Search This Blog

Monday, November 26, 2018

"We Are All People of the Book" - The Biggest Lie Ever Told

This is the biggest lie ever told.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are not all "people of the book" as Islam and multiculturalists want us to think. The ancient meaning of "people of the book", which Muhammad stole and placed in his Quran to twist the truth, only referred to Christians and Jews. The term was never used in reference to Muhammad, Islam or even religion since it originated long before Muhammad was born.

If we think about "people of the book" in reference to texts used in each religion, the term is negated since all three religions use and believe in a different book - OT for Jews, NT for Christians, Quran for Muslims. The truth is that in his Quran Muhammad planted an ancient term in use among the Arabs of his day which over later centuries, especially the past 100 years of Islamic influence bearing down upon mankind, morphed into the erroneous belief that all three religions have the same transcendent source, the same God, and the same line of prophets with Muhammad being the best and last of them all. 

However the unspoken message when agreeing that we are all "People of the Book" is: "and Muhammad is our prophet because Islam is the one true faith." Why does modern man rely on political correctness for their world view, social media for their opinions, and biased leftist academic books for their history? When utilizing those devices, the truth is never discovered. It lies untouched in the dusty realm of yesteryear while revisionist "history" is deviously fabricated.

The TRUTH about the term "people of the book" is this - and here I reference Humphrey Prideaux's The History of Mohamet from the year 1680 which was several hundred years closer to actual events in an era before the madness of political correctness, globalization and migration existed. Prideaux tells us where and how the term "people of the book" originated. He says (pp 29-30, 202): 

Another vile lie vomited up 
from the depths of hell.

"Mohamet was in truth what they say - an illiterate barbarian who could neither write nor read. But this was not so much a defect in him as in the tribe of which he was, with whom it was the custom as to all manner of literature, to continue in the same ignorance with which they came out of their mother's womb unto their lives' end.

therefore at the time when Mohamet first set himself up for a prophet, there was not any one man in Mecca that could either write or read excepting only Warakah, a kinsman of Cadiga's, who, having first turned Jew and afterwards a Christian, had learned to write Arabic in Hebrew letters. And for this reason the men of Mecca were called illiterate in the opposition of the people of Medina, who being the one half Christian and the other half Jew, were able both to write and read and therefore were called PEOPLE OF THE BOOK." (LITERATE!)

So we see that in the year 610 AD the ancient term "people of the book" merely meant Christians and Jews who could read and write. The term had nothing to do with Muhammad, the Quran or Islam since it had existed centuries before solely as a definition of literate Christians and Jews. 

Prideaux again refers to the subject of literate Christians and Jews vs illiterate Arabs on p 202. Referring to how Muhammad, posturing as a prophet, gained adherents to his religion Prideaux says: "Mohamet made choice of a people (the Arabs) first to propagate his imposture among who were of all men most fitted to receive it - and that on two accounts: 1) Because of the indifference which they were grown to as to any religion at all, and, 2) Because of the great ignorance they were in of all manner of learning at that time, when Mohamet first invented his forgeries among them, there being then but only one man among all the inhabitants of Mecca that could either write or read. For who are more fit to be imposed on than the ignorant? And who can be more easy to receive a new religion than those who are not prepossessed with any other to prejudice them against it?

Of course Prideaux, being anti-Catholic, accuses the "Papist religion" of the same method. Nevertheless I choose to believe him rather than our current equally anti-Catholic globalist multicultural pope, cardinals and bishops. I believe Prideaux because he looks at Muhammad as an impostor while the current hierarchy looks at Muhammad as a prophet of the one true God, which is impossible. Therefore I choose to believe the anti-Catholic without a pro-Catholic bias vs the anti-Catholic hierarchy blinded by political correctness, globalism and multiculturalism because ultimately Prideaux was FOR Our Lord while the current hierarchy seems AGAINST Him.

No it isn't.
No he didn't.
It will never happen.
Don't even start with me.


  1. Something I have sensed lately and greatly fear is the appearance of a "rush to change the world" like we saw in 1917 when Lenin decided not to wait for the "inevitability" of the coming of a socialist world, and when Hitler worked to eliminate Christianity through a "new concept" spelled out in Alfred Rosenberg's book, The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Hitler's plan was timed to occur on a schedule and as time ran out he worked more feverishly to make it happen. He failed, but we should never allow ourselves to even think the devil gave up on the plan.

    People who push global warming are also "running out of time" to convince the world before we catch on to the lie and start laughing in their face. People who want one world government---the UN are now saying they want this to occur in the next 12 years, which is a RUSH to have something happen most people don't want. And I believe along with this mixture comes the "Coexist" effort to blend to extinction all elements of Truth as professed by Catholics.

    Your articles, Susan, are vital for us to understand the evil behind this political ideology which cannot be called religion.

  2. CATHOLIC Christians are not "People of the Book". Many Protestant proclaim themselves as "People of the Book" and also proclaim that they are "Bible Alone" Christians.

    Catholics are not restricted to ONLY what was written down. We follow what Christ taught, spoken (Tradition) and later when it was written down. The Catholic Church is several decades OLDER than the first NT writings.

  3. We are "people of the book" plus sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the apostolic magisterium. If a Protestant asked me if Catholics are "people of the book" I would answer, yes -- and more! I don't think Susan is saying that we are ONLY people of the book like those who profess "sola scriptura" which is nowhere testified to in the Bible. How blessed we are to be Catholic even in these difficult times.

  4. JFK -

    I was not talking about today in the 21st century. I was talking about 1400 years ago in the year 610 AD, almost a thousand years before there were ever even any protestants. I was also not talking about the Catholic Church per se. I was not talking about religion at all in reference to the ORIGINAL MEANING of "people of the book".

    It was not about the Bible or the Torah. It was about being literate in general. Bookish. The ancient Arabic tribes were ignorant, that is, they were not able to read or write. THEY called the Christians and Jews PEOPLE OF THE BOOK ...get it? Book? A book. As in being able to read one and to also write one. Read a BOOK. Write/author a BOOK....therefore "people of the BOOK". Nothing at all to do with religion or the Catholic Church in those ancient days.

    "People of the book" was a secular description/name given by illiterate ignorant non reading and writing Arabs when describing Christians and Jews who were ...well..."bookish". Intelligent. Not ignorant. Literate. As in an Arab saying, "I rode my camel to Medina last week and there were a lot of those People of the Book living there" (meaning a lot of Christians and Jews).

    All of a sudden we hear that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all "People of the Book" - the multicultural meaning - very different from the original meaning from 1400 years ago - being that we all believe in the same God and basically have the same religion, which is absolutely not true. The original true meaning has been changed to mean something that is a lie.

  5. I had always understood the term "People of the Book" to refer to those whose lineage or spiritual heritage was descended from Abraham, who is revered not only by Jews and Christians ("Sons of Isaac"), but Mohammedans ("Sons of Ishmael") as well. Of course, I could be wrong.

  6. Yes, I had understood that too, but isn't it telling that in a 350 year old book (now in the library at Yale or somewhere) the author describes the original meaning as something different believed by the Arabs BEFORE the impostor Muhammad thought up his religion; it then quickly morphed into a religious description with the onset of Muhammad's religion.

    Do not look at the term "people of the book" as originating from a culture of educated people. The ancient pre-Islamic tribes of the desert were ignorant and illiterate. Not able to read or write.

    There is a difference between body and soul, between physical and spiritual. The Christians and Jews WERE/ARE the SPIRITUAL sons and daughters of Abraham. Not so with Islam. The PHYSICAL descendants of Ishmael are indeed the Arabs, who for centuries SPIRITUALLY worshiped idols, the moon god Allah among them. Muhammad merely made Allah their main object of worship along with the black stone in the Kabba at Mecca, which had been worshiped by the Arab pagans for centuries. The practice of circling around the Kabba continued after Muhammad and still continues to this day as the Haj - a once in a lifetime requirement of Islam to travel to Mecca, circle around and kiss the stone. (If one wants to get a good glimpse into Islam read Leon Uris' THE HAJ.)

    Quranic prophets are the biblical prophets inversed to serve Muhammad and his religion, which, if there was anything supernatural in its foundation, was demonic...."the demonic seeds of Islam" (Joel Richardson in his book ISLAMIC ANTICHRIST).

    Therefore Islam is not a SPIRITUAL heritage of Abraham...for when Ishmael was still living in Abraham's house he would have worshiped as Abraham did and have been a Hebrew. After Ishmael and Hagar (from Egypt where idols were worshiped) were sent away Ishmael also wandered far from Abraham's SPIRITUAL faith. Some stories say he ended up in Mecca.

    Muhammad is NOT a SPIRITUAL prophet of the one true God. If God has prophets, why not Satan? Satan became his own prophet when he rebelled against God, did he not, so why not found his own religion and appoint Muhammad as his SPIRITUAL satanic prophet? Muslims believe that Christ was an early Muslim and will return at the end of time as a jihad warrior to kill all Christians and Jews. Does that sound like a faith SPIRITUALLY inherited from Abraham?

    The devil is the father of lies and has fooled billions of people over the centuries into believing that Islam originated from the one true God...which is theoretically and realistically IMPOSSIBLE.