Friday, November 27, 2015

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 Obama 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.

Those 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 appropriated 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 Germany.

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.


Edward Cline said...

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.

Edward Cline said...

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