What surprised me so much about this week’s blog, is that Muslim “scholars” (sorry, but the only way I can use that term is loosely) are backing off of the Koran’s appropriation of Alexander the Great–when it’s just more of the same! Muhammed’s lie about A. the G. is not one iota less evil, or less obvious than the lie about every single Jewish prophet, sage, or person of interest!

Wow. That’s a new one. Us cracker-heads are even dumber than you people thought.

Gotta disagree with you there, Shy Guy. Michelangelo’s statue of Moses is one of the great works of art in all history.

kutabeach on March 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM

I don’t know what we are disagreeing about. I didn’t mention anything about the qualitative aspect of the artwork itself. I only refered to the ignorance involved in portraying Moses with horns.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The statue depicts Moses with horns on his head. This is believed to be because of the mistranslation of Exodus 34:29-35 by St Jerome. Moses is actually described as having “rays of the skin of his face”,

The exact words in Hebrew are “ki kahran ohr pahnav”, meaning “because the skin of his face had become radiant”.

The mistake in translation is possible because the word “karan” in the Hebrew language can mean either “radiated (light)” or “grew horns”.

Which is pretty much what I said in the first place. But thanks for pointing out the sources of the horn myth.

“Hence Davinci’s ignoramous depiction of Moses in his famous statue.”

Gotta disagree with you there, Shy Guy. Michelangelo’s statue of Moses is one of the great works of art in all history.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The statue depicts Moses with horns on his head. This is believed to be because of the mistranslation of Exodus 34:29-35 by St Jerome. Moses is actually described as having “rays of the skin of his face”, which Jerome in the Vulgate had translated as “horns” (See Halo). The mistake in translation is possible because the word “karan” in the Hebrew language can mean either “radiated (light)” or “grew horns”.

kuta

What bugs me most is that there are 1.2 to 1.4 billion idiots in this world who believe this sort of nonsense. BUT, that observation may actually explain why so many quite successful and well educated Muslims, such as Mohammed Atta, radicalize. They are tied to the religion. The religion teaches that Allah knows what’s inside you. If your belief flags Allah knows and has grim and eternal punishment prepared for you. The one way to escape is the way of the martyr.

{^_^}

I believe it was Michelangelo.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM

That will teach me for trying to post while still intoxicated from our Purim feast. You have no idea how long it took me to type up that post and correct around 2 dozen misspells before clicking SUBMIT.

My head still hurts.

The true prophet Daniel actually foretold Alexander’s rise to power and his defeat of the Persian empire in the eighth chapter of Daniel, 300 years before it happened.

Robert, is this not, more than likely, another case of plagiarism and distortion of OT scripture on the part of Muhammad?

Then Allah will send rain to wash away their bodies into the sea and cleanse the earth of their stench.”

…and they all lived happily ever after.

I have 2 questions.

If someone today made the reference, “Two-horned one,” I would immediately think
Satan. I understand that this imagery came from the Greco-Roman world’s images of debauchery and the association of rams and Bacchus. It was adopted by the Christian world as the personification of evil.

Did Muhammad know this imagery? It intrigues me to think it refers to Alexander the Great whose exploits were as was well known then as they are now. Why would he use it as one of his own or force of Islam?

In v. 95-96 why were they pouring copper onto iron? Copper and tin make bronze, which makes very strong swords or other weapons, but what does copper and iron make? I am reading Asad’s translation. You did not mention this; does it translate different in other versions?

Once again, thanks for everything you do, I cannot ever repay what I am learning from you and happy Easter.

Nothing — except that in Islam is it not legitimate to reason to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Jesus is all the things you say in Islam, but it also says he is not the Son of God and is just a prophet. So there you are, and that’s where you stay.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Well of course he’s not the Son of God. That would make him more important than Muhammad and We (Allah & Muhammad) can’t have that now, can We? /s

Happy Easter to all my fellow infidels.

Okay, but doesn’t the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was born to a virgin, and that the angel who announced the conception to Mary told her that her son would be “pure” or “faultless” or words to that effect?

Stay tuned — a lot of this is in sura 19. And yes, it does say he was born of a virgin, and in several ahadith Muhammad says he and his mother were sinless.

If the Muslims claim to be the “true” followers of Jesus, then why all the emphasis on Mohammed and his life? I understand that Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was divine, but the Qur’an seems to acknowledge that Jesus was far more than just another prophet (e.g., the virgin birth, the triumph over Satan at the end times, etc.).
What am I missing?

