First time visitor? Learn more.

Guest Post Submission: “Did Muhammad Exist?: A review

by coldwarrior ( 52 Comments › )
Filed under Uncategorized at May 21st, 2012 - 11:30 am

From our own Zimriel:

 

 

Did Muhammad Exist?” is an essay by anti-Islamic activist and writer Robert Spencer, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
The book was announced on Amazon in February and released, on schedule, in late April. Having been frustrated by Prometheus’s penchant for announcing publication dates and repeatedly delaying them; I commend ISI Books, and the author, for keeping to their promise.
Spencer intends an overview and summary of university research on early Islam, geared toward the book’s argument, and presented before his audience of Islamo-skeptics. His argument is for agnosticism on the question in the title (pp. 7-8) – this title is not, after all, “Muhammad Did Not Exist”. Muhammad as the Prophet of Islam may have existed. But likewise, HP Lovecraft’s Abdul Alhazred may have existed. In logic one cannot prove a negative, and Spencer does not try. His book instead argues that the contemporary evidence fails to prove the positive, and that this evidence further imposes constraints upon the very nature of the Prophet of the Arabs.
Spencer does well at footnoting his work; but for many of these notes, if you want to follow the white rabbit, you will need to write down the full source. The book does not have a bibliography as such. The Further Reading appendix contains almost solely works in book form, with the one journal exception (Grohmann) likely included in error. That section has the air of a recommendations-list cum acknowledgements-annexe.
Spencer acknowledges personal aid from fellow activist-authors Ibn Warraq and Daniel Pipes. The Further Reading annexe recommends also early Patricia Crone, late Fred Donner, Goldziher, Schacht, Margoliouth, Lueling, Wansbrough, Luxenberg, Nevo, Ohlig and Puin, Berg, Small, Powers, and Gilchrist. Some authors are noted elsewhere in the book but strangely absent from that list, like Bashear.
These books are, mainly, where Spencer found his secondary sources. Page 9 notes Sprenger, Bashear, and Ibn Rawandi (and Judith Koren, but she has so far just acted as Nevo’s editor). The footnotes cite Popp and de Premare by way of Ohlig-Puin, and Lammens and Tisdall (and Ibn Rawandi) by way of Ibn Warraq. The book relays Lueling from Ibn Rawandi’s quotes, and Motzki from Berg’s quotes; I think Sprenger is also quoted via someone else. Some more direct reading would have been welcome, at least in the case of Motzki.
(The book could have cited also Juynboll and Calder, but there’s only so much room in it.)
The footnotes turn up that the primary sources are mainly quotes taken from translated excerpts by Hoyland, Mingana, Nevo, Crone, Goldziher, and Powers. On this, though, I cannot complain. Islamic skeptics and apologists have been gnawing on these bare bones for over a century – because those excerpts are almost all we have; now, then, and for the foreseeable future. Even Hoyland, compiling the definitive as-of-the-1990s collection, could not add much useful to what Crone had cited (up to 700 AD), and as of the 2010s I know of little that I would add to Hoyland.
Here’s the bad news. Spencer relies upon works deemed controversial – which is fine, except that several of these works are controverted for good reason, and so require more care than Spencer gives them. The book also does not organise the material in the way I would like. And, in this book, weak conclusions often result from the evidence presented.
Already mentioned is that the book does not quote Harald Motzki directly but only Berg’s quote (and critique) of one of Motzki’s earlier essays. The book’s critique of Mecca as a trade centre and sacred pagan site, in pp. 100-6, mainly comes from Crone; it is good, for what it does, but is incomplete in that it does not cite Crone’s 2007 sheepish admission that Mecca could have existed as a trade terminus (in leather). And the Luxenberg chapter, #8, desperately needs perspective from Luxenberg’s critics.
The book’s organisation is such that it hobbles the argument. The book is supposed to be about Muhammad. Almost half the book, chapters 6-9, concerns the Qur’an. When I first leafed through this book I thought it was scattershot, and so at that point I didn’t buy it. But I don’t think it was Spencer’s intention to “throw everything at the target and see what sticks”. I have come around to accepting that these chapters do help the book’s argument (so I did end up buying the book, on re-reading it more carefully the next week). To work best, those chapters need to be earlier in the book, say switched with chapters 2-5. With the Qur’an debunked as a Muhammadan composition, or at least the relevant suras constrained, the Qur’an’s evidence for Muhammad can apply to the topic in the Qur’an’s own context(s). I’ll have more on that later on; but for now, Nevo and Koren in “Crossroads To Islam” argued persuasively that sura 48 is a forgery of the 700s. That means that sura 48 is contemporary with John of Damascus and the construction of the Sira. That’s the context for which you’d cite that sura.
The ancillary arguments inside the book are of mixed quality. Mainly they make their case, but sometimes they do not. Pages 28-30 present an official letter (the only surviving letter) from the 680s AD Antiochene patriarch Athanasius II of Balad. Spencer successfully argues that this letter refers to pagans amongst Athanasius’s Monophysite flock; Jews, Muslims, and (as Athanasius pointed out here) even Syriac Christians agreed that their respective scriptures prevent them from eating a ritual slaughter that has been strangled. Spencer does not, however, succeed at proving that these pagans were Arabs; the manuscript’s marginal note makes clear that the Syrians copied this letter because it could be applied obliquely to Muslims, but that doesn’t prove that Athanasius the author thought that it must be. Even if there were Arab pagans here, Spencer goes too far in seeing this pagan survival in this border city as proof that the Arabs as a whole ignored what was haram. By then, the Arabs had accepted Jewish-based fara’id for decades. Pseudo-Sebeos in Armenia cited Mahmet’s haram on carrion as far back as the 650s AD. And even more narrowly, if pagans accompanied the Arab armies at Syria, that says nothing about their amirs; Christians fought in those armies as well, like the Taghlib. This subsection does not help and should have been kept only as a cross-check to what Pseudo-Sebeos had said.
In several places the book wonders if “Muhammad” was the name of our Arabian prophet, or if it was an adjective applied to some other prophet or messiah – say, Jesus (the book is not consistent as to which adjective: chosen, praised, or blessed). Pages 18-19 and 45 note a correspondence between Q. 3:144 and 5:75. The former says: Muhammad is but a messenger, and messengers have died beforehand. The second says the same, word for word, about Jesus. The book sees Q. 5:75 as the original version and Jesus as the original subject. But to say that for certain, one should look at the contexts of the verses in each sura. In this part of sura 3, the sura is consoling the community for the losses both of “Muhammad” and, also, a battle. In that part of sura 5, the sura is arguing religious dogma (on the integrity of sura 5 as a unitary document, see Robinson, “Hands Outstretched”). What in this verse is shared between these suras is, in my view, more relevant to a sect which has lost its messenger recently. For that, the closest context in what survives of the literature is that context in sura 3. That means that sura 5 evoked Q. 3:144 as scripture, to allude to Muhammad’s death as equal to Jesus’s (ignoring, for now, that sura 4, like the Christians but in a different way, leaves open the question of Jesus’s death). Admittedly, this is original research on my part – but the point of this exercise is that, when evaluating what a verse means, you have to start by looking to its context(s). The book didn’t do that.
Following on from Muhammad’s presence in sura 3, apparently written right after his death, is that this sura assumed that Muhammad did exist – as the warlord of sura 47. This brings us to chapter #5, on the “embarrassment” of Muhammad. This is the topic to which Spencer devoted his best book to date, “The Truth About Muhammad”.
If Muhammad were a faith-based fiction, then the authors of the fiction should have made him look like the perfect man of that faith. If there is a contradiction, then – so Tertullian and Ehrman teach us – the Dissimilarity Principle takes effect, and we should “believe it because it is [Islamicly] absurd”. Spencer’s “The Truth” has a lot of this – it is basically a reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq’s Sira and/or the ‘Abbasid understanding of Muhammad, critiqued from a Christian standpoint. Indeed, for a Christian (and for a Jew), the Muhammad of the Sira acts contrary to God’s morality. Spencer early in “Did Muhammad Exist?” admits that, before researching this, he thought that Ibn Ishaq was generally accurate.
The chronologically first embarrassment of which Spencer is aware is the account of Zayd and Zaynab. That is noted in John of Damascus. This means it annoyed the Muslims back in Umayyad times. The chapter mainly deals with that account, explaining its origins via the work of Powers. Spencer dismisses its absurdity and, so, dismisses the whole story. The remaining two pages deal with other “embarrassments” from the canonical hadith collections which are, also, not absurd in context.
But it’s not enough. The chapter prior to this one had noted other embarrassments in Ibn Ishaq’s Sira. This is where Muhammad tortured Kinana the Jew of Khaybar (p. 90). As Spencer points out, Islamic apologists nowadays want us to believe that Ibn Ishaq got this account from the Jews. In that chapter, Spencer’s argument was that historians have no way of evaluating this account, because the Jews did not pass that on to anyone else – like to other Jews. But historians do have such a way to evaluate. They have the Dissimilarity Principle. They can see that Muslims today don’t like this story, and that Muslims argue that it’s contrary to Islamic principle today. Historians can also prove that Ibn Ishaq did rely on Jewish sources – as W Arafat noted in 1976 about the siege of the Banu Qurayza. Now, that particular tale of the Banu Qurayza was proven to be a retelling of Masada. But that’s not the point. The point is that Ibn Ishaq transmitted legends of the Jews without (significant) alteration. There might be other accounts in the Sira that are not mere fables. As Masada happened, the outlines of the Kinana story also likely happened. If Muslim skeptics deny Muhammad’s responsibility for the latter, they need to find an alternate suspect.
To address the fundamental question about Muhammad’s existence, we need to go earlier than the canonical Hadith – even than the later Umayyads and John of Damascus. We need to go back to the earlier Umayyads – to the time of Pseudo-Sebeos. The Armenians knew that the Messenger’s name was “Mahmet” and that he was a trader (as sura 25 implies). There exist other traditions in Islam – as Spencer knows via Lammens and Ibn Warraq – that Muhammad was called by an earlier name, “Qutham”. This tradition is absurd in Islam and so we should consider it. Also in the days of Pseudo-Sebeos, the amirs were commanding the believers that trade was a middle-class pursuit, unfit for the warrior and the Arab. Suliman Bashear (“Arabs and Others”) would have enlightened Spencer here. That Qutham started as a trader is absurd in earliest Islam and so we should believe it. Inasmuch as the Christian historian Bar Penkaye noted in 686 AD (bitterly) that the Arabs had been tolerant to Jews for decades, certain of the Jewish stories in the Sira also contradict later-first-century Islam and so are also credible.
In conclusion, the book contains some severely-wounding flaws. I would not, however, use the word “crippling” for those flaws. The discussion of Athanasius’s letter, although broken, was worthwhile in its earlier parts. The book pointed me to some worthwhile articles I had not read before now: like Deroche (p. 236 n. 16) and Donner (233 n. 3). The book’s central argument – that “Did Muhammad Exist?” is a serious question – remains sound. And for the Muslim and for the infidel: they may not be aware of any of this literature, and they need to be aware of it. I recommend this book to them.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

52 Responses to “Guest Post Submission: “Did Muhammad Exist?: A review”
( jump to bottom )

  1. taxfreekiller
    1 | May 21, 2012 11:43 am

    Some fun read over at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    The loon rag “Guardian” of London, loon goof Suzanne Goldenberg,,
    “photo of pali-ambulance hit by NATO” fraud.

    More frud,,”Glick found to hot have faked Heartland e-mail”

    Watts even linked zombie time and lgf’s, the posters at watts up
    say “after that deal Charles Johnson and lgf’s went off the rails into loon left land.

    Good read.

    Me back to getting the wheat out, best dam crop we have hand in years.

    If I get it all in and sold, Ted Cruze is going to get a big boost $.


  2. coldwarrior
    2 | May 21, 2012 11:54 am

    thanks, zimreil!


  3. coldwarrior
    3 | May 21, 2012 11:54 am

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    Me back to getting the wheat out, best dam crop we have hand in years.

    If I get it all in and sold, Ted Cruze is going to get a big boost $.

    good news.


  4. Da_Beerfreak
    4 | May 21, 2012 12:06 pm

    Who says Farmers ain’t Professional Gamblers?? :twisted:


  5. RIX
    5 | May 21, 2012 12:22 pm

    Last Day of NATO meetings & protests by the
    concerned soap & toothpaste boycotting yoots.
    The Clown Pie Posse has not yet been deployed.
    They are the heavy artillary & may launch barages
    today.


  6. 6 | May 21, 2012 12:32 pm

    Another good book o0n this subject In the Shadow of the Sword.

    It comes to the same Conclusion as Robert Spencer. That Islam was invented by the Arabs later on to justify their conquest. The original Arab invaders of the Roman and Persian Empires where just one God worshipers and had some Hybrid Jewish-Christian heretical religion. Then to not be absorbed into the bigger Christian population, they invented Islam to create a separate identity and to make to Arabize their populations.


  7. 7 | May 21, 2012 12:33 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:

    Ted Cruze is going to get a big boost $.

    I hope he wins, we have to send the Elites another message.


  8. 8 | May 21, 2012 12:35 pm

    Zimriel, great post on a terribly interesting topic.


  9. pat
    9 | May 21, 2012 12:42 pm

    The most interesting thing about the book is that it started off as a counter-study to the ‘did Jesus exist?’ of the atheists and the Muslim version of Jesus, which is decidedly anti-Christian. It was only when he got deep into scholarly essays that he realized something was very wrong with core assumptions. There are , after all, more than 200 independent, contemporaneous records of Jesus, an astonishing amount for a Jewish prophet that lived a short life in a rebellious part of Rome, albeit near one of its most important ports.
    There were no contemporaneous accounts of Mohamed. None. Not even in Jewish literature in spite of the Muslim accounts of his peace treaties and war prowess against his foes. Hmmmmm.


  10. 10 | May 21, 2012 12:49 pm

    @ pat:

    See the link in my #6. The Book in the Shadow of the Sword reaches the same conclusion as Robert Spencer.


  11. m
    11 | May 21, 2012 12:49 pm

    LAPD Chief Hosts Quarterly Muslim Forum, Announces Fatwa

    Nearly seven months old but stumbled across this recently.

    Astonishingly, the irony of announcing an Islamic fatwa on their website is completely lost on the LAPD. Especially when the fatwa seems to state that sharia law trumps the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Straight from the official LAPD website. via LAPD Chief Hosts Quarterly Muslim Forum NR11489mjf – official website of THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

    I blame those damn Christians! ///////////


  12. 12 | May 21, 2012 12:51 pm

    @ m:

    The appeasement continues.


  13. RIX
    13 | May 21, 2012 12:53 pm

    Just wondering, if Mohammad is a fictitious character,
    couldn’t they have done better?
    If their goal was to fabricate a perfect human being
    prophet of God, you would think that they could have
    done better than an illiterate, pedophile psycho.


  14. waldensianspirit
    14 | May 21, 2012 12:54 pm

    @ pat:
    Ah! That puts this into perspective for me. Thank you! I wasn’t seeing the significance before


  15. m
    15 | May 21, 2012 12:55 pm

    @ Rodan:

    RAAAAACIST!

    /

    Pakistani Women Writers Denounce Islamic Clerics’ Fatwas Against Women’s Use Of Cell Phones And Access To Secular Education
    Fouzia Saeed: “A Fatwa Was Announced In A Mosque On May 11, Stating That Any Woman Using A Cell Phone Will Have Acid Thrown In Her Face”

    Sweetie pies.


  16. coldwarrior
    16 | May 21, 2012 12:55 pm

    RIX wrote:

    If their goal was to fabricate a perfect human being
    prophet of God, you would think that they could have
    done better than an illiterate, pedophile psycho.

    that is damn near perfection for a muzz male…if you add coward to the mix it is then perfect


  17. m
    17 | May 21, 2012 12:56 pm

    @ RIX:

    No shit.


  18. 18 | May 21, 2012 12:58 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Who says Farmers ain’t Professional Gamblers??

    I’m too stupid to be a farmer; I had to become a geophysicist.

    No, that’s not sarcasm or a joke…


  19. m
    19 | May 21, 2012 12:58 pm

    @ RIX:

    Apparently their standards are pretty low. You would think a prophet would get the word of God right the first time without all the mind changing and abrogations and “this just in” rules that coincided with mo’s personal objectives. But noooooooooooo, not mo.


  20. 20 | May 21, 2012 1:01 pm

    @ m:

    Look who else claims to have Cherokee!

    Maybe he’s your cousin!


  21. m
    21 | May 21, 2012 1:01 pm

    The next time some lefty assholes decries the US as torturers, show them this link:
    Corporal punishment: Accused of theft, seminary boy tortured by his teacher
    An ef’in teacher.


  22. 22 | May 21, 2012 1:02 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    The also got lucky that the East Romans and Persians have just concluded a 25 year war.


  23. coldwarrior
    23 | May 21, 2012 1:04 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    The also got lucky that the East Romans and Persians have just concluded a 25 year war.

    timing is everything, well…location and timing…


  24. RIX
    24 | May 21, 2012 1:05 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    that is damn near perfection for a muzz male…if you add coward to the mix it is then perfect

    Celebrate diversity & send cash!


  25. 25 | May 21, 2012 1:07 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Yup, Had the Arabs arose 20 years earlier or later, the East Romans and Persians would have crushed them.


  26. RIX
    26 | May 21, 2012 1:09 pm

    m wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Apparently their standards are pretty low. You would think a prophet would get the word of God right the first time without all the mind changing and abrogations and “this just in” rules that coincided with mo’s personal objectives. But noooooooooooo, not mo.

    Exactly. If this was a paper submitted in Comparative
    Religions , it would be an F even on a curve.
    All religion is by definition a matter of faith, but
    Islam is perposterous.


  27. m
    27 | May 21, 2012 1:11 pm

    @ Rodan:

    No thanks!!!!!!!


  28. citizen_q
    28 | May 21, 2012 1:11 pm

    RIX wrote:

    you would think that they could have
    done better than an illiterate, pedophile psycho.

    Sadly that is their concept of the perfect person, to be emulated in all ways.

    Explains much.


  29. 29 | May 21, 2012 1:14 pm

    @ RIX:

    Islam is an Arab Hoax. I wish Non Arab Muslims waked up to how they are being used.


  30. 30 | May 21, 2012 1:15 pm

    @ m:

    Racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ///////


  31. RIX
    31 | May 21, 2012 1:17 pm

    @ citizen_q:

    Sadly that is their concept of the perfect person, to be emulated in all ways.

    Explains much

    Whay can’t we get along with them/


  32. pat
    32 | May 21, 2012 1:19 pm

    @ m:
    You would think God would get the word of God right the first time. Unlike Jewish prophets who reported what God told them most of the time, Muslims believe Mohamed was the voice of God. Hence the frothing of the mouth etc. The Koran has two distinct sections, one rather peaceful (for savages), the other extremely bigoted and violent. They clearly are not reconcilable.
    BTW, a footnote to my comment above. The contemporaneous historical accounts of the Buddha and Confucius are abundant and detailed. However not of Zoroaster, who dates from a time when writing was uncommon and may be a compilation of prophets.
    My Religious Studies class, Pomona and Claremont M. College, lol.


  33. RIX
    33 | May 21, 2012 1:21 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Islam is an Arab Hoax. I wish Non Arab Muslims waked up to how they are being used.

    Islam has a very powerful psychological influence.
    It is a fighting faith that teaches hatred , supremacy
    & above all fear.
    Hard to break the chains.


  34. 34 | May 21, 2012 1:22 pm

    @ pat:

    It seems the Koran is a collection of heretical Syriac Christian books. There is a big Gnostic influence. They point out that much of the Koran makes sense in Arabic, but makes more sense in Syriac.


  35. 35 | May 21, 2012 1:22 pm

    @ RIX:

    That’s what Non Arab Muslims have Arab names.


  36. EBL
    36 | May 21, 2012 1:23 pm

    @ RIX:
    You say that as if it was a bad thing?

    In 7th century Arabia, Mohammed would be a respected member of Rotary.


  37. Da_Beerfreak
    37 | May 21, 2012 1:24 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Islam is an Arab Hoax. I wish Non Arab Muslims waked up to how they are being used.
    Islam has a very powerful psychological influence.
    It is a fighting faith that teaches hatred , supremacy
    & above all fear.
    Hard to break the chains.

