Nothing to Do with Islam, Part 2

image_update_imgTo read Part I, click here.

In his comments on the jihad being waged by the Islamic State in northern Iraq (ISIL), President Obama recycled yet again the shopworn false knowledge about Islam that continues to compromise our response to Muslim violence: “So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.”

Over at the New York Post, a columnist rightly took the president to task by saying, “You can’t divorce the Islamic State from religion.” Unfortunately, the column is full of numerous misstatements that perpetuate the illusion that there is some peaceful, tolerant version of Islam that has been distorted and twisted by “extremists” or “fundamentalists.”

According to the writer, adherents of any faith can misread sacred texts literally in order to justify violence: “The problem isn’t just literalist interpretations of the Koran: The New Testament, the Jewish Torah and many other religious books contain explicit calls for disproportionate punishments and killing of nonbelievers.” Forget the false assumption that we are supposed to read all sacred texts allegorically rather than literally. I’d like to see the verses from the New Testament that explicitly instruct Christians to kill non-believers rather than try to convert them. On the contrary, Jesus preached, “Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5.38), and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5.43).

Concerning other interactions with non-believers, Jesus instructed his disciples, “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town” (Matthew 10.14).  Because there are no explicit commands to kill non-believers in the New Testament, over the ages Christians who have justified violence with scripture have had to engage in tortuous interpretations and misreadings that over time have not been able to gain traction among all the faithful. That’s why despite widespread persecution across the world today, there is no major Christian terrorist movement.

Compare, in contrast, the Koran’s explicit calls to violence against non-believers, such as Koran 4.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan.” This is consistent with the famous command in 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah.” If someone wants to argue that “fight” is intended metaphorically in these verses, and has been “twisted” by a “literal” reading to serve some fringe interpretation, consider 4.74: “Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah––whether he is slain or gets victory––Soon shall we give him a reward.” Obviously in this verse and numerous others “fight” means physical battle in which people are “slain.” Contrary to Christian scripture, in traditional Islamic doctrine non-believers who are invited to convert and refuse the call are not left alone, but killed or, if they are Jews or Christians, sometimes allowed to live in humiliating submission under a treaty that Muslims can break at any time for any reason.

As for the Torah, the list of verses allegedly commanding death for non-believers that crop up on anti-Biblical and atheist websites has nothing to do with gentiles. A favorite is Deuteronomy 17, which commands death for those who, “transgressing his covenant,” have “gone and served other gods and worshipped them.” But this is clearly a reference not to gentiles, but to Hebrews who have betrayed the covenant between God and the Jewish people by violating the first Commandment. So too with numerous other verses produced to prove that the Hebrew God ordered the Hebrews to kill gentiles. On the contrary, all these verses describe capital punishment for crimes committed by Jews, such as apostasy, witchcraft, adultery, fornication, and the like. Nowhere is there a verse commanding, like Koran 9.29, wholesale warfare against all gentiles who refuse to become Jews.

As for the orders given to Hebrew kings in the Old Testament to destroy another town or tribe, these are specific to that particular time, place, and people, and reflect the brutal warfare universal at that time. They are history, not theology. We may find such draconian punishments or collective violence distasteful, but they certainly do not comprise the sort of theology of violence against all non-believers that is found throughout the Koran and Islamic doctrine.

Obama is half-right that killing innocents, more specifically women and children, is forbidden in Islam. But there are conflicting traditions of interpretation about this prohibition going back centuries. The most famous Muslim philosopher, the 12th century Ibn Rushd, known in the west as Averroës, discusses this controversy in his treatise Bidayat al-Mudjtahid. In contrast to the prohibition against killing women and children, Averroës writes, some interpreters quote Mohammed’s famous statement, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, ‘There is no God but Allah,’” which is consistent with Koran 9.5: “Then when the sacred months have slipped away, slay the polytheists wherever you find them.” As Averroës summarizes the controversy, “the source of their controversy is to be found in their divergent views concerning the motive why the enemy may be slain. Those who think that this is because they are unbelieving do not make exception for any polytheist,” including women and children. But even those who take the contrary view that only those able to fight may be killed make an exception for women who fight or who aid the enemy in some way, such as speaking against Islam or spying on Muslim warriors.

In short, many Muslims over the centuries have disagreed with Obama’s bald assertion that “no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Modern jihadists like ISIL, al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, and the numerous other groups thus have a foundation for their actions in a long tradition of Islamic theology. They see the outsized power and influence of the West, and the people who support it economically or politically, as a mortal threat to Islam. Thus destroying them is acceptable as a defense of the faith, for they are not “innocent” of aggression against Islam.

Many other practices of the jihadists likewise have justifications found in Islamic tradition and history, even if there are disagreements among Muslims about their validity. The jihadists’ penchant for beheading has its precedent in Koran 8.12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” We have acted as though the filmed beheading of reporter James Foley is some unprecedented act of savagery by a Manson-like cult. But as Ian Tuttle reminds us, early in his career Mohammed beheaded the some 700 Jews of the Banu Qurayzah. In the 11th century Yusuf ibn Tashfin beheaded 24,000 Spaniards and, in a primitive version of YouTube, sent the heads to cities in North Africa and Spain. In the 19th century the Mahdist jihadists in Sudan beheaded their enemies, including the British war hero Charles “Chinese” Gordon. And Saudi Arabia today continues to publicly behead malefactors, 23 so far this August. There are few better ways to “cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” or, as Obama said of Foley’s beheading, “shock the conscience of the entire world.”

Similarly, the indiscriminate bombing of people including women and children, whether through rockets or highjacked airliners, is argued as licit based on the fact that Mohammed used mangonels, a type of catapult, at the siege of al-Taif, even though such bombardment endangered women and children. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has written an essay justifying al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks of 9/11 based on this tradition. So too with the prohibition against suicide, used by some apologists to argue that so-called “suicide-bombers” are contrary to Islamic doctrine. But in the Koran and hadith it is clear that killing oneself as an act of martyrdom while fighting for the faith is acceptable. For example, according to one hadith, Muhammad said, “I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.” That’s why for 14 centuries jihadists have said they love death the way infidels love life.

Groups like ISIL or al Qaeda do not embrace “extreme religious views,” or “twist the overall message of religious texts,” as the New York Post has it. They act on a venerable tradition within Islam, one based on writings some Muslims have construed differently because of inconsistencies among various texts. But that doesn’t change the fact that the jihadists have within the faith long-established precedents for their actions, a tradition with millions of Muslim adherents worldwide, including the leaders of Turkey and Qatar who finance the vicious terrorist group Hamas, and the Mullahcracy in Iran, the world’s foremost supporter of Islamic terrorism.

We in the West correctly find such views “extreme,” or “savage” and “barbaric,” but they are not “fringe” anomalies conjured out of textual misreadings by an extremist cult. They derive from the history and sacred texts of Islam, the clear meaning of which is illustrated on page after page of Muslim history. And they are being acted upon today across the Muslim world, as evidenced by the nearly 24,000 violent attacks perpetrated by Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Contrary to Obama, ISIL does speak for a religion. It’s called Islam.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • mollysdad

    Jesus says at Luke 19:27: “But those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me.”

    The Old Testament remains in force, not that its legal prescriptions bind anyone other than unbaptized Jews, but as a revelation of God’s will. The punishments in the Mosaic Law cannot be applied today because the Temple no longer stands and the Sanhedrin is no longer in session. But the commandment to exterminate those who commit the crime of Amalek (Exodus 17; Deuteronomy 25) still stands and remains as a mandate of the King (1 Samuel 15).

    • Molly2

      The verse that you mention is part of a parable – a metaphorical story to give explanation. You have completely taken it out of context. On the other hand Jesus directly tells his followers to forgive their enemies.

      • mollysdad

        So what does it explain? It explains what the King will do to His enemies at the end of history. It also explains what He does to Amalek whenever this exterminationist enemy appears in history, as he appears in our day.

        The purpose of the commandment to forgive one’s enemies is the maintenance and restoration of peaceful relationships within the kingdom of God. It does not apply to Amalek, because God has sworn to have war with him from generation to generation, lest His kingdom on earth be destroyed (Exodus 17).

        It is forbidden to forgive God’s belligerent enemies, as it is forbidden to forgive demons.

        • Molly2

          It explains to use the gift of faith and not to be afraid.

        • Thomas L. Stafford

          Ok, That is Old Testament. Prior to the flood. The only covenant that was in place was the grant of Israel to Abraham’s descendants. Abraham had two sons Issac and Esau. Both were heirs to the kingdom. Esau chose to deny that heritage. As did his son Eliphaz and his son Amalek. There was enmity between the offspring of Issac which continued through the reign of David. It finally ended in a decisive battle where many Amelekites and Edomites were killed. But a remnant escaped. The New Testament is a New Covenant between God and all of his human creation. The Gospels are full of examples of parables were non-Jews were ministered to and healed. The definition of brother was nearly globalized etc. Apostles journeyed to much of the known world to spread the good news to gentiles and Jews. In short anyone who was willing to claim God as his creator, Jesus as his savior and King, and the Holy spirit as Jesus’ and God’s voice was welcome to become Christian. Peter cleared up some of the questions about diet and circumcision when gentile converts started coming in.

          • wildjew

            I know Christians believe there is a new and a different covenant that God made with mankind. I believe there is only one covenant that God made with all flesh; God’s ancient covenant. There is really nothing new about the so-called ‘new’ covenant in the 31st chapter of the book of Jeremiah.

          • mollysdad

            You’re off topic. This is about the commandment God gives to the King to kill His enemies who are putting the Church to genocide.

      • Lanna

        Yes, Alot of people take the verses out of context to promote their own agenda..

    • Thomas L. Stafford

      Jesus was speaking metaphorically as if he were a Nobleman. Who had given his slaves mina a form of money to do business with while he was away trying to get suzerainty over his an some neighboring towns. One slave turned his one mina into ten and was given power over ten towns. Another turned his into five and was awarded with five towns. A third slave had merely hidden his so that he could return it. The mina he had was given to the one who had ten mina already, while the slave was sent away empty handed. The Nobleman now King had found out about the plot to assassinate him. He asked his loyal subjects to bring the plotters and slay them in his presence. The noble man was demonstrating the value of loyalty and honest hard work in his service by gift the mina and the subsequent reward for increasing them. He rebuked the slackard that merely held his. As King he wanted those who plotted against him put to death. The parable shows the value of honest work and the cost of dishonesty and plotting. Jesus did not ask that anyone who was against him be slain. Quite the contrary he fully expected to be slain by those who were against him. He at the end did nothing to stop them. He went to his death much as the other lambs at that Passover.

    • Lanna

      This is in reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D. The punishment of those who rebelled and actively opposed the King of all Kings, it refers to rejecting the Truth. Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Prayer is on of the practical ways love expresses itself. However, Turning the other cheek does not mean letting your enemies roll over you, it means promoting a peaceful solution if possible.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!
      Famously: “Judas went and hanged himself”…”go and do likewise”.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Thornton down plays the violent commandments in the OT. Clearly killing apostates isn’t something to dismiss as small change. Look at Christian history from 1500 to 1650. The religious wars between Christian sects who viewed the other as apostates or worse was horrendous. The “Thirty Years War” was barbaric and left 30% of the population dead in Central Europe.

    Christians became more secular after that period. The Age of Reason and Enlightenment followed. Islam is sinking into a barbaric period and yes they are following the example of Mohammad. He was a warrior and political leader. It not clear how that can be forgotten. Secularization for Muslims must come with a greater break from their religion.

    • wildjew

      You say, Thornton down plays the violent commandments in the OT; look at Christian history, etc. Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated. He was not stoned to death. In the history of the Jews, I do not see lots of Jewish apostates or heretics killed. Not like we see in Islam. Why is it? During the Exodus from Egypt according to the text the entire nation saw God’s glory. It was not a good time to rebel.

      British historian, Paul Johnson in his “A History of the Jews” wrote, “In theory a defiant son could be taken before the elders, convicted and stoned to death; he could be scourged even on the first offence. The Talmud said, no such case had ever occurred, but the shadow of the law lay over the son.” (page 295)

      Why do you think this is since as you say there are stern commandments and warnings of capital punishments in the law of Moses?

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        First of all, Jews were out of power for 2000 years. Secondly, I gave examples from Christian history. Christians have been in power since 400 AD. They revere the OT but they tend to cherry pick select passages depending on the denomination. And they have been violent against heretics numerous times over the last 2000 years.

        • wildjew

          That’s right. But Jews are back “in power” at least in Israel we are.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            And they have created the most civilized society in that part of the world. Let’s go forward from here.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      One of the problems that Christianity faces is that it is readily abused by those who seek secular power. As Mr. Thornton explicitly stated in his article, certain verses in the Bible are readily taken out of context if people want to use them to abuse their neighbors. None of the actions that you cite may be truly justified by Scripture, they are purely political.

      Again: the “violent commandments” were specific actions aimed at specific peoples who were a threat to Israel and – particularly – threatened the separation between Israel and the other nations that God required. The fact that the Israelites kept falling into apostasy despite these strict measures is a clear demonstration of man’s fallen nature!

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Jesus, unlike Mohammad, did not seek political power and he said little about how to rule. This left the OT as the only religious source and it is far from clear how to import these teachings into the Christian world. Your version is a more recent viewpoint after the vicious religious wars of the 1600s. Christianity has changed and continues to change but it differs from denomination to denomination.

        Christian history includes the persecution of Arian heretics, Cathars, Unitarians (i.e. Servetus) and culminating in the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. Did I mention what they did to the Jews over the last 2000 years? This can’t be dismissed as man’s fallen nature preventing him from being a good Christian.

        Now, I applaud Christianity for incorporating the liberal traditions from our Greco-Roman heritage and embracing the more secular and tolerant Enlightenment that was built on that foundation.

        • Paul of Alexandria

          Yes and no. Jesus, being God, doesn’t need to seek political power. His concern was in saving humanity – part of the long war that began in Genesis. “My” version is the classical Christian view, please don’t play modernist games.

          Christians are not called to seek political power as part of the religion for two reasons. First of all, we “are not of the world but in it.” Satan holds sway yet, and we are concerned with that war. Christians cannot convert by the sword because we seek a true conversion of the heart, not merely of the lips.

          Secondly, political power is a vocation granted by God which may or may not fall to a Christian. In any event, He decides who is in power for His own reasons. If a Christian happens to be in power, than he (or she) will be held to Christian standards for behavior and for protecting the people under him/her.

          As for “incorporating” the Old Testament, Christians hold that Jesus was and is the Messiah prophesied by the prophets of Israel and that Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. Everything in the Old Testament points to Him and is part of the plan leading to Him and his work. (see the “Christ in the Old Testament” series at http://redeemertheologicalacademy.org/). Essentially, the nation of Israel and the Jewish people were a stopgap, holding the fort – as it were – and preparing the way.

          This can’t be dismissed as man’s fallen nature preventing him from being a good Christian. I don’t know about “dismissed”, but that is the explanation. People use religion as a political weapon and – as Martin Luther made abundantly clear – by the 15th century the Roman Catholic church was very caught up with political power and violated the very fundamental tenets of the faith that they were supposed to be protecting. In Christian doctrine, there is “just” war – war for the defense of the people against an aggressor. There is no such thing as a “holy” war equivalent to jihad.

          Now, I applaud Christianity for incorporating the liberal traditions
          from our Greco-Roman heritage and embracing the more secular and
          tolerant Enlightenment that was built on that foundation.

          I’m not sure which traditions you mean, precisely, but most of what Christianity has absorbed from the “secular and tolerant” Enlightenment was to its detriment.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            The problem, Paul, is that Christians have not agreed on an understanding of the religion in 500 years. Some of what you say is dependent of denomination. Not being a Christian I don’t take sides although I do have an opinion on who is reading the texts in a straight forward manner, who is stretching, and where ambiguity lies that allows interpretation.

            I want to return to a previous remark you made as I was thinking about this since I last posted. You noted (and I agree) that “specific actions aimed at specific peoples who were a threat to Israel” are not to be taken as universal and eternal in nature. In other words, some parts of the Bible are “situational” and some have “eternal” prohibitions or proscriptions. For those seeking religion as eternal truth, dismissing certain prohibitions are “good for that time or those people” can be a door that empties the religion as expediency requires. Don’t you worry about that explanation?

          • Paul of Alexandria

            When you read the Bible, you must read it in context, as you do any historical book. Remember, both the Old Testament and the new Testament are compilations. The Old Testament is an assembly of history, prophetical writings, poetry, and “wisdom saying” assembled over approximately 1500 years; the New Testament is a compilation of eyewitness accounts of the work and teachings of Jesus (the Gospels and Acts) and various letters from Apostles to early churches. They aren’t textbooks; neither was written at a single point in time to transmit “eternal truth” in what we would consider a scholarly way.

            If you are going to interpret the Old Testament, you have to remember – as my pastor said – that it wasn’t written by Americans nor for Americans. It was written by Hebrews, in a middle eastern context, with a certain tradition of rhetoric and poetry that doesn’t quite line up with our own. Many people wiser than I have studied the Old Testament, in the original languages and in the context of the time, and yes, some parts are situational, some are universal, some are applicable only to the Jews. For instance, Christians commonly accept that there are three aspects of the Law as handed to Moses: the civil law, applicable only to the Nation of Israel up to the Babylonian captivity; the ceremonial law, which is applicable only to the Jews and was intended to keep them apart from surrounding nations; and the natural law (e.g. the Ten Commandments) which are universally applicable for maintaining a stable and sane society. This complexity, BTW, is why it can be dangerous to simply pick up the Bible and read through it without some initial instruction.

            When you read the New Testament, you have to remember that it was written by Jews, in the Roman Empire, for Jews and Greeks. I highly recommend “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, Cultural Studies in the Gospels” by Kenneth E. Bailey. The New Testament can be especially tricky at times because you have to keep track of whether the author is writing to a Jewish Christian audience or a Greek one, what Old Testament version he’s referring to (usually the Septuagint), what the political situation at the time was, and what assumptions the author is making about his intended audience. As a minor example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to have a different chronology of the Crucifixion of Jesus than John, until you note that John used Roman time, having the start of the day at midnight, as we do, while the other three used Hebrew time, with the day starting at sunset. (See “From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology” by Andrew E. Steinmann).

            There are many good podcasts at Issues Etc, an online radio show of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. For this topic, you might want to listen to the interviews with Dr. Andrew Steinmann, a noted O.T. scholar: http://issuesetc.org/guest/andrew-steinmann/

            So no, I don’t worry about that explanation, really. You do have to check your assumptions and presumptions before studying Scripture, and listen to those who have gone before. Some initial preparation, primarily finding reputable scholars, helps.

            As for Christians not agreeing on an understanding of the religion, that has been going on for much longer than 500 years! Paul himself had to tangle with the Gnostics, and the early church fathers in the first and second centuries did little else than argue about terms, assumptions, and heresies. All I can say is that this is what is to be expected in any human endeavor, especially when we are explicitly warned that we will be under attack, and that in my church (LCMS) we try our best to return to the basic teachings of Jesus as transmitted to the Apostles and the early church fathers.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Let me start that I fully respect the careful study of the Christian texts in their own right. I enjoy reading about the subtleties as I enjoy both history and philosophy. In this regard you mention important points to keep in mind when trying to understand the Bible. And thanks for good references.

            I’m slightly more concerned with Christianity as a social force. The texts lend themselves to different interpretations due to their limitations in terms of ambiguity or being documents for a certain time, place, and people. They nevertheless inspire people and their limitations can do harm. Romans 13, that says to obey secular authorities was; it issued at the time of Roman tyrants. It was used for 17 centuries to defend monarchies. One can discard it as “situational” and move on or one can say “Christians were wrong and corrupt for 17 centuries” or something else.

            I find it hard to dismiss the influence and say that our founders where the first to get Christianity right.

            Now you mention “natural law.” Natural law and natural rights are Greco-Roman concepts brought into the Christian context. They became important after the Thirty Years War. Hugo Grotius argued that Christians can agree on natural law by referring to human nature and the nature of a just society independent of Christian texts. Remember Christians just finish slaughtering each other and they will never again be united in one Church.

            Grotius distinguished between natural law (coeval with man’s existence) and God’s positive law (commandments and covenants issued in time). Natural law is inherent in nature and can be observed by reference to nature. This distinction was important in the 17th and 18th century. Our founding fathers had to unite a nation where people would never agree on scripture. They used natural law and empirical references. That’s the positive secular influence I alluded to in previous posts.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Hmm. Complicated subject.
            I recommend:
            http://issuesetc.org/2014/04/09/1-defending-the-impact-of-christianity-on-civilization-dr-korey-maas-4914/

            and
            http://issuesetc.org/2014/07/21/2-christian-apologetics-the-influence-of-the-gospel-dr-john-warwick-montgomery-72514/

            to start with.

            The texts lend themselves to different interpretations due to their limitations in terms of ambiguity or being documents for a certain time, place, and people.
            http://issuesetc.org/2014/08/21/1-numbers-in-the-bible-part-1-dr-lane-burgland-82114/
            and
            http://issuesetc.org/2014/08/21/1-numbers-in-the-bible-part-1-dr-lane-burgland-82114/

            Particularly Wendt, 5/1/14 and Adel, 4/30/14.

            Again, the Bible is a historical document, and like any historical document may be more fully understood when one studies the historical context. If various people at various times misunderstood or misapplied what they read (consider our own modern debates about the U.S. Constitution, which was written only 200 years ago) is that the fault of the writers? Or is it the fault of the readers?

            I would argue that the Scriptures did not inspire anyone to do harm. Rather, people intent on doing harm misinterpreted and misapplied what they read in order to justify their natural inclinations. Again – if a person tries to justify his actions with a certain text, and I can condemn those same actions with a more full reading of those same texts it is not the texts that is at fault but him. Christ, after all, specifically says to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

            On the other hand, it can be argued that Christianity has inspired much good, for instance the abolition of slavery (Christians have been anti-slavery from the beginning), the concept of public charity (almost totally lacking from Greek and Roman culture), and the equality of women under God and the law (not equality of roles, but equality of rights and salvation).

            As for Romans 13, yes – so what? It is generally a good idea to not foment revolution, and monarchies may not the the best form of government, but they’re far from the worst. It’s not that “Christians were wrong and corrupt for 17 centuries” but
            that promoting Democracy or any other form of government isn’t in the job description. The emphasis in the New Testament is that Christians are not to strive to attempt to create a Utopia here on Earth, but to live within whatever government we’re stuck with as far as possible, work for order and peace, and worry about other things. (Things get interesting when the government blatantly goes against God’s word, e.g. the Nazis in Germany – but that’s a whole topic in and of itself).

            Again, see above: is it Scripture’s fault if a ruler misuses it? I might also point out St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who publicly called Emperor Theodosius to repentance after a massacre (http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/an-ancient-bishop-rebukes-his-emperor-for-crimes-against-life-a-story-of-st-ambrose-and-the-emperor-theodosius/).

            The Founding Fathers of this country did a remarkable job in setting up our country. We’ll see if they are any more successful than the Romans were, but I would say that what success they had was in large part due to the groundwork that Christianity laid over the prior 1700 years.

            As for natural law, I would say rather that both Christians and the Greeks got the concept from the same place. The Christian concept is that natural law is the set of basic rules (primarily exemplified in the 10 Commandments) necessary for a sane and stable human society, put in the hearts of all people so that we don’t all kill ourselves off. I haven’t studied Grotius, but he seems to have it right for the most part, except perhaps the origins of the tenets of natural law.
            http://issuesetc.org/tag/natural-law/

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Oh, I might also point out that neither Christianity nor Judaism (nor Islam, for that matter) is simply “religion as eternal truth”. They are seeking to know the will of God for His creation, a very real thing. And, of course, in the end only one of us (at most) can be right!

  • Damaris Tighe

    One of the most depressing consequences of our post-Christian cultures is the complete ignorance atheists have about the content of the judeo-christian scriptures, their meaning, & the tenents of their ancestors’ religion.

    • Bill James

      One of the most depressing consequences of our post-Christian cultures is the complete ignorance atheists have about the content of the judeo-christian scriptures…”

      A more effective argument, IMO, is that atheists and liberals exhibit complete ignorance of the superiority of Judeo-Christian culture, proven by what it looks like today:

      -http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ The United Nation’s Human Development Index ranks nations by life expectancy, literacy, education
      and GDP per capita. The top 50 encompass 700 million in Judao-Christian nations; Muslim nations encompass 5 million people (out of 1.5 billion people).

      -http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_GEM.pdf The UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure ranks nations by women’s equality: Muslim nations rank at the bottom.

      Excerpts from the United Nations sponsored 2002 Arab Human Development Report (arab-hdr.org):
      -Only 0.6% of the Arab population uses the Internet

      -Only 1.2% has a personal computer

      -Science and technology output is quantifiable and measurable in terms of number of scientific papers per unit of population. The average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2 per cent of that of an industrialized country

      -Number of research scientists: US 466,211; Saudi Arabia 1,915

      -The Arab region has the lowest level of access to ICT (Information and Communication Technology) of all regions of the world, even lower than sub-Saharan Africa

      -Books translated per million people: Hungary 519; Spain 920; Israel 380; Arabia 4.

      -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country Nobel SCIENCE prizes awarded to America in last 50 years? 171; Israel (6 million people) won 6; ALL Muslim nations combined (1.5 billion people) won…4 — and that’s since 1898!

      -GDP in all Arab countries combined stood at $531.2 billion in 1999 (70% related to oil), less than that of a single European country, Spain ($595.5 billion).

      United Nations World Population Prospects 2010 P2010_Highlights.pdf from esa.un.org
      This UN study ranks 198 nations by the length of time their inhabitants live. Western nations, along with some Asian nations rank at the top. Large Muslim nations rank in the bottom half.
      Egypt 99th
      Turkey 91st
      Algeria 100th
      Iran 106th
      Indonesia 127th
      Bangladesh 128th
      Pakistan 146th
      Ethiopia is 165th
      Nigeria 180th

      Why not let the facts speak for themselves?

      Copy/paste. Copy/paste, until this plague upon mankind, Islam, is sucking in its last breath.

  • Damaris Tighe

    I don’t think there is any other ‘holy’ text that uses the word ‘kill’ as frequently as the Koran.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      It wouldn’t be so bad if it were usually prefaced by “don’t”.

    • Bill James

      ALL Muslims are mandated by Allah to believe in what the Quran commands, as revealed by Mohamed:
      -Qur’an:2:193: “Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers.”

      -Quran 8:12: “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;”

      -Quran 2:191: “… kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …”

      -Quran 8:7: “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

      -Quran 8:12: “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’”

      -Quran 4:89: “They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”

      -Quran 47:4: “…and, after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”

      -Quran 9.29″ “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

      -Quran 8:59: “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

      -Quran 8:60: “Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you.”

      -Quran 22:19-22: “… for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”

      -Quran 9.29″ “Fight those who do not
      believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and
      His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
      There’s not a Muslim on the planet who will condemn such violence and intolerance — not one. If they did they’d be condemned as apostates.

      How anyone can tolerate the murderous, intolerant Muslim presence among us — even one — is beyond me.

  • jacko

    Barak Obama;s middle name is HUSSEIN

    • 1keith1

      And his first name is spelled BARACK.

  • Lanna

    The term muslim refers to anyone who follows Isalm as a way of life and is loyal to Muhammad. The Title of Muslim doesn’t guarantee success in this world or in the hereafter. Only a person’s faith in the truth God and righteous actions bring him or her closer to the eternal House of the Lord. Not all a arabs are muslims, and more importantly….not all muslims are arabs. Arabs constitute about 18% of the entire muslim population, they force their will on people through violence.

    • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

      So, tell me where are the 83 % of “peaceful Muslims”making theirr “peaceful”voices heard against those high jackers of their faith?

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Correct, so far as it goes. Islam is, essentially, a process of “Arabization” (See “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai). Which doesn’t excuse what is happening.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      Arabs smell very bad. Worse than wet dogs.

  • William

    Radical Islam is really no different than radical Christianity, utra-Zionism, Hindu extremism. If you push them hard enough and kill enough of their kids, they will fight back and kill in the name of God.

    • kasandra

      You obviously know nothing about Islam. In fact, given your other posts on other subjects, you know very little about anything else, as well. Everything to you is simply a narrative of “right wing oppressors” causing “victims” to respond.

      • William

        Actually, I have studied religion and lived among Sunnis for years. People who fear religions are generally ignorant about them.

        • Paul of Alexandria

          Who fears the religion? We fear the practitioners of one particular religion.

          You may have lived among the Sunnis, but you do not know Islam. Remember that the majority of the people following any particular faith do not know much about it, but only practice what their parents taught them. This is especially true in Islam, where the Koran can only be read truly in Arabic, which few non-Arab Muslims actually understand.

          The question is: what do these peaceful Sunnis do when confronted by an Imam who does read Arabic and teaches violent Jihad against the west, proving his position by citing the Koran and Hadiths? Do they chose to follow the peaceful path – which goes against their chosen faith (and which will keep them from being beheaded by their bretheren? Or do they chose to follow the faith of their fathers?

          • William

            Islamophobes fear religion. Of course, most Islamophobes in the world today are Christians, who use the same justifications to defend their faith over the radical bad apples.

          • Michael Copeland

            A “radical” is no bad apple.
            He has got to the root (Latin radix) of the ideology.
            He knows it best.

          • William

            Even the most radical fundamentalists pick and choose the parts of their holy texts they agree with and discard the rest.

          • Western Canadian

            In islam, there are no gentle, loving texts, it’s all hatred, which is why you are a muslim.

          • William

            Nope. I am an atheist.

          • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

            Ahh, here we come to the point, it is not really about religion but about your favourite enemy the so called tea party.

            See your problem is that, even if you studied religion, which is called theology in academic circles btw, you have no idea about the fact that religions are not a one-size-fits-all bucket where you can subsume everything under the term “Religion”.

            There are violent and non-violent religions in there preachings and Islam is one of the fundamentally violent ones. Christianity and Judaism for that matter are not, even if out of Christianity a lot of violence erupted.

          • William

            Hmm, I see the Christians in government waging drone wars on innocent Muslims all over, in Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen. Remember Harry Truman? Christians are capable of committing some of the worst atrocities. No Muslim or Jew has used weapons of mass destruction to such a degree as America’s Christian leaders. The worse atrocity committed by any one man was committed by a racist Christian Democrat. Snuffing out over 100,000 lives in two blinks of an eye.

            If you want to see ‘fundamentally violent’ people, check out the Christian Identity religion.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            You have a rather warped view of history. The nuclear weapons employed against Japan were not “atrocities” but all-out war, legitimately employed.

            One may argue the use of drones, but please don’t simply say that we’re “slaughtering innocents.” Our armed forces go to extremes to attempt to avoid collateral damage, made much harder by the fact that the people we’re fighting against use human shields.

            Also, the U.S. doesn’t have “Christian leaders”, it has leaders who may be Christian. If you understand Christian doctrine, then you may criticize them for acting in a way that departs from it, but do not criticize the faith itself when somebody who professes it acts against its tenets.

          • William

            The atomic holocaust was the worst atrocity committed by Men, ever. And hopefully we’ll never repeat history because if we do we’re all dead.

          • Drakken

            You call it a atrocity, I call it what it is, warfare.

          • William Magoffin

            Actually Operation Meetinghouse the firebombing raid against Tokyo on March 9/10 1945 killed more and destroyed a larger area on the ground than the two atomic bombs combined.

            Compared to the destructive force available by conventional weapons at the disposal of the Allies the atomic bombs weren’t astonishingly powerful nor reliable (Little Boy nearly fizzled, and the Thin Man bombs that were going to be built wouldn’t have worked).

            The alternative to the two bombs would have been far more destructive, Operation Downfall had SEVEN Fat Man bombs allocated to it to be used as tactical weapons against the beaches and cities that Allied forces were to invade. The invasion would then have been proceeded by 56,000 tons of gas bombs dropped from strategic bombers (against cities), 9,000 tons from tactical bombers and 5,000 tons from mortars and howitzers the troops would bring ashore. The gases planned on being used were wonderful things like phosgene, mustard and hydrogen cyanide. 10 million Japanese casualties were projected, that is one in seven Japanese of those living in the Home Islands. Next time you claim the Atomic Bombs were an atrocity remember what the alternative was.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            By what measure was it the worst? First of all I’ll argue with your terminology – you appear to be trying to link it with the Jewish Holocaust, and we were definitely not trying to exterminate the Japanese. Indeed, one reason for using nuclear weapons was to reduce the number of Japanese casualties. If we had invaded, the losses would have been far worse. I’ve seen estimates going as high as a million casualties on our side, and almost total annihilation on theirs.

            Secondly, the nuclear bombings of Japan were part of the normal course of war, and were not even the most horrible events in WWII. I would consider the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo to be worse overall.

            Finally, there have been far worse, both before and since. If you want the Worst Atrocity Committed by Man, I’d first think that the actual Holocaust against the Jews certainly counts, along with the millions killed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot – who were their own people!

          • William

            It’s measured by the speed and volume at which people are killed.
            Over 100,000 in two blinks of an eye.

          • Western Canadian

            There is no measure, just your ignorance and hatred, little Abdul.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            Oh be real. You just hate the U.S.

          • William

            America is an awesome country, I just don’t like the government much.

          • uleaveuswithnoalternative

            So speed and volume is the REAL problem?
            Gee, who would have thought that it was far more cruel to kill 100,000 people in the blink of an eye, rather than kill hundreds millions of individuals slowly and over a number of years, by starvation, gas chambers, forced marches, torture, medical experimentation, conventional bombings, concentration camps, beheadings and disembowelings.
            Learn something every day I guess.

          • Western Canadian

            Again, you show your endless ignorance and bigotry. Run along Abdul, your cover has been blown.

          • Drakken

            Ask the Hindu’s and Buddist’s from Afghanistan to India about those peaceful muslims, they lost anywhere from 60-80 million to the muslims so spare me your revisionist leftist garbage.

          • Paul of Alexandria

            That statement makes absolutely no sense. Try again.

          • Drakken

            I don’t fear islam , I despise it.

        • kasandra

          Most people don’t fear religion, generally, They just fear the one that flies airplanes into buildings, blows up trains, and murders people of other religions all over the world in the name of their faith.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      You don’t get it, do you. “Radical Christianity”, et al, must go against the explicit teachings of the faith! If there is a terrorist who claims to be Christian, I can condemn him with his own Scriptures. You cannot do this for Islam, since the Koran explicitly calls for violence against non-believers.

      • William

        Every radical fundamentalist believes they are the one true faith. It’s the nature of the beast.

        • Jesse Bernal

          All you’ve done is spout out your one true opinion. Liberal progressives are just as fundamental as the rest of the fundamentals. They make statements like this, as if they actually have said something worth taking notice of, when in reality, they haven’t said anything at all.

        • kasandra

          Maybe, but radical Christians want me to voluntarily convert so that I can be saved because they love me while radical Muslims (or, as I prefer, Muslims) demand that I convert or they’ll kill me.

          • William

            I’ve never had a Muslim try to convert me, and I’ve know some very conservative, devout Muslims. Jews don’t try to convert me either, only Christians have tried.

          • kasandra

            Yeah, yeah, that’s what they told the Christians and Yazdis in Iraq. “You have until sundown to convert to Islam. And if you don’t, well, that’s okay, too.”

          • William

            You should talk to some Muslims, you’d find they really aren’t scary.

          • kasandra

            Not all people of any group are anything. There are good Jews and bad Jews; good Christians and bad Christians; and I’m sure there are good Muslims and plenty of bad ones. That does not change the fact that the religion of Islam is a supremacist ideology that preaches world domination thru both violent and less than violent means. It is a threat to all non-Muslims. Just look at conflicts around the world. Whether in the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa, Europe, Eurasia, Asia, there are wars between Islam and all other groups, be they Christian, Jewish, Russian Orthodox, Hindu, animist, etc. The one common denominator is that in all cases the non-Muslims are under attack by Muslims. The fact that you may know some Muslims who are very different people doesn’t change or negate that fact.

          • William

            It’s a good thing religious people do not follow their holy books to the letter, or we’d all dead.

          • Western Canadian

            Again, you demonstrate your staggering level of ignorance about the old and new testaments… You should really learn to read, and try to educate yourself, Abdul.

          • uleaveuswithnoalternative

            My associations with Muslims go back to 1972.
            We had quite a few Muslim engineering students at my university and conversations with them were enlightening to say the least.
            I learned from them that all Jews are evil, Hitler was a great man, American women were all whores, American men were lazy, stupid and feminized and that Islam was the only true religion.
            This came from secular Muslims.
            Unfortunately, I thought that their bad behavior and warped world views were due to personal character defects rather than the words of the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sunna.
            Now I know better.

    • http://onfollowingchrist.wordpress.com Paul B.

      That doesn’t begin to explain Islam’s historical conquest of northern Africa and much of Europe by the sword. Muhammad explicitly embraced the sword in word and deed. Jesus went to the Cross when He instead could have called ten thousand angels and conquered.

      Using the word radical in its most fundamental meaning, “to the root”, Christianity and Islam will take you in diametrically opposed directions.

      • William

        Both Christianity and Islam are deviations from Judaism. If you look at the agendas and beliefs of radical fundamentalists within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions they are pretty much the same. Incidentally, I own an actual conversion sword that was used in Northern Africa in the 1700s and then again in the Biafran war. It still has blood on it 45 years later.. Seems that everywhere religion goes, death follows.

        • http://onfollowingchrist.wordpress.com Paul B.

          Men can and will mess up. But as I suggested, go back to the founders of the respective religions. They could hardly be more different. Islam is a religion of conquest, to the point of hardly being a religion. Christianity is about conquest as well, but it is of the flesh by the Spirit, and is entirely voluntary. The Muslims who “mess up” are actually following their tenets. Not so with Christians.

          • William

            Google Christianity Manifest Destiny.

            HeII, Obama wants to control the Muslim world by use of military force. Do you believe a Christian should support killing people?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            My problem with Christians is that it is too hard for them to kill–at least for the enemy-loving cheek-turning kind.

            Yes, religion is a problem but today’s Christians have been influenced by secular thought more than they are willing to admit. Islam is a pure religion lacking the influence of western liberal thought. Islam is today’s problem.

          • William

            I suppose you’ve never met a Western Muslim. I’ve known many, and they watch trash TV, use internet, face books, listen to rock music, rap etc.. And they enjoy freedom. In reality, the extremists represent an extreme fringe. Just as with any other major religion.

          • kasandra

            In other words, they aren’t good Muslims. The people you call extremists are actually mainstream. There isn’t a sect of Islam that does have as its philosophy the division of the world into Dar al Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar al Harb (abode of war) and require members of the former (the ummah) to engage in jihad in order to convert or kill members of the latter until the whole world is in Dar al Islam.

          • William

            They are good Muslims. Decent, honest folks. The extremists are extremists. It’s really no different than the other judeo-Christian religions.

          • kasandra

            No, they are not good Muslims. Are you a good vegetarian if you have an occasional steak? Probably not. You can still call yourself a vegetarian if you want, but you aren’t being a very good one. These Moslem friends you describe are not following their faith. In fact, they violating the tenants of their religion just by having you as a friend (assuming you are not a Moslem) unless they are doing it in order to convert you (Surah 5:51).

          • Americana

            So what if they’re not ‘good Muslims?’ The fact they are more interested in a more secular form of Islam proves the point that only X-number of Muslims are likely to ever wish to wage jihad. Especially the jihad that is being waged in Syria and Iraq. I’ll settle for Muslims who don’t want to wage jihad and I won’t fault them for being Muslims who don’t wish to wage jihad.

            As for secular Muslims being interested in conquering the world or interested in performing jihad, not all Muslims are interested in conquering the world or performing jihad. Certainly they may privately as well as publicly believe they are superior to other religions but we know that is not true. We rae human, they are human. The day one religion is superior in its choice of adherents from among humanity will be the day the Earth stands still. Will the secular mindset eventually win out over the jihadist mindset within Muslims? It has in every other faith except for the occasional eruption. Muslims are human and they are subject to the same emotions that rule all of humanity.

          • Softly Bob

            Spoken like a true small-minded idiot.

          • http://onfollowingchrist.wordpress.com Paul B.

            Put away google and pick up your Bible. I’ve already said that men are imperfect. You need to go back to the Source.

          • Conniption Fitz

            In the case of just war and self defense.

        • Drakken

          Christians/Jews do not in anyway, shape or form worship the same God as the muslims, you ignorant leftist keep trying to put square pegs in rounds holes in the true belief that they will fit, there is zero moral equivalency between Christians/Jews and muslims, and here you are trying to make believe that all people, religions and cultures are all equal, when it is plain as the nose on your face they are not and never will be.

        • Conniption Fitz

          Actually, Mohammedanism is Mohammed’s rejection of and bastardization of both Judaism and Christianity.

      • Consider

        So Christianity conquested the Americas, Africa (south of Sahara), etc. by persuasion and irrefutable logic?

        • Americana

          Yes, it’s pretty funky that anyone believes Christianity was spread round the world strictly by the good word. The Muslims REPLACED the BYZANTINE EMPIRE in North Africa which had been spread by the sword as well as by word. but the vast majority of the Muslim expansion in Africa was commercial expansion via the slave trade:

          http://neobyzantium.com/the-north-african-invasion-of-justinian/

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb

          First invasion[edit]

          The first invasion of North Africa, ordered by Caliph Umar, commenced in 647. 20,000 Arabs marched from Medina in Arabia, another 20,000 joined them in Memphis, Egypt, and Abdallah ibn al-Sa’ad led them into the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. The army tookTripolitania (in present-day Libya). Count Gregory, the local Byzantine governor,[2] had declared his independence from the Byzantine Empire in North Africa. He gathered his allies, confronted the Islamic invasion force and suffered defeat (647) at the battle of Sufetula, a city 150 miles south of Carthage. With the death of Gregory his successor, probably Gennadius, secured the Arab withdrawal in exchange for tribute. The campaign lasted fifteen months and Abdallah’s force returned to Egypt in 648.

          All further Muslim conquests were soon interrupted, however, by a civil war between rival Arab factions that resulted in the murder of Caliph Uthman in 656. He was replaced by Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who in turn was murdered in 661. The Umayyad (Omayyad) Dynasty of largely secular and hereditary Arab caliphs, then established itself at Damascus and Caliph Muawiya I began consolidating the empire from the Aral Sea to the western border of Egypt. He put a governor in place in Egypt at al-Fustat, creating a subordinate seat of power that would continue for the next two centuries. He then continued the invasion of non-Muslim neighbouring states, attackingSicily and Anatolia (in Asia Minor) in 663. In 664 Kabul, Afghanistan, fell to the invading Muslim armies.

          Second invasion[edit]

          The Arab conqueror and general Uqba Ibn Nafi founded the Great Mosque of Kairouan (also known as the Mosque of Uqba) in 670 AD – the oldest[citation needed] and most important mosque in North Africa,[3] city ofKairouan, Tunisia.

          The years 665 to 689 saw a new Arab invasion of North Africa.

          It began, according to Will Durant, to protect Egypt “from flank attack by Byzantine Cyrene”. So “an army of 40,000 Muslims advanced through the desert to Barca, took it, and marched to the neighborhood of Carthage”, defeating a defending Byzantine army of 30,000 in the process.

          Next came a force of 10,000 Arabs led by the Arab generalUqba ibn Nafi and enlarged by thousands of others. Departing from Damascus, the army marched into North Africa and took the vanguard. In 670 the city of Kairouan(roughly eighty miles or 160 kilometers south of modernTunis) was established[citation needed] as a refuge and base for further operations. This would become the capital of the Islamic province of Ifriqiya, which would cover the coastal regions of today’s western Libya, Tunisia, and easternAlgeria.

          After this, as Edward Gibbon writes, the fearless general “plunged into the heart of the country, traversed the wilderness in which his successors erected the splendid capitals of Fes andMorocco, and at length penetrated to the verge of the Atlantic and the great desert”. In his conquest of the Maghreb (western North Africa) he besieged the coastal city of Bugia as well as Tingi or Tangier, overwhelming what had once been the traditional Romanprovince of Mauretania Tingitana.

          But here he was stopped and partially repulsed. Luis Garcia de Valdeavellano writes:

          In their struggle against the Byzantines and the Berbers, the Arab chieftains had greatly extended their African dominions, and as early as the year 682 Uqba had reached the shores of the Atlantic, but he was unable to occupy Tangier, for he was forced to turn back toward the Atlas Mountains by a man who became known to history and legend as Count Julian.[citation needed]

          Moreover, as Gibbon writes, Uqba, “this Mahometan Alexander, who sighed for new worlds, was unable to preserve his recent conquests. By the universal defection of the Greeks and Africans he was recalled from the shores of the Atlantic.” On his return, a Berber-Byzantine coalition ambushed his forces near Biskra, killing Uqba and defeating his troops.

          Then, adds Gibbon, “The third general or governor of Africa, Zuheir, avenged and encountered the fate of his predecessor. He vanquished the natives in many battles; he was overthrown by a powerful army, which Constantinople had sent to the relief of Carthage.”

          Meanwhile, a new civil war among rivals for the monarchy raged in Arabia and Syria. It resulted in a series of four caliphs between the death of Muawiya in 680 and the accession of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Abdalmalek) in 685; strife ended only in 692 with the death of the rebel leader.

          Third invasion[edit]

          This development brought about a return of domestic order that allowed the caliph to resume the Islamic conquest of North Africa. It began with the retaking of Ifriqiya. Gibbon writes:“the standard was delivered to Hassan governor of Egypt, and the revenue of that kingdom, with an army of forty thousand men, was consecrated to the important service. In the vicissitudes of war, the interior provinces had been alternately won and lost by the Saracens. But the seacoast still remained in the hands of the Greeks; the predecessors of Hassan had respected the name and fortifications of Carthage; and the number of its defenders was recruited by the fugitives of Cabes and Tripoli. The arms of Hassan were bolder and more fortunate: he reduced and pillaged the metropolis of Africa; and the mention of scaling-ladders may justify the suspicion, that he anticipated, by a sudden assault, the more tedious operations of a regular siege.”

          But the Byzantine Empire responded with troops from Constantinople, joined by soldiers and ships from Sicily and a powerful contingent of Visigoths from Hispania. This forced the invading Arab army to retreat to Kairouan. Then, writes Gibbon, “the Christians landed; the citizens hailed the ensign of the cross, and the winter was idly wasted in the dream of victory or deliverance.

          The following spring, however, the Arabs launched a new assault by sea and land, forcing the Byzantines and their allies to evacuate Carthage. The Arabs totally destroyed the city and burned it to the ground, leaving the area desolate for the next two centuries. Another battle was fought near Utica and the Arabs were again victorious, forcing the Byzantines to leave that part of North Africa for good.

    • iluvisrael

      spoken like a true useful idiot – and btw, Christianity had a reformation

      • William

        Actually, useful idiot would describe better those who follow the ‘Tea Party’ ideology. Most of them don’t even know how the media, the establishment parties and corporations control them.

    • nightspore

      What rot! Then why did Nietzsche call Christianity the “slave religion”? Or did he also describe Islam in the same terms? Tell me how “turn the other cheek” and “love thine enemies” is really a call to jihad.

      Basically this is just an evasion of what’s happening – bet you can’t keep it up for the next 20 years.

      • William

        Islam, Judaism, Christianity, it all amounts to the same thing.

        Mindcontrol.

        • kasandra

          Nonsense. Islam, I might remind you, means “submission.” All of the the other religions you mention allow for a lot of autonomy of thought. Not Islam.

          • William

            Submission to GOD. Christianity demands submission to the will of God too.

    • Drakken

      There is no so called radical islam, there is only islam, and where ever islam goes, the blood always flows without exception. So please by all means come on over here and teach them your tolerance and preach social justice to them, I’ll sit back with a bourbon wand watch Darwin have his due.

      • William

        Must suck to be so paranoid.

        • Softly Bob

          I must suck to be stupid, which you clearly are.

    • mozart

      Are you the terrorist Bill Ayres? Your pic sure looks like it! You could not be more WRONG! Mr. Thornton’s detailed evidence clearly shows who is good and who is evil. Obviously, individuals can deviate.

      • uleaveuswithnoalternative

        People like William have a deep hatred of Judaism and Christianity.
        In fact, many so called “intellectuals” have a deep hatred of all things Christian and Judaic, and that hatred and abhorrence allows them to glorify Islam and turn a blind eye toward the horrific violence and fanaticism displayed by Islam’s adherents.
        For them, science and the “enlightened” man is the answer.
        This was true during the Enlightenment and this warped thinking continues to this day.
        Of course, while Liberals tend think of themselves as better educated and more enlightened than their less educated or Conservative fellows, the true difference is that Liberals have been thoroughly indoctrinated and programmed to repeat the rubbish that they’ve been taught. Conservatives on the other hand, have been taught to think for themselves and have come to their opinions and conclusions through hard work and experience.

  • El Cid

    The “game” of the Islamo-Fascists is to drive the Western leadership to declare war on Islam. This will give permission to the fifth column, Muslims in Western lands, to be activated as full Jihadists.

    The most outspoken Muslim leadership in the Western world is merely a front for the radicals, e.g. CAIR and their ilk.

    Hence, the vast majority of “moderate” self-identifying Muslims are trapped. They cannot speak out against the radicals without endangering themselves and their families. They justify their silence because they believe in the same victim narrative and the hatred of Jews as their Jihadist oppressors. Hence, Israel becomes a focal point of “activism”. It is safe, and it supports the Jihadists’ agenda.

    Through this process, the Islamo-Fascists will precipitate the fight they are demanding: Islam vs. the Western World.

    Turkey is lost. Europe is next.

  • JVictor

    Thank you for the honesty in evaluating the “killing commandments” in the “holy texts.” You are exactly right: the New Testament does not sanction killing but moving on; the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) saves the harshest penalty for Jews who do anything that jeopardizes the purity of the bloodlines for the arrival of Messiah; the demonically inspired Koran sanctions killing nonbelievers and those who refuse to convert. It’s really that simple. There is no intellectually honest parallel that can be drawn between the Koran and the others.

    • Consider

      “Deuteronomy 3

      3:3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.”

      So much for harshest penalties for Jews.

      • JVictor

        Treatment of non-believers vs dealing with enemies during a time of war. Apples and oranges.

      • mozart

        Ignoring Mr. Thornton’s clearly detailed and precise description of a particular war, at a particular time, perhaps in a self-defense mode, which does NOT apply to any future action? Feeling malevolent, ignorant, pazzo or just stupido?

      • Paul of Alexandria

        One more time: that was not a blanket condemnation of unbelievers! It was a specific circumstance intended to A) establish the Jews in Israel and B) wipe out a nation that followed Baal. Unfortunately, being human, the Jews showed a rather annoying tendency to drift away from the worship of the True God and “accommodate” their neighbors in idol worship. Most of the God-sanctioned wiping-out of cities were to remove the worst of the Baal worshipers from the region and temptation from the Israelites.

  • Capnmikey

    Sir Winston Churchill defines Islam in “The River War” written in 1899…nothing has changed in 100 years…French aviation pioneer Antoine de St. Exupery does also in “Wind, Sand, and Stars” …these are barbarians with no redeeming social values…that’s why we have B-52′s and cluster bombs!!

  • Richard

    I believe that there are many decent and peaceful law-abiding Muslims in the world who just want to live and let live. But I also believe that ISIS is more of a true representation of Islam than many will admit to. No matter how you sanitize or modernize it, at its core Islam will always be a violent religion. It is the ultimate example of an intolerant faith. How else would you characterize a convert-or-die mindset? To be sure, many terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity but if you want to know the true nature of a religion, study the life of its founder. Compare the life of Mohammed and Jesus. How they lived their lives, what they taught and what examples they set for us should be enough evidence for anyone who is willing to think objectively.

    • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

      And I believe that 1 + 1 =2

      Seems you believe that 1 and one is 3 or 4 and sometimes, if it fits your belief even two.

      It is not about belief but about facts.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Precisely. People will – being people – pervert what they are taught for their own ends. Yes, people who call themselves Christians have committed atrocities – for which they may rightly be condemned according to the very teachings which they profess. Unfortunately, it is the “peaceful and law-abiding” Muslims who are not abiding by their own tenets – and are either condemned or “radicalized” by the faithful imams or at the very least are abiding by the part that says (essentially) be still until you have a chance to take over the government and impose Islam.

    • Bill James

      “I believe that there are many decent and peaceful law-abiding Muslims”?

      Feckless appeasers like you spewed the same garbage 85 years ago:

      “I believe that there are many decent and peaceful law-abiding Germans…”

      Then 60 million people died in WW2.

      You are Enemy Number Two, after Islam.

  • ratonis

    Nothing has been “highjacked.” It is what it is, and as the writer says, it’s been that way from the beginning. Unless one want to assume that the Islamic empire in the 7th century was all the result of a “defensive jihad.” Right. The whole Mediterranean world said “hey, have you heard about this Islam thing? We gotta attack it now?” Conversion – jizya/tax – or death. Not an extremist invention at all, just historic Islamic (NOT “Islamist”) practice.

  • azjazzlady

    Just go to youtube and watch “Three Things About Islam”. That explains it all.

  • MRHapla

    C’mon,,,who among us isn’t LOL-ing the fact that Western/Christian hating Muslims are BEGGING the West/Christians 9soon Jews I bet) for help to fight and defeat MUSLIMS.

    It would seem Islam is now Islamophobiic. The self-destruct sequence has begin.

  • Jp Dys

    Lets accept that no human is blessed or cursed,everybody is equal and same and all good human and good thing is here to stay. Lets make love and Peace without religion and god..

    Moderate and innocent Islamist will never accept the faults buried in the books ,what they follow is the moderate version of islam, what they see now is the true face of islam, which would have been followed by their proprietor, to conquer other countries by terrorizing to loot for food, natural resources and wealth.

    If God Created everybody, then he is not a private property,anybody and everybody has the right to speak about him.

    why is there a misconception, clarification, why should humans clarify to others about other book this world is the same and god should speak to everybody directly.he should have given the clear understanding surpassing the evil to all, why should humans fight for this sake?let us ask the god to directly fight,and ask to solve the wars and other issues of the world, if he does so the one can believe in the god that is being preached by islam, christianity and israel the world is for every good human and good thing, not for people who fight for holy land, religion, god, proprietors.

    • Harald Eigerson

      Some people just choose evil. It is as simple as that. If you took both Mohomad and Yashua to a modern non Islamic court where law was impartialy applied, well you might get Yashua for a misdemeanor maybe even assault (the whole money changer scene) but at the very least they’d lock mad Mo up for life or better yet execute him for crimes against humanity.

  • hopkins

    I do not go to church because I like to think for myself, but I support the values that gave me Democracy, which have a judeo christian component. A mainstream media journalist who conducted one of the intelligence squared debates entitled Islam is a Peaceful Religion, said from the podium “there violence in the Torah, as well, what’s the difference? Complete ignorace on display. It seems that people are not educated at all anymore or they can’t think for themselves. With a cursory understanding of the Torah and the Koran, I see a glaring difference. The Jews journey from slavery to the promised and the the battles they faced, was rooted in a specific time and place, which the Jews have never taken out of that context in all their history. Could this be because they understand the actual orginal intent? It migiht have had some historical accuracy, but it was certainly also meant as a symbolic, an inspiration to anyone wanting to make a journey to freedom, which is the goal of any respectable spirituality. The koran speaks of killing anyone not muslim “wherever you find them.” This was not written in the context of a specific journey in history. It was not in the context of a story like the stores of the old testament. Muslims have used it again and again in history. Could that be because they understand the original intent? It was not a part of any story. And we don’t know most of the true authors of the old testament because it wasn’t important. It expressed spiritual principles common to all. The Koran is written by one ugly thug with no symbolic intent. Those proclaiming similarities speak out of ignorace. And this is really laziness because anyone knowing a little could think about these things.

    • Captlee

      I would venture to guess that quite a few people who post here go to church and also think for themselves just fine. Why be so offensive to those who would probably agree with what you have written, if only they could “think for themselves”?

  • dougjmiller

    Islam is not a religion. Islam is a radical political ideology that uses monotheism to justify mass murder, territorial expansion, slavery, sexual perversion, grand theft, oppression, torture, brutality, discrimination against minorities and women and child abuse. Islamic bosses are waging wars all around the world against civilization. The Moslem chiefs say loudly and clearly that their goal is to conquer the world eliminate all religions other than Islam

    • Paul of Alexandria

      People keep saying “Islam isn’t a religion” like this. It is a religion – and is also a political ideology. What you in your Western viewpoint fail to see is that all religions – even atheism – are not simply practiced privately but inform your public and societal life. Under Islam, there is no difference between church and state, between public and private life. All that you list are fundamental aspects of the faith as handed down by Muhammad.

  • chrismoyler

    Just to clarify the killing of tribes and nations that Israel was instructed to do in the Tanakh. They were ONLY instructed to do so, after God had passed sentence on that town , tribe or people group. It was very specific, and was never to be applied in a general way to non-Jews. The specific purpose was to clear the land of those people groups which had become so corrupt, they were no longer capable of being redeemed.

    When the Lord made his original eternal covenant promise to Abraham, concerning the land of Canaan, he made it very clear that the fulfillment of that promise had to be delayed because “the sin of the Amorites was not yet full/complete”. This is an extremely important principle to be clearly understood when interpreting the actions of Israel in the Tanakh. Nations and peoples are given much time to respond to God before judgement is decreed.

    Therefore Egypt was given time to respond through Joseph’s leadership, but chose in the end to rebel. Her firstborn were therefore killed and her army was therefore destroyed in the Red Sea, at the time of Moses. However Israel was absolutely forbidden to touch Moab and Ammon, as her entered Canaan to possess it by destroying its people.

    God similarly tried to redeem the Assyrians through the preaching of Jonah. Because of their right response, judgement was delayed, but was eventually enacted outside Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah, when overnight the entire Assyrian army of 185,000 was destroyed! Similarly Nebuchadnezzar was humbled at the time of Daniel, and his prayer of repentance was sent across his empire. Imagine any leader today praying such a prayer, as this King of Kings was led to do!! However his grandson chose to rebel, and judgement was given in favour of the Medes and Persians.

    The Tanakh goes on and on in exactly the same vein concerning the Gentile nations, but even more importantly it makes very clear that Israel herself is subject to judgement when she rebels, hence her two exiles. The sum total of all this is that God is using Israel, and decrees his wider judgements not to dominate as Islam does, but to bring the nations into alignment with his character. While there is still hope for repentance, judgement is delayed, but when rebellion persists, judgement is given.

    Examining Israel’s history correctly, therefore provides the template through which to view the current actions of IS. It is very clear that their actions are entirely about the violent imposition of a worldwide Caliphilate. The end result is the forceful subjugation of all peoples to the god of Islam. The contrast with the God of Israel is profound; the two are in complete opposition, and bear no likeness to one another whatsoever.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    Deuteronomy 32: 17-18: They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
    gods they had not known,
    gods that recently appeared,
    gods your ancestors did not fear.
    You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
    you forgot the God who gave you birth.

    What you cite is the punishment for abandoning the true faith. (It’s talking about what will happen to Israel!)
    Context, context, context.

    • Consider

      A little more quotations:
      Deuteronomy 20:16–18

      16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction,1 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that wthey may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.
      Not exactly Jews to be punished.

      • uleaveuswithnoalternative

        It was simply a matter of kill or be killed for the Jews.
        You have to remember that the people/the nations that surrounded the Israelites, were warlike and violent. They glorified war, practiced child sacrifice, witchcraft and often, cannibalism.
        The same peoples/areas that fought against the ancient Israelites (especially the Assyrians and the Babylonians) are the descendants of the people/nations the Western world is fighting today, e.g. Iraq and Iran come to mind.
        There isn’t much difference between the Assyrians and Babylonians who worshipped Baal and Molech, than the Muslims who worship the moon god Allah.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    Oh, they do, they do.

  • William

    Still, every person has a right to be a fundamentalist. For better or for worse.

  • Pete

    Taqiyya Pet

    why are you such an anti-American shat, you miserable British transplant. why don’t you and your guy/ significant other go back to Britain and live in a civilized country and we see how long you last.

    I had a European uncle who complained about America. My father told him why don;t you go back. My uncle went back to Europe and did not stay long. My uncle chose to stay neither West of the Iron Curtain nor East of it. He had both choices.

    I looked at the French missionaries and they did not advance Christianity at the point of the sword. You are painting in such broad strokes. You know what you are doing. You know that you are shat.

  • Pete

    Taqiyya Pet,

    An outlier that you happily trumpet with the loudest voice.

  • Softly Bob

    He’s not lying. He believes what he writes to be the truth. He’s just too stupid to realize that it isn’t.

  • Bill James

    “The problem isn’t just literalist interpretations of the Koran: The New Testament, the Jewish Torah and many other religious books contain explicit calls for disproportionate punishments and killing of nonbelievers.”

    The difference in the Koran and “many other religions” is this: Muslims TODAY act upon the violent commands in their holy books:

    3/15/12
    http://www.arabianbusiness.com/destroy-all-churches-in-gulf-says-saudi-grand-mufti-450002.html The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has said it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region,” following Kuwait’s
    moves to ban their construction.

    -10/12/12 http://www.bosnewslife.com [After 500 years of civil war] Bosnian Christians are massively leaving post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina amid mounting discrimination and Islamization. There are just 440,000 Catholics left in the Balkan nation, half the [Clinton] prewar figure. Cardinal Puljic complained that while dozens of mosques have been built in Sarajevo no building permissions were given for Christian churches.

    -12/23/12 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion… Christian faces being wiped out of the “biblical heartlands” in the Middle East because of mounting persecution of worshippers.

    -10/4/13 http://www.timesofisrael.com/i… Indonesia’s last synagogue, an intended heritage site, destroyed. Just 20 Jews remain in the world’s largest Muslim nation.

    -12/9/13
    http://www.hindujagruti.org Sikhs in Kashmir Valley, India (a community of 60,000) received warning letters demanding that they convert to Islam or leave.

    -7/27/14
    http://www.independent.co.uk The vicar of the only Anglican church in Iraq has warned the end for Christians in the country appears “very near…”

    -8/24/14 http://www.asianews Borobudur, Islamists target Indonesia’s most
    important Buddhist temple, the eighth and ninth centuries temple built by King
    Syailendra. The temple features more than 2,600 carvings.

    But Western Culture haters discount facts like these. You cannot reason with them. It’s simply impossible to reason with people who ignore facts and history.

  • JB Ziggy Zoggy

    I didn’t see a commandment to commit murder in that text. I didn’t read a commandment to wage terror against non believers, either.

    So what is your excuse, justification or inerpretation for pretending that benevolent Christianity is equivalent to malevolent islam?

    Douchetard.

  • JB Ziggy Zoggy

    Are Christians or Jews busy murdering Hittites or Amorites? Does the Bible command them to do so? Is there any jihad in the Bible?

    Mindless cretin.

  • uleaveuswithnoalternative

    Thank you so very much for this article! I get so tired of explaining Islam to Leftists who insist that Islam is equal to Judaism/Christianity and that the religion has merely been high jacked by a few extremists.

    I marvel at the attention and moral outrage over the beheading of 1 journalist and find Hollywood’s indignation over the kidnapping of 300 girls in Nigeria by Boko Haram rather puzzling.
    Where has the mainstream media and Hollywood been all of these years, while beheadings, crucifixions, disembowelings, kidnappings, rapes, torture and slaughter has been the norm for EVERY Islamic terrorist group?
    Exactly, how can the world condemn ISIS but support Hamas?