Posts Tagged ‘Qu’ran’

Islam’s ONLY Hope For True Reform Comes From A Surprising Source. And What Of America’s Only Hope For Reform?

December 17, 2015

I’ve recently been contemplating the Qur’an and the pathological tendency toward violence within Islam.  And I’ve been contemplating how morally idiotic liberals irrationally and continually pronounce Islam as “a peaceful religion” when they would NEVER say the same thing about biblical Christianity given the Bible’s blatantly clear stances of abortion, homosexuality and socialism.

Is Islam a religion of peace?  Is Mars a planet with breathable atmosphere?  No and no, with both deserving a “No, stupid” delivered with suitable incredulous and condescending stare.

I’ve made the points recently: both the Bible and the Qur’an contain commands to violence and death.  Here’s an article from a decidedly liberal (i.e., hostile to Judeo-Christianity) perspective about the Bible being even MORE violent than the Qur’an in the eyes of progressive liberalism.  Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins launched his own “investigation” of the Bible vis a vis the Qur’an and concluded, “”Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.”

And of course everyone is agonizingly aware of the ten top Christian terrorist organizations inflicting mass death in tens of thousands of terror attacks.  Oh, wait, they’re not, BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY CHRISTIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS the way we’ve suffered al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Islamic State, Taliban,  al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Nusra, Muslim Brotherhood, etc., etc.

It’s just a complete mystery to liberals why a “religion of peace” like Islam is inspiring so much terror and hate and violence.  When they believe with ever fiber of their being that it ought to be the Christianity that they so despise that is the true source of all the violence.

Let’s consider this leftist professor’s claims and see if they are actually true.  I’ll begin with the Bible and proceed to expose a critical fact that Jenkins leaves entirely out of his false comparison.

Yes, the God of the Bible, in judgment of sin, commands the Israelites to wipe out and exterminate the inhabitants of the land He is giving His people.  God gives Abraham’s descendants through Isaac the Promised Land.  Shortly before Abraham dies, God tells Abraham this:

 “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.  Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” — Genesis 15:15-16.

Understand that God had already promised Abraham this land that belonged to another people in Genesis 12.  In the very passage I just quoted for you from Genesis 15, God immediately after verses 15-16 proceeds to specifically define the boundaries of the Promised Land that He just promised:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” — Genesis 15:18-21

So God tells Abraham, “I am giving you THIS land, land that other peoples are currently on.  But not YET.  God’s promise unfolds throughout Genesis chapter 15. Look at the unfolding context:

  • 7He also said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
  • 13Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.
  • 14But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.
  • 15You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age.
  • 16In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
  • 18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates–
  • 19the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites,
  • 20Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites,
  • 21Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

The Book of Genesis records Israel being invited into Egypt by a grateful Pharaoh but ultimately being cruelly enslaved by a subsequent Pharaoh.  And just as God had foretold to Abraham, Israel would spend 400 years in bondage as slaves.  But the Israelites were finally delivered through Moses.  And they came in and took the land that God had promised them.  And God gave them this land after having given the wicked people who inhabited it 400 years to get their moral acts together.

God tells the Israelites under the command of Moses’ successor Joshua to wipe out these peoples (i.e., the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites).  In Deuteronomy 20:16-18 God commands:

16“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, 18 so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.…

This theme – and the reason behind it – is repeated several times by God in the Old Testament, as Numbers 33:55 demonstrates:

‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.

So in these passages we have the commandment and we also have the REASON FOR the commandment: if Israel destroys its enemies and wipes them out, they will not be corrupted.  If they refuse or fail to wipe out their enemies, then the very same evil that brought God’s judgment on their enemies will enter into Israel and God will have to bring judgment upon THEM.

Which, for the record, is ultimately precisely what happened to Israel as is declared in numerous biblical passages.  We find in 1 Samuel 15:17-24 a simple statement that Israel refused to obey God’s commands.  They didn’t drive out these wicked peoples, who ultimately morally contaminated them and perverted the righteous culture God commanded them to create where previously only the wicked cultures of the Amorite, Jebusite, etc. had been.

Because Israel did NOT drive out the wicked peoples who inhabited the land God gave them according to God’s command, Israel became just as wicked if not MORE wicked than those people as their evil ways contaminated Israel’s culture:

But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites. — 2 Kings 21:9

Habakkuk chapter one records the people becoming evil and the LORD raising up the Babylonians to judge them.

And so just as God used the Israelites as His weapon against the wicked peoples who inhabited the land that God gave to Israel, so God used the mighty Gentile nations such as the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians against Israel.  God is sovereign over the nations, and He providentially uses them to ultimately accomplish His will.  And in His sovereign providence He uses the righteous and the wicked alike.

Israel was first subjugated by Gentile powers and ultimately after rejecting their Messiah ceased to exist for two millennia until God, in fulfillment of His word through Ezekiel, literally resurrected the nation back from the “dry bones” of the dead.  And in miraculous fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8 – “Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children” – Israel was born in a day when the United Nations officially and historically declared her existence on May 14, 1948.  This was in direct response out of international outrage over the world having allowed six million Jews to be slaughtered in the Holocaust.

Liberals may not like it because they hate the God of the Bible, His righteousness, and His sovereignty over the nations when they yearn for a totalitarian socialist global new world order that exalts itself far above the God of the Bible.

God is sovereign over the nations.  Liberals despise Him for that; they want a world where the nation – the totalitarian human government – is sovereign over God.  They want a world where they dictate to God and to mankind what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.  But I digress.

We have seen up to this point that in a violent world, God not only condoned but actually commanded His people Israel to employ the same violence that all the other people were employing.

BUT… we ultimately come to a critical turning point in the Bible: we come to the promise of a New Covenant.  The Old Testament itself affirms a coming New Covenant:

31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”Jeremiah 31:31-34

Hebrews 8:6-13 also affirms that this New Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

During the Last Supper Jesus said:

19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”  — Luke 22:19-21

Hebrews 9:15 states, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

So we have a progression in both Testaments of the Bible from the Old Covenant to a New Covenant.  And the New Covenant is literally and even physically embodied in the Word, Messiah Jesus.

And what is it that Jesus taught?  What did He command?  Violence?  No, the Virgin-born fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6 came to be “the Prince of peace.”  And Jesus taught even as He was being led away to be viciously flogged and then crucified, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Liberals completely fail to comprehend this: the Bible begins with violence and moves to peace.

Not so the Qur’an.  Not so Muhammad.  When you read a Qur’an, understand that “Muhammad was like two different persons at two different times and the Quran is like two contradictory books pasted together.”  Understand that in Islam you have 1390 Years of Violence and only 10 years of Peace.

When Mohammad first began to proselytize his new religion in Mecca and claim that he was receiving revelations from Allah, he was decidedly the underdog.  And correspondingly all of his revelations centered around peaceful coexistence and tolerance.

But then Mohammad went to Medina in what is today called “Al Hijra.”  He was able to garner followers and became militarily powerful.  And suddenly all of the revelations of his Qur’an took a decidedly violent turn.

The Qur’an was NOT organized in any kind of chronological order; rather, it was organized by length, from the longest to the shortest suras.

When you re-arrange the Qur’an by chronology, you get this order: and you get not violence to peace as the Holy Bible gives, but peace to VIOLENCE.

So, for example, do your own research.  Consider the very first violent Sura 2:191-193 found in the Qur’an which states, And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killingbut if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”.  And lo and behold, when you examine the chronological order and look to the right column to see where it was organized according to the tradition based on length of sura, you find that this edict found in Sura 2 to “kill them wherever you may find them” is the VERY FIRST sura Mohammad conveniently claimed he received from Allah when he arrived in Medina and became the dominant power. 

This is not merely a command for violence; it is a UNIVERSAL COMMAND for violence.  I’ll talk about that more.

Keep going down the list of violent suras and look at where they are found, whether they were written earlier in Mohammad’s Mecca phase or later when he arrived at Medina and became militarily powerful.

You will find that without any question, the vast overwhelming majority of violent sura that commanded violence and death were given in Medina just as the vast overwhelming majority of suras commanding any kind of “peace” was given in Mecca.

A simple historic statement of fact: Mohammad and the Qur’an takes us from peace to viciousness and hate and murder and death and slaughter.

Now, this is bad, but it actually gets WORSE.  Because Islam has a doctrine called “abrogation” by which later suras correct and supercede earlier ones.

In other words, if Mohammad first said “peace” and then he said “war,” the ONLY correct interpretation of the Qur’an MUST BE WAR.

Now, abrogation is not necessarily such a terrible thing; every parent has done it: your child may ask you if she can go to a party, and then you find out something you don’t like about the party that makes you change or mind, or your child misbehaves and you say, “Now you can’t go.”  You’ve abrogated your previous statement.  You’ve said yes and now you’re saying no to the same thing you’d said yes to.  So if your child comes to you and says, “You said on Monday I could go, so I went,” you are enraged as you point out, “But I said on TUESDAY you could NOT go, so you are in a heap of trouble!”

It’s different when it comes to a revelation from God, though: God isn’t supposed to be caught by surprise or change His mind with new information or be wrong and then correct Himself.  How did Mohammad respond to this dilemma?  It seems that Qur’an 2:106 was “revealed” in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that ”Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind.

And hence we have examples of blatantly obvious abrogation in the Qur’an such as:

In Surah 58, Al Mujadilah, verse 12, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 13 they are told that it is no longer necessary.

In Surah 33, Al Ahzab, verses 50-51 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 52 he is prohibited to continue to do so.

In Surah 73, Al Muzzammil, verses 2-4, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 20 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.

But this Islamic view of Allah is in very direct contrast to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and so we have passages like Numbers 23:19: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Sneering liberal pseudo-intellectuals claim that Christianity has the same issue of abrogation, BUT WE DON’T.  And they are frankly moral idiots of the very lowest order to make such a blatantly false claim.  Here’s why:

  1. In every single example of violence in the Old Testament, it is ALWAYS in EVERY CASE a specific command by God to a specific people to do a specific thing at a specific time for a specific reason.  There is NO universalized commandment by God to always kill everyone the way we see in the Qur’an, no “kill them wherever you find them.”  There are no verses in the Bible that say “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you…” (Qur’an 2:216), no “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah” (Qur’an 4:76).  God never gives a universal command that He later has to take back.
  2. If the Bible were given the same way the Qur’an is given, Moses would have commanded peace and Jesus would have come after Moses and subsequently taught, “But I tell you, hate your enemies and slaughter those who persecute you.”  When Jesus, in fulfillment of the New Covenant that even the Old Covenant itself anticipated hundreds of years before Jesus’ arrival on earth, as the Prince of Peace, actually taught, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).  You need to comprehend how absolutely MASSIVE is the difference between a religion that begins with violence and then moves to peace (Christianity) verses a religion that begins with peace and then ends with commands to universalized violence.
  3. The Bible pointedly “abrogates” ITSELF in terms of violence because it promises a New Covenant and then it DELIVERS one in the form of the Prince of Peace, Jesus.  The “abrogation” of violence was not for the sake of Jesus’ convenience, the way the abrogation of peace for a call to violence clearly was politically oh-so-very convenient for Mohammad.  Let me put it this way: Jesus told Peter, “Put away your sword” (Matthew 26:52) in order that He could be arrested and beaten and go to the cross where He would die a terrible, humiliating, agonizing death in our place for our sins.  Versus Mohammad who said let’s be peaceful when he was the underdog and then turned on a dime and ordered mass violence the moment his forces gained the upper hand.
  4. The Bible doesn’t “abrogate” violence merely because times had changed and the world was no longer a violent place and the Bible was correcting a problem that was obviously out of step with the rest of the world.  Any such notion is simply FALSE.  The Romans at the time of Christ were as vicious and brutal as ANYONE ever had been; what they did to Jesus itself proves that.  And Jesus’ disciples wrote the New Testament not only in light of what Rome had done to Jesus, but in light of the fact that even as they were writing, Rome was treating Christians viciously.  St. Peter and St. Paul were both executed by Rome, as were many other disciples.
  5. The God of the Bible is a God of wrath just as He is a God of love.  But all of His attributes are perfectly balanced, such that His wrath is manifested in the attribute of justice that ultimately flows from love.  And the toleration of evil results in a lack of justice.  And so God gave His people the sword and used them as an instrument in defined, limited circumstances and only in accordance with His command.  But ultimately He was always preparing for the arrival of His Son, the Prince of Peace.
  6. Finally, the thing that changed in the Bible was this: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4-5).  God prophesied a coming Messiah who would epitomize and usher in a “new covenant,” and Jesus came as foretold.
  7. And so Jesus completely fulfilled the Old Covenant (Matthew 5:17).  The various laws and regulations and customs of the Old Testament weren’t “abrogated,” but rather they were fulfilled and served their purpose and were no longer necessary because the promised Messiah took their burden off our necks.  And so Christians have realized even in the time of St. Peter that unless a principle or a command from the Old Covenant is specifically repeated/restated in the New Covenant, it was fulfilled by Christ and no longer applies to New Covenant believers.  We can compare the Old Covenant and the New to the abacus vs. the computer or the horse vs. the automobile: the former things weren’t “abrogated” and declared wrong; rather they served their purpose and we now use the superior things.  Christ is the Superior which fulfilled the inferior and the inferior that served as a type or a shadow (see for example Colossians 2:17Hebrews 8:5) of the Superior is therefore no longer needed.

It is for this reason that I point out the fact and hereby state for the historical record that Penn State religious history professor Philip Jenkins is an abject moral idiot and the worst kind of intellectual fraud.  He is, as are all progressive liberals, a pathologically ignorant fool masquerading himself as someone who is wise and knowledgeable when he in fact teaches the precise opposite of wisdom and knowledge.  Jenkins is not only utterly blind to what is actually going on all around him in the real world as Muslim terrorists murder and bomb innocent people in the name of Allah, but as I have just proven he is just as utterly blind to the religious theology that he claims that he is an expert in.

A passage from Colossians sums these liberal fools up well: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.” – Colossians 2:8.  Tragically, modern universities teach very little BUT “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.”

The fact that the Qur’an does NOT begin with violence and then end with peace, but rather the opposite, and the fact that abrogation forces true Muslims to accept that the later “revelations” to Mohammad supercede previous ones, puts Islam in a deep, dark pit of endless violence that is NOT true of Christianity.

Which is why Christianity and Christ are attacked all the damn TIME by liberals and Christians don’t unleash waves of violent hate the way Muslims routinely do the moment they even THINK their Prophet might be getting insulted.

We are left with a giant problem of Islam: we find that Islam, Mohammad and the Qur’an spent ten years deceiving people by preaching peace and tolerance in order to grow strong and powerful, and then the rest of history practicing force and violence and terror the moment they were able to gain the upper hand.

We find that Islam does NOT mean “peace” as liberals love to adoringly say; it means “submission.”  AND YOU WILL SUBMIT OR ELSE YOU WILL BE KILLED.

A historical study of Mohammad’s life reveals that the “Prophet of Peace” had fought in over thirty violent military campaigns and had at least another thirty campaigns planned at the time of his death in 632 AD.  In fact I can quote you Islamic sources that state, “that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina.”  But it is a fact of history that when Mohammad showed up at Medina, he became a violent terrorist warmonger who waged unrelenting war until he defeated and subjugated everyone around him.  What you will also find is that Islam did NOT practice peace after Mohammad’s death; in fact it split due to terrifying, graphic and vicious violence that continues to this very day as the viciousness created Sunni and Shiite Islam.  But within 100 years of Mohammad’s death, warring, violent Muslims were attacking Christian Europe and had killed an looted and pillaged their way all across the entirety of Europe before finally being crushed by Charles “the Hammer” Martel at the Battle of Tours in France in 732.  Violent warring Muslims had already poured across Africa and seized the Christian realms established by St. Augustine.  All of the vast peaceful Christian provinces of North Africa had fallen to the bloody sword of Allah by 711.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into Christian Spain to be finally defeated by El Cid.  Violent, warring Muslims poured into the Christian Byzantine Empire and besieged Constantinople and the Christian Emperor pleaded with the Pope to send Christian warriors to defend a Christian realm from Muslim conquest in what became known as the Crusades.

The United States of America, from its infancy, almost immediately came into contact with violent, warring Islam as the violent, warring Muslims from the Islamic Barbary States began a vicious campaign against the United States.  So we had ten years of “peace” and yes, fourteen centuries of violence and war.

The ONLY thing in history that has stopped Islam from violence against their “infidel” neighbors is raw military power and the Muslims’ naked fear of the “infidels'” willingness to use it.

The Muslims who are attacking us are doing nothing more than reading their Qur’ans in light of the life of their moral and spiritual paradigm, their Prophet, Mohammad.  Their lives are matching his teachings, and that is why they are “killing us wherever they may find us.”

Jesus, by contrast, never harmed anyone.  He was the Lamb of God who never harmed anyone or ever commanded anyone to ever harm anyone.  Jesus is the antithesis of Mohammad.

If you want peace, there is ultimately one one place and one Person to go to: to the foot of the Cross, to the feet of Jesus, who came to allow violence to prevail so He could ultimately prevail against all violence when He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

So, how then do you reform Islam?  If you have any honesty or intelligence, you ought to see the nearly insurmountable difficulty by now.

There is only one possible way and it is interesting where it is found:

It is found in the Qur’an itself.

What you have to do is go to one interesting and frankly incredibly embarrassing period for Muslims: when Mohammad received his “Satanic Verses.”

Here are a couple of links to understand what is going on from Answering Islam (another here) and from Muhammadanism.  But here’s what happened in a historic nutshell: while Mohammad was in Medina (his “peaceful” period), he was weak and had few followers.  He was estranged from even his own tribe.  And he had a “revelation” that it was okay for his followers to acknowledge and affirm the existence of three pagan goddesses alongside Allah: Lat, Uzza, and Manat.  When the inhabitants of Mecca heard Muhammad’s confession of the ancient goddesses inside the Ka’aba, they immediately revoked the ban they had placed on him and gave his movement political breathing room.  But the moment he was able to become strong enough to rescind his confession, he took it back by claiming that while he had believed it had come from Allah, it had actually come from Satan.  And so he went back on his confession because what he had put in the Qur’an as a revelation from Allah had actually come from Satan.  Hence the title, “the Satanic verses.”

I’m just going to say it: the ONLY hope for Islam in terms of any meaningful reform into a religion of actual peace is for Islam to affirm that the ENTIRE Medina portion of the Qur’an came from Satan.

It is a simple and undisputable fact of history that Mohammad HIMSELF took back part of his Qur’an and claimed it had actually been from Satan; ultimately, Muslims are going to have to take back a much bigger chunk of it and recognize that every violent sura came from the same Satan.

Mohammad himself acknowledged that Satan could enter into him and alter his revelation.  Run with it.

But what of the United States?  What is our only hope for reform?

Another fact of history to point out is that the United States actually has some powerful experience with dealing with fanatic death cults.  We faced one called “Imperial Japan.”  Believe it or not, Muslims were NOT the first people to fly planes loaded with bombs into human-inhabited structures: think “Kamikaze pilots” during World War II: not merely hundreds but THOUSANDS of them.  3,860 Japanese Kamikaze pilots died as their explosives-laden planes either crashed into American ships or were shot down trying to do so.

Oh, yes, America has dealt with “suicide bombers” and the ideology that sent them at us before.  Do you understand me?  WE’VE DEALT WITH THIS KIND OF VICIOUS MENTALITY BEFORE.  And we did not prevail over it by adopting any modern liberal pile of inane Obama blathering drivel.

How we defeated that existential threat to freedom and peace is a matter of history.

The Japanese Imperial fascists were every BIT as much of a national death cult as what we are confronting now with Islam: but the United States of America stopped being “a sleeping giant” and woke up enough to unleash a violent jihad of our OWN and we BROKE THE NECK of that national death cult.

I remember the quote from the Japanese admiral who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack and then realized what he had done as America began to rise up in righteous anger:

I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” Japanese Admiral Yamamoto

Islam is NOT going to reform by itself.  Any more than the Japanese were going to reform by themselves.  They’re going to need some confrontation.  They are going to need to be confronted with reason and with truth and with fact and with their own history and they are going to need to be confronted with a terrible resolve to use all the power we can bring against them until they are forced to see reason as the Japanese were forced to see reason.

But that means that the United States needs to reform as well if it is going to survive.  We desperately need to manifest the same “terrible resolve” that we were able to find in the days of our greatness.

Pain can be an awesome tutor when it is combined with truth.  That is the only chance to drive even a fool to finally see reason and do the right thing.

Liberals are people with a pathological hatred of truth.  And so what they keep repeating in their condescending moral idiocy is that everyone ought to be just like them and ignore truth, ignore reason, ignore history, ignore reality and just follow the blatherings of Obama.

The TRUTH is that Islam has an inherent, intrinsic, pathological problem with violence.  Ultimately, the ONLY way through to any genuine peace is to make Islam recognize that truth and DEAL with it.  Any liberal notion that the path to peace is to ignore the truth, bury our head in the sand and hope the truth somehow goes away is another word for “suicide.”

Liberals tell us over and over again that to confront Islam, to associate it with terrorism, will “radicalize” the Islamic world.  But here’s the thing: every single time liberals affirm this proposition, what they are in fact acknowledging is their own belief that every single Muslim is hair-trigger psycho and all it will take is the slightest provocation, the littlest nudge, to send them over the edge of madness and into bloodbath jihad.  They acknowledge that the very Christianity they revile so is a FAR superior worldview to every other worldview including Islam, because it is only in Christianity that we can have peace even with our enemies as we follow the teachings of Jesus as true disciples.  Let’s get beyond “Piss Christ” (a crucifix of Christ placed in a jar of urine) and Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary” (a mockery of the Virgin Mary smearing her with dung and pornographic images); just imagine the response if a Barack Obama tried to impose homosexual marriage on a Muslim country and imagine every single Muslim willing to crawl over the dead bodies of their own family members so they could get to Obama and cut his head off for his blasphemy.  Or how about this one: why don’t you Democrats try forcing the American people to fund “Piss Prophet” with tax dollars the same way you imposed “Piss Christ” on us and see how crazy insane Muslims get?

You don’t DARE do that.  Why not? 

And the answer is: because the mere act of drawing a cartoon – and let me assure you that a cartoon is FAR less offensive than your filthy, vile, disgusting urine, liberal – is enough to set off the entire Islamic world into a murderous rage.

And the answer is: because you KNOW Christianity is the only true source of peace on earth – as much as you hate it.  Just as you KNOW Islam is the source of violence just waiting to explode regardless of your dishonest rhetoric about “the religion of peace.”

Every single time a liberal so much as mentions the possibility of “radicalizing” the Muslim community, they affirm the spirit of violent hate just waiting to be unleashed by a religion that is manifestly violent.  Nobody worries about “radicalizing” Christians because you know full bloody well we don’t act that way.  You fear Muslims “radicalizing” if you so much as breathe wrong because no matter how much you want to suppress reality, bury the truth, deep, deep down you know how very wrong you are.

Go ahead, be a good liberal and follow the liberal way of burying your head in the sand so you won’t have to deal with REALITY:

The Bible spoke of wicked Israel before its judgment.  Let it speak to us before ours as well:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” — Isaiah 28:15

And we’ll see how long you keep your fool heads attached to your bodies the moment these people get to you:

003

If you bury your head in the sand to reality, you might as well lose your head, you deserve to lose your head – and we now live in an age where lose it you surely will.

We absolutely cannot continue to ignore the true reality – and yes, the terrifying reality – that is Islam.  We have to confront them with the truth and force them to acknowledge that truth and embrace the change they must embrace.  Or we will surely be fighting until the end of the planet in nuclear Armageddon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Trying To Imagine How Left Would React If US Military Started Indoctrinating Troops To Respect The Bible

March 9, 2012

This title from the Los Angeles Times says it all about God damn America:

I took a screenshot because stuff like this has a way of mysteriously changing.

Stop and think about that: Obama is demanding that troops be indoctrinated to respect the Koran even as the same Obama is demanding that Catholics be forced to repudiate their own religious tradition that had endured for one-thousand five-hundred years prior to the coming of the first demon possessed Commander-in-Chief.

Imagine a world in which US troops were ordered to sit down by their command structures and taught to start respecting the Holy Bible.

And then imagine how the hypocrite left would react to such a world.

Liberals: ‘It’s Okay To Burn The Bible, Just PLEASE Don’t Burn The Holy Koran’

April 5, 2011

This is just another example of the breathtaking liberal ignorance and moral stupidity of the mainstream media.

We’ve got Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh explaining on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that burning a copy of the Qur’an was “much more inflammatory than burning a Bible” because of the greater spiritual significance of the Qur’an.

Here is a transcript via Mediaite:

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you`re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

GHOSH: — than if you were to burn a — burn a Bible.

TODD: Directly attacking God.

If you buy Time Magazine, allow me to correctly label you a DUMBASS.  You’ve got the international editor of Time ignorantly claiming that Christians don’t believe the Bible is “the Word of God,” and you’ve got the MSNBC host first agreeing with him that the Bible is just a book written by men and then trying to help Ghosh make his point by repeatedly saying “Directly attacking God” like some kind of particularly idiotic jihadist-trained parrot.

Muslims do not claim that God wrote the Qur’an and handed it to Mohammed.  Rather, they claim that a human being wrote it under an angel named Gabriel’s direction.

Here are a number of passages – and hardly an exhaustive list by any means – about the Bible:

‘Thy word I have treasured in my heart that I might not sin against Thee’ (Psalm 119:11)

‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ (Math 4:4).

“The word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Heb 4:12).

“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet 1:23).

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). 

‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I want you to carefully note that NONE of these passages is speaking about Allah or the Qur’an.  In fact, neither existed yet.  Muhammad had not yet been born to invent him and pirate Judaism and Christianity to fabricate his own religion.  And the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Bible is merely one of the things that Muhammad pirated.  In addition to Abraham and Jesus, Muhammad frankly even pirated the angel Gabriel whom he claimed dictated the Qur’an to him (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:11–19).  They ALL came from the HOLY Bible long before they had anything to do with the Qur’an.

I would submit that, given that the Qur’an plagiarized large portions of the Bible, whereas the writers of the Bible – both the human and the ultimate Divine behind their writings – would regard the Qur’an as incoherent rubbish, it should be rather obvious which of the two is truly “holy” and which is not.

I’ve read the Qu’ran.  It is virtual gibberish.  I couldn’t agree more with Robert Spencer in his description of the Qur’an in The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion:

“reading the Qur’an is in many places like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted.  When Islamic apologists say terrorists quote the Qur’an on jihad ‘out of context,’ they neglect to mention that the Qur’an itself often offers little context.  Frequently it makes reference to people and events without  bothering to explain what’s going on” (p. 20-21).

And Spencer proceeds to offer an example which proves just how muddy and indecipherable the Qur’an truly is.  Without a vast collection of volumes of very human Islamic tradition called the Haddith, nobody would have any idea of what is being said about what.

The Bible, by contrast, stands on its own.  And the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible.  Commentaries are certainly useful for helping one understand a few passages here or there.  But with the Qur’an, they are utterly essential for having so much as the vaguest clue.

Do you ever notice how often mainstream media “journalists” who would NEVER refer to the “holy” Bible due to their “journalistic objectivity” invariably bow and scrape before Muslims lest they be murdered for failing to say “the holy Qur’an”???

Is it merely fear, or is it that journalists – who are far more atheist than the general population – agreeing with the most fanatic jihadist Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  With said common enemy being Judeo-Christianity???

Then there’s the manner in which these “journalists” have tried to create the perception that a crackpot preacher of a tiny church is more guilty of murder than the intolerant religion of hate that just racked up another 21 innocent murder victims.

I mean, who doesn’t go attack a U.N. compound and murder people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you claim to be angry about, anyway?

Let me further ridicule the ignorant Time Magazine international editor who stupidly said that Christians don’t mind Bible burning as much because, after all, we don’t think the Bible is God’s book.  How about Jesus versus Muhammad?  Christians don’t just rightly call Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1-3), but they believe Him to be the Son of God, who assumed a human nature to free us from sin and death.  Do Muslims regard Muhammad as God?  As far as I know, they don’t.  And yet guess who didn’t turn into a murderous mob when their God was placed in a jar of urine and called “art” by secular humanist liberals???  If you guessed the same Christians who don’t erupt into a murderous frenzy whenever someone burns a Bible, you win a prize!!!

In other words, the problem isn’t so much that some nutjob burned a Qur’an; the real problem is that Muslims are murderers who can’t control their demonic urge to murder at any provocation.

Some liberals are so completely morally stupid that they think we should turn our backs with a wink and a nod while 1.6 billion Muslims annihilate Israel.  What they stupidly refuse to understand is that Israel is only the “LITTLE” Satan; America is the GREAT Satan.  We’ll have to go too.  Oh, and England will have to go.  And France.  And pretty much all of Western Europe.  And if it’s okay, anyone who doesn’t bow down and confess that Allah is greater, and Muhammad is his prophet.

As Spencer pounts out, Islam is a truly intolerant and violent religion.  Don’t burn our Qur’ans or we’ll riot and murder.  Don’t draw cartoons or we’ll riot and murderDon’t send female journalists to report the news or we’ll gang-rape and riot and murder.  Or at least beat the women with clubs.  And, of course, don’t oppose Islam or we’ll murder your women and children.  It is frankly amazing how “journalists” who claim to stand for free spech and free expression will so willingly if not eagerly censor themselves in the face of fundamentalist Islamic intolerance while so “courageously” attacking peaceful Christians and the Judeo-Christian worldview that made free speech and freedom of expression possible in the first place.

If you’re reading Time Magazine or watching MSNBC, you are trusting abject moral morons to inform you about the world.  And it’s frankly little wonder you’re so pathetically ignorant.

Finally, there’s Barack Hussein.  He falsely claims that he’s a Christian, but the man who routinely refers to “the holy Koran” has never once used the phrase “the Holy Bible” and has in fact even mocked the Bible in a way that he would never dare do to the Qur’an.

Men like Barack Obama and Bobby Ghosh are cowards and weasels.  And it’s long past time to expose them as such.

Musharraf Resigns, Leaving Comprimise As Pakistan’s Official Policy On Terrorism

August 18, 2008

The most strategically critical American ally in the war on global terrorism is gone, having announced his resignation today.

Coming on the heels of the Russian invasion of Georgia – and the resulting reawakening of tensions between former superpower rivals, this news further escalates the awareness of the stark realities of the 21st century. And it will all-too shortly be followed by Iran – protected by Russia from international sanctions – developing a nuclear arsenal.

It might be a good development for Pakistan, but I believe time will prove that it is a bad one for the United States and for those who would fight to defeat the rising threat of Islamic terror.

The Associated Press story by Zarar Khan at least presents some of the key issues:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced Monday that he will resign, just days ahead of impeachment in parliament over attempts by the U.S.-backed leader to impose authoritarian rule on his turbulent nation.

An emotional Musharraf said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done “was for the people and for the country.”

“I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes,” Musharraf said in a televised address, much of which was devoted to defending his record and refuting criticisms.

Musharraf dominated Pakistan for years after seizing power in a 1999 military coup, making the country a key strategic ally of the U.S. by supporting the war on terror. But his popularity at home sank over the years.

While political exit robs the West of a stalwart ally, Musharraf’s influence has faded since he stepped down as army chief last year. Washington and European capitals will hope his removal will let the civilian government focus on terrorism and the country’s economic woes.

Many Pakistanis blame the rising militant violence in their country on Musharraf’s alliance with the U.S. His reputation suffered blows in 2007 when he ousted dozens of judges and imposed emergency rule. His rivals won February parliamentary elections and have since sought his ouster, announcing impeachment plans earlier this month.

As Dinah Lord put it:

Protesters took to the streets of Lahore to denounce President Pervez Musharraf over the wave of jihadi suicide attacks, labelling him a “dog” and a “pimp” for his policies against the militants that have provoked the violence.

And now the Pakistani government is free to continue its new policy of compromise and appeasement with terrorism unabated.

Some articles essentially present a sterilized, optimistic account of how this new policy of “negotiation” will alleviate the terror threat.

But Hot Air is already showing just how full of, well, hot air such views really are. Citing a new sharia-based edict from the Taliban that all men grow their beards or face “harsh punishment,” Ed Morrissey goes on to write:

Not surprisingly, the Taliban and its leaders feel freer to issue — and enforce — such strictures in the area that Pakistan has all but conceded to them. Nor has it bought any peace for the residents of Waziristan and NWFP. AFP reports that “activities” against hair salons and music stores have increased since the military has stopped its operations against the Taliban.

Sovereignty requires a government to exercise its authority over that of militias and renegades. The abdication of those responsibilities in Waziristan and NWFP calls into question whether these territories can actual be considered Pakistani. That was one of the underlying principles of the Bush Doctrine after 9/11, and why Pervez Musharraf always understood that he had to at least give some effort in fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in these regions. Otherwise, the US could consider Pakistan as having withdrawn from the area and our hot-pursuit needs would then take precedence.

The new Pakistani government has obviously not learned much of the lessons of appeasement since the 1930s. If they continue to refuse to recognize the danger of their policy and allow these lunatics loose in the frontier regions, the US has to make clear that we do not consider ourselves bound by that decision.

And that is precisely true. If these terrorists are not killed or defeated, and if they do not disband or renounce their extremists views, then how can anyone believe that they will somehow go away?

They will continue to remain in their strongholds, continue to fester like the cancers on humanity they are, and will continue to grow in strength until the weak, corrupt national governments are no longer able to contain them. As Morrissey points out, most of these “negotiations” are already completely empty.

The increasing unrest in Afghanistan is not the failure of American troops; it is the failure of Pakistan to effectively deal with the Taliban forces infesting the border regions.  Musharraf had to negotiate with them when he was weakened by domestic political turmoil; and now a “Democratic” government that is split between rival factions will be in an even more weakened position.  The Taliban will undoubtedly take this opportunity to spread their ideology both within Pakistan and into Afghanistan.

Perez Musharraf was a tough leader, even a dictator. But it takes a violent man to deal with violent people, and too often we are seeing that Islam represents the deification of violence.

Giving bad people the right to vote doesn’t lead to good consequences simply because they are part of a “democracy” now. They are merely free to exercise their power to choose and support evil policies. We’ve already seen that in the Palestinian territories, which used their “democracy” to elect hard-core terrorist organization Hamas.

John Quincy Adams knew what he was talking about when he said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Another statement, generally attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, builds on this foundation: “America is great because she is good, and If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

The founder of Christianity was Jesus of Nazareth. He told his followers to put away their swords. The founder of Islam is Mohammad. He taught his followers to take up their scimitars. The literal-historical exegesis of the Bible leads to peace; the literal-historical exegesis of the Qu’ran leads to submission by any means necessary. Mohammad was involved in dozens of military campaigns, during which he ordered acts of great violence. He had over twenty more such campaigns planned at the time of hid death.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi builds a case based on study of history, the Qu’ran, and the Ahadith to demonstrate that Mohammad progressed through four stages on violence, beginning with when his followers were few and weak and progressing as they became more numerous and more strong.

Stage One: No Retaliation
Stage Two: Defensive Fighting is Permitted
Stage Three: Defensive fighting is Commanded
Stage Four: Offensive War is Commanded Against the Pagans, Christians and Jews.

The Muslims of today are clearly increasingly progressing toward their “highest” stage.

The terrifying truth is that as Muslims are becoming more “Muslim,” they are becoming more violent.

How does compromise with people who are determined to kill you and destroy your freedoms and your very way of life work?

I end with this: Dinah Lord’s blog had a counter. Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 11671 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

The American way of life has often been stated as “Live free or die!” Islamic terrorists are only too happy to grant us the second condition if we attempt to pursue the first.