prophet cannot possibly be true. What effect has this critical research had on the minds of devout Muslims? So far, very little. They go on basing their lives on largely fictional accounts of something that may or may not have happened 1,400 years ago. Muslims also threaten to kill people who insult the dignity of a man who perhaps never existed at all.

Notes:

1.   www.document.no/2017/08/08/heldagskonferanse-om-siste-innen-islam-forskningen-i-kobenhavn-lor-9-september/ Bli oppdatert på ny, oppsiktsvekkende forskning om islam og Koranen! August 8, 2017. www.trykkefrihed.dk/muhammed-blev-foerst-profet-ca.-200-aar-efter-sin-doed.htm Muhammad blev først profet ca. 200 år efter sin død. September 11, 2017.
2.   inarah.net/mission Inarah mission statement, checked online in September 2017.
3.   Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, a 1987 book by Patricia Crone, at Gorgias Press.
4.   islamqa.org/hanafi/darululoomtt/52354/change-of-qiblah-from-jerusalem-to-makkah Change of Qiblah from Jerusalem to Makkah. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla#History English language Wikipedia on qibla, checked in September 2017: “According to the traditional Muslim view, the Qiblah originally faced the Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem. This Qiblah was used for over 13 years, from 610 CE until 623 CE. Seventeen months after the Islamic prophet Muhammad’s 622 CE arrival in Medina — the date is given as 11 February 624 — the Qiblah became oriented towards the Kaaba in Mecca.”
5.   www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/130504/unmasking-muhammads-dubious-existence-fjordman Unmasking Muhammad’s Dubious Existence. By Fjordman, May 1, 2012.
6.   Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. A book by Robert Spencer, published in 2012 by Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The foreword was written by the Dutch Arabist and author Johannes or Hans J. G. Jansen.
7.   Did Muhammad Exist? Page 214, hardback, first edition.
 

All photos were taken by Fjordman.

DONATE TO FJORDMAN:

 

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

37 thoughts on “What Were the True Origins of Islam?”

  1. The research into the origins of Muhammad might be interesting from an historical or truth prospect, but the question is, does it affect the actions of Muslims or the responses of non-Muslims. It is currently forbidden for US security agencies to study even traditional Islam, let alone critical studies, for purposes of understanding jihadists. I don’t know if the Trump presidency has rescinded the bans on using Islam to understand Islamic terrorism.

    • Muslims assert that Islam is the ‘religion of truth’ (see Koran 9:29, for example). The reason they are permitted to rape, murder, extort and lie is precisely because they believe Islam’s ‘Truth Claims’. Destroy the Truth Claims and you stop conversion among peoples who have reason (The non-Islamic World).

      Sure, you will not persuade hard-liners any more than facts persuade delusional Leftists – but you can persuade a great number of other people, which will weaken Islam immensely.

      The real ideological battle against Islam is here, to attack its ‘Truth Claims’ with the irrefutable archeological truth that Islam’s claims about its origins are FICTION and FALSE.

      We need more Westerners to understand the archeology and scholarship that destroys Islam. Gates of Vienna have finally presented a nice summary of the facts – good work GoV.

      For more information such as the satellite images that destroy Islam’s claims see links such as the following:
      “An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0

      Debating Muslims on what Mohammed did or didn’t do is a losing proposition as it implicitly assumes Mohammed existed and was the prophet of Allah. The **only** way to win is to know and assert the archeological fact that Islam is FICTION and is FALSE. This never used to be possible, but thanks to Western scholars it now is.

      • Hi Moa,

        I have looked at the very excellent Jay Smith presentation several times, each time being productive.

        Having said that, I’m still of the opinion that objective evidence of the truth or falsehood of Islam is not the critical factor. Islam is a creed of power. It is very openly expansionist and exclusionary. It seeks to expand, dominate, and eliminate or subjugate alternative philosophies. It excludes non-Muslims from power or full citizenship.

        This is very openly the Islamic creed. Therefore, thinking, self-assertive people will not allow Muslim infiltration, whether they can prove Islam is false in its claims or not. Does Orban in Hungary care whether the claim of Muhammad’s origin can be disproved archaeologically or not? He excludes Muslims because he knows they are destructive to his society.

        We need strong, assertive Westerners who will stand up and act. We need to modify our government structures so as to support the people and nation, rather than perpetuating bureaucracies. If we have these, Muslims will be excluded from immigration whether archaeology disproves Islamic history or not.

