I've researched Islam for the past few years. Multiculturalism is a kind of intelligence work, and seeing as the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security felt that they were in full control of the nation (and hats off! they're doing very well even without my assistance) I decided to investigate on my own.
As a crippled, misguided man with some good ideas wrote, "If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." And any kind of intelligence work is spiritually very dangerous for this reason. I do not recommend multicultural investigation to anyone. My research coincided with a few breakfasts where I skipped the bacon (metaphorically speaking, of course, because bacon).
The Landover Baptist Church has found a strange ally in Islam at times. According to the principle that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, we've found common ground on issues like the advancement of women's rights. But just as we threw off femifascism after our work with McKinnon on indecency was advanced, it's long past time to abandon our alliance with Islam (as President Trump wisely recognizes). When the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy, our enemy is our friend, our friend is a friend of the enemy, and sea anemones are more accurately regarded as sea frenemies. Today, our friends are the bored, angry Redditors who helped us elect our Chief Executive Donald Trump. And Christopher Hitchens, rest in eternal torment.
The Origin of Islam
The main prophet of Islam was a man named Muhammad, a dangerous man who claimed to see visions-- something any modern Muslim would recognize as mental illness. Like the leader of any dangerous cult, Mohammed wanted to be a king. But he had a problem: the only people who might be soldiers for him were atheists and pagans.
If you've ever had the misfortune of fighting alongside an atheist, you'll understand the implications. The problem with atheist soldiers is that they are very cowardly. Because they recognize that they will burn for eternity in a lake of fire upon their death, they're eager to preserve their own lives for as long as possible. Even when they feel that their own lives are in minimal danger, atheists and pagans are reluctant to kill.
Muhammad had an ingenious carrot-and-stick solution. He told his soldiers that if they died in his service, those soldiers wouldn't really die. Instead, they'd go to some kind of Disney-like fantasy land where everything was perfect. But if they didn't do what Muhammad ordered, they wouldn't go to Disneyworld. Not that they'd die: instead, they'd get tortured. Maybe for a long time, maybe forever, the dogma isn't totally clear on this.
It's hard for modern Christians to understand how anyone could fall for a lie this absurd. But remember, this was the 7th century. The King James Bible had yet to be penned. Nonsensical superstition was widespread. Muhammad didn't convince everyone, but he convinced a few of the more gullible. And since he was fighting cowardly pagans and atheists, a few was enough.
Still, there was a problem. Even though his soldiers were willing to die, they weren't necessarily willing to kill. Muhammed took advantage of something known as tribalism. He recognized that the root of empathy is shared experience, and if you want to reduce or eliminate empathy, you reduce or eliminate shared culture.
Hence, no pork. No plucking your eyebrows. No yellow clothes. No dogs. These restrictions seem arbitrary and absurd to us, but they had an important role for Mohammed. They established a cultural identity for Islam. Each of these restrictions was a way in which each of Mohammed's warriors were like each other and unlike the people they were tasked with murdering. Each of these seemingly arbitrary rules made Islam's enemies less and less like Islam's fanatics-- that is, easier to torture, rape, and kill.
Connection to the Left
Let's take a detour for a moment and compare Mohammed's techniques to more recent enemies of Christ.
Think about Stalin. Today Stalin is widely recognized as the natural consequence of atheism run amok. And I hear a lot of you saying, "How can Stalin be an atheist and a Muslim at the same time?"
Atheism and Islam are not incompatible. There is only one God. He has only one name, and it is Jesus or God or the Lord. His name is not Allah. And since there is only one God, any rejection of Him is a rejection of God. Full stop. Literally, Islam is one head of the hydra named Atheism. All Muslims are atheists.
But look also at Stalin's techniques to unify his Soviet. He faced the same problems: his warriors didn't want to die, and they didn't want to kill. And he crafted an ideology that worked very similarly to Mohammed's. Where Mohammed promised an Owl Creek Bridge paradise, Stalin promises a false eternity in the memory of man. Where Mohammed says, "No yellow," Stalin rushes to define communism in opposition to capitalism and Christianity, creating a new Soviet culture of intolerance. There is no empathy in Stalin's sick Russia for people like you or I-- we are completely different, and no Russian should bat an eye at the thought of viciously murdering us. (Thankfully, Russia has since wisely embraced capitalism, and is united under the benevolent thumb of President Putin. Under the leadership of Donald Trump, the similarities between our governments and policies gives us great grounds for empathy, practically guaranteeing peace between our two great nations.)