    It is easier to lie to someone than it is to convince them that they are being lied to. :evil:


  38. 38 | May 21, 2012 1:26 pm

    Sorry guys, the notion that Mohammad was not a real individual requires a willful suspension of disbelief. Nobody, not even illiterate Arabs would invent a douchebag like Mohammad to be a cultural Hero.

    Arab tradition on the other hand is to glorify the most brutal and repressive figures in their society IF that individual managed to carve themselves out an empire. They love winners, and to them a winner is whomever ends up with the most money, power and ability to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

    Did they add to Mohammad’s legend aspects and attributes that Mohammad did not posses, you betcha. Did they deify him, absolutely. Did he really exist as a human being, you can almost be assured that he did. Was he the great Prophet they claim, not a chance. Did Mohammad write the Koran, is their a lemonade stand in hell?

    The real Mohammad was little more than a Caravan thief and murderer who claimed to be a Prophet to avoid being lynched for being a Caravan Thief and murderer.


  39. EBL
    39 | May 21, 2012 1:27 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Just wondering, if Mohammad is a fictitious character,
    couldn’t they have done better?
    If their goal was to fabricate a perfect human being
    prophet of God, you would think that they could have
    done better than an illiterate, pedophile psycho.

    Rix, I was referring to this quote.

    I assume some guy Mohammed lived (and also assumed he embellished and was embellished by others). But I always assumed there were lots of historical proof of his existence. I need to check out this book.


  40. EBL
    40 | May 21, 2012 1:29 pm

    @ doriangrey: I am guessing Mohammed was more than an just an Ali Baba. You have to consider him for his time and where he lived. But flawed? Hell yeah he was flawed. And the lack of historical data suggests his life was grossly exaggerated.


  41. RIX
    41 | May 21, 2012 1:30 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    That’s what Non Arab Muslims have Arab names.

    Look at Obama , Arabic first & middle names.
    Apparently Arabic is the languag most pleasing
    to Allah.
    Pretty damn convenient for Arabs.


  42. citizen_q
    42 | May 21, 2012 1:39 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    Composite profit, like obammy’s composite girlfriend.

    doriangrey wrote:

    The real Mohammad was little more than a Caravan thief and murderer who claimed to be a Prophet to avoid being lynched for being a Caravan Thief and murderer.

    Adding booty, slavery, and polygamy to entice followers.


  43. 43 | May 21, 2012 1:45 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    Well, judging by the fruits of the ‘religion’ itself, it makes perfect sense that they revere a scumbag, fictitious or not.


  44. 44 | May 21, 2012 1:47 pm

    I can’t say much now bc I’m @ work. But thanks for posting this, coldwarrior. And I’m glad that the commenters here bore with it.


  45. 45 | May 21, 2012 1:47 pm

    Here’s a video of Spencer in Los Angeles last week talking about his book.


  46. citizen_q
    46 | May 21, 2012 1:49 pm

    @ Zimriel:
    Great post. Thank you.


  47. m
    47 | May 21, 2012 1:59 pm

    @ Urban Infidel:

    Thank ya!

    @ Zimriel:

    Yep good post! I was just talking to someone that read this book. I’ll definitely give it a read myself.


  48. 48 | May 21, 2012 2:02 pm

    @ Urban Infidel:

    By their fruits you shall know them. The fruit of Islam is vile, any way you cut it.


  49. 49 | May 21, 2012 2:07 pm

    @ EBL:

    Maybe he would be Jazz Musician turned Blogger!


  50. 50 | May 21, 2012 2:09 pm

    @ Zimriel:

    Check out In the Shadow of the Sword.


  51. 51 | May 21, 2012 2:09 pm

    New Thread.


  52. yenta-fada
    52 | May 22, 2012 12:10 am

    Zimriel wrote:

    I can’t say much now bc I’m @ work. But thanks for posting this, coldwarrior. And I’m glad that the commenters here bore with it.

    Thanks for that careful and interesting post. I wonder who came up with the masterful idea that your religion requires you to LIE to protect itself. Why would any infidel believe anything written in the koran? There is no trust or honesty built into that belief system. Paranoia is foundational.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David