Search This Blog

Monday, May 3, 2021

"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 ever 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 and OT for Christians, Quran for Muslims. The truth is that in his Quran Muhammad planted an ancient term already 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 past centuries 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 current 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 and 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 (Muhammad's first wife), 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." ...Which means, of course, that the Christians and Jews were 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, in matters concerning Muhammad, 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 true 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.