Monday, March 27, 2017

Bookmark and Share

St. Thomas Aquinas on the ignorance of Muhammadism & Muhammadans

Islamophilia is a mental disease.

by Ferdinand III

The Middle Ages were not ‘dark’.  Today’s culture is rather dark indeed with the various cults people belong to.  Panspermia; Dark Matter; Pregnant Black Holes; Globaloneywarming; Plant-food-is-evil; ‘Science’ [fiction]; Islam is Peace; Open Borders; Historical Revisionism; Abortion….the list is quite endless.  Regarding the hysterical modern cult of ‘Islam is Peace’ the philosophers of the Middle Ages [called ‘scientists’ today]; were under no illusions about Muhammadism, which is what Islam or Submission needs to be called.  Muhammadism is the cult of Muhammad and a cult it is.

One Middle Age scientist [or philosopher] was St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the brightest men that Western Civilisation has developed.  Living in the 13th century, and through the last phases of the Crusades, Acquinas offered a biting critique of Islam based in large part on the questionable character and methods of its founder, Mohammed.

Aquinas and indeed anyone who has bothered to study Muhammadism, will know that this cult appealed to ignorant, brutish, carnal men and it was spread not by the power of its arguments or divine grace but only by blood and the power of the sword.  Muhammadism, like Nazism or Communism, is a coercive cult; one that must propitiate the Baal idol [or Al Lah, the Lord of Mecca], with blood offerings.  This propitiation with blood to appease the moon deity long precedes Muhammadism of course and was a central pillar of the Baal cults of the Near East, of which the Meccan was just one.  Muhammad’s family were of course the caretakers of the Baal or Al Lah shrine.

Aquinas knew this.  Being a keen observer of the human condition, he was also familiar with the chief works of the Muslim philosophers of his day including Avicenna, Algazel, and Averroes–and engaged them in his writings.  He found them wanting.  Unlike the claims by the modern cult of Islamophilia, Moslem ‘science’ produced very little.  Most ‘inventions’ ascribed to Moslems were converts or those living in Moslem domains.  Most of the creations pre-date Moslem conquests.  Acquinas knew this and was able to quite easily dissect Muhammadism both theologically and practically.

In his voluminous Summa contra gentiles, or Summary against non Christians, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the genius argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Muhammadism.  Looking at the poverty of Muhammad’s cult, this claim is not difficult to make. 

Aquinas for example contrasted the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.  Muhammadism appealed to the deranged, venal, lying, bloody, material, violent and sexual.  Christianity to their opposites.

Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”

Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.

“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”

Because of the weakness of Muhammadism’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”

Muhammadism’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.

“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”

According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Muhammadism, “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”

In his Summa contra gentiles, Aquinas ends his argument by stating the obvious that Muhammed, had to keep his followers ignorant in order for them to remain faithful. It was, Aquinas wrote, “a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.”

“It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly,” he wrote.

Aquinas is of course correct.  Muhammad himself was largely ignorant, a war lord, a man who had 24 sex slaves and wives, who had sex with a 9-year-old, who murdered started wars and brutalized populations.  For clever people, this makes him a ‘prophet’ of peace.