Robert Spencer on June 9, 2008 at 5:27 AM

This is then the essence of Islam, a revisionist version of history, which would and could not hold water if Muhammad was not believed to be a prophet. Without Christ, there would not be Christianity, certainly, but Christianity does not revise history. Christ’s message was truly prophetic because his life was a model for the goodness possible in a humankind with free will. One doesn’t even have to believe in the divinity of Christ to acknowledge that.

His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs

Doesn’t “Companions of the Trench” show there wasn’t a twist, but that Islam set itself up almost as the anti-Judeo antithesis in the struggle for the “greater narrative”?

Sure, but it was “the anti-Judeo antithesis” because it was the true message of Moses, which the Jews had twisted.

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam.

Isn’t it more likely the story of Moses, part of the “greater narrative”, is an attempt to legitimize Muhammad?

This is not an either/or. In the traditional Muslim view, derived from the Qur’an (see 3:67, etc.), the Biblical prophets, including Moses, taught Islam. But this claim in itself arises from or is part of an attempt to legitimize Muhammad. He presented himself as a prophet in the Biblical line. So if his message differed from that of the earlier prophets, either he was a false prophet, which of course he was not going to acknowledge, or else their message had been tampered with by their wicked followers.

And thus we see another example in the separationist instinct in Islam, cutting oneself off from all non-Muslim contact, except to fight them.

irishspy on June 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM

This also seems to be behind the new converts’ insistance upon covering the hair or body. Instead of the simple adherence to tradition by older female Muslims who emigrate to non-Muslim lands, the converts use the head covering or burqa as an in-your-face separatist behavior.

Ibn Kathir:

Allah points out the proof of the prophethood of Muhammad, whereby he told others about matters of the past, and spoke about them as if he were hearing and seeing them for himself. But he was an illiterate man who could not read books, and he grew up among a people who knew nothing of such things.

Yet, according to Maududi’s introduction of Sura 28:

In the first place, the narration of a two thousand year old historical event by the Holy Prophet with such accuracy and detail, is presented as a proof of his Prophethood although he was un-lettered and the people of his city and clan knew full well that he had no access to any source of such information as they could point out.

This logic has more holes than Swiss cheese. It presupposes that Muhammed’s clan knew of the stories and Muhammed did not. If Muhammed told his fellow clansmen stories of Moses which they had been previously been ignorant of, how could this possibly be evidence of divine intervention? That would be like me reading something like the Urantia book for the first time, then being convinced of its divine origin because I knew it somehow explained otherwise unknown concepts like thought-adjusters and superuniverses correctly.

Huh?

And as Mr Spencer also suggests, how could they have asked for a Moses-like miracle from Muhammed if they had never heard of Moses? Obviously, the clansmen had to have been aware of the stories of Moses – be it from centuries old oral tradition or what have you. Sorry, Ibn Kathir – I am not buying your lame rationale.

Yet, how could Muhammed’s clansmen have heard of them, yet Muhammed been unaware? Just how disconnected and anti-social was this Muhammed character? What, was he in the cave with Gabriel so long that he lost touch with local gossip? Moududi, your explanation contradicts Ibn Kathir’s bogus explanations, but yours also makes no sense whatsoever.

I usually don’t stoop to shallow mockery, but this is some of the worst bit of religious apologetics I have ever come across. And believe me, that is saying something.

I like Spengler’s (the writer at Asia Times) theory that Islam is a pagan imitation of a revelatory religion.

I should mention that Spengler is not the originator of this theory. That honor goes to Franz Rosenzweig, who also was one of the few who foresaw that Islam would make a comeback when he was writing in the 1920s.

I don’t want to carry the “cult” analogy too far, but Islam does share this aspect with modern cults,

Islam is clearly a cult, so one doesn’t need to take the analogy too far. Muslims have already taken it as far as it can go. I like Spengler’s (the writer at Asia Times) theory that Islam is a pagan imitation of a revelatory religion. Having studied Greco-Roman paganism for many, many years, I can definitely see overlap in many of the ethical precepts of Islam and the ethics of the Greeks and Romans, especially in the way outsiders are treated. Which makes sense, because paganism was also based on tribal society. That isn’t to say that all societies and religions haven’t looked at least a little askance at outsiders, but for Islam to claim a superior ethical foundation to any other religion, yet share ethical precepts with “polytheists” such as the Greeks and Romans just shows again how deeply delusional Muslim self-perception is. So delusional, in fact, that I doubt any remedy can be found for it.

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam. His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs. The others became Muslims.

