The Life of Muhammad (The flight of the moonbats.)

Arutz Sheva Israe lNationa lNews ^ | October 26, 2003 | "Fred Nerks"

[quidnunc]

You learn something every day, don’t you? I did, yesterday. The wife’s mother passed away not long ago and Myrtle and I finally got around to packing up her things to give to charity. She used to read a lot. I suppose that’s where I got it from, I’ve always got my nose in a book. History is what I like. That’s why I kept The Life of Muhammad , written by The Rev. C. Sell. Myrtle’s Mum must have had it for ages, the binding is a mess and no wonder, it was printed in 1913. I stayed up half the night to read it.

First of all, I think what Sell had to say, way back then, is interesting, because he quotes from ancient Arabic sources all the way through and there are so many footnotes, including in Arabic script, that he must have done an awful lot of research. I also noticed that Sell was a Fellow of the University of Madras, who wrote nine other books on the subject of Islam.

I’m no great scholar myself, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone on earth would call this business of Islam a religion — not after what I just read. Right from the start, that strange fellow Muhammad was a worry. Did you know he used to have fits? It was said ‘he was destined for great things’ when he was young because, as we know, they didn’t understand mental illnesses then. When he was ‘indisposed’, for example, his nurse always placed him into a darkened room and covered him with scented, wet cloths until he felt better. And he heard voices. In his head.

His mother didn’t have much time for him either. She gave him back to his wet-nurse to care for when he was only two years old and then she died, so he never saw her again. His uncle looked after him for a while, but he died too, and left him an orphan to live in the streets.

We all know, don’t we, how important those early years are and how young people can fall under bad influences. This young fellow ended up with the beggars on the steps of a temple somewhere — I think they worshipped a moon god then — and they annoyed everyone else because they were loud and dirty, so they were often driven out by the folk of the town. But they always came back.

There were a lot of Hebrew people living in the area and he listened to them. Somehow, he must have picked up on the idea of a more powerful god than the moon god and that black stone they worshipped. And they had idols, way back then. He soaked up everything he heard and started to preach, which made the townsfolk even more angry.

Now it seems he heard about Jesus, too. And his mother, and the holy ghost. And all the prophets in the Old Testament. So he took a bit of this and a bit of that and hashed it all together and that made him a prophet, right? And prophets need followers. He had nine to start with. They hung onto every word he said. But he needed more than that, to prove how his messages were coming from a ‘divine’ source, so he would go to a cave somewhere nearby and listen to the words of some archangel. Frankly, I think he was listening to himself. But it worked. Everything was suddenly from a ‘divine source’ and he had it made.

-snip-

[T'wit]

"The Flight of the Moonbats" -- Ah, what a lovely lyric ring that has. In my Berkeley/East Bay neighborhood, moonbats are as thick as autumn leaves. One must be terribly careful just walking down the sidewalk lest one trip over a moonbat or distress a flock of them. This particular breed of moonbats is usually harmless and non-aggressive unless they catch another moonbat rooting for aluminum cans in a garbage can they claimed first. But I know that certain strains of Islamomoonbats are more aggressive and a considerable danger to the maidenly virtue of goats.

[Lion in Winter]

And, salt the earth!

[Lion in Winter]

LOL

[jocon307]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Of course what you say is correct, but I am very concerned by what seems to be either a lack of, or an extreme reticence on the part of, moderate Muslims.

Of course they exist. They certainly exist 'round here in Northern NJ, my daughter's friends has many Muslim friends on her swim team. I'm sure that bathing suit/swim team thing is not condoned by extremist Imams.

I'm sure most of these folks are just as frightened of terrorists as we all are. Unfortunately they seem to be more than off-set by the efforts of such as CAIR.

I will note that my impression is that the moderates I'm thinking of are mostly immigrants, while the extremists are just home-grown America haters.

My other big concern involves your statement "[A nation]whose sons and daughters are willing to fight for that freedom." Our really BIG problem, bigger than any Islamic or other kind of terrorists, are the terrorists aiders & abettors of the editorial pages of the NY Times, etc. These people, with their continued assualts on all American values, and their over-weaning desire to turn us into a nation of victims and supplicants is a greater danger to us than any other.

