Tagged: Muhammad

Remember when leaders in the West knew Islam was the enemy of free people?

(UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT) — Since the Armies of Mohammad first made contact with the West, Western leaders understood Islam is a barbaric and evil doctrine that enslaves, consumes and destroys everything in its path.

“There being so many sects and heresies banded together against the Truth, finding that (Muhammad) wanting to (do battle), I thought it good to bring it to their (attention), that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou mayest the better prepare to encounter, and I hope overcome them.”–
Thomas Jefferson

“… he (Muhammad) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against the rest of mankind–The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God.” — John Quincy Adams

“(Mohammad) poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy, and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust. To exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”–President John Quincy Adams

“That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”–Letter from U.S. Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson (to France) and John Adams (to England) dated 1786 to the Continental Congress detailing the response from the muslim potentate from Tripoli when asked by the Americans why the muslims were attacking U.S. ships and capturing Americans without provocation.

“The case is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and gave free reign to carnal pleasures. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proof of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a modest wisdom.

“Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can only be divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.

“On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms–which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.

“Those who believe in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of divine teaching through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness.

“On the contrary, he 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. It was, therefore, 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.”–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 6

“It is utterly impossible to appreciate social values at all or to discriminate between what is socially good and socially bad unless we appreciate the utterly different social values of different wars. The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because of victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any ” social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence and the decaying native Christian churches are concerned. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do, that is, to beat back the Moslem invader. It is of course worth while for sociologists to discuss the effect of this European militarism on “social values,” but only if they first clearly realize and formulate the fact that if the European militarism had not been able to defend itself against and to overcome the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would have been no “social values” of any kind in our world today, and no sociologists to discuss them.–Theodore Roosevelt, “Social Values and National Existence”, Papers and Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, Volumes 9-10, 1916

“The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves, they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offense to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.”–Speech given by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, 14 June 1921

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men…Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”–Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pgs 248-250

[READ MORE]

ISIS, The Koran, and The Hudud

(UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT) — ISIS crucifies Christians, kills apostates (those who leave Islam), and amputates the hands of those who steal.

How do they justify such barbaric behavior? These cruel punishments are commands from allah in the Koran.

The Hudud is a part of sharia (Islamic Law), and contains the seven (7) crimes specifically listed in the Koran along with their punishments. If it is in the Koran, according to Islam, it is the word of allah as revealed to Mohammad.

Punishments for hudud crimes are fixed and, therefore, cannot be altered by an Islamic judge’s ruling.

Four of the seven offenses are punishable by death. They include fornication, adultery, armed robbery, and rebellion.

For instance, for armed robbery Koran 5:33 states: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land.”

The other hudud crimes include punishments for: fornication (sex outside of marriage) for which Koran 24:2 prescribes “The woman and the man guilty for fornication flog each of them with a hundred lashes: let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah”; false accusation of sexual intercourse; drinking intoxicants; and theft.

On September 24, 2014, an open letter to the leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi signed by 126 Islamic leaders, including senior scholars across the globe, was published.

The letter stated: “Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.”

The signatories included leaders of prominent U.S. Islamic organizations including: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) also known as Hamas; the Fiqh Council of North America; the North American Imams Federation; and others.

Its in the Koran, which means allah said it. U.S. Islamic leaders condone it. ISIS does it.

What is all the fuss about?

[ READ MORE]

Bold time travel novel takes the reader into the 7th century world of Muhammad

IN THIS POWERFUL WORK OF MAGICAL REALISM, an Iranian sickened by the injustices he sees all around him wishes he could experience the true Islam of Muhammad and Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son in law whom Iranians consider the forefather of Shia Islam. Author F.W. Burleigh gives him his wish by sending him into 7th century Arabia, first as a slave and then as Muhammad’s scribe.

He soon finds what he was looking for, but it is not what he was anticipating. After witnessing Islam’s founder commit a series of horrific atrocities, his faith crumbles and he becomes a warner of what is to come out of Arabia. He ends up trapped in Mecca at the time of Muhammad’s invasion and is about to be beheaded when he returns to present day Iran in such a way that shows he is the Shiite Savior—the long-awaited Imam of Time. But what he has to say to his contemporaries brings the rage of Iran’s clerical rulers down on him.

THE IMAM OF TIME is not a clumsy sci-fi time travel novel, but a deft work of magical realism, a crucial element that uses the cave and well motifs of Islam for going into the past and returning to the present: The hero enters a cave of light, and the light speaks to him just before he finds himself nearly drowning in a well somewhere in 7th century Arabia; he returns to contemporary Iran through the Well of the Mahdi where the Shias await the appearance of their Savior, their Imam of Time.

The hero must go into the past in order to realize the truth of the origin of the violence of Islam. The reader follows him along the path of his experience. When he finally flees Muhammad’s world, he ends up spending three months in a monastery where he acquires and abiding love for Jesus. The hero then embarks on the caravan trail and ends up in India where he has a startling revelation about the universal drive behind all religion. When he returns to Iran through the Well of the Mahdi, his revelation forms the basis for his message of religious tolerance to his contemporaries, a message that ultimately costs him his life. But in dying he creates something new.

The book has a touching love angle involving Rayhaneh. In the Islamic histories, she became an unwilling concubine of Muhammad after he slaughtered the men of her Jewish tribe, and she died four years later of grief. In The Imam of Time, she is from present day Iran just like the hero and finds herself somehow sent into the past where she becomes Muhammad’s captive and concubine. But she doesn’t die after four years, she vanishes and returns to the present where she becomes involved with the hero through their shared experience, and ultimately they marry. It wasn’t intended, but it turns out there’s a notable contrast between the way Muhammad treated her and the way the hero treats her.

CLICK HERE FOR THE AMAZON PAGE!

When and why the West began to ‘demonize’ Muhammad (Hint: It started even before his death in 632 AD)

(PJ MEDIA) — by Raymond Ibrahim

To understand any phenomenon, its roots must first be understood. Unfortunately, not only do all discussions on the conflict between Islam and the West tend to be limited to the modern era, but when the past, the origins, are alluded to, the antithesis of reality is proffered: we hear that the West—itself an anachronism for Europe, or better yet, Christendom—began the conflict by intentionally demonizing otherwise peaceful and tolerant Muslims and their prophet in order to justify their “colonial” aspirations in the East, which supposedly began with the Crusades.

Bestselling author on Islam and Christianity Karen Armstrong summarizes the standard view: “Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure…. The scholar monks of Europe stigmatized Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy.”

That nothing could be further from the truth is an understatement. From the very first Christian references to Muslims in the seventh century, to Pope Urban’s call to the First Crusade more than four centuries later, the “Saracens” and their prophet were consistently abhorred.

Thus, writing around 650, John of Nikiu, Egypt, said that “Muslims”—the Copt is apparently the first non-Muslim to note that word—were not just “enemies of God” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.”[i] The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634—a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens.” The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion…. you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.”[ii] Others confirmed that “there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men’s blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.”[iii]

Muhammad is first mentioned by name in a Syriac fragment, also written around 634; although only scattered phrases are intelligible, they all revolve around bloodshed: “many villages [in Homs] were ravaged by the killing [of the followers] of Muhammad and many people were slain and [taken] prisoner from Galilee to Beth…” “[S]ome ten thousand” people were slaughtered in “the vicinity of Damascus…”[iv] Writing around 640, Thomas the Presbyter mentions Muhammad: “there was a battle [Adjnadyn?] between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled… Some 4,000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there … The Arabs ravaged the whole region”; they even “climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata.” A Coptic homily, also written around the 640s, is apparently the earliest account to associate the invaders with (an albeit hypocritical) piety. It counsels Christians to fast, but not “like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying, ‘we both fast and pray.’”[v]

Towards the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth centuries, learned Christians began to scrutinize the theological claims of Islam. The image of Muslims went from bad to worse. The Koran—that “most pitiful and most inept little book of the Arab Muhammad”—was believed to be “full of blasphemies against the Most High, with all its ugly and vulgar filth,” particularly its claim that heaven amounted to a “sexual brothel,” to quote eighth century Nicetas Byzantinos, who had and closely studied a copy of it. Allah was denounced as an impostor deity, namely Satan: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad,” read one Byzantine canonical rite.[vi]

But it was Muhammad himself—the fount of Islam—who especially scandalized Christians: “The character and the history of the Prophet were such as genuinely shocked them; they were outraged that he should be accepted as a venerated figure.”[vii] Then and now, nothing so damned Muhammad in Christian eyes as much as his own biography, written and venerated by Muslims. For instance, after proclaiming that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and unlimited concubines (Koran 4:3), he later declared that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33:50-52) offering him, the prophet alone, a dispensation to sleep with and marry as many women as he wanted. In response, none other than his favorite wife, Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” quipped: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”[viii]

Based, then, on Muslim sources, early Christian writers of Semitic origins— foremost among them St. John of Damascus (b. 676)— articulated a number of arguments against Muhammad that remain at the heart of all Christian polemics against Islam today.[ix] The only miracle Muhammad performed, they argued, was to invade, slaughter, and enslave those who refused to submit to him—a “miracle that even common robbers and highway bandits can perform.” The prophet clearly put whatever words best served him in God’s mouth, thus “simulating revelation in order to justify his own sexual indulgence”[x]; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by easing the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and fusing the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves.

Perhaps most importantly, Muhammad’s denial of and war on all things distinctly Christian—the Trinity, the resurrection, and “the cross, which they abominate”—proved for Christians that he was Satan’s agent. In short, “the false prophet,” “the hypocrite,” “the liar,” “the adulterer,” “the forerunner of Antichrist,” and “the Beast,” became mainstream epithets for Muhammad among Christians for over a thousand years, beginning in the late seventh century.[xi] Indeed, for politically correct or overly sensitive peoples who find any criticism of Islam “Islamophobic,” the sheer amount and vitriolic content of more than a millennium of Western writings on Muhammad may beggar belief.

Even charitable modern historians such as Oxford’s Norman Daniel—who rather gentlemanly leaves the most severe words against Muhammad in their original Latin in his survey of early Christian attitudes to Islam—makes this clear: “The two most important aspects of Muhammad’s life, Christians believed, were his sexual license and his use of force to establish his religion”; for Christians “fraud was the sum of Muhammad’s life…. Muhammad was the great blasphemer, because he made religion justify sin and weakness”; due to all this, “There can be no doubt of the extent of Christian hatred and suspicion of Muslims.”

Even the theological claims behind the jihad were examined and ridiculed. In his entry for the years 629/630, Theophanes the Confessor wrote: “He [Muhammad] taught his subjects that he who kills an enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise [Koran 9:111]; and he said that this paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with women, and had a river of wine, honey and milk, and that the women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and other things full of profligacy stupidity.”[xii]

[READ MORE ]

Islam: A giant step backwards for humanity

(CREEPING SHARIA) — by William Kilpatrick

One of the big mysteries of our day is how so many supposedly enlightened Catholics have managed to get it so wrong about Islam for so long. It’s understandable that in the 1960s, when the Islamic world was relatively quiescent, Catholics might entertain the high hopes for Islamic-Catholic relations expressed in Nostra Aetate. But this is 2017 and in the intervening half century a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

Given all that has transpired in the interim—9/11, daily terror attacks, the accelerating Islamization of Europe, and the development of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and Iran—it seems that Catholics deserve to know more about Islam than the brief treatment presented in Nostra Aetate or the even briefer treatment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism’s forty-four words on the subject end with the reassurance that “together with us they [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (842). Unfortunately, that has been interpreted by a good many clergy and laymen to mean “go back to sleep and don’t worry about a thing.”

To get an idea of how nonchalant the Church leadership has been about providing guidance on Islam, consider that the Catechism devotes about five times as much space to a discussion of man’s relationship with animals than it does to the Church’s relationship with Muslims.

It’s not just that many clergy and lay Catholic leaders fail to appreciate the deep differences in theology between Islam and Christianity, they fail to grasp the deep cultural and human differences that flow from the theological differences. To put the matter bluntly, Christianity is a humanizing religion and Islam is not. That statement needs some qualifying, of course; but there is enough difference between the Christian vision of the human person and the Islamic vision, that Catholic leaders should be extremely careful before declaring common cause with Islam. The many declarations of commonality and solidarity with Islam that now routinely issue from the lips of Church leaders only serve to confuse and mislead Catholics.

Theologically, the most significant fact about Islam is that it is an anti-Christian movement. That’s one of the main themes in Nonie Darwish’s book, Wholly Different. Darwish who grew up in an Islamic society and subsequently converted to Christianity, contends that Islam is a counter-revolutionary faith: a rejection of core Bible beliefs. As she puts it:

[Muhammad] didn’t just quietly reject the Bible. Instead, he launched a ferocious rebellion against it… Islam is a negative religion, consumed with subversion. It is a rebellion and counter-revolution against the Biblical revolution.

The Biblical revolution was not only a revolution in our thinking about God, but also a revolution in our thinking about man. The most revolutionary moment occurred when God took on our humanity and became one of us. As Pope St. John Paul II observed, the Incarnation not only reveals God to man, it reveals man to himself.

In rejecting the Incarnation, Muhammad also rejected the heightened status of humanity that flows from it. This is not to say that this was his intention from the start. Islam didn’t begin as an anti-Christian theology, but it was almost inevitable that it would develop that way. Muhammad considered himself to be a prophet, and he wanted very much to be recognized as such. The trouble is that a prophet has to have a prophetic message. And, after Jesus revealed himself as the Son of God and the fulfillment of all prophecy, there wasn’t much left to say in that line.

Realizing this, Muhammad set about to retell the story of Jesus, recasting him not as the Son of God but as another—and lesser—prophet. This demotion of Jesus thus cleared the way for Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. (Faced with a similar problem, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church, came up with a similar solution. In his telling, Jesus failed in his assigned task of marrying and creating a perfect family, thus leaving it up to Moon to carry out the unfinished mission.)

Jesus is in the Koran, but he has, in effect, been neutralized. He is not divine, he was not crucified nor resurrected, and he plays no role in the redemption of the human race. In fact, there is no suggestion in the Koran that mankind needs to be redeemed. One has to believe in Allah and his messenger (Muhammad) and obey Allah and his Messenger, and Allah will probably (there is no certainty) admit him to paradise. But one does not have to be born again.

We talk about “radical” Islam, but, in a sense, there is nothing radical about Islam. It does not require a radical transformation of the self as does Christianity. In Islam, man is not made in the image of God. Consequently, there is no call to holiness, no requirement that “you … must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48). The radical transformation in Christ which prepares one for communion with God is not necessary since man’s destiny is not union with God, but union with maidens in paradise. There is no need of spiritual transformation because heaven is simply a better version of earth.

That’s one way of looking at human destiny. But the Christian view is altogether different. Saint Paul wrote “we … are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18), and “though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed everyday … preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:16-17).

Whatever one may think of the truth of the Christian message, the message is that humans have a very high calling. The difference between this vision of man and the rather low estimate of human potential contained in the Koran is profound. It’s a wonder that so many Catholics are willing to dilute that vision for the sake of creating an illusory moral parity with Islam.

Islam’s lack of interest in human transformation begins with the lack of human interest in the Koran. Although it was composed some 600 years after the Gospels, it contains none of the drama of the Gospels—no divine drama and no human drama. Instead, it is a collection of disconnected statements, warnings, and curses, interspersed with Muhammad’s own versions of stories borrowed from the Bible.

Even when he retells these stories, Muhammad seems largely incapable of infusing the prophets and heroes of the Bible with personality. Indeed, the only character in the Koran that Muhammad seems truly interested in is himself.

In order to emphasize his humility, Islamic apologists like to say that Muhammad is only mentioned four times in the Koran. I haven’t counted but that seems about right. Nevertheless, Muhammad manages to mention himself on nearly every page—sometimes as the “Messenger,” sometimes as the “Apostle,” sometimes as the “Prophet,” and nearly always as the indispensable intermediary between Allah and men. This repeated emphasis on his role as a prophet is also found in the hadith collections. For example, “I have been sent to all mankind and the line of the prophets is closed with me” (Sahih Muslim, book 004, number 1062).

Other than Allah, Muhammad is the main person of interest in the Koran. Which brings us back to the place of Jesus in the Koran. The truth is, he plays only a minor role. He is mentioned as one of the prophets on several occasions, and on a few other occasions he is given some lines to speak. On one of these occasions he assures Allah that he did not ever claim to be God: “I could never have claimed what I have no right to” (5:116).

Jesus has a place in the Koran, but only because he knows his place. His role is to remove the main obstacle to Muhammad’s claim of prophethood. Who better than Jesus to renounce Jesus’ claim to Sonship and thereby clear the way for Muhammad to be the seal of the prophets?

But, in stripping Jesus of his divinity, Muhammad also managed to strip him of his humanity. The Jesus of the Koran is simply not an interesting person. Indeed he hardly qualifies as a person. He seems more like a disembodied voice.

When Christians hear that Jesus is in the Koran, they assume that he must be someone like the Jesus of the Gospels. Thus they can reassure themselves that although Muslims don’t accept Christ’s divinity, they will at least become familiar with his life. Anyone who bothers to read the Koran, however, will be quickly disabused of that notion. There is no life of Jesus in the Koran. There is no slightly altered version of the gospel story. Indeed, there is no story at all—just a few brief appearances in order to make the point that Jesus is only a man, not the Son of God.

This abbreviated treatment of Jesus in the Koran is matched by a diminished view of the human person. In Islam, man is little more than a slave of Allah. He can achieve paradise, but paradise is essentially a heavenly harem. According to the Christian vision, man’s destiny is union with God. According to the Islamic vision, man’s destiny is to copulate.

In rejecting the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, Muhammad also rejected the Christian vision of a redeemed humanity. The fact of the Incarnation raised the status of man immeasurably—“no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir” (Gal. 4:7). That’s why Christmas carols are so full of joy. As one hymn reminds us, the night of our Savior’s birth becomes the moment at which “the soul felt its worth.” Thanks to Muhammad’s dismal vision, however, all this is missing in Islam—no “joy to the world,” no “hark the herald angels sing,” no “ding-dong merrily on high.”

In light of the comparative bleakness of the Islamic vision, it is difficult to understand why so many Catholic prelates and theologians insist on identifying Islam as a fellow faith with which we have much in common. Likewise, it’s not easy to comprehend why so many of them want to declare their solidarity with Islam.

Theologically and humanly, Islam represents a giant step backwards. It would take us back to a time when the idea of human dignity was considered laughable—to a time when slavery was unremarkable and women were valued less than men and sometimes less than animals.

[READ MORE ]

A warning about Islam: “Hey, have you heard the one about the T-Rex at Fifth and Main?”

IT GOES LIKE THIS: Two men at the corner of Fifth and Main are engrossed in conversation. As they jabber away, one of them looks over the shoulder of the other and sees a Tyrannosaurus Rex coming down Main Street. He says to his friend, “Hey, there’s a Tyrannosaurus Rex coming our way!” The other guy says, “Oh, come on, that’s impossible,” and he resumes talking about what he was talking about. The other man says, “I’m not kidding. Just turn around and look for yourself.” But his friend is adamant. “Don’t be silly,” he says. By then the man who sees what’s coming is frantic because the monster is getting closer and closer. In exasperation, he says, “Look, all you gotta do is turn around, and you will see for yourself what I’m talking about!” But the other man crosses his arms and says in a scornful voice, “I refuse to listen to this nonsense.” By then the T-Rex is up behind him, and with its massive jaws wide open it sinks its teeth into him and swallows him whole. The other man, meanwhile, runs off to look for a gun and rally people to defend themselves against the monster. Read more »

What is the purpose of Islamic centers/mosques in America?

(UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT) — Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.” This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man. Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time. Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did. Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow. And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law). There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations. Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader. The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam. It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition. It was a place where jihadis lived and trained. It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched. So, that’s what a mosque is.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader. This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad): The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers.

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.”

In 2002, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted a famous muslim refrain: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” further highlighting the understanding among Muslims of what a mosque it. (“Turkey’s Charismatic Pro-Islamic Leader.” BBC News. 4 November 2002)

One of the leading Islamic jurists in the world who also led the first prayers in Egypt after the successful MB revolution there in 2011 – Yusuf al Qaradawi – published a fatwa (legal ruling) on the question “Is it permissible to use a mosque for political purposes?” In it he stated, in part:

“It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah, resisting the enemies of the religion who are invading occupiers. That blessed Intifada in the land of the prophets, Palestine, started from none other than the mosques. Its first call came from the minarets and it was first known as the mosque revolution. The mosque’s role in the Afghan jihad, and in every Islamic jihad cannot be denied.”

There is a reason American soldiers and Marines find weapons, ammunition, and jihadis in mosques overseas, and why the French are finding weapons in mosques in France – this is what mosques are.

It is worth noting when the FBI killed Imam Luqman Abdullah in a shootout in Detroit in 2009, the complaint in the case quoted an FBI source stating he/she, “…saw and participated in extensive firearms and martial arts training inside the Masjid al Haqq (mosque).”

[READ MORE]

Tommy Robinson: What if Muhammad was tried for war crimes today?

(THE REBEL) — By Tommy Robinson

We know that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a warlord. We know that he raped and pillaged. If Muhammad were tried in British courts in 2017, his list of criminal convictions would be pretty substantial.

Not only would Muhammad be serving multiple life sentences for torture and rape, but his convictions for war crimes and murdering hundreds of people would land him with a prison sentence unmatched by anyone else in recent history.

Watch and learn why I’ve been campaigning for years about the true nature of Islam, and why I’m not so keen on the prophet!

[READ MORE]

How to deal with Islamic terrorism once and for all

(WESTERN FREE PRESS) — By Frank Burleigh

PEOPLE WHO ARE TERRIFIED BY THE RELENTLESS advance of Islam should take comfort in the fact that no one in Athens today believes that Zeus resides on Mount Olympus or that no one in Rome still worships at the temple of Jupiter.

These were myths that bound Greek and Roman civilizations together, but they were ultimately discarded when people began to see they were nothing more than fabulous stories.

Why this should be comforting to people today is the fact that Islam is based entirely on a myth, one whose demise is long overdue. This is the myth that God talked to Muhammad, that he was God’s “messenger.” Everything Muslims believe and everything they do is derived from that primary, bedrock myth.

Given that Islam aspires eventually to take over the entire world and that it is making rapid progress in infiltrating and undermining the West, isn’t it time to go after the myth that sustains it? To destroy the myth about Muhammad is to destroy what he created.

Let’s get to the heart of it: Islam is plain dangerous. It always has been, and it always will be, no matter what flavor it comes in. There’s no need to argue the point because its violence is in the news almost every day, and more people all the time are waking up to the fact that their very civilization is at risk. What needs to be argued is the best way to mount a counteroffensive.Dropping bombs is certainly part of it. Just recently, it was reported that two B-2 bombers flew a 36-hour mission to destroy a secret ISIS camp somewhere in Libya. Result: 100 jihadis killed. That’s great news — except that when the bombers are gone, Islam is still there.

Another approach is needed. A different delivery system and different munitions are required based on a clear understanding of where the real battlefield is what the real target needs to be. The real battlefield is the mind, and the real target is the myth that God talked to Muhammad.

The delivery system already exists. It is a Western invention that has not yet been adapted for use in the war that Islam is waging against the world. This is cinema. It is the perfect platform for launching a counteroffensive targeting the foundation myth of Islam.

The munitions are plentiful. These are the chilling details of Muhammad’s life that are found in the original literature of Islam. Muslims do not dispute the details; they only try to hide them. What they try to hide is that two thirds of the canonical biographical materials about their “Messenger of God” have to do with the crimes against humanity he committed in imposing his cult.

The new approach, the new delivery system, turns what Muslims believe about Muhammad against them. It does so graphically, in movies starring Muhammad — Hollywood quality blockbusters that set off explosions in the mind, the real battlefield.Books have been published that lay out this material, but relatively few people read such books so that their impact is at best trickle down. Yet they lay the groundwork. The authors have done the heavy lifting of tedious research. Their work provides the raw material for the creative imagination to take hold of and transmute into ingenious cinematic productions — not propaganda, but truth propagation films based on what is found in Islam’s own literature.

This requires thinking big, far reaching thinking, the thinking of visionaries whose goal is not to contain or even push back Islam, but to get rid of it. It needs to become axiomatic that any thinking about how to deal with Islam that does not include the goal of getting rid of it is a waste of time.

This is how to not waste time. It is to use the best delivery system in the world combined with the best munitions in the world: cinema firing the grotesque details of Muhammad’s life at the world.

The entire planet is the audience, and it can be broken down into two groups:

The first is made up of non-believers, five billion strong. The spread of myth-busting knowledge about Muhammad to this large group is still in its early stages. Most people are aware that Islam is a serious problem due to the fact that people are being slaughtered in its name everywhere. But most still do not know why it is happening or what they can do about it. That is because the truth is hidden by politically correct or even treasonous media, and by governments that have become wobbly in the knees. The dissemination of the truth about Muhammad through dramatic recreation in film will serve the purpose of rapidly lifting this self-imposed veil for people everywhere to see the face behind it, the face of Muhammad. When the truth about the cause of all the havoc becomes universally known, spines throughout the world will stiffen with resolve to do something about it. It is difficult to deal with a problem if the cause of it is not understood. Now it will be understood. It is not the Koran, nor is it the threat of sharia law, it is the man who created them.

The second audience is made up of the faithful, estimated to consist of one and a half billion people. This may come as a shock, but most of the faithful do not know the truth about Muhammad either. They were raised — some would say brainwashed — with the mythologized version, and in that mythology their prophet is a man so holy that he will assist God on the Day of Judgment in determining the fate of believers. Muslims take it literally that Muhammad went up into heaven after being flown from Mecca to Jerusalem on the back of a winged mule. They do not doubt he was brought before God with whom he negotiated how many times each day they must pray. Most of these people have never read the Koran, and many are forced to memorize it in Arabic even though not understanding a word.

[READ MORE]

The Cube of Mecca, aka the Kabah

IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD THERE WAS THE KABAH — at least, if you believe what Muslims are indoctrinated into believing about the draped temple of Mecca that is orbited by masses of people every year during the pilgrimage season.

The story goes it was a jewel sent down to the world by Allah from his throne far above the seventh of the seven heavens. Adam, the first man, built the Kabah as the first temple of worship of Allah, but it was destroyed in the great flood that Allah inflicted on the world for disobedience to his will. It was rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael, and Ishmael fathered a line of Arabs that led finally to Muhammad. But by Muhammad’s time, the temple had fallen into the wrong hands, into the hands of idolaters who worshiped other gods than Allah. Read more »