'cookieChoices = {};'

... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government ...

Friday, November 10, 2006

Re-examining Islam as Heresy and Blasphemy

I have been toying with this idea for some time, and will expand on this post or in another larger one altogether. The term "mohammedan" is usually objected to by Muslims based on their claim that the worship Allah and not Mohammad (though I find this stance questionable). However, what if you line up the claims of Mohammad as found in the Quran and view them in light of the blasphemy that they are, setting Islam next to other historical heresies? Arianism, Docetism, Gnosticism, Mohammedansim, etc.

This idea has made sense to me for quite some time. After all, are Christians and Jews REALLY to accept Islam in earnest? To accept that our deity actually told Mohammad the "revelations" that make up the Quran? Why would Christians accept that Jesus was not in fact the Son of God? That believers in him were admonished by allah to his "prophet" and that we shall be punished for our beliefs? Or the many other absurd "revelations" that Mohammad received, seemingly when he wanted his way?

Islam is, in my opinion and the opinion of many, nothing more than a cult of personality surrounding a man suffering from increasing delusions of grandeur as his career as an erstwhile "prophet" continued, and I see no reason for this view to become the dominant view for both Jews and Christians. The idea of "interfaith" discourse is absurd when one of the faiths involved blasphemes and threatens the other two, not to mention the other religions of the world. Historically, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has not at all times been a pleasant one, yet the one is an offshoot of the other. Christianity is heretical in regards to Judaism, but it was born of a schism in belief over whether the Messiah had come and had been Jesus of Nazereth or not. It was not a new religion built upon scant knowledge of Judaism, or of both of these Abrahamic religions as was Islam. Thus I think that it is wise to consider Islam a "mohammedan heresy" rather than a religion on it's own standing per se.

In looking at this idea, I came across the words of a Catholic theologian, Hilaire Belloc, in his piece The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed. Though written in 1936, I found his ideas to be rather prescient and reflective of the nature of Islam and the threat that it has always posed to the West, even though he writes of it as being a rather broken religion at the time of his writing. Belloc was all too aware of Islamic theology and doctrine, and asks a question most pertinent and almost prophetic (pardon the pun) for his time:

"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past.

There is another point in connection with this power of Islam: Islam is apparently unconvertible. The missionary efforts made by great Catholic orders which have been occupied in trying to turn Mohammedans into Christians for nearly 400 years have everywhere wholly failed. We have in some places driven the Mohammedan master out and freed his Christian subjects from Mohammedan control, but we have had hardly any effect in converting individual Mohammedans.

It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.

Why this conviction should have arisen in the minds of certain observers and travelers, such as myself, I will now consider. It is indeed a vital question: "May not Islam arise again?"

In a sense the question is already answered because Islam has never departed. It still commands the fixed loyalty and unquestioning adherence of all the millions between the Atlantic and the Indus and further afield throughout scattered communities of further Asia. But I ask the question in the sense, "Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world which will shake off the domination of Europeans—still nominally Christian—and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?"

The editor's note explains a bit more regarding the doctrine of "heresy":
"Editor's note: In calling Islam a heresy, Belloc is speaking loosely. A heresy is a movement of baptized Christians who deny part of the Christian faith; Muslims are not baptized. Though the early history of Islam was shaped by Jewish, Christian, and Arab pagan influences, it was a new religion, not simply a splinter from early Chritianity. The fact that Islam is not technically a heresy takes nothing away from the accuraby of Belloc's historical exposition and his prescience regarding the dangers of Islam's global re-emergence."

It did not take a 9/11 or even the birth of the Nation of Israel for Belloc to write these words, merely an understanding of the nature of Islamic (or mohammedan) beliefs and nature. This piece is considered a "classic" in Catholic apologetics, and the rest of the article, though very much Catholic in nature and theology, is still a work that endures simply because of the threats we face stemming all from the Cult of Mohammad.

To be continued at What Would Charles Martel Do? in greater depth and detail, as I believe that this is an idea whose time has more than come again.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Kiddo at permanent link#


Blogger von Schlichtningen said...

Great posting, Pim's!

Just so. Islam is incompatible not only with Judaic/Christian religion but also and consequently our entire culture.

There should be no acceptance of practices that are immoral and have no justification just because they are committed in the name of a so called religion.

