The Key to Defeating Radical Islam – by Jamie Glazov


Frontpage Interview’s guest today is David Satter, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He was Moscow correspondent of the Financial Times of London from 1976 to 1982, during the height of the Soviet totalitarian period and he is the author of Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union, which is being made into a documentary film. His most recent work is Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State.

FP: David Satter, welcome back Frontpage Interview.

I’d like to talk to you today about the lessons of the Cold War for the War on Terror. What is the best way to begin this discussion?

Satter: I think we must begin by recognizing that, although it pretends to be a religion, radical Islam is an ideology. In this respect, it is the blood brother of atheistic communism. Both systems treat artificial dogma as infallible truth and seek to impose it on all of humanity.

Secretary of State Clinton recently reacted to a question about ideology by saying, “that’s so yesterday.” This point of view, however, is a great danger. An ideology is an idea applied to everything on the basis of its own inner logic. It spawns terrorism because its adherents are engaged in a constant war with the outside world in an attempt to substitute its precepts for reality.

To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must therefore discredit radical Islamic ideology. This will not be simple. An ideology is the product of a perverted spiritual quest and it fulfills basic psychological needs. It cannot be defeated with material incentives or by appealing to the fanatics’ better nature. It needs to be discredited in its own terms – as an idea – and, for the sake of our own security, we need to learn how.

FP: Well, scholars such as Robert Spencer have demonstrated that radical Islam is very much a religion, because it is rooted in Islamic theology. His new book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, shows the religious nature of radical Islam’s war on us. But this debate belongs in another time and place and we know the main arguments.

In any case, you are pursuing somewhat of a different argument here today, so for the purposes of this interview, yes, you are correct in that radical Islam does share much in common with communism. Paul Berman did a profound job on this in his work Terror and Liberalism, which shed light on how radical Islam is a cousin of communism as well as fascism.

So, let’s pursue your argument then. In order to defeat radical Islam, it is important to discredit the ideology. Well, let me ask this then: was the Soviet Union destroyed by the collapse of the Soviet ideology?

Satter: It was. The Soviet Union was doomed the minute its ideology began to unravel because the country was not based on anything real. It was the emanation of a deluded idea and when that idea was discredited, it lost its raison d’etre and only draconian mass terror would have been capable of holding it together. But it is difficult to resort to mass terror without the justification of an ideology.

FP: Is it possible that a superpower that intimidated the whole world was based on nothing real?

Satter: Yes. The Soviet Union did not exist to protect its own people or advance their welfare. It embodied no specifically national principles. Its purpose was to build socialism, not only on its own territory but all over the world. The socialism it sought to create envisaged the complete abolition of private ownership and this overarching goal was based on a false theory, Marxism-Leninism.

One of the reasons that Americans find it so difficult to understand the impact of ideology is that we have little experience of it. The U.S. is a pragmatic society and most Americans are totally uninterested in questions of abstract theory. Unfortunately, the world forces us to take an interest in ideology because it is ideological regimes which are our deadliest foes.

In the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism took the place of religion, class and nationality. Religion was not completely suppressed but it was marginalized. The average Soviet citizen was a convinced atheist (“How could there be a God?” he typically asked, “Yuri Gagarin went up into space and did not see him.”) Accordingly, he did not see himself as an individual but rather as a member of a collective and his criterion for right and wrong was not the Golden Rule but rather the progress of socialism. He belonged to no class, except the “hegemonic class,” which supposedly represented the whole people, the proletariat, and his real nationality was the nationality of socialism.

From the point of view of concentrating power, this deluded view of reality had definite advantages. Because socialism was the future of mankind as determined by the perfect science of Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet Union was leading the world to socialism, the Soviet regime’s actions had transcendent authority. They were not just the acts of a government but steps in the creation of an earthly paradise. Those who fought and died for the Soviet Union were not only fighting for their country. They were protagonists of a cosmic good. During the Second World War, this attitude was regularly manifested as Soviet soldiers volunteered for suicide missions and threw themselves under tanks, shouting “For Stalin!”

The ideology was fiercely defended because it gave a sense of meaning to often wretched and miserable lives but faith in it also depended on the capacity of the individual for self-delusion. Despite the censorship, the artificial world of the ideology was never air tight. Soviet citizens still had to be ready on a permanent basis to believe the unbelievable and every aspect of Soviet life was organized to facilitate the collective escape from reality.

The reason why the capacity to take appearance for reality was so important in the Soviet Union became evident after 1985 and the beginning of glasnost. Gorbachev decided to undertake reforms but found that he could do little in the face of the resistance of the entrenched party apparatus. As a result, he began to allow a flow of truthful information in order to mobilize the support of the general population against the apparatus.

The impact of truthful information on the ideological structure of the regime, however, was beyond anything that Gorbachev had imagined. The fault lines in Soviet society were suddenly exposed. As Soviet citizens in the national republics learned about the crimes of the regime against members of their nationality, nationalism surged. As the facts of party privilege became known, Soviet workers revolted and the party itself splintered. When Marxism-Leninism was subjected to doubt, the result was a wrenching spiritual crisis in the lives of millions, thoroughly demoralizing the society. Even the elite units of the KGB were affected and when, in August, 1991, hard line procommunist elements staged a coup in order to try to hold the Soviet Union together, those units were no longer reliable. They refused to carry out an order to arrest Yeltsin and the coup failed. Four months later, the Soviet Union collapsed.

FP: Does the role of the fall of the Soviet ideology in the collapse of the Soviet Union mean that the defeat of the radical Islamist ideology would defeat Islamic terrorism?

Satter: Yes.

FP: Well, how can radical Islamic ideology be defeated?

Satter: First, we need to confront the terrorist ideology. This means answering the challenge at the level at which it is posed. All totalitarian ideologies claim to be systems of total explanation and reject universal morality, arguing instead that right and wrong are determined by the interests of a specific group, whether it be the master race, the working class or the umma.

Our answer is traditionally to point out that totalitarian regimes destroy freedom. Freedom, however, is a contingent rather than an ultimate value. Freedom creates the conditions for moral action but is not a guide to it. If we answer the claims of an ideology that promises a utopia on earth by saying that we are defenders of freedom, we immediately raise the question of “freedom for what?” We also leave the aims of totalitarian ideology and its rejection of universal morality completely unchallenged.

Instead of treating “freedom” as an alternative to ideology, we should be attacking ideology as an outrage to sanity. In this way, there is a chance of shaking potential adherents of the terrorist ideology out of the stupor in which social and economic conditions as well as their own shortcomings are driving them. The Islamic world is not cut off by an iron curtain from the information and opinions of the outside world. The internet, a recruiting tool for terrorists, can be used to counter the zombification that radical Islamic ideology seeks to impose. But this must be done by confronting the claims of ideology rather than seeking to defend freedom and thereby giving the impression that, at the level of ultimate values the terrorists have values and we do not. It is important to remember that the failure of the West during the Cold War to challenge the claims of communist ideology was always taken by the communists to mean that the West did not believe in anything.

In the case of the Islamic terrorists, one way of answering their claims is to point out the similarities between the terrorists’ “religion” and the communists’ “atheism.” Both rely on man made doctrine. (Even if one believes that the Koran comes directly from God, the decision on what to emphasize is a human decision.) And both divide the world into believers and infidels and, in relation to the latter, justify any crime.

The fact that Nazism, communism and Islamic radicalism rely on the same  inversion of values – the replacement of genuine transcendent values with values that are man made – and the same psychological mechanisms – the rejection of reality and destruction of free will  – is the reason that the members of the Iranian opposition, to combat the theocratic regime, are immersing themselves in the works of such principled opponents of the communist ideology as the late Polish philosopher, Leszek Kolakowski, even as we speak.

FP: Well what is the role of military strength in all of this?  Is it possible that fighting the terrorists militarily is not that important?

Satter: The war against terror will be won not by destroying the terrorists but by discrediting their ideology. Part of that effort is military, however, and consists of destroying the terrorists’ faith in ultimate victory.

A visitor to the Soviet Union in the 1970s or 1980s could not help but notice that ordinary Soviet citizens, although they lived in poverty, tended to think globally and demonstrated a serene self confidence about the course of world events. Eastern Europe was socialist, Afghanistan was occupied. The revolution was successful in Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba. Victory was imminent in El Salvador. Events seemed to bearing out the prediction of Soviet ideology that the victory of socialism was inevitable. In the opinion of the KGB, “the world was going our way.”

In 1983, however, the U.S. overthrew the communist regime on Grenada, an island of 100,000 persons. The action was widely ridiculed in the West but it was the first time that a communist regime had ever been overthrown and this small defeat resonated seriously in the lands where communism had supposedly been established “forever.” In fact, it was a psychological event that helped make further defeats possible and, before the eyes of an astonished world, they came in rapid succession. The Soviets first withdrew from Afghanistan and then from Eastern Europe. Finally, Russia withdrew from the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union itself.

The Islamic terrorists, like the Soviets, are confident of ultimate victory. That confidence was shaken in Iraq but has been renewed by the Taliban’s successes in Afghanistan. In this respect it matters little whether the Taliban and al Qaeda are linked or whether the Taliban intends, in the event of victory, to reinvite al Qaeda to set up shop in Afghanistan. What matters is that they share the same ideology and a victory for the Taliban is a victory for the system of thought that was responsible for the terrorist attacks on the U.S.

The antidote to this is a U.S. presence in the region that is predicated on the absolute inadmissibility of a terrorist victory and nothing else. It is this, in combination with an ability to explain and defend our values that, in the long run, will make our victory possible.

FP: David Satter, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

  • rrwest

    It was not considered marginal thinking when people criticised the atrocities and aims of the Nazis and Imperial Japan between 1939 and 1945.

    I don't think it was considered marginal thinking to stop the Ottoman Turks at the gates of Vienna on Sept 11, 1683, either (does the date resemble a more recent one?).

    This war against all that is not Muslim is inherent in the ideology of Islam, and no amount of wishing will make it go away.

    Since before the Crusades, leaders like Charlemagne fought to keep Islam in check.

    Now we need to appeae its leaders so as to not look more like it?

    I don't buy it for a minute that our views should be marginalized. It is the very fabric of our civilization that is in danger should we capitulate to the imams, ayatollahs, mullahs and clerics of this ancient, totalitarian ideology that walks like a religion, yet acts like a criminal.

  • rrwest

    I will say it many times, but Islam has never been a religion as the rest of theworld know religion.

    Its tenets, doctrines, punishments and fear-based control of its people should be more than enough to convince even the casual observer that something is not quite right with it.

    The Muslim hatred for Jews is legendary as is the treatment of those who leave Islam and those who live within its borders yet refuse to submit to its ideology. These are not the attitudes or actions of a same system, but of powerful despots who will try to keep power at all costs, even to the lives of their followers.

    Its time we wake up and recognize this before its too late.

    Kufar and proud.

    May the west prevail.

  • Eopithecus

    The only answer to the problem is the destruction of Islamic culture anything that doesn't address the virulence of Islam is failure, and right now we are failing spectacularly. Your esteemed guest wants an American presence, well just where is the money coming from. The Comptroller General of the USA says we are flat stone cold Banana Republic broke. So Satter's idea is just not possible.

  • Timmy

    There were virtually no Muslims in America until the 1965 immigration reform. That is only 40 years ago. I've stated clearly the problem of modern liberal multiculturalism and how that is preventing us dealing with Islam but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to fight to save the West. It wouldn't take much effort to separate ourselves from Islam. Eliminate immigration of Muslims, and outlaw calls for Sharia – which is basic to Islam, so many Muslims would leave, perhaps some would have to be persuaded with economic benefits to relocate. Your idea of continuing to allow Islam to spread in the West is suicide. And you ARE NOT going to change them in their lands no matter how many men you commit in war, no matter how many trillions of dollars you commit, no matter how many centuries you commit to it. These are not excuses, this is facing reality, you should try it sometime.

  • MaryAnn

    I, personally, am not talking about protracted wars. We need to kill them. We should have nuked Afganistan right after 9/11. Throughout history Islam has terrorized and murdered its way into control of other countries. Today it uses terror, politics and law. Already, there are movements by Muslims to enshrine Sharia into various states in America, MI being one, by using our own laws and our misguided sense of fairness and equality against us. Islam needs to be stopped.

  • Timmy

    “Islam's leaders and the Taliban will not stop with Afghanistan, but move onto bigger conquests.”

    What are trying to say here? At this point all that the West should try to do is prevent any other NON-ISLAMIC country or part of a country from falling to Islam. Any country that is already Islamic is a lost cause, there is nothing that can be done. Any non-Muslims in those lands for the most part need to just fend for themselves. Any involvement from us only makes matters worse for non-Muslims as has been proved in Iraq with what has happened to the Christians since we got involved.

    “I think that one if its most telling features is that it denies followers the right to have freedom of conscience. Why else would its leaders (and founder) threaten them with death if they leave?”

    There is no more damning piece of evidence against Islam than the fact that people are forced into it and killed if they leave it. Nothing more should need to be said about it. But the average twit brainwashing in the modern liberal West would respond that “all religions” do that or at least used to do that. Their cluelessness is simply limitless. They don't even understand that no one can be “forced” to be a Christian, that it is a personal choice. Jews may shun a family member who leaves their faith and becomes a Christian but they don't try to kill them. Any person or group that kills those who try to leave are fooling themselves if they think they are really loved or wanted. The real God only wants people around Him who want to be there, though I guess unbelievers would claim that the threat of Hell for eternity is a sort of forcing people to “want” to be with Him. But this is all beyond the point, Islam kills those in this life physically who leave it. That is proof enough that it is a pathetic weak faith. If all the Muslims worldwide were free to leave chances are good that there would be many many fewer Muslims. Simple statistics would say that in any human population a certain number would choose atheist, Christian, whatever, not 99.99% Muslim, no way.

  • Timmy

    “Islam has never had a Reformation that took the main belief system down a peg or two. Nor has its leaders allowed their followers the freedom to do what their conscience told them should be done. This goes a long way to explain why apostates to Islam can be killed without fear of punishment.”

    It is a perversion of the concept of Reformation when used in this way. The Christian Reformation was NOT a way of taking Christianity down a peg or two, it was a RETURN TO THE BASIC FAITH, THE WRITTEN TEXTS, the REMOVING from the faith of various man-made additions to it that had occurred over the years primarily by the Catholic Church. In the case of Islam, any “reformation” in the sense that it occurred in Christianity WOULD ONLY MAKE ISLAM WORSE! That in fact is what the radicals have done, stripped away the man-made additions to Islam – the liberal notions of modernity that they reject. Islam does not need a reformation, it needs for some of the basic elements of Islam to be rejected out of hand, and that is never ever in a million billion years going to happen because Islam says that it is perfect, dictated directly from Allah through an angel to Muhammad, there is no interpretation, it is black and white perfect end of story. Change one tiny little itty bitty thing and you are REJECTING THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF IT, so that cannot be done and never will be done. Hoping for an Islamic reformation is for fools and the West cannot risk their future on that hope.

  • rrwest

    What I meant was that the Catholic leadership was taken down a peg or two.

    The Reformation had as an unespected consequence the fact that people could follow their conscience for themselves without fearing that church leaders (and o thers eventually) were peering over their shoulders with each and every move they made.

    The religion itself was not “taken down a peg or tow”, the leaders in it were because they now had coemptetition.

    Islam has never had, nor will it tolerate competition. This is why jihad is so important. Mo and his thugs hated all competition and to this day, the leaders still do.

  • rrwest

    You make some very valid points, yet those countries which are presently under Islamic control have millions of decent people who want desperately to change their governments and their “religion”. We are assuming here that a seperation of church and state is possible within Islam.

    And like the millions of westerners who have fallen into cult and have been assisted by friends and families to leave, I feel that millons of Muslims who have been literally brainwashed into submission are capable of leaving Islam by massive intervention and de-programming efforts.

    Remember that there are probably hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are closet believers in other religions or are closet atheists. They dare not speak out since the control system they live under does not permit people to freely and openly choose to leave for another religion without dire consequences. It takes away the power and control from the leaders.

    This last point is the one fundamental reason why more and more people are seeing Islam for what it truly is, a political and economic control system masquerading as a religion. That is was developed over 1,300 years ago does not change this fact.

    Just because it is ancient does not make it a religion, even with prayers, scripture and ceremony layered on top. You must look at it from the personal perspective and also a global one.

    How does it treat those who leave? Can you question its tenets and beliefs without fear of censure, ostracism or other punishments? How does it treat non-believers? Does its practices encourage universal, ethical behaviour toward those less fortunate in their culture, regardless of the beliefs of those people? How do the lives of their founder(s) display ethics and compassion? How are women treated? What are the punishments for relatively small crimes like petty theft? Does it allow freedom of conscience (ie can believers choose to leave and not fear for their lives)?

    I'm sure that you can give negative answers for practically every question for many religions, but Islam seems to have the lion's share of negative answers for each. Add to this the fact that every day, Muslims commit atrocities in the name of their control system around the world and not a peep comes from the “moderates” among them. Not a peep.

    And there are few Muslims in the west who would turn in to authorities those among them who are terrorists. It rarely happens.

  • Timmy

    Another major factor in the Christian Reformation was the invention of the printing press and the publishing of the bible in languages other than Latin so people could read it and see for themselves what it said. In the case of Islam, most of the Islamic world is illiterate, most Muslims, even the literate ones don't really understand what it all says since their texts include the Hadith and as far as the Koran itself goes it is largely incomprehensible. Also, the purists claim that only the original Arabic version is correct that any translation misses the vast profound meanings of the original. There are just so many problems with Islam, maybe the internet and the ability to get the truth out that way will begin to help but as long as the West allows Islam to expand within the West they are sealing their own fate.

  • peanto

    This is rubbish like the “War on Terror.”
    There is no “Radical Islam.” There is only Islam. Either you defeat Islam or Islam defeats you!

  • Timmy

    We need to view Islam as something that cannot be defeated, since truly it cannot at least for the foreseeable future, maybe hundreds or thousands of years from now things will change but for now Islam cannot be defeated or changed so all that we can really do, all that we can control is our own actions and in that sense avoiding Islam is our only solution, not allowing it to spread in the West and containing it as much as it possible where it already is. If the entire non-Muslim world joins together to isolate the Islamic world and let them suffer and stew in their own misery that would be the best way to fight Islam. We don't send them medical supplies, food, nothing. If we need their oil we just take it. If the non-Muslim world does not do this then they will continue the slow slide down into the hell of total Islamization. This policy would even solve the weapons problem as eventually the Muslim world wouldn't even have the parts or ability to maintain what they have now.

  • rrwest

    I completely forgot about the printing press!!!!

    Yes, Islam keeps its followers largely ignorant of world matters, world history and modern life and the Koran is never supposed to be translated into other languages, since they are considered “impure” or some such nonsense.

    What I have noticed is that the only really “educated” Muslims are those in the oil and gas engineering and business fields who have had contact with the west.

    The main leaders of Islam also seem to have specific ethnic backgrounds, namely Arabic, Egyptian or Turk. This represents those same peoples who had vast empires throughout the period between 800 and the end of the Ottoman Empire.


    I think not.

  • wyeth

    Ban Islam!

  • Timmy

    Separation of mosque and state really isn't possible in the long run since the whole purpose of Islam is to be the state. Only constant fighting against Islam becoming the state will prevent that and the fight alone is enough to destroy democracy. You just can't live in peace with Islam.

    As for helping those supposed large numbers of Muslims who don't want to be in it, the West needs to help itself first. Only by keeping Islam out of the West will anyone, including Muslims who want to leave Islam, have any hope of finding a safe place to escape Islam. If Islam expands in the West including in America then there will be no safe place on earth for apostates from Islam.

    If the West does get serious and restricts Islam in the West then it can begin a propaganda campaign to expose Islam.

    The people living under Islam have to fend for themselves however. If they want to rise up they can do it but any and all involvement from the West only makes matters worse. The Christians of Iraq currently are the worst example. America should be ashamed for what it has done to them. As long as we treat Islam as a good thing, that only the “extremists” are the problem, any involvement on our part, acting from that flawed premise, only makes everything worse.

  • Timmy

    The first amendment will have to be amended or alternatively some acknowledgment made formally that Islam being the political doctrine that it is, is not included under religion for purposes of the first amendment. Legal minds will have to work out the details. But the bottom line is that allowing Islam freedom to do its will based upon the first amendment right is a suicide pact given that once Islam acts long enough it will eliminate the first amendment itself. The West has to be intolerant of Islam in order to save tolerance at all. Either we eliminate tolerance for Islam now or Islam will eventually eliminate tolerance for everything other than Islam. One way would be to focus on the sharia element, so that theoretically Islam is not outlawed, that if they can practice it never mentioning anything or doing anything to promote sharia just keeping it a “personal” faith not forcing anything on anyone then it would be allowed. But since sharia and force are so core to Islam essentially it would be outlawing it. Given these restrictions Muslims would just leave America.

  • anon

    Islam is no different from Nazism

    Mohammed as perfect man = Hitler is always right
    Ummah = Volk
    Both anti-Semitic
    Both hostile to Christianity, democracy, free speech and womens' rights
    Both glorify war
    Mohammed and Hitler both believed they were chosen by God

  • concerned4uandme

    LOL – I came to this site accidently. Didn't realize that the atom sized minority of bigots spent their time here. What a bunch of losers you all are. You are no different that the hate spouting Muslims, Hindus, Jews and any other loser there is, who calls him/herself a human being.

    Get some psychic help you all and a life – for sure!

  • Timmy

    Go to any country, town or block controlled by Muslims anywhere other than in the U.S. and see how well you get along. There are over 750 “no-go” areas in France alone, these are areas that even infidel police are not welcome. Then you as a naive infidel can get all the LOL awakening you need just by going there and letting them know who you are and what you think about various issues. Be sure to include your opinions on democracy, religion, womens rights, and don't forget homosexuality by any means. Be sure to update your will before you go.

  • Timmy

    Muhammad was the successful Hitler, (more on this at Hitler overreached and was gone quickly. Muhammad created a self-sustaining system that continues on long after he was gone. In fact the Medina Koran contains a higher percentage of verses that deal with hatred of Jews than even Mein Kampf (see Bill Warner for more on that, he has meticulously analyzed verse by verse the Koran and gives illuminating statistics about what percentage deals with various issues. No surprise, it isn't about loving your neighbor).

    “Approximately 51% of the Medinan Koran text is about jihad and verbal threats directed against Jews, non-Muslims and hypocrites (half-hearted Muslims). The Koran of Medina is 10.8% Jew hatred in nature. By comparison, only 6.8% of the text (measured by paragraphs) of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kamph is anti-Jewish.”

  • Siddharth

    HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS…… it worked once in Philippines History…

    Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines in 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of a small garrison. There had been numerous Islamic killings against the population, so "Black Jack" told his men to catch some of them and teach them a lesson.

    Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

    All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the islamist camps and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

  • Mark clearly shows Islam to be fundamentally flawed in its very root. GOD'S PLAN for man's salvation was to be accomplished through His Messiah who was prophesied to be born into the world as child of a Jewish virgin. The Jewish tribe was to emerge from the ancestral line of Abraham's miraculously conceived 2nd son, Isaac. The Messiah Himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22) In other words, salvation was NOT going to come from the ancestral line of Abraham's 1st son, Ishmael, from whose line Muhammad was born about 600 years AFTER the Messiah. So Islam, the 'religion of Muhammad', being of Ishmael's ancestral line does NOT accord with GOD'S MESSIAH PLAN for man's salvation. As such, it is flawed in its very root. Muhammad was deceived by his angel. The Messiah confirmed the truth of GOD'S JEWISH-MESSIAH PLAN when He said, "No-one can come to the Father,except by Me." (John 14:6) The religion of the Messiah is true. The religion of the deceived Muhammad is false. The logic of makes it all clear. This is the truth all Muslims must be helped to recognise. Only then, Islam shall be no more.

  • Mark clearly shows Islam to be flawed in its very root. It does NOT accord with GOD'S JEWISH-MESSIAH PLAN for man's salvation. The Messiah was to be born of a Jewish virgin. The Jews are of the ancestral line of Abraham's miraculously conceived son Isaac. The Messiah Himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews," (John 4:2) and "No-one can come to the Father except by Me." (John 14:6) Muhammad was born of the ancestral line of Abraham's son Ishmael. This was NOT God's Covenant line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob(Israel), King David and the Virgin Mother of the Messiah, the Messiah in whom GOD'S PLAN was to be made complete. Muhammad was deceived by his angel. Muslims believe his religion has supplanted the religion of God's Messiah. makes it all patently clear. Muslims of today must be helped to realise that they, too, have been deceived. Only then might they be freed from their slavery too Islam.

  • Mark

    DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAM WITH MESSIAH TRUTH! The Judeo-Christian Scriptures show Muhammad was victim to the lying, deceptions of an 'angel' masquerading as the Angel Gabriel (2 Cor.11:14,15) who appeared to the virgin Mary telling her she would be mother to the Son of God by the power of God's Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:26-38) Muhammad's angel contradicts Gabriel saying, this Child was "no more than an Apostle." (Kn 5:75) This 'angel' is clearly an impersonator, liar and deceiver. Muhammad was his victim. Their ideology, Islam, claims to have supplanted the role of God's own Jewish-Saviour-Messiah. (Kn 3:19) Their denial of Him, also means denial of His own words, that "Salvation is of the Jews," (John 4:22) and that, "NO-ONE can come to the Father, except by Me." (John 14:6) Clearly, the true religion, can only be the one of God's own making, the religion of the Messiah! Islam, is fatally flawed in its very root, generated by a lying angel, with Muhammad as his deceived-victim-instrument. Refer to:

  • mendi

    Shame on you, manipulate the picture of homosexuals, mounted Islam!