Countering Islamic Apologist with Truth


Insanity & Consequence of Islam

 

John R. Houk

© April 17, 2015

 

Zaheer Baig posted a comment on my “About Page” on my WordPress blog called NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Raig is an apologist for Islam and is pursuing the deceptive (or self-deceived) line that Islam is peace and goes on to include other Quranic lies pertaining that Biblical persons were and always have been Islamic:

 

Zaheer Baig | April 14, 2015 at 2:26 AM

 

Islam is a natural way of life that encourages one to give due attention to their relationship with God and His creation. Islam teaches that it is through the doing of good deeds and seeking the pleasure of God that souls find true happiness and peace. It is in this context that the word Islam derives from the root word “salam,” or peace.

God sent Prophets to teach mankind how to worship Him; starting with Adam, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and the last of the messengers, Muhammad (peace be upon them all). The Islamic position is that all of these prophets came with the same message, that there is no deity worthy of worship except the One True God, known in Arabic as Allah.

 

Vlad Tepes found an interesting quote about Islam from the irreligious yet seeker of a self-satisfactory answer about that which is divine – Voltaire (1694-1777):

 

“The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others, murder as a legitimate means for the dissemination and preservation of this satanic doctrine, it talks ill of women, classifies people into classes, calls for blood and ever more blood. Yet, that a camel trader sparks uproar in his tribe, that he wants to make his fellow citizens believe that he talked to the archangel Gabriel; that he boasted about being taken up into heaven and receiving a part of that indigestible book there, which can shake common sense on every page, that to gain respect for this work, he covers his country with fire and iron, that he strangles fathers, drags away daughters, that he leaves the beaten a free choice between death and his faith: now this is certainly something that no-one can excuse, unless he came as a Turk into the world, unless superstition has stifled any natural light of reason in him. ”

 

Voltaire (1694-1788) Translation by SIMONXML from “ISLAM – Dem Untergang geweiht” by Thomas K. Luther, p.24. (Voltaire quote on Islam from the 1700s; Posted by Eeyore; Vlad Tepes; 4/16/15 – Bold text by Editor JRH)

 

Voltaire was no friend of Christianity or any revealed religion including Islam. And yet he was also wise enough to provide an astute observation of that theopolitical religion’s Quran. In the first paragraph I called Zaheer Baig deceptive; however I also gave him (actually I don’t know if the person is male or female) the benefit of the doubt by throwing in parentheses “self-deceptive”. I mention this because there are a number of Muslims that toe the line about “Islam is Peace”. Frankly if you examine the Islamic writings as did Voltaire you will discover that Islam is so far from peace that is laughable not to exchange “peace” for “violent”.

 

To be clear though deceiving or self-deceived Muslims will tell a non-Muslim (Islam labels as kafir) that Islam is peace and quote Quranic references that show a shining light of a religion that embraces a brotherhood who has an opportunity to submit and worship their deity Allah which in turns provides the assurance of peace.

 

At al-Islam.org there is a demonstration ecstatic relationship between Allah perceived as the Creator and that deity’s so-called creation:

 

 

We cannot understand certain questions in this regard unless we know what sort of relationship there exists between Allah and the creation. …

 

Anyhow the relationship between Allah and the creation is not of the sort that exists, for example, between father and son, that is between two things existing independently but related to each other. The sun and its rays are an example of a closer relationship. In this case also the sun and its rays are two different things, each having a separate existence to some extent. Man and his mental and physical faculties are an example of another kind of relationship.

 

Even in this case man and his faculties are not identical, though they are closely related. Unlike all these examples, the relationship between the existing things and Allah, Who is the source of their existence, is of quite a different kind and cannot be compared to any of the relationships mentioned above. At several places in the Qur’an and the traditions the relationship between Allah and His creation has been described as Allah’s glory. The Qur’an says:

 

When his Lord revealed His glory to the mountain. (Surah al-A’raf, 7:143).

 

There is a sentence in the Samat Supplication which says:

 

‘By the light of Your glory You revealed to the mountain and thus sent it down crashing…’

 

 

Meanings of Al-Hamd

 

We said earlier that the first possibility about the definite article in al-Hamdu is that it might be denoting comprehensiveness. In that case hamd (praise) would mean all praises, and the word ‘hamd’ as well as the word, ‘ism’ will have a sense of multitude. From this point of view ‘al-hamdu lillahi’ would mean that every praise that is made is that of Allah, for it is always the praise of some aspect of His manifestation or glory.

 

The sun manifests itself in its rays. Man is manifested in his seeing and hearing faculties. Allah manifests Himself far more clearly in every creation of His. Therefore, when anything is praised actually a manifestation of Allah’s glory is praised.

 

As all the existing things are the signs of Allah, they are His names. According to the second possibility we mentioned, the meaning would be diametrically different, and ‘al-hamdu lillahi’ would signify that no praise made by any praiser was that of Allah, although in this case also His glory is revealed in all the objects which are praised. But our praise cannot be absolute, nor are we capable of praising the Absolute Being.

 

Anyhow, as all pluralities are lost and absorbed in the unity of the Absolute Being, it may be said that from one angle even in this case it is the Absolute Being that is praised. The only difference is … (Light Within Me: Part 3.2: Relationship between Allah and His Creation; By Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari; Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn at-Tabataba’i, and Ayatullah Sayyid Imam Ruhallah al-Musawi al-Khomeini; Al-Islam.org [Shi’ite website]; Copyright Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project 1995 – 2015)

 

WOW! If you are a person searching for divine attunement with an eternal deity that provides inner peace and inner fulfillment this sounds alluringly enticing. You’ll figure out that this represents Shi’ite theopolitical theology which in full disclosure probably represents only about 10% of Islam, but the significance is the deception is an English translation of some big dogs from Iran. Also it is crap compared the part of Islam that abrogates these enticing words.

 

Take note the alluring enticement is also among the Sunni that roughly represent about 90% of Islam as well:

 

 

The Sunni ideology is directly related to the doctrine of monotheism, in which the relationship between God and the elements of nature, either humanity or even non-living beings, is that of a continuous state of complete submission and worshipping from the side of the created to God, the Creator:

 

[Blog Editor: This essay gives the translation for Quran 17:44 but mistakenly sources Quran 44:17. Or the essay author sets the Surah first than the chapter but I don’t think so.]

 

This relationship of servitude takes place without any merging or sharing of the divine nature by the Creator and his creation, but it takes place while God is completely outside of and beyond the world.

 

According to the Sunni ideology, God is God and man is man. Their relationship is very close. …

 

But this closeness does not imply identification between the two. Moreover, orthodox Sunni belief tends to hold a transcendental vision of Godhead in the way it believes that Allah does not resemble his creation. Allah describes Himself in Quran saying:

 

Quran 42: 11

 

This verse of the Quran encompasses that Allah is completely different from His creation in His attributes and actions.

 

Any created being, either man or any other element of nature, is liable to materialistic measures of existence, i.e. time and place which cannot be ascribed to Godhead. God exists but without a place. …

 

 

Although the relationship between God and man is that of servitude and submission to God’s will, it is not to be of subjugation or humiliation. On the contrary, it is of trust and respect. In the following long verse Allah the Almighty sheds light on the special and intimate relationship between Him and man amongst the other creations. He says:

 

Quran 2:30-34

 

We learn from these verses that God created humans with the purpose of being God’s vicegerents and trustees on earth.

 

 

According to the Sunni conception of God and His relationship with nature, nature is not the manifestation of God but of His infinite wisdom, capability and empowerment.

 

God has created nature in this perfect form as signs of His existence which guides humanity to strengthen their belief in Him. Allah the … (God, Nature, and Humanity; By Amani Aboul Fadl Farag; OnIslam.net; 2012/10/30)

 

Okay, I realize I probably overshared on Shia and Sunni subject pertaining to the allure of Islam, but you need to understand just how sugarcoated the deception is and the nature of the theology is taught to Muslim adherents who should know that the Quran, Hadith and Sira are very violent against Muslims AND toward Muslims who deviate from the submission standards that make Islam theopolitical.

 

The reality is Islam is a dualistic theological ideology that mixes the standard of political governance in its submission process. The short explanation for this dualism is that two opposite Quranic statements or commands are both correct depending on the circumstances presented to the Muslim.

 

Not only are there two Korans, Meccan and Medinan, that are different in tone and subject matter, but also the Koran has many verses that contradict each other.

 

Koran 2:219 says that Muslims should be tolerant and forgiving to People of the Book.
Koran 9:29 says to attack the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah, the dhimmi tax, submit to Sharia law and be humbled.

 

Which verse shows the true nature of Islam?

 

The Koran recognizes its contradictions and even gives a rule to resolve the contradictions. The later verse abrogates (supersedes) the earlier verse. This does not mean, however, that the earlier verse is wrong or in error. This would be impossible since the fundamental hypothesis is that Allah created the Koran and, hence, the earlier verse must be true or Allah would be wrong.

 

 

But, the earlier verse is true and still used. Abrogation does not negate the early verse. Indeed, the earlier “peaceful” verse that is abrogated is the one most apt to be used in public discourse.

 

… In Koranic logic, two statements can contradict each other and both are true. This is dualistic logic.

 

 

… Duality includes the special case of abrogation and it explains how the entire doctrine of Koran and Sunna work. It is not just the Koran that is contradictory, but all of the Sunna. 

 

… (Statistical Islam Part 5 of 9 – Abrogation and Dualism; By Bill Warner; Political Islam; 12/2/10)

 

In an earlier post by Bill Warner on Islamic Dualism he writes:

 

 

The Koran defines an Islamic logic that is dualistic. … … so in dualistic logic. All of the doctrine refers to two classes of people–Muslims and non-Muslims, kafirs. The doctrine that applies to kafirs is political in nature and is rarely neutral or positive. The part of the doctrine that applies to Muslims is cultural, legal, and religious.

 

The second grand division of Islamic doctrine is into religious Islam and political Islam. It is surprising how much of the doctrine is political. Approximately 67% of the Meccan Koran and 51% of the Medinan Koran is political. About 75% of the Sira is about what was done to the kafir. Roughly 20% of the Hadith is about jihad, a political act.

 

… (Duality and Political Islam; Bill Warner; Political Islam; 10/26/07)

 

You should also read “Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam,” by David Bukay.

 

Zaheer Baig further asserts that Islam is derived from the Arabic salaam (he/she spelled it “salam”) which means peace, BUT is it true that Islam is derived from salaam?

 

 

The word Islam derives from the Arabic triconsonantal root sīn-lām-mīm (SLM [ س ل م ]). Many different words are created from this root word by inserting different vowels between the three root consonants. Many English speakers wrongly assume that if two Arabic words share the same root word then their meanings are related when in reality the fact that some words share the same root word does not imply a relationship between the meanings of the words. For instance, all of these words are derived from the root S-L-M:

 

o   Islam = Submission

 

o   Salam = Well-being/Peace

 

o   (Derivation of) Salama = To be saved or to escape from danger (when refering to a female)

 

o   Saleem = To be saved or to escape from danger (when refering to a male)

 

o   Aslam = To submit

 

o   Istaslama = To surrender

 

o   Musal = Undisputed

 

o   Tasleem = To receive a salutation or becoming submitted

 

Many people have wrongly attempted to equate the word Islam with peace by showing that Islam, meaning ‘submission’, shares a root word with Salaam, meaning ‘peace’. But if such relationships between the meanings of Arabic words can be created then that would imply that there is a relationship between one of the derivations of the infinitive Salama, meaning the stinging of the snake or tanning the leather, and Salam, meaning peace; a relationship which obviously does not exist.

 

The Compendium of Muslim Texts, compiled by the USC-MSA, the Muslim Students Association at the University of Southern California,[1] confirms READ THE REST (The Meaning of Islam; Updated by Axius; WikiIslam; page was last modified 15:59, 6 February 2014)

 

Mo recited Biblical stories but noticeably transformed those stories to fit a perception that validated Allah as the true god, Mo as the last prophet and the other Judeo-Christian faiths based on the Bible as corrupted and corrected by Mo’s prophetic words eventually edited and turned into the Quran. That should send up a red flag in the believability factor. Duped original Arabs fell for Mo’s line and Biblically knowledgeable Jews and Christians often paid with their lives knowing Mo was a false prophet.

 

,,,

 

The Quran alters stories and beliefs taught in the Christian Bible

 

… The Old and New Testament stories are anointed as divine messages from “prophets”, but the stories and beliefs those prophets introduced are noticeably altered before Islam’s holy book takes a new tack, condemning the people, message, and beliefs of both Judaism and Christianity.

 

 

The Quran tells different versions of New Testament stories

 

The Quran promotes its own modified view of Christianity and Jesus’ life. The Quran expands on Mary’s life, introduces new tales of Jesus’ early life, and goes to great lengths to deemphasize Jesus as a divine figure, proclaiming he was simply another “Messenger” (like Muhammad). In fact, Islam teaches its followers that Jesus’ crucifixion did not occur but rather was a cunning deception.

 

The Quran tells different versions of Old Testament stories

 

According to the Quran, God revealed new details of Old Testament stories to Muhammad. In particular, events surrounding Adam and Eve, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Jacob, Noah, and numerous other minor Old Testament characters are revised. Most Old Testament stories related in the Quran are similar to the Christian (and Jewish) versions but with additional, surprising details “revealed by God” to Muhammad (these new versions of Old Testament stories are often repeated several times throughout the Quran).

 

 

Initial acceptance of other religions (e.g. Jewish, Christian)

 

Initially the Quran accommodates other religions and in particular, accepts the word of the Old and New Testaments as messages from God. While initially seeming tolerant of Jewish and Christian beliefs, it quickly reveals that the Quran has the authority to override Old and New Testament teachings.

 

 

The Muslim version of heaven

 

The Muslim vision of heaven differs slightly from the typical Christian depiction. In fact, there are seven heavens mentioned in the Quran (a concept carried over from the Jewish Talmud).

 

 

The Quran notes that people are “ranked” in heaven according to the number and quality of good deeds they do, and many Muslims believe this ranking dictates which “heaven” you will be admitted to.

 

In most instances, heaven is described as a “garden wherein streams flow”, a peaceful place where those granted entry can live an existence of luxury amongst flowing rivers, fruit trees, servants, and as noted in one verse, young virgin women. Notice that there is no mention of “72 virgins for every man” in the Quran. This often-quoted number comes from a hadith, a sort of eye-witness commentary on the Quran and life of Muhammad.

 

… Quite Lengthy but READ ENTIRETY (A Christian guide to the Quran – the surprising truth behind the religion of Islam; Bible Blender; 2/10/15)

 

Zaheer Baig mentions these names from the Quran that are also in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus:

 

Adam

 

·         In the Bible, God tells the man to name the animals.[22] In the Qur’an, God teaches Adam the names “of all things” and Adam repeats them.[15]

 

·         In the second of the Bible’s creation stories, the woman is created from the rib of the man. In the Qur’an, Eve is not mentioned by name, but it states that all mankind were created from one soul (Adam).[23][24]

 

·         In the Bible, the forbidden tree named is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (3:5), and while its fruit is often depicted as an apple, the Bible does not describe the fruit.[25] In the Qur’an the forbidden tree is not named but Shaitaan calls it The Tree of Eternity to deceive Adam and his wife.[15]

 

·         In the Bible, God creates man in His own image.[26] In the Qur’an, God says “Surely the likeness of (Prophet) Isa(Jesus in Bible) is with God as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.”[8]

 

·         In the Qur’an, God tells the angels to prostrate before Adam (as a sign of respect and obedience), but Iblis (thereafter referred to as Shaitaan) refuses.[27] In the Bible, no such account is given.

 

·         According to the Bible, because of God’s curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. The Biblical story also states that women will suffer from periods and will bear pregnancy pain.[28] This apparently differentiates blessing and obedience from pain and sinning. According to the Qur’an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise. (Adam and Eve (آدم Adam and حواء Hawwaa); Wikipedia)

 

Cain and Able or (Qābīl and Hābīl)

 

The story of Cain and Abel

 

·         After Cain killed his brother Abel, The Quran says that “Allah sent a raven who scratched the ground to show him how to hide the shame of his brother.” Surah 5:31. This is not mentioned in the Bible. (The Bible vs. The Quran: The Story of Cain and Abel; By Abdullah al Araby; Islam Review)

 

Noah

 

·         The Qur’an focuses on a dialogue between Noah and the wicked (Hud 11:32–37), in which Noah unsuccessfully attempts to remonstrate with his countrymen, who reject his message. Genesis does not mention such a dialogue. (In the Christian Bible, 2Peter2:5, Noah is called a “preacher of righteousness”.)

 

·         In the Qur’an, Noah’s wife and one of his sons reject him (Hud 11:43) and die in the flood, while some people outside his family are faithful and join him (Hud 11:42). In the biblical narrative, Noah’s wife together with his three sons and their wives all board the Ark, but no others.

 

·         In the Qur’an, there is no such indication that the flood was universal, although many Islamic scholars claim to interpret otherwise.

 

·         In the Qur’an, the Ark is said to rest on the hills of Mount Judi (Hud 11:44); in the Bible, it is said to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4) The Al-Djoudi (Judi) is apparently a mount in the Biblical mountain range of Ararat. The Qur’an cites a particular mount in the Ararat Range, whereas the Bible just mentions the Ararat Range by name. There is a Mount Al-Djoudi in the present-day Ararat mountain range in Turkey. (Noah (نوح Nūḥ); Wikipedia)

 

Abraham

 

·         In Genesis, the sacrificial son is Isaac, whereas in the Qur’an it is Ishmael (Ismā’īl إسماعيل), since it first narrates this story, followed by the account (mentioned above) of Abraham receiving the tidings of a son, Isaac (As-Saaffat 37:102–112. Therefore, Muslims believe the sacrificial son was Ishmael (Ismā’īl إسماعيل) and that this event happened prior to Isaac’s birth. It may be added that the name Abraham is a literary trope in Genesis Ab- “father-of(-many-nations)” while the Arabic name masks the connection. In the New Testament the son is Isaac (James 2:21).

 

·         While God seems to speak directly to Abraham in Genesis, He speaks through a vision in the Qur’an.

 

·         In the Qur’an, Abraham directly tells his son Ishmael (Ismā’īl إسماعيل) that he intends to sacrifice him. In Genesis, Abraham tells Isaac, that “God will provide the sacrifice.” (Abraham (Ibrāhīm ابراهيم); Wikipedia)

 

Isaac and Ishmael – Child of Promise?

 

·         Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham, a fact which the Quran agrees with (cf. Genesis 17:15-21; Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30). Ishmael was never a promised child.

 

·         Isaac was conceived miraculously to a barren mother and a very aged father, with the Quran likewise agreeing (cf. Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; Galatians 4:28-29; Surah 11:69-73, 51:24-30). Ishmael was conceived normally without the need of any miraculous intervention.

 

·         God promised that it would be Isaac’s descendants who would inherit the land given to Abraham. (Genesis 13:14-18, 15:18-21, 28:13-14). Ishmael had no part in the inheritance and promise given to Isaac through Abraham. (Abraham and the Child of Sacrifice – Isaac or Ishmael? By Sam Shamoun; Answering Islam)

 

The TRUE Word of God on Isaac and Ishmael:

 

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the[a] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”[a] 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Galatians 4: 21-26, 28-31 NKJV)

 

Moses

 

·         The Biblical Moses is reluctant to become a prophet and makes excuses. He eventually agrees and Aaron speaks and performs miracles at first until Moses is ready and takes over. In Quran, Aaron was made God’s messenger on Moses’ request to back him up in the difficult task. Moses asked God to give him human support from Family, then ask for Aaron (his brother) praising Aaron by saying that he (Aaron) is better speaker than him (Moses).

 

·         The sorcerers, in the Quranic story, repent after seeing Moses’ signs and submit to God at the anger of Pharaoh.

 

·         In the Quran, Pharaoh didn’t repent but tried to deceive Moses and God by saying that now he believes in one God, the God of Moses and Aaron (while drowning). But God didn’t accept this because he sought repentance at the time of death after seeing the angels.

 

·         In the Bible, Moses first goes to Pharaoh without showing any signs.

 

·         In Exodus, Aaron helps make the golden calf. In the Quran, Aaron himself was a messenger of God and was representing Moses in his absences. He opposed that idea with all his might and warned the Israelites that God will be angry with them. In the Qur’an, a person named Samiri (not to be confused with Samaritans) leads the Israelites to worship the golden calf.

 

·         Pharaoh drowns in Exodus. In the Quran, Pharaoh drowned as well, but God said in the Qur’an that he preserved the pharaoh’s body as an example for generations to come (or made an example for coming generations) (Moses (Mūsā موسى); Wikipedia)

 

Jesus Christ the Son of God

 

 

… The Christian faith has several key beliefs. The teaching that is unique to the Christian faith is that there is one God who eternally manifests Himself in three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is known as the Godhead or the blessed Trinity. The second critical doctrine is that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of God; therefore He is unique from everyone else. His Father was not human, but the holy God of Israel. The third key doctrine is that the Lord Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for man’s sin and then rose from the dead. There are other important doctrines, but these three really comprise the very heart of the Christian faith.

 

 

… The Koran claims that the Lord Jesus is only an apostle and for Christians to desist from teaching the blessed Trinity! In this same Sura, the Koran denies the Lord Jesus is the Son of God.

 

In one Sura the Koran attacks the very heart of Christianity by denying the blessed Trinity and that the Lord Jesus is the only begotten Son of God! It calls Christians liars and demands that the preaching of the Trinity and Jesus being the Son of God stop. The Koran identifies Christians sometimes as “followers of the book,” but when they proclaim Christian doctrine, the Koran then calls them liars. …

 

 

… The Koran even states in Sura 9:30 that those that believe Allah has a son should be destroyed by Allah! The Koran is very clear that it was written to attack this Christian doctrine.

 

 

The Koran literally says the Lord Jesus did not die on the cross. It claims that He appeared to have died on the cross, but He was not killed nor was He crucified. Allah just took Jesus to heaven. The Koran directly attacks the vicarious death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross, and thus rejects His redemption of man from sin. …

 

 

… The very heart of Christianity that the Lord is the Son of God is the worst sin in Islam! According to the Koran, Allah forbids heaven to anyone who commits this sin and their abode is hell without any help.

 

 

… The Koran states that God does not have a son. The Bible states that all life is in the Lord Jesus as the only begotten Son of God. With the Bible, if you have the Son, you have eternal life: if you do not have the Son, then you do not have eternal life. A person that does not believe this makes God a liar. The Koran written 500 years after these verses denies the Son, and therefore makes the God of the Bible a liar. The Bible is written in the positive stating God has a Son. …

 

 

… The warning of the Bible is same today as it was at the time of Muhammad:

 

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

 

(10) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

 

(11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

 

(12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

(13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

… (The Koran Directly Attacks Christianity; By John McTernan; Defend and Proclaim the Faith; Copyright 2009 by John McTernan: All rights reserved.)

 

 

Needless to say, I highly disagree with Zaheer Baig assertions that Islam is a peaceful faith in which “…  souls find true happiness and peace” and that the “Islamic position is that all of these prophets came with the same message, that there is no deity worthy of worship except the One True God, known in Arabic as Allah.”

 

That Islamic deception is a blatant antichrist lie!

 

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

 

26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.

 

4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

 

12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. (1 John 2: 18-19, 22-26; 4: 1-3, 12-16 NKJVBold text by Editor)

 

JRH 4/17/15

Please Support NCCR

Nonie Darwish Tells Truth of Islam while Detractors Excoriate Her


Nonie Darwish - Daughter of Shahid (Martyr)

John R. Houk

© October 3, 2012

 

Recently WorldNetDaily posted a two part audio interview with Nonie Darwish. Darwish is an ex-Muslim turned Counterjihad writer and speaker. It is quite fascinating that Muslim Apologists and Leftist pundit are all about spewing junk about former Muslims that have turned to exposing the darker nature of Islam. These guys twist and/or fabricate facts to give themselves the soapbox to call ex-Muslims liars. Muslims of the purist fashion and Leftists lack credibility. Muslims are instructed in taqiyya and Leftists lie to fool people to believe their utopia ends without notifying the means usually require a total transformation of society by a combination of slow sucker changes and/or deadly violence.

 

Nonie Darwish is one of those people loathed by Leftists and Muslim Apologists alike. There is never any proof about falsehood about any ex-Muslim Counterjihad writer, rather the accusation of faker or hoax is surmised by people that have a reason to lie or facts are so twisted as to be unrecognized as valid.

 

LoonWatch.com is no friend of Conservatives or Counterjihad writers. Here is an example of trash talking about Darwish which is obviously a stretch in drawing conclusions of liar:

 

We are going to have an explosive breakdown of the clownish Nonie Darwish, another charlatan akin to Wafa Sultan [SlantRight Editor: undoubtedly same unsubstantiated drivel that is here about Nonie Darwish] who is milking the Islamophobic cash cow for all it’s worth. Jim Holstun, a professor at SUNY Buffalo wrote this great piece in 2008 that lays bear (sic) Nonie’s excessive Islamophobia, as well as her contradictions and lies.

 

 

… Darwish interweaves stories of her Egyptian girlhood with potted accounts of female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, polygamy, veiling, domestic abuse, honor killings, sharia law, jihad, censorship, hate-oriented education, the rejection of modernity, the cult of martyrdom, Islamic imperialism, and the pathological, groundless hatred of Israel. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun is insinuating that the Egypt of the 1950’s did not have the described degenerate thinking. History and current events proves this was the truth then as much as now]

 

In her interviews and in her book, she insists that she is not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic, and even suggests from time to time that she is still a Muslim. Then she pivots nimbly and attacks “the Arab mind,” “the seething Arab street,” and “the Muslim world,” with its “culture of jihad,” “culture of death,” and “culture of envy.” [SlantRight Editor: Holstun confuses lack of animosity to former fellow Egyptians and criticism of Arab-Islamic culture as one and the same thing. This is pure manipulative propaganda by Holstun because criticism and a lack of grudge can be two separate things] There are “no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims,” and no significant differences within or among Arab or Muslim cultures: for Darwish, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism was essentially jihadist. Darwish is allergic to social history: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.” Instead of history, scholarship, and footnotes, she gives us a watered-down version of Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind: a dictionary of Islamophobic [SlantRight Editor: Typical of Muslim Apologists and Leftists if one presents facts that are critical of Islam the conclusion that person is ‘Islamophobic’]commonplaces underwritten by the authority of an ex-Muslim native informant: I was there — I know.

 

Darwish’s portraits of Israel and of the US, to which she emigrated in 1978, are diametrically opposite but equally fatuous: Israeli Jews are tolerant, pragmatic, and peace-loving. From 1967 to 1982, they made the Sinai bloom. Americans are honest, charitable, industrious, self-sufficient, intellectually curious, and benevolent toward the foreign nations to whom they bring liberty. They err only in their excess of credulous goodness: because of “the simplicity of American values such as truthfulness,” they risk falling prey to duplicitous jihadist immigrants and dangerous professors, who “indoctrinate American young people with the radical Muslim agenda.” [SlantRight Editor: I see that sarcasm and raise the truth to Holstun: Compare the lifestyle of an Arab-Muslim living inside Israel or America with the lifestyle of a Jew or Christian living in Egypt. What a putz]

 

Her outsider’s view of America complements her insider’s view of the Arab and Muslim world, for imperial states want not only other people’s land and labor, but their love. Here, we may compare Now They Call Me Infidel not only to recent anti-Islamic conversion narratives like Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel (her conversion was to neoconservative atheism and the American Enterprise Institute), but to earlier works in the genre. In her 1964 Editions Gallimard autobiography, O mes soeurs musulmanes, pleurez! (O My Muslim Sisters, Weep!), Zoubeida Bittari recounts her escape from Algerian Muslim patriarchy to French Christian bliss as a domestic servant to a Pied-Noir family; Nonie Darwish finds friends, family, and faith in southern California, including a Republican women’s group, an American husband, and Christian fellowship in Pastor Dudley Rutherford’s Shepherd of the Hills Church. As Bittari helped French colons feel better about their ungratefully rebuffed civilizing mission in Algeria, so Darwish helps Americans feel better about the long and bumpy road to global democratization. [SlantRight Editor: She may have become a Neocon – I don’t have a problem with that – it is a pure lie that she became an atheist. Although I longer believe Western representative democratic values will take in a land dominated by Islam, take not that Holstun writes of ‘global democratization’ as if it was a bad thing. When you get to the end of this quote you will understand why.]

 

There are occasional flashes of something more individual and authentic in Darwish’s book. For instance, her reiterated heartfelt attack on Nasser’s rent control laws (her mother lived partly off of her Cairo rentals) helps us understand why she feels so much more at home in southern California, where she arrived with enough money to buy a house with a swimming pool. But as a whole, the book is tedious, predictable, and badly edited — born to be bought, scanned and displayed, not actually read. But this will not diminish the demand for Darwish as a lecturer, which derives not from her writing but from her parentage: her father was Colonel Mustafa Hafez, head of Egyptian army intelligence in the Gaza Strip in the early ’50s, who was killed by an Israeli letter bomb in July 1956. Every lecture notice, every interview, even the title page of her book announces her as “a Muslim Shahid’s Daughter.” [SlantRight Editor: Note Holstun’s cynicism toward the gains of Capitalism. Also note the hubris of I’m better than Darwish because of I have a Left Wing college education – Leftist elitism.]

 

Throughout her book, Darwish struggles to maintain love and loyalty both to the father she lost at age eight and to the Israeli state that killed him. In a parting flourish, she says that “My father — and potentially my whole family — was sent to his death in Gaza by Nasser, who was consumed by his desire to destroy Israel,” and she fondly imagines him surviving and flying with assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to Israel. But this argument sometimes requires a torturous chronology: “When, on January 16, 1956, Nasser vowed a renewed offensive to destroy Israel, the pressure on my father to step up operations increased. More fedayeen groups were organized, and their training expanded to other areas of the Gaza Strip. Often my father was gone for days at a time. In an attempt to end the terror, Israel sent its commandos one night to our heavily guarded home.”

 

The problem here is that this early, failed assassination attempt occurred in 1953, when Hafez was struggling to prevent destabilizing Palestinian infiltration from Gaza into Israel. Things changed dramatically in February 1955, when then military commander Ariel Sharon’s Gaza raid killed 37 Egyptian soldiers and wounded 31. This raid brought shocked international condemnation, the end of Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett’s ongoing negotiations with Nasser, mass demonstrations of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, and Nasser’s decision to have Hafez organize and arm Palestinian fedayeen for cross-border forays. Israeli historians Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris see the raid as a turning point in Israeli-Arab relations. Darwish never mentions it. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun would have you believe Sharon’s commando raid was an unprovoked slaughter of Arab-Muslim men, women and children:

 

The year 1955 heralded a significant increase in border tension and bloodshed. On February 28 1955, in an operation named Black Arrow, the IDF killed thirty-six Egyptian troops (plus two civilians) and wounded thirty others during a raid on an Egyptian military barracks in Gaza in direct response to the murder of an Israeli cyclist, not far from Rehovot. Identity papers accidentally dropped by the Arab intruders indicated that they were in the service of Egyptian intelligence.[72]

 

 

Regardless of the criticism to which Israel was subject, there is no gainsaying the fact that it was the murder of a Jewish cyclist near Rehovot, by Egyptian intelligence agents illicitly reconnoitring in Israeli territory, that finally sparked the Gaza confrontation. As the historian David Tal remarked, “it is probably safe to say that without the murderous attack that preceded it, the Gaza raid would not have eventuated.”[76] The killing of the cyclist was not an isolated occurrence. Since May 1954, the Egyptian army had been sending its men into Israel with malicious intent. Just over a month before the Gaza raid, that is on January 21, an IDF soldier was killed by a twelve-man Egyptian army unit and a few days later two Israeli tractor drivers were fired upon, leading to the death of one of them and the wounding of the other.[77] Benny Morris, a scholar well known for exposing negative aspects of the IDF, viewed the Egyptian raids as demonstrating “a growing belligerency and adventurousness among Egyptian officials.”[78] Morris’ version is in keeping with Glubb’s summation that from 1954 onwards, “incidents in the Gaza strip became far more numerous than those on the Jordan front.” This was because “the Egyptian revolutionary government were desirous of incidents, for they were posing as the great military power which was about to defeat Israel.”[79]

 

Kennet Love, a confidant of Nasser insisted that the Gaza raid “transformed a stable level of minor incidents between the two countries (Israel and Egypt) into a dialogue of mounting fear and violence.”[80] What he did not explain was why Israel ought to have tolerated the continuation of “a stable level of minor incidents,” when the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement committed both sides to a total cessation of hostilities. In any case, it would seem that the Egyptians had every intention of ultimately escalating the border conflict into a full-scale war. Confirmation for this was forthcoming from Major Saleah Saleh a member of the Egyptian Government. On January 9, 1955, nearly two months before the Gaza raid, he declared that “Egypt will strive to erase the shame of the Palestine War even if Israel should fulfil all UN resolutions. It will not sign a peace with her. Even if Israel should consist only of Tel Aviv, we should never put up with that.”[81] (The Source of Arab Infiltration; by Leslie A. Stein; Think Israel, 2009)]

 

 

Continuing with her discussion of the earlier undated raid on her family’s home (it actually occurred on 28-29 August 1953), she says, “My father was not at home that night, and the Israelis found only women and children — my mother, two maids, and five small children. The commandos left us unharmed. I personally did not even wake up or know of the incident until later in life, when I read a book written about my father. After I read it, I called my mother immediately, and she confirmed the story. The Israelis chose not [to] kill us even though the Egyptian-organized fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.”

 

Young Nonie must have been a very sound sleeper, since one squad blew the gate off her house, injuring several civilians, and, by one account, proceeded to demolish the house. Grown-up Nonie seems not to know that the Israeli commandos were part of Ariel Sharon’s newly-organized Unit 101. While the one squad attacked her house, Sharon’s was cornered nearby in al-Bureij refugee camp. He decided they would bomb and shoot their way through the camp rather than retreat from it. General Vagn Bennike, the Danish UN Truce Chief, reported to the Security Council on the ensuing massacre: “Bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons. The casualties were 20 killed, 27 seriously wounded, and 35 less seriously wounded.” Other sources estimate from 15 to 50 fatalities.

 

The Israeli army blamed the raid on rogue kibbutzniks, and Ariel Sharon tried to reassure his men, telling them that all the dead women were camp whores or murderous Palestinian infiltrators. But some of them remained shocked at what they had done. Participant Meir Barbut said they felt as if they were slaughtering the pathetic inhabitants of a Jewish transit camp: “The boys threw Molotov cocktails at [innocent] people, not at the saboteurs we had come to punish. It was shameful for the 101 and the IDF [Israel army].” Another asked, “Is this screaming, whimpering multitude … the enemy? … How did these fellahin sin against us?” In 2006, Palestinian journalist Laila El-Haddad interviewed a survivor for Al Jazeera English:

 

“Mohammad Nabahini, 55, was two at the time and lived in the camp. He survived the attack in the arms of his slain mother. ‘My father decided to stay behind when they attacked. He hid in a pile of firewood and pleaded with my mother to stay with him. She was too afraid, and fled with hundreds of others, only to return to take me and a few of her belongings with her,’ he said. ‘As she was escaping, her dress got caught in a fence around the camp, just over there,’ he gestured, near a field now covered with olive trees. ‘And then they threw a bomb at her, Sharon and his men. She tossed me on the ground behind her before she died.’”

 

Though Darwish never mentions it, the al-Bureij Massacre hasn’t exactly been a secret — both Zionist and anti-Zionist historians have described it clearly, with little disagreement save the number of fatalities, with the high-end estimate coming from an Israeli history. If it tends not to loom large in Palestinian historical memory, that’s because it was overshadowed just two months later by the Qibya Massacre, during which Sharon’s Unit 101 killed 67, women and children, demolishing buildings over their heads and shooting them down when they tried to flee — the tactic pioneered at al-Bureij. Given its propensity for civilian soft targets, this daredevil elite unit might be better described as a death squad. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun demonstrate just how ignorant on how the Middle East uses deterrents to influence families, tribal affiliations and governments. If harm is perpetrated vengeance is required on a scale to influence the perpetrators to refrain from harm because of the consequences.

 

Honour in feuding societies, thus, became a kind of heritage that passes from generation to generation and if any damage is caused, it may authorize family or community members to retaliate against an offender pending the restoration of the initial ‘balance of honour’ that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor traverses its margins and brings at first family members and then the entire community into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.

 

 

Unlike Western countries, the Middle East ‘cultivates a collective existence,’ 34 and thus any affront leads to a collective responsibility that is shared by all the members of the community. Collective revenge may be implemented against nations or groups, blaming them for the perceived damage and ignoring the personal responsibility of each member individually. Revenge of this type can be an instrument in leaders’ hands  that may use it as an excuse to act in accordance with their own interests. (Revenge-the Volcano of Despair: The Story of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; by Helena Yakovlev Golani; Excerpts; Academia © 2012)

 

We contend that three main factors may induce a dynamic link between violent incidents on the two sides of the con!ict (sic). First, violence by one side can have an incapacitation effect, if it limits the other side’s capability to react. For example, Israeli targeted killings of key Palestinian leaders might reduce Palestinians’ ability to carry out further attacks against Israel; this is the stated Israeli rationale for such actions. Second, violence can have a deterrent effect, when one side refrains from using violence in fear of the other side’s reaction. Finally, violence by one side can lead to a reaction by the other side through a vengeance effect, to the extent that one side wishes to dispense retribution in response to the fatal casualties it suffers. (The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; II. Theoretical and Empirical Framework; By David A. Jaeger & M. Daniele Paserman; American Economic Review 2008, 98:4, 1591–1604)]

 

 

 

We probably shouldn’t expect Nonie Darwish to alter her campus presentations anytime soon. The bookings by StandWithUs might dry up if she were to start supplementing her cautionary tales about sharia law, jihadi immigrants, and female genital mutilation with a serious discussion of Israeli massacres at Deir Yassin, Tantura, al-Bureij, Qibya, Kfar Qasim, Sabra and Shatila, and Beit Hanoun. [SlantRight Editor: As I said before Israeli attacks are responses to Islamic Terrorism with the intention to show that Israel has the ability to smack Jew-haters with extreme prejudice if Jew-haters continue in acts of terrorism. This sounds harsh by Western standards but it is the way of life in the Middle East especially by a society constructed by Islamic Supremacism over the old Christian Culture replaced by conquest.] In any case, Darwish prefers simple cultural generalities and intimate personal reflection to historical analysis. But since that’s the case, someone at her next lecture might ask if she remembers playing with any of the refugee children murdered at al-Bureij, and why the kindly Israeli commandos who spared her family decided to blow up Mohammad Nabahini’s mother.

 

Jim Holstun teaches world literature and Marxism at SUNY Buffalo and can be reached at jamesholstun A T hotmail D O T com. [SlantRight Editor: Take note that Jim Holstun teaches Marxism and I suspect Holstun’s teaching of world literature is through the eyes of Marxism as well.]

 

 

LoonWatch.com is just one example of how Leftist and Islamic Apologists warp the truth about Conservative and Counterjihad writers and speakers.

 

Here is a Nonie Darwish bio found on the Directors’ page of Former Muslims United (Just scroll down a bit and Darwish is the first bio).

 

I had to go through all this justification to get to the WorldNetDaily article that has two audios of an interview with Nonie Darwish. Here at SlantRight 2.0 I am posting the WND text followed by two audio links. WND has one audio at the top and part two on the bottom.

 

JRH 10/3/12

Please Support NCCR

Comparing 911 Deaths to Iraqi Civilian Deaths Idiocy


911 WTC attack

John R. Houk

© July 18, 2012

 

How many innocent people died from a one day attack on 911?

 

The body count as of 2008 was 2,977 victims. The body for just the WTC as of 2012 had rolled up to 2,753. I can safely say that nearly 3,000 people died by an Islamic terrorist on unsuspecting civilian on American soil resulting from a one day attack.

 

Check out this misinformed comment fin a post from June 10, 2009:

 

Anonymous Sun Jul 15, 10:46:00 AM 2012

 

What is terrorism … Destruction and mayhem?
So what is all this America causes?
Just because they were suits does not mean they are not terrorists,
Over 300 people died in 9 11.
Do u know how many people and civilians died in Iraq by bombings from America?
Over 2000

 

Anonymous claims only 300 people died on American soil on that one day attack on September 11, 2001. Loud Buzz!!! Anonymous was of the mark by over 2500 innocent people who were not even close to expecting to die that day!

 

Now Anonymous is correct in stating over 2000 people died in Iraq that can be related by American from the beginning of the Iraq invasion to rid the world of a psycho-dictator. A psycho-dictator I might add that was hung by a liberated Iraqi government in a near public manner (gruesome alert) so that all Iraqis could know the devil Saddam Hussein would have no ability to return to power to slaughter Iraqi citizens he felt aided in deposing rapacious dictator.

 

In fact through 2012 4,804 people Iraqis died (I believe this link updates periodically) as a result of 9 years of war by the American led Coalition Forces against Islamic terrorists.

 

Now let’s stop and think about that. A one day attack resulted in nearly 3,000 unsuspecting people dying. It has taken NINE years of nearly 5,000 Iraqis to die. This is nearly 5,000 people who knew exactly what was coming.

 

In 2007 the website TheReligionofPeace.com gives us a better picture of who is doing most of the killing of Iraqi citizens. The big hint is American led troops are NOT the primary killers of civilians in Iraq:

 

In fact, if you do make it through the donation solicitation pages on the main site and begin to browse their database, you’ll notice that the tables are conspicuously missing a column – the party responsible for each attack.

 

There’s a reason for this, as we discovered when we analyzed each incident to answer this question.  It turns out that the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by Islamic terrorists, and that very few are from American bombs and bullets.  This is because (unlike the terrorists) the Americans aren’t in Iraq to kill civilians.

 

Why does IraqBodyCount vilify Americans, who are literally giving their blood to help Iraqis, while protecting the activities of foreign terrorists, who enter the country specifically to kill civilians?  Because the website and the terrorists both share an anti-American political agenda to which the lives of innocent Iraqis are nothing more than a supporting prop.

 

In fact, Iraqis are mere statistics to these folks.  And since the value of these statistics is substantially mitigated by presenting the full truth, IraqBodyCount wisely avoids identifying each incident by relevant context.

 

Since our sympathies are merely for the innocent, and not filtered by anti-American bigotry, we decided to sift through the data to discover the information that IraqBodyCount doesn’t want you to know.  We carefully examined their list of incidents from January 1, 2006 through December 31st to come up with some idea of who’s really behind all those alleged civilian casualties.

 

Obviously it would have been easier to do this if IraqBodyCount kept track of the party responsible for each attack rather than, say, the time of day that it took place, but (as we found out) this extremely pertinent information completely undermines their preferred conclusions and so it is omitted (to the indifference of fawning new organizations).

 

Despite this imprecise science, we feel confident in our general findings.

 

Since the beginning of the year, we counted exactly fifty incidents involving U.S. troops in which civilians were said to have been killed.  Some were air strikes against terrorists, others were raids against or ambushes by terrorists in which civilians were killed in the crossfire.  Although the Americans aren’t trying to kill civilians and the terrorists are, we added most of these to our count anyway just to allay suspicion.

 

There were thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks in Iraq during 2006.  IraqBodyCount often uses a “who really gives a rat’s ass” method of counting deaths that even they have to admit contains overlap, so it’s difficult to discern the true number of dead bodies from the beginning of the year, but the site appears to be reporting between 18,000 and 26,000 civilians killed (so much for accuracy).  What’s clearer is that only about 225 of these involve American troops – or about 1 in 100. (The Real Iraq Body Count; TheReligionofPeace.com, Excerpted, Updated 2/02/07)

 

So Anonymous, the primary perpetrator of civilian deaths in Iraq are Muslims killing Muslims. Probably in Iraq’s case it is Sunni Islamic terrorists killing Shi’ite Muslim, although I would be surprised if the majority population of Shi’ites did their share of revenge killings.

