Tag Archives: Mohammed

Bill Lockwood: Islam, Christianity, and Roman Catholicism 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”

She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”

And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”

Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”

What About These Things?

While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.

This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.

Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.

This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.

Christianity

How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”

Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.

The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.

The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.

The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.

Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!

Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.

Islam

Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?

The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.

When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).

Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.

Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.

Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.

It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.

“We are All Muslim?” 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

“We are All Muslim?”- Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.”

by Bill Lockwood

National Public Radio website highlighted a “We are All Muslim” rally in New York City’s Times Square this past weekend. Designed to express solidarity with Muslims in protest to President Trump’s executive orders that temporarily suspends immigration from 7 terrorist nations which are predominantly Muslim, the rally was organized by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. The FFEU is a “coalition of religious groups led by record label founder Russell Simmons, Rabbi Marc Scheider and others…” Simmons decried that the president is intent on being a “wrecking ball … to destroy our nation’s foundation of freedom.”

Barack Obama’s stated goal for this nation was Fundamental Transformation. It appears he was successful at least to this degree: Liberals have fundamentally transformed their own thinking processes so that they have become mindless robots unwilling to examine basic structures of thought and doctrine. The Foundation apparently believes that more “ethnic understanding” will alleviate our problem.

First, Islam itself is a system of slavery. For example, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square and was later was sentenced to jail in 2010 defiantly told to the court: “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom.” Was Shahzad expressing some “extremist view” of Islam? Not at all. In reality, Islam is a system of totalitarian slavery that looks very different from freedom.

Imam al-Mawardi wrote in 1996 that because people reject Mohammed as a prophet Islam law “dictates that Jews and Christians may live in Islamic states, but not as equals with Muslims.” They must not build churches; they may be forced to quarter Muslims; they are subjected to humiliating regulations such as the payment of the “jizya”—a second-class citizen tax.

The Koran itself teaches that “men are better than women” (4:34); that a woman’s testimony in court is only one-half as valid as a man’s because “she is forgetful” and needs another to assist her memory; polygamy is taught only for the man. Chattel slavery itself was encouraged by Mohammed: “Marry women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one or a captive slave that your right hand possesses…” (4:3).

Michael Moore says, “We are all Muslim.” Really? Perhaps he ought remove his little ball cap, sit down and actually read the Koran; stand up like a man and tell us why he defends chattel slavery and expresses solidarity with it. Tell us, Michael Moore, why do you defend Mohammed who declared that women are only one-half as good as men? “We are all Muslim” can only mean you defend that doctrine.

Again, from the Koran: “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered—the freeman for the freeman; and the slave for the slave; and the female for the female” (2:178). The Jalalan Commentary on this verse says, “The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, … A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman.”

Slaves are “not equal” with freemen. This is Islam. Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.” Well, according to Islamic doctrine, you, Mikey, are not equal to Muslims. You are only one-half as valuable. Deal with it.

To really get the lesson, let some of these women, including the Muslim women who were wearing “American flag hijabs” in the New York rally and speaking out against Trump—go over to an Islamic nation such as Afghanistan or Pakistan—rally in the street, speak openly and socialize with men. The “equality” of Islamic ideals of which you speak would bring a severe beating and jail-time for public lewdness and daring to think that Islam gives you freedom of expression. Michael Moore is right that “we are all children of God” and should be treated this way, but basic inhuman principles of Islam are those with which we are dealing, and those are carried here by Muslim people.

Second, Islam is a system of totalitarian warfare. The supposed 124 verses in the Koran which teach “peace” are all “abrogated” by commands from Mohammed himself which call for violent war and jihad. All religious Muslim scholars attest to this fact. The last word in the Koran on how a Muslim is to deal with unbelievers is Surah 9:5, “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

According to the Suyuti scholars, “The order for Muslims to be patient and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but when they became strong they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated” (Part 3, p. 61). Ibn Arabi said, “The verse of the sword (9:5) has abrogated 124 verses.”

Samuel Zwemer (The Moslem World, 48) put it succinctly. “The spread of Islam in three continents for well-nigh twelve centuries was due to the power of the sword and to the law moral standards of the new faith.”  This is what Michael Moore and the FFEU are wishing to bring to America. Low moral standards.

Third, the Main Stream Media and liberals do not know what is real Christianity. A couple of years ago Michael Moore was hosted on “Real Time” with Bill Maher and related that the United States is in the “dark ages” because of the Christian right. He then equated “Christian extremism” with “Islamic extremism” (The Christian Post).

What Moore and his ilk refuse to see is that Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of the Middle Ages, which brought us the Dark Ages, is nothing akin to Christianity. The Roman system itself is bold apostasy from pure New Testament Christianity. It is nothing less than a crushing authoritative secular government joined with a few Christian principles. Nothing of the RCC hierarchy, the pope, the cardinals; nor any of its canon laws, its worship practices, its images, its peculiar doctrines or any vestige that makes the Roman Church Roman is found upon the pages of Holy Writ.

The Roman Church herself fielded armies and conquered territories just as has Islam. She persecuted to blood thousands of Christians for translating the Bible into the common vernacular. None of this is defensible biblically speaking. These are actions of a secular government, which is what is the Roman Church. The point here, however, is that it is popular to equate Muslim atrocities with so-called “Christian atrocities” of ages past. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Testament Christianity does not teach nor practice any of this, no more than our Lord Jesus Christ fielded armies to fight against the Romans.

We are not all Muslim. Some of us hold to Christian principles which instill freedom instead of oppression.

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad- “The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS.”

by Bill Lockwood

“Archaeological looting is a global issue that threatens the preservation of our shared cultural heritage” writes Robin Ngo in Biblical Archaeology Review in September, 2016.  “In the Middle East, archaeological looting and the deliberate destruction of archaeological sites and monuments amid ongoing warfare have captured international attention.”

In a related article (11-23-16) Marek Dospel soberly warns that “Cultural heritage around the globe is constantly under threat and needs to be protected not only as a constituent of peoples’ historical memory and identity, but also as the source of future dialogue and understanding between peoples and cultures.”

“While it is inevitable that what comes down to us from the material relics of the distant past is a mere shadow of what human talent has created, the new global phenomenon of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage can and should be prevented. Especially disturbing are images of material destruction related to immense human suffering in the Middle East, where scores of people are being killed or displaced every day and cultural heritage is being wiped out forever.”

The Ancient Lamassu

Articles in Biblical Archaeology Review have noted a number of UNESCO designated sites which have been obliterated by the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In total, thousands of sites and artifacts detailing ancient history have been destroyed by Islamic warriors. One of the cherished archaeological sites, for example, is the Nergal Gate, one of the gates into 7th century B.C. Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

“With sledgehammers and drills in hand, the ISIS insurgents toppled, smashed and defaced millennia-old antiquities as well as modern replicas,” Ngo lamented (ISIS Destroys Antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, 2-27-15).

Among the destroyed relics was a seventh-century sculpture of a lamassu (a human-headed winged lion). The lamassu was conceived by the ancient Assyrians to be a protective deity that guarded the Nergal Gate. Other similar sculptures at one time decorated the palace of Neo-Assyrian King Sargon II (721-705 B.C.). Sargon is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 20:1 as the monarch who attacked Ashdod and captured it.

Palmyra

Another devastating blow to historical and cultural heritages of the world is the recent destruction by Islamic warriors of a “landmark ancient Roman monument and parts of the theater in Syria’s historic town of Palmyra” (Fox News, 1-20-17).

“Militants destroyed the façade of the second-century theater along with the Tetrapylon, a cubic-shaped ancient Roman monument that sits in the middle of the colonnade road that leads to the theater.” Satellite images have verified these news reports coming out of Syria.

Also destroyed in Syria are many “ancient temples including the Temple of Bel, which dated back to A.D. 32, and the Temple of Baalshamin, a structure of stone blocks several stories high fronted by six towering columns.” The new report adds, “The militants also blew up the Arch of Triumph, which had been built under Roman emperor Septimius Severus between A.D. 193 and A.D. 211.”

Islam

The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS. This implies that if somehow the real Islam would rein-in these extremists, cultural sites would be safer. To civilization this is a fatal mistake.

Two years before his death, Mohammed was finally able to marshal enough forces to capture his old home of Mecca. Having waged relentless war against all tribal enemies on the peninsula of Arabia, he marched triumphantly into Mecca. By the time he died in 632 A.D., Islam had subjugated all Arabia. As part of this jihad Islam, led by Mohammed himself, annihilated the entire culture of the peninsula. This was not “extremist” or an example of many Muslims spinning out of Mohammed’s personal control. It is pure Sunna.

Upon Mohammed’s personal orders the entire city of Mecca was “purged” of what he perceived to be paganistic influence and all artwork, cultural artifacts, sculptures, and monuments were systematically destroyed. And so it has ever been. Civilization jihad.

Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be Hindu cultures. Where are the Hindu relics of old in these nations? The second caliph after Mohammed, Omar Ibn Al Khattab (about 645 A.D.) set fire to the library of Alexandria per the fatwa. The world itself lost several centuries of knowledge, thought, and history due to that Islamic fire. Egyptian culture was crushed.

The indigenous cultures of Afghanistan were Zoroastrian, Greek, Hellenistic, with some Buddhist and Hindu mixed in. Very little, if any, traces of those cultures remain today, and that is the way it has been since it was captured for Islam during the 7th through the 10th centuries.  Today 99.8% of the Afghan population is Muslim. The same story is re-told regarding any civilization that is dominated by Islam. This cannot be explained on the basis of persuasive thought-provoking reasoning, but only on the basis of violence.

Compare America’s history. Although a Christian culture as conceived by the Founders, it did not systematically destroy every artifact or historical vestige of the cultures that preceded it, even if misinformed liberals insist that “we” somehow “annihilated” the Indian peoples. Instead, the remnants of Indian tribes are carefully preserved in museums and archaeological remains are cherished. Nor was the population of America ever forcibly brought into the Christian Church.

But with Islam it is all about Civilization Jihad. As Islam gains ground, down will come such time-honored sights such as the Washington monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and certainly Moses will be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court building. The ACLU will assist in this, and Bible verses will certainly be purged from the collective American memory.

If Americans wish to honor and protect their own cultural heritages or memories, and even their own civilization which gives them their identity as a peoples, understanding the extreme danger of Islam itself is paramount. Tragic it is that with the advance of Islam the world itself loses its heritage.

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA-“Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning?”

by Bill Lockwood

According to The Daily Caller, a group of 469 professors and students “at the University of Virginia (UVA) are calling for the school’s president to stop quoting school founder Thomas Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson was a slave owner.” The public letter composed by the group went on to add that “We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it.”

In a related story, “the president of San Francisco’s board of education wants to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the names of all tax-payer funded schools in the city because the forefathers owned slaves.” The San Francisco Examiner reports that “Board of Education President Matt Haney is expected to introduce a resolution as early as next week encouraging schools in the San Francisco Unified School District that bear the names of men with questionable human rights legacies to consider proposing new monikers.”

The Examiner explains that “The idea came to him after listening to a sermon Sunday at Third Baptist Church, a black church in the Western Addition, about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting the national anthem in recent weeks. The song’s slave-owning author, Francis Scott Key, has a school named after him in the Outer Sunset.”

Why the Selected Slavery?

What shall we say to these things? First, I suppose the UVA crowd and the San Francisco authorities will be banning the reading of the Koran and building mosques. If it is SLAVERY that they so despise, then consistency drives them to ban the Koran because it teaches “chattel slavery” as a continuing positive institution endorsed by Allah. “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if ye fear ye shall not deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive [slave] that your right hand possesses …” (Surah 4:3).

Mohammed himself was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had non-believing men killed so that their women and children could be made slaves (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, 466). He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned slaves, even a black slave by the name of Safina, whom he called “ship” because he carried Mohammed’s baggage for him.

Mohammed passed around slaves to his lieutenants that they might be used for sex. He stood by while others beat slaves. After one major battle he enjoyed the pleasures of forced sex with the widows of men he had recently slain. He captured slaves and wholesaled them in order to finance jihad. Mohammed received slaves as gifts from other rulers.

Mohammed’s pulpit from which he preached was made by slaves; he ate food prepared by slaves; he approved of an owner’s having sex with his slaves. The “prophet of Islam” put it right into the Koran for modern-day Muslims that they may “own those whom their right hand possesses.”  Slavery has always been a part of Islam; it is taught in the Muslim holy book.

Will our professors and student body at UVA therefore ban the Koran, or ban mosques, or ban Muslims? No. Because like all wild-eyed liberal, socialist and/or communistic societies, it is only our America, and its foundations, that they love to hate—not the institution of slavery.

Second, it would be interesting to hear the professors at UVA define slavery. I am going to launch out here and suggest that they do not even understand what is slavery. What is slavery? We normally say, “one person owned by another.” But what is it to “own” another? It means that all my production belongs to someone else. In other words, I work for free for someone else, and not on a voluntary basis.

Slavery is a “legal or economic system” in which the “principles of property law” are applied to persons. In other words, “While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave’s labor, without any remuneration” (Encyclopedia Britannica online).  A person is a SLAVE if he or she is “forced to work for another person without ability on the worker’s part to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.” Forcibly using one person by another. Forced labor is “the forced exploitation of a person’s labor.”

Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning? For this. Many college students are completely in the dark, made so by liberal professorships. A government that forcibly removes the production of my labor, or forces me to labor for others is practicing slavery. But this is exactly the definition of SOCIALISM. Socialism is slavery at the government level. But this the professors want! See the vast numbers of college students who supported Bernie Sanders—the avowed socialist.

ObamaCare, which is on the way out, is a perfect illustration of socialism. Doctors may have financed their own education to the tune of a million dollars and need to re-coup their costs by the fees they charge—but Big Brother Government FORCES them to work for free. It steals their production and re-distributes it among others. This forcible labor the government calls “caring for the poor.” Collegiate masses favored this system of plunder!

If UVA professors or the San Francisco mayor wish to oppose slavery, they can start with the modern-day version of it—socialistic government. The legs of the lame are not equal. Slavery to the White House is fine with them; but slavery to a white’s house in American history is criminal.

Third, the Founding Fathers with one voice condemned slavery. It was a horrific institution which they tried to expunge from America from the colonial period forward. Thomas Jefferson’s first effort as a representative at the Virginia state assembly was to abolish slavery. The year was 1776. He and Madison both wished to clear out the “rubbish of feudalism, aristocracy, and slavery.” His proposed bill would eradicate slavery in one generation. The reason it did not occur was due to the fact that England forbade it. The founders later put right into the Constitution that slave trafficking would cease within 20 years of 1787 (Article 1.9.1).

At least the Founders were honest about it, recognizing that an institution which they had been born with was evil. They all set it on a course for extinction. The UVA letter also repeats the unfounded allegation against Thomas Jefferson that he had illegitimate children by Sally Hemings, a black slave he owned. Once again, what is occurring on campuses or in the halls of San Francisco government is nothing less than hatred of America. It is on display as they continue to libel the Founders of our great nation.