Lessons to Be Learned: How to Criticize the Prophet

For the upcoming breed of Muslim politicians in Europe, the cartoon crisis has been a golden opportunity in terms of public relations. They suddenly found themselves courted by journalists eager to find the “voice of moderate Islam” or, alternatively, fishing for a sensational quote encapsulating Islamic extremism in some novel way. In my own country, Belgium, one of the Muslim politicians capably giving voice to the “moderate” position is Turkish-born Ergün Top, a lawyer, town councillor in Antwerp and one of the coming men in the Flemish Christian-Democratic Party. His future is bright, for his party badly needs its handful of Muslim candidates to counter the large Muslim presence in the Socialist Party in the contest for the fast-growing Muslim electorate.

I can personally testify that Mr Top is a nice fellow, a model of integration, and quite a contrast with some of the Turkish-born politicians in the Francophone Parti Socialiste. Unlike Emir Kir, one of the heavyweights in the regional Government of Brussels, who ensured the non-implementation of Belgian regulations on the slaughtering of animals during the latest Islamic Sacrifice Day (Eid-al-Kabir), and who continues to lobby against any form of recognition of the Armenian genocide. I sincerely hope the voters of Turkish origin will reconsider their choices and abandon the likes of Mr Kir in favour of responsible politicians like Mr Top.

In several television debates, Mr Top argued that offensive speech or cartoons are perfectly legal, but are morally unacceptable, especially if published by people who know and understand the Islamic prohibition on depicting and insulting the Prophet. It is of course commendable that he clearly accepts the legal position: newspapers enjoy freedom of expression in which the Government cannot interfere. He calls on his fellow Muslims to abide by the law but to educate their non-Muslim neighbours into accepting this demand of “respect” for the Prophet.

It is often said that “integration” is a hollow concept except where it means that the only thing that we can demand of immigrants, as of all citizens, is that they abide by the law. If they want to stand out by wearing funny dress and eating funny food, that is their right so long as it is not in explicit conflict with any law. Hence, the whole fashionable discourse of a set of “norms and values” into which the Muslims should assimilate is beside the point: only the written law lays down the limits. Apart from these, anyone is free to differ from the “mainstream” in convictions and lifestyle, in norms and values, just as Catholics are free to differ from Protestants, beef-eaters from vegetarians or hippies from yuppies.

It must be admitted that the discourse of “norms and values” is vague and politically unpractical. Yet, here we seem to be encountering a situation where these concepts are valid. To say that irreverent cartoons are “morally unacceptable” is not in conflict with our laws, but it might be in conflict with our “norms and values.” Laws do not just appear from nowhere, they grow in a certain cultural framework. If we have enshrined freedom of speech and of the press in our constitution, it is because we had first come to value these freedoms. That pre-existing conviction motivated a struggle for these freedoms which resulted in their adoption into our system of laws. We believe that it is morally acceptable to express your opinions, even if they hurt someone’s religious sentiments. If opinions are wrong, it is still best to see them out in the open so that we can evaluate them. So, to us, it is good that opinions including mistaken opinions are given free expression.

As the case of Mr Top indicates (to the extent that his answers in the rather hurried context of a TV interview can be taken to reflect his convictions accurately), even law-abiding Muslims have not entirely embraced our norms and values. To be sure, that is their privilege, just as anarchists are welcome to reject the rule of law mentally so long as they abide by the law in practice. But it remains a point worth noting if we want to understand the problems of integration that the Muslim community is going through.

For now I’ll leave that for further thought. Meanwhile, seeing Ergün Top on TV reminded me of my first meeting with him. On that occasion I probably made a more irreverent attack on the prophet than all the twelve Danish cartoonists together – and got away with it. I will relate my experience here as a case study in how and when a critique of Islam can be presented to committed Muslims without causing damage to anyone.