[netmilsmom]

bttt

[JoeSchem]

I remember reading, some years ago, that Muhammed took the wife of one of his followers to be his own. As it was described in the Islamic histories, he did all he could to avoid looking at her, and she did all she could to avoid looking at him, but ah, there was one time, just by accident, a single glance, and then they fell instantly in love . . . and then, though they both kept silent about their great love, her husband found out, and being such a devout follower, he insisted that Muhammed take her . . . so that, even though, normally, you would think that a man who stole his friend's wife is a first-class creep, in the case of Muhammed, everything was pure and honorable . . . right.

[sauropod]

interesting.

[CGVet58]

hi again,

the jury, imo, is still out on the so-called 'moderate' muslims.

If the majority of muslims already here (am talking about the foreign nationals - most converts here that were american citizens before subscribe to wahhabi and are therefore de facto enemies of the state in my opinion) have come to become Americans, then they are welcome and can take their place in the line alongside every other immigrant who has come here in same manner.

But, if they are the latest wave in the historical islamic tendency to infiltrate a nation-state from dar al harb (sp?, but it means "house of War" - which pretty much encompasses the whole non-islamic world) until they get a significant minority established as a beachhead (... and from which the demonstrations/violence/internal disruption of the targeted state begins...) then they are not moderate, and do not have the interests of the US at heart. CAIR is a clear example of this; their leaders profess to one day destroying democracy here; to "one day see the star of Islam flying over the nation...".

Juan

[FreedomPoster]

>>(How could anyone think it was possible to negotiate peace?)

I'd say Bush is trying for a middle ground, that of forcing a secular reformation on the radicals via the majority that don't want to die at the hands of superior Western militaries. It remains to be seen whether this can be successful.

The only other choice is that they destroy us, or we destroy them.

[Maria S]

"...in the case of Muhammed, everything was pure and honorable . . . right."

Yeah, he was a really honorable man! Marrying a child when she was six; however, he WAS honorable enough to wait until she was nine to consummate the so-called marriage.

[attiladhun2]

Unfortunately, the voices of moderation within Islam are mushirk, i.e., they are not true Muslims at all, according to their own authorities. This word has all kinds of interesting connotations. It is from the word shirk, which means, "to associate any created thing in the universe with Allah." Hence, a mushirk is basically an idolator, but the word means much more than that. It also means "polytheist" and does duty in the Muslim lexicon for "heretic." A moderate Muslim would be one who renounces the use of force as an evangelistic tool or as a means to defend Islam. However, to do so would mean he is also renouncing the authority of Al Quran, the Hadith, the Qiyas, fatwahs announced by legions of muftis, other religious authorities, and the entire tradition of Islam. Thus, for a Muslim to renounce jihad, he would become no better than his ancient ancestors during the time of "the ignorance," i.e., pre-Islamic times, when 360 idols of stone were worshipped at the Kaaba.
Furthermore, Muslims are taught from childhood what I like to call "the Litany." They live daily with constant conscious and unconscious reminders of past injustices committed against them by the "Franks" (Christian Europeans) and other non-Muslims: (1)the "land-grabbing" Crusades, (2) being driven out of their semi-mythological paradise of Andalusia (Spain), (3) the destruction of the Caliphate by the heathen Mongols, (4) the 19th Cen. Frankish imperialism, which impoverished all the Arab nations, (5) and, finally the continuation of the Crusades, which is how they view the creation Erets Israel. The average Muslim is fully convinced the Jewish international captialitst and their Frankish allies have nothing but evil designs for them. This cabal of Shaytan intends to rob them of their oil wealth and turn their daughters into harlots. If you think I am dreaming this up (it does sound rather ridiculous, does it not?), all you have to do is surf Muslim websites and read threads left there by Muslims. If you think Western education will moderate Muslim fanaticism, think again. Many Al Qaeda leaders have Western education, just look at many of the 9-11 highjackers! No. Fanaticism and the desire to avenge past wrongs by taking up the sword are deeply ingrained in the Muslim psyche and dear to their hearts.
It will take more than just exposure to Western education and ideals to bring Islam even into a 19th century mode of thought, it will take a radical transformation of the whole region. Until the people there rise up and say "NO" to the political and religious authorites who teach them hatred and vengence, we will never see this transformation take place.

[attiladhun2]

I know the story. He gave up his wife to the lecherous prophet because Muhammed had the authority to declare him a heretic and have his henchmen detach his head. I believe this hapless fellow was his own nephew.

[conservlib]

Similar to the mafia. Once you joined, you can never leave.

[conservlib]

fundamentalism is growing in ALL religions. It is a reaction to secular progress away from religions.

