Islamic spin continues

The following link has an audio interview from Radio New Zealand featuring a Kiwi convert named Abdullah to Islam. He is both candid and defensive. My comments on parts of the interview are set in the body of comment below.

Abdullah in the radio interview with National Radio New Zealand confessed that, like many Muslims, he doesn’t always pray 5 times a day, but that Allah looks at his intention (what? Allah reduced the number of daily prayers from 50 to 5 and this is the submission he gets!), said he could count the (Muslim) terrorists on one hand (a fringe group apparently, with no mention of their following the later revelations of the Quran and bringing terror just as that Allah in the Quran and Mohammad both said that they brought to non believers), mentioned David Koresh as an example of a violent “Christian” (note Koresh was one of the false messiahs that Jesus warned against and see also see below regarding a mark of a Christian), and described the Shiite /Sunni historical split as being where some “horrible things” happened, (at least a modicum of honesty there), but then attempted to convey some moral equivalence saying that there were some embarrassing things done after the death of “the prophet Jesus” (Note he didn’t deny the death of Jesus, but he no doubt would have if pressed on the point by a knowledgeable interviewer). After Mohammad died his followers had some vicious disputes over successors, as Mohammad wouldn’t appoint one. He deliberately omitted to do so. He knew he was dying and could have done so.

What Abdullah glossed over with respect to the killing of Ali and others was that those events were entirely different from anything after the death of Jesus. He referred to the as “tribal” but that suggest Islam as a religion could not rise above the culture of the time. Certainly Christians were persecuted after the death of Jesus by non Christians and the famous Saul of Tarsus was one of the worst but became a convert to Christianity and was transformed into peaceful man. If Abdullah meant that Jesus’ followers killed one another in brutal fights over succession he is wrong (but the tame interviewer who runs the programme didn’t seek clarification.). If what he meant was that some centuries later Christians killed fellow Christians and others then let’s look at the morality of those actions in the light of Jesus’ standards. Any “Christian” who (outside of being a soldier in a State army acting in obedience to its sovereign to fight for the State against an opposing State), killed “enemies” who opposed their religious beliefs/claims by the “might” of the pen or verbal jousting, could not claim to be a true follower of Christ .The Church as an institution needs to repent for what was done by many in the name of Christ. The Church today condemns these actions as unChrist like. They were ALWAYS unChristlike! Jesus was radical in telling his followers to pray for those who persecute you, not to murder them. This is one of the marks of a Christian, The difference is that any Muslim killing a non Muslim who in their view has insulted Allah or the prophet or is a “threat” to Islam can simply point to Mohammad for justification. Mohammad arranged the assassination of numerous opponents (including poets, singers and women). Now the consequence is that given Muhammad himself arranged assassinations of his opponents then the Islamic violence after his death was consistent with the modus operandi of Allah and his prophet, Jesus would have rebuked/condemned Mohammad for his violence, cruelty and lack of mercy. Islam ironically claims him as a Muslim prophet. The prophecy of Jesus that people will think they are killing as a “service to God.” directly applies to Mohammad and many of his followers, both ancient and modern. After Jesus’ death did his followers murder one another to gain power? No, because that conduct directly contradicted the teachings and conduct of Jesus. Peter had already been rebuked for using violence. Mohammad used his right hand thug Khalid as a means to terrorise non believers and force conversions particularly after the conquest of Mecca. The contrast is so obvious that Muslims like Abdullah (note the Arab name – the same name as Mohammad’s father meaning “slave of allah” this convert to Islam has taken) use spin to create what they think is “good PR” for their religion. Muslim apologists will argue it’s an extreme interpretation (of the Quran) that some Muslims today use as a justification to kill their enemies, but the problem with that argument is that Mohammad is the role model of Islam. What is the appropriate interpretation of the Quran given there is no context in the Quran? It is that which is consistent with the behaviour of Mohammad. Thus it is through the life of Mohammad. Seem as the final prophet of Allah, as recorded by Islam’s own (early) historians and scholars, that a proper interpretation of the Quran can be understood. That is the story Islam doesn’t want to get out in the open in an expansive way, and why the move to prohibit criticism of Mohammad is one of the objectives, along with welcoming revisionist rewriting of history by the likes of Armstrong and Ramadan. It otherwise leads to an undermining of the credibility of Islam in the “post Jesus exemplar epoch”. Jesus in contrast gave no authority or encouragement whatsoever to the Koreshs of this world. In fact Jesus warned his followers to be aware of them and not to follow them. Some aspects of the haj experienced by Abdullah also caught my attention. One was the general crushing of believers in Mecca during some of the haj rituals. He describes the haj process as “daunting”. What came to mind was the crushing of Mohammad’s chest by the being that accosted him in the cave (he believed it to be the angel Gabriel). The modern day collective crushing that occurs at the haj has some disturbing historical parallel with Mohammad’s “individual” encounter with that particular spiritual being (just as the Shiite version of Islam has a self mutilation ritual that has a historical parallel with the behaviour of the prophets of Baal: see 1Kings 18:28-29). Another point was Abdullah’s reference to “third world’ attendees being impoverished by travelling to the haj. Why does Allah condone the impoverishment of his followers for a ritual? Abdullah as a convert to Islam conveniently had his haj costs paid by the Saudis! Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well that God is spirit and a time is coming when God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth (not in or facing any city or site on earth). This is directly contradicted by the haj. Abdullah contrasted his “speaking up” as a Kiwi convert to Islam with that of Muslims who immigrate to New Zealand who he says practise modesty and don’t like to speak out. Maybe. They will however presumably have learned that what they have been taught from birth in their original country, about other religions and the privileged status of Islam and Muslims over others, isn’t accepted in democratic non Muslim countries that uphold freedom of religion and the right to change one’s religion and so on (the rule of law). I also suspect that they have yet to develop the spin doctoring skills needed to foster the “right” image.

I missed something.

Since when was Koresh a terrorist? Dangerous nut job? Maybe. Terrorist? Hardly.

If anything, Koresh is closer to Mohammed (self-proclaimed superior to Christ, and leader of his own seperatist sect) than to real Christians John Paul II or even self-proclaimed Christians like Katherine Jeffords Schori, Harry Reid, Lyndon Johnson or Ted Kennedy.

I will say this much: although the immediate successor of Christ did not war over succession, one could argue that was because they had no earthly power to war over. All the streams of Protestantism are born of war, and the Catholic church used war to suppress other previous schisms, until its military was too heavily expended fighting Muslims to triumph over Protestant armies.

The sinfulness of those who fought war have made all wars so much more horrible than they need be. All have sinned, so every army will be composed of sinners. But I will go further and assert that the notion that Christians should never fight for their religion is a heresy that almost destroyed Christianity in the face of Muslims.

Nonetheless, Christianity recognizes the need for warfare as a consequence of our own sin, but ultimately finds that convincing is far more powerful than warring. Islam glorifies warfare.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.