Many (all?) of Islams followers are indeed Mohammedans - I can see no difference between them and a cult.

Worse - this cult is used by diverse fascist states in a manner that have terrifying parallels in history.

I look forward to the continuation.

Friday, November 10, 2006 6:57:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Islam were amenable to rational criticism, then it would be easy to destroy. The Koran is claimed to be the unmediated word of God. Therefore, if it can be shown to contain any inconsistencies (of which there are many) then the whole cult would be seen as the hoax that it is.

Unfortunately there is something savagely primitive and pre-rational about Islam and Muslims. Islam and its prophet are tribal totems. In attacking these totems one is attacking the identity of entire tribe (Ummah).

Also, Islam is used to justify a power structure with strongly entrenched vested interests. These include the power of the Mullahs over the mob, the power of men over women, the power of slave-owner over slave, and the power of Muslims over dhimmis.

Despite what the Pope may say, rationality alone is no match for this deeply entrenched obscurantism. Satire and mockery are also needed, and in fact the evidence to date shows that Muslims fear ridicule more than reason.

Friday, November 10, 2006 9:53:00 am  
Blogger von Schlichtningen said...

religion of pieces, you are getting into something very interesting.

Could it be that our society is too advanced (and/or decadent) to handle a more primitive (tribal) culture?

And yes, we must ridicule away. The Cult of Mo really hate that and will do anything to have it forbidden.

A lot of fine blogs have made ridiculing the brainwashees of Mo a fine form of art.

I am not in that class, but one of my feeble attempts is the posting below.

However, I believe we are hitting a nerve.

Friday, November 10, 2006 12:07:00 pm  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Great find, PG. I’ve read others who writing between the wars (20s & 30s) described Islam as dissipated and inert but Belloc is aware that this isn’t the end of the story. Muslims talk about an Islamic Revival – a rejuvenation of their religious tradition. They don’t talk about “two Islams” – one being fundamentalist (or radical or militant or fanatical, etc.) Within the Islamic world, scholars and adherents alike, speak of a revival. It’s just as Belloc predicted.

As for the heresy, that is a theological stance that a religious person may want to take. During the mid-20th century, communism was seen as a sin by the Church. My wife, who went to Catholic elementary school, heard that from the Dominican nuns on Long Island! Whatever happened to sin?

Friday, November 10, 2006 1:55:00 pm  
Blogger Kiddo said...

Jason, well, I stuck with the term "heresy" to stay in line with Belloc's article, but did include the Editor's Note that technically this wouldn't fall under the doctrine of heresy. It needs a label other than "cult" though, and I think that "mohammedanism" works fine personally, but Muslims have twisted that around until it requires too much explanation. "Blasphemy" is actually more the correct term, and Islam must be described as a NEW religion based on ignorant blasphemies of Judiasm and Christianity, not an offshoot of either. I realize the problems between Christianity and Judaism as well, but Christianity can be shown to be historically a legitimately Jewish offshoot.

RoPieces, I'm with you completely and have enjoyed well the works of Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina on this subject, Warraq being perhaps the most thorough in his analysis of the modern critical writers.

As for ridicule, it is imperative. Dismissing Islam on theological grounds is just one more step on that road. But seriously, anyone who wants to be on the rather open forum to post at The Ultimate Insult please mail me (see profile) and you're in. Everyone's invited, though I have little time to post anything ever it seems. But the more the merrier!

As for this study, I'm sure that many greater minds have been tackling it. I need to find their works, as I think this discrediting and insistence upon Mo's big "deity-grab" is essential.

Friday, November 10, 2006 2:50:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I have a term to suggest rather than heresy.

How about "Adversary"?

You know what I'm getting at?

Friday, November 10, 2006 4:00:00 pm  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

I agree that ridicule is the most potent weapon to expose and demoralize the enemy. And, like the Danish cartoons, they’ve shown others how savage Islam is. Who would kill for a cartoon? Who could hate the Danish?

I’d use the word Mohammedanism but it doesn’t roll of the tong so easily. Now I hadn’t thought about carrying a copy of Trifkovic. I did think about getting label buttons with bomb-in-the-turban Mo.

Friday, November 10, 2006 4:06:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Von Schlicht,
Can you recommend some of these sites that mock Muslims. I am only aware of The Ultimate Insult; Pim's fine site.