Mr Top, then a law student, was one of the organizers, along with the Green Party’s student section, of a debate on Islam at Leuven University in 1994. We had agreed to meet at his place before walking together to the university hall where the debate was to be held. The panel featured Arif Ersoy of the Turkey’s Islamist party, currently in power; the Muslim convert Prof. Yahyah (formerly Jean) Michot, who was to make headlines a few years later with a booklet published under a pseudonym arguing that Islamic jurisprudence allowed the killing of Christian monks, then a regular occurrence in Algeria; and myself, introduced in the leftist student paper Veto as “the controversial orientalist Koenraad Elst.” The audience of several hundreds consisted mostly of Muslims, men and women in roughly equal numbers.

The first skirmishes were about the usual topics: Islam’s record of intolerance and iconoclasm, the Crusades, etc. After a while, I managed to steer the debate to more fundamental issues. When I brought up Mohammed’s snatching the beautiful Zaynab from his adopted son, making the latter divorce her to make her available for the Prophet’s own use, Prof. Michot replied along classical lines that it was an old Christian argument to depict the prophet as a lecher lusting after ever more women. I explained that that was not my point at all: it is of no consequence to us if a 7th-century chieftain in a far-away desert had a large harem. The real problem with this episode is that Mohammed knew he was breaking Arab tribal custom, which prohibited marriage with the ex-spouse of a legal (even if non-biological) relative, so he contrived to receive a “revelation” from Allah telling him that in this exceptional case, his marriage with Zaynab was allowed.

This means that the episode puts in doubt the genuineness of Mohammed’s prophetic revelations, which he apparently conjured up to provide justification for his personal interests, less by deliberate manipulation than through a subconscious self-delusion. Likewise, when he trespassed against the existing war conventions, as by fighting during the “sacred months” (when a truce guaranteed the safety of pilgrims to Mecca) or chopping down fruit trees (a rare and precious commodity in Arabia), he always received revelations from heaven justifying his decisions. Even his favourite child-wife Aisha sceptically remarked that those revelations were always so suspiciously convenient for his all-too-human personal whims.

Indeed, I argued, the Quran itself has Allah tell Mohammed a dozen times how he should react when people disbelieve his claims of hearing a voice from heaven. His contemporaries are reported to have dismissed him as “ghost-possessed”, “fanciful”, and even as “a mad poet.” Worse, the very first person to suspect a mental disorder behind his prophetic trance was Mohammed himself. When he had his first vision of the archangel Gabriel dictating him a message, he feared he was going mad and decided to undo this shame by committing suicide. It was his first wife Khadijah who comforted him and helped him adjust to these recurring visions. From terrifying mental crises, they gradually became a familiar phenomenon and Mohammed integrated them into his new persona of God’s Prophet. When Mohammed went into his trance, he vocalized what he “heard” so a secretary could write it down, and these utterances were later collected into the Quran.

The firsthand diagnosis by immediate witnesses, admittedly laymen who understood mental phenomena in terms of “spirits,” has later been developed in more serious detail by professional psychologists, such as the late Dr. Herman Somers in his (Dutch language) book Een Andere Mohammed (A Different Mohammed, Antwerp 1993). Somers’ considered verdict is that Mohammed was a textbook case of paranoid delusion, a self-centred belief in his own unique status as God’s spokesman, nurtured with recurring visual and auditory hallucinations. As for content, the hallucinations brought to the surface bits and pieces from Mohammed’s memory bank: his own opinions on religious or worldly matters and his own very human desires, along with elements of Judeo-Christian lore which he had learned around the campfire from Jews and Christians during his business trips. There is not a single sentence in the Quran that cannot be explained from Mohammed’s own socio-cultural background, nothing at all that indicates a superhuman source. Consequently, Islam as a belief system is nothing but a collective secondhand delusion, borrowed from a mentally afflicted Arabian businessman.

That is what I told my two fellow panelists and an audience of several hundred Muslims. For a moment, I was quite apprehensive about their reaction, but there was no outcry of indignation. A few mouths fell open in utter amazement, but it seemed nobody was ready for this. They all had learned the standard replies against the standard Western objections about Islam being intolerant (“it’s the religion of peace”) or oppressive to women (“Mohammed was the first feminist”), but this they had never heard before. Even the two Muslim panelists did not volunteer a reply and the chairman introduced another topic. After the debate some members of the audience joined me for a drink but no one brought up the question of Mohammed’s sanity again.

