Thursday, July 09, 2009

An actual answer to the question "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?"

[This post was begun June 17, 2007.

Since America faces an existential threat at the hands of its own “president,” his co-ideologues in one of our two major political parties, and his coreligionists waging war against us within and without our borders, the points it raises about Islam and its incompatibility with the principles of the American Republic are as timely as ever, especially as our own leadership accelerates our descent into oblivion.

All citizens must find the zeal for Liberty embodied by Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers.]

In an article entitled, "Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?" the author raises several factors that relate to the answer to that question. Perhaps it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussion, because the essay never really answers the question clearly.

The answer is: Only if Jefferson were to convert, submit, or die, for that is all Muhammad and his allah allow the “infidel.”

The comments were interesting in that though there was the usual politically-correct, multiculturalist, morally-relative nonsense, quite a few posts were very clearly on the side of reality.

Being that most of my time in the Comments at Townhall is spent at Hugh Hewitt's site pointing out to him that his Islam is a false one (or to Mormons that their christ is a false messiah), it is refreshing and encouraging to see that others recognize the nature of Qur'anic, historical, traditional Islam.

Answering the question and refuting Jihad's apologists, from here:
Terror is fundamental to Islam
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).


"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).
Be happy, free, and wrong

Steve wrote:
"Obviously, someone can be a bad Muslim as easily as someone can be a bad Christian. The issue isn't what they claim to be, but rather what they are."
But "good" and "bad" must be defined in light of each religion's authoritative texts, not human opinion.

A "good" Christian will tell the truth, love, serve, do good, and refrain from harming others because that is what Christ commands.

A "good" Muslim will fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind because that is what his god requires and his prophet practiced:
". . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).
Steve continues:
"America claims to have a separation of church and state . . . ."
The separation to which Jefferson referred was a protection of religion against government, not a protection of government against religion.
"Men have used violence to serve their own glory for thousands of years, and expect obedience and honor from those they rule over. A Nazi, a communist, an Islamist and a democratic imperialist are all wired the same way, the only difference is the self-satisfying text that they reference."
How naive. The difference between all those you name and a Muslim is that the followers of Mahomet have the permanent, unalterable, and "divine" commands to: ". . . 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) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5), and:
"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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
Not only this, but the faithful Muslim also has the words and deeds of Mohammed -- described by Allah as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" -- to emulate. Mohammed said, ". . . 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
"Christ and Socrates would be crucified for their pursuit of virtue . . . ."
Christ was killed for speaking the words and doing the work of His Father.
". . . Look at the resistance to amnesty for illegal aliens, for example. The door to the inn is still closed, and a child is born in a land with little compassion but with huge warehouses and grand houses of hypocrisy."
That hypocrisy exists is true. That our nation lacks virtue is for growing numbers of our people also true.

That defending one's borders and enforcing the rule of law (we still have quite generous legal immigration rules) is immoral or cruel is suicidally false.

To justify the destruction of American sovereignty and the end of the rule of law by conflating it with the birth of the Son of God is sacrilege.

In response to JFP

JFP observed:
"Theoretically, yes
Just as there are many interpretations of the Bible, so there can be many interpretations of the Qur'an."
The many interpretations are the fault of human error, arrogance, and carelessness.

They are not indicative of any weakness or ambiguity in the Biblical texts.

The same is true of Islam's authoritative documents. Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira say what they say. It is the ignorant and the liar who claim the texts say anything other than what they clearly do.

There is no indication from these *Islamic* records that Mohammad and his followers understood these texts should be taken in any way other than with fatal literalism.

The nearly fourteen centuries of Infidel blood spilled, their women and children raped and enslaved, and the destruction of their religions, cultures, and nations in obedience to those texts also demonstrate that Muslims traditionally take Allah and his apostle at their word.
"When this point is brought up to secularists, what do they say?
1. They call us racist, as though that solves the problem.
2. They say it is too remote a possibility to worry about . . . ."
Which should cause all thinking Infidels to question whether or not these people are really "secularists" in fear of non-Muslim over-generalizations or actually apologists for jihad deceiving ignorant and gullible people of good will.

In response to Phylo

Can Phylo's arguments co-exist w/ truth? He writes:
"Can Jesus coexist with Jefferson?"
The answer is, clearly, "yes," since Jesus commanded His people to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

(And in case this little fact eluded your apparently vigorous intellectual curiosity, the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christians.)

Phylo continues:
"This article is pure demagoguery. It's nothing but a play on his audiences fears and prejudices. I swear the Republicans are aching to start a war with the Muslims. This is crazy."
And your argument here is an impassioned appeal to people's cowardice and ignorance.

What is truly crazy is that six years out from 9/11 (and centuries out from America's first taste of Muslim terror) so many people fail to realize that Islam is at war with us.

Phylo reinforces the impression he has no understanding of Christianity or Islam with:
"I wonder if any of you who read this article will recognize that the exact same question could be asked of Christians and Jews."
An implied equivalence in the answers betraying either your deficient knowledge, reason, moral judgment, or some combination of the three.

Find some Methodists beheading girls on their way to school, shouting "Christ is LORD!" and citing their Biblical justification for it. Then we can talk.

"So how can a good Christian still honor Jefferson?"
[Considering Jefferson’s self-professed preference for the doctrines of Christ above all others, “vigorously,” I’d say.]

That is a different question. Was the switch intentional or accidental?

Of course, a "good" Christian will honor what is honorable. Much of Jefferson's contribution to America and the world is quite remarkable.

Phylo continued:
"And how does Jesus' admonition to sell everything and follow him comport with capitalism? Can Jesus and Adam Smith co-exist?"
Another false comparison. But that's easy for one with little intellectual integrity to do.

The command from Matthew 19 (and the parallel accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18) was given to a specific person, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

If ownership of property were immoral, Christ would not have forbidden stealing.

More from Phylo:
"And how can a good Jew live in a country that doesn't stone gays to death?"
Another command taken out of its proper context! Your lack of truthfulness is disappointing.

Capital punishment for homosexual behavior (and many other sins) was for the nation of Israel living under the Mosaic Covenant. It was not a universal command.