The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Slandering the Prophet

 “The future must not belong
to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who
condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus
Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust
that is denied.”  President Barack
before the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012.dep
It seems, to
judge by his record before and after his U.N. address, in this instance that
Obama delivered a verbose, sanctimonious dose of his silver-tongued taqiyya that mentioned desecrated
images of Christ and Holocaust denial just so he couldn’t be accused of bigotry
or favoritism. However, he hasn’t had much to say about the desecration and
destruction of Christian and Jewish edifices and objects by ISIS, or by Islamic
enthusiasts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, and in other culturally
enriched Islamic pestholes.

On the other
hand, it’s fairly well known that Muslims can slander other creeds with legal
and social impunity, and even publicly threaten death and dismemberment of
anyone who slanders Mohammad and Islam or mentions them with a jaundiced eye.
But, how can
you slander an icon, or a cartoon character, a fictional book, movie, or TV
character, or a person who might not
have even existed historically
except in the minds of countless “believers”
whose minds anyway are not too firmly anchored to reality? But perhaps it isn’t
the icon of Mohammad that should be slandered, mocked, and defamed, but those
to whom the icon is a reality.
people actually exist. But you can’t slander or libel someone whose existence
a), has never been demonstrated except in the dubious assertive texts of an
apocryphal “holy scripture” knocked together by two or three dozen “scholars”
and tongue-in-cheek scribes over a thousand years; and b), whose physical
appearance is unknown, nay, forbidden, under penalty of death. Mohammad left no
dental records for forensics specialists to examine, no DNA samples to put
through comparative analyses, no real surviving artifacts or memorabilia of
things he might have owned or handled. Where’s the spear, the turban, the
sword? His sandals? There’s the Kaaba in Mecca, but that’s been rebuilt a dozen
times. Western and even Persian artists over the centuries have produced an
encyclopedia of depictions of Mohammad’s physical appearance.
Is the Muslim
belief in the holiness of Mohammad and the existence of Allah so tenuous, so
shaky, so precarious that any slander
or libel of them can precipitate a desperate, quivering, emotional outburst of
anger? Are Muslims so addled that questions about Mohammad and Allah threaten
the insular, super-sensitized mindset of the faithful?  I have yet to encounter a Christian or a Jew
who blew up at me for the suggestion that God and the Bible or the Torah might
be ripping good fiction but otherwise are age-old figments of the imagination.
Of course, I
could pose the same questions about the Christian and Judaic Jesus, but then
Christians and Jews aren’t threatening to kill me if I don’t convert to their
creeds. I could mock the idea of Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and
the antecedents of the Shroud of Turin, but I needn’t fear for my life. Jews
and Christians wouldn’t be out to remove me from this mortal coil. They might
not invite me to dinner, or they might curse my name in private, but that would
be the extent of their persecution of me.
It’s only
adherents to the Islamic creed who behave like raving tyrants and homicidal
maniacs every time someone gives Mohammad a raspberry shower or a scholarly
vetting. And Islam cadged not only Jesus to add to its pantheon of “prophets,”
but other Biblical characters, as well. Finally, Allah was a moon god
from a pagan creed. Given enough time and a little imagination,
Mohammad and his successors might have chosen Steamboat Willie,
otherwise known as Mickey Mouse, to be their all-merciful and all-powerful
deity. However:

There is absolutely no
question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan Arabs as one of many
polytheistic gods. Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad
was born. Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar
with. The pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah
than the one they already worshipped.
Many scholars say
“Allah” is derived from a compound Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah.
“Ilah” in Arabic is “God” and “Al” in Arabic is a
definite article like our word “the”. So from an English equivalent
“Allah” comes from “The + God”. Others, like Arthur Jeffery
say, “The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word
for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god,” becomes Allah, “God.”
This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words
borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic.” (Islam:
Muhammad and His Religion
, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
The article, “The pagan
origin of the word “Allah
,” goes on to reveal:
It is not related that the
Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka’ba was the statue of
the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka’ba. Caetani
gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka’ba and Hubal. Besides
him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned
in the Kur’an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside
these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at
the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone
was not the only idol in or at the Ka’ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a
sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside
it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First
Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill
, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)
“The verses of the
Qur’an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or
pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called
‘Allah’ and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder
of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the
Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the
‘Lord of the House’ (i.e., of the Ka’ba)…It is therefore clear that the
Qur’anic conception of Allah is not entirely new.” (A Guide to the
Contents of the Qur’an
, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)
I could also
slander Karl Marx and his “religion” of Communism, and Hitler and Nazism’s
central belief system. Well, okay, the Socialist and Communist might retort,
Socialism and Communism have ruined every nation in which it’s been tried, and
resulted in the impoverishment, starvation, enslavement, and deaths of
millions, but it can work if only we could produce the perfect Socialist or
Communist man in the masses who could make it work. The Nazis had the same
contention.  And this explains why state
control over education is so necessary to Socialists and Communists. Children
and adolescents and grown adults must be mentally “conditioned” to labor with
the most altruist spirit to sustain that ideal polity.
The “reality”
of Mohammad and Allah seems to congeal into a pandemic gestalt whenever a Muslim
prays. I mentioned this state of mind in a previous column.
Islam prohibits almost every
pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person from indulging in
pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the guilt. And when
the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this belief, his
conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This re-enforces the
validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant basis. He feels
‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who indulge in pleasure,
appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.