    • So many arguments are there to proof that Muhammad,never existed, as prophet as described by Muslims
      It’s very possible that a man named Muhammad lived in 7 th century,
      A document dated in 634 AD (2 years after after Muslim official death of Muhammad), talks about ” Saracens ” and their leader named Muhammad, who killed 4000 innocent people, priests in Jerusalem, and they didn’t allow Christians to go to Bethlehem to celebrate Christmas.
      But this document didn’t mention Muslims or Islam , it didn’t mention any religion , of prophet.
      What it s true is the first Omayyad khalif, muawya ibn abi sofiane were not Muslim, because of the coin with his name in one face, and on other face, a christian feature
      Also, Birmingham Koran shows that this part was written even before Muhammad birth and Sanaa(in Yemen) Koran shows that this part was written after Muhammad death
      Even in actual Koran, there around 300 words from 10 different languages, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew, Persian, ancient Egyptian, ancient Ethiopian, even amazigh ( north Africa)
      Islam is a big lie, spread by swords and blood
      It s time to work together to face it
      The real terrorism comes from Islam not Muslims who are a victims of this ideology of hate and destruction

  2. I have no problem in accepting this explanation for what really amounts to an ideological system specifically designed to collectively control all that submit to it. The real problem is convincing two billion Muslims that what they revere and worship may in fact have no basis in reality.

    A point of contention if I may; In this article the author mentions that if Mohammed is an invention, wouldn’t those who invented him have chosen a more sympathetic character?

    In my opinion, the times in which Mohammed was brought to life were brutal, no matter where one chose to venture. The stand out at the time was Jesus Christ and Christianity and its teachings of forgiveness and forbearance in a world that was largely lawless to those outside of city walls, merciless to those who became subject to the conqueror, and enslaved to those who ruled over them. So, Mohammed’s character would fit in rather well with the thinking of the Arabs at that time.

    A good thinking person’s article – well done!

    • More important than persuading Muslims is the persuasion of non-Muslims. When the guards at Gitmo handle the Koran in white gloves it is a pretense that Islam could be true. This is a fail.

      Islam is fiction and is false. We cannot win if we pretend it is at all true.
      Fortunately the evidence against Islam’s ‘Truth Claims’ is now overwhelmingly against Islam and is irrefutable.

      See:
      “An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0

      Yes, this really, really matters. We must use archeological reality to attack and destroy Islam’s Truth Claims so that conversions on Westerners and other non-Muslims stops. Then Islam will become the object of ridicule like Scientology, practiced by a delusional fringe the rest of the World mocks. *That* is the only way we can win.

      Fight the ideological war and spread far and wide the fact Islam is fiction and false.

    • Jesus’s life and teachings were a contradiction of the age. Muhammad’s were in the spirit of the age. That’s why I’m sure he was not a true prophet.

    • “So, Mohammed’s character would fit in rather well with the thinking of the Arabs at that time.”

      I would omit the last three words of this sentence.

  3. Jay Smith pointed out the same thing about the orientation of the mosques. The mosques that were built prior to the 9th Century AD were oriented towards Petra. The mosques that were built afterwards were oriented towards Mecca. 783 to 814 is though to be the term of the reign of Abu Ali Malik, the Sultan who is ‘credited’ with the assemblage of the Qur’an. From what Jay Smith said, “The manuscripts that he liked he kept, the rest he had burned.”
    It could very well be that the precursor to Islam was an Arabian Monophysite cult, as Luxenberg and Warraq pointed out regarding the rampant apostasy and heresy (including what was fostered by the Byzantine Church) that was rampant in Arabia, Turkey and Persia. Muhammed, as Luxenberg points out, is Syriac for Parakletos, which is Greek for comforter or even business partner. After Jesus’ of the term as the name given to the third person of the trinity, parakletos has come to mean Divine Comforter. That the monophysites would deny the Trinity and then say that ‘their holy spirit’ was The prophet of God is not out of character for a cult and cult leader.
    We really should get Jay Smith (Ph.D.) to weigh in on this conversation.

    • Correct. I’ve been spreading the excellent video by Jay Smith covering the irrefutable evidence that destroys Islam’s ‘Truth Claims’.

      We need at a minimum ever GoV visitor to watch this video. It completely destroys the cult of Islam:
      “An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0

      Muslims will try and cling to their delusions, but our real target is to persuade non-Muslims to never convert and never support Islam which is the Scientology of the Dark Ages.

    • The orientation of the early mosques may not be towards Petra, but Jerusalem. The practice of praying towards the Holy City was common to the Jews. David refers to it in the Psalms. As Islam drew much from both Judaism and Christianity, the orientation of praying towards Jerusalem may have been an early practice of muslims. Until the Jews and Christians rejected Muhammed’s claim as a Prophet, and he swings the prayer focus to Mecca.

    • I couldn’t agree more. Anyone here at GoV who has not yet heard Jay Smith speak on the history of Islam, really needs to do so.

      Here is a good YouTube link to start with, “Examining the Newest Historical Research on Islam and the Earliest Quranic Manuscripts – Jay Smith”, https://youtu.be/fMJRsd8SrhU

    • ‘The Prophet of God is not out of character for a cult and cult leader.’

      True. And in ol’ Mo’s case, there are no recorded antecedents to establish his credentials, only what has been recorded after the fact which is really no evidence at all with which to elevate him to the level of a prophet, if he ever actually existed at all.

  4. MHMD menas in Aramaic Jesus the Son and servant of The Most High. Mohammed is like so many ‘characters’ in Arabian myth- a creation of oral traditions. The characters so created improve with the telling as anecdotes are embroidered for the hearers. It is quite an art form in the Middle East. Travel to Iran and you will be told of the wonders of “Kasander” the Great. Even Roman Emperors were said to heal the sick and perform wondrous deeds. Read on Josephus and Vespasian. Mohammed is but another creation of this rich tradition and story telling.

    Perfectly harmless until people take them seriously. Mohammed “MHMD” was an invention of Arab Christian kaliphs who wanted a “Christ” suited to Arab ideas of a Messiah.

    The traditions of “Islam” are similar to the Gnostic gospels. The Church discarded them as untrustworthy. Theologians know their trade well. No doubt as usual the evidence that is blatantly obvious will be ignored. But hey what do we academics know after all?

    400,000,000 people slaughtered for a fairy tale! Makes you proud to be human doesn’t it? Mohammed is the perfect “anti-Christ”. I am sick of repeating what most of us normal professionals have know for years.

    Tom Holland, Emmet Scott, point the way to the truth. As a still working archaeologist I see no proof of the existence of “MHMD” in the stratigraphy at all. We are become as gullible as those in the tea rooms of Damascus or Tehran.

  5. “According to Robert Martin Kerr, parts of the Koran may well predate the supposed life of Muhammad.”

    I think this is probably the most interesting idea that recent Islamic research has raised, that being, as well as copying parts from the Bible, the writer of the Koran also stole from a earlier religious documents familiar to the middle east tribes. Of course if the earlier document or fragments of are ever discovered, it could prove that the Koran was not “inspired” by Allah, or the Angel Gabriel, but a simple cut and paste job from other Holy books, by a scoundrel who may or may not be named Mohamed.

  6. Whether Mohammed is fictional, legendary, or historical, his narrative resembles that of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, who reigned in Constantinople from 527 to 565, a generation before the putative innovator of Jihad. It is Justinian, however, whom we should credit with the innovation of Jihad. Justinian’s Christianity was distinctly un-Christian: He was both a political despot, who ruthlessly destroyed his rivals on his way to and in power, and a religious despot, who, among other things, bloodily suppressed the remnant of paganism, even to the extent of promulgating laws to punish the purely private observance of the old gods, and (infamously) closing the thousand-year-old Platonic Academy in Athens. Theologically – and tantalizingly – Justinian inclined strongly toward the Monophysite variety of Christian doctrine, increasingly as he grew older. Justinian launched major military campaigns against the Sassanid Empire of the Persians and against the Christian-Gothic kingdoms that had succeeded the western administrative regions of the west. Justinian’s armies, exercising a deliberate policy of mayhem and carnage re-incorporated North Africa, Visigothic Spain, Sicily, and Italy; but the activities of those armies also wrecked the economies of those lands. In outline, it is the very story of Mohammed, whoever Mohammed might “really” have been.

    • Absolutely fascinating parallels between Justinian I and the legend of Muhammad. One question that pops up is how the control of the empire of Justinian conquest (did he succeed in his campaigns?) passed to Arab rulers? Was there a reenactment of Justinian’s campaign by some Arab warlord, or did control of the preexisting empire shift over to Arabs through some internal process? Just clutching at straws, but could such an internal process somehow involve massive immigration of Arabs into essentially Roman provinces?

      Nah. Seems too unlikely to take seriously.

  7. Here’s my take on the historical period that I put together from my various reading sources, and incorporated into a book I wrote called Chronicum Holocenum. There was no mention of Mecca existing in any old Roman histories of caravan trade, Alexander died before his conquests took him to the Arabian Peninsula. Around the year 100 AD, Mecca was first mentioned. This was around the time the black meteorite fell that is the cornerstone of the Kaaba(cube).Local pagan tribes exploited it among other things, and set up pilgrimages, to make money. According to “The Annals of Ulster”, the year 535-536 AD, saw an extreme cold weather event, that was also recorded elsewhere around the world. Comet? Asteroid? Volcanic activity? It was dark like night, all day long, as a dry, cold fog, enveloped the Earth. Massive crop failure, starvation, death all over. Explosion of rat populations. 3-5 years later, Justinian Plague, Yersinia pestis. 40-50 % of world population dies off in short order. The Byzantine and Sassanid(Persian) Empires were at war with each other for 1000 years, now half of each of their armies are dead, as are half of all civilians. Not many rats in the desert and alot of empty property for the taking from the weak Empires. Thus started the conquests and the warlords needed to hold the tribes together, Islam was the glue, the belief created. Mohammad born/created,(570-632 AD), 35 years after the Extreme Cold Weather Event. Pilgrimage racket taken over by Islam.

    • Sounds pretty good. This is the first I heard of the darkness, and of the plague of Justinian. Your account makes a lot of sense.

      I have one question. You assume the former Byzantine territory was taken by conquest by Arab tribes, after the Byzantines were decimated by the plague. If the provinces were depopulated, is it possible the Arab tribesmen simply moved in, with the permission of the emperor, who assumed the added population would allow him to retain power by manning his army and growing his crops.

      If so, we can see how that “guest worker” program turned out.

      • Yes, and the Arab tribes also spread East to the Sassanid(Persian) lands. Their conquests ended the religion of Zoroaster and Mithra worship. Conquest and immigration. There can be seen similar parallels of what happened then with our current era. The “guest workers” of Europa are a consequence of the deaths of the battlefields of World War I, and II., followed by the loggerhead of the Soviet Empire and the US/ Western European Empire. When the Soviet Empire fell, along with the industrial weakness of the US it created sort of a similar situation as to the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. This “weakness” is perceived by Islam as an “opportunity” to expand, much like an “opportunistic infection” acquired when a human body is weak from battling another disorder.

  8. Very interesting, thanks.
    The Mongol experience supports this thesis. The Mongol empire disappeared almost immediately because it had no religion or civilization supporting it. That meant no script and no way of making records, no unified standard language, and no ideological basis or cultural foundation. The Mongols eventually realized themselves that wanton destruction of other civilizations would end in their own extinction, and tried to graft themselves onto the more advanced Chinese and Persian empires, with limited success.

    If the Mongols had had a religion-based civilization, their empire would have lasted. Islam was indeed needed to underpin the Arab conquests

  9. All very interesting from a scholarly point of view, but even if some of the questions are proven scientifically, the facts are totally irrelevant to the muslims, who will not bend a notch. And it may even be a red herring because it detracts from the urgent need for us to come up with practical strategies in the confrontation with Islam. What we really need today is a Manifesto, a Handbook of Resistance, if you will, that can focus the anger of Europeans against the Islamization of their countries. Note I avoid the expression ‘declaration of war’ because war was declared against us a long time ago, and there is no such expression as ‘declaration of defense’. Such a Manifesto could set out a Statement of Intent, an Analysis and Explanation of the Alliance that threatens Europe, and an Evaluation of Strategies available to our freedom fighters. Anybody concurs?

    • Quite true: The facts will be irrelevant to (the vast majority) of Muslims. For non-Muslims, however, they have an inherent interest, and the effort to give them currency is a meritorious one. Half of the current success of Islam is Western ignorance and complacency. Thanks to Fjordman for the important essay.

    • Yes.

      A Manifesto of Resistance indeed.

      Perhaps there are or will be multiple Manifestos for people of diverse backgrounds and cultures.

  10. We all know the Pirate and the Highwayman’s history from the horse’s mouth, not from enemies of islam . . . from their mouth and 1400 years of bloody history. They don’t try to hide it. We do that for them.

    Unfortunately, proving its falsehood does not help us in the west and does not save our next generations because the problem is our Traitors and the traitorous nature of so-called democracy, the process by which Traitors reach office, promote islam, install muslims in high positions, and allow islam to permeate in every fabric of our society unhindered, unopposed, but encouraged, while we stay watching helplessly to avoid being fined, fired from our jobs or sent to jail. Dictatorship — in every way practiced on us, helpless creatures – – – except in name.

    Godless, values empty depraved west must be filled with some aggressive ideology. Only 4 days ago a museum was opened where else but in Europe, with fabricated concrete evidence that islam has always been part of Europe and belonged in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

    When one has no values or faith of one’s own others will rush in … invited.

    This is the REAL dark age of Traitors … through democracy . . . turn into talented virtuous critters.

  11. P.S. To the remarks above. I should have referred to Mohammed and his successors rather than exclusively to Mohammed. As Fjordman and his sources point out, Mohammed’s earliest successors are as phantasmal on the basis of any evidence as Mohammed himself. Consistent with the Justinian-Mohammed analogy, then, I would point out that Justinian had two fanatically loyal generals, Narses and Belisaurius, who anticipate the early Caliphs, who were essentially war-leaders.

  12. Let me put down a theory about Muhammad:
    It could be that many of the (frequently contradictory) stories were actually about the caliphs of the 7th and 8th centuries – there is some archeological evidence that they bore the title ‘Mohammad’, meaning “The Blessed One”. If all their warfaring atrocities were consolidated into a single character. naming him ‘Muhammad’ does make sense.

    • ‘Muhammad’ was originally a term used in the Syrian Church to refer to Jesus.

      The earliest ‘Islamic’ uses of it, in the Qur’an and in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock (considered the original qibla, before prayer was changed to point to Mecca,) are arguably originally Christian, and used in this sense.

      The earliest quranic uses are of course from the Syriac Christian scriptures that got borrowed and incorporated into Islamic scripture.

      There are two major inscriptions at the base of the interior of the Dome. One is said by Islamic scholars today to be addressed to Muslims, and the other to Christians. But the only evidence that the first is addressed to Muslims is that it contains the word ‘Muhammad’.

      If you stop to consider that Syrian Christians of that time, and earlier, often used ‘Muhammad’ (lit. ‘the one to be praised’) to mean Jesus, this ascription is highly problematic.

      Other context shows that all the Dome’s inscriptions in fact relate to Christianity, Jesus, the Gospels, etc.

      For a scholarly argument by an expert, of which this is only the briefest and haziest of summaries by a layman, please see Christoph Luxenberg, “A New Interpretation of the Arabic Inscriptions in Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock”, in The Hidden Origins of Islam, Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin, editors.

      This result meshes nicely with the numismatic data mentioned by Robert Spencer, among others, that the earliest caliphs for whom objective evidence exists are shown (on coins struck by ex-Roman minters) as wearing a Roman imperial type of garb, bearing Christian crosses, etc. Please see Mr. Spencer’s Did Muhammad Exist?

      So, plausibly, the earliest caliphs were Christians, from some non-orthodox Syrian sect, and the Islamic religion came later, as their successors sought a new tool to hold the Saracenic army and empire together. Perhaps the change of the qibla corresponded with the declaration of the new faith.

      Presumably, some caliph, perhaps al-Malik, together with his religious advisors, created a secretive ‘Sand Org’ to bring about the transition from Christianity to the new faith, and which in due course became today’s ulema.

      The term ‘Sand Org’ is my play on the Scientologists’ ridiculous ‘Sea Org’.

  13. Given all that has been said, it would be safe, and reasonable to assume that the Qur’an was a tapestry of lies woven from spider webs and kept alive by the poison of asps. Whom do we know whose intentions are prevarication, theft, murder, and destruction? In as much as those are the hallmark traits of Islam, who can we reasonably suppose the author of Arabian Scientology (I liked that one) is?
    What then are we doing fighting a spiritual dementia with carnal means. While I do agree that the Rules of Engagement for an enemy in place should be invoked, and that those who fostered the incursion of the forces and minions of the implacable foe should be hung by the highest yardarm as food for the seagulls and vultures, such measures will do nothing to stem the tide of wanton evil that finds a welcome home in self-absorbed, narcissistic, uncaring people. Ours is a three front war on two battlefields, the physical and the spiritual. We who know YAH’s salvation already have the victory there, but we still have the battle here. So we continue the fight until the day the last trump sounds.
    BTW, Christ is showing up personally in Iran and North Korea, despite their governments’ efforts to prevent any knowledge of Christ. I also understand that He might be showing up in Saudi Arabia and Turkey (unsubstantiated rumors). The point is that He is walking right into hell’s strongholds and doing as He wishes just as He walked into hell and freed those who were captive there. Kinda cool, eh?

    • “Ours is a three front war on two battlefields, the physical and the spiritual.”

      “Three front”

      Anyway, there is a third battlefield: the biological.

      It is necessary to retain the qualities of the original natives of our civilization: intelligence, creativity, cooperation, and most of all, drive to reproduce.

  15. Islam seems pretty clearly to be a pastiche religion, cobbled together from elements of Judaism (e.g., dietary laws – halal is quite similar to kashrut), heterodox Christianity (Islam has its own peculiar Christology), and indigenous paganism (such as the peculiar rituals of pilgrimage to Mecca and circumambulation of the Kaaba).

    Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter of The Great Heresies to Islam, and suggests that it is an offshoot and continuation of Arianism. Much in what is presented here supports a similar point of view.

Comments are closed.