Who’s the impostor? Notes on “Mohammedis imposturæ”

hopronolod

Newbie
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
3
Curiosity landed me few weeks ago on a provocative; or rather controversial book titled “Mohammedis imposturæ” by William Bedwell, published in London on 1615, which means Mohammed the imposter.

Most don’t usually mind, maybe even appreciate objective comparative studies, but this is not the case.

In an era when the Pope ordered a translation of Koran into Latin, the main purpose back then was the “confutation of that book” as Bedwell expressed.

Although that first translation of Koran was far from objective and lacks integrity, which nowadays are prerequisites for any translation/interpreting tasks. This is beside the point, since Bedwell, didn’t translate the book from Arabic, as he attempts to lead the reader to believe, and was nothing but a fictional monologue he wrote giving parts to presumably two Saracens (What they used to call Arabs back then, which in Arabic means: Thieves). The fictional 3 dialogues, labelled as Spiritual Conferences (which “puts the text firmly in the tradition of learned dialogues –almost Socratic in their method– stretching back to Thomas More’s Utopia, or Christopher St. German’s Doctor and Student” Said: Dr Derek Dunne of the Trinity College Dublin) lack the genius of Yousef Zeidan in his Azazel, a novel so well written that he fooled a well-known cleric of Alexandria church who waged “war” on the author thinking that he actually translated Hypa’s memoires instead of being a creative masterpiece by Zeidan, as the latter publicly stated.

Bedwell’s piece however is a poorly written fiction, with two Muslim Scholars (Sheikh Sinan and Doctor Ahmed) who have a remarkably good knowledge and deep belief of Nicene creed; both of them great in subtle indirect-quotes from the Bible, while having a very modest, if not ridiculous knowledge of Arabic and can’t even give a proper direct quote from the Koran. Being a Sheikh in the middle ages, not only should he know the Koran by heart, but a master in Muslim creed he should be.

G. J. Toomer on this matter says: "Bedwell’s own attainments in Arabic were modest".

Making a solid argument that this book was never written by a Muslim, yet written by a devout Christian, most possibly Bedwell himself, wont be a hard task. Whatever I manged to write on this note, is nothing but a collection of remarks that crossed my mind and I’ve written down while reading this strange composition. Experts might definitely have more room for comments and far better arguments.

Ideology - Nicene Creed
Nonetheless, the two totally unidentified scholars, wants all Muslims of the world, to give up their faith for speculations and doubts raised by “duo Nicene-like council”, and decide what Muslims ought to believe, which appears to be exactly a Nicene Creed. At least Nicene council was decent enough to be triggered by known clerics.

The Nicene Creed states “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father… God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made” as well as Jesus coming “to judge the quick and the dead.” Not only has the Sheikh believed profoundly in this, and used it almost word by word, he managed to make his student “confess” the same without much convincing, and archived in matter of seconds what Christians in the 4th century went through the worst to establish and agree upon.

With pre-conference convictions that Koran is a hoax and Mohammed is an imposter, both scholars decide to go and perform Hajj for what reason? And still identify themselves as Muslims, while the first conference starts by Ahmed calling the sheikh: “my worthy and most reverend Father” which puts the whole conference in an unjustified Christian tone before it even starts.

The writer (Bedwell or another Christian, doesn’t really matter) is so devout to the Nicene Creed that it keeps manifesting throughout the dialogue, with two actors assuming roles of 2 Muslim scholars and have nothing to show for, in terms of ideology, analogy or even phraseology; except for having Muslim names (only first names, no full names, made to sound like the pope: Pope Francis for example), who just concluded pilgrimage at Mount Kabis in Mecca instead of Mount Arafa where Haj should, as if having a Muslim first name and mentioning a random Meccan Mountain (the wrong one actually) are enough to prove their religion. Sheikh Ahmed you say? No Muslim would settle for that. Being inquisitive: who is he? Where is he from? Who were his teachers? What school of faith does he represent? After providing satisfying answers for all that to your Muslim interrogator, he might go, nay! I trust no one but my neighbourhood Sheikh! This is while the subject is “what’s the best time to pray Fajr”, which is not even a “faith matter”. Scrutiny goes way harsher when you reach the creed department.

Muslim creed takes shape in a non-convention based consensus, then goes through a very mythological process, from a meticulously vetted lineage based knowledge, to fact checking every bit against Koran and Sunnah as well. Muslims nations, where society embed elements of creed not only in toddlers minds, but it also manifests through daily life conversations and even the way of greeting.

A Muslim is more inclined to embrace Nestor and Arius beliefs, closer to his religion than the Nicene that emerged to denounce their “heresy” of them both. Muslims share with Nestor and Arius the belief in Christotokos instead of Theotokos. Jesus as a chosen one instead of being the one true god, and being created vs. creator.

Making long arguments in favour of Nicene Creed that most ordinary Christians lack the skill to make, while failing miserably to defend the prophet Mohammed not to mention the Koran is beyond conceivable for a Muslim.

Furthermore, unlike the Nicene Council, anathemas start right from the title covering Mohammed, his cursed Koran, Muslims, Jews (for not having priests and giving hard time to Jesus), and even Jinn who -according to this book- never had a chance of salvation “Therefore they alwaies remaine in their wickednesse and perdition, and so for euer shall be accursed, and estranged from the mercy of God, and shall for euer remaine as euer they haue beene and now are, in Gehenna.” Why Gehenna and not Jahannam? Gehenna, the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, located somewhere near Jerusalem “He passed his sons through the fire in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom and practiced divination, omen reading, and sorcery. He set up a ritual pit to conjure up underworld spirits and appointed magicians to supervise it. He did a great amount of evil in the sight of the Lord and angered him.” 2 Chronicles 33:6. While in Koran, there is a whole Surah called Jinn, clearly stating they are just like humans: able to chose the right path. In Muslim culture, Jinn aren’t all evil, and in Arabic literature Jinn might be even your friends, you see characters such as your beloved Aladdin’s Genie: whom in Arabic is nothing but a Jinn creature. Entirely different mindsets!

This and other Christian beliefs are subtly integrated throughout the dialogues. All of which weren’t proved or even preached by one of the 2 scholars during the conference, which make them rather pre-conference beliefs, appearing as if they were Islamic based.

Puritan beliefs:
While I was reading Bedwell’s piece, I came across the New England Primer, intended for children of the new world, appearing first in 1681.
The primer promotes Puritan and Calvinist beliefs, which highlights predestination and election.

Strange enough, the very first rhyme (under letter A) in the book says: “A: In Adam’s fall. We sinned all”. I admit that the primer is far more traumatizing than Bedwell’s book, being illustrated with very graphic gothic-like drawings that was meant for your regular 5 year old’s first book of English, which might induced chain of nightmares for them poor little souls.

In Bedwell’s, Adam’s fall is mentioned by who? By Ahmed, who never read the Bible. In Islamic texts we find Adam’s descending from Heaven and being pardoned by God, no trace of sin carried forward by Adam, let alone to generations to come, for centuries, who are all predestined for damnation before Jesus, who was only sent for the lost sheep of Israel. (Mathew 15:24).

Throughout the text, the dialogues, the piece, whatever we may call it, predestination doesn’t spare plants (described as good for nothing and evil), Jinn (all of them evil, always been and will be in hell), and the Jews and the Muslims, surprisingly only Christians are saved! This is said supposedly by 2 Muslim scholars if you can believe that!

According to Bedwell’s made up scholars: The Jews, were destined for perdition in Moses time for a sin that their grandchildren will commit eventually against Jesus! No Muslim will believe as such, for no one is ought to bear another man’s sins, not from his ancestors all the way to Adam, and especially not from his great grandchildren. “That the Iewes were afflicted of God, and were dispersed, as it doth appeare plainely, 1000 yeares ago and more; and that they are without a Temple, without sacrifice, and without a Priest, for this sin of apostasie onely, which they did do against Christ, which was the Word of the euerlasting God, and his eternall Sonne”. Says Bedwell, of course. No Muslim said that, and definelty didn’t say the part where God has an eternal son.


Phraseology
Spiritual conference, Virgin Mary, enlightenment, confessions, service of God, salvation, Adam’s fall, Holy fathers, Holy Gospel, true religion (orthodox), and even holy life; and to top all that: free remission! Aye sir! To understand a dialogue which happened between two Muslims, you need a Christian dictionary! Sort of speak.

Was “free remission” made up after the creation of indulgence contributions that grants a person a time off from Purgatory? There was never a need for a Muslim to link God’s remission to it being free of charge. Strange enough, indulgence contributions first appeared few decades only before Bedwell’s birth. Not possible to be mentioned in a book by Muslims supposedly “was first written, as the Author himselfe seemeth to intimate, about 600 years since”, as Bedwell said. Not even nowadays where freebees are part of the culture would a Muslim say: I pray for free remission or forgiveness or such.

Some contradictions:

· Did/Didn’t read the Gospel: Ahmed says: “I did neuer reade the Gospell, neither did it euer seeme good vnto me to take that labor in hand” then later on says: “Moreouer in the Gospell wee reade, that Iohn the sonne of Zachary, and Iohn one of the disciples of Christ, were virgins”, from not having read the Gospel ever to becoming an expert, it didn’t take him hours, fabulous skills I would say. Ahmed cites the Bible almost word by word in different occasions such as God saying to Adam, “This is flesh of thy flesh” Genesis 2:23, and that “garments were at first given of God to Adam & Eve” - Genesis 3:21, to name a few; all accounts of which are biblical and mentioned differently in Koran.


