The ‘Jesus’ revered by Muslims is not the same Jesus worshipped by Christians as God

‘1,400 years ago, Muhammad hijacked Jesus from the gospels.’

Featured Image

Muslim students in Indonesia read the Qur’an in the middle of the night

By William Kilpatrick

January 22, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – 1,400 years ago, Muhammad hijacked Jesus from the gospels, demoted him to prophet, and placed him in the Koran.  Christianity was Islam’s main competition at the time, and Muhammad seems to have reasoned that it was better to co-opt Jesus than to denounce him.

Jump ahead 1400 years, and we find that some Muslims are still manipulating the figure of Jesus for political and religious purposes.  For example, Muslims in the West Bank have for several years been proclaiming that Jesus was the “first Palestinian.” They claim, moreover, that when Israelis place restrictions on Palestinians, “Jesus is being crucified again.”  The latest twist on that story is that Jesus was also the first martyr for Islam.  Tawfiq Tirawi, a senior member of the Palestinian Authority posted the following on his Facebook page:

This is blessed Christmas, the birthday of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, the first Palestinian and the first Shahid (Islamic Martyr).

I bring this up because many Christians have only a hazy understanding of the place of Jesus in Islam and some are completely unaware that Jesus does have a place in Islam.  Catholics, however, should know that Muslims “revere” Jesus because that’s what it says in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, and almost everyone who has attended Catholic schools in recent decades will have been appraised of the high esteem that Muslims have for Jesus.

But for many Catholics, that’s all they know about Jesus and Islam.  And it simply isn’t enough now that Islam has passed through its mid-century sleepy-time phase, and has re-emerged as a world power.  It’s important to recall that Nostra Aetate was written in 1965—right in the midst of that quiescent era– and it was meant to convey a positive picture of Islam, not a complete one.

Islam has emerged from its mid-century slumber, but many Catholics have not emerged from theirs.  They won’t admit that the Vatican II sketch of Islam is woefully inadequate for understanding born-again militant Islam.

Take the claim by the Palestinian leader that Jesus was the first Islamic martyr.  Anyone with a basic knowledge of Islam would immediately realize that Tirawi was either a) very poorly informed about Islam or b) deliberately deceiving for propaganda purposes.  Jesus could not have been an Islamic martyr because the Koran denies that he was crucified.  Instead the Koran claims that someone else who looked like Jesus was mistakenly crucified in his place. (4:157)

Jesus is revered by Muslims not because he died for our sins (not true say Islamic authorities), but because he was a great prophet.  Why was he a great prophet?  Primarily because he foretold the coming of Muhammad.

But suppose for a minute that Jesus gave up his life for the sake of Allah as the Palestinian leader claims.  That presents another difficulty for Catholics who think that Muslims venerate the same Jesus that they do.  According to Islamic tradition, the reward that the Islamic martyr receives in paradise is 72 dark-eyed virgins.

The concept is, of course, offensive to Catholics and other Christians.  It not only reveals that Muslims have a complete misunderstanding of who Jesus is, but also a rather base conception of our final destiny.

But since the Koran says that Jesus was not martyred, the question of virginal rewards is moot.  Or is it?  While Islamic scholars are agreed that martyrdom is the surest way to paradise, one doesn’t have to be a martyr to get there.  One authoritative guide to Islamic law asserts that “whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise…” (Reliance of the Traveller, p1.3).  After all, Muhammad didn’t die as a martyr either.  Yet, one assumes that, from an Islamic point of view, he is safely in the company of his 72 companions– or, perhaps in his case, 144 or more.  Although Muslim males are restricted to four wives at a time on earth, Allah declared that Muhammad could have as many as he desired.

Nostra Aetate assures us that Muslims “value the moral life,” and the implication is that it’s more or less the same moral life that Christians value.  But when it comes to sexual ethics and the equality of men and women, it’s quite obviously a different kind of moral life that is valued.  Indeed, from a Christian perspective it’s an immoral life.  Heaven is nothing more than a glorified harem.

Christians need to be careful about projecting Christian assumptions onto Islam.  It’s particularly tempting to assume that the Jesus Muslims honor is none other than the Jesus of the gospels.  But he’s not the same Jesus.  For one thing, he’s not even a Christian (or Jew).  He’s a Muslim.  If he were a Christian, he would end up in hell not paradise.  Why?  Because the worst sin anyone can commit is the sin of shirk—ascribing associates to Allah.  Thus, believing in the Trinity is a great sin since that article of faith describes God as a unity of three persons.  The Koran is quite adamant that “whoever ascribes associates to Allah, Allah has forbidden him paradise, and his refuge is hell” (5: 72).  Since the Jesus of the gospels claims to be the Son of God, he would be guilty of shirk in the highest degree, and thus, to put it mildly, ineligible for paradise.  The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, vows to Allah that he had never claimed to be God (5:116). He knows the rules, and as a good Muslim he follows them.

The closer one looks at the Jesus of the Koran, the more difficult it is to believe that he is the same Jesus we find in the gospels.  He is no longer a Christian but a convert to Islam.  When he comes again, according to Reliance of the Traveller, “he will not rule according to the Evangel [the Gospel]. But as a follower of our Prophet.” (o9.8)

Not only that, but at the Last Judgement, Jesus will bear witness against Christians who have not converted to Islam (Koran 4: 159).  This might come as a bit of a shock to Catholics who have heard that Islam has high regard for the “people of the book”—i.e., Christians and Jews.  Isn’t it enough, they may ask, to follow their own faith as long as they are people of the book?

Well, yes and no.  At one time it was enough, but no more.  Not with the arrival of Muhammad on the scene.  Reliance of the Traveller puts it this way:

Whoever adhered to the Evangel and precepts of Jesus, their faith was valid and acceptable until the coming of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace.)  Those of them who did not then follow Muhammad and give up the sunna of Jesus and the Evangel, were lost. (w 4.4)

In short, at a certain point in history, Allah threw the book at the people of the book for not switching to the 2.0 version of his religion.  The new version essentially replaced the old:

Allah Most High sent Muhammad …to deliver His inspired message to the entire world…superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller, v. 2.1).

Muhammad hijacked Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (all re-imagined as Muslim prophets) to help sell his patchwork creation.  And Muslims are still trying to enlist Jesus in order to sell Islam. Only now, they use modern advertising methods to promote their message. So, don’t be surprised if the next time you’re cruising down the highway, you encounter a billboard suggesting that you “Find Jesus in the Qur’an, Muhammad in the Bible.”

The ad campaign is sponsored by a Muslim group called GainPeace. Sabeel Ahmed, the executive director, claims that “our main purpose is to build bridges, and to erase misconceptions.”

But the ad itself is misleading. I can’t claim to remember every name in the Bible, but I’m fairly sure that the name “Muhammad” is not among them. It’s true, of course, that someone named “Jesus” does make occasional appearances in the Koran. And because Muhammad borrows from Luke’s nativity story, it looks at first as though it might be the same Jesus. But after we find out that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, the narrative—if you could call it that–departs radically from the Bible story. Almost everything else spoken by the Muslim Jesus or spoken about him is a subversion of the Christian message.

One last point. Sabeel Ahmed reports that “Jesus is mentioned with love and respect and honor more than 25 times in the Qur’an.” Twenty-five sounds about right, but in most of those mentions, Jesus’s name simply appears in a list of other Muslim prophets who endorse Muhammad’s message. If you’re simply looking for the name “Jesus,” you’ll find it in the Koran, but if you’re looking for a flesh and blood person like the Jesus Christians know, you’ll be sorely disappointed.

Unfortunately, this numbers game is effective with some Christians—particularly with those who have not read the Koran. In defense of the thesis that Islam and Christianity share much in common, a priest once pointed out to me that Mary is mentioned in the Koran 32 times. He seemed to think that that was a decisive argument. But, of course, it’s not. And if confusion about the faith continues to rise among Catholics, it’s a good bet that Muslims will ramp up their proselytizing efforts.  Catholics who hope to defend their faith will need to better inform themselves about Islam, and not let themselves be misled by word games and number games.

William Kilpatrick is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong; Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. Professor Kilpatrick’s articles on cultural and educational topics have appeared in First Things, Policy Review, American Educator, and various scholarly journals. His articles on Islam have appeared in Crisis, Catholic World Report, The Catholic Thing, National Catholic Register, and other publications. He is also the author of Insecurity, a dark comedy about political correctness run amok in the military and the government. For more of his recent articles, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-jesus-revered-by-muslims-is-not-the-same-jesus-worshipped-by-christians-as-god

AUDIO How Christmas Has Shaped Our History and Values

“Madonna and Child” by Spanish painter Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, oil on canvas, circa between 1655 and 1660. This well-loved depiction of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus hangs in the Pitti Palace Gallery in Florence, Italy. (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

 

ROBERT KRAYCHIK 25 Dec 2017

“Christmas is essential to our understanding of Western Civilization and our values,” said Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour on Sunday.

“The symbols and celebration of Christmas have shaped our history [and] Western Civilization,” said Mansour.

Reflecting on “the dawn of Christianity,” she noted Christianity’s “transformative” impact on the old pagan world and the culture of Germanic barbarian warrior tribes.

Chivalry — rooted in ethical monotheism — spread the concept of valuing all human life as having dignity, said Mansour:

Chivalry was introduced to Western feudalism [via Christianity]. It made feudalism actually livable and bearable. What chivalry called for, what the concept of chivalry was, it was about the defense of the weak. It said that the strong had to be champions of the right and the good against injustice and evil. That was the code of chivalry.

This only came about because of the Judeo-Christian West, and I say Judeo-Christian for a very specific reason; all of this is rooted in the ancient Jewish scripture, what the Christians would call the Old Testament. You can see it right from the beginning. The God of the Old Testament, the God of Jewish scripture instructs that every single human being has worth and dignity — even the foreigner, even somebody outside of your tribe, even the widow and the orphan. They all have worth and value — the weakest among you as well as the strong. This is a radical concept, and it is from the Jews that we have monotheism, and it is from that that Christianity evolved.

“The idea of protection of the weak and innocent,” said Mansour, entered Western culture via Judeo-Christian ethics, which radically “changed the way that we have looked at the rights of the weakest among us.”

Bannon agreed, noting that the “Rough Roman justice” of the old pagan world had “no sense of you as a person or an individual.”

Christianity’s spread to the Germanic lands on the frontiers of the Roman Empire, noted Mansour, set the stage for the evolution of conceptual human rights and created the foundation for the Western values we cherish today.

Mansour tied this to the symbols and celebration of Christmas by explaining that the “most iconic” and ancient Nativity image is the Madonna and Child.

The ubiquity of depictions of the Madonna and Child as “the highest expression of art” in European countries, said Mansour, vividly illustrates Christianity’s transformation of the “Viking-type” “warrior tribe” cultures that valued only the strong and worshipped war gods. People who once subscribed to an ethos of “might makes right” had transitioned to a civilization that elevated the image of a woman holding a child to preeminence in their artistic expressions.

Christian symbolism — particularly pertaining to the Christmas-themed image of the Madonna and Child — played an indispensable role in rallying Christian forces to victory against Islamic enemies in determinative battles, said Mansour. Pointing to the Battles of Vienna (1683) and Warsaw (1920) as examples, she noted the centrality of Christian symbolism to the war efforts of European nations in defending against Islamic and communist invasions, respectively.

In both battles, Mansour explained, Catholic Poland’s devotion to a depiction of the Madonna and Child known as the Black Madonna of Częstochowa served as a rallying point and source of consolation. It also served as a unifying symbol for Lech Walesa’s Solidarity Movement in their struggles against their communist rulers in the 1980s, she noted. Walesa famously wore a lapel pin bearing the image of Our Lady of Częstochowa.

Mansour and Bannon went into particular detail about the epic Battle Vienna in 1683. As Mansour explained, the Polish King Jan III Sobieski rallied his forces to liberate the besieged city of Vienna from the Islamic army of the Ottoman Turks by encouraging them to fight for “God and Our Lady” and to invoke the Madonna’s help in securing their victory and protecting their homeland, which he had entrusted to her care when he visited the shrine at Częstochowa before departing for battle.

The allied Christian forces, known as the Holy League, under Sobieski’s command knew that if Vienna fell, the Turks would then turn their sights on their ultimate goal which, Mansour explained, was “the greatest city in Christendom — Rome,” and “if Rome fell, Holy Mother Church would fall.” The Christian forces were fighting to preserve their faith, she said.

Sobieski himself led the cavalry charge to liberate Vienna — the largest cavalry charge in history — with 18,000 Polish and allied knights, including 3,000 of the famed “Wing Hussars.” The allied forces of the Holy League smashed the Turkish army and sent them scurrying over the Danube. The victorious Sobieski sent the Pope the Turkish army’s green Islamic banner along with a message paraphrasing the words of Julius Caesar: “Veni, vidi, Deus vicit.” (“I came, I saw, God conquered.”)

“The Christians had turned the tide against the sword of Islam” in the Battle of Vienna, said Mansour, quoting Ludwig Heinrich Dyck. The Turks would never again venture that far into Western Europe.

The Battle of Vienna, oil on canvas, circa 1688, by Martino Altomonte (Wikimedia Commons)

“It was on September 11, 1683 that the conquering armies of Islam were met, held, and thrown back at the gates of Vienna,” wrote the late Christopher Hitchens, describing the rationale behind the date selection of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001.

“The radicalized Muslim world,” said Bannon, views the Battle of Vienna as a symbol of Christian victory that must be overcome. “It was one of the symbols of the September 11 bombing seventeen years ago, this Battle of Vienna.”

“We would all be in mosques today” if not for Christianity and Christmas as galvanizing forces among Western societies against hostile Islamic societies, said Bannon.

Although civilizational conflict between Western and Islamic societies has modified across space and time, it continues through the present day with certain commonalities. Bannon explained:

The Siege of Vienna we’re talking about, with the Ottoman Empire — which is Turkey, and the Muslims — this whole invasion of the West, occurring literally today with the same migrant issues coming up through Syria, through Turkey, and you see the countries of Poland, and Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and Slovakia taking the lead here in trying to reverse this.

“These fights haven’t really changed all that much. It’s still Iran and the West. It’s still Persia and the West,” said Bannon, noting the similar conflictual flash points between Western forces and ISIS of today and the Roman and Persian empires of nearly two thousand years ago.

Christianity and broader Judeo-Christian values, suggested both Bannon and Mansour, reinforce Western Civilization’s sense of purpose in the face of internal and external threats.

The migration of tens of millions of Muslims to Europe in recent decades, said Bannon, is an existential threat to Europe and modern iteration of aforementioned civilization conflict between Western and Islamic societies: “The entire situation with this mass migration and refugee situation, which is really, there is no doubt, is starting to destroy Europe.”

Listen to the full audio of Mansour and Bannon’s discussion on Breitbart News Sunday above.

Breitbart News Sunday airs on SiriusXM Patriot between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern (4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Pacific).

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter @rkraychik.

Mansour made her comments while co-hosting Breitbart News Sunday alongside Breitbart Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon during a special Christmas Eve live broadcast on SiriusXM.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/12/25/mansour-how-christmas-is-essential-to-our-understanding-of-our-values/

U.S. Constitution vs. Sharia

By Bill Federer Nov 9

“The law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law”-Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, 1955

“When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the Holy Qur’an,” stated President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.

As nice as this sounds, there is a historical dilemma, namely, how can one swear to defend a Constitution upon a book that instructs followers to overthrow it?

There are five schools of Islamic law, called “sharia,” four are Sunni and one is Shite.

As Islamic populations grow in neighborhoods, clandestine pressure increases for inhabitants to comply with aspects of sharia.

This behavior is observed in nations around the world, such as with Muslim organizer Anjem Choudary of Islam4UK, who stated (London Daily Express, 10/15/09):

“We have had enough of democracy and man-made law … We will call for a complete upheaval of the British ruling system … and demand full implementation of sharia in Britain.”

When one compares the aspects of sharia with the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, there are incompatibilities.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the foreword of the book Law in the Middle East (1955):

“The law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammed said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57).

Sharia relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims, and cannot display a Cross, Christmas decorations, or a Star of David.

The Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet sharia enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells, or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.”

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet sharia states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or rebuild destroyed ones; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The FIRST AMENDMENT states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet sharia states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The SECOND AMENDMENT states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet sharia states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The THIRD AMENDMENT states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet sharia states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet sharia states non-Muslims do not have this protection; and if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The FIFTH AMENDMENT states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammed said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The SIXTH AMENDMENT guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the SEVENTH AMENDMENT states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet sharia does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

The EIGHTH AMENDMENT states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Qur’an states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done-a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38)

A woman who is guilty of adultery, fornication, or who has been raped is also punished by flogging “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2)

Sharia allows men to beat women: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34).

Another sharia practice is honor killing of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families.

Sharia practicing fundamentalists have been reported to punish those breaking laws by beatings, mutilations, electrocutions, rapes, burying alive, burning, stabbing, acid attacks, torturing, strangling, drowning, stoning and beheading.

The NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS protect rights not listed in Constitution by reserving them to the states and to the citizens within the states.

Under sharia, citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, do not have inherent God-given rights.

The THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the sharia accommodates slavery as Mohammed owned slaves.

The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet sharia does not consider Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims as equal before the law with Muslims.

Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Muhammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

The FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of sharia does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves above Allah by making their own laws.

The SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT has some similarities with sharia, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammed said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

The SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT senators directly elected by the people.

Sharia does not believe people, especially women and non-Muslims, should be allowed to choose their leaders.

The EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT has some similarities with sharia, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” This is the same with sharia.

The NINETEENTH AMENDMENT allows women to vote, yet in most sharia controlled countries women cannot vote, as they are considered inferior to men.

“Men are superior to women” (Sura 2:228) and “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain women” (Sura 34:4).

The TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT allows for the sale of liquor, yet sharia does not allow individuals to sell or consume wine and liquor in public.

The TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT limits a President to two terms, but sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting for Presidents. Sharia seeks to recognize a divinely-appointed Caliph.

The TWENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT allowed citizens of Washington, DC., to vote in Presidential elections.

 

Again, sharia is opposed to allowing citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, to vote.

The TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT abolished poll taxes, where someone was required to pay a fee in order to vote.

 

Again, sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting.

The TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT addresses succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.

Again, sharia does not believe people, especially women and non-Muslims, should be allowed to choose their leaders.

TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT allowed 18-year-olds to vote.

Again, sharia is opposed to citizens, especially women and non-Muslims, voting, as it considers its laws as divine.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the foreword of the book Law in the Middle East (1955):

“Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts.

Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties.

In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”

A majority of the top fifty areas persecuting Christian have degrees of sharia, which is often enforced on an unofficial neighborhood basis.

Nations with regions enforcing varying elements of sharia include:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

A list of specific instances of sharia include:

  1. Indonesia (flogging, caning; sharia applied strictly in Aceh province)
  2. Turkey (restrictions on alcohol)
  3. Brunei (caning; alcohol is illegal)
  4. Jordan (two years or less for honor killings)
  5. Eritrea (girls as young as 8 can be married; spousal rape is not recognized)
  6. Syria (one year or less for honor killings)
  7. Djibouti (sharia law regarding divorce)
  8. Chechnya (modest dress enforced; alcohol and gambling suppressed by local authorities)
  9. Niger (girls can be married off before they reach puberty)
  10. Nigeria (sharia is enforced in the northern states)
  11. Kenya (ad hoc sharia enforced in the east near the border with Somalia)
  12. Gambia (sharia courts decide all family matters, including for non-Muslims)
  13. Qatar (public consumption is illegal during Ramadan; alcohol heavily restricted; blood money acceptable punishment for murder; “kafala” law, which is also shared by all Gulf states but Bahrain, is technically slavery)
  14. Uganda (Kadhi courts overseeing family and civil matters)

Muhammad was a religious leader, and also a political and military leader, therefore, to some of his followers, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system.

No one individual or group has the authority to insist Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political and military example of Muhammad.

To sharia practicing Muslims, bowing in prayer toward Mecca is also a pledge of political and military allegiance.

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran presents a dilemma.

In light of increased terrorism in Western nations, it is understandable how some Americans feel uneasy about Keith Ellison swearing into office with his hand upon a book which advocates inequality towards them, as Jews under Germany’s National Socialist Workers Party would have felt if leaders swore upon Mein Kampf.

Describing Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a “new Koran,” Winston Churchill wrote in Second World War (Vol. 1, Ch. 4, From War to War, p. 50-55):

“Mein Kampf, a treatise on Hitler’s political philosophy … the technique of party propaganda … the concept of a National-Socialist State … Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message …

The main thesis of Mein Kampf is simple. Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit …

The fighting capacity of a race depends on its purity. Hence the need for ridding it of foreign defilements. The Jewish race, owing to its universality, is of necessity pacifist …

Only brute force can ensure the survival of the race; hence the necessity for military forms. The race must fight; a race that rests must rust and perish.”

In light of brute force groups like ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Muslim Brotherhood moving into host countries and enforcing sharia, the question is posed, could gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, MS-13, Antifa, cartels, Mafia, or the KKK be allowed to infiltrate neighborhoods and enforce vigilante justice by claiming it is part of their religion?

In some countries, fundamental Muslims use the democratic process to get elected, then once in power, they proceed to dismantle democracy.

The Economist reported (2/4/16) of Turkey’s leader:

“Mr Erdogan made a telling remark … ‘Democracy is like a train,’ he said; ‘you get off once you have reached your destination.'”

It is reported that a record number of Muslims are running for political office. Perhaps it would be worth considering having all politicians take a pledge:

PLEDGE TO STOP CRUELTY & ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THE DEFENSELESS

·I pledge to stand against WIFE-BEATING-allowing a man to bully, batter or be physically abusive to his wife if she does not obey him or refuses to have sex with him;

·I pledge to stand against POLYGAMY-allowing a man to have multiple wives;

·I pledge to stand against PUNISHMENT OF RAPE VICTIMS-whipping, stoning or inflicting of corporal punishment on a woman who has been the victim of a rape;

·I pledge to stand against INEQUALITY-teaching chauvinism, that men are more equal than women before the law;

·I pledge to stand against SEX SLAVERY-allowing women to be forced into involuntary marriages and sex-trafficking;

·I pledge to stand against NO AGE OF CONSENT-allowing a man to marry a girl who is under the age of consent;

·I pledge to stand against NO FREEDOM TO BE ALONE IN PUBLIC-not allowing women to leave their homes without being accompanied by a male relative;

·I pledge to stand against DETERMINING OF DRESS-discriminating, threatening, uttering of abuse, or committing violence on a woman because she is seen in public not wearing a particular dress or covering;

·I pledge to stand against DEFENSELESS DIVORCE-facilitating men divorcing their wives without due process of American law, such as by simply saying “I divorce you” three times;

·I pledge to stand against NO ALIMONY-denying alimony to a woman who has been divorced, without due process of American law;

·I pledge to stand against NO VISITING RIGHTS-denying a woman who has been divorced access to her own children, without due process of American law;

·I pledge to stand against KIDNAPPING OF CHILDREN-facilitating a father taking a woman’s children to another country which has laws denying her rights to her own children;

·I pledge to stand against HONOR KILLINGS-supporting a system which effectively provides cover for a man who kills a wife or child that embarrassed him before his faith community;

·I pledge to stand against MUTILATION-practicing female genital mutilation, or defacing a woman, such as by cutting off her nose;

·I pledge to stand against CORPORAL PUNISHMENT-beheading, acid attacks, amputation, or any form of cutting off parts of a person’s body as punishment for a crime;

·I pledge to stand against NAME-CALLING-calling women who are not covered “whores,” or any race of people “apes or pigs”;

·I pledge to stand against DEATH THREATS-issuing against someone for leaving a faith community;

·I pledge to stand against NO HONESTY-lying to gain access into a group, party, or university, then using membership, financial contributions and intimidation to subvert the group into not opposing clandestine laws which deny women & children rights;

·I pledge to stand against GENOCIDE-advocating racism, extermination of ethnic groups, such as Jews, or Africans in southern Sudan;

·I pledge to stand against the PROHIBITION OF DOGS-discriminating against those with seeing-eye dogs, service dogs, or canine companions;

·I pledge to stand against those who claim AMERICAN LAW IS NOT SUPREME-advocating for foreign laws and traditions to be superior to U.S. laws;

·I pledge to stand against DISDAIN FOR PLEDGE-disparaging or discouraging American citizens from pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Demonstrators in Dearborn, Michigan, held up a sign:

“We will use the freedoms of the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.” (The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent, Lutzer, 2013)

Citizens must decide if sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, or if those promoting it will be allowed to stealthily use the freedoms of the Constitution to implement sharia and eliminate the Constitution.

Dwight Eisenhower warned in a TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952:

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.

A group … dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

Get the book, What Every American Needs to Know about the Qur’an – A History of Islam and the United States

https://newsmaven.io/americanminute/world-history/u-s-constitution-vs-sharia-Un40-3G3FkqcJWjHUxhn0A/


VIDEO Muslim Trades Uncertainty for A Life of Peace

“Nobody knows: ‘Am I doing enough?’ There is no guarantee, there is no assurance. Limbo is always, always is in your mind as a Muslim.” Born in Iran, raised in a strict Shia family, Mohamad Faridi was taught he had one purpose in life. He says, “My goal as a Muslim was to satisfy a god that I didn’t know. A god that I couldn’t get to know. So, everything I did, everything I read, studied. It was about to fulfill that particular goal, to keep him satisfied with me. To have his approval.” From childhood he prayed and fasted and memorize the Quran. He says, “Because the belief is that if you memorize the Quran, you cannot be burnt in hell, because the verses of the Quran eternal and they are pure, when it’s in your mind, the mind cannot be burnt in hell. I was always in constant fear.”

Then as a teenager he started ritual flagellations to earn Allah’s approval. He recalls, “We have chains, we have uh swords that we beat ourself with it. And to punish ourself in order to uh pay for our sins, to show how sorrowful we are.” But there was only one way he could secure his place in paradise. Mohamad says, “The only guarantee, according to Chapter 5 of the Quran is Jihad and being a slay – or slaying for the cause of Islam, that’s the only guarantee you will find in the doctrine of Islam.”

Mohamad hoped to get his chance in battle when he served his two years of mandatory military service after high school. But war never broke out and when his army career came to an end, Mohamad grew frustrated and depressed. He recalls, “I knew as a Muslim if I commit suicide, I will definitely end up in Hell. At this time, I’m living in Hell, if I kill myself, I’m end up in Hell. So, I had this dilemma. I was a stuck. I really was a stuck.”

Then one day, he met up with a friend that he hadn’t seen since high school. Right away, Mohamad noticed something different about him. He recalls, “He was very mellow, very peaceful. And it bothered me to the point that I said, ‘What is going on with you today? There’s something very different with you today.’ And then he said that he became a Christian. And he started explaining about the goodness of God. He talked about the love of God. And how his relationship with God that is through Jesus Christ has changed their lives.”

Mohamad continues, “And I tried to defend myself. I tried to prove him wrong.  But after two hours of intense argument, I was an echo of what the Imam in the mosque told me. I had nothing that I could stand on as a Muslim. Because I didn’t know God. But the way my friend was talking about Jesus, it was like talking about a friend of him, a personal God that he actually knew.  And out of desperation I fell on my knees and I asked him, ‘What do I need to do, to receive Him?’ Everything that I had to do on my own as a Muslim, to beat myself, to bruise myself, to shed my own blood, to become a sacrifice, he said, ‘It’s already done in the person of Jesus Christ. And if you believe in Him, you will have eternal life.’ And it was simple, but it was the most amazing good news, the true good news, I’ve ever heard in my life.”

Finally, Mohamad discovered the personal relationship with God that he had always desired. He recalls, “Something within me that was always in war with me, always restless, it was like a cancer that always bothered me, never was satisfied. That moment when I made that commitment, when I prayed that prayer, it was like yanked out of me, and for the first time in my life I felt peace.”

Mohamad was excited, but worried about telling his family. According to Sharia law, they would have every right to kill him.  He says, “So, I had to choose between my family and my Heavenly family. And at that time I counted the cost and I said, “I will chose my Heavenly family, regardless of what’s gonna happen.” When he did eventually tell them, his family tried to persuade him back to Islam, but Mohamad was convinced that Jesus was the one true God. He says, “The more I read this New Testament, the Gospels, the more it connected to me. The more it spoke to me. And the Gospels show the hypocrisy of Islam to me.”

For the next two years he attended underground churches and grew in his faith. Eventually, he fled to Turkey fearing for his life. After three years of interviews and waiting, he was granted religious asylum in the United States. He says, “God is a good God, and what He has done through Jesus Christ for us will change our lives for good and for eternity to put us in the right standing with God in a relationship with our Heavenly Father.” Today, Mohamad never misses a chance to share the personal relationship he has with God. He says, “I was a very uncertain person as a Muslim. But when I came to the knowledge and understanding of who Jesus is and what He has done for me, that love, that hope, you cannot find it in any other places. Especially in Islam.”

https://www1.cbn.com/muslim-trades-uncertainty-life-peace

What Is Truth?

June 28, 2019 by Discerning Dad

In John’s gospel, chapter 18 verse 38, an educated and affluent man asks Jesus Christ: What is Truth? Every day, as Christians, we are faced with people at work or in the store or in our own families who have different values that seem to be at odds with the shared beliefs in Christianity. I’m not talking denominational differences within Christianity. We can explore those in another blog. I’m talking about the significant differences between Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism or New Age. Christianity through Biblical revelation makes a claim to the truth, one that is logical and reasonable: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and came to save us from our sin.

Whether “religious” or not, every human being has a philosophical way they interpret truth in world; sometimes developed at a young age through church attendance or from the lack of anything spiritual. Sometimes that worldview is developed through the pains and trials of life or sometimes worldviews are developed through perceptions and feelings regarding the world around us. When used to interpret the world around us, post-modern thinkers don’t base their conclusions on logic or reason, but rather on emotion and relative truth. (1) This presents a significant challenge for us as Christians who should approach our worldview with logic, reason, and faith. More often than not, Christians get wrapped up in the idea that nothing outside of Scripture can be true. This is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. (2)

As a strong example, Romans 1:20 says: “for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (NIV) The Apostle Paul is telling us that we should be using experience, logic, reason, faith, and science to evaluate our worldview. Frankly, I cannot comprehend how Christians can be so quick to ignore or discount the reality of science and truthfully, when we do, we hurt the validity of Scripture because science points to God, not away from Him.

Apologetics is a fancy word for the practice of defending someone’s belief or worldview usually in a religious or faith-based context. For Christians, this idea is derived from 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” (NIV) There are men and women who devote their lives to the practice of Apologetics like Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Frank Turek, and Dr. Douglas Groothius (grew-ties). Apologetics focuses mainly on answering the questions surrounding our faith. Sometimes these answers are clearly found in the Biblical texts, not always. Sadly, apologists spend as much time defending Christianity to professed Christians as they do non-believer. All of these men have written many books including one of my favorites I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist by Dr. Turek. Dr. Zacharias and Dr. Turek both have significant presences on YouTube, and I’d encourage anyone reading this to take a look at their pages! (3)

When discussing worldviews, many people in the world around us will say things like “you live your truth” or “the Bible is your truth” or “don’t force your truth on me” but these statements cannot be true because truth is not relative to the individual claiming the truth. It is not surprising that the idea of truth has been intellectually addressed and is agreed to by secularists and Christians! Christ himself makes a truth claim in John 14:6-7 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (NIV) Simply because someone doesn’t accept this as truth doesn’t mean it’s false. There are plenty of valid but relative claims! I can make the relative but valid claim that BMW makes a better automobile than Honda, but it is not valid to claim BMW and Honda do not make automobiles.

We’ve seen how Jesus addresses the issue in one verse and in the world of philosophy, we have great thinkers such as Aristotle who codified the Laws of Logic. In the world of science, we have laws of physics and other laws that dictate how the world works. Science and philosophy and their associated laws aren’t in contradiction to God’s law. They work in concert with God’s law because HE is in control!

Ravi Zacharias has a 3-4-5 approach to evaluating the truth worldview and Douglas Groothuis outlines a nine-step approach. Groothuis’ process is a bit heady and hard to comprehend in less 500 words, but Ravi puts forward a fantastic and simple system. Truth is by its nature a claim to exclusivity and Zacharias’ method is a great to way evaluate a claim’s possible validity as a truth.

1. Origin: how does the worldview address (or ignore) the questions of origin? Is it purely based on mysticism or mystery or is there empirical evidence? Has the answer stood the test of time? Has it been scrutinized or heavily examined?

2. Meaning: how does the worldview or truth claim address meaning? Can the worldview answer the question: why are humans here? Why were we made? How and when did we begin to think for ourselves and about ourselves? WHEN and HOW did we begin to question our meaning?

3. Morality: how does the worldview address right and wrong? Can the worldview make a claim on what is right or wrong?

4. Destiny: how does the worldview address life outside of or after the current life? Is there any claim to truth about the afterlife?

Zacharias goes on to affirm that no matter the answers to these questions, they must be logically consistent, empirically adequate, and relevant to shared experience.

“When submitted to these tests, the Christian message is utterly unique and meets the demand for truth. God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. But He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone. Faith and reason must always work together in that plausible blend.” Dr. Ravi Zacharias. (4)

Chad Roche
Guest Discerning Dad

References:

1- I wholeheartedly hate using this word because it’s a concept that cannot even exist; either truth is true or its not; the law of non-contradiction.
2- This is one of the pillars of salvation from the protestant reformation collectively known as the Five Solas: Sola Gratia (through Grace alone), Sola Fidae (by faith alone), Solus Christus (through Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (by Scipture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God the Glory).
3- RZIM Ministries and CrossExamined.org
4- https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/think-again-deep-questions

Original here

 

Liberals Throw the Book at Peterson After Implied Criticism of Islam

By Don Feder -March 28, 2019

  • 1

Here’s a test. Now, be honest. Say the flight you were on was about to take off and you noticed that the lady sitting next to you was reading the New Testament – or a gentleman across the aisle was quietly saying what sounded like a prayer in Hebrew. Would you be concerned? Unlikely. But what if another passenger was muttering “Allahu Akbar” – “God is great” in Arabic, a popular prayer in the land of suicide bombers. Would you be equally nonchalant?

The left is constantly on the alert for criticism of Islam, and ready to punish dissent with an iron fist. It equates criticism with bigotry which, it claims, leads to violence.

The largest chain of bookstores in New Zealand is refusing to carry Jordan Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life,” after someone spotted a photo of the critic of political correctness standing next to a man wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed he was “Proud to be an Islamophobe.” New Zealand was the scene of the recent mosque shootings in which 50 died.

Peterson wasn’t wearing the T-shirt himself. The message did not advocate violence. It said the wearer was afraid of Islam. Given the daily carnage committed in the name of the religion of peace, is that fear so irrational?T

It’s exactly 7 years since a jihadist murdered a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse. The killer, Mohammed Merah, shot one of his victims, 7-year-old Miriam Monsonego, in the head as he stared into her eyes.  The killer’s sister praised Mohammed and told an interviewer that “Jews deserved to be killed,” a sentiment not uncommon in the Muslim world.

A Muslim Congresswoman from Minnesota used anti-Semitic canards and, after much debate, her colleagues passed a resolution condemning every form of bigotry under the sun, but refusing to refer to hajib-lady by name.

In 2015 when Libyan jihadists marched a group of 25 Coptic Christians to a deserted beach and beheaded them, no one in the West pulled copies of the Koran from bookstore shelves – though Islam’s bible calls for such acts.

Speaking at Cairo’s al-Azhar University the same year, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi lamented that some Muslims were becoming “a source of worry, fear, danger and destruction to all the world.” Rank Islamophobia this. I wonder if President Sisi has a book we could ban in the West.

https://barbwire.com/liberals-throw-the-book-at-peterson-after-implied-criticism-of-islam/