Years later I put those ideas in writing. My article Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam (Wahi is the Arabic term for Mohammed’s prophetic trance) was published in instalments in the on-line paper Kashmir Herald in the winter of 2002-03. A Tamil translation has been published as a booklet in India. To my knowledge this has not led to any riots nor even to demands of censorship. Likewise, Dr. Somers was never troubled for publishing his diagnosis of Mohammed. Even Maxime Rodinson’s brief critique of Mohammed’s sanity, on pp.76-79 of his Penguin monograph Mohammed, available worldwide, never got him into trouble; apparently it was not even cited as incriminating evidence when his book was banned from use in some Egyptian universities (where it had been essential reading, no less) a few years ago. Yet, this is a more fundamental critique of Islam than the usual arguments about terrorism or the unequal treatment of women and unbelievers.

If Mohammed is shown to be a robber chieftain on the strength of the Hadith account of his 82 attacks on caravans, Muslim apologists can always say that Arabia and the early Middle Ages just happened to be a violent place and time for everyone. If the Quran is quoted as ranking women below men, they can reply that all established religions (including those now fashionable in Hollywood, such as Buddhism) happen to assume the inequality of men and women in one way or another. But if Mohammed is shown to have heard a voice that spoke from his own subconscious rather than from heaven, and that the Quran is nothing but a collection of all-too-human dreamspeak, the whole edifice of Islam is undermined. Not religiousness as such, not devotion to Allah, but that which distinguishes Islam from other religions, viz. the belief in Mohammed’s prophethood.

I have to touch wood as I write this, but my impression is that this radical critique of Islam is much safer to utter than the more usual criticisms. It has solid academic precedent in psychological studies of non-Islamic religious figures, most famously in Sigmund Freud’s study on Moses, so it can hardly be put down as a device concocted to hurt Islam. More importantly, it is a less sensational topic than sex and violence, less likely to make headlines in the popular press where agitators can seize upon it. Whether in words or in images, describing Mohammed as a terrorist or a lecher or a paedophile (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done, referring to the Prophet’s violation of the nine-year-old Aisha), or as locating his wives in a brothel (which is how many Muslims misunderstood a scene in Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, where prostitutes raise their appeal by acting the part of Khadijah, Zaynab and the others.), touches an emotional nerve and provokes an emotional reaction. Questioning the legitimacy of Mohammed’s self-image as God’s spokesman, by contrast, may rather tend to provoke doubt and intellectual reflection.

I am all for the unfettered right of cartoonists to lampoon religious authorities and divine characters. In this instance, they have played a useful role in awakening us all to certain troubling realities. But if we want to make headway in the “dialogue” that everyone is now calling for, it might be advisable to move from the emotive issues to more fundamental matters of doctrine. No insult to the prophet, just some careful scrutiny. Surely Ergün Top could not regard that as “morally unacceptable.”

Re: We are all Danes Now - Racists!

Re: We are all Danes Now - Racists!

The reason Europe cannot integrate its ethnic minorities.. is that they DO NOT WANT TO BE INTEGRATED! They would rather sit on their lazy arses get monies like the Imam Abu Laban, then backstabb their new governmet in the back..the one who has been taking care of them since 1968. They wish to be apart and different. at this rate, religion could become a new disability code for social services. ie. what do you mean he cannot work etc. or ..Oh I see he is a "muslim!" Oh yes that makes a difference. One can only go around ranting and raving like some freaking lunatic all day long. You cannot make them work.. Mohammed might not like it! They cannot be garbagemen! Pork might have touched the garbage! But there are huge gloves! No . no..too oppressive! Too demeaning to the religion! What not a waiter.. NO, they might have to serve a ham sandwich or a drink! But they do not have to drink or eat it! But they must come in contact with it! No cartoons in a newspaper..too blasphemous! But they do not have to look at them! No, no.. it is of course sacrilegious! But they printed Christian ones as well! No , no only Islam is relevant! But they just raped three western girls! What do you mean is it alright! well, the girls were asking for it, with their western ways. But they were wearing Catholic school uniforms! Well, you see that proves that they were loose and wanton! Had they been in hijab and covered up they would not have been advertising their extreme sexuality at age 10 to those 30 year old men! Well I guess that makes me a Racist Dane then! Anyone, for a Danish ham and cheese sandwich and a Carlsberg beer! Say! Anyone catch the Olympics on television?

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

to rotten

there were syrian churches rotten and in egypt too rotten but all were not talking arabic.
in egypt rotten they were talking coptic .there was no arabic translation for any holy book..the arabs who speaks arabic were only confined to the arabic .pennisula...you rotten filthy sick minded bitch

To rotten filthy sick minded Peace!

Call it whatever you want to but if not for Hebrew and Aramaic which is its forerunner, you would not have a language, Peace. Not that you have much of one now. Syriac the language of the Syrian Orthodox church, which later reconciled with the Catholic church> Only uneducated men spoke aramaic as a daily language ( arabic predecessor) All men of taste, refinement, civilization and breeding.. spoke Greek, even the Romans. Latin was only a vulgate of the people. It was for the poor huddled unwashed masses. Hmm and your prophet was an illiterate man, so he spoke aramaic. And that makes you superior..for what reason again! The only sick filthy rotten thing I see here is You! I cannot help it if your prophet was illiterate and a thief. I had nothing to do with that. You should take it up with him, the next time he whispers to you!

The Syrian Orthodox Church
This name was derived from Cyrus the king of Persia (559-529 B.C.) who conquered Babylon (539 B.C.) and liberated the Jews by permitting them to return to Judea. His name is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah, connected with Christ. The name "Syrian" is equivalent to the term "Christian" which was applied to the disciples in Antioch for the first time, because those converted Jews believed that Cyrus, their liberator from captivity in 538 B.C., resembled Christ the liberator of captive mankind. So they used to repeat Christ's name connected with his name for pride and honour, as their forefathers did upon their return to Judea. When this news arrived to the gentile elements in Antioch, they called them "Syrians" or "Christians" . From that time onwards the name "Syrian" prevailed first among the Christians of Syria and afterwards among the Christians of Mesopotamia, Persia, India and the Far East, through the work of the Syrian Apostles and preachers. This name was used in Syria to distinguish between the Christian Arameans and the Arameans who were not yet converted. Hence the word "Aramean" became synonymous to the word "Heathen", and the word "Syrian" synonymous to "Christian" . Likewise, the Aramaic language was called Syriac. Until the present days the Christians who speak Syriac, are called in this sense, "Suroye" or "Suraye" or "Curyaye" Whereas the name "Christian" prevailed among the Western Christians.
All the Syrian historians agree that the name of Syria itself is derived from the above mentioned Cyrus. So, when the disciples were called "Syrians", both of these names were combined together, since their source was the same. This name was connected with The Church of Antioch from the very beginning of Christianity. Hence it was called the "Syrian Church" as it is mentioned in the epistle of St. Ignatius, the third Patriarch of Antioch, to the Romans in 107. It was also attached to the churches in the East as far as India, which submitted to the Church of the ancient capital of Syria. It is still connected to these churches which still use Syriac as their liturgical language, that is the first language of the Antiochene Church of Syria and of the Syrian countries. Formerly, according to the Romans, the term "Syrus" meant every body speaking Syriac. We are amazed to know that some of the Western writers and orientalists call our Church the "Syriac Church". Our Church, from its very inception in the first century, has been called and was known throughout the world only as the Syrian Church. The name "Syrian" to us does not only designate the name of a country, but also designates the proper name of the Church that was established in Syria and used the Syriac (Aramaic), the language of the country. Therefore it became the religious name of our Church wherever located : in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan , Egypt , India, North and South America and Australia. Our church has also followed the distinctive Syrian religious and cultural traditions unbroken to the present day.

