You have not viewed any products recently.
The intention of Charlie Hebdo’s surviving editors in publishing another provocative front-page cartoon a week after the attack, this time of a teary Muhammad holding a Je suis Charlie placard under the words Tout est pardonné (“All Is Forgiven”), is obscure and unimportant. One thing is clear, however: the historical Muhammad would never shed tears over M. Charb et al. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam was infuriated by humor and satire and personally ordered several impertinent offenders to be murdered.
The victory at Badr (March 13, 624) was one of the decisive moments in Muhammad’s life. The simple preacher of Mecca turned into a vengeful warlord who jubilantly exclaimed that the spectacle of slain enemies pleased him better than “the choicest camel in Arabia.” As he scrutinized prisoners, his eye fell fiercely on one al-Nadr, the narrator whom he had never forgiven the ability to captivate the Meccan audiences with more entertaining tales than his own. On many occasions, as Muhammad was delineating the life of the patriarchs and prophets and giving examples of divine retribution that had fallen on impious nations, al-Nadr would speak after him. He would relate the marvelous exploits of the Persian heroes Rustam and Isfendiar, and finally ask his enchanted audience: “Are the stories of Muhammad more beautiful than mine? He is spouting ancient legends that he has gathered from the mouths of men more learned than he.” The audience would applaud al-Nadr and laugh at Muhammad.
On the day after Badr, it was time for Muhammad to settle the score. Realizing that his fate was sealed, al-Nadr bitterly complained that had the Quraysh taken Muslims prisoner, they would never have killed them. “Even were it so,” Muhammad scornfully replied, “I am not as thou and Islam hath rent all bounds asunder.” Al-Nadr was beheaded by Ali.
Muhammad returned to Medina in triumph and proceeded to settle scores with his detractors there. An atmosphere of fear descended on the city; informers passed all disrespectful or merely careless remarks to the prophet. His first victim was Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who mocked in verse Muhammad and his preaching. In one poem, she urged her fellow-tribesmen not to obey a stranger who did not belong among them. Anticipating Henry II’s outburst, Muhammad exclaimed, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers by the name of Umayr duly did, that same night, stabbing her as she nursed her youngest child. After she was murdered, Muhammad praised the killer and assured him that “two goats won’t butt their head about her.” This presumably excluded her children and her family, but the following day they all converted to Islam.
The prophet of Islam took a dim view of poets generally. Allah obligingly conveyed that poets are inspired by Satan and have gone astray (Kuran 26:224). They are possessed (37:35-36) and no better than soothsayers (52:29). This was an obsession with Muhammad. He never mastered the complicated canon of Arab poetry; that he could not respond to his eloquent detractors in kind must have pained him greatly, since it had to be explained away by none other than Allah: “We have not taught versification to our prophet” (36:68-69). Muhammad had other means at his disposal, however, and that was the undoing not only of Asma but also of one Abu Afak, supposedly over a hundred years old, who protested previous murders by the Muslims. Abu Afak also mocked Muhammad in verse, and especially his desire to control people’s lives: “Saying ‘Permitted,’ ‘Forbidden,’ of all sorts of things.” The apostle simply commented, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” One of his “weepers” did. That a person of so advanced an age should be murdered for a verbal slight would have been inconceivable to the pre-Islamic Arab custom.
(Music did not fare any better with Muhammad than poetry. That mainstream Islam has no music, and that there is no singing at the mosque may be related to Muhammad’s view that “None raised up his voice with a song but Allah sent him two devils upon his shoulders who beat his chest with their heels till he stopped.” He once heard the sound of a flute and put his fingers into his ears and turned to go another way.)
Another doomed poet was Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, a Jew who made up some unsavory humorous verses about Muslim women. That was his undoing, with the prophet simply saying, “O Lord, rid me of the son of Ashfar, however You wish.” Muhammad approved of subterfuge in arranging this murder, and the assassins achieved their goal by pretending to be friendly to the victim until they got him away from his family and out of his house. The contemporary Islamic justification of the murder, directed at the non-Muslim, English-speaking audience, sounds omenous: “Ka’b had become a real danger to the state of peace and mutual trust which the Prophet was struggling to achieve in Madinah. He was dangerous and a public enemy to the nascent Muslim state. The Prophet was quite exasperated with him . . . This was all part of the great process which helped to make Islam spread and establish it on foundations of justice and piety.” Ka’b’s severed head was built into those foundations.
