Obama's Ignorance of Islam

[Warrior-Mentor]

College professor Timothy R. Furnish exposes some of the falsehoods about Islam and jihad that Obama retailed in his acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize for Nothing:

Toward the end of his speech the President lapsed into banalities that bordered on intentional misrepresentations. His line about "those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam" has become boilerplate on the Left, invoked like a talisman every time Islam is mentioned.

But it is nonetheless pure fantasy.

As I and other commentators (Ray Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, among others) have pointed out numerous times, those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam and Muhammad are in no wise "distorting" or "defiling" the world's second-largest religion--they are, rather, simply taking literally the violence enshrined in the Qur'an and emulating the historical example of Muhammad himself.

Obama then followed with the second axiom of American liberals when discussing Islam--be sure to adduce the Crusades: "these [Islamic] extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded." Why, yes they are, Mr. President. But there are thousands of years of human history preceding the Crusades, many also amply recorded, and wars in the name of God long pre-date what the medieval Catholic Christians did.

In fact, one only has to go back a few hundred years prior to the First Crusade of the 11th century to see that Muslim armies violently overran Christian lands in Egypt, Anatolia, North Africa and Spain--all in the name of Allah. But of course Muslims and Islam can never be held to account, according to our President's worldview, for their invocation of Allah to kill, conquer and enslave. Those depredations must have been carried out by just a few "extremists," no doubt embittered by something one of George Bush's ancestors had done.

Obama's final bit of pro-Muslim propaganda was a line he also employed in his Cairo address earlier this year, his ahistorical claim that "one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

This line is actually said by Jesus in Matthew 7:12: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (NASB)." Christianity, obviously, teaches this; so too does rabbinical Judaism and, in a more negative form ("don't do to others what you would not have them do to you"), Buddhism.

But Islam teaches no such doctrine! A loving attitude toward others is simply not one of the (alleged) revelations given by Allah to Muhammad in the Qur'an. And this is far more than merely some abstruse point of theology, akin to how many jinn can dance on the head of a pin.

This matters, for if our Commander-in-Chief and those who take their cue from him--miliary leaders, diplomats, intelligence analysts--get such a basic point of Islamic theology and history wrong, how on earth can we expect to win not just the military conflict but, more importantly, the ideological one against Islam?

SOURCE:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/obama-wins-the-nobel-prize-for-ignorance-of-islam.html

[Chosin Soldier]

Is there any Mullah that presents a credible, logical interpretation of the Koran as non-violent?

-cs

[testedone]

Is there any Mullah that presents a credible, logical interpretation of the Koran as non-violent?

-rking

I would have to say no, if there was one he would be lying... I like Mr. Spencer and the others quoted above but..I always like to find out for myself, I have read the Qur'an and studied it, and find what is posted above to be true, plus if you weigh this with the historical facts...well..to me it's an easy case... But that's just me ;)

:munchin

[beans]

I heard Jihad translates to "struggle". What was that famous book hitler put so much emphasis on. . . . oh yeh Mein Kampf, it also means struggle. Any correlation here?

[T-Rock]

College professor Timothy R. Furnish exposes some of the falsehoods about Islam and jihad that Obama retailed in his acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize for Nothing

I’m picking up a book today by Furnish, I can hardly wait to read it… :D

…Obama then followed with the second axiom of American liberals when discussing Islam--be sure to adduce the Crusades..



While I’m no Catholic and I certainly disagree with some of the atrocities committed by the Crusaders, it really chaps my A$$ how the liberal leftists self-flagellate the topic of the Christian Crusades along with western Imperialism - being that America didn’t partake in the Crusades.

Unless I am mistaken, Clinton exacerbated/started this crap during a speech at Georgetown University when he embellished the exploits that occurred in Jerusalem in 1099, totally ignoring the fact that the Crusades were entirely a defensive war to turn back the tide of Islamic aggression and Islamic Imperialism.

In fact, the Christian Crusades were a direct response to the Muslim Crusades.