It is accepted by all that the word "Syriac" means the language of Syria and that of the Syrians, just as Arabic means the language of the Arabs. So we call our Church the "Syrian Church" (and not Syriac Church), because it was and still is the only native Church of Syria , as mentioned above. It so gallantly preserved and continuously maintained the ancient culture, language of Syria and the rituals of the Church of Antioch; Antioch being the ancient capital of Syria.

In short, there can never be any doubt, as all historians and scholars admit, that our Church is the original Church of Syria, and that it is the one and only Church that has preserved the ancient culture and language of Syria, together with the valuable literature and liturgies of the ancient Apostolic Church of Antioch.

[email protected])

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

why US is hated 3

'Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our ways. Getting rid of our nuclear weapons unilaterally if necessary will enhance our security. Drastically altering our foreign policy will ensure it. '
'Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children. Instead of continuing to kill hundreds of Iraqui children every day with our sanctions, we should help Iraquis rebuild their electric power plants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals, and all the things we have destroyed and prevented them from rebuilding. '
'Instead of training terrorists and death squads, we should close the School of the Americas [Ft. Benning, GA.]. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we should abolish the CIA and give money to relief agencies. '
'In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth the American people need to hear.'

Now now Makamnaya you know islam is not perfect!

You are not polite. rather a stringy old cow, who is so desparate she will do ANYTHING to get people to listen to her nonsenical lunatic ravings.. Donot worry I updated your piece for you about Jemima Goldsmith aka Haiqa Khan, ohh she is back in London with her father and has left her no good muslim husband.
Please stop posting the rambling bullshit or at least let the one who can speak, read and write english properly do it.. you are so tiresome..cow!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save us!

to new believer(hocker)

and you are just a hoeker prostitue ugly old woman who want to catch any man from this site...armyscout is the best for you as you are hocker and he is pig

Peace, peace the word is

Peace, peace the word is hooker I swear if you are going to use english learn to spell it. *wipes eyes from laughing so damn hard* Sorry to disappoint you I have a man, tall, goodlooking, and Scandinavian! Once you have a Scandinavian man.. you will never go back to anything else! I am neither old nor ugly but you will never get to find that out as well! hehehehehe! *laughs and wipes eyes again* Also, he is not like the muslim men...dickless! Now please take your useless, tiny dicked, life support system for a muslim penis and go visit Makamnaya (Nermin, she seems to be pretty desparate to get someone to listen to her!)or maybe ArmyScout43 will take pity on you and sell you a goat..But * hesitates* I doubt it! But if you are really looking for a pig.. maybe bashar is free! Have a nice day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

to rotten

if you have any man you would not have slept in this site day an d night rotten Hooker....
by the way from now on rotten hooker will be your new name so remember it well rotten hoker

To Rotten sick filthy minded Peace!

Alright I will refer to you from now on as Rotten filthy sick rotten Peace if that is the way you want it! We were up at 4 am, dinner is already made and did my housework yesterday! But I will tell you a secret. I write..so I can afford to flip back and forth! *wink* and I can tell you do not.