Friday, November 10, 2006 4:08:00 pm  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

I meant: "I’d use the word Mohammedanism but it doesn’t roll of the tongue so easily." Even when you use a tong!

Friday, November 10, 2006 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger Kiddo said...

Well, don't give me the credit. I just came up with it. It's the other bloggers that made the site. What, I know templates? No way. All of the contributors have done a great job.

I like "The Blasphemers". Or "those delusional idiots"....

Saturday, November 11, 2006 12:15:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The gullibility and total naïveté of the human species has never ceased to amaze me.

When Steven Spielberg did a documentary on the holocaust a couple of years or so ago (or maybe it was a decade or so ago), the particular image that stuck in my mind were the German Jews who told Mr. Spielberg that back in the early 1930ties, after hearing Hitler and Goebbels speak, they wanted nothing more than to become good Nazis.

Such naïveté usually starts along very similar lines:

A charismatic conman convinces hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions and finally billions of some cleverly concocted DELUSION. And suddenly what heretofore had been rational, sane individuals start to believe in things that are in fact completely absurd and contradict basic scientific progress and reason. Groups are formed who reinforce the delusion as it now begins to spread in all directions, around the globe.

Some have suggested that Hitler's evil "genius" was that he convinced an entire country of sane and rational people of things that were completely absurd and irrational. While I am not trying to compare Mr. Hitler to the various religious figures that have sprung up throughout history, the mechanism by which ordinary, rational individuals suddenly start believe and worship some rather strange ideas is exactly the same as the one by which the Nazis convinced the Germans of their delusionary ideology.

As centuries come to pass, the repeated practice of the most enduring of these absurd ideas is transformed into what is then referred to as "religion"

Which brings us to that charismatic character who convinced almost an entire planet that he was indeed the son of whoever or whatever created this universe, for lack of a better term known as "God".

More than 40 individuals have in fact made a similar claim, that they are/were the so-called "Messiah", predicted in the old testament. The last one died only a few years ago in his home in New Jersey (USA).

Admittedly, none were as successful in convincing the masses as the character who had himself nailed to the cross and lived to talk about it -- or at least inspired others to do all the talking for him.

Fact is, that in the so-called "new Testament", the section written by Johannes, the author insists that an eyewitness to the crucification described how just before Christ's body was taken off the cross, a roman soldier stuck a lance into Mr. Christ and that when he did so, blood and water came out. Johannes is adamant that the above was described to him by an eye-witness to the crucification. That's in the bible. Christians and non-Christians generally agree that the incident is historically accurate. The science in this matter is really clear and simple: Dead people don't bleed! If a body that's stuck with a lance exits blood and water, that can only mean that the individual hasn't died yet, that he is still alive.

And that brings us to another unconsidered aspect of this insane story that exposes some of the delusions commonly referred to as "Christianity".

Imagine, for a moment, if instead of crucification, the Roman executioners had simply cut Mr. Christ's head off. The Dude would have had less to suffer and I really would have liked to see him rise from THAT !!!



Unfortunately, Christ wasn't the only character throughout history who convinced the masses of some rather absurd ideas. Six hundred years or so later, a then 50-something year old sh*thead married a six year old girl and consummated his relationship with her three years thereafter, when the girl was barely nine years old. There is, of course, only one term for such action and that's PEDOPHILIA! What is so utterly amazing is that billions of people now believe that whatever created this universe, in its infinite wisdom, had chosen just this pedophile as its messenger. These people are called "Muslims" and the dirty old pedophile that these "Muslims" so naively believe in goes by the name of "Mohammed, the Prophet".

We can easily deduct how this must have gone down:

"It's OK, little girl, you can take your clothes off..."


Yeah, right!

If THAT's not the definition of a DELUSION, I don't know what is.



Hide your little girls, mothers: Here comes the horny prophet!


To sum up: A charismatic conman and a pedophile. It sure is a strange cast of characters that human beings pray to!


Brilliant lecture by Richard Dawkins:


(Length: 1:47:24 = One hour, forty-seven minutes and twenty-four seconds)

For more info see:
















Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:33:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Congratulations on being one of the angriest people on the planet.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:37:00 pm  

Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Older Posts Newer Posts