 

In nine years of an American presence in Iraq statistical analysis demonstrates that the amount of Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition Forces is far shorter than the anti-war and Muslim apologist crowd. I would even hazard a guess it is far below the nearly 3,000 that died innocently in an Islamic terrorist attack on one day on American soil.

 

JRH 7/18/12

Please Support NCCR

 

Crowd Cheers Saddam's Statue toppling

The Bible is the Authentic Word of God


Bible Word of God

John R. Houk

© April 27, 2012

 

Christianity’s Bible is considered the Word of God as the Spirit of God inspired human agents to write onto paper. Christianity respects the authority of Jews on Old Testament (that has different appellations in Judaism) Scripture. New Testament Scripture is compiled based on believed first hand association of Jesus Christ and the evaluation that the author was who he says he was. New Testament Canonization had some close calls on certain Scriptures that were considered authentic by many Christian theologians but barely missed the cut. And there are Canonized Scriptures that barely made the cut.

 

Critics of those Christians that believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God often denigrate the Bible for being authored by multiple people and ratified (i.e. Canonized) as holy by human agency thus questioning the Divine origin of the Word of God. I don’t know how Biblical believing theologians answer this criticism; however I have developed a simple matter of faith for the human agency criticism.

 

In answering the criticism I uphold the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Triune God is three persons in perfection union as ONE Divine entity. The Word of God has been spoken and written down under the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit connecting with the human spirit. I also believe the Holy Spirit is the Hand of God guiding human agency determining which writing is to be read as the Word of God.

 

Now this post is a simplistic explanation of Christian Biblical faith to answer the criticism of Muslim Apologists that denigrate the Bible as written content that has stretched over thousands of years by various human authors and various human dialects. The Muslim claim is that the Quran is the true word of god (i.e. their Allah) from one dude that spoke one dialect which is Arabic.

 

The reality about the Quran though is that its formation is not as pure as a Muslim would have you believe. There were multiple Qurans compiled by many Mohammed Companions that had variations in them. One of the Rightly Guided Caliphs – Uthman (Othman, depending on who you read) the third one – gathered up all the other Qurans and made his version the authentic Quran while burning the alternative Qurans. There was no committee or council seeking the will of god collectively. Rather Uthman had his Quran assembled and proclaimed it Allah’s will and made sure no one else could dispute by eliminating the other Qurans.

 

Below are two essays that describe the process of how the Quran came to be.

 

JRH 4/27/12

Please Support NCCR

A Picture of Dualism


 

Bill Warner explains how Islam can deceptively claim to be a religion of peace and a religion of violence simultaneously. Islamic apologists always emphasize the peace but neglect to tell the truth that violence is integrated into the Islamic religious writings and in the dualistic thought of Islam both can be true and applied to the nature of circumstance. The practice is called dualistic thought.

 

JRH 5/1/11

Are Muslim Minorities Treated the same as Jewish Minorities?


Islam & Democracy

John R. Houk

© January 2, 2010

 

Many Leftists especially European Leftists, claim Muslims are experiencing the same kind of prejudice today that the Jews received in the 1930’s. Leftists tend to point to this by the growing amount of Westerners that are arising to express their dislike of Islamic tenets. Islamic tenets are anti-Western especially toward American Constitutional Law.

 

Europeans infused with concepts of multicultural diversity have been continually caving in to Muslim demands to European nations to accommodate Islamic cultural mores and values. In Europe Free Speech takes a back seat in case the speech is considered offensive to a particular group whether it be race, sexual preference or religion (or perhaps the secular minded anti-religionists). Offensive speech in most European nations has been criminalized as hate-speech. Those in breach of hate-speech laws often themselves are recipients of fines or incarceration.

 

Now days, there is a conspicuous movement among Europeans that are beginning to voice their displeasure with Islamic encroachment into Western culture regardless of the penalty.

 

Geert Wilders a member of the Dutch Parliament produced the movie short entitled, “Fitna.” Fitna was an exposé on the brutal aspects of Islam especially as those aspects have been displayed in modern times. Fitna was not a flattering picture of Islam. Muslims became irate to the point that Wilders received death threats from Muslims who undoubtedly felt justified by Muslim Clerics producing a kill-Wilders fatwas (e.g. http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2840, http://www.nisnews.nl/public/280208_5.htm and http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/09/australian-fatwa-behead-wilders.html).  Wilders’ Dutch journey has gone from European condemnation of Left leaning European governments which included a hate-crime prosecution in his home nation of Netherlands through to being perhaps the leader of the strongest political party in the Netherlands system of Parliamentarian government.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a gal born a Muslim in Somalia. She immigrated to the Netherlands and became a Dutch citizen and a member of the Dutch Parliament. As a Dutch Parliamentarian she became a woman’s rights gal castigating Muslim treatment of women. Her friend and collaborator of a film about abuse of Muslim women Theo van Gogh was murdered because of the movie. The murderer acting under the release of an Islamic fatwa said Hirsi Ali would be next. She stuck out her Dutch Parliamentarian job for a short time but eventually fled to America to feel safer from fatwa threats.

 

One could find many such examples across Europe that have negative results for one standing up for Western Culture rather than submitting to idiotic European multicultural diversity resulting in Islamic Supremacism and dhimmitude.

 

Islamic Supremacism is the principle propaganda agent of Muslims and Muslim apologists that are attempting to claim Muslims are being persecuted on the same level as the Jews were in the 1930’s. The comparison though is absurd!

 

Anti-Semitism against Jews in the early 20th century resulted in Conspiracy Theories that blamed Jews for the global ills of the time. The primary global of the 1930’s was a global economic depression called The Great Depression in America. Jews caused the depression to seize world governments to rule the world – don’t you know? This blaming of everything on Jews resulted in pogroms in which Gentile Christians (i.e. shameful Christians) would enter Jewish minority community centers pillaging and vandalizing homes and businesses with the occasional murder following.

 

What was the typical Jewish reaction to this injustice? Perhaps the Jews rose up in their communities rioting against whatever National government with acts of vandalism and murder against non-Jews? Perhaps the Jews formed Synagogues of hate in which the Rabbis would incite hatred toward non-Jews that might result in a non-Jewish male being beat-up or a female being raped within the bounds of a Jewish enclave? I mean how would you act if you were a part of a minority that formed a significant block of the population in an urban area or a rural area for that matter? What did Jews actually do?

 

This is what Jews did. Jews did their best to stay peacefully stay out of the way of the Gentile majority. Many Jews became extremely insular but not to form militant enclaves, rather the insular minded Jew would look inside the Jewish community for strength to survive in the face of Anti-Semitic persecution.

 

What do Muslim minorities do in Europe? Muslims riot: Muslims incite hatred in their Mosques, Muslims demand the host culture accommodate the foreign Islamic culture, Muslims threaten the life of those apostatizing Islam or non-Muslims criticizing Islam, Muslims often do acts of violence toward non-Muslims that may be within the influence of a Muslim enclave with the male receiving a beating and/or death as well as European women becoming the victims of rape.

 

The answer to the difference between Jews and Muslims is that Jews were insular and evasive of confrontation toward non-Jewish nations and Muslims are militant in any reaction that is thought of as critical to Islam, Mohammed or Allah.