Nothing — except that in Islam is it not legitimate to reason to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Jesus is all the things you say in Islam, but it also says he is not the Son of God and is just a prophet. So there you are, and that’s where you stay.

Robert Spencer on March 23, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Okay, but doesn’t the Qur’an acknowledge that Jesus was born to a virgin, and that the angel who announced the conception to Mary told her that her son would be “pure” or “faultless” or words to that effect? If the Muslims claim to be the “true” followers of Jesus, then why all the emphasis on Mohammed and his life? I understand that Muslims reject the idea that Jesus was divine, but the Qur’an seems to acknowledge that Jesus was far more than just another prophet (e.g., the virgin birth, the triumph over Satan at the end times, etc.).
What am I missing?

Also, the 2 horns – in those times, it’s known that Vikings wore such crowns, but all depictions of Alexander the Great show him without such crowns. Doesn’t that factor into the theories that Muslims put out about who Dhul-Qarnayn really was?

First: the Vikings didn’t exist until about 790 AD, over a century after the Koran was written. So it’s unlikely Mohammed was writing about them.

Second: the Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets.

See Viking and Viking Age arms and armor

Hence Davinci’s ignoramous depiction of Moses in his famous statue.

I believe it was Michelangelo.

I’ve had the same reaction trying to read the Book of Mormon.

I can’t say that I have ever made it through that book, but I will always remember Mark Twain’s deathless review of The Book of Mormon: “Chloroform in print.”

Alexandria in Egypt is known as Iskandariya, so Alexander must have been known in Arabic as ‘Iskander’. Given that, how did the translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn’ to Alexander find acceptance among ordinary Arabs?

Dhul-Qarnayn is not a translation of “Alexander.” It means “The Two-Horned One.” Alexander is Iskander, as you have noted. The equation is made between the two in Islamic tradition, but no one says that Alexander means “The Two Horned One.”

Also, the 2 horns – in those times, it’s known that Vikings wore such crowns, but all depictions of Alexander the Great show him without such crowns. Doesn’t that factor into the theories that Muslims put out about who Dhul-Qarnayn really was?

Actually, there are many common depictions of Alexander with horns, most notably on coins.

Robert, please correct me if I’m off the mark…

No, you’re quite right.

PS- have you seen the message at the UK site for Fitna?

Yes, I have.

1) Is Gog and Magog an allegory for a those people who have gone astray from the muslim way, or just folks mohammed didn’t like?

Opinions differ among Muslims as to whether Gog and Magog are individuals or groups or tribes or some such. In any case, they are unequivocally evil, and only let loose in the end times.

2) Is ‘the wall’ (not r. waters) the ‘allah ledes astray’ stuff that is mentioned time and again for unbelievers, or is it an actual wall with an archeological foundation?

Alexander’s wall is an actual wall. And that seems to be the wall referred to, if one accepts the traditional identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander.

3)If Jesus (isa) is a prophet revered among the muslims, how do they square these ‘wayward’ Christians ’shirking’ Jesus?

From the Islamic perspective, that’s precisely the problem with those Christians: they have deified a Muslim prophet and twisted his message.

4) and how do muslims mentally digest all the teachings of Jesus in the new testament (Son of God etc)??

Those teachings are why the mainstream Muslim view is that the New Testament has been corrupted, and is no longer the true or original Gospel that Jesus the Muslim prophet taught.

Happy easter and thanks for another good read!

So at the end of time, Jesus triumphs over Satan (I assume that is “the Deceiver”), and Jesus takes believers with him while God takes care of Gog and Magog, but Mohammed says the ones to be saved will be from the Muslims? How does that make sense? Jesus is going to throw over his own followers in favor of Muslims who say he was just a prophet?

But that’s exactly the point — that Muslims say he was just a prophet, and that that is the correct understanding of Jesus. So at the end of the world Jesus will return and break all crosses, as Muhammad says here. That is, he will abolish the false religion of Christianity, and Islamize the world.

“Kahran” in the case of Moses mean “rays” or “glow”, as in the rays or the glow of the sun. Moses didn’t have horns. After seeing G-d and coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets containing the 10 Commandments, his face beamed and shined rays of lite.

I still recall people in the southern US who thought that Jews wore Kipot/Yarmulkas/skullcaps in order to hide their horns.

I wonder if such similar ignorance spread to Islam and they somehow pinned the tail on Alexander rather than on Moses for some reason. The Talmud also talks about Alexander in relatively high terms but nothing to do with horns or the radiance of Alexander’s face like Moses’.

Which makes me admire you all the more for bringing this information to us without slamming your head on your desk.