Apostate Muslim's account of Islam

In an essay posted at VFR Evariste explains why he ultimately rejected the teachings of the Koran, and with that rejection the Bible itself.

There are a lot of insights to be gleaned from Evariste's lengthy essay, so I recommend that you read it ... more than once. Certain Muslim beliefs are not common knowledge among Christians. I know, for instance, that I've been confused before on exactly what issue Muslims have with the Biblical account of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Particularly whether Muslims believe that Ishmael was the actual "son of promise." Which brings me to the point of this post, something Evariste states in his essay:

It's really an Arab supremacist religion that. Both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic peoples with many resemblances, and Arabic and Hebrew are extremely similar languages, sharing an identical basic structure and much vocabulary, so I think there's a case to be made that the Arabic rage and fury against the Jews that manifests fully in the religion called Islam is actually an echo through history of the story of Cain and Abel, writ very, very large.

Yes, I suppose one could, more or less, accurately describe it that way; Cain angrily bludgeoned his brother Abel to death because of his outrage over the fact that God respected Abel's sacrificial gift but did not respect Cain's. But I think there's a better biblical accounting which more accurately describes the genesis of the sibling rivalry between Arabs and Jews. Namely, Genesis chapters 16, 17 and 21. It seems that the descendants of Ishmael came by their hatred for Isaac and his descendants honest, and that nothing will ever serve to satisfy them that their rightful inheritance, as descendants of the first-born son of Abraham, was not stolen from them.

Read More

Dr. Andrew Bostom on J.Q. Adams On Islam

(Update: I've added Dr. Bostom's list of FrontPage articles on Islam to the On Islam section in the left sidebar of this blog.)

Until a few days ago, admittedly, I did not know who Andrew Bostom was, and since I did not know who this man was, neither did I know of his contribution to Western scholarship on the nature of Islam.

I've spent the better part of the day trying to educate myself on this man Andrew Bostom, mainly through reading his articles at FrontPageMagazine. I also read the Wikipedia article on Mr. Bostom which states in part:

Bostom's writings are characterized by meticulous referral to primary sources and extensive documentation.

Ya think?!

I had to laugh at that when I first read it. For if you know nothing of this man Bostom, and you follow my links to his articles, you're going to learn quick, fast, and in a hurry that this description of what characterizes Dr. Bostom's witings is, well, right on the mark. Had I read the Wiki article prior to delving into his articles, which was not the case, I would have been more prepared for what I was about to receive. But I digress...

The main point of this entry is to point you to one of Dr. Bostom's FrontPage articles, John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad, in which Dr. Bostom states the following regarding J.Q. Adams's understanding of Islam.

Dr. Bostom writes:

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

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

Let us examine that last statement in the Adams quote again. "The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God." There are two ways to read this statement: (1) The precept of the Koran is that Mahomet is the prophet of God," and, (2) The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

In other words, the first pillar of Islam is non-negotiable, applying to all peoples everywhere, all the time. Either you acknowledge that Mohammed is the prophet of God, or the whole Islamic world is commanded in their holy book to wage violent and perpetual jihad against you.

Is this not what we've been saying around here for ... how long now? Is this not precisely what makes Islam, and therefore Muslims, completely and utterly incompatible with the West, which we've been saying as well.

But Quincy Adams has further insights:

Dr. Bostoms writes:

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

But perhaps the best part of the whole article, at least for me, is Mr. Adams's comparison/contrast of Jesus Christ and his religion with Mohammed and his religion:

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and Islam

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He 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 (Adam's capital letters)….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.” [p. 269]

So Adams sums up the contrast between Christ and Christianity, and Mohammed and Islam in this way: The essence of Christ's doctrine is to exalt the spiritual over the brutal part of man's nature. Whereas, the essence of Mohammed's doctrine is to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of man's nature. Is anyone else seeing a problem here? Adams sums up the problem this way in the conclusion to the preceding paragraph:

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.

Now I ask you, is there any hope that in our lifetimes, or during the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, or during the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren, that the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet Mohammed, as Quincy Adams aptly puts it, shall not furnish motives, many many motives, to human action, specifically to those of the Arab variety?

Tell ya what, if you're a liberal don't answer that.

Read More

Credit Where Credit is Due

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with Rick Darby when he says he has to hand it to the Muslims. I don't like it anymore than he does, but he's also right that Western liberal politicians buckle at the knees at the mere threat of Islamic violence. Indeed, often it doesn't even amount to an actual threat, but an implied threat or the mere thought that an action might result in a threat.

Mr. Darby writes:

I've got to hand it to European Muslims, I really do. They are running rings around the governments of countries like Britain and Holland. Muslims clever; non-Muslims stupid.

What are they doing that's so smart? Well, either by a planned strategy or just an instinct for gnawing at the infidel's soft bits, they have figured how to advance Islamization in slices. Instead of one big confrontation, a thousand small ones.

I personally don't quite know what to make of it. Either it's the strategy of a genius or it's just dumb luck, as Rick suggests, that the Muslims have happened on the right combination here to dhimmify the European contintent in small slices. Whatever it is, though, it's definately working. Muslim world conquest continues unabated.

And, of course, this ties right into Auster's formulation that Mohammed was a Successful Hitler. Mr. Auster actually refers to Allah's prophet as "one of the great geniuses of history.":

Truly, Muhammad was one of the great geniuses of history, a successful Hitler as I have said, to keep getting people, even fourteen centuries after his death, voluntarily to embrace his program of self-abnegation, the willing surrender of their mind and identity....

And he notes some of the same disturbing phenomena that Mr. Darby recognizes in his entry. Whatever you do, don't miss either of these excellent articles.

Read More

One more post on Islam before I leave

(Update: See John Savage's analysis of the phrase "there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam," over at Brave New World Watch. Also, I've added the link to the AFB discussion on the topic where an additional comment has been added very pertinent to this discussion.)

What is a moderate Muslim? This question has been on my mind a lot lately, and in fact some time back I argued over at the AFB along the lines that the Christian equivalent of a moderate Muslim would be someone the Bible describes as lukewarm. In other words, what the two individuals of different faiths hold in common is that neither of them is that serious about his faith, and most likely not that knowledgable about it. This is what makes them, with regard to their particular faith and practice, moderate or lukewarm.

There's something else here too. It has been said over and over that "there are moderate "Muslims", but there is no moderate Islam." I think it could be said of Christianity, by contrast, that "there are radical "Christians", but no radical Christianity." The whole point being, of course, that there's something peculiar about the religion of Islam. It is inherently radical and extreme. That there are "moderate" Muslims does not in any way detract from that basic truth about the religion of Mohammed any more than the fact that certain violent individuals that exist claim to be Christians yet violate Christianity's first precepts.

But back to my original question. What to you constitutes a "moderate" Muslim? I've told you what a moderate Muslim is to me. Now I'd like to know what a moderate Muslim is to you. And I hope that Lawrence Auster will tackle this question of what constitutes a moderate Muslim either here or over at VFR in the near future.

Read More