 

I like the elaboration provided by Barry Rubin on the differences of treatment pertaining to Jews and Muslims.

 

JRH 1/2/11

Objective Islam, Subjective Islam


What's Quran say

Bill Warner states there are angles of thought when it comes to writing or speaking about Islam to non-Muslims (kafir). In essence then there is the negative and the positive. The negative comes from the angle of the critic of Islam. The positive comes from the Muslim apologist. The Muslim apologist may or may not be a Muslim. The apologists that are Muslim either are blind to the darkness inherent in the Quran, Hadith and Sira or are downright walking the line of deception to win the kafir to Islam or to hide from the kafir Islam’s intentions for those who refuse to believe in Islam in this temporal life.

 

Warner points out that the critic of Islam is often vilified as a bigot, a hater, an Islamophobe and so on. The Islamic apologist is the hero of Muslims and the hero of multicultural diversity people who unwittingly promote national and global chaos by compartmentalizing indigenous cultures by infusing foreign cultures.

 

For the record – I am a critic of Islam.

 

JRH 12/21/10

Geert Wilders About to Score Victory for Western Civ.


Geert Wilders Support

 

John R. Houk

© October 19, 2010

 

Geert Wilders went from a minor politician considered a fringe right wing racist by his own people to being the head of one of the most powerful Political Parties in Netherlands. The obvious interpretation is that Wilders’ campaign to expose Islam as a racist, brutal, murdering and supremacist theopolitical ideology is NOW resonating with the Dutch electorate.

 

Wilders’ became the victim of Islamic/Mohammedan apologists when he released his movie short entitled Fitna. The entitled movie is actually an Arabic word with a rough English meaning of strife, discord and contention. I have learned from the blog the Gates of Vienna (an elder statesman blog of exposing Islam) that fitna has a more nuanced meaning than the to the point English words. To get a firm grasp of what the word “fitna” means to Arab speaking people or at least as the word means in the Quran read, “Why ‘Fitna’?” In lieu of the detailed explanation of the word fitna I like this brief description:

 

“…in whatever particular context fitna may be perceived, it is almost always a context within the Muslim community, setting believer against believer.”

 

In other words, fitna means “the instigation of the kind of trouble that sets Muslims at one another’s throats”.

 

Wilders’ movie reaches beyond intra-Ummah strife to utilize the words of the Quran coupled to images of what Muslims (Of the Salafi, Wahhabi & Twelver Shia type) do to kafir (i.e. unbelievers in Islam like you and me). Dutch authorities received enough complaints that Wilders was promoting hate-speech and incitement to violence that he was charged forthwith. In January of 2009 a Dutch Appellate Court ordered criminal prosecution.

 

The trial did not start until 2010. In the mean time Wilders’ PVV (Party for Freedom) political party has gained huge support from Dutch voters both for EU representation and Netherlands representation.

 

I found out from a Christian Action Network email that the prosecutors have recommended all charges be dropped against Geert Wilders. I understand that the Dutch Judicial system is a little quirky compared to America’s Judicial system. Apparently the Dutch Judge may elect to disregard the prosecutors and proceed with a criminal trial persecuting Geert Wilders’ Free Speech to speak the truth. The legal analysts of Europe have indicated the Dutch Judge will not proceed with further action. If that turns out to be true then Geert Wilders’ current persecution is at an end.

 

Below is the email with a similar post from the Christian Action Network website.

 

JRH 10/19/10

******************************

Friends We Have Great News in Regards to the International Fight for Free Speech!

 

Sent by: Christian Action Network

Sent: October 18, 2010 12:28:38 PM

 

We have some great news for you this week! For those of you that have seen our film, Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West, you are aware that a popular member of the Netherlands’ parliament named Geert Wilders is being prosecuted for criticizing Islam, Mohammed and the Koran.

On Friday, October 15, the prosecutors stated that Wilders should be acquitted of all five charges against him for allegedly inciting hatred and discrimination. This is a very encouraging victory for free speech! However, the trial will still continue and the possibility remains that the judges could still indict him, though commentators seem to believe this is unlikely.

 

This is to be celebrated, but how many people will fear being brought up on charges as Wilders has? How many will censor themselves because they know they cannot afford the legal bills and tarnished reputation?

 

The Christian Action Network knows about this first hand. As you may know, the state of Maine revoked our charitable status in May 2009 after we sent out a letter warning our supporters about how some students in California were being forced to dress up as Muslims, chant “Praise Be to Allah,” and learn the five pillars of Islam. Imagine if such an education and practicing of Christianity had happened in a public school!

 

The state of Maine claimed that our letter contained “an inflammatory anti-Muslim message,” among other bogus accusations. As you can read here, we won that legal battle—but again, these two cases show how political correctness, lawsuits and even the threat of possible prosecution are being used against the foes of radical Islam. And that’s why our next announcement is so important.

 

Our film about Wilders, Islam Rising, is coming to a Christian bookstore near you! We have signed a deal with New Day Christian Distributors after they received numerous requests for the film. And we have YOU to thank for it!

 

 

Do you live in the New York City area? Don’t forget to register to come to the premiere of our new documentary, Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mosque! This free event will be held on October 28, 2010 at 3 West Club in New York City, located at 3 W 51st Street. Click here to get more information and register for the Event.

 

God bless you,

 

Martin Mawyer, President
Christian Action Network

 

P.S. — If you haven’ completed our Stop The Ground Zero Mega-Mosque petition please click the button below and tell President Obama how you feel about this happening at Ground Zero…

_______________________________

Prosecution Says Wilders Not Guilty of Hate Crimes

 

October 18, 2010

Christian Action Network

 

Dutch News reports that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has been found not guilty on all charges of hate speech by the prosecutors.

 

Wilders was prosecuted for allegedly inciting hatred towards Muslims after releasing a documentary titled Fitna that tied acts of Islamic terrorism and oppression to verses in the Koran, the holy book of Islam. He has also harshly criticized Mohammed, the founder of Islam, and the religion as a whole.

 

The public prosecution department stated that his comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf was “crude but that did not make it punishable.”

 

However, despite the prosecution’s stance, the trial will still continue and a small possibility still remains that the judges could convict Wilders.

 

“I’m very happy that the prosecutors came, for a second time, to the conclusion I didn’t commit any punishable offense… I don’t discriminate, I don’t sow hatred, I don’t defame groups, the only thing I do and will continue to do is tell the truth,” Wilders said after the prosecutors called for his acquittal, according to Business Week.

 

The popularity of Wilders and his Freedom Party in the Netherlands has quickly grown since the controversy erupted. In the national election in June, Wilders won 24 of the 150 seats in parliament, up from 9 previously. The results made Wilders’ party the third largest in the Netherlands.

 

The Christian Action Network has released a documentary about Wilders called Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West. The film tells his story and includes his own documentary, Fitna. It also includes a speech he delivered in the United States warning Americans about how radical Islam was spreading in Europe and the U.S.

___________________________

 Geert Wilders About to Score Victory for Western Civ.

John R. Houk

© October 19, 2010

__________________________

Friends We Have Great News in Regards to the International Fight for Free Speech!

 

Prosecution Says Wilders Not Guilty of Hate Crimes

 

Copyright 2010 Christian Action Network, PO Box 606, Forest, VA 24551

Christian Action Network is recognized by the IRS as a non-profit organization and tax-exempt organization. A financial report is available upon request.

Geert Wilders Support