Do we see self-flagellating Muslims today, wringing their hands in response to the atrocities committed by Muslims over 4 centuries ago - e.g., the Muslim Crusades?

What is so wrong about attempting to turn back the tide of Islamic aggression or defending civilized countries against Islamic conquest whose desire is to implement Shariah Law?

The problem is with Islamic Imperialism and Islamic aggression that continues this very day.

Had the MUSLIM Crusaders beaten their swords into plowshares, Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus would never have written Pope Urban II in 1094 requesting assistance against the Islamic invasions of his territory.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

Sorry for the rant, nevertheless, here is an awesome documentary regarding the “Crusades” and Islamic aggression:
http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/a/7398C647F839FF21/0/--TpCJF68uc

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/a/7398C647F839FF21/1/1WZYZ5CqT1Q

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/a/7398C647F839FF21/2/ZSgpkG416oE

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/3/rweS_Dwad4k

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/4/6nOg7_0UHQ8

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/5/vUuH2G7dPFk

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/6/C8MCl0bHVXo

http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/7/tdabtVzZi2E

[HowardCohodas]

Obama's Ignorance of Islam

Just because he says it doesn't mean he believes it. There are just too many examples of this constant battle with the truth. He says what he says for the audience and his convenience.

[Warrior-Mentor]

I’m picking up a book today by Furnish, I can hardly wait to read it… :D



This one?

http://www.amazon.com/Holiest-Wars-Islamic-Mahdis-Jihads/dp/0275983838/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

[AngelsSix]

Just because he says it doesn't mean he believes it. There are just too many examples of this constant battle with the truth. He says what he says for the audience and his convenience.

I have found this to be true, all across the board...even in the military, the senior leadership pandering to the command section....then the command changes hands and they all say they had to do that because their "hands were tied". People will do anything to save their own bacon these days, even at the cost of screwing the troops below them....part of that "me, me, me" mentality that now pervades our society.

[Richard]

Yeah...the future just ain't what it used to be. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[FirstClass]

Had the MUSLIM Crusaders beaten their swords into plowshares, Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus would never have written Pope Urban II in 1094 requesting assistance against the Islamic invasions of his territory.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

Sorry for the rant, nevertheless, here is an awesome documentary regarding the “Crusades” and Islamic aggression:
http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/a/7398C647F839FF21/0/--TpCJF68uc

[

in this article the author states, "Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus."

Someone has'nt read through Luke...Luke 19-27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Yes Jesus said this in a parable, but he is no doubt the king in his story.
HOWEVER! I believe that this is a fundamental passage that shows the heart of Christianity; for christians do not use this passage as an excuse to commit murder. It is undeniable, it is right there plain as day, Jesus has given us permission to kill anyone who is not and will not accept him as king. It has been two thousand years, and yet that passage has faded from our sermons, our knowledge, our teaching. We read over it and don't take a second look at it. Christians do not want war, they want peace.

[testedone]

in this article the author states, "Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus."

Someone has'nt read through Luke...Luke 19-27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Yes Jesus said this in a parable, but he is no doubt the king in his story.
HOWEVER! I believe that this is a fundamental passage that shows the heart of Christianity; for Christians do not use this passage as an excuse to commit murder. It is undeniable, it is right there plain as day, Jesus has given us permission to kill anyone who is not and will not accept him as king. It has been two thousand years, and yet that passage has faded from our sermons, our knowledge, our teaching. We read over it and don't take a second look at it. Christians do not want war, they want peace.


The issue being addressed here is the future of those that rejected Christ in particular he is addressing the Jews of this time and their (Jews) future destruction for rejection of Christ, this is not as Pope Urban II took it to mean and start the first crusade...many who oppose Christianity use this verse and reference to show how Christianity is no different then Islam..

Context is important in all reading...


I have yet to find a biblical scholar both past and present read this verse as an license to kill those that reject Christ..

Her are so note from John Gill (He's dead)

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies,.... Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah; and rebelled against him, and would not submit to his government; and were enemies to his people, and were exceeding mad against them, and persecuted them; and to his Gospel, and the distinguishing truths of it, and to his ordinances, which they rejected against themselves:

which would not that I should reign over them; see Luke 19:14

bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies; and to this the parable has a special respect, and of which Christ more largely discourses in this chapter; see Luk_19:41 though it is true of all natural men, that they are enemies to Christ; and so of all negligent and slothful professors, and ministers of the word, who, when Christ shall come a second time, of which his coming to destroy the Jewish nation was an emblem and pledge, will be punished with everlasting destruction by him; and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed, sin, Satan, the world, and death: of the first of these the Jews say (n),


Matthew Henry's notes


Those mine enemies bring hither, Luk_19:27. When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews; then it is remembered against them that they had particularly disclaimed and protested against his kingly office, when they said, We have no king but Caesar, nor would own him for their king. They appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar they shall go; Caesar shall be their ruin. Then the kingdom of God appeared when vengeance was taken on those irreconcileable enemies to Christ and his government; they were brought forth and slain before him. Never was so much slaughter made in any war as in the wars of the Jews. That nation lived to see Christianity victorious in the Gentile world, in spite of their enmity and opposition to it, and then it was taken away as dross. The wrath of Christ came upon them to the uttermost (1Th_2:15, 1Th_2:16), and their destruction redounded very much to the honour of Christ and the peace of the church. But this is applicable to all others who persist in their infidelity, and will undoubtedly perish in it. Note, [1.] Utter ruin will certainly be the portion of all Christ's enemies; in the day of vengeance they shall all be brought forth, and slain before him. Bring them hither, to be made a spectacle to saints and angels; see Jos_10:22, Jos_10:24. Bring them hither, that they may see the glory and happiness of Christ and his followers, whom they hated and persecuted. Bring them hither, to have their frivolous pleas overruled, and to receive sentence according to their merits. Bring them, and slay them before me, as Agag before Samuel. The Saviour whom they have slighted will stand by and see them slain, and not interpose on their behalf. [2.] Those that will not have Christ to reign over them shall be reputed and dealt with as his enemies. We are ready to think that none are Christ's enemies but persecutors of Christianity, or scoffers at least; but you see that those will be accounted so that dislike the terms of salvation, will not submit to Christ's yoke, but will be their own masters. Note, Whoever will not be ruled by the grace of Christ will inevitably be ruined by the wrath of Christ.


e-Sword used as reference

[T-Rock]

You were a little more quick on the draw than I testedone :D

Yes Jesus said this in a parable, but he is no doubt the king in his story.
HOWEVER! I believe that this is a fundamental passage that shows the heart of Christianity; for christians do not use this passage as an excuse to commit murder.

Nor should they….because this passage (19:27) is frequently taken out of context. The point of Luke 19:27, are those in a parable (see verse 11), referencing future prophecy regarding Revelation 7:14 - a war initiated by the enemies of Christ - in which the “Lamb” (Christ) - will end up being the one that does the slaying - JUSTICE SERVED :D


19:43 "For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,
19:44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because * you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
"These will wage war against the Lamb , and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." Revelation 17:14

The notion that Jesus historically encouraged his followers to slay people in the gospels for conquest is absurd..

Franklin Graham made a good point to Campbell Brown on CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ-70iHCK_Y&feature=related

It is interesting though - to compare the two different motives of those who were directly involved in the Crusades:

-Islamic Crusade Motivation-

“You who believe, shall I show you a bargain (martyrdom) that will save you from painful punishment”? (61:10)


'I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits (war booty) they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.' (Khalid al-Walid)


-Christian motivation-

“Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:3)

Two goals that were mandated by Urban II (1), rescue the Christians of the East. (2), liberate Jerusalem.

“How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?” (Pope Urban II)

[spherojon]

It seems that Obama has show ignorance of 2 religions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8&NR=1

[Warrior-Mentor]

It seems that Obama has show ignorance of 2 religions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8&NR=1

This is an interesting video series. Recommend watching all 7 parts.

And Obama's many things, but ignorant of islam is not one of them.

Despite the [tongue in cheek] name of this thread, you do the math...