The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Islam Upside-Down and Inside-Out

There can’t be
too many books like this one. The
Impact of Islam
, by Emmet Scott, is one of many books that deflate the
whole history, provenance, and character of Islam.  At first glance, as an atheist, I thought that
reviewing a book written by a Christian with an obvious Christian bias against Islam
would be difficult, mainly in segregating the bias from the truth-telling and
facts. But Scott’s book, while it has a demonstrable bias in favor of
Christianity, doesn’t lay it on too thickly. Scott’s arguments are very well structured
and made, and he doesn’t beat one over the head. There is history and information
in it that I have not encountered elsewhere, not even in Robert Spencer’s
masterful and comprehensive Did
Muhammad Exist? An Enquiry into Islam’s Origins
, in which little or no
Christian bias is evident.

For starters,
Scott visits the rather shocking argument that the Islamic Koran
was probably an early Jewish-Christian (or Ebionite) devotional manual
(Scott labels Ebionitism as a “proto-Islamic creed”) because so much in it was
cadged or plagiarized by Islamic “scholars” over the centuries (Having had a
nose or sixth sense for fakery, I’ve always contended that both the Koran and the Hadith
were works in progress with numerous editors and compilers over the centuries
adding to them or redacting portions from them to make the works consistent and
complementary and too “holy” for later scholars and believers to correct or
question.) There are just too many similarities in the texts, argues Scott, and
the Jewish-Christian work, if Islamic history is to be accorded any credibility,
predated the birth of Mohammad by centuries. Christians of various sects
existed long before Islam. When Christianity first appeared, it would be nearly
half a millennium before the Islam we’re familiar with allegedly made its
destructive appearance.
The Koran
itself, writes Scott,  is an incomprehensible
mess. Written and read in its “original” Arabic, and translated into modern
non-Arabic languages, it often makes no sense, not even to Islamic scholars charged
with the task of interpretation. There seems to be more rhyme and reason in a chimpanzee’s
random hunt-and-peck on a typewriter keyboard . In his compelling Appendix, he notes:
Among the numerous titles which
have appeared recently we may cite in particular The
Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the
Language of the Koran
,
by Christoph
Luxenberg
(2007)and The
Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into its Early History,
a series of essays edited by
Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin (2009). Upon the publication of Luxenberg’s
book, the popular media…focused on his claim that the 72 virgins promised to Islamic
martyrs was a mistranslation, and that what was actually an offer of 72
raisins, or grapes. Yet this was the very least of what Luxenberg was saying, ,
the full import of which was ignored in the newspapers. In fact, he was
claiming that the original language of the Qur’an was not Arabic (where the
questionable word is read as “virgins”) but Syriac or Aramaic, where the same
word would translate as “grapes.” He was furthermore claiming, sensationally
enough, that the Qur’an was originally a Syriac Christian devotional text and
had nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam. (p. 174)
A fanciful rendition of probably a fictive person

And what must be
a stunning revelation to Muslims is that the Muhammad of the Hadith was actually Jesus, whose name
also might have been Joshua. Discussing some ancient coins that bear the
likeness of what has been assumed to be Muhammad but of Muhammad holding a
cross.

Evidently, when these coins were
minted, in the middle of the seventh century, the Islamic theology with which we
are now familiar  had not yet evolved. It
would appear that the figure holding the cross, beside which sometimes appears
the name “Muhammad,” may not represent the word “Muhammad” in Arabic and Syriac
implies the “praised one” or “chosen one,” and may be a title or epithet as
much as a real name. As a personal name Muhammad is in fact unattested before
the seventh century, and indeed, considering the word’s meaning it is unlikely
that anyone name Muhammad ever existed in Arabia before this time….In short,
even if an Arab prophet and war-leader called Muhammad existed, it is highly
likely that this name was only given to him after his death [632], or at least
late in his life.  But the fact that the
figure on the coins is holding a cross would indicate very strongly that the “praised
one” in question was not the prophet of Islam, but Jesus of Nazareth! And this
is made all the more likely when we consider the strong  links between Jesus and Muhammad in Islamic tradition.(p.
175)
Called Isa ibn Maryam (“Jesus, son of Mary” in Islamic tradition), Jesus was a prophet
foretelling the coming of Muhammad. He was not pacific or peaceful. He joined
battle with infidels, apostates, and unbelievers and slew an unknown number of
them. No Sermons on the Mount in that literature. In one of my columns, “The
Great Pumpkin of Islam
,” among other blasphemous things I say, I note at
the end that,
Of course, I don’t take any of
it literally, the Koran and its
companion texts too likely having been works-in-progress over centuries,
cadging from the Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, and pagan religions and
liturgies. Robert Spencer torpedoes the existence of Mohammad himself in his
rigorously researched book, Did
Muhammad Exist?:  An Enquiry into Islam’s
Obscure Origns
. 
In short, Allah was Mohammad’s
Great Pumpkin. Or, if you prefer, his dancing, grand pink elephant, a deity
greater than the Hindu Ganesha.
Allah, who shares the metaphysical impossibility of all deities, together with the contradictory attributes of
omniscience and omnipotence, has never manifested himself to Muslims or
infidels, either. He is, to put it tactfully, reality-shy. He exists only in
the delusional minds of those who wish to believe in such an entity. A figment
of one’s mysticism-inebriated imagination can’t be conjured into spatial
existence no matter how earnestly or often one prays, hopes, or wishes.
The Great Pumpkin of
Islam was carved out of the hallucinatory imagination of a certified imbecile,
illiterate, brigand, rapist, murderer, and tyrant.
Harpo Marx as Allah, the Great Pumpkin