bye bye

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

bowman 2

'In how many countries have agents of our government deposed popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet military dictators who were willing to sell out their own people to American multinational corporations?'
'We did it in Iran when the US Marines and the CIA deposed Mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. We replaced him with the Shah and armed, trained, and paid his hated Savak National Guard, which enslaved and brutalized the people of Iran, all to protect the financial interests of our oil companies. Is it any wonder that there are people in Iran who hate us?'
'We did it in Chile. We did it in Vietnam. More recently, we tried to do it in Iraq. And, of course, how many times have we done it in Nicaragua and all the other banana republics of Latin America? Time after time we have ousted popular leaders who wanted the riches of the land to be shared by the people who worked it. We replaced them with murderous tyrants who would sell out their own people so the wealth of the land could be taken out by the likes of Domino Sugar, Folgers, and Chiquita Banana.'
'In country after country, our government has thwarted democracy, stifled freedom, and trampled human rights. That's why it is hated around the world. And that's why we're the target of terrorists.'
'People in Canada enjoy democracy, freedom, and human rights. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian, or Swedish?'
'We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism and in the future, nuclear terrorism.'
'Once the truth about why the threat exists is understood, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our ways. Getting rid of our nuclear weapons unilaterally if necessary will enhance our security. Drastically altering our foreign policy will ensure it. '
'Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children. Instead of continuing to kill hundreds of Iraqui children every day with our sanctions, we should help Iraquis rebuild their electric power plants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals, and all the things we have destroyed and prevented them from rebuilding. '
'Instead of training terrorists and death squads, we should close the School of the Americas [Ft. Benning, GA.]. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we should abolish the CIA and give money to relief agencies. '
'In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth the American people need to hear.'

why Us is hated by bowman1

'Why the USA is hated' by Robert Bowman, bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach, FL.
(Robert Bowman flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is presently bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach, FL. Originally printed in The National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 2, 1998.)
'The truth is that none of our thousands of nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. No Star Wars system no matter how technically advanced, no matter how many trillions of dollars are poured into it, can protect us from a nuclear weapon delivered in a sailboat or a Cessna or a suitcase or a Ryder rental truck. Not one weapon in our vast arsenal, not a penny of the $270 billion a year we spend on so-called defence can defend against a terrorist bomb. That is a military fact.'
'As a retired lieutenant colonel and a frequent lecturer on national security issues, I have often quoted Psalm 33: "A king is not saved by his mighty army. A warrior is not saved by his great strength." The obvious reaction is, "Then what can we do?" Is there nothing we can do to provide security for our people?'
'There is. But to understand it requires that we know the truth about the threat. President Clinton did not tell the American people the truth about why we are the targets of terrorism when he explained why we bombed Afghanistan and Sudan. He said that we are a target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world. Nonsense!'
'We are the target of terrorists because, in much of the world, our government stands for dictatorship, bondage, and human exploitation. We are the target of terrorists because we are hated. And we are hated because our government has done hateful things.'


is this why islam is fast growing between embassadors,university stuffs, intellectuals after more than 1400 years of absence of the great prophet mohmad

Mahomet was illiterate. Quran was not written by him.

The religion of the imposter Mahomet, who was himself illiterate,  was made up of three Parts, whereof one was borrowed from the Jews, another from the Christians, and the third from the Heathen Arabs. A Jew named Abdullah furnished the first of them, an apostate monk named Bahira the second, and Mahomet himself the last.

The Jew is sometimes called Salman the Persian (in arabic Abdollah Ebn Salem), who by his skill in drawing an entrenchment at the Battle of the Ditch, saved Mahomet and all his Army, where otherwise he must have necessarily been overpowered by the number of his enemies, and totally ruined. He was with Mahomet for 10 years.

The Christian references in the Quran were supplied by one apostate Nestorian monk, whose Christian name was Sergius, but whose arabic name was Babira, who had been expelled from his monastery, and who made his way to Mecca. Eventually he is said to have been put to death by Mahomet.

This info comes from a book called "The true nature of imposture fully displayed in the life of Mahomet" by Humphrey Prideaux, 1718 (7th Edn.), who researched into these things using ancient sources.

Re: Mahomet was illiterate.

Re: Mahomet was illiterate. Quran was not written by him.

Charlemagne that was masterful, we have been saying the same things for days now. They refuse to believe it. Of course we all have an agenda for saying such things, mostly they say we do it because we are wicked, evil, mean, nasty, seeking revenge, hateful and spiteful amongst a myriad of other excuses..but that we might be saying it because it is truthful...they swear we are insane and mistaken. Nice to meet another insane person! *smile* Welcome!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

so naive ,weak fool silly

so naive ,weak fool silly words....can a man invent a book from other sources show this wonderfull tremandous succeees to the extent that non muslim western put him on top list o fmost great men influenced the world while the books you claim he transferred from is faked and corrupted and its people left it long time ago to be atheist or convert to islam..
all that when u contraindicate yourself saying he was illeterate
wake up blind...

first translation of bible to arabic was hundreds of years of teh great prophet mohamd death when islam entered Egypt ..