Robert Spencer on June 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM

Rovert if you have ever read any of the current Palistinian re writing of religeous history they makes some curious claims.

They are trying to make the argument that the Palistinian people are the decendants of the “Phillistines” and that therefor the Israels are “Evil occupying invaders” who stole the land from the “Chosen” muslim people of God.

That is the whole basis of the Muslim claim on Israel is that twisted story that “Muslim” Philistines were there long before the Jews.

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam.

Isn’t it more likely the story of Moses, part of the “greater narrative”, is an attempt to legitimize Muhammad?

In Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad (Pg 79), the story of Bahira is told. Bahira, though different stories shift details, is essentially a Christian monk who runs into Muhammad as a boy and immediately recognizes Muhammad as a great prophet. The story isn’t how Bahira teaches Islam, but how Christianity itself recognized Muhammad and thus imparts a sense of legitimacy.

It’s the same with stories like Ashab al-ukhdud (the massacre of tribe of al Najran), or taking Christian stories such as the Ashab al-kahf (“Companions of the Cave”): it’s about legitimizing Islam in the early centuries.

Which leads to

His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs

Doesn’t “Companions of the Trench” show there wasn’t a twist, but that Islam set itself up almost as the anti-Judeo antithesis in the struggle for the “greater narrative”?

There’s a great article at American Thinker this morning, on the difference between islam and the Baha’i faith. I’d heard a bit of it, but not all. Good read.

bikermailman on June 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM

That was indeed a good read.

Thanks again, Dr. Spencer!

Yeah, I forgot about the revisionism, thanks Robert and Biker.

Remember, in this view Moses taught Islam. His followers who twisted his message to create Judaism are apes and pigs. The others became Muslims.

“…Ali, the hero if the Shi’ites…” above should be:

“…Ali, the hero of the Shi’ites…”

I am hoping someone will be able to fix it in the piece, but until then this note will have to suffice.

Yet his followers are apes and pigs?
Tony737 on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM

The leaving of the ‘original’ islam came later. They weren’t swine, or sons of apes in mo’s time.

WE FINALLY FOUND IT, MICHELLE OBAMA’S RACIST SPEECH REVEALED!
Iran and the problem of Evil
The "Media Reform Conference" should be wrapping up today.  What a wonderful weekend filled with leftist media types plotting to silence con…

Yet his followers are apes and pigs?

Muhammad should “never be a helper to the disbelievers” (v. 86) – “rather,” says Ibn Kathir, “separate from them, express your hostility towards them and oppose them.”

And thus we see another example in the separationist instinct in Islam, cutting oneself off from all non-Muslim contact, except to fight them. I don’t want to carry the “cult” analogy too far, but Islam does share this aspect with modern cults, using separation to maintain control over its followers and develop a sense of “us vs. them.”

the recurring preoccupation with Moses reinforces his status as a prophet of Islam, as well as the perversity of the Jews in not recognizing the congruence of Muhammad’s message with that of Moses

would obviously beg the question. . .

Arabs demand that Muhammad perform miracles as Moses did

So um, they want Muslims to see Muhammad as being ‘exactly like Moses’ except for the fact that Muhammad doesn’t ever perform any miracles. His miracle is that he tells people about the Moses’ miracles from the Bible which nobody else has heard among his tribes. Like me saying that by telling people about Christ’s resurrection, that means I was resurrected too. OK, sure Mo.

If I’m going to create a new religion, it wouldn’t have anything to do with another religion. . . and it certainly wouldn’t criticize the older religion by saying that it is wrong and I am right.

Maybe I should start telling the ‘real’ story about Siddhartha. Instead of being peaceful like the Dalia Lama, you are supposed to subjugate the world by force and kill those that don’t believe it. There isn’t supposed to be any suffering. If someone is sick or suffering in the slightest, it is because of sin so you must kill them to keep the world pure – don’t cure them. It is the only way to get heaven on earth (God told me). Oh yeah, and make lots of babies so that we can have safety in numbers. Call it Islabuddah. Followers would be Islabuddhists.

Thanks again for your work Robert.

“never be a helper to the disbelievers” (v. 86) – “rather,” says Ibn Kathir, “separate from them, express your hostility towards them and oppose them.”

If we could only get our present government to understand this, like our government in the past (Jefferson, J. Adams, J.Q.Adams, ect…) understood it.

that someone who knowingly assists a tyrant is no longer a Muslim

LOL, Kind of a catch 22, since most-all muslims ie,assist tyrants.IMO
Love the Yul photo.