Time to Unmask Muhammad
By Geert Wilders
To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and the entirety of Islam.
The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour, from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.
A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.
The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis.
There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the Netherlands.
Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for apostates of Islam Faith Freedom International. In his latest book he posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter. Sina has offered 50,000 dollars for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life from testimonies of contemporaries.
The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.
In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”
According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.
In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist dr. Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain, people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.
The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.
In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet” Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he starts having visions that lead him to believe he has a cosmic mission, and there is no stopping him.
The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.
Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave personal danger — as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam.
Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by exposing Muhammad.
Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV). This article was published in the Dutch weekly magazine “HP/De Tijd” of March 30, 2011.
31 comments:
"A public debate about the true nature and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all over the world who wish to leave Islam."
Ah, there it is. The asymptotic twitch.
The problem with pitching the idea that 'Muslims all over the world wish to leave Islam' is that the definition of leaving Islam is so indefinite.
Even well-known and wonderful apostate Wafa Sultan has admitted that she still considers herself to be a Muslim.
I have posited before that, until a Muslim is ready to declare him or herself to be a citizen of one Western nation instead of a member of the larger Muslim ummah, a Muslim CANNOT be considered to be assimilated BECAUSE the continued existence of an ummah - even an ummah without any religion - provides Muslims with an insuperable voting block (backed up by oil resources) to determine policy on any worldwide issue and gives minority Muslims an unfair voice against majorities around the world as well as in their countries of residence.
Even IF - and I agree with Hesperado that it is a big IF - even IF Muslims all over the world wish to leave Islam, it appears that Muslims would only wish to leave certain aspects of Islam and would simply like to pick and choose which aspects of Islam to retain.
For example:
Muslims may wish to overthrow tin pot political dictators but retain clerical dictators and Sharia Law.
Muslims may wish to immigrate to Western countries but retain dual citizenship in Islamic countries.
Muslims may wish to live in the economic freedom of the West but travel on "vacation" to Islamic countries to force daughters to undergo clitorectomies or marry their much older cousins.
Missing from the impressive list of Mohammed's failings is the fact that he was a con man. This should be emphasised. He strikes me as a kind of Dark Ages L. Ron Hubbard.
Anyone who reads about the history of Islam cannot fail to be struck by how "Allah" constantly managed to produce revelations which bailed Mohammed out of whatever predicament he was in at the time, even extending to ridiculous minor personal matters like too many people coming round to his house in the evening expecting dinner.
The Koran itself also has many internal contradictions which Muslims resolve through the doctrine of abrogation, saying that some verses nullify older ones. But the obvious question is why does an omnipotent being need to correct itself? Why couldn't the omnipotent being foresee the changed circumstances in future at the time the original verse was given? Obviously because the whole thing is a fraud.
And in the Satanic Verses episode, Mohammed himself basically admitted that he had just been making the verses up.
Imagine that in 1000 years, one quarter of the earth's population were scientologists and they were going around killing anyone who dared to criticise Hubbard, they had taken over many countries and they were agitating to have criticism of Hubbard suppressed as Hubbardophobia, a crime against humanity.
That is the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in.
Mohammad is perfect... if you are a vicious, misogynistic, terroristic, murdering psychopath.
Clearly there are plenty.
I am not certain that trying to come up with a clinical diagnosis for Mohammed is a worthwhile pursuit. Speaking as someone with medical training, I would dispute the diagnosis of epileptic seizures being responsible for his visions. After a seizure, people experience a loss of memory rather than hallucinations. I would also dispute the diagnosis of schizophrenia since it usually begins early in life and is almost always associated with loss of mental ability. By time someone reaches into 50's or 60's, a typical schizophrenic requires being institutionalized because of inability to care for self. I really doubt that such a person could lead a successful military campaign.
Bipolar disorder with psychotic features is possible, but I don't know how such pontifications would be helpful to our cause.
Egghead wrote:
"...I agree with Hesperado that it is a big IF..."
I've gone way beyond "if" with Muslims. I advocate the message that it is impossible for Muslims to reform in numbers sufficient to solve the deadly problem they are causing all over the world now (not to mention for the past 1400 years).
Let me repeat: Impossible.
Egghead wrote:
"...I agree with Hesperado that it is a big IF..."
I've gone way beyond "if".
I advocate the position that it is impossible for Muslims to reform in numbers sufficient to make a difference.
Any position softer than this is endangering my life, the lives of my loved ones, and the societies of my West.
Ex-Dissident calls into question various psychopathic diagnoses to explain Mohammed.
I agree.
I think demonic possession is the most rational explanation. And I say that as an agnostic.
@ Ex-Dissident:
One of those writers quoted by Wilders was a Turkish neurologist, iirc. His differential diagnosis was based strictly on the evidence supplied by the Prophet & his followers.
Obviously, there were several components, but he thought the underlying cause for all the man's misery was an occipital lobe lesion. Evidently this is a common site for various types of epilepsy?
The doctor lined up his signs & symptoms nicely, including the loss of bladder control during seizures, which may have led to Mohammed's apparent preoccupation with the necessity for numeropus ablutions before prayer and his strict rules re the absolute necessity for clean clothing while praying. Without these, there could be no efficacy in any Muslim prayer.
Has there ever been another "religion" so focused on the minutiae of hygiene as a definition of sanctity?
Anyhow, his very close attention to the manifestations of this disorder were fascinating. However, his decision to diminish his evidence with lots of Christian scripture quotations was most unfortunate. It utterly spoiled his work as a scientist.
My guess is that he lives in exile, perhaps in a group of equally traumatized Turkish Christians. Often, people coming out of that kind of repression make similar strategic mistakes -- mistakes they are indeed if your purpose is to sell books. These digresseions certainly ruined the book for me...I almost wrote the publisher to ask "what in the world were you thinking?"
I'm a psychiatric nurse and having worked with the mentally ill for 30 years, I have always understood Muhammad as a psychopath. The mentally ill can barely look after themselves, never mind organise anything like what Muhammad did. But psychopaths are brilliant strategiests and liars. So, the "visions" were most likely lies to impress people. Remember that lying is also OK to advance Islam?
Not all psychopaths or epileptics are dangerous to society.
Obviously, something additional was going on with Mohammed.
Occam's razor is all well and good, but on the other hand, when something is as big and multifarious as Islam, parsimony can be misleading.
Ex Dissident, if you have read the book 'Allah is Dead', what did you think of the 2nd last chapter on diminishing man? I was a bit disappointed as Bynum has not understood mental illness at all, by claiming that religiose psychotic phenomena are really some 'higher thought form'. This was the only part of the book that I found plainly wrong. I've looked after people with religiose delusions for years, and this is clearly not the same as someone who, say, has a religious insight while standing on a mountain top, etc. In fact, one of the main conditions for psychosis is that insight is missing.
Once Mr. Wilders has the fortitude to intellectually stand above his Humanist universalist pretensions he will finally accept that parasitic barbarous arabs made islam, instead of islam making arabs(and every other convert) parasitic and barbarous.
Not all psychopaths or epileptics are dangerous to society.
Obviously, something additional was going on with Mohammed.
That's because he was a psychopath with power. He was no different than David Koresh, Charles Manson or Jim Jones. They were charming psychopaths, only they were born in the 20th century, not the 7th, so they are now in jail or dead, rather than "prophet" role models.
Elan-tima: Great point!
I remember reading one author who contended that Mohammed never even existed - that the Arabs simply invented Mohammed so that the Arabs could impose their supremacist form of governance on everyone else.
Hesperado: You misread me.
I meant that Wilder's contention that "Muslims all over the world wish to leave Islam" is perhaps the final liberal progressive manifestation of PC MC where Western leaders will portray Muslims as victims of Islam - STILL falsely absolving Muslims from their FREE WILL CHOICE to accept or reject the violent tenets of Islam.
Indeed, the recent Pew survey indicated that a lot of Muslims are perfectly happy being Muslim, agitating for strict Sharia Law, and performing violent jihad war against the West in the name of Allah.
Hesperado -
"Ah, there it is. The asymptotic twitch."
Usually, this hobby horse comes riding in a little later, but here it is. One fine example of why the topic on PC MC isn't totally without merit.
Here is a nice illustration of one of my points in the other thread about idiosyncratic responses as a means of propagating the PC MC meme.
"The defence of this PC MC thesis sometimes still holds some highly idiosyncratic elements that in the long run could be a hindrance for this thesis to become part of a larger theoretical framework. The need to be concise now may make this sound a bit blunt at this moment, but I think these elements need to be discarded for this thesis to become more widespread and productive.
[..]
I am thinking of a treatment that sometimes seems reserved for high profile leaders in the anti-Islam movement. I am referring here to instances where anti-Islam politicians are accused of catering or succumbing to PC MC sentiments."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one notable Dutch lady that can't be disqualified for lacking inside knowledge of the Muslim community in the Netherlands, said that many Muslims are ready to leave Islam when they feel save to do so.
It is just a claim of course, based on her knowledge of and experience with Muslims. She is an insider. Hesperado doesn't seem like he has much experience to bring to bear on this issue. So when these two make claims that cancel each other out, who can rightfully insist on possessing more knowledge of Muslim behaviour? That is the question.
But apart from that, who in his right mind would feel himself protected by our current welfare state authorities and law enforcement apparatchiks from Islamic violence?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto,
My criticism of Wilders' "asymptotic twitch" (and more broadly of his apparently neo-Wilsonian tendencies) is not meant to propose his rejection as an important activist in, and for, the AIM. Must criticism always = rejection?
Here's another analogy:
A village has been beset by attacks by marauders for many months. In a village council it is furthermore learned that the marauders may be planning something even worse. One of the village elders takes it upon himself to spend his own time and money, and to risk his life, by working on building a wall to protect the village, and enlists a few to help him. One of the villagers comes to take a look at the wall, and notices an area of structural weakness. Overall, he supports the building of the wall and is glad it is being done; but he feels he must speak out about the area of structural weakness. When he does so, other villagers denounce him as being "against the building of the wall" and as being ungrateful for the sacrifice the village elder is making for the safety of the town.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's belief: even an individual who has had the experiences she has had cannot know the datum in question here: the number of Muslims sufficient to solve the problem Muslims are causing around the world. That sufficient number, being in the hundreds of millions and spread out all over the world, is simply too large for any individual to know. Both the Ayaans and Geerts, and Islamopessimists like me, have no way of knowing our respective sweeping claims; but, given what we know about Islam and the mass fanaticism of Muslims, it would be prudent to err on the side of Islamopessimism, and reckless to do otherwise. In addition, Ayaan's borderline Leftism probably explains her unrealistic faith in (Muslim) human nature.
Islam's domination of the world stage is so tiresome that whatever smidgen of sympathy I once might have had for even the most goodhearted Muslims has nigh well vanished.
It is best to consider Islam qua Islam, Muslims qua Muslims and Arabs qua Arabs (with the singular exclusion of Jews).
Each one of these entities presents utterly intractable issues that defy all reasonable forms of Western intervention or mediation.
Islam is so supremacist and apocalyptic that it cannot be trusted to moderate or restrain itself. Just the single factor of taqiyya makes it impossible to accept Islam on any existing or future terms.
In a similar manner, Muslims have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate such a wholesale inability and unwillingness to assimilate or modernize that it is unreasonable, if not suicidal, to hope that any such thing will happen soon enough to avert the much larger existential crises that Islam, Muslims and Arab culture are precipitating.
Finally, Arab culture, what little that exists, remains so inconsequential to our world's betterment that tolerating the intensely self-serving nature of its barbaric, parasitic and retrogressive tribalism is nothing but a recipe for disaster that will only grow in scale with the passage of time.
Nowhere has there been any significant indication that any of the above will change in the near or long term, much less at all.
The only humane alternative is to confine all Muslims to the most controllable regions of their native origin and use restrictions upon food imports, medical supplies and other vital necessities to extract their cooperation while withholding any of those items in order to punish a lack of it.
Islam, Muslims and Arabs have provided all of us with repeated, vivid demonstrations of how little they offer this world. Islam has been nothing more or less than a persistent drag on civilization since its inception and must now be regarded as being inimical to all recognized and respected forms of progress.
Muslims must be confined away from our globe's more productive populations and made to fend for themselves regarding food production, pacification of their creed and an eventual rejection of the many aberrant and abhorrent practices that currently crowd its behavioral landscape.
The only other alternative is enacting upon Islam what it seeks to impose upon us and that is genocide on a heretofore unheard of scale. Failure to accept the foregoing conclusions will only assist Islam in perpetrating some limited or more widespread version of its envisioned Global Cultural Genocide.
There exist no urgent or compelling reasons why Islam should not be held collectively accountable for its persistent and grievous wrongs. They are at once too many and too heinous for the world to ignore or let slide.
Again, any refusal to begin such a program of repatriation, isolation and mass quarantine will only facilitate, in one respect or another, an act of nuclear terrorism or some such other display of ultimate cowardice that we will then only have ourselves to blame for.
The time for any conciliation with Islam passed long ago. These Middle East uprisings are the harbingers of a resurgent Islam that poses a clearly existential and intolerable threat to the West.
Tolerating the intolerable is suicide.
Hesperado -
Forget it. I shouldn't have said those things about "your little pony" and all, that was unwarranted. Not that I didn't mean any of it, because every now and then I must admit to some measure of frustration when you persist in making statements commenting on Wilders' "failure" to go "whole hog". Our past discussions on JihadWatch have revolved around this contention, before Spencer took the very unwise and unjustified decision to deny you entrance to his platform.
Instead of restating my point in detail of how you should acknowledge the different task and position of a high-profile politician from say an anonymous commenter, I'd rather have a meaningful discussion of your PC MC thesis.
So I'm sorry about the pony jibe, I shouldn't have vented my dismay at the poor sucker and for that I think something that might be considered coming infinitely close to the asymptote of a ehm.. apology, is in order here.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
continued..
If anything Hesperado, I'd think that Geert Wilders' advisors took your PC MC thesis to heart and devised a political strategy taking into full account the fact that PC MC is so widespread among the general population.
In the other thread, the one about playground bullying, Ockhamish raz (and PC MC), I've reposted some specific arguments against claims that follow from your thesis.
Sag.
Sagunto,
I don't so much mind your "pony jibe" at my "whole hog"; what bothers me more is your mule-headed stubbornness in seeming to persist in thinking my criticism of Wilders equals a rejection of his efforts.
As for whether Wilders' advisors may agree with me, that's certainly one theory to explain asymptotic analysts and activists. Aside from whether that is factual (and I've seen no evidence of it), what's ironic is that even if it were so, it doesn't seem to help them. I.e., Wilders can keep repeating, for example, that he is "only against Islam, not Muslims, I have nothing against Muslims" -- and yet his PC MC detractors continue to think that he hates Muslims and probably wants to round them up and put them in camps. (Robert Spencer has a similar problem; and so, even more preposterously, does Daniel Pipes.)
Hesperado -
I wouldn't be bothered if I were you, when stumbling upon some "asinine" stamina among your fellow-commenters. It is one of your own stronger traits.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto,
It depends on what the stamina is about. If it sustains an erroneous conclusion, it is wasted energy.
Hesperado -
I think you are absolutely right.
If we wish for Islamists to leave their religion, what religion do we propose (and/or hope) they replace it with (and/or convert to)?
In Islamic thought, religion and culture are one and the same thing.
In Western thought religion defines our cultures, but we have many different cultures that identify with various religious perspectives.
So when we ask an Islamists to give up their religion, we're really asking them to also turn their back on their culture.
How many of us Westerners would do that if we were asked to give up our respective religions? Would we also turn our back on our respective cultures?
Considering these things is a must-do if we're to have any chance at changing an Islamist's mind about abandoning their religious and cultural identity.
Egghead said... "Even IF - and I agree with Hesperado that it is a big IF - even IF Muslims all over the world wish to leave Islam, it appears that Muslims would only wish to leave certain aspects of Islam and would simply like to pick and choose which aspects of Islam to retain."
Hmmm.... sounds a lot like the current secularization of Christianity here in the West.
We want to pick and choose which elements of our chosen religion to follow and/or reject.
In effect we are creating our own individual religions out of whatever religion the culture is primarily based on.
Many people (intellectuals if you wish) understand their identity within any given culture. Christians are Christians, but not necessarily believers. Muslims are Muslims but not necessarily followers.
Are non-religious Muslims the best we can home for in this?
It would seem so, considering they are striving to assimilate with non-religious Christians.
Anyway...
... what happens when non-religious Muslims (ie: apostates) come up against traditional Muslims? What happens is they are usually murdered.
At least as non-religious or religious Christians, our Muslim enemies would rather enslave us than murder us.
My point is that, given the propensity of Muslims to hate Islamic apostates more than other non-Muslims, we're asking a lot of otherwise peaceful Muslims to stand up against their aggressive brethren.
Egghead said... "Even well-known and wonderful apostate Wafa Sultan has admitted that she still considers herself to be a Muslim."
Indeed. Islam has become more than just a religion it has become a culture.
This conflict with Islam is no longer a religious conflict it is become a cultural clash.
Right, Lawrence. As a Christian Westerner, I want to see ALL mosques with domes and towers destroyed in the West - even if the mosques would become simply non-religious cultural centers (as religious mosques here are often erroneously labeled now) or even 'museums' of the Arab culture (as might be claimed in the future). I find the 'culture' and history represented by Arab architecture to be patently offensive and incapable of coexistence with Western culture and standards of beauty - and a continuing threat to a continued future religious resurgence of Islam unless fully demolished because mosques might be reconverted to religious use at any future time. (Heck, maybe we can hire the same demolition company that demolished the Twin Towers; they were effective!)
Now, how do we expect American 'cultural' Muslims to react if their mosques would be slated to be demolished? How many mythical 'moderate' Muslims would convert to 'militant' Islam upon even a threat to the architecture that represents their long 'cultural' heritage - a heritage of Muslim slavery, torture, and murder?!
P.S. Western Christianity versus Eastern Islam is also a battle of good and evil represented by the legal clash of the rule of law versus the rule of degeneracy (i.e., Sharia Law).
Egghead
Post a Comment