Compounding this phenomenon are the
Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily
movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a
trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby
again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a
better human being with each prayer.

A particular part of the human brain
plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for
supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and
motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good
factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He
now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself.
Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being
delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.

This is the secret behind the success
of Islam.
And this is as
close as any Muslim will ever come to Allah and his right-hand enforcer,
Mohammad: by literally losing his “self” in a trance, by submitting to some
kind of Islamic “rapture,” by suspending his consciousness and his mind. It
matters not if he erases himself privately or in mass arse-liftings on Madison
Avenue or on Fleet Street or on the Avenue
des Champs-Élysées. When he’s in this state, he’s in that gestalt.

What is a gestalt? Merriam-Webster‘s definition of it is:
1.  Psychology : something that is made of many
parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its
parts; broadly : the general quality or character of something
2. A
structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological
phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not
derivable by summation of its parts
E Pluribus Umma. From the many, one.  You, Abdul, are nothing. We are all.

Mohammad in disguise as Georgetown University
Professor of Islamic Studies, John Esposito

How does a Muslim
know Allah exists, that Islam is “true,” and that Mohammad is the “Prophet”? Through
his feelings. Sensory perception plays no role in this “knowledge.”

How do you calmly
discuss the delusions of Islam and Marxism with a Muslim and a Marxist without getting
your head chopped off? How do you make any progress in persuading a Muslim and
a Marxist that their ideologies are evil and even self-contradictory?
You don’t, and
you can’t. As a correspondent remarked after watching Stephen Coughlin’s video
version of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America
in the Face of Jihad
The Marxists and Islamists
are working in tandem to bring us down. Coughlin goes into detail on that
issue, including how “political correctness” works to undermine the
law of non-contradiction in those who fall prey to it. One section of his video
briefing is titled “Interfaith Dialogue and the War on Reason”. As
the Marxists destroy the philosophical basis of the culture and the culture
continues to disintegrate, the Muslims step in to offer an alternative to
“truth” and “order”, as the Nazis did in Weimar Republic
Au contraire, Mr. Obama. The future belongs to me and everyone else who
values freedom of thought and of speech. If Muslims and Islam can’t take
criticism or mockery or slander, perhaps they should get out of the kitchen.


On Islamophobia


The Selective Amnesia of Neocons


  1. Edward Cline

    Christopher Morrison, a British barrister, noted:

    Jolly good Ed. It struck me fairly early on that since under the Common Law a defamation suit can only lie against someone who defamed a living person and also at the suit of the person defamed, in the most literal sense anyone who defamed Muhammed would only be at risk of a suit by Muhammed himself and then only if Muhammed was still alive. None of his followers would have the right to do it for him, irrespective of how deeply they might profess to feel the damage to his reputation was. In the eyes of the QBD at least, his right to take action in respect of his defamation died with him. About darn time this, and the moral corrollary underpinning it dawned on those murderous ignorant boneheads if you ask me.

    Likewise those who say Allah has been defamed might do well to remember that unless Allah turns up at Court and issues such proceedings in person, they don't have the right to adopt his 'grievance' any more than you or I would have the right to sue on a contract we weren't a party to. Such a person would be regarded as a meddler, an interferer or at best a 'volunteer' i.e. someone trying to profit from a situation they had not earned a lawful say in, and the Law or even Equity would not assist them. Those who would claim to be acting on such authority might do well to recall a very sage observation by a Judge who said that if a man claimed justification for an act on grounds that God had told him to do something, he'd sentence him just the same unless God told him not to.

  2. Edward Cline

    If I'd thought of it sooner, I'd have included as an illustration Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin as Allah.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén