Islam is deceptive to its core. It presents itself as a religion, yet it is more than that. It is also a militant political and legal system that controls every aspect of its subjects’ lives, perhaps comparable to the theocracies of ancient Israel or Papal Europe of the Dark Ages, but far more oppressive, far more militant. Islam is a system of belief which will only adapt to modern society if it rejects substantial portions of its own system. “Moderate” Muslims attempt to do just that. The problem with the moderate or “liberal” form of Islam is that many of the teachings from the Koran must be ignored or radically altered for them to remain “moderate”. Muslim women who wear modern western garb and enjoy political and economic equality with men are seen as dishonorable — no better than prostitutes– by Islamic fundamentalists. Under Shariah law, males are allowed to kill their own female family members for bringing dishonor to their family, such as taking on western values. Moderates do not have the authority in Islam to revoke Shariah law. They can only be free to be moderate in non-Muslim countries
A Common History?
I have heard both Jewish and Christian leaders erroneously state that their respective religions share historical and Biblical roots with Islam; that all three religions trace their roots to Abraham. While this remains true for Jews and Christians, Muslims do not share the same roots. The Bible clearly teaches that Jews are the heirs to God’s covenant, first made with Abraham, promised through his son Isaac, and realized in Israel. And the New Testament clearly teaches that Christians also are heirs to God’s promise, since Jesus the Messiah reigns on the throne of David, forever. The key link therefore between Judaism and Christianity is that God’s promise to Abraham was carried through Isaac to Israel. It is at this very point that Islam adamantly insists Jews and Christians are wrong. Islam teaches that Ishmael was the son of promise, not Isaac.
In order to hold this conviction, Islam insists that the Bible is unreliable, tainted by changes in the original text over time. That is an interesting accusation in light of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, which places older verses under newer ones, in terms of authority. You can read about this at http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/definition-of-abrogation.html. [UPDATE: THIS SITE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.] From that site, quoting from the Koran:
Sura 2:106 “Whatever of our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superiour or comprable…”
The same site quotes from FaithFreedom.org, created by an ex-Muslim:
“‘Abrogation’ means the canceling or replacement of one Quranic passage by another. It seems that as circumstances changed during the 23-year period that Muhammad dictated the Quran, the directions and precepts found therein sometimes changed to accommodate new and changing political and military realities, sometimes quite dramatically. Thus, the Quran abrogates or cancels itself in various passages and presents seemingly conflicting statements…”
On the other hand, Jewish and Christian scholars consistently seek to establish and preserve the original intent of our oldest Scriptures because we all believe that God and his word do not change.
Isaac or Ishmael?
The Bible is very specific, concerning Ishmael. Although God promised to bless Ishmael, and make of him a great nation (Genesis 21:18), God’s promise of a covenant with Abraham’s offspring was to go through Isaac. In Genesis 21:12 God instructs Abraham not to worry about Ishmael, “…because it is through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” The very act of sending Hagar and Ishmael away (Genesis 21:14) demonstrated that Abraham no longer assumed the role or responsibility of being Ishmael’s father. Sending Ishmael away was a parting of the ways. It was Abraham’s way of saying he had nothing further to do with Ishmael; no relationship and no inheritance.
The issue isn’t really whether Ishmael was Abraham’s son. Genesis 25 tells us that Abraham had other wives and other sons. The issue is which son did God choose to carry the promise made to Abraham’s descendants. God names his choice in Genesis 22:2: “Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac …”
Nonetheless, ecumenical statements continue to be made that Islam “shares” its historical and Biblical roots with Christians and Jews in the person of their common progenitor, Abraham. The Biblical account of Abraham predates the Koran by two thousand years. Yet, Muslims claim Abraham as a prophet of Allah, while denying the reliability of the very Scriptures that tell us about Abraham. They basically have rewritten the story of Abraham to fit their own purposes.
The Building of mosques
Genesis 23 tells us that Abraham purchased (and was given the deed to) a burial site when his wife Sarah died. This property (a field and cave at Makhpelah, in Canaan) was purchased from Efron the Hittite. The Bible records that after Sarah was buried there, it also served as the final resting place for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca, and Leah. Every one of these individuals are significant to the heritage of Israel because God told Abraham, “It is through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.” None of the people buried in the cave at Makhpelah are in the line of Ishmael. These are all Jewish remains, not Muslim. This burial place is the second most holy site to Jews, the first site being the Temple Wall in Jerusalem. But this site is currently controlled by the Muslims, who have built a mosque over the burial area and do not allow Jews or Christians access. Similarly, Muslims built a mosque on the holiest site of the Jews, the Temple Mount. So much for sharing.
Historically, Islam has chosen not to share but to conquer by destroying non-Islamic sacred sites and building mosques over them. Such mosques are seen as symbols of conquest by Muslims. This is important to realize because that is exactly what is motivating the building of a monumental mosque at “ground zero” in Manhattan. In light of the overwhelming super-majority of Americans who do not want this mosque built, I am stunned that they are characterized as racist or accused of denying religious freedom to Muslims. The many mosques that already exist in New York, including one only four blocks from ground zero render those charges groundless. Islam is not being denied their freedom of religion. But a case could be made that the Greek Orthodox church destroyed at ground zero is being denied their religious freedom, since their request for a building permit has been ignored.
Legal, Political and Militant Deception
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the the man who is spearheading the plans to build the mosque at ground zero. He is currently on a State Department sponsored trip which is part of a program to foster better relations and improve our image with Muslims worldwide. He supports Shariah law in our courts. Among other problematical aspects of Shariah law is that the testimony of women and non-Muslims does not have equal standing with that of Muslim men. Shariah law employs cruel and unusual punishment and condones horrors such as honor killings. There is not enough time or space here to address Shariah law other than to say it is totally incompatible with the system of justice, equality and liberty that Americans take for granted.
Imam Rauf refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas is dedicated to the conquest of Israel, as is revealed in their own charter. And closer to home, Rauf has called the U.S. an accessory in the 9/11 attacks. This becomes easier to understand when you learn that his father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes violence against the U.S. and Israel, believes in a radical application of jihad and whose ideology has been adopted by Hamas, al-Qaeda and others.
The plan to build the ground zero mosque was originally called the Cordoba Initiative. It was founded in 2003 by Rauf and is funded by the Malaysian government, an Islamic theocracy. The name, Cordoba, refers to the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain. Built in the 10th century, on the site of a former Christian church of prominence, it specifically commemorates Islam’s conquest of Spain. Only the most deceived persons could fail to see the intent of Imam Rauf and his associates.
“Religious Freedom” vs Sensitivity to Others
When Muslims cry that their religious freedoms are being threatened, I am outraged. There is no Muslim nation in the world that affords equal religious freedoms to non-Muslims. Even in secular Turkey non-Muslims are discriminated against. But Muslims enjoy every religious freedom in this country. They occupy no special position of being discriminated against. To the contrary, most non-Muslims are annoyed at the insistence of Muslims that they be given special treatment to accommodate their various traditions, without a concomitant respect for non-Muslim traditions on their part. Specifically, it has been made abundantly clear that a substantial majority of Americans consider ground zero to be sacred ground, in effect, the burial place for thousands of innocent victims of Islamic terrorism. For them, any rebuilding on or near that site should reflect the utmost reverence for those victims. Its a matter of sanctity, honor and respect for those dead.
At the very least, one would expect any reasonable person to be sensitive to this sentiment, held by the majority of Americans. But no. We are told we are racist. We are accused of denying Muslims their religious freedom. This is a curious statement, following the pattern of deception Islam embraces, from their hypocrisy of denying the reliability of Jewish Scripture while applying the doctrine of abrogation to the Koran, to their acceptable practice of lying to non-Muslims.
When Muslims Lie
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm “There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman” (telling a lie and omitting part of the truth). “These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.” This article references the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic law, concluding, “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.” (Of course it neglects to define “bad consequences”.)
Incompatible With Freedom
Our culture is steeped in what has been called the Judeo/Christian ethic. That ethic is diametrically opposed to the deceptive ethic of Islam. As such, Islam is incompatible with freedom. The so-called “religion of peace” sees peace as the result of Islam taking control by placing all other forms of religion and government in subjection to it, by force when necessary. That is because Islam is more than just a religion. It is a religious-political-legal-military system, with all its parts working together. Islam will never be capable of peaceful coexistence in a multi-cultural setting. Islam’s overriding drive is the ultimate conquest of the entire world.
If Islam wants to be treated like any other religion in this country, they must limit their activities to religious matters, just like all other religions. They cannot justify the militant, political or legal aspects of Islam under the aegis of religious freedom. They must toss out Shariah law. They must toss out their goal to conquer the world. They must toss out the idea of violent or militant jihad. They must toss out “Kill the infidel.” They must toss out the deception that at present defines their very belief system. Unless Islam is willing to enter the civilized world on an egalitarian footing, they threaten our very existence.
However, considering everything written above, would you even believe a Muslim who swore or affirmed allegiance to our laws, above the dictates of the teachings of Muhammad? I wouldn’t. I suggest that outlawing certain aspects of Islam is the smartest course to take, particularly the part about killing the infidel. Certainly Shariah law should be outlawed. How can we survive as a society by giving Islam total freedom to practice deception?