[conservlib]

Children, and wives were the possession of the man. If you read the OT, Abraham took his son out to kill him for god? Can you imagine if your wife asked you where are you taking junior, and you say I am just going to cut his head off to please god! YOU WILL GET THE STAIGHT JACKET TODAY, but then she has no place in stopping her husband from killing her son.

[CGVet58]

took a double take at the date of posting - 2003? Can't quite figure that one out, but thanks in any case for responding.

The "time machine" affect aside, being here in 2005 does offer us a unique opportunity to reflect upon the recent changes, as well as the developments from our original time frame postings of 2003 to the present. Libya voluntarily giving up it's terrorism & WMD ways; Saddam not just defeated (despite the "QUAGMIRE!!!" screams from the MSM) but our having weathered the inevitable backlash during the phase leading to the political transfer of power back to the Iraqis. AQ Khan of Pakistan being discovered as the main enabler of WMD technology transfer (granted, still a problem with the consequences of this act, but like everything else, we are making progress in this area). And Lebanon. Syria. And others.

Your closing concerns about the birdcage liner fm NY are well founded; who would have thought then that a Rather-Gate, Jordan-Gate would not only happen, but be followed shortly thereafter by the Slimes actually publishing news that (Gulp! this Crow needs more beer to wash it down with!!!) Bush may have been right after all?

We are winning, Fraters, and we should not let up the pressure.

[CGVet58]

your pithyness smacks a bit too much of moral relativism - and I may be wrong in judging it so. Care to expand?

[CGVet58]

Agree with your thoughts, excellent views on the internal aspects from a Mohammedan PoV. Especially the etymological explanation, which is fascinating. If you would be kind enough to point me towards resources where I could start to improve my understanding in this area, I'd be most obliged.

Your comments shed light on a question that I've asked myself for a long time: Why are there not more muslim immigrants here in the US taking up the fight against the tyranny from which they were so eager to escape (and seek refuge in our Land...) from?

I'm of the belief that if the American public had more examples of freedom-loving muslims - in our military, for example - who were on the front lines in this war, that our perception of them would be more positive. "Yes, there are muslim extremists", we would readily admit, "... but look here, see these who are fighting for freedom in their countries of origin... these, too, are muslims, and with these we can make peace..." - is something that I wish were happening, but as you well know, it is not.

This phenomena may have many names, but to know that there are hundreds of thousands of able-bodied muslim immigrants here in our Country who have fled the terror of tyrannies in the arab middle east and found opportunity here, yet are conspicuously absent (at least in numbers/degree of action significant enough to affect the public perception here) when the moment to help their native lands achieve freedom is at hand??? Suspicious, to say the least.

Because of this, and because of their muted responses to anything the terrorists do ( contrasted to their eagerness to pounce on the slightest American mistake), because the historical record shows that muslim immigrant populations have been quiet in their host countries until reaching a sort of critical mass (roughly 10 percent - see France/Belgium, et. al.; as they rapidly approach this mass) at which destabilization of the host country proceeds... because of all these things and more, I am very distrustful of the arab muslim, especially the one living in America.

Your explanation helps me to better see why they are absent from the fight... and deepens my resolve to uphold my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies "foreign and domestic".

[conservlib]

your pithyness smacks a bit too much of moral relativism - and I may be wrong in judging it so. Care to expand? My post again was : Children, and wives were the possession of the man. If you read the OT, Abraham took his son out to kill him for god? Can you imagine if your wife asked you where are you taking junior, and you say I am just going to cut his head off to please god! YOU WILL GET THE STAIGHT JACKET TODAY, but then she has no place in stopping her husband from killing her son.

Now if you have objection to my post, let us talk about it without name calling. I am talking about the culture of the desert 1000 years ago. Women cooked the food, and served the man first. Whatever left over was for her, and her children. We would like to ignore our barbaric history because it is not clean. About Mohammad, you will never find me defending him or his barbaric religion.

[CGVet58]

read my orig again - especially the part about my possible hasty judgement. Hence the invitation for more info.

I said MR because standard rote - when discussing islam with other libs ( & I note your tagline) is this equivalency line of B/S between us and them. This insanity in response is what ultimately leads to and explains how a NYSlimes can run 47 days straight of front-page "atrocities" from Abu Ghraib - yet nary a mention or pics of the several beheadings conducted by the "insurgents".

Am still a bit confused, though - I was responding to your "fundamentalism is growing in all religions" comment... where does the OT reference come from? As for "name-calling"? Lighten up, dude. We're on the same side.