….. The main texts of Islam are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Qur’an is the Uncreated and Literal Word of God. It cannot be changed. It contains contradictions within itself, which long ago were resolved in favor of what are thought to be the later, and harsher verses. The “harsher” verses are said to date from Muhammad’s time in Medina, after he conquered that city. No longer needing to curry favor with anyone, as he had had to do in Mecca, he could afford to be as harsh as he pleased. The interpretive vehicle for dealing with contradictions in the Qur’an, and favoring the later verses, is “abrogation” or naskh. The doctrine dates back more than a millennium. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the doctrine be abandoned, so that the harsher verses no longer would be held to abrogate the softer verses from Muhammad’s “Meccan” period. This is unlikely to be accepted by more than a handful of would-be “reformers of Islam.”
The Hadith are the written records of what Muhammad said and did. In the centuries immediately following the death of Muhammad, tens of thousands of Hadith were recorded by imaginative Muslims. It became the job of specialists – muhaddithin – to study the existing Hadith, so as to determine with what degree of confidence to believe in the reliability of any given Hadith. These muhaddithin in the main relied on the study of the isnad-chain – that is, study of the transmission through time of each Hadith. Thus if A heard a story from B, who heard it from C, who heard from D, back as far as possible, and the closer that chain reached to the time of Muhammad and an eyewitness to what he said or did, the more “authentic” that story was deemed to be.
The muhaddithin did make the study of isnad-chains into a laborious and, by our lights, sterile pseudo-science, and in so doing did manage to winnow the tens of thousands of existing Hadith down to about 4,000 (the number of Hadith in the two collections deemed most reliable). There are many collections of Hadith. But six collections of them, identified by the word “Sahih,” by different muhaddithin, are regarded as the most reliable. And among those six, the two compiled by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are treated with the greatest respect. Rather than employing an Accept/Reject system, the muhaddithin established categories of likely authenticity, and proceeded to rank each Hadith according to four levels of reliability, based on study of each Hadith’s isnad-chain. A Hadith that is assigned a high rank of authenticity by Al-Bukhari or Muslim will have much greater authority for Muslims than a Hadith that is assigned to the lowest rank of authenticity by them, or given a middle rank by one of the muhaddithin deemed less authoritative.
The Sira is the name given to the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The Hadith, which are stories, not in chronological order, about the acts and sayings of Muhammad, also contain miscellaneous information about everything from the treatment of women, to the origin of the universe, to music and musical instruments, to the correct methods of bathroom hygiene, to views on dogs and statues, and much more. The Sira, by contrast, tells the story of Muhammad, in chronological order, and in particular, it tells of the progressive revelation, over 23 years, by the Angel Gabriel, of Allah’s Message to Muhammad, Messenger of God, Seal of the Prophets. The very first, and indispensable, contribution to “the Biography of Muhammad” is believed to be that by Ibn Ishaq, who lived some 150 years after Muhammad had died. And that biography is preserved thanks to one Ibn Hisham, who copied it down and incorporated it into one of his own works. Non-Muslim scholars differ as to how much faith can be put in a biography composed 150 years after the death of its subject, and preserved in a copy written by someone else (and possibly subject to scribal error), but Muslims do not question what is contained in the Sira, just as they believe in the Hadith and in the ranking systems for the Hadith by those they consider the most authoritative muhaddithin.
All the biographies of Muhammad by Muslims are hagiographical; no matter what he did, Muhammad could do no wrong. He is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (“uswa husana”) and the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”). The Sira is, in large part, based on the information contained in the Hadith, but aside from its chronological organization (lacking in the Hadith), the Sira offers other information, not to be found in the Hadith, about the times in which Muhammad lived, just as the Hadith contains much information not to be found in the Sira. There is considerable overlap between the Hadith and Sira, but they are not the same.
The texts – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been the subjects of generations of commentators. A commentary on the Qur’an is called a tafsir, and the commentaries are particularly important because the language, and meaning, of much of the Qur’an require elucidation; some passages are simply unfathomable. The scholar Christoph Luxenberg (an alias), is a philologist who is a native speaker of Arabic, and a great authority on Syriac (the version of Aramaic spoken in the region of Edessa). For years he has been startling the world of Qur’anic studies by claiming that 20% of the Qur’an is incomprehensible even to native speakers familiar with classical Arabic. Luxenberg believes that the Ur-text of the Qur’an is Syriac, possibly the language of a Christian lectionary; he argues that many of the knottiest philological problems in the Qur’an are susceptible of solution if one posits such an Ur-text, written not in Arabic but in Aramaic, or rather in that version of Aramaic known as Syriac. He has been winning converts to this view among non-Muslim Qur’anic scholars, but few Muslims, obviously, can allow themselves to accept Luxenberg’s view. Even without the Luxenberg controversy, It is not possible to read the Qur’an, even its seemingly least difficult verses, and grasp their meaning without making use of the most authoritative Muslim commentators. They serve as the indispensable guides to the meaning of many passages that cry out for exegetical glosses.
The Sunna – essentially, the manners and customs and ways of being of the Arabs in the days of Muhammad – matters to Muslims, or most Muslims, as much as the Qur’an. It has even been said that the Sunna could exist without the Qur’an, but not the Qur’an without the essential gloss of the Sunna. And the Sunna is founded on, consists largely of, what is in the Hadith and the Sira, that is the life – words, deeds, and stories about – Muhammad. He, not Allah, is the central figure in Islam. Muhammad is mentioned four times as often as Allah in the Qur’an. He is the Model of Conduct – uswa hasana – a phrase used in the Qur’an exactly three times, the other two times both used to describe Abraham. He is, furthermore, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and everything he did, as a consequence, was Perfect. Whatever he did was right. Some of what he did is exclusive to him – he had nine wives and two concubines, but ordinary mortal Muslims are allowed four wives only. However, much of what he did is not limited to him but is worthy of emulation. Little Aisha caught his fancy when she was six, the daughter of his good friend, and was considered betrothed at that point, but Muhammad contained himself, waiting until she reached the reasonable age of nine before consummating, with sexual intercourse, his marriage to her. That might have been thought one of the details of his life – such as nine wives – that ordinary Muslims would not have been allowed to emulate. But it turns out that the age of the child bride, little Aisha, is not regarded by Muslims as embarrassing – though with Westerners who raise the matter of Aisha, in a manner that suggests dismay or horror, they have started to offer various strategies of pretend denial: she wasn’t really nine years old, but possibly as old as nineteen, we are told, offered preposterously by apologists as the age at which she reached puberty. But we know from reliable Hadith that she was called by her mother when she was on her swings with playmates, and then later, when she went to Muhammad’s house, she brought her toys with her. Swings and toys suggest nine years, not nineteen.
If the subject of little Aisha comes up – and in any conversation or discussion of Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims the latter should be sure to raise the subject, non-Muslims should understand that Aisha matters because she is not merely a figure in the distant and unrepeatable past. Her example affects Muslim girls today. Under the secularizing Shah, the marriageable age of girls in Iran had been raised to eighteen. That learned theologian of Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, managed in 1982 to lower the marriageable age of girls from thirteen to nine years. Since Khomeini died in 1989, the legal age has again been raised, to thirteen. A piquant detail: Khomeini married his wife when she was ten years old. And if it worked for him, and for Muhammad, why not allow it for everyone?
Muhammad’s Islam is mandated in the Quran, portrayed in the sira and hadith, and codified by the Islamic books of law and theology. The men who compiled the sira and hadith devoted the majority of their adult lives to the study of Muhammad and Islam. Many lived during Islam’s geo-political power heyday and they did not need to play to a Western audience’s proclivities, preferences, and appetites. Instead, they wrote confidently and strongly; they told it like it was. No apology was needed.
Although there are multiple Qurans in existence, and there are thousands of “sahih” hadith that contradict each other, and there are multiple contradictory stories in the sira, and the four major Sunni schools of Islamic law do not agree on every principle, it is still possible to confidently draw and define “real Islam” which allows for minor variations. Those minor variations are not the issue. Muhammad actually allowed for minor variations within his faith, (take prayer or Quranic recitation for example), so real Islam allows for minor variations as well. Throughout Muhammad’s life Islamic variations occurred but they were minor and did not contradict his teachings and commands.
The Quran, hadith, and sira, give us a composite, and detailed, description of Muhammad’s teachings and actions, and they provide the context behind his words and deeds. We are not operating in a vacuum. With these we can define real Islam. We are not wrestling with a Zen “kōan,” we do not have to approach this topic like a Sherlock Holmes’s mystery, we are not starting from scratch. We have substantial material in our hands; we only need to study and understand it. The study of these texts gives us Muhammad’s Islam.
