If you insult me or what I believe, I still won't kill you… That’s the difference.

Recently MSNBCs political show, “Hardball”, did a report on the massacre that took place over the weekend in which a 20,000 person mob of Muslims stormed the U.N. embassy in Afghanistan, killing at least 12 UN workers including 4 Americans.  The alleged reason for this rampage was that it was a response to the burning of the Quran by the “Reverend” Terry Jones in Florida.

Hardballs host had on, as his guests, two Muslim authors, Bobby Ghosh and Jim Zogby.  One of Mr. Ghosh’s comments caused steam to come out of my ears.  He said…

“The Quran, to Muslims is not the same as the Bible to Christians.  The Bible is a book written by men.  The Quran, if you are a Muslim, is directly the word of God.  The act of burning the Quran is much more inflammatory than burning the Bible.”

Of course, the pseudo Christian on Hardball nodded his head and performed his compensatory “uh huhs” through these comments as he gave this Muslim his platform, throwing softballs at him, while assuming that he (the host) was representing me.

And so, I, in my little “corner of the world” blog, shout out the truth hoping that Goliath hears it…

What Mr. Ghosh said, first of all, was a matter of opinion, and I qualify it even further.  It was Muslim opinion.   He used the assumption that the Quran is the Word of God according to Muslims, as an excuse for this unruly, violent, truly despicable behavior exhibited in Afghanistan as a result of the disrespectful behavior exhibited by the “Reverend” Jones.

Let’s face it.  That is an EXTREMELY feeble excuse.  I, on the contrary, believe that the Bible is the Word of God and the Quran was compiled by Satan through a false prophet by the name of Muhammad.   Furthermore, I know that there are a lot of people who concur with me on that opinion.  Nevertheless, I and my compatriots would not use our belief system as an excuse for plotting to kill Mr. Ghosh.   

Perhaps, the Muslim mind might regard my response (or lack thereof) as evidence that the Bible is not the Word of God... not worthy of defending.  My contention is that the Bible can and has, through the millenia, adequately defended itself.  People simply need to read it for themselves.  On the contrary, I would use my response to Mr. Ghosh’s comments as a means of illustrating the contrast between what the Bible teaches and what the Quran teaches to those adherents who, in their lemming-like fashion, displayed utter and despicable contempt for human life.

The Bible tells me

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Rom. 12:18),

“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.”  (Lk.6:29). 

Jesus, Himself, did not fight and forbad fighting for the purpose of defending oneself.  In Matthew 26, for example, after Peter cut off the ear of a man coming to arrest Jesus, Jesus said "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.  "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? (Mt. 26:52-53). 

Elsewhere Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." (Mt 5:44).

In contrast, the Quran teaches…

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)

"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)

"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)

Now, these are not my words.  They are commonly available for anyone who can read.  My big concern, however, is that the majority of people who watch MSNBC don’t seem to know the meaning of the word “research”.  They would just prefer to take someone like Mr. Ghosh’s word for it than investigate the texts themselves. 

Clearly there is a difference between the Quran and the Bible.  And the fruit, both in spirit and in conduct is quite different between the adherents of the two books.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are many good Muslims.  But I would argue that they are good, not because of but in spite of Islam.

Now, I anticipate that the onus for this tragic event in Afghanistan is going to fall on Terry Jones (and I don’t know the theology of his “fellowship”) and Evangelical Christianity, in general.   The onus should really fall, however, on the world view created by that book which so blatantly demonstrates a contrast with the behavior commanded by the Bible.  The adherents of that world view, I would think, ought to have the temerity to develop somewhat of a thicker skin so that they can use reason as the means for the defense of their faith (if it can be defended via reason).

Sadly, however, from the mountains of Afghanistan, the purveyors of Islam have begun to regulate America’s domestic policy concerning speech.  Not only has innocent blood been spilled as a result of this incident but we have begun to allow Muslims to regulate our first amendment rights.  And the means they use for accomplishing this is nothing less than extortion.

A Simple Suggestion to Representative Peter King of New York - End of Story... Case Closed

Much is being made of Peter King, the New York Congressman’s, investigations into the “alleged” violent tendencies within the ranks of the Muslim community in America.  All sorts of naive individuals are coming out of the woodwork to defend the “poor” “oppressed” Muslim minority within our culture.  

Actually, I’m of the opinion that Representative King need not bother with such a hearing.  It’s really a waste of his time, Congress’ time in general, and American taxpayer dollars.  Personally, I would have absolutely no trouble trusting adherents to Islam if one very simple thing were to take place… a fatwa denouncing violence as a means of carrying out a Jihad.  I will elaborate in a little bit.

In the meantime, there are all sorts of declarations being made by defenders of Islam that Islam is a “religion of peace”.  Verses from the Quran are being quoted right and left showing just how peaceful Islam is.  One such verse is

“Let there be no compulsion of religion” (Sura 2:256)

Another is 

“Therefore expound openly what thou art commanded, and turn away from those who join false gods with Allah”                                                                          (Sura 15:94)

The latter verse indicates that one is simply directed to stay away from those “who will lead one astray”.

These verses, however, stand in direct contrast with other verses like…

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”                                                                               (Sura 9:29

or

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”                                                                                                     (Sura 9:5)

The Quran is full of such contradictions.  How are they to be reconciled?  In essence, if they can’t be reconciled, which suras are to be followed?  The answer is that those that were written first were to be applied at the time when they were relevant.  The ones that were written later nullify those suras that precede them and which contradict them.  Hence, of the four contradicting suras presented above, the latter suras mentioned, have replaced the previously mentioned ones because they were written later during the process of compilation of the Quran.  In other words, the call to violence nullifies the call for peace.  (As an aside, you won’t see such contradictions in the Bible.  Apparent inconsistencies do not result in nullification by theologians but harmonization and reconciliation).

That brings me to what really is a simple suggestion for Representative King.  Mr. King, you need to, very simply, demand a fatwa from the Islamic community denouncing violence as a means of Jihad.  A fatwa is a judgment concerning Islamic law.  It takes the form of a declaration.  This declaration is made by consensus of a group of Islamic scholars whose knowledge of the Quran enables them to make authoritative judgments concerning Islamic jurist prudence. 

If such a fatwa can be declared… case closed.  Islam is a religion of peace.  But no fatwa will ever be declared because the foundation of Islam is not peaceful.  So the next time you hear a Muslim declare that Islam is a “religion of peace” ask him “WHERE IS THE FATWA TO PROVE IT?”.

Evidence has it that President Obama would like to see Israel Destroyed

Allow me, if I may, to elaborate.

It has become almost a proverb to us Americans that a Democratic form of government is a good thing.  We call our form of government a Democracy, although it was designed, in actuality, to be a Representative Republic.  According to our Constitution, the majority is supposed to get its way… within limits.  The Bill of Rights were inserted into our Constitution in order to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  If a minority rules, it ceases to be a democracy.  If a minority is oppressed, it can still be a democracy by definition.  A case in point: the “Palestinian” Territories in Gaza.  The people of Gaza democratically voted Hamas into power.  The "Political Party" Hamas won the election fair and square.  However, Hamas proceeded to wage, not political war, but actual war on the party that opposed them… Fatah.  The result was an unrestrained blood bath.  Actually, it was more like a mass execution.

This recent historical fact lends credence to what I am about to say next.  DEMOCRACY GIVES TO THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN A COUNTRY WHAT THEY WANT.  Therefore, if the majority of the population of a democratic country desires something that is evil, the country will embark on evil ventures.  If the population of a democratic country desires good, the country will embark on what is good.  Hence, it is not the form of government that determines the goodness or evilness of a nation but what is in the heart of the people in the case of a democracy, or the ability of a government to restrain the will of an evil people in a dictatorship.  Hence, in spite of much of the historic reputations dictatorships have, they sometimes CAN be good in the sense that they may actually be a necessary means of restraining evil.

Mr. Obama is either ignorant of this fact or there’s something about a democracy in Egypt which would promote his agenda.

Mr. Obama can’t be stupid.  He’s President of the United States!  So what is on his agenda?  And why has the United States historically propped up dictatorships in the Middle East (and this, as far as I know, can't be denied and provides a vast number of people the fodder to hate us)?  The answer is based on the answer to the question... WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES?  Islam, the religion, has a political component to it from which it cannot be separated.  According to Islam, there are two geographical areas… the territory of submission and the territory of war.  The territory of submission are those geographical locations where the majority of the population are Muslim and subject to Sharia law.  The territory of war is those geographical locations where the majority of their populations are yet to be “converted” to Islam.  "Non-believers" in Muslim dominated countries do not have a bill of rights.  Without redress, they are subjected to the repressive demands of Islam.

In light of this, I rhetorically ask the following question… WHAT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE WORLD IS MOST PREDOMINANTLY ISLAM?  Answer… the Middle East.  However, the Middle East is not purely Islam.  Smack dab in the middle of this vast geographical locale is a little sliver of land called Israel.  Israel is most notably not Muslim!  In light of Muslim theology, therefore, Israel must be destroyed so that the entire territory can finally be dominated under the thumb of Islam.

That brings us to ask the question… what is the religion of the majority of the people of Egypt?  If you guessed Muslim, you’re right.   In light of that, I ask another fairly self-explanatory question… therefore, what is the will of the majority of the people of Egypt (aside from having food on the table, and other of life's wants and necessities common to all of us)?  If you guessed “to destroy Israel ”, you’re right again.  Boy, I’m so proud of you.  You’re two for two!  Let me, if I may, ask a third question…what will bringing a democracy to Egypt accomplish?  If you guessed “bringing in a government bent on the destruction of Israel to power” you’re right again!

Now, is destroying Israel good or bad?  There are web-sites all over the place that are pro or con about this.  I have a strong opinion. Maybe at a later time I’ll express and defend my opinion.  But my arguments are not likely to change the minds of those who are predisposed one way or another. Nevertheless, let me try to delineate the various camps that people with opinions fall under.  If you are a religious Muslim who believes in the spreading of Sharia law, I think it's safe to say that you would favor the destruction of Israel ('though depending upon your audience you may deny it).  If you suffer from a disease called “moral relativism” you probably think that perhaps Islam is, in fact a valid religion but, at the same time, you’re too cowardly to challenge Islam on the issue of spreading Sharia law.  You might find that objectionable 'though you may not know why.  If you just kinda wanna be left alone to “do your own thing”, I believe it was Adolf Hitler who said “It is to the advantage of rulers that people don’t think”.  To you, yeah you… the one with your head in the sand.  Sharia law is coming to the neighborhood nearest you.  

Of course, if you believe the Bible and read and study it, you’ll not be fooled.  Nor will you be surprised by what has happened or what is about to happen.

As for President Obama…the desire for Democracy sure sounds like a politically correct thing to desire.  According to my argument though, Democracy in Egypt will foment the march of Islam.  Therefore Mr. Obama is either stupid or he wants Islam to spread.  Maybe there’s another option.  Maybe he wants the spread of Islam to facilitate yet a different, more clandestine goal.  But I really am pretty sure that he’s not stupid.  After all, he is the President of the United States.