The modern Left has been researching a technique they call othering
. This is just another name for the tribalism mastered by Mohammed and Stalin. And I warn you, from what I've seen, the left is mastering the technique. We rightly regard them as a bunch of cry-baby pussies, but as Bear-Stearns wisely remarked in one of their educational television shorts, "Past performance does not guarantee future results," said wisdom being how I recognized them as the ideal company to manage my retirement fund after I understood the inherently socialist nature of Social Security, may it collapse soon. When Hillary Clinton succeeds in convincing her foot soldiers that they have no grounds for empathy with anyone on the right, they will launch an attack on America. Make no mistake, the end times approach.
Islam after Muhammed and the Conan
Like all men, Muhammed died. As with the death of all autocrats, this left a vacuum in the military and ideological structure he built. And as with the death of all autocrats, his lieutenants rushed to fill this vacuum. They wanted to continue Muhammed's conquests, and the suicide-bomber army that Muhammed had created still existed, but they had a problem. Muhammed had built his army on the principle that he, Muhammed, was the prophet of Allah. Muhammed's word was law. But the word of his lieutenants was not.
Enter the Conan. This is the collection of Muhammed's teachings that Muslims venerate today. Officially, the Conan is the beginning and end of any spiritual questions for Muslims.
Yet the Conan is a book written by man, not by God. And as a book written by man, it is necessarily incomplete and confusing. God would not reveal Himself to humanity through riddles, because He loves us and doesn't want to torture us for eternity, even though He obviously would be bound to lovingly torture us if we rejected His love, the same that I have to torture anyone rejecting my love. That's why the Bible is such a perfect book: it requires no interpretation; the meaning of each passage is written in the plain 17th century English that all people understand. The fact that the Conan is an incomplete, imperfect work authored by man is obvious in the fact that it is written in Arabic, a language that almost nobody understands, and that it has required continuing interpretation throughout the centuries. Muslims can't even agree on how to spell the title of the book, much less what it says!
Don't trust me though. Ask the Conan itself:
Conan 3:7 It is God who has sent down to you the book: In it are verses clear, they are the foundation of the book, others are unspecific.
It's not clear whether that verse is supposed to be one of the clear ones or one of the unspecific ones.
God loves us. He is very specific in his commands. Allah is not specific. Allah does not love us. Allah seeks to divide us from God.
This lack of specificity permits widely differing interpretations of the Conan. As we'll see, these differing interpretations form a crutch for "moderate" Muslims to continue to reject Christ and pretend that they are not all latent terrorists.
Islam is a cult of blind obedience
After the American victory in World War II, we roundly recognized that Hitler is a villain-- maybe a tragic villain, maybe more of an anti-hero, but on the balance, not somebody worth emulating. We set about dismantling Hitler's empire and punishing those that served him. We encountered a lot of amoral people who said, "Hey, Hitler was the bad guy, I was just doing what I was told."
God loves freedom. We know this, because even though He is all-powerful, He gives us the freedom of choice to decide whether to love Him and live or to ignorantly hate Him and suffer unimaginable pain for all of eternity. Through His actions, he constantly reminds us of this freedom. Although He could effortlessly wipe tragedy from our lives, He instead graciously permits, for example, cancer, so that we can more easily exercise the freedom to reject Him if we so wish. God doesn't say, "Do what I say, because I'm God." No, He has too much love for us to do that. Instead, He says, "Do what I say, or else you'll burn." He offers us a choice. And so we, as Christians, understand that there's no absolution for following orders. Each of our decisions is an individual moral responsibility that we must bear alone.
I want to tell you a story from the Conan. Muhammed is not the only revered figure of Islam. There are others. One is a man named Ibrahm. There are a lot of stories about Ibrahm, but I want to focus on one, because it gives a clear demonstration of the blindly obedient, freedom-hating nature of Islam.
Ibrahm is someone that modern physicians would recognize as batshit crazy
. (Don't tell the Muslims that, though, or they'll very peacefully kill you.) He hallucinated on a regular basis. On one occasion, he hallucinated that Allah told him to murder his son, Ishmael.
Now, as true Christians, none of us could ever countenance child sacrifice. If even our own fathers commanded us to kill our children, we would rightfully refuse. If my father said to me, "If you don't do as I say, you will be disrespecting me," then I would tell him, "If you command me to child sacrifice, then you are unworthy of respect." And this is the obvious way that any right-minded Christian would behave, because we're not Nazis, even if maybe the history books have been a little harder on Nazism than is really justified, just because some of their ideas were kind of ahead-of-the-curve.
Of course, it was not even his father that commanded Ibrahm. It was a hallucination. But Ibrahm didn't hesitate. He was committed to child sacrifice until the point that he had another hallucination that told him not to.
Is this a warning story to Muslims of the danger of following orders? Of the risks of blind obedience? Is it an early understanding of mental illness? It is not. As I wrote earlier, Ibrahm is revered. That blind obedience to Allah is at the heart of Islam.
Islam is not a peaceful religion
If you spend any time around Muslims (but please do not!
), you will soon encounter one who tells you that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not.
The vague nature of the Conan leaves the opportunity for so-called moderate Muslims to deny its teachings. Do they really believe it, or are they just being sly? Christ alone knows; you or I know not. When they say Islam is a religion of peace, what are they comparing it to? Tengri?
Consider the concept of apostasy. I know it's a big word-- I had to look it up myself. It refers to the abandonment of faith. Christians know about apostasy:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
1 Timothy 4:1
And indeed, it being the latter times, many have departed the faith. This is further proof of the incontrovertible divinity of the Bible. God knows all that will pass, including exactly how our freedom will manifest in response to God's actions. He knows exactly which of us will freely abandon his teachings in response to the apparently meaningless death of our loved ones and thus be condemned to Hell out of our own free will. Christianity recognizes that much apostasy is due to foreign agitation, and that we must put false prophets to death.
But Christianity also understands that without the God-forseen freedom to abandon God's love and embrace the pit, our love for God is nothing.
Muslims understand no such thing, because Islam is a religion of blind obedience. Abandoning Islam (which includes embracing Christianity) is to be punished by death. This has been recognized throughout the centuries by Islamic scholars, a conclusion reached by careful consideration of a text which, for all its faults, is unchanging, and which is faithfully reproduced.
Yet today, many Muslims argue that the Conan does not in fact support the death penalty for apostasy. If Islam is a religion of peace, they argue, and death is necessarily violent, the two are incompatible. They're absolutely right! Islam is a religion of violence. And the answer to it is to embrace Christianity and wipe the false prophets of Islam from the face of the earth with a flaming, nuclear sword. That's a clear conclusion for Christians, because we are humble. We recognize that our own reasoning is vulnerable to error. We do not try to interpret the Bible. We read God's word, and knowing that He loves us, we follow it.
Muslims have no such humility. They believe, after centuries of study that said the opposite, that they are the ones uniquely capable of interpreting their vague "holy" text. They are arrogant, without any respect for even their own traditions.
As Christians, we know how to evaluate the truth of statements. It is by their fruits. We look at fossils and rightly reject them, because their fruits-- the expansion of the false teachings of evolution, the rejection of Christ and the embrace of death-- are so clearly poisonous. When "scientists" tell us that the world is warming, we wisely, serenely ask, "What fruit flowers from this teaching?" And when we see that the fruits are economic stagnation and the slow erosion of American global superiority, we know that this teaching is false. QED. Christ taught us that truth is not something reached by deduction, not something reached by evidence, but something that we can evaluate on the basis of how it affects our lives. Evidence can only lead us astray.
Even if these moderate Muslims' arguments about interpretation are correct, what are the fruits of Islam? Despite their objections that Islam is not violent, Muslims have been engaged in nearly non-stop war, and have been engaging in terrorism since the time of Muhammed. If moderate Muslims want Christians to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, do not try to convince us of that by pointing to your arbitrary text. In fact, stop trying to convince us at all-- convince your violent, freedom-hating brethren.
These moderate Muslims invoke the long-recognized No True Scotsman
fallacy. They say, "Those might be Muslims, but they're not True Muslims™, because Islam is a religion of peace." They define Islam as they see fit-- not by the easily misunderstood teachings of the Conan, but by their own prejudice. They redefine the term in order to hold on to a sense of tradition for their modern beliefs, a tradition that simply doesn't exist.
Even as they (supposedly) reject the violence of Islam, they hold on to the identity, they hold on to those cultural traits that allow themselves to identify as one thing and good Christian Americans as another. And when violence erupts, which it will-- indeed it is erupting!-- there will be no room for subtle arguments of doctrine. Violence demands solidarity, and interpretation falls to the side to make way for Islamic identity. The shared culture means that moderate Muslims will side with their violent brethren and not with the Christian forces of freedom and democracy. Even when an individual moderate Muslim is too old to embrace war, it happens with their children, because young people are fundamentally immoderate.
If moderate Muslims truly embrace peace, they cannot hold on to a historically violent identity. They cannot permit that shared culture, polluted by a long and undeniable history, to drag their children into radicalism. If they reject violence, they reject traditional Islam, and even if they cannot bring themselves to the light of Christ, they are not the True Muslims™. They are the false Muslims, a modern creation like scientology or Wicca or Methodism. The only way that moderate Muslims can prove that they are peaceful is through the complete rejection of violent Islam, a rejection that would be a rejection of the arbitrary, tribalistic othering of Christians-- or of anyone!--and a rejection even of the name.