· Parables good/bad: Ahmed who abhors the use of parables in Koran, doesn’t mind the Gospel using them, or using them himself, he goes fully allegorical that the Sheick doesn’t get him straight away: “our vnderstanding is like vnto a field or stony ground, which when it is well tilled, doth thrust out & bring forth fine flowers and pleasant fruites: but whē it lieth waste, there groweth in that land & field nought but weeds, bushes, and euill plants, good for nothing”. Afterwards he goes: “As it is said, we do leaue the white bread, & that which is most pleasing: & we do eat brown bread which is no way so pleasing in tast, nor so good for the body. And this difference there is betwene words of verity and truth, and falshood”. Nowadays, making the argument of white bread being healthier than the brown would not be easy.

Parables use was and still an integral part of Arab culture, which makes settling for plain conversations or reads: western and tasteless (no offence). Just to say Arabs love parables, they don’t abhor them, if not thanks to their own neighbourhood’s Hatawati, then their grandmas: masters of storytelling.

· Bible translated/not: for the author to establish the global aspect of the Gospel, he claimed that God (meaning: Jesus, as if a Muslim would call him that) gave a miracle to his apostles and even his disciples and preachers, he gave them all the miracle of “knowledge of all tongues… and the Gospell was written in all languages”. Nevertheless, he bemoans constantly that the Bible was never translated into Arabic, and that it was a shortcoming of Muslims. I come short to understand that! Did the miracle include all languages except Arabic? Maybe the apostles volunteered to translate and preach the Bible to all languages and nations of the world except their neighbours’ (if not distant cousins) language?


Anyhow, these two scholars (one of which denies he ever read the Gospel) are both experts in Latin (or any other language for that matter) to the extent of being able to comprehend, and furthermore argue using biblical analogy.


The claim that the Bible was translated to all languages (before Bedwell’s time) is untrue. While, it was translated in early centuries to Arabic as historians confirm. English language was not even conceived at that time (English was developed around the 5th century AD), and Rome even prohibited the translation of the Bible from Latin. History tells that the 1st English translation of the Bible wasn’t done until 1380 by John Wycliffe, an act so forbidden that Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and his ashes cast into River Swift, as a revenge. Sadly, Wycliffe was not the only one loathed or oppressed for translating the Bible.

Was the Bible translated into Latin in Jesus, or even his apostles time? Of course not. The Vulgate Bible, was the first full Latin version done by 405 AD, centuries after Jesus. This deep obsession over translation and languages; being forcibly shoved into the dialogues repeatedly, reflects Bedwell’s own fascination with languages.

To conclude, in Matthew 15:24, Jesus said: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.", while Mohammed’s messengers were sent to different kingdoms in his life, and Islam spread “ecumenically” within decades, regardless all the Koranic verses on Islam being universal, even more: a message to the universes, for them all human and jinn alike.


How did I come across Matthew 15:24? A week ago on Oxford St, I saw a bus stopping by, displaying an ad by quotejesus.com, saying: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." And I told myself: aha! Jesus was sent for the Jews only! And Bedwell’s tries to make the reader believe otherwise (the Bible is universal and Koran isn’t, Koran is not even for Muslims themselves as he boldly claims).

Well, most likely Christians already have an answer for that, on why Jesus is not only for Jews, which Jews don’t even want or recognize. The Christians might answer that, and furthermore suggest that I know absolutely nothing about the Bible, and I wont challenge that.

That’s precisely what I felt while reading Bedwell’s alleged conference, between two Saracen Doctors who undeniably know nothing at all about Koran, that came across some Koranic verses badly translated into an odd tongue with ill intent; and said: Aha!

To make this interesting enough, I might dare and claim that Bedwell never read the Koran in Arabic, because the dismembered verses suggest that he read the first Koran in Latin, titled: “Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete” by Robert of Ketton, with the title meaning: Law of Muhammad the pseudo-prophet, or Law of Mohammed the imposter! Lack of creativity Bedwell: your book is titled the same. The ant laughed at Solomon, Bedwell’s Sheikh quotes the Koran? If he read Koran in Arabic then it’s clearly Solomon was the one who laughed at her/it.
To be continued...​
 

Attachments

Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
What a conveinant message to bring to the forum at this point in time, and you are from the UK as well? How conveinant. So the man who wrote this book about Muhammad being an imposter didn't research the subject thouroughly enough about 400 years ago. Why does something like this even matter anymore?

And, the Puritans were teaching the alphabet and made Biblical connections that were derived from the understanding that they had at the time as people who experienced a good deal of poverty and hardship. Puritans were not wealthy people. Most every family probably had at least one family member die before reaching adulthood. It was a harsh life and this probably contributed to their zealousness. So wow, they said sin came through Adam in their book teaching the alphabet to children. What terrible, horrible people.

Overall, there is nothing to discuss from this thread. I am not going to play dress up and take the part of the Puritan voice because I am Christian so we can battle like its the year 1614 and someone can bring up the word genocide.

And, again, a little too conveinant to have a new poster come to the forum with a message like this.
 

Vytas

Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,904
I leave it here because of that picture.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God
 
Top