I have to admit, there are times when your Savant has to just sit back a shake his head in disbelief. Brian Maye, who is an experienced journalist with the Irish Times, provided a review of Karen Armstrong’s Mohammed: A Prophet for Our Time, which he describes as ‘this lucid and balanced biography’. He goes on to say that Mohammed’s life was ‘a struggle against greed, injustice and arrogance’. Whew!
Armstrong is a former Catholic nun (full disclosure: I'm deeply suspicious of nuns, having been taught by the bitches) who has emerged as a so-called expert on Islam, and an apologist for same. But this so-called expert doesn’t even know that the Koran isn’t written in chronologic order (every schoolboy knows that) and compares Mohammed to Gandhi. To Gandhi!!!. She then contradicts this by explaining "no radical social and political change has ever been achieved without bloodshed, and, because Muhammad was living in a period of confusion and disintegration, peace could be achieved only by the sword"
So which is it, Karen?
But to go back to my amazement – how can a Western-educated woman come out with this drivel? How can Brian Maye unquestionably parrot it? (Although come to think of it, he did complain some time ago that Eoin O’Duff’y's grave wasn’t being afforded due respect. That's the O’Duffy who was Ireland’s Mussolini wannabe). Has anybody an explanation for this? Don’t they realise that the likes of them would be first to the chopping block in the event of an Islamic takeover?
For the record, the ‘Prophet’ was, and I'm basing this directly from the ‘sacred’ texts:
= A mass-murderer
= A pirate
= A highway robber
= A pedophile
= A self-confessed liar
= Proud owner of at least 14 wives, one of them his daughter-in-law