The Schizophrenic’s Recitation

FalseProphetby Glenn Fairman
Fourteen centuries past, in a cramped 12 x 5 foot cave known as Hira on a mountain called Jabar-al-Nour on the outskirts of Mecca, it is said that a young illiterate orphan prone to epileptic fits from his youth beheld an angel named Gabril hovering over his paralyzed body. It was here that the young man received the beginnings of the “recitation:” the Qur’an. From the culled-together testimonies of his life, or Hadiths, we learn from his faithful that Mohammad was a large man with pronounced hands and features and was given to possess a strong bodily smell and often profuse sweating — even in the cold. As a boy, he had once fallen into a catatonic state while playing. Afterwards, he reported to others that in his dream state, jinn were pulling objects from his insides. Many years later, after fleeing terrified from the aforementioned Cave of Recitation, Mohammad sought to fling himself from the mountain before he was “restrained” by the angel and told of his mission. Unable to ascertain whether he was mad, the object of demonic trickery, or a fateful blessing, Mohammad ultimately transformed himself and the Earth: first by assuming the persona of a Warrior Prince only slightly less venerated than Allah and eventually by exhorting his acolytes to scour the earth and propagate through the sword God’s Temporal Kingdom.

Whether the Founder of Islam was in truth a prophet, a charlatan, or a schizophrenic depends upon how you view Mohammad and the Divine Character of God. What is known is that Islam had begun as a movement to eradicate pagan idolatry and to perhaps consolidate a common ground for an Arabic conversation between Christianity and Judaism. That conciliatory attitude was soon lost as the Prophet encountered obstruction from Mecca’s Great Houses, including the three Jewish tribes of Arabia. To the learned, it seemed as if Mohammad’s visions from the angel were merely fifth-hand badly-mangled stories from the Gospels and Torah that he had acquired on his many caravan sojourns while trading. It soon became clear to many that the “Seal of the Prophets” was either possessed or a megalomaniac — causing him to eventually flee unceremoniously for his life (the Hegira) to Yatrib (Medina) when the fiery content of his evolving teachings and messianic grandeur became even more bellicose.

Indeed, this new religious vision that had once featured an accommodating affinity for Monotheism’s “Peoples of the Book” soon became the call to subjugate and eradicate the enemies of Allah (a primordial Moon Deity) and those who would dare blaspheme and ridicule the name of his Prophet. What had transpired in the mind of the Mohammad during his passage to exile and destiny? Was the great transformation (since theoretically, God is changeless and not capricious) one of calculated expedience or had he surrendered to a dark brooding spirit of self-serving madness and all of its accompanying ghosts?

It is this great turning point in the tone of the Qur’an that causes such cognitive dissonance in the minds of those external to the mystique of Islam, and furthermore, causes the objective intellect to wonder what befell the character and doctrine of the Prophet. The same charismatic but haunted man that fled away into the desert was not the one who eventually returned in martial triumph. Having drawn a core of the faithful to himself by purchasing loyalty with the booty of plundered caravan riches, Mohammad and his army of mercenary zealots would brook no dissent to his supernatural edicts that metastasized into the Islamic faith. Upon consolidating political power, no brazen poet or mother suckling an infant who questioned the pedigree of his righteousness would escape with their lives. It is said that Mohammad’s divide and conquer strategy aimed at Arabia’s three powerful Jewish tribes — which would ultimately lead to expulsion, forfeiture of immense wealth, and finally extinction — stemmed from a bitter Jewish malice he could not forsake. After what is known as the portentous “Battle of the Trench,” the Prophet sold the defeated Jewish women and children into slavery and divided the people’s considerable substance. It is said that Mohammad wore a white veil while he looked on as all of the 900 males of the last remaining Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, were beheaded into a pit. With this pivotal victory, the character of Islam changed and the methodology for Holy War which included confiscation, slavery, conversion, rapine, dhimmitude, and territorial expansion for Allah were therein set into stone.

Medical historians have eyed the figure of Mohammad as a puzzling one by diagnosing his personality as manifesting narcissism, schizophrenia, and paranoia — all perhaps due to his status as an orphaned youth or in conjunction with epilepsy. While he could be magnanimous, he was often given to mood swings, rage, severe anxiety and mistrust, hypersexuality and profuse sweating that accompanied his convulsions. It was said that during these “vision states” he would foam at the mouth while “bellowing like a young camel.” Moreover, as the cherished Prophet of Allah, he held himself far above the common man. While the average Muslim was limited to four wives, he was reputed to have had more than a dozen, and sealed this exception to God’s mandate with a convenient vision. As the prophetic mouth of Allah, his every word established law which he firmly buttressed with an expedient utterance from the angel. As a being who became beyond good and evil, he routinely broke faith with treaties, lied, codified slavery as God-sanctioned, urged his warriors to mercilessly pillage, murder, and rape with impunity, and gave license to sexual gratification with mere children. Verily, he exalted his will above all past custom by setting into motion a wave of human-wrought pestilence that would spread its reach into Central Europe within a century of his death.

When his warriors become too comfortable and wanted to rest in the luxury of their plunder, he sanctified Allah’s imperial expansionism by evangelizing his faithful with lustful figments of a warrior paradise where 72 doe-eyed virgins and young boys would attend those who died as martyrs — therein cementing a fundamental dogma that has existed throughout Islam’s aggressive history. By lowering the nature of heaven into that of a divine brothel, Mohammad’s theology characteristically legitimizes what is carnal and worldly. Mohammad’s God, both aloof and arbitrary, provokes through fear rather than love and eschews the self-denying transcendence of spirit for the sensual pleasures of flesh-bound men.

The same schizophrenic dichotomy that seems to cleave the personality of the Historical Mohammad is present in the Qur’an itself. If one takes the time to read it, one quickly understands that it does not follow a linear style and its nature is extremely bewildering. As such, the reader can find many verses, or suras, that are consistent with themes of justice, tolerance, and virtue as well as an overabundance of warrior prose that threatens the worst forms of punishment to the unbeliever — both in this world and the next. Many of us know Muslims who seem to be good and moral individuals and we also are aware that over one hundred million people sympathetic to the Islamicist wish to subject us to the conquered and inferior status of dhimmis. How, therefore are we to make sense of this Janus-faced book that seems to be all things to its adherents?

According to the classical/fundamentalist jurists of Islam who have long interpreted the Qur’an, the book itself cannot be understood without aid of the Doctrine of Abrogation: the notion that the more recent verses of Mohammad abrogate or cancel out the earlier ones. Consider Sura 2:106:

When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?”

This doctrine, perhaps founded as a means to reconcile the incoherency between the earlier and later verses, divides the Prophet’s teachings into periods where Islam was at first militarily weak and then ultimately ascendant. Thus, the teachings of Islam which are benign and conciliatory are superseded by “Islam Triumphant” that were revealed at Medina and the final years before Mohammad’s death. In truth, Mohammad’s visions and actions evolved on a continuum beginning with: restraint, followed by permission to enter into defensive conflicts, and finally by sanctioning aggressive jihad to fight the infidel wherever he might be found.

In Chapter 9 or the sura known as “Ultimatum,” the Prophet, who had grown strong through making treaties with neighboring peoples, supposedly received this final stage of teachings and promptly broke faith with peace when events dictated his military advantage. Scholars claim that this sura abrogated 123 previous verses and made Holy War an obligatory article of the faith. Thus, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” was cancelled by admonitions to fight against unbeliever’s (atheists, polytheists) and the Peoples of the Book (Christians, Jews) until they embrace the faith or pay the Jizya (tax). It is therein possible to both claim that Islam is a religion of peace and a religion of aggressive imperial designs by pointing to the individual suras of the Qur’an and still be telling the truth. In this way, those advocates of “peaceful coexistence,” such as CAIR and multiculturalist  university professors, can point to the moral superiority of Islam through the transcendent definition of “spiritual jihad”; even as 22,000 acts of Islamic terror have been committed throughout the planet since 9/11.

How does one go about reconciling the true belligerent face of Islam with the mask handed out for public consumption in the West? How does Islam, which deems its faithful the most blessed of the earth, account for the eternal strife that exists between father and son, tribes, and nations who have devoted themselves to the Crescent and Star? How does Islam explain that it cannot transmute the Prophet’s blessing for happiness, concord, or an intellectual, social, and economic vitality since even the salvation of oil has been wrestled into a black curse that seems to confirm the Biblical Prophecy concerning the Sons of Ishmael? For the Children of Mohammad, what was birthed in blood, strife, and war — remains so. As Marcus Aurelius remarked, it is madness to assume that a fig tree should not produce figs.

The Politico-Theologico schizophrenia that permeates the 57 nations of Islam today is symptomatic of the teachings of the Qur’an and Hadiths; and they themselves are the consequence of the enigmatic Prophet who provoked more fire and blood than moral virtue. The Bible tells us that The Devil can appear as an “angel of light” and that we are called upon to test all spirits. And yes, we can know a tree by the character of the odious fruit it brings forth. If a House divided against itself cannot prevail, then Islam will one day fall — a victim of its own incoherent misapprehension of God’s loving Personality as it violently consumes others while inadvertently poisoning itself. In the end, Islam’s final abrogation may be Islam itself: tearing itself asunder as the apocalyptic fulfillment of the Prophet’s darkened zeal — and with no angel forthcoming to intervene it as it hurls itself over the precipice.

Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (2009 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Religion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Schizophrenic’s Recitation

  1. Kung Fu Zu says:

    I have read the Koran three times, and each time I have made note of certain verses which I found interesting. The third time, I clearly marked out verses and then went through it again to type every quote myself. It got to be quite depressing as I don’t find the book very joyful. These quotes were published a couple of months back on this site.

    You will note the word Love is used less than ten times throughout the book. In fact, I think it is used seven or less times. And most of the time when used, it is used in a negative way such as “Allah does not love sinners” or some such thing. There is nothing in it stating that God loves mankind or that people should love each other or act out of love for one’s neighbor.

    The book really has very little narrative. It is very very repetitive. I found it very boring. The stories it takes from the Old Testament, (there aren’t many from the New), are mixed up and clearly lost something in translation. There are contradictions within the book, which is strange considering it is supposed to be Allah’s exact words directly given to Mohammed through Gabriel. Thus the odd doctrine of Abrogation had to be invented to cover Mo’s tracks. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, but nobody ever said it was God speaking to all the various writers directly. Jesus is quoted in some cases, but that’s it.

    For those who would say, the Bible also has some horrible things in it, I say please show the verse in the New Testament which exhorts a Christian to kill others. The Koran is full such exhortations. The Koran contains much violence, the New Testament doesn’t. Any comparison of the two, on this basis, doesn’t hold water. It is something used by apologists who wish to divert the discussion away from the facts.

    All in all, I found I don’t want to read the Koran again.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I have read the Koran three times…

      You are a glutton for punishment. 😉

      Upon reading Mr. Fairman’s fine essay, I thought that if Hitler had won the war and died in his bed at 80, there might exist a form of religion called Nazism today. Perhaps it would be a little less rabid after a few decades or centuries, but the basic character of it would remain intact, a point that Mr. Fairman made very well.

      One can’t help notice the overt fascistic element to Islam. It’s a brutal political-social-economic-religious system that feeds on war, xenophobia, and outright bigotry.

      Fast-forward a few hundred years and imagine how little difference there would be, given the patina of time, between whatever form Nazism-As-A-Religion might take and what we have now as Islam. Both are evil.

      Contrast that with Christianity which brought light to the world, not darkness. There’s a difference between someone who advises us to turn the other cheek as opposed to the many fascistic and murderous commandments in Islam, both the Koran and the various other core documents.

      The point of Islam is conquest. Islam itself means “submit.” It’s Nazism in another form.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        “I have read the Koran three times…

        You are a glutton for punishment. 😉 ”

        Did you here the joke where a Jew died and went to heaven and as he is being shown around he notices a man who looks like Hitler sitting at a desk with papers and really big book.

        Shocked, he points the situation out to St. Peter who confirms that yes it is Hitler. Stunned, he asks how Hitler could be in heaven. St. Peter responds, “trust me, he is being punished.” The shocked Jew can’t believe what he is hearing and keeps pressing St. Peter on the point and St. Peter keeps assuring him that Hitler is getting his just deserts. Finally, the Jew says he will not go any further in protest to Hitler’s presence.

        St. Peter asks him to go over to the desk where Hitler is working and the Jew sees that Hitler is translating the Torah into German.

        The Jew smiles and says thank you to St. Peter.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A lot of people try to make a point of claiming the Nazis were Christians because (like most Europeans of that era) they were raised that way. (So was Stalin, but I doubt even a liberal would claim he was a Christian.) In fact, the Nazis had little more use for Christianity than for Judaism because of its pacific theology. On the other hand, they were very impressed with Islam, and were quite happy to work with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (I’ve read that Arafat was a close relative of his). Nazism and political Islam have even stronger affinities than modern liberalism and Islam.

        • Kung Fu Zu says:

          Stalin studied to be a Russian Orthodox priest before he found a new religion.

          Anyone who claims the top Nazis were Christian is either a liar or ignorant. Hitler and Bormann both wanted to attack and destroy the Catholic Church, Bormann concurrent with the war, Hitler wishing to wait until afterwards.

          Himmler verged on being a nut case about nature and such. (There is a strong strain of wacko-ism in German writings of the late 19th and early 20th century)

          Others such as Goebbels, (who was a Communist before he was a Nazi) were simply opportunistic power hungry atheist fiends. Goering, Heydrich and others come to mind.

          Hitler bemoaned the fact that Western European and specifically Germanic civilization was based on Christianity. He thought it too soft and speculated that had it been built on Islam the Germans would have been better, which to him meant more ruthless.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The talking point I often hear from the Left (or just those immersed in the culture at large) is that it was still religion to blame. They will say that Nazism was merely yet another religion.

          But the truth regarding this aspect has been written about expertly by Brother Jonah in “Liberal Fascism.” The Nazis were health nuts, hated smoking, and various other things that today we would associate with “Progressives.” No, “Progressives” or the Left don’t have gas ovens….if you don’t count abortions and their dabbling in eugenics earlier last century.

          But that same “secular” atheistic vibe is there. And, by the way, the Nazis were socialists. There’s a lot of misinformation about this. Even Dennis Prager thinks of the Nazis as being on the far right.

          The Nazis supported the Muslim Brotherhood back in their day. Islam and Nazism are not all that far apart in terms of their supremacist idiology.

          Either is heads and tails opposite from the Prince of Peace who washed the feet of his disciples and counseled against violence. And yet Jesus was no namby-pampy which the new Pope appears to be. There was the definite vibe that evil should be conquered, at least in ourselves. The solution wasn’t to just Kumbaya and pretend that the reason violence and conflicts emerge is because of misunderstandings, which is the core driving influence of the Kumbaya Left, including apparently more than a few Jesuits.

          Again, one should read Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society” to understand just how deep this intellectualoid bullshit goes. Everyone these days thinks they are the smartest one in the room and that everything that came before them is inherently tainted because it wasn’t created by the New Enlightened Nice People.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Your comments on Nazi health polices are so accurate that liberals have tried to spin them away (such as an MSNBC propagandist saying that photos of diplomats of that era smoking “disprove” the claim that the Nazis were anti-smoking). For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend The Nazi War Against Cancer by Robert Proctor. Their anti-smoking policy was remarkably similar to our own (though I think we’ve now taken it further than they were able to).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Timothy. Hold onto those book recommendations. I realize that not everyone has time to do a review. And reviews are best done just after reading them, not months or years later.

              But it might be apropos to compile a sort of “thumbnail” recommended reading list. It would just have a very short description of the book, a link to it, a thumbnail of the cover (perhaps), etc.

              And I trust the members here to recommend only the best books of what they have read. What do you think?

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Actually, a friend of mine reviewed it in FOSFAX about a dozen years ago. I read it on the way to (and from) the funeral of one of my housemate’s relatives (a chemist who researched chemotherapy drugs, as it turned out).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              One of the realities of the “secular” set (steeped in atheism as a way of life, if not an overt creed) is that all one has left is the body.

              This is what is so telling about Michelle Obama’s obsession with getting everyone to drink water. That’s all the Left has. When they’re not killing bodies (abortions, concentration camps, etc.) they obsess on health.

              Because at the end of the day, that is all they believe in. Hey, and maybe if you still have that review that your friend wrote you could get him to submit it.

        • Glenn Fairman says:

          For an interesting look at the quarrel between Christianity and the Nazi Regime, read Eric Metaxas’ recent biography of Dietrich Bonhoffer. His work in organizing the Confessing church to battle those in the German Church who had made common cause with the regime is highly enlightening. The prevailing Hegelian philosophy that had fully saturated academia linked God and History and the Real with the Rational. If History, which was governed by God, was realized through the dialectic by forces beyond our full understanding, then the State is therein a construct instituted by Providence. This led to a visceral reticence at attacking authority, and in coalescing the much too late assassination attempts at Hitler from the Old line officer corps. “I was only following orders” seems to us a flimsy moral defense, but to intelligent men saturated in such an ethos, a difficult world view to overcome.

        • faba calculo says:

          Unsurprisingly, the relationship tie between Arafat and the Mufti was yet another of the former’s lies. Arafat WAS a relative of some Husseinis, but it was Egyptian Husseinis, not Palestinian Husseinis, as was the case of the the Mufti.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I see this sort of equivalency a lot. People who attack the admittedly bloody Old Testament seem to forget that we don’t have any Amalekites or Moabites today for the Israelites to war against mercilessly. God may sometimes have ordered them to commit massive violence, but he never gave them a generic, open-ended order to do so.

  2. LibertyMark says:

    I saw something recently positing that the Crusades and even the Inquisition may have a bad rap in history (or revisionist history if you prefer). Could it be that the mooselems were so pervasive and so virulent that civilization had to fight back? Was the Inquisition really about ferreting out Taqiyya? Nothing justifies torture, but perhaps Civilization was in a panic that this schizophrenic “religion” was destroying society?

    Here’s a thought: if there is a Satan, and he’s out to destroy his enemy Christ and the Christian followers, what better way than to imbue an ignorant whack job with delusions of grandeur who proceeds to create the anti-Christianity? That insane murderous anti-religion takes off and creates an army of civilization destroying warriors to whom every tenet of Judeo-Christian thought, wisdom, and philosophy is a joke, a belief to be mocked and parodied. Maybe an angel did speak to that guy whose name should not be spoken, and that angel’s name was Beelzebub.

    One last thing: Islam’s “contribution” to math, science, art and philosophy. Is it possible those Dark Age Klingons stole those technologies from the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians whom they enslaved around the Mediterranean during their early conquests?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have seen claims made that much of that Muslim (or more precisely Arab) science did indeed come from the Christians still living there, though I don’t know how accurate this is. It’s noteworthy that the Muslim world has rarely shown much curiosity about the non-Muslim world; even their most famous medieval historians seem to have focused on the Dar-al-Islam. And since then, they have been a “closed circle” (as I believe one book called them). Modern Islam is actually a retrogression to the pre-medieval intellectually.

      • Glenn Fairman says:

        Islamic Science is given much too much credit. The fact that within a century it overran the middle east and absorbed the Jewish, Persian, and Christian/Greek centers of learning accounts for its inclusion under the Islamic name. However, within a span of 3 centuries the fatalism inherent in Muslim theology strangled science and free inquiry in the Islamic World. In constradistinction to Christianity–which believed that God had created a rational and discoverable universe, Islam viewed Allah and his creation as inscrutable and capricious—-he could change the laws of nature at will. Thereafter, attempts to divine the secrets of the heavens and the earth were viewed as acts of impiety and mortal impudence. This had the negative effect of setting the Islamic world in concrete, creating a sense of false superiority, and quashing curiosity at the occidental world…effectively burying a civilization alive.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Good points, Glenn. It jibes with what I’ve heard/read. But you stated it so clearly. Most of my information is cobbled together from various sources, including Robert Spencer. I try to keep reading his books but it’s just too darn depressing. 😉 Not the author’s fault. It’s the subject matter.

          No doubt there were accomplishments done by individuals under Islamic regimes. And I exactly agree with your point about Christians believing God had created a rational, thus discoverable, universe. There’s not much to discover if you believe there are river gods, tree gods, etc., etc. Christianity has been unfairly and quite brutally besmirched by the Left and various “secular” misinformation sources as being anti-science when the truth is the exact opposite. (And if you look at global warming and other frauds, you don’t have to look far to find people who are anti-science in that they put their political beliefs before actual facts.)

          And aside from that, I think Mr. Kung or Timothy made the point that many of the accomplishments credited to “Islam” were the accomplishments of conquered people. From what I understand about Islam, it tended to swallow countries and horde the wealth for itself. Such wealth could, of course, be spent, either on employing Muslims or the conquered people to build their monuments. But Islam itself, to use a popular word, is not “sustainable.” It’s always been a political/religious/economic system that needed to keep conquering others because it could produce very little of its own but violence. One sees that today in the paucity of books published in Islamic countries.

          And yet we have to sit back and hear these absurd stories about how Islam “saved” Western Civilization by being a storehouse of ancient knowledge. But the truth is (and we see this today), wherever Islam goes, ignorance grows.

          • Glenn Fairman says:

            Indeed, he spoke truthfully. The Middle East as a storehouse for ancient knowledge predated Islam. Interestingly enough, it is those pre-existing cultures that are destroyed and relegated to darkness. A catch 22 is at work here in the imperialist Islamic mind. If the ancient world, knowledge and wisdom agreed with Islam, then that heritage was therein extraneous and unnecessary. If it controverted the holy texts, it was blasphemous and unnecessary.

    • Kung Fu Zu says:

      “One last thing: Islam’s “contribution” to math, science, art and philosophy. Is it possible those Dark Age Klingons stole those technologies from the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians whom they enslaved around the Mediterranean during their early conquests?”

      A lot of that “contributions” stuff is just diversion. They mostly say “Arab” contribution, but neglect to mention that many of the Arabs who passed on the inherited Western Heritage, were Christians!! People are so ignorant that they don’t even remember that the Levant was pretty much Christian by the late fourth/early fifth centuries. Mo did not start hearing things until about 600 A.D.

      Furthermore, it seems as if everyone forgets that the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall until 1453 A.D. Believe me, they understood Greek and knew about Aristotle.

      As to”Arabic numerals” these actually originated in India long before Islam appeared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *