Any ‘Moderate’ Reform Of Islam Is Impossible And The Religion Of The Prophet Muhammad Will Increasingly Embrace Violent Jihadism

Recently, Barack Obama demonized Christianity for the sin of religious violence – going back in time nearly a thousand years to do so – and cited the Crusades and the Inquisition as his proofs.  Mind you, all the violent things that Muslims are doing right now at this very moment aren’t being done by real Muslims and so hateful Christianity founded by that hateful man Jesus is evil whereas loving Islam founded by that loving man Muhammad is peaceful.

Well, Obama’s vile demagogic attack against Christianity and its Christ come about 700 years too late even as Obama is blind, deaf and stupid dumb when it comes to comprehending the reality of Islam today.  And this fact ought to be no surprise because – frankly – demons inhabit the soul of Barack Hussein Obama and his Democrat (as in “DEMOnic bureauCRAT”) Party.

Islam desperately needs to reform.  Because whether we’re talking about a religion murdering Jews, or Christians, or even Muslims themselves, there aint nothing CLOSE to Islam at being vicious these days.  Islam is a murderous religion and is in fact the most murderous religion in the history of the world.  Except, perhaps, of course, Obama’s true religion of state-atheistic socialism which murdered more than 100 million of its own citizens during peacetime alone.  Which is why I read atheists demagoguing religion and saying it’s responsible for all the violence in the world and I just laugh at the moral stupidity of these fools.  For the official factual historical record, the Bible is correct and there is something desperately flawed with human nature since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin – and the only thing more brutal and vicious than men acting in the name of their God or gods is men who have embraced the religion of atheism and made themselves gods in God’s place.

But we’re talking about the murderous nature of Islam today.  And given the fact that you name the top three terrorist organizations today – Islamic State, al Qaeda, Boko Haram – or you name the five top terrorist groups, or the ten top terrorist groups, or the twenty top terrorist groups, and what they invariably have in common is ISLAM – and we’re talking about Islamic terrorism.  And we’re talking about a viciousness that is literally OLD TESTAMENT in its ruthless, murderous viciousness.  In these last days, the very same sort of people from the very same ethnic stock have arisen in the very same region to carry out the very same barbaric terror that we saw from the vicious Assyrians.

So I’ve mentioned Islam and I’ve mentioned State Atheist Communism.  Are they poles apart?  Are they doing the opposite things or the same things, with the different ends producing the identical same means?

Let me try to connect the dots for you between Obama’s Stalinism and violent jihadist Islam by means of a few quotes about the forms of socialism (communism and fascism) that progressive liberalism embraces:

“Communism and fascism or Nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority.” — James A. C. Brown

“At the end of a century that has seen the evils of communism, Nazism and other modern tyrannies, the impulse to centralize power remains amazingly persistent.” — Joseph Sobran

“COMMUNISM: Liberation of the people from the burdens of liberty.” — Rick Bayan, The Cynic’s Dictionary

Ah, yes, the inhumanity of official state atheist socialism:

And they came to [Chairman Mao] after the first year [of the Great Leap Forward] and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

And:

Was it wisdom Mao Tse-Tong attained when – like Ted Bundy – the awakened to the long view?  “The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.  Does Mao’s reckoning shock me really? If sanctioning the death of strangers could save my daughter’s life, would I do it? Probably. How many others’ lives would I be willing to sacrifice? Three? Three hundred million? — Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s of January 1998

And let’s not forget good old Josef Stalin:

If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. — The Political Report of the Central Committee, The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (7 December 1927).

“Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.” — Stalin

And something like sixty million dead (after being disarmed, of course) human beings murdered by socialism later…

But what’s sixty million human beings?  After all, Democrats have murdered that many human beings in America in our abortion mills.  All you’ve got to do is deny the humanity of the victim, the way Hitler did with Jews and the way Democrats did with their black slaves before they turned their hate on the unborn.

Versus Islam:

“The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini.” — Ayatollah Khalkhali

“What he [Stalin] did in Russia we have to do in Iran.  We, too, have to do a lot of killing. A lot.” — Behzad, Iranian interpreter for Western journalist V.S. Naipaul

“There is no room for play in Islam… It is deadly serious about everything.” — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech at Qum as reported in Time magazine January 7, 1980

And for the record these are Shiites.  They’re the good Muslims these days, given the fact that the BAD Muslims are the Sunnis who are behind Islamic State and al Qaeda and the 200,000 dead Syrians at the hands of Bashar al-Assad (who pissed on Obama’s “red line” cowardice and proceeded to draw his own red line – in blood).

You look at these quotes, and tell me that the biggest problems created by our socialist friends isn’t also created by radical Islam.  You tell me that while Democrats want to strip away our personal liberty with mindboggling regulations and the determination to regulate what we eat, our healthcare, you name it they want to control it, that radical Islam has no desire to take away anyone’s liberty.  You tell me that while Obama has an impulse to increasingly centralize power, our radical Muslim friends have no such desire.  You tell me that while socialism has always had a dictator’s face and a cult of personality – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Dear Leader Kim, Obama – that radical Islam has no desire toward mass movements featuring submission to superior authority.

One of the big problems in stopping radical Islam is that progressive liberals want pretty much the same exact authority the jihadists do.

But there are three OTHER reasons that there WILL BE no reform of Islam, such that violent jihadism will continue to take root and grow larger and uglier and more vicious.

The first reason is that moderate Muslims simply CAN NOT WIN any legitimate religious debate on Islam with the violent jihadists as long as the Qu’ran, the Ahadith and simple history have anything to do with the debate.

Why do I say that?  Well, let me put it this way, take the side of the “moderate” Muslim and answer these questions as posed by a member of the Islamic State: given the fact that the Prophet Muhammad beheaded his enemies, why shouldn’t we behead our enemies, why shouldn’t we behead our enemies?  Given that the Prophet Muhammad committed genocide on multiple occasions, why shouldn’t we commit genocide?  Given that the Prophet Muhammad, after having all the males killed, sold women and children into slavery, whey shouldn’t we kill and enslave?  Given the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was a man of war who had fought in more than twenty military campaigns of religious conquest and had another thirty planned at the time of his death, why shouldn’t we spread by force and violence?

All of these statements about the Prophet Muhammad are true.  He did all of the above, without any question whatsoever.

History makes it very crystal clear that Muhammad was a man of violence and forced conquest who had fought in over 20 military campaigns and who actually had more than thirty more planned at the time of his death.  In 624 AD Muhammad launched the Nakhla raid and officially began the spread of violence in the name of Islam.  Also in 624 Muhammad began the practice of ethnic cleansing against the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe.  He put that same tactic into practice again the following year in 625 against the Jewish Nadir tribe.  Yes, rather like what we saw Islamic State do in Iraq.  In 627 Muhammad beheaded all the males of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe and enslaved all the women and children.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.  And in 631 Muhammad began his warfare against the Christians.  Yes, rather like what the Islamic State is doing now.

Add to that, given the fact that in 722 – within ninety years of the death of Muhammad when the movement was still under the ideological stamp of its founder – Islam had violently spread across Christendom, all the way across Europe, all the way to France to finally be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.  Islam spread violently spread across Christian Africa to eradicate the substantial Christian community of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo; it violently spread across Spain to be thwarted by El Cid.  And  given the historically-butchered fact that Islam ignited the Crusades by violently spreading to Christian Byzantium, why should the Islamic State NOT violently spread today?

The bottom line is this: either Muhammad was a false prophet of a demonic religion, or how he lived his life in his understanding of the religion that he founded is all-important.  And of course also important are how the first Muslims understood the religion that Muhammad passed on to them.

Are you going to condemn the Prophet Muhammad as a false prophet of genocide?  Are you going to condemn the entire history of Islam for the first several hundred years of its history?  Or are you going to be a liar, a hypocrite and a coward like Barack Obama and those who act as apologists for a violent and rabidly intolerant religion???

The Christ whom Obama attacks every time he slanders Christians was the Prince of Peace who specifically condemned all of the above, but the Prophet of Islam wallowed in it, oh yes, the way an unclean pig wallows in mud.  And the most faithful Muslims are the best murderers.

If you are a “moderate” Muslim, how do you take this debate on?  How do you deal with the fact that history and reality mock you and declare you a liar and a hypocrite and a fool?

You can see why Obama is terrified of it and simply will not say anything but lies about the nature of Islam and the nature of the Islamic State and al Qaeda and those devout Muslims who think the way they do.

The second reason that reform is impossible to Islam is because Islam is inherently, intrinsically and pathologically a political religion bent on spreading by conquest.  We can go back to the Catholic Church that Obama demonized by going back a thousand years to absolve Islam.  In 1095 AD, when Pope Urban II called for the Crusades, the Catholic Church was a profoundly political organization with a religious leader as powerful as any emperor.  One of the major things that the Reformation accomplished was to chop down the authority of the Catholic Church so that ultimately Catholicism lost its political power and its power of empire.

Try that with Islam and tell me how that works out for you.  I mean, go ahead and be the very first person in all of human history to establish a democracy guided by Islam.  It has never been done because it is every bit as impossible as is to draw a square circle.  Because for the record, “democracy” and “Islam” are every bit as incompatible as “square” and “circle.”  You cannot put them together unless one obliterates the other.

The third reason that Islam is impossible to reform in such a manner that respect for human life and autonomy is embraced is purely religious and is comprehended only when Islam is directly compared to Judeo-Christianity.  In the Judeo-Christian Bible, we have two doctrines that command Judeo-Christians to respect human life: the Imago Dei of human beings and the Incarnation of Christ.

God, according to the Bible, created man in His own image.  And specifically, male and female created He them.

That’s something of a problem for Islam, given that Allah is so transcendent and so otherly that human beings are like ants to him.  Consider rather that:

one must first recall a fundamental aspect of Islamic belief, namely the transcendence of Allah Most High and His complete dissimilitude from created things. This is decisively conveyed within the Qur’an itself when it states, “There is nothing whatsoever like Him,” (42: 11) and also by the foremost theological texts of our tradition.

And to the extent that a Muslim can somehow wriggle his/her way to say that words that Allah created man in his image (provide you only mean it as a pretty much purely rhetorical device), Muslims have a gargantuan problem indeed in the doctrine of Incarnation, whereby Allah did or ever could have become a mere human bug – oops, I mean being.

Consider one of, if not the very greatest, Christological passage in the Bible found in Philippians chapter two:

Philippians 2:3-11The Message (MSG)

He Took on the Status of a Slave

2 ^1-4 If you’ve gotten anything at all out of following Christ, if his love has made any difference in your life, if being in a community of the Spirit means anything to you, if you have a heart, if you care— then do me a favor: Agree with each other, love each other, be deep-spirited friends. Don’t push your way to the front; don’t sweet-talk your way to the top. Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead. Don’t be obsessed with getting your own advantage. Forget yourselves long enough to lend a helping hand.

^5-8 Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death—and the worst kind of death at that—a crucifixion.

^9-11 Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.

Walk around and do your own survey with Muslims and find out how many of them think that Allah did that.

There’s a saying that in Islam, believers die for Allah (e.g., as so-called “martyrs” in suicide bombings); whereas according to Christianity God died for humanity.  It is simply true.  And because of that Christianity provides the grounds for a divinely-ordained love of humanity that Islam can never possibly match.

If you’re a liberal, you’re fool enough, so go to Syria and Iraq and conduct your survey among members of the Islamic State.  I mean, go ahead, go nuts, lose your head over it.

According to Christianity, God not only created man in His own image – and hey kids, women too! – but He also Himself actually became a human being.  God created man in His image so that He could assume our image, and live a life among us, and love us enough to take His place with us and ultimately die for us, representing us.

Such a doctrine provides a rather massive correction to the inhumanity of Stalinism and the inhumanity of Islam both.

Again, let me point out the fact that men are bugs to Allah.  Allah most certainly did NOT become a man and live among us or die for us or represent us in any way, shape or form.

In Islam, the system is everything.  You know, just like in progressive liberal socialism.  And the individual is nothing.  You know, just like in progressive liberal socialism.