A man is known by, and defined by his actions. If these correspond to his words or teaching, then we can paint a harmonious picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk. Muhammad talked and he walked his talk. His actions were in agreement with his teachings. He did what he said he was going to do and he performed what he expected others to perform.
The first 13 years of his “prophetic” career occurred in Mecca, where he was very weak and persecuted. Had he been violent his opponents would have had just cause to kill him. Consequently Allah told him not to use force, (Quran 10:99). After 13 years in Mecca he fled for his life to Medina. However, just before he fled to join his armed followers in Medina, Allah commanded him to use violence to spread Islam’s rule.
In Medina, he quickly used violence and the trail of blood behind him grew ever wider. Muhammad grew in power and he liked it. As time when on, the scale of attacks against non-Muslims grew in magnitude.
As the pre-eminent Muslim, Muhammad did many things, some good, some evil. He prayed often, in poverty he shared his food, in hard times he shared his money. He worked side by side with his followers. I believe he loved his followers and I know that they loved him. They would not only willingly die for him, they would gladly kill for him. In doing so, they earned Muhammad’s praise.
Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, requires legitimate good works. That is commendable. However, it also requires oppressive, aggressive, violence. That is Satanic, dark, and evil. Of course there is good, but we are focusing on the bad, negative, violent facts of real Islam.
There is no shortage of articles on the web about Muhammad’s acts of oppression and violence. He was a slave trader, he allowed his men to rape captured slaves, he robbed and plundered others, he had his opponents tortured, assassinated, and massacred. Here are some suggested websites and articles where you can read about Muhammad’s evil and violence in Islam:
Better yet, read the hadith and sira for yourself! All of Muhammad’s vile actions detailed by the sites and articles above are drawn from the hadith and sira. Torturing for money? Check. Rape of female slaves? Check. Extortion, robbery, murder, massacre? Check. Sex with children? Check. All of that comes from the Quran, sira and hadith, but the sira and hadith provide the contextual details.
Jesus taught that the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy; Muhammad killed, stole, and destroyed. Satan demanded worship; Muhammad demanded that all people worship his Allah and recognize his prophethood upon penalty of death.3 Until his dying day, Muhammad did not let up on spreading his power by force and destroying those who rejected his claim of prophethood. That was real Islam in action back then, and it is real Islam in action today.
Bear this historical fact in mind: the pattern of Islam that followed Muhammad’s death is repeated over and over again within the Islamic world today. The early Muslims had their first internal violent power struggle the day after Muhammad died. Once the new king was identified, (Abu Bakr), he then used his power to attack and kill people who wanted to leave Islam, (The Wars of Apostasy). Today, throughout the Muslim world, similar internal power struggles continue. Violence is often used. Once settled, the Muslims then turn their attention against the non-Muslims. Islam is a religion of power, power of one Muslim man over other Muslims, the power of Muslim husbands over their wives, and the power of Muslims over non-Muslims.
Muhammad taught that his followers were to believe in him as prophet and obey him as Allah’s voice to mankind. Therefore, “Real Islam” is believing what Muhammad believed, obeying Muhammad as Allah’s voice to mankind, and doing the things Muhammad did and commanded. All of this is documented in the Quran, hadith, and sira.
John and Ken discuss Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s actions in Libya creating modern day slave bazaars. Obviously what happened in the vacuum was Islam was just given space to apply the Quran. Take note that the five nations in this article are Muslim: “Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Uncontrolled.”
Among the major differences between Islam and Christianity is that of the character and nature of God as understood by the Bible and the Qur’an. For the Bible, Yahweh is a relational God, a God who appears to his people throughout the Old Testament, who took on flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and who will be present, the Bible claims, in heaven with us once again: “For now we see through a glass, darkly,” wrote the apostle Paul; “but then face to face.” This is very different from Allah in the Qur’an, a God who is distant and remote, transcendent and lofty, who does not deign to step down into his creation, and is not present in Paradise. As Muslim theologian Isma’il al Faruqi writes:
Allah does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will… Allah does not reveal himself to anyone… that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam.
Central, too, to the Christian understanding of God is that Yahweh is loving; indeed, the Bible goes as far as to boldly make the claim that God is love, the one whose character and nature define what love actually is. You will commonly hear people opine that all religions teach that God is love, but this is simply not true – for instance, nowhere does the Qur’an claim that “Allah is love.”
Finally, at the heart of Christianity stands the belief that, in Jesus, God has experienced suffering, paying the price of the cross in order to reconcile humanity to himself. Now atheists may choose to dismiss, laugh at, or even scoff at that claim, but it is a claim unique to Christianity. It is certainly not an idea found in Islam, where the Qur’an goes as far as to deny that the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion ever happened.
It has long fascinated me that when Christianity talks about the cross and the suffering of God, it is doing something quite startling, namely reversing the traffic pattern of every other religion, world view, and belief system. All other religions of which I am aware tend to work in one of three basic ways: they claim that if you know the right things, do the right things, or experience the right things, then you will achieve paradise, nirvana, wisdom, a higher state of consciousness, good teeth — whatever it is you are looking for. Islam adopts this model (“Keep the commandments”), as does, incidentally, the New Atheism, whose message is that if you think the right way — think good, secular, scientific thoughts — you’ll be one of the smart ones, one of the brights, one of the elite, the elect.
1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).
 Isma’il al Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambésy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982, pp. 47-48.
 If you wish to understand this idea (which, whatever you make of it, is the central claim at the heart of Christianity), a great place to start is John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester: IVP, 2006.
A nauseatingly self-congratulatory term coined by some of the New Atheists to mark themselves off from the rest of the world, whom they clearly perceive as dimwits. See Daniel Dennett, “The Bright Stuff“, The New York Times, 12 July 2003.
Andy Banister, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or, The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2015), 62-63.
This post is an important part of this post detailing the differences in how the Bible and Qur’an were transmitted.
(Via Jihad Watch) “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from Heaven.” Or that others later used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda — which is what I argue in my book Did Muhammad Exist?.
(Via The Telegraph) …The Prophet Muhammad is thought to have founded Islam sometime after 610AD and the first Muslim community was founded in Medina in 622AD.
During this time the Koran was memorised and recited orally but Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad’s death, ordered the Koranic material to be collected into a book.
The final authoritative written form was not completed until 650AD under the third leader Caliph Uthman.
Professor Nadir Dinshaw, who studies interreligious relations at the University of Birmingham, described the discovery as ‘startling’.
When it was found last month he said: ‘This could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam.
‘According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Qur’an, the scripture of Islam, between the years AD 610 and 632, the year of his death.
‘At this time, the divine message was not compiled into the book form in which it appears today. Instead, the revelations were preserved in ‘the memories of men’…
Prior to this new find, this fragment was the oldest:
(Via Breitbart) …Some academics now say that the impact of the text could be comparable to finding a copy of the Gospels dating back to before the time of Christ.
Historian Tom Holland told the Sunday Times that evidence was now mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins are wrong.
“It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged — and that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions [his followers],” he said.
Other very old Korans also seem to confirm that written texts were circulating before Mohammed’s death.
Needless to say, Muslim academics have disputed the claims. Mustafa Shah of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) said: “If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran’s origins.”
“If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.
“This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.
“This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition and the history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised, somehow accounting for another book of scripture coming into existence 50 to 100 years before, and then also explaining how this was co-opted into what became the entity of Islam by around AD700.”
Is radical Islam our generation’s most dangerous ideology? Is it comparable to what Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century? Or are Islamists no more dangerous than extremist Christians, Jews, and Buddhists? Raymond Ibrahim, author of “The Al Qaeda Reader,” explains what radical Islam is, and shows how Muslims and non-Muslims alike can help defeat it.
Dr. Thies has a great short article on the Islamic State destroying historical evidences of the Pagan roots of Muhammad’s faith:
…Sura 53:19-20 According to Islam, the Koran contains a revelation from Satan. An entreaty concerning three lesser deities, al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, worshipped by the people of Mecca. As a result of Muhammed invoking these gods, the people of Mecca no longer opposed him. Then, in a later revelation, Muhammed revoked this revelation, and recommenced prosecution of the people of Mecca.