Non, Muhammad n’est pas Charlie, et il ne pardonne rien.
Wonderful post. In refusing to see the truth, the ideologues at Charlie Hebdo, and indeed any bien pensant however "moderate" he may posture himself, show themselves to be as dogmatic as any rabid fundamentalist. Were that not the case, they would not hesitate to admit the truth about the religion in question.
Another excellent post from Dr. Trifkovic. I really am grateful for Dr. T's investigations into the true origins and nature of Islam. Muhammed was undoubtedly a 'great' man, but only in the same bloodthirsty, history-determining way as Genghis Khan, Hitler and Mao. He was no holy man, quite apart from his metaphysical nonsense. But what are we to do about the cancerous fifth-column of Islam in the West? Exposing the falsehoods of the Umma does nothing to excise it. When our elites pretend to oppose its spread, what they are really fighting for is their globalist New World Order, with themselves at the top (even if their NWO is an edifice built on ideological sand, as opposed to the strong concrete and steel of genetics and shared history that are the foundations of real and enduring nations). Let us be clear about what we true Western patriots fight for: 1) the biological survival (purity and perpetuity) of the white race; 2) the restoration of Christian + conservative civilization within the West; and 3) the values of "conservative modernity": liberty, property, capitalism, scientific inquiry, free political speech, limited and impartial government, public order and safe streets, secure borders, traditional education, and military strength. And applying these principles to the problem of "Europe's Muslims"? We want them repatriated or expatriated to their ancestral lands. We want them sent back to the Dar-al-Islam, without exceptions. What the Muslims want is to conquer Europe through peaceful demographic incursion. War is coming to Europe once more. This one will be much more widespread, though perhaps less destructive and shorter, than the last one. I hope Europeans are planning for this eventuality, though I fear the ideology of la dolce vita is still too strong. What does THAT say about man's ability to sustain civilization?
Dr. Trifkovic thank you for this timely and informative article, I always enjoy your commentary. I have always wondered how Muhammad ( who was an illiterate man) and his followers who were nothing more than glorified marauders. Managed to defeat more professional and sophisticated armies, such as the Sassanid Persians and the Byzantine Greeks. Although the Byzantines scored victories and managed to keep them a bay for a while, before Constantinople was conquered. It always amazed at how fast the Islamic conquest was achieved. What made this possible? My only hope is that it does not repeat itself and the West returns to its true cultural identity with the Christian faith at its center.
Jim: Persians and Byzantines utterly exhausted each other through constant warfare. Early probing raids into the borderlands of Byzantium and Persia under Umar, the second caliph (634–644), showed how weakened both had been by their mutual struggle. The Byzantines suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Yarmuk in A.D. 636, Jerusalem was taken in 638, the Persians were defeated at Nihavand in 641, and the conquest of northern Egypt was completed in 640–641. Within a decade, in addition to the entire Arabia, the Western Sassanian lands and the Byzantine provinces of Syria and Egypt had fallen to the Arabs; the rest of Persia soon followed. Persia succumbing to Islam was especially significant as it possessed a mature culture.
The conquerors’ energy and fighting skills were aided by the presence of former mercenaries from both sides who coached the Arabs in the science of battlefield tactics and military technology. The core of the invading army was imbued with a spirit of irresistible zeal bred by the many easy victories. In 766, a Christian clergyman writing in Syriac spoke of the “locust swarm” of unconverted barbarians—Sindhis, Alans, Khazars, and others—who served in the caliph’s army.
Dr. Trifkovic, thank you for yet another fascinating article. What is your opinion of the scholar Bat Ye'or (or Yeor)? Is the above the sort of history she can (and does) discuss? Thank you.
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.