Sorry you are a naive, weak silly fool Makamnaya ( Nermin!)

I am sorry you are a weak and silly fool makamnaya. I certainly cannot help that you are illtiterate like the prophet was, and it is true. For he did not have the ability to read or write the language. Byt teh way there had been Christian in teh area for quite some time, or had you forgotten that at one time the whole area was controlled and ruled by the Roman Empire. Constatintople which later became Istanbul, was definitely the capotal of teh Roman Empire in teh East. My dear idiot!, there were Syrian churches established during the time of Constantine the Great! So of course there were bibles. You really need to get some more Halidol, dear it will cut down on the hallucinations. By the way looks like 300 cc's of Thorazine might do you some good as well. Worked wonders for the satanic dogs in Ghostbusters! You do have that ability to drool like them, when mentioning islam! Have a nice day!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Great article

Now these facts about Mohammed will help more to fight a stupid ideology than even more new caricatures posted on the internet (some of them REALLY insulting - on purpose - unlike the original JP ones). Some of them may still be funny but it won't help. So I immediately set a link on my Homepage to the "Wahi: the supernatural basis of Islam" page! Tell if there is more Islam-debunking stuff like this!

Re Great Article!

We have been saying this all alone Brennicke! It goes in one ear and out the other! We are lying of course they say! Nevertheless, it is true. And what a thief he was..oh!

Odin be Praised! Baldur Save Us!

Brilliant essay

The conclusion as I see it is as follows:

That the Muslims would be at loss to counter or debate on real terms if we were to talk about Origins of Islam, its Theology, epistemology and other related subjects under strictly academic premises.

On the other hand, publishing of a few cartoons give the Muslims a great freedom to retaliate in any form they fancy, for there are not any ideal requirement for them to take up this 'Freedom of expression' issue with dignity and civilized conduct.

The essay was brilliant as the 'Wahi: the supernatural basis of Islam' is.

Indoctrined Beliefs

Indoctrined beliefs are a fasincating concept to study, as it touches areas of pyschology, philosophy, socialogy, and history. That someone can feel so angered as to murder innocent people over the words in a book, or the idolation of a human in history is amazing to me, as perverse as it is. To fight these beliefs I believe it's necessary to convert believers one by one, in honest, humane conversation. Once you know someone's motives for believing, you can empower their beliefs without the philosophy. Convert enough people in this way, rationally, and it will spread throughout the culture. The same thing happened during the Enlightenment, and if we are to put religious ferver to bed, the same has to happen across the middle east.

Where have I seen this before?

"When Mohammed went into his trance, he vocalized what he “heard” so a secretary could write it down, and these utterances were later collected into the Quran."

This kind of reminds me of Adolf Hitler who dictated his 'holy book' Mein Kampf, filled with delusions, to Emile Maurice in the isolation of Landsberg Prison.

(Correction: Rudolf Heß also helped him after 1924.)

That is as well true for Christianity

A remarkable article. That Muhammad was insane is obvious for even a superficial
reader of his life and deeds. But very often the limits between insanity and
vision are hard to draw. You statement that Islam is the solidified framework
of Muhammad's delusions might as well apply to that other insane/visionary,
Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't commit any atrocities as far as we know, but he was
only 3 years around, whilst Muhammad lived a full active life and had more time
for action.

Whatever, a true believer will not be impressed by this kind of arguments.
If God/Allah exists for real (a fact not doubted by the believer), it's just a
mystery why He chooses a flawed human to convey His message. Put yourself in
God's place, how real are the chances you can market Your Grand Concept by dull
housewife in Milwaukee? You will need some flamboyant crazy personality that
can draw contemporary media attention.

Your point is correct, but irrelevant to the believer. My bet is that it
applies to all religions, not only to Islam.