The entire incident has been one of great controversy in Islam, although the logical implications of Satanic Verses being admitted to being included in the Koran has become taboo. Well, one of the remaining physical evidences of the gods of Mecca has been destroyed by ISIS: the statute of al-Lat, in the form of a lion, in the Syrian city of Palmyra, and dating back to the 1st Century AD. But, not to worry. ISIS isn’t destroying all the archeological treasures of this ancient city. Instead of destroying the 2,000 year old Roman theater, they are using it for public executions…
Jihad Watch notes that this incident led to the Islamic tradition of later verses in the Qur’an abrogating earlier ones, and why Islam practices “religious” violence.
…Incidentally, that passage in the Qur’an’s 53rd sura is the only trace left of the celebrated “Satanic Verses.” Long before the novel of the same name by Salman Rushdie, this term referred to an incident recorded in Islamic tradition, in which Muhammad tried to achieve reconciliation with the Quraysh by a “revelation” in which he declared, “So have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza? And Manat, the third, the other one? They are the exalted cranes (gharaniq), worthy of veneration.” The Quraysh, hearing this, prostrated to Allah with the Muslims, who accepted the three goddesses as Allah’s daughters. But Muhammad soon realized that he had thus compromised the absolute monotheism that he had preached up to that point, and so he reneged, and claimed that Satan, not Allah, had inspired those verses, which were then duly replaced by the “revelation” recorded in Qur’an 53:19-22. The concept of abrogation, which ultimately led to the idea that the Qur’an’s violent passages take precedence over its peaceful ones, justified this change in still another “revelation”: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)…
British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered and beheaded on a London street by two Muslims. Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have assured the world that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Yet the Qur’an clearly states that the penalty for “making mischief” in a Muslim land is death (5:33), and Rigby had served a tour in Afghanistan and was actively recruiting more soldiers for the British Army. How can Western leaders deny the obvious?
…There really isn’t any translation necessary. But to add some context, the Egyptian man living in Egypt and watching the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, shows his disgust with Radical Islam. He expressed disdain for the violence inspired by the Koran, its anti-modernity, and its attacks on reason. He tears out some pages, and then slams the book to the ground.
Editor’s comment – So, next time you hear some liberal calling Terry Jones a “racist” point them to this video link.
“Liberalism is a religion; its tenets cannot be proved, its capacity for waste and destruction demonstrated. But it affords a feeling of spiritual rectitude at little or no cost. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed” ~ David Mamet
A long conversation on FaceBook has ensued — mainly — because of the moral equivalency of this statement:
Muslims are PISSED. But wouldn’t we be if they took our bibles and burned them? Some say there were notes being passed, but even so, why burn them? In the muslim religion, burning a koran is unforgivable. So we can either start a religious war with islam, or we can try to get along. In light of that, NOT apologizing would have been a major mistake, which could then lead to more americans being treated hostally or even killed. Does that make sense? But it seems to me a religious war would be peachy to you. Am i wrong? As though defeat and mutual destruction would be preferable to compromize and acceptance of a different belief. It wouldn’t surprise me ;)
In one of my many responses in the back-and-forth with the above person, I said this:
The Qur'an IS the Symptom
“So the Korans are a symptom, not a cause, a tell-tale warning about a deeper crisis in Afghanistan involving perceptions of weakness and loss of deterrence. The rioters and killers accept a number of unspoken truths — that Muslims in war sometimes themselves desecrate Korans when they blow up mosques or when they write messages on the pages, and that the serial apologies from a variety of American officials, after a while, even to the rioters, send the message of accident and mishap rather than an official policy….. We should have given one single apology from one official one time — and left it at that — combined with stepped-up military operations, showing that we were genuinely remorseful on the one hand, but on the other even more determined to defeat an enemy who would recreate the nightmare of Afghanistan that proved so conducive to al-Qaeda. Somehow counter-insurgency ideology has become antithetical rather than integral to defeating the enemy itself, in the sense that we should have been worried both about winning over the populations and creating such fear in the hearts of the enemy that no one would dare kill an American soldier given our power to take out the enemy.” ~ Victor Davis Hanson
(*Moral Equivalence*) Yes, Bibles are burned [along with actual Christians], women are raped before being put to death [because virgins cannot be killed according to Sharia], converts from Islam to Christianity are killed [by the Muslim courts], they hang people who offend Islam [i.e., really people who are gays, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Christians, etc], they mutilate young girls [cut off their sexual organ], and you [predictably] come to the defense of Afghani backwardness.
All of the comments above [from me and others] are merely stating the idea that this defense of them [by moral equivalence] comes at no surprise via your “education” — (“oh my mistake. Fox news video. my college education has made me too stupid to know the difference”) — nor do you know how to combat evil, as the same can be said for strapping our military down with a PC mindset, showing that many in the State Department and in this current administration do not know how to counter/combat evil — all thanks to their “education.”
Now, I do not agree much with Ron Paul on foreign issues… but… I do not think we have any business being over there [Paul’s position] if we do not devastate the culture [Jowitt’s position — video further down post] like we did in WWII.
And no, to answer your original idea… burning a Bible does not incite hatred like we see in the Muslim world. but moral equivalency where there is none is another “educated” goal of the UC system. Writing in a Qur’an is also unforgivable. Our goal is not to adopt their insane cultural cult, but to change it. Other wise you want and support: burning and hanging people of other faiths and who are gay, complete subjugation of women and the mutilating of them, raping women, etc.
So the main point remains, and the below make them more apparent to those who are not aware of the “religious wars” of the past — interspersed with some commentary from the talking heads of course.
Apologies for burning Bibles? What about for burning Christians? Jews? Hindus? Zoroastrians? Sun Worshipers?
While Muslims riot in Afghanistan, murdering soldiers over the accidental burning of Korans – Korans which had been used by terrorists to transmit Islamist messages – it turns out that the U.S. military has routinely burned Bibles in Afghanistan to be more sensitive to Muslims.
As CNN reported back in 2009:
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday. The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.
So why is it that the United States burns Bibles to cater to Muslims in Afghanistan, but when it burns Korans, we’re supposed to think that we’re insensitive numbskulls? Weren’t we fighting for freedom of religion and speech in Afghanistan? Apparently not. We were just fighting to establish shariah law in our own, special way, according to the Obama Administration.
Converting Muslims would only bring women’s rights and free-market dreams to the Afghans… evolving them into the 21st century. What a horrible concept. Some believe in the general wisdom behind Ann Coulter’s statement: “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
What I can tell you is that if we are fighting a PC war and not allowing our generals to ask for a thousand missionaries to go into the country while under military control (like General MacArthur we did with japan, the most feudalistic nation known to man). In fact, one of my professors at seminary was one of the first missionaries in per the request of the United States Government, and the co-founder of the first school of theology in Japan.What was the reasoning behind such a decision? Professor Jowitt explains:
Amerisrael’s blog comments on the contradistinction of today’s situation (politically correct war) and that of WWII:
About two years ago U.S. military authorities in Afghanistan bowed the knee in appeasement, confiscated Bibles from a soldier, and had them burned. An action that no doubt would have infuriated the late General Douglas MacArthur. The confiscation of the Bibles and their subsequent “burning” was the U.S. military’s response to a report by Al-jazeera in regards to a U.S. soldier’s Bibles in the native Afghan language. This was made all the more repugnant in light of the U.S. military’s top General Petreaus warning against the “burning” of the Koran in a protest by an independent fringe church in Florida.
The Bibles were in the native Afghan language and were sent by a church to the soldier. Naturally there were complaints from Islamists. But hey, its the “new” Afghanistan, they now have true democratic values such as freedom of speech, religion, and expression. Right? Some have asserted that the U.S. military had no choice because U.S. troops are “invited guests” and must grovel in appeasement on such matters accordingly.
Our U.S. troops are in Afghanistan because this country was attacked on 9/11 and the ruling Afghan government, the Taliban, was giving sanctuary to Bin Laden and those responsible. No Bibles in the native Afghan tongue would ever have been confiscated and “burned”,
— no, not if MacArthur were the General in command.
Soon after the surrender of Japan was accomplished and the U.S. occupation commenced, MacArthur reached out to U.S. churches and Bible publishing companies for assistance. He requested thousands of Christian missionaries and millions of Bibles for Japan. An excerpt from this article explains why:
“After Japan surrendered in 1945, General Douglas MacArthur became Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in charge of rebuilding the Japanese government.”
“To a visiting group of evangelicals, MacArthur said: ‘Japan is a spiritual vacuum. If you do not fill it with Christianity, it will be filled with Communism. Send me 