Islamic Values vs. Judeo-Christian Values

Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.


FRANCE BURQAMy dear friend Ali Sina mentioned in his most recent article that a Muslim professor, Hossein Askari, believes that Western nations lead the World in “Islamic values” and that most Muslim nations practice the least Islamic values. I have heard such nonsense before from some Muslims, some of whom were my relatives. I will never forget the strange look on my Christian American husband’s face when an elderly Muslim man visiting from Egypt told him: “You are such a fine young man, you have the character of a true Muslim.”

It is not unusual for Muslims to describe non-Muslims whom they perceive as good as having “Islamic values.” Many Christians in Egypt have to suffer hearing comments by Muslims such as: “You are so good, you must convert to Islam, you have the character of a true Muslim.”

How can educated Muslims professors make ridiculous claims like that Ireland “leads the world in Islamic values as Muslim states lag”? Islamic logic, in that case, says, if Irish people have noses, eyes, arms and legs like Muslims then they must be Muslim. This twisted logic wants to hide the truth: that many Muslims no longer want to live under Islamic values, but since that is considered apostasy in Islam, the only way out is to claim life in the land of the Great Satan is really equal to living the true Islamic life.

Muslims are trained to adjust reality to Islamic propaganda; thus everything good must come from Islam and everything bad comes from the Kafir non-believer. So it is Islamic logic to believe that if Christians are good then they must be Muslim, but they just don’t know it yet.

The Muslim dilemma about the West gets more complicated when over 70% of Muslim youth are desperately trying to leave the Muslim world to immigrate to Western nations. Many Muslims are stunned, disappointing and filled with envy when they compare infidel and Islamic nations and discover that infidels have achieved what Muslims could only dream of. Such an awakening by Muslims flies against the Islamic propaganda that has indoctrinated generations into believing that Islam is the solution.

So if Islam is the solution, how come Muslims are happier in the West? Simple: Muslims discovered what the West failed to understand about their own values; According to Muslims, it is Islamic values — so “Allahu Akbar” anyway.

Islam has trained the Islamic mind to solve any contradictions with the goal of making sure that Islam looks good at any cost. In other words, reality has to adjust to Islamic teachings. Muslims must never admit that Western success is attributed to the Judeo-Christian value system. That is why Muslim professors on American college campuses claim that Western cultural success is due to Islamic and not Biblical values, and that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant.

This is nothing new for Islam, Mohammed himself claimed that Christianity and Judaism, which preceded Islam by thousands of years, are in fact Islam, but have just been corrupted. Mohammed started by linking himself to the Abrahamic line in order to get legitimacy and after that he discredited the Jews and Christians as apes, pigs and enemies of Allah. Mohammed taught his followers that Abraham, Jesus, Moses etc., all are in fact Muslims and have Islamic values.

Because of Islamic Sharia’s severe and humiliating punishments, Muslims had to mold their thinking to never venture outside the Islamic mental box. Muslims who are brave enough to think critically for themselves will easily find Islamic values, summed up in Sharia, to be the antithesis of Biblical values.

Mr. Askari, like many devout Muslims, refuses to judge Islam by its fruits that are exploding all around the world. Instead of graciously giving credit where it is due — to the fruits of the Bible — he chose to slap Western culture in the face by shamelessly teaching that Western nations’ success is due to Islamic values. Amazing, that sounds exactly like Mohammed.

This line of thought fits perfectly with the jihadists who are hell bent on violently converting the West to Islam. But the smart stealth jihadist Muslims choose to leave violent jihad to others, and would rather tell the American people that everything good is Islamic and that the corrupted values of the Bible could not have resulted in the fruits of Western success.

Askari probably feels that the poor Western citizens just don’t know what Islam already knows, but are unaware that the West is practicing Islamic values more than Muslims themselves.

Most Muslims are unaware that it is Muslim culture that heavily borrowed from the Bible. Muslims often say “don’t go to bed angry” but are unaware that this is a Biblical value and not a Quranic value. They say “Salamu Alaykum” and respond by saying “Alaykum El Salam” but are unaware that they have borrowed this from Jews’ “Shalom Aleikhem” and the response “Aleikhem Shalom.” They say that Islam is a religion of peace when in fact Islam advocates war and relentlessly urges its followers to die in war while killing the enemies of their Allah.

The so called “moderate Muslims” who advocate that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant, are dangerous because they are stealth jihadists who have no loyalty to the US Constitution and what America is all about. Their loyalty is to the Islamic agenda of the establishment of the Khalifate. The religion of Mohammed has produced millions of people who think like Askari who are constantly struggling with a severe case of ethnocentrism.

Western nations so far have based their way of life on Judeo-Christian values of the Bible; a book outlawed by Islam under penalty of death. It is time for American college campuses to get rid of Muslim teachers who under the guise of research are advocating Islam 101.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • truebearing

    “In other words, reality has to adjust to Islamic teachings. Muslims must never admit that Western success is attributed to the Judeo-Christian value system.”

    The Left is desperately trying to obscure this truth as well. Is it any wonder that Europe is in such grave Muslim trouble given that they abandoned Judeo-Christian values years ago? Thank the Left for that.

    In America, as in Europe, the Left is opening the door for an enemy that hates Judeo-Christian values as much or more than they do.

    • basiliusydx493

      My Uncle
      Joshua just got an almost new white Kia Rio Hatchback only from working
      part-time off a home computer. try this R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Go away …

      • Pete

        FrontPage Magazine you can ban particular computers or DISQUS accounts.

        Too many robo-posts interrupts the flow of discussion. Sometimes the discussion is not all that great in any forum, but this does not help.

        Do you care?

  • European

    A much needed clarification regarding the warped Muslim worldview, thank you Noni.
    I too have heard this statement that if it’s good it must be Muslim more than once having Muslim inlaws, but what an insidious thought to plant in people’s minds. Gullible secularists, leftists etc. who have abandoned their Judeo-Christian heritage – and don’t even recognize all the good that came from it – will probably buy this nonsense if repeated to them often enough.
    They’re also the ones who tend to ascribe major scientific and cultural achievements to past Muslim rule .. you know, the era depicted in paintings of those turban-ed sultans surrounded by topless (Christian) slave girls. They did the same then, claiming achievements of cultures they subdued as of Muslim origin.
    Mind you, an existing system always collapses when Muslims are put in charge. But no worries, that’s what the dhimmis are for, they’ll just continue to run the show, but under Muslim supremacist rule.
    Nice worldview indeed.

  • herb benty

    Thank you my Lord Jesus Christ.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    As an Irishman, I must say I was “surprised” to learn that Ireland is the most “Islamic” country in the world! – I have never heard such utter drivel. Irelands values derive from Christianity (Catholic/Protestant), separation of church and state and Republicanism (in the broader sense). Thanks for explaining the agenda – very interesting. The convoluted nature of the deceit at play here is mind boggling!

    • ratonis

      The only thing in Ireland that reflected Islamic values is the way that Protestants and Catholics went at each other during the “troubles” and hos it all resembled Sunni-Shia hatred and violence. Thankfully, the Irish have had enough of that. “Islamic values” come to Ireland would trash all those books in Trinity College’s Long Room as expressions of the time of “Jahilliya” — the “ignorance” prior to the illuminations of Islam. Not to mention the shutting down of the Irish pub.

    • kayla21

      Western success is attributed to the Judeo-Christian value system. Well yeah, when if the success means the centuries of European dark age.

      • DilloTank

        You’re ‘enlightenment’ brainwash is intact.

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

    Nonie is a wonderful woman but this is a silly essay. She presents a false alternative: Islam vs. Christian values. The truth of the matter is that our tradition comes from a very different source.

    Our liberal tradition is Greco-Roman in origin not Judeo-Christian. When Jefferson was asked about the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he said they weren’t new but came from “Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.” He didn’t mention Jesus or Augustine. We are a secular nation of the Enlightenment.

    If you want to think of Christianity without the liberal Greco-Roman tradition, think Czarist Russia. It never had the Enlightenment. It never learned from Aristotle, Cicero of Locke. Many conservatives today see Putin as an inspiration for seeking a return to Mother Russia’s Christianity. We need to return to the philosophy of individual rights rooted in Cicero and expanded by Locke. If American doesn’t understand its own principles, something else will fill that void.

    • Ellen_L

      We were both trying to say similar things and passed as we wrote.

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

        Actually you said it better and explained much more.

    • Anukem Jihadi

      Not really because the Greco-Roman aspect was preserved by the Church and the influence was primarily philosophical not moral or religious.
      The liberal tradition is so heavily reliant on the Judeo-Christian faith from a moral perspective that it couldn’t exist without it.
      The principle of equality for example certainly does not really originate in anything the Greco-Roman tradition produced.
      True, intellectuals like Voltaire opposed religious dogma quite fiercely but they did so because they valued reason above faith. Their moral natures remained essentially Judeo-Christian.
      Many scholars have attributed Locke’s political convictions to his religious beliefs.

      You’re a wonderful guy but you have a tendency to over simplify.

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

        The Church was influenced by Aristotle … in the West. Aquinas championed Aristotle including his moral reasoning. The Orthodox Church never had an Aquinas and it stagnated. Russia remained backwards while the Greco-Roman West took off. More importantly Russia lacked the Latin influence of Cicero. Russians under the Czar hated private property and they easily embraced a secular version of that hate.

        The Christian version of equality has nothing to do with rights. It’s equality of salvation and equal opportunity to enter heaven through Jesus. As Paul said in Romans 13, in this life you obey Caesar. Slavery was accepted just as it was for every other religion and philosophy (except Roman Stoicism).

        Locke, like Hugo Grotius before him, was inspired by Aristotle and Cicero. Read Jerome Huyler’s book “Locke in America.” Locke was also a Christian and like many good Christians he worked classical liberal thought into his religious outlook. Until the 19th century, a liberal arts education meant studying Latin literature. Indeed all the college courses were taught in Latin and one went to a grammar school to learn Latin grammar for college.

        Thus, Jefferson is right. I’ll go with Jefferson but I’m glad you work our classical liberal tradition into your Judeo-Christian philosophy. Just give credit where credit is due.

        • Anukem Jihadi

          Not really too interested in your ideas about Orthodox stagnation.

          Slavery was practically entrenched in the Greco-Roman tradition. It didn’t really exist in the Jewish tradition.
          For you to try and pretend that Jesus’ statement about Roman currency “give unto Caesar” was an endorsement of slavery is so patently laughable that it can only originate from a hugely superficial understanding of the Christian faith and probably religion in general.

          Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan has no counterpart in the Greco-Roman experience.
          I understand doctrines of salvation.
          Rights follow naturally from equality under God.
          Of course this was part of the gradual development of Christian civilization but it’s nonsense to assert this happened simply because of your favorite Greco-Roman philosophers.

          I learned latin at school and because we occasionally translated ancient Roman texts I can assure you that it would probably be the last language to encourage liberal attitudes.

          Of course Locke was influenced by Aristotle and Cicero. Unfortunately for silly you that doesn’t erase all his other influences like chalk on a blackboard.

          You go with Jefferson, just leave liberalism out of it.

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

            Judaism accepted slavery. Jesus proposed no political philosophy as he said my Kingdom is not of this earth. It was Paul, in Romans 13, that said Christians should obey Caesar. Imperial Roman was the earthly example for Christian rule for 17 centuries. Monarchy was the norm. It was our founding fathers who looked to the Roman Republic, prior to the Caesars, as an inspiration. Cicero’s writing, as Jefferson notes, were key here.

            The comparison of Orthodoxy and Latin Christianity is important as it shows Christianity with and without Aristotle’s influence. The West excelled because Aquinas championed Aristotle. Aristotle is still highly regarded in the Catholic Church.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            For your information.
            Aristotle did raise the question as to whether slavery was natural or conventional. He decided it was natural meaning some people were born to be slaves.
            I don’t suppose you imagine Aquinas to be influenced by this conclusion?

            Jesus would have been more likely to be a slave under Roman occupation than to own them.

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

            Who cares? When Jefferson or any other writers takes Aristotle as the starting point of Western liberal thought they don’t take him as the final word. The liberal tradition grew. It started with Aristotle and Cicero. Further contributions were made by Aquinas and Suarez among the Catholics and Grotius, Locke, Harrington, Sidney and others among Protestant humanists.

            The Western paternalist and totalitarian traditions stem from Plato. From there we go to Augustine, Luther, Hobbes, Hegel, and Marx. The West has two traditions in which religious and secular figures have contributed for better or worse.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            Who’s talking about the final word silly?
            We’re talking influence here.
            Jefferson is one person. We’re talking about the development of Western liberalism or do you think Jefferson has the final word on that too?

            You’re a nitwit.
            Listing a bunch of influential Greek philosophers and then saying that they are the originators of Western liberalism because that’s how you define it as originating is not an argument.

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

            I’m not arguing with you; you don’t have the requisite knowledge.

            I writing for the silent reader to let them know that some people on the right have a grasp of Western history; we aren’t inclined to reduce it to Jesus or diminish the importance of classical Greece and Rome.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            You’re the only person that’s attempted to reduce it to a few slave owning philosophers in this conversation mr. silent.

          • Rebecca

            Read George Fox’s “Book of Martyrs.” It is free online. There were atheists as well as Catholics and Protestants all along. The atheists, some of whom were Unitarians embraced Marxism in America in the late 1800s, which was way after it’s founding. The Marxists call Christians and religious Jews paternalistic. Marxists don’t consider themselves paternalistic. The Marxists are the totalitarians, and today, many Protestants and Catholics are atheistic and Marxist. The Social Justice movement is Marxism and it is alive and well in many churches. V.I. Lenin said to infiltrate American society in order to take it over. America is the only society where he thought a bloody revolution wouldn’t work. He based that on the intelligence of the Christian! colonists and their descendants. He stated that they were far too intelligent to fall for his Marxist plans. Marxists are racists, but have ill feelings for those they think are too intelligent, particularly the W.A.S.P.s.

          • Rebecca

            The Latin Church is exemplified by South America and Italy…. The USA was started by Calvinists from Britain… along with their fellow brethren from the middle European countries like Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and France and Bohemia. The Pilgrims were Calvinists.

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

            I haven’t had time to respond to this important point while on the road. Let me just add for now that Jerome Huyler, in his book “Locke in America” talks about the importance of this positive influence on Locke and the founding.

          • Rebecca

            Which positive influence do you mean? Calvinism? Calvin was more important to America than Locke. Locke was influenced by Calvin and both were influenced by their Celtic ( not Irish, but British) heritage. America was founded by Calvinist Christian Celtic Capitalists from middle Europe and Britain. These particular people had ancient trading routes with each other and to the Orient which were blocked off by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. This caused these merchant Celts to look for other ways to the orient. Next came Christopher Columbus. Then Calvin. Then, John Locke. Locke may have expressed some of their philosophy very well, but he, along with the rest of them got it out from the Bible and their heritage. The self-evident truths. The Galatians ( of the Bible) were Celts.

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

            Hold on there. First we rule out the Eastern half of Christianity, the Orthodox, which never established a liberal regime. Next we take out half of the Western Church, the Catholic Church, as Protestants broke with Rome. Now we take just the Calvinists half of the Protestants. How does show the power and influence of Christianity? It’s just one denomination that puts a strong focus on the virtue of industry, a very secular concern related to man’s survival, making that virtue central to salvation. If this is distinctive to one denomination, one might want to hesitate to make broad religious claims on behalf of Christianity. This Calvinist add-on is indeed important but it is new with them.

          • Rebecca

            You mentioned John Locke. The only modern civilization in the world is Western civilization. It is America and parts of Europe which had the influence of the Calvinists. All of the inventions and capitalism came out of it. In the year 1800 a very small part of the world was civilized, less than 10% of it. Britain, Germany, France, the smaller middle European countries, and America.

          • liz

            To say that Jason P suffers from “a hugely superficial understanding of the Christian faith” could also apply to your own understanding of the Greco/Roman classics as the founders knew them.
            Just learning Latin and translating an occasional text doesn’t come close to the education in the Greco/roman classics that the founders were steeped in.
            H.C.Commager credited the Classics with helping Revolutionary Virginia produce Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others. “Intellectually, the founding fathers knew the ancient (Greco/Roman) world better perhaps than they knew the European…”
            At the same time, “although many of the founders held unorthodox religious views, they sometimes interpreted classical virtue in a Christian light.” (C.J.Richard)
            The Founder’s drew from many sources, including Greco/Roman and Christian. It’s distorting the past to say that it was either all one or all the other influence.
            But it is undeniable that Christianity would not be in the civilized state it’s in today if it weren’t for the influence of Greco/Roman philosophy and the Enlightenment.

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

            Excellent and fair-minded explanation. I haven’t read Commager but I’ve read Carl Richard’s
            Why We’re All Romans: The Roman Contribution to the Western World
            and founding it very helpful.

          • liz

            Thanks, my source for those quotes was Richard’s “The Founders and the Classics; Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment”.

          • Anukem Jihadi

            I never said that translating a few texts constituted a deep understanding of Greco-Roman scholarship. I simply stated that learning Latin by itself didn’t necessarily facilitate a movement towards liberal values.

            As I already stated Greek and Roman culture where profoundly hostile to what we might call “liberalism” today. So it’s not as convenient as you imagine or you’ve been taught to simply state that their philosophers where a “liberalizing” influence. In many cases Western culture picked what it wanted from these traditions and discarded the rest.

          • Rebecca

            The main reason the Founders learned Greek and Latin was to read the Bible in those languages, but they also studied the Greek and Roman cultures… Someone- don’t remember who… said the big Roman contribution to Western Civilization was cement. And whoever said that had an equally disdainful view of the contributions of the Greeks.

          • liz

            Well that’s pretty much the current Christian opinion. But the truth is the founders were much better educated and well informed than most people today, including Christians.
            They got their understanding of how to form a democratic republic from the Greeks and Romans, not from the Bible, although they did read that in Greek and Latin.

          • Rebecca

            The schools in New England, including the Ivy League schools were started in order to teach Christian theology, not to learn about Greek and Latin civilizations. Do they even teach Christianity now? No.

          • liz

            No, now they teach Leftism.
            The Left has succeeded in dumbing down all of our education, whether Christian or otherwise, by eliminating the teaching of the Constitution and it’s foundations in the Greek and Roman civilizations.
            They’ve replaced it with leftist propaganda.
            Many Christians blame this on atheism, because they mistakenly conflate atheism with leftism.
            But our current Pope is a good example of a Christian leftist, and there are many atheist conservatives.

          • Rebecca

            I agree that the founders were much smarter and better read than many around today. There is a crossover between atheism and Leftism. V.I. Lenin called the Nazis “right wing socialists” meaning they were related to the communists and shared atheism with them. Marx stated that the first step on the road to communism is atheism. H. L. Menken is an example of a right wing American atheist, and he hated Christianity, the founders, and everything American. The pope is a Jesuit, and he has said some very non-Christian things since being in office. You do not have to be a Christian to be a Catholic.

          • liz

            You don’t have to be a Christian to be a Catholic, and you don’t have to be a Communist to be an atheist, either.
            In fact, Communism has roots in Christianity: “they held all things in common”.
            Communism simply secularized this altruistic concept, and traded a vision of Utopia in heaven for a vision of Utopia in this life.

          • Rebecca

            You need to read the Marxists. They are against Christianity. When they talk about the Western Middle Class, they are talking about a certain set of Christians, that they hate more than anything. And, read the Bible, if you are going to comment on what the followers of it believe. There is no communism in the Bible, except what is projected into it by non-Christians. Also, the book “State and Revolution,” by V.I. Lenin is a short book on what communists believe. It is a start…. Google Chiara Lubich.

          • liz

            I have read the Bible several times, as a matter of fact, having been a Christian for some fifty years before becoming an atheist. They did hold all things in common – it’s in there.
            Of course Marxists hate Christianity – it’s a rival ideology. They stole the idea and made it their own, and want to eliminate the competition.
            As Jason P stated above, Russian Christianity lacked the influence of Cicero. “Russians under the Czar hated private property and they easily embraced a secular version of that hate.”

          • Rebecca

            You must have a different version of the Bible. Communists and Christians do not hold things in common. The Russians did not easily embrace a version of a hate for private property. They had a horrible bloody revolution. The Russian peasants and lower working classes were over 70% illiterate. That is why Lenin went there to take over the country. Also, he liked the idea that they weren’t related to the Calvinist Christians. Easy pickings. Read his book.

          • liz

            I didn’t say Christians and Communists hold things in common. I was quoting the Bible which states that the Christians themselves held all things in common with each other – read the book of Acts.
            But that IS something that Christianity and Communism have in common – the communal principal of collectivism. Most present day Christians simply ignore this principle, but it is what motivated monks to take vows of poverty, and the pilgrims to make an attempt at it in the New World. It failed miserably, so they abandoned the idea.
            But the Pope can still push his leftist agenda by exhorting Catholics to abstain from the evils of materialism, which they are already prepared to accept as good advice because the Church has always taught it, based on the Bible.

          • Rebecca

            The Catholic Church is not based just on the Bible. And, the Catholic Church didn’t have much to do with the founding of America, the most capitalistic country in the world. The most Biblically literate people in the world founded America, and brought in modern civilization. Marxists and Catholics would like to see a different world. One where there is a one party, two class system, like in Mexico. The Catholic Church has vast holdings in Mexico which are safe when dictators are in office there. The state church.

          • liz

            Right. And that’s what made the founding fathers different from the Catholics and Marxists – in addition to being Biblically literate they were also very literate in the Greco-Roman Classics and Enlightenment philosophy, from which they derived the ideas of natural rights and the right to private property.
            They formulated their own philosophy from many different sources. If they had adhered strictly to the Bible, the American Revolution never would have happened. They would have submitted to the King, as such authority is “ordained by God”, according to the Bible.

          • Rebecca

            Do you know what the word Protestant means? It is a protest against authority. It the “authority” is against God it does not have to be followed. And, Acts does not have anything communistic in it….This country was founded by religious dissidents. Some of whom were killed even after being on these shores, like the Dutch in colonial PA, and the Huguenots in Florida. The men in the Continental Army and the militia were well read for their time and positions, but I doubt most of them had a classical education, and I know Ben Franklin did not. They did have their own culture which encouraged knowledge. They started the first public school system in the world after the revolution. They had a big battle with Thomas Paine over religion. He wanted it out, and they wanted it in. He left for France.

          • liz

            They protested against authority IN SPITE of what the Bible said, not because of it. The Bible teaches us to “submit to the powers that be, for they are ordained of God” (paraphrased). To say that “if the authority is against God, it does not have to be followed” is really an opinion based on reason and common sense, not what the text literally states.
            So basically, influenced by Enlightenment ideas of individualism and freedom from ecclesiastical authority, they overrode the Biblical command to submit like “little children”, or sheep, to authority that claimed a “divine right” to rule, and revolted anyway.
            Thomas Paine was a great supporter of the Revolution, but Christians then still labored under the notion that those who criticized religion were blasphemers to be shunned, ostracized, and even barred from public office.
            His book, “The Age of Reason”, was a brilliant critique of religion, but most Americans weren’t ready to accept such criticism of their beliefs rationally, or allow those who challenged their beliefs the same freedom of conscience they felt entitled to. As a consequence he was treated very shabbily by the very people who’s freedom he had championed during the Revolution.

          • Rebecca

            The founders of this country had their own culture. It went back for years in Europe. How do you explain Oliver Cromwell? How do you explain the trade between them in middle and northern Europe, which went on for hundreds of years (actually about 3500 years)? The Bible does not teach “submit to the powers that be.” It is not a suicide pact and does not say to submit to Satan. Thomas Paine was hated in three countries by the time he got done. Even the atheist French couldn’t stand him. Our guys went and got him out of a French prison. The Marxists, either left or right, hate Christianity first and foremost. H.L. Mencken, a Hitler supporter wrote the book “Treatise on the Gods,” an attack on Christianity, and translated Nietzsche’s the “Anti-Christ,” into English. F. Engels wrote “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,” an attack on middle class Christians. If you don’t know what is being attacked by the left, how do you suppose you can fight it? You could actually be helping them without knowing it. The Americans relied heavily on the Magna Carta, the constitutional governments of the colonies, and past experience, including the Albany Congress to write the Constitution. And, “The Lord is my Shepard,” no one else….Christians are to obey Him, period. His sheep know His voice.

          • liz

            You advised me to read the Bible , if I’m going comment on it. It seems you should do the same. You apparently have not read it or you would know that it commands Christians to submit to governmental authority. Look it up.
            “The Founder’s had their own culture” – that’s what I’ve been saying. They formed their own knowledge and culture from many sources, including the Bible, Greco-Roman classics and treatises on government, various enlightenment philosophers and ideas, English history, etc, etc…Obviously they expanded their minds far beyond the confines of religious dogma and scripture.
            Yet you say “Christians are to obey him (the Lord), period.” You seem conflicted between the rational, independent thinking exemplified by the founding fathers and blind obedience to a book you don’t seem to have actually read in its entirety.

          • Rebecca

            You have the same views as the Left. No Christian has to submit to authority which does not go along with the ten commandments, let us say. There are four parts to intelligence. Being rational is only one part of it, but you would never know that by the Leftist websites pushing rationalism. The other three parts are judgment, imagination, and memory. Try using all of your faculties, and then you won’t think like a leftist. Many of my ancestors fought in the Rev War. Because of that, I have read many more books on how the people in those days lived, and have read about what they believed, etc. than you probably ever will. If you would like to read anything at all and discuss it, I would be happy to oblige. I like having informed conversations. And, since the people we are talking about read the Bible, you can be sure I have as well.

          • liz

            Just because I think being rational is important doesn’t mean I think like the left. In fact that’s one of the problems leftists have – they don’t think very rationally. They believe in an unrealistic, unattainable collectivist utopia that has failed in every place it’s been tried.
            But just because a person doesn’t believe in a heavenly utopia doesn’t automatically mean they are going to believe in the leftist version of Utopia.
            Being an atheist does not make one a leftist.
            It is important to base your opinions on verifiable facts and evidence. This does involve rational thinking, and helps prevent being duped by any version of Utopia, whether religious or leftist.

          • Rebecca

            Reason, imagination, judgment, and memory. When the Left took over the universities one of the first things to go were logic classes. Now, they have books out saying not to have students memorize anything. Of course, no judgment is allowed. You talk like a leftist. If you read the Marxists, you will find that their Utopia is nothing like heaven, and there are different versions of it. The Marxists like to say that the founders of America were ten times smarter than other Europeans, but were delusional when it came to religion…. They say that when they aren’t saying most people are not smart enough to understand Calvinist Christianity. The Left is racially and religiously prejudiced, but against people who have succeeded as well as ones who have not… I am sure George Washington was thinking about a great Roman patriot when he started the Society of the Cincinnati. And, I am not duped, comrade.

          • liz

            Tell me one thing I’ve said here that is leftist.

          • Rebecca

            Hippocrates is one of the Greeks that the founders of the modern world (1800s) used to base medicine on. As you said, they did use their ideas, and gave them the credit for them, when they matched their own. When abortion came in, doctors no longer had to take the Hippocratic Oath. Here is part of the oath: I will..” abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art.” It goes on to say no corruption, no seduction of males or females, and other things which a Christian would agree with. Now, the modern atheist generally thinks abortion is O.K., assisted suicide is O.K., and seduction is O.K. And a modern doctor usually thinks of his patients as clients, and potential buyers of what he is providing . Hardly the sentiments of Hippocrates or modern medicine, but the sentiments of today’s Post-Modern doctors and atheists. Are you an old fashioned atheist, or a modern one?

          • liz

            I happen to be a pro-life one. I don’t agree with abortion on demand, corruption, or seduction of patients.

          • Rebecca

            I haven’t read your source book. I just know that the Ivy League schools were founded by Protestants for religious purposes.

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

            True. Harvard was founded by the Puritans and training ministers was the most important purpose. Nevertheless, they copied European institutions and instituted a classical liberal arts curriculum. By the time of the American Revolution, the Latin classics were the backbone of the curriculum and all the courses were taught in Latin.

            Cicero was the most important Latin author. John Adams greatly admired Cicero. Sam Adams had to read Cicero’s ethical treatise in grammar school, i.e. Boston Latin School (which still exists today). Cicero has been the center of a Latin education since Plutarch, the father of Humanism, revived an interest in Cicero’s writings in the 14th century.

            Of course they learn Greek as well and some learned Hebrew. With Greek they read the Greek classics and, of course, the New Testament.

          • Rebecca

            The Greek and Roman classics have had a place in Western Civilization, obviously. If the Founders only relied on them, they would have ignored the two thousand year history which came after those civilizations and we would be living in a very different place. The people who founded this country had a civilization of their own based on their history. The Bible was a huge part of it.

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

            Given that they weren’t Catholics they did ignore most of that history, say 1500 years. They were inspired by the Roman Republic which ended about 50 BC. They abhorred the Roman Empire (roughly 50 BC to 500 AD.) They were critical of the Stuarts’ reign during the 17 th century. If the history of the West, from Jesus to the Glorious Revolution (1688), was a history influenced and exihibiting Christianity, that does not bode well for the argument of a continuation of that influence.

          • DB1954

            Jefferson was ONE American founder, not even close to being the only American founder.

        • DB1954

          You still don’t seem to understand that Nonie is talking about cultural–primarily spiritual–values. You’re talking about only one part of western history and cultural tradition–the classics– and equating it with spiritual values.

    • Bose Heaven

      This is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity as it is meant to be. Besides, there is the assumption that Christianity started functioning better thanks to secular enlightenment, which is patently not true. There have been two movements that redefined and purified the application of Christian values. The first was the reformation. What accelerated the reformation was the invention of printing, through which the scriptures became available to the masses, through this, wrong practices, who had their source in tradition rather then in scriptures could be exposed and corrected. In short the reformation was a restoration of the Word of God to its proper place. The second movement that accelerated the restoration of Christianity was the birth of Pentecostalism as a mainstream form of Christianity in the ‘Azusa street revival’ at the beginning of the last century. At the core of this revival was the revelation of the importance of the guidance of every Christianity through the presence of the Spirit of God in their life. These two movements improved a balanced Christian life in significant ways and certainly the last movement is an ongoing proces of continuous refinement through renewed revelations received from God as received through His Spirit. In short the second movement restored the value of the unity of the believer with the Spirit of God. Now this does not mean that there will not be occasionally negative developments or misconceptions. But Christianity in it self does have the resources to sort wrong concepts out. This is important, because if society wants to see righteousness, peace and unity restored it is fully dependent to accept values which are higher then their own human values, values that will always spiral down south if a higher external moral authority is not accepted.

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

        The Reformation had the unintended consequence of encouraging individual thought. It certainly wasn’t the intention of Luther or Calvin. Luther was appalled by the Catholic Church including the influence of Aristotle and Ancient secular thought. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation set back the Renaissance by a century. However, Calvin and Luther grudgingly kept the classical liberal arts education intact as a study in philology, not philosophy.

        The changes wrought by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation climaxed in the last major religious war in the West: the Thirty Years War. The viciousness and barbarity of this war shocked humanists. By the wars end, close to 1/3 of the people in German territories were dead. As religion would never again be the basis of a civil order intellectual like Hugo Grotius sought to establish moral reasoning on secular ground: natural law and natural right. This led to Locke and the American Revolution.

        • Bose Heaven

          What is always important to note about the reformation, that it should always be considered a starting point of the restoration proces. I agree that if we consider the reformation as ‘the gold standard’ of Christianity, the regretful mindset of many ‘orthodox protestants’, Christianity would and could not be in anyway relevant today.

          • DB1954

            I have no regretful mindset. Neither did Martin Luther. For one thing, what good would it have done him?

            Luther didn’t leave the church; the church left him. Pope Leo X excommunicated him and all who followed him.

          • Bose Heaven

            Luther started the car rolling, which was a good thing, but again, our mindset should not stop at the limited restored revelation that Luther received. So much more is and was needed.

        • DB1954

          Martin Luther and his followers didn’t leave the Church; the Church left them. It excommunicated them. Thereafter, the papists sent armies to the German speaking lands in order to force the inhabitants to return to the Roman fold.

          From 1618 to 1648, papal armies slaughtered Calvinists and Lutherans quite literally, by the millions.

          • Americana

            Why is it DB that this history of Christian repression involving mass killings is literally almost entirely disavowed by people on this site?

        • Rebecca

          The old Marxists were obsessed with the Thirty Years War.
          It was a battle for territory and political power. The Calvinists got the short end of the stick, and many went to America for a better life. Europe was devastated by their loss and the countries involved did not recover for 200 years. The humanists/atheists got to kill their Christians in France during their many revolutions. Thomas Paine went to France after he became upset with the Americans because they wanted to keep God in the country and he did not. Locke believed in God.

    • liz

      Excellent points.

    • Consider

      In short, dump religion.
      There is nothing usefull to learn from religion,
      Any.

    • Raymond_in_DC

      Except that Locke and many other Enlightenment thinkers were well versed in both Christian and Jewish thinking. The recently published “The Hebrew Republic” shows that many of them studied some of the classic rabbinic texts, often in Latin translation. And the treatises of the Jewish outcast Spinoza dealing with the modern political state was certainly familiar to them.

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

        Yes, everyone was familiar with Biblical stories. Even Tom Paine, not the most religious of the founders, refers to Hebrew examples in Common Sense. Most references seem more metaphorical but others are taken as object lessons. Others are symbolic or rhetorical comparisons. It wasn’t quite the literal application that one saw in the Puritan theocracy.

        The classical literature was extensive, organized, and near systematic. Take the concept of a “mixed constitution.” This was the classical theory that the rule of one (monarchy), few (oligarchy) or many (democracy) all degenerate into oppressive forms of government. The solution (Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero) was to have a “mixed constitution” of all three. Montesquieu (widely read by the founders) would praise Britain’s mixed constitution. While this couldn’t be applied here (we don’t have a royalty) it still inspired separate branches with a bicameral legislature.

        Classical literature has well developed models. While they need improvement they form the foundation of later detailed work.

    • Webb

      You are confusing spiritual values with political principles. The Dec explains the practical political preservation of our God-given rights. Without God, humans have no value and no rights. Without God we have only the Law of the Pack — The bigger the pack, the truer its law.

    • Mo86

      “Nonie is a wonderful woman but this is a silly essay. She presents a false alternative: Islam vs. Christian values. The truth of the matter is that our tradition comes from a very different source.”

      Nonsense. Our values are biblical. Read our founding documents.

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

        I did. Read what Jefferson said above; he wrote the Declaration. He should know.

    • DB1954

      You’re wrong.

      Nonie’s article is about cultural and religious values not the secularism of the Enlightenment. When Constantinople–the (Orthodox) Christian east fell to Muslim Turks in 1453, the Christian refugees brought the art treasures and cultural traditions of the ancient Greeks and Romans with them. These classical traditions–including philosophy, an invention of the ancient Greeks, were returned to western Christian Europe where they originated.

      The classics to which you refer were, in effect, recovered in the west largely by Western clerics and Christian scholars. It was the western church which thereafter preserved and rediscovered the wisdom and scholarship of antiquity. Moreover, it was Christian scholars who reconciled philosophy and the pagan classics with Christianity.

      The classics are only part of the much, much older cultural traditions of the west, which unquestionably, originated in Christian and Judaic religion.

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

        Half of what you say is right. The Christian Church in the West was influenced by Aristotle since Aquinas. This was after the schism. In the East they maintained copies of the ancient texts but read them mostly for the study of grammar. The ideas had limited influence. While Aquinas learned Aristotle from translations from the Arabic, the original Greek copies in the West were eventually found and read.

        The West never lost the Latin authors. Plutarch revived an interest in Cicero and that had profound consequences for the culture, so much so that he is called the father of Humanism. These texts did change the nature of Christian thought in Western Christendom. The revival of secular philosophical thought after the horrendous religious wars extended the ideas of the Ancients to new heights. Natural rights (Grotius and Locke) extended the natural law tradition that went back to Aristotle and Cicero. Christians reconciled these new ideas with their religious beliefs.

        It was the 19th century that saw changes away from natural rights beginning with Utilitarianism. Christians also moved away from individual rights and championed utopian socialism. Marx dropped the Christian part and secularized Christian socialist thought. The Latin education was discontinued and few read the Latin classics. Locke went out of fashion. The culture changed for the worse.

    • Shannon

      Wrong. You must be thinking of the Soviet Union.

    • Webb

      Oh, Jason, what a forum you’ve chosen to advance your new theory of the existence of Greco-Roman values, although you negate your argument by not once using the word “values.” I’m not criticizing you for going against the grain, but you’re tilting at a huge windmill when you reject the 5,000 year-old universally accepted concept of Judaic values, which has morphed into being conventionally described as Judeo-Christian values. You obviously have a bone to pick with G-d of the Jews and the Christians, but I’d bet a trillion dollars if we each had that much that you’re not going to change convention.

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

        Christianity has been influenced by classical thought … sometimes. Try my test. Look at where Christian thought has been influenced by Aristotle and where it hasn’t (see the notes in posts from yesterday). There is where you’ll find civilization.

    • truebearing

      I’m quite sure Locke wouldn’t entirely agree with you, at least as regards his influences.

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

        Read Prof Jerome Huyler (currently at Seton Hall). His book “Locke in America” both reviews Locke’s thought and his influence. Both the Greco-Roman and Christian influence are discussed. And Locke original thought is explained.

  • Ellen_L

    Unfortunately they do not have a monopoly on twisting the truth or on assigning values of others. I recall the times people talked about how some Jewish person was a good Christian! It is the tolerance that came deciding that we would rather live in prosperity and trade with those with whom we disagree rather than insisting on their having our ideas that made the difference. It is the values of what was classical liberalism – not what goes by that name now – that made a better life possible. The values of free trade, freedom of thought (beginning with and including freedom of religion), and a constitutional form of governance that guarantees individual rights that made the difference.

    These are often assumed to be based on Biblical values but are actually hard won and learned over hundreds of years. Liberty of thought not adherence to any particular faith made the real difference. Prosperity followed with the rise of technology that came from the liberty to act on one’s thought. It brought an end to so many evils like slavery, lack of sanitation, famine, tribal warfare and more.

    The middle east is behind but could change almost overnight with modern communication if they would learn to value their personal lives more than obedience to an outmoded violent code. (Our own current problems here in America could turn around abruptly with a return to a better application of those same values. It is not a dedication to God or to the environment or equality or the political theology of Islam that is needed but rather a dedication to individual liberty that leaves us free to think and act to make life better.)

    It begins with a critical viewpoint based on respect for one’s ability to apprehend reality that refuses to overlook perceptible facts and to question everything. Then follows the desire to live better by achievement and trade rather than by the old methods of theft, force and deception.

    The article points out one of the most crucial issues – the willingness to think critically as individuals and the need for respect for facts that can occasionally make us change fundamental viewpoints for better more useful ones more compatible with the facts when they conflict too violently.

    • liz

      Exactly right.

  • Abd Ur-Raheem Al Amreekee

    And to agree and disagree from a different direction:

    The Judaism of the Old Testament is very similar to Islam, with one glaring exception which is that Islam considers itself to be a universal religion while Judaism is confined to those of Jewish descent. On nearly all other points, the two religions share only minor differences (such as dietary restrictions, etc.). Nearly all of the prophets and messengers of the Old Testament had concubines and slaves, fought wars in the name of God, and advocated for the supremacy of monotheism and the subjugation of polytheism. The Ten Commandments are even an explicitly identical codification of the Shariah (with the exception of fourth commandment – the Sabbath – which is peculiar to the Jews). Neither religion copies the other, but this is recognition that Judaism and Islam both come from God and are aspects of a single practice of worship: monotheism.

    Christianity is practiced according to the whims of whoever is most influential in the practitioner’s life. The Gospels and Epistles are not like the Old Testament and the Quran, they are very different. They read (and are) four pseudo-biographical accounts and then letters of admonition, encouragement and advice exchanged among communities. From the quoted speech, Jesus (عليه سلام) doesn’t disown the law of the Jews nor advocate for a new direction. There is no revelation from him comparable to the revelations in the Old Testament and Quran which leaves Christianity to be so freely interpreted.

    As others have posted here, our civilization is based on Greco-Roman philosophy and the economic liberalization due to the evolution of the Enlightenment. Christianity’s success in terms of adherents is in large part due to its ability to adapt to the prevailing system in any environment. The Romans were absolute pagans and that’s partially why Christianity has so many paintings and statues. Christianity is a companion to a stronger philosophy, contemporaneously that being Capitalism. This is why we can see rich and famous people claiming the Christian title. Abraham (عليه سلام) fought wars and took slaves, Mohammed (صلي الله عليه وسلم) fought wars and took slaves, and their followers did and do the same. Jesus was poor, humble and homeless, but his followers don’t seem to follow that example. However, most Christian followers do adhere to the ethics of the Greco-Roman philosophers and the Enlightement.

    • Guest

      Interesting comment.

    • liz

      Your right that the Old Testament and Koran share many similarities, but why deny the fact that Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity?
      And if you recognize that it’s the Greco-Roman values of the Enlightenment that are the major influence on the freedoms of civilization, why is your avatar “Allahu akbar”?

      • Abd Ur-Raheem Al Amreekee

        As Jesus is a prophet for Muslims, I would argue that the religion of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed is the same. In that sense none of the later prophets borrowed from those who came before them, but merely acted as continuities in the succession of monotheistic messengers and prophets. I meant only to argue that the writings which present-day Christians use as the foundation of the religion are very different from those which the Jews and the Muslims use.

        My avatar is ‘Allahu akbar’ because I’m Muslim.

        • liz

          Well, that’s quite a feat of convoluted reasoning, but then reconciling the contradictions within any religion takes a lot of convoluted reasoning.
          Just out of curiosity, how do you justify to yourself belonging to a religion that is the inspiration for mass murder on a global scale, by people who’s stated goal is the subjugation of the entire planet to a totalitarian religious dictatorship?

          • Abd Ur-Raheem Al Amreekee

            Do you mean how do I justify being American? or being Muslim? because depending on how one tallies things, I think there might be a case for the Americans being guilty of a greater amount of murder.

            But to answer your question:

            I justify being Muslim because I am convinced of God’s existence and Islam is the only religion which offers a complete and pure answer. As such, I believe that whatever God commands is correct and that nothing other than God’s religion should be dominant.

          • liz

            So you’re an anti-American Islamic supremacist.
            You don’t deserve the American citizenship that you take advantage of. But I’m sure you’ll “suffer through it” like a true martyr.
            You should go back to the garbage heap your religion created so you can avoid the “contamination” of rational thought and freedom, where the “pure” religion of your barbarian prophet keeps everyone in the stone age where they belong!

          • Bose Heaven

            Like I said before: ‘To be more explicit, Islam is the ultimate effort to thwart the redemption of Christ as revealed in the New Covenant’. Your problem, Mohammed is a false prophet, subsequently the Quran was not divine inspired and Allah represents a serious miss-representation of the actual attributes of Yahweh, this results in Idol worship. But it is actually far worse studying the life of Mohammed ,the defined theology of Islam in their scriptures and the vehement animosity against Christianity, a rational mind could only draw one conclusion; The Quran was diabolic inspired with all the justified violent consequences against ‘infidels’. Indeed a diabolic masterplan.

    • mollysdad

      One problem here, though. Islam denies that the Jewish Bible as it is today is the Jewish Bible as it was originally given.

      In Judaism, this denial is known as kofer be-torah.

    • Bose Heaven

      The OT does reveal the moral standards of God, and possible consequences if broken. The problem is that people try to comply with these rules out of their own human weakness, a weakness that resulted from ‘the fall of grace’. Now Jesus came as the fulfilment of the New Covenant as prophetically promised in the OT. Through Jesus we receive ‘the inner strength’ through the Spirit of God in faith in order to be able to comply to Old Testament standards. That is why Christ said ‘I Am the fulfilment of the Law’. With other words, the New Covenant is the revelation provided through Christ through which the moral standards of the Old Covenant could and should be uphold. The NT contains the definite redemption plan of God to restore humankind to its normal condition which existed before the fall. Now there is a diabolic opponent of God that tries to resist this restoration to freedom as forceful as possible. What would be more efficient to provide another law, a law that is not even righteous in it self, and as I pointed out already is incapable of providing a moral solution. To be more explicit, Islam is the ultimate effort to thwart the redemption of Christ as revealed in the New Covenant.

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

      Indeed, an interesting comment. I’d add one fact. As you say, “one glaring exception which is that Islam considers itself to be a universal religion …” Yes, but one of universal rule, not universal belief! Islam is a political religious ideology for conquest and rule. It is content to rule over others even if they retain their current religious beliefs.

    • dartson

      What do you mean by “neither religion copies each other”? Islam came into existence much later than Judaism and Christianity, and, in fact, is a bad and distorted copy of both these religions. Its “universal” aspect is enslaving Jews and Christians, converting the rest of humanity by force and slaughtering those who resist. Also your comparison of the Jewish prophets and leaders with Muhammad is very simplistic. In Judaism, prophets and leaders are described as human beings with their flaws, doubts, moral dilemmas. They are not always blind servants of God, but often disobey God (like Jonah), argue with God (like Abraham, trying to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction), curse God (like Job). In Islam, Muhammad is a superhuman, a perfect role model, beyond reproach. If he changes his mind, then it is God who changed his mind, if he desires to take his servant’s wife, that it is God’s will (funny that the same God punished king David for the same dirty trick). In short, in Islam, Muhammad is the God and must be blindly worshiped and obeyed, otherwise “off with your head”.

      • Abd Ur-Raheem Al Amreekee

        Where you see imitation, I argue for continuity. I do not believe that Jesus ever intended the radical departure from Judaism that later his followers were to pursue. There is some evidence in the Gospels for such a statement, most specifically the absence of any clear criticism for the Mosaic law or teachings which would have compromised the pure monotheism which the Jews practiced.

        Jews enslaved non-believers and were forbidden from enslaving believers as Muslims are. The difference between them is that after the final messengership of Mohammed, the Jews and Christians, as deniers of that message, are considered disbelievers in God, thus leaving them free of the protections earned by the believers (Muslims).

        And you are mistaken in some parts of your characterization of Mohammed. Muslims most certainly believe that he is the perfect role model for all of humanity (save in those aspects which are specifically masculine in nature, in such instances women should look to his wives). Also, Muslims do not attribute many of the events or actions to the prophets which Muslims believe to be far beneath them. Examples include incest (Lot) and drunkenness (Noah).

        Islam is very careful to measure the status of Mohammed so as to prevent the tragedy which happened to the Christians: namely, taking Jesus as a god and worshiping him in place of God. Repeatedly throughout the Quran and the ahadith, Mohammed is described as nothing more than a slave or a servant, a simple messenger. There are reports of him stating that no one knows whether one will go to Paradise, not even Mohammed.

        There are revelations in the Quran also which point to Mohammed having made mistakes and subsequently God corrects him. An example is after the first battle the Muslims fought with the polytheists. Mohammed and his followers decided to ransom the men they captured in battle. God later rebuked him and stated that instead Mohammed should have executed them for their oppression and disbelief instead of seeking monetary gain through the ransoms.

        Though we believe Mohammed is the perfect example, we do not believe he was above making mistakes, he said himself that in all matters of religion we should obey him because he is guided from God, but in other matters, what one might call worldly, he is just a human and offers his advice like other humans.

  • Docs357

    We should know by now what goes in a mans mouth doesn’t defile a person . It’s not what he forgets todo ( show Mercy ) but what he does that condemns his eternal spirit .. mutalateing women as children is ok because when they grow up up you can ride them hard all night and put them away wet is a good thing for who ? Most humans aren’t that brutal. If we don’t conform to there ways there insulted and will kill as many innocent people as they can . This mutt in the White House thinks. This a good thing sad sorry mentally I’ll person. To enhance your pleasure by ruining another persons entire existence is to wrong for words to express . Dump the coward in the White House war is the only answer while we still have a military left. When our streets and towns and cities are war zone then will the racist be happy not before

  • Paul Austin Murphy

    I don’t want to change the subject; but has anyone noticed the Ramadan adverts on FrontPage recently? There is one embedded in the article above and I’ve seen a couple more.

    Is there something fishy going on is this a joke of some kind?

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

      I think advertisement are paid for in bulk and neither advertiser nor website choose each other. I’ve seen ads for Muslim dating services on some counter-jihadi websites. It is not a joke but it is indeed funny.

      • Paul Austin Murphy

        Of course. I’ve tried to use the advert option on my Google blogs. Nonetheless, Google has turned my requests down because of the “unsuitability of the content”. That’s funny because some blogs and websites which are far more “hard-core” than mine succeed in having adverts.

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

          Unsuitable? Well if one can get arrested for quoting Churchill these days anything is possible. Google is disappointing us again.

  • brucehall

    Unbridled retro-cultural tribalism based on ignorant superstition, hatred, and misogyny purporting to be a universal law and a philosophy of peace. Exactly where Christianity was six centuries ago. Perhaps it takes 2,000 years to eradicate the malignancies.

    • Dragblacker

      Or, if you want to look at it another way, Islam is roughly 600 years behind Christianity. That places it, according to the Islamic calendar, in the 1400s today. Where was Christianity in the 1400s? And it was still another three centuries until the Enlightenment and the birth of those ideas (combined with Judeo-Christian values) that sprung the American Revolution. Expect another 300 years to go by until Islam undergoes the same.

      Then again, on the other hand, if there were Christians back then who scorned the Reformation and the Enlightenment, seeing the extreme end result they could possibly bring (take a look at the current decadence that passes for Western culture), it stands to reason their Islamic counterparts are doing the same.

  • rightrightright

    In 1930s Germany, the word “German” was used to describe all that was excellent, fine and good, ie a German maiden (beautiful and chaste), German food (high quality), German industry, German orderliness, etc. That which was German was therefore assumed to be better than anything from anywhere else. Pretty much how Moslems see and describe themselves with regard to Islam.

    The writer Robert Graves (who was half German) nicely mocked this tendency in “I Claudius” by having the monstrous child, Caligula, use the word “German” as a swear word to describe all things nasty and bad.

  • Phil D

    So recapitulate;

    From the outside we have millions of people who come to the west to profit from western civilization, but who feel no loyalty whatsoever to the basis of that civilization (because they are muslims and westerners are kafirs, and anyway islam cannot sustain such a civilization).
    From the inside whe have the left who also profit of western civilization and who also have no loyalty whatsoever to the basis of that civilization (since at least the sixties).
    Well, it partially explains the left-islam alliance. It is also suicide.

  • nomoretraitors

    “The Muslim dilemma about the West gets more complicated when over 70% of Muslim youth are desperately trying to leave the Muslim world to immigrate to Western nations”
    The question is why are they immigrating to the West. Is it for freedom, or to conduct a “stealth jihad?”

    • liz

      Yes, a lot of Muslim fruitcakes are exploding!

  • What?

    An excellent article. As an Irishman I was appalled to read Hossein Askari’s ‘study’ (if one can call it that) suggesting that Ireland adheres to true Islamic values to a greater extent than nations where muslims are in the majority. The supreme arrogance of this man beggars belief. The claim itself is an oxymoron. How can peaceful nations based on the rule of democracy be reflections of Islam when Islam itself promotes a fascist political ideology? Islam favours the full implantation of sharia law which at best subjects non-Muslims to dhimmitude and the jiyza taxation.

    This deluded academic who purports Islam to be a
    religion of peace sadly will find no legitimacy for his claims in the Qur’an or Hadith. He must be in the throes of cognitive dissonance as he chooses to ignore that a mere handful of peaceful passages in the Qu’ran have long since been abrogated by violent ones. Today’s Islamic scholars in polite circles readily decontextualise these passages which occur early in Muhammed’s career, a stage when the Mohammedan sect were a minority at Medina. Muhammad of course upon amassing more followers at Mecca wasted no time in mounting a murderous campaign against those who would not submit to his new religion. The infamous verse of the sword still echoes out across history.

    Ireland does not follow the violent principles espoused Quran and never will. We are very much much indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition. The country also owes a great deal of its character to its Celtic roots.

    This brings me to the subject of culture in Islam. Islam is synonymous with Arabisation since Arab cultural norms pervade the religion and are compelled upon believers. Prayer for example is not legitimate unless it is recited in obscure 7th Century Arabic. A tacit admission that God in Islam perceives the Arab world to be the most perfect. This does not sound like a creed which respects the fact the diverse cultures and languages of the world stem from God’s own infinite nature.

    Ireland a true reflection of Islam, I don’t think so!

  • Lanna

    Freedom, prosperity, and protection comes from God and obeying his words and his statues. abandon him and the nation will fall just as many before us. Worshipping false Gods and false religions bring destruction. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”~ Benjamin Franklin.~
    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~John Adams.~
    “The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of the Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freeom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves. Look how far we have fallen from the virtue, freedom, and principles our founding fathers tried to instill in us as a Free Republic. Only Judeo-Christian Values suffice, that means fairness, honesty, and a system governed with Godly principles….As we can see, our branches of government will not work together in unison as they should, and the Will of the people has been thwarted for a political one world agenda of the Islamic Caliphate. Everything will be at odds and divided without unity, and it will only get worse.

  • Björn Free

    Re: “Islamic Values vs. Judeo-Christian Values”
    .
    Islamic “Values” is a Classic OXYMORON.

  • Björn Free

    ………The illegitimate son of Abraham,
    Ishmael (Arabic: إسماعيل‎ ʾIsmāʿīl; Hebrew: יִשְׁמָעֵאל, Modern Yishma’el Tiberian Yišmāʻēl ISO 259-3 Yišmaˁel; Greek: Ἰσμαήλ Ismaēl; Latin: Ismael) – He
    is a figure in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an, and was Abraham’s first son according to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Ishmael was born of Abraham’s marriage to Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar.

    .

    The Bible declares of Ishmael’s Islam: GENESIS 16:12

    “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”” NIV
    .
    “He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.” NASB

  • Hank Rearden

    Let’s try a thought experiment.

    Let’s say that Islam “merely” codified the current culture of the Middle East in the 7th century and further that that culture was aboriginal – it hadn’t changed much in 3,000 years. That is not such a stretch, as Islam uses the symbolism of the moon-god Baal, one of the aboriginal figures in the Middle East, mentioned in the Bible.

    Continuing the thought experiment, if Islam is the codification of aboriginal Middle East culture, then perhaps Judaism was a revolution, a revulsion from the barbarism of the native, in our thought experiment, the Islamic culture.

    That would mean that the path that Western Civilization has followed has not only the Greeks and Romans as founders, but the Jews as well. Perhaps we could say that the Greeks established the idea of man as individual. the Romans established the necessity of man to sacrifice for the polity, and the Jews established man as a moral entity.

    Why did the Lord feel it was necessary to give Moses the 10 Commandments, which, after all, a good Lib would think were just “normal” values? Could it be because they were not being practiced in the culture in which the Jews found themselves dwelling? Can it be that Judaism and the 10 Commandments were the path out of savagery and barbarism that characterizes Islam wherever it is practiced?

    A thought experiment.

  • the old skeptic

    Only atheists and apostates seem to get it right.

  • DB1954

    Islam must be banned in the U.S. Call it martial law; call it extra-constitutional, or whatever. This nation can’t survive Islam.

  • I want my country back

    As a Catholic, I understand that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. I also understand that Jesus was a practicing Jew. While Jews may or may not feel a kinship to Christians, Christians cannot but accept Jews as our “cousins”. Mohammad came on the scene 600 years after the death of Christ and basically said Jesus was a liar and both Christians and Jews were “infidels”. Like most cult leaders, Mo denigrated women and marginalized non-believers, advocating death as just punishment for crimes against his “religion”. Jesus, on the other hand, forced no one to follow Him, advocated for the sinner(all of humanity) and ultimately sacrificed Himself for us. Humans may have sullied His church in many ways, but the teachings stand the test of time. It is love, never hate that is acceptable and pleasing to God. I guess it’s our job to lead the Muslims to Christ, though not by the sword.

  • madge hirsch

    Nonie Darwish makes the usual error of omission in her contention that Western societies’ success is due to Judeo Christian values. Our societies are also influenced by the values and thought of classical societies -Greek science, logic and rationalism and Roman law. There are even vestiges of Celtic traditions. It is Enlightenment values that have made our societies successful, encouraging scientific enquiry and individual human rights. Otherwise a good article.

  • محمد الأوروبي

    “…the Bible; a book outlawed by Islam under penalty of death…” source please?

  • Jim Robinson

    I will never summit to the muslim will or way.

  • mikeh420

    First of all Ms. Darwish, you’re assuming there exists something called Islamic Values. They have only one single Value; Death.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Yes, kick them out. This article is so down to earth. It explains the mindset of the so-called moderates who are the “useful idiots” of the violent jihadists. It’s both sad and offensive. I had a sign made by a Muslim sign maker. His father was there one day, and asked me what I thought about the minister who burned some Qu’rans in Florida. He was so appalled. I said that I didn’t believe in burning Qu’rans, but asked him what he thought about 80 churches being burned down in Egypt. I added, “If it had been 80 mosques, then you would really have seen the outrage.” At any rate, even though I had said that I disapproved of the Qu’ran burning, he never said one word about disapproving of the church burnings. His silence displays the true condition of his conscience, this hardworking “moderate” Muslim. I don’t intend to do business with him again, or any other Islamic business if I can avoid doing so in New York.

  • LibertyWriter

    God Hater.
    Godphobia

    • liz

      Do you hate Santa Claus?

  • Ghulam Mohiyuddin

    While ethnocentrism is a problem with Muslims, the author is wrong when she says “moderate Muslims” claim the U.S. Constitution is Sharia compliant. She does not know how to differentiate between moderate Muslims and Sharia promoting Muslims. Moderate Muslims favor learning from the U.S. Constitution, especially freedom of speech and freedom of worship.

  • Scott David Gray

    Hi Nonie,

    What you describe is a gross and disrespectful thing. But is not especially a disease in Islam. It is a disease among religious intellectuals broadly.

    During my days in a Catholic University I (Atheist with a Jewish family) would constantly hear people declare that I was “no true atheist, but a Christian because [I was] so nice/thoughtful/whatever.” That’s the moment in the conversation that I let them have it!

    –Scott

  • delta4ce7

    Biblical values are better understood by the term “golden rule” which is absent in Islam.

  • Guest

    Biblical values are described by the golden rule and Shaira is the precise opposite. Sharia, just like the way the Jews interpreted the Law of Moses, enslaves people to the letter of very harsh laws constantly increasing in number while the golden rule frees people from the oppression such of legalistic thinking.

  • delta4ce7

    Biblical values are described by the golden rule and Shaira is the precise opposite. Sharia, just like the way the Jews interpreted the Law of Moses, enslaves people to the letter of very harsh laws constantly increasing in number while the golden rule frees people from the oppression of such legalistic thinking.

  • DilloTank

    There are very accomplished scholars that believe the the Quran is very likely based on an ancient Christian teaching text, probably from a heretical Christian sect that denied the trinity. Hence the commonality of the moral values in the three monotheistic Western religions. You can find reference to this in Robert Spencer’s book, ‘Did Mohammed Exist’. A fascinating book.