Furthermore,
Scott writes:

The original  bearer of the title “praised one,” says
[Alfred] Guillaume [“The Version of the Gospel Used in Medina Circa 700 AD” Al –Andalus 15 (1950)], was Jesus, and
this title and the accompanying  prophecy
were “skillfully manipulated to provide the reading we have in Ibn Ishaq’s
biography [his biography of Muhammad, or the Sira]
(pp. 289-96).
As Spencer notes, none of the
early texts or inscriptions of the seventh century which refer to Islam mention
either Muhammad, the Qur’an, or even the word Islam. Indeed, inscriptions –
both on coins and elsewhere – of the early Islamic authorities use terms and
expressions not found in the Qur’an.  [Did Muhammad Exist?] (p. 175.)
It’s interesting
also to learn that the purported conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by Muhummad’s
followers cannot be credited to Muslims on camels, but more likely to Persian cavalry.
Scott noted:
…The astonishing narrative of
the Arab conquest, which supposedly saw a few nomads on camels simultaneously
attack and conquer the mighty Persian and Byzantine empires, is revealed as a
fiction: it  was the heavy cavalry of the
Sassanid Persians
which created  the “Islamic Empire,” an
empire which appeared quite suddenly in the middle of the seventh century and
stretched from Libya to the borders of India. (p. 187)
Scott’s  The
Impact of Islam
is yet another treasure trove of mounting evidence and
incontrovertible   argumentation that Islam and Muhammad were
fabrications made of whole cloth – of other cultures’ and religions’ cloth. In
the Introduction to his book Scott emphasizes that:
That he [Muhammad] was
definitely not a man of peace is therefore fairly clear – and underlines a dramatic
difference between Christianity and Islam: Whilst early Christianity was
pacifist to the core, the early spread of Islam was due entirely to military
conquest. No one denies this, and it is even conceded that Islamic law [Sharia]
and custom sanctifies [sic] warfare in the cause of the faith. Indeed, the
waging of jihad or holy war is
fundamental to Islamic custom and belief. Since the first flush of victories in
the seventh century, conquered infidels have been presented with a simple
choice; either convert or  pay a poll
tax, known as jizya. But the
important thing has always been to establish political control . This being the case, it is clear that Islam is
not a religion at all in the ordinary sense, but a totalitarian ideology with religious pretensions….(Italics mine; pp. 12-13)
Islam is most
assuredly a flawlessly irrational, Alice
in Wonderland-
caliber, topsy-turvy, off-with-his-head!  “faith” that wants to become the “New World
Order.” Emmett Scott provides an elucidating map of many of the major blind
alleys and rabbit holes.
The
Impact of Islam
, by Emmet Scott. Nashville/London (New English
Review Press
), 2014. 200 pp. 

Previous

Hillary and Negan: Parallels in Evil

Next

Islam Upside-Down and Inside-Out: II

2 Comments

  1. link alternatif royalflush88

    link alternatif royalflush88 selalu memberikan bonus setiap harinya

    royalflush88
    idrbola88
    cintabokep69
    cekinfo
    pecintahentai

  2. link alternatif royalflush88

    pokehentai
    bokep tante
    sharinginfo23
    obrolanmalam
    pornhub
    rajasange

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén