My Criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism)
My Criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism)
John R. Houk
© July 16, 2009
I have been very critical of Mohammedan claim that Islam (Mohammedanism) is a religion of peace. One of the biggest examples is from the Mohammedan writings considered holy and Mohammedan history. I have come to realize that there is an element of peace inherent in Mohammedanism related to the hisba; however that inherent peace is ONLY toward believing Mohammedans. Mohammedanism is intolerant of any creed or religion that runs counter to its holy writings and of Mohammedans that deviate from Mohammedanism. This intolerance can aptly be called Islamic Supremacism.
In Mohammedan dominated lands (and increasingly where Mohammedans are a large minority in the West) Mohammedanism is cruel and brutal. Christians, Jews and (those considered) pagans are the victims of this cruelty.
That said it should be noted that Mohammedan intellectuals and apologists (which ironically includes non-Mohammedans usually of the Leftist persuasion) often attack Christianity in retaliation to the “Islam is violent” mantra that I stand by. The Christian attack is usually first displayed by bringing up Christian history.
Those who have called themselves followers of Christ have too often committed atrocities of cruel violence and genocide in the Name of Christ. I have to admit the history does not lie; human beings calling on Christ have warred between themselves, persecuted and killed Jews and unleashed vengeful and unrelenting violence and death upon Mohammedans during the Crusades.
The Revelation of John is loaded with violent images; however those images are the result of evil rather than the continuation of God invoked violence.
I have to point out that Christianity’s Holy Scriptures expressly tell a Christian not to be violent among themselves or to any human being. The only exception to this is the fine line in which Scripture provides for those in authority (e.g. military, police, government and so on). Mohammedan apologists should cease their hypocrisy and own up to the perpetual violence commanded in their holy writings.
Then Mohammedan apologists usually counter with an “aha!” The Christian Old Testament which is the Jewish Tanakh is full of genocidal violence. The classic example is Moses and Joshua leading the Twelve Tribes of Israel into the Land of Promise. As the Hebrew/Israelite Tribes possessed their Promised Land the Scriptures tell the Jews to exterminate those being dispossessed. The extermination indeed proceeds. God told the Jews to completely possess the Land and completely destroy the inhabitants. The Mohammedan apologist says, “See!” How is the genocidal dispossession of the Promised Land’s original inhabitants any different than Mohammed and his descending followers from rapaciously conquering non-Mohammedan land to fulfill the will of Allah to convert the world to Islam (Mohammedanism)?
Here is a difference!
The Land given to the Tribes of Israel was populated by idolatrous religions that taught such things as sacrificing humans (usually babies) and the practice of temple prostitutes. The land was populated with evil hateful people. Once the Land was possessed the Jews were not to continue exterminating other people even though they also may have been morally deviant as well. In fact the Jews were told not to mix whatsoever with non-Jews as a practice.
On the other hand Mohammed and Mohammedan conquerors through out the ages have used their prophet’s example and their holy writings to conquer, convert or kill all humanity that lost their nation to victorious Mohammedans. This often resulted in cruel slavery and sex-slavery (for the beautiful women). If the conquered were lucky for being the people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians), those people had a choice of converting or living a sub-human life as an oppressed dhimmi.
Even to this day Jews do not seek out converts although converts to Judaism do occur on a willing basis. Christianity Scriptures tell Christians to share the Gospel (Good News) Truth to all humanity. If the Gospel is rejected the problem is between God and the individual in the Last Judgment.
Now in practice as Christianity was embraced by militarily powers in the West, the faith of the military became the faith of the indigenous people. In the case of the West colonizing the New World and parts of Africa, the Christian faith was forced upon the indigenous people. Again this is not part of the Gospel plan; however Christian nations saw a political advantage to govern easier if everyone prayed to the same God. The very Christian faith which was misused politically in time brought tolerance of the multiplicity of Christian tenets and eventually tolerance the practice or non-practice of a religion.
In contrast Mohammedan holy writings are an example that Mohammedans have used to brutalize the globe in the name of Allah for centuries; indeed the Islamic terrorists of the 20th and 21st century believe they are merely reforming Islam to the purest form as delivered the their prophet Mohammed. There has been little to zero advancement in the Liberty and Rights of humanity as a result of Islamic Supremacist intolerance.
Before I move on I have to discuss one pet peeve of mine pertaining to the Christian Crusaders. The Crusaders are accused of brutal intolerance toward Mohammedans as they brought the Christian faith back to the Holy Land by military force.
The Mohammedan protesteth to much me thinks.
The Crusades were not about one day a group of medieval knights got together and said, “Hey, we’re kind of bored. Let’s go the Middle East and slaughter some Saracens.” In fact the Crusades were a result of Mohammedan incursion on Christian lands stretching from present day Turkey through to present day Spain. Part of those conquests was continuous raiding parties along Mediterranean Europe which resulted in the bloodthirsty acquisition of booty and slaves. One day a combination of an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor and the report that Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being enslaved or murdered inspired a call for military action.
After 500 years of Saracen/Muslim brutality against the West, it is hardly surprising that the warrior caste of medieval Europe embarked on military incursions against Mohammedan lands which when victorious slaughtered everyone in sight.
My point is this: the Crusades were more like a football metaphor; viz. the best defense is a good offense. The Crusaders end came when European rulers lost in interest in any benefit the political control had for their kingdoms. The result was the slow evisceration of the Crusader kingdoms ending in the Holy Land in 1291 with the fall of Acre. There were more Crusades however the period of political control was only a 192 years. Compare that 192 years to over a thousand years of brutality that kept coming from Mohammedans. In Europe the Mohammedan military prowess lead to a slow retreat after John III Sobieski smashed Mohammedan Turks at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. The Hindu Genocide continued in ebbs and flows on the Indian Sub-continent really until the British usurped total control in 1857.
Beginning with Mohammed’s brutality in the early 600’s to the end of the last vestige of a Mohammedan empire (Ottoman Turkey) in 1918 we are talking about nearly 1300 years of historical murder and mayhem at the hands of Mohammedans. There are no Mohammedan military super powers today; however where Mohammedanism reigns intolerant totalitarianism is more the rule than the exception.
Ironically the most democratic of Mohammedan nations (which are self-reliant) is Turkey. The nation representative of total intolerance is the Saudi Arabian kingdom in which public beheadings and whippings are still practiced. It is a place where women cannot have a driver’s license. It is a place in which a rape victim is punished for breaking the law. It is a place where thieves may loose an appendage.
Below is further example of Mohammedan intolerance and violence based on the “Reliance of the Traveller.” The critique of the “Traveller” is by Ben of Ben’s Blog posted at a Facebook page. Ben broke his Facebook post into several stages probably because you can only post so much at one shot there. I am going to piece them together on my SlantRight.com page.
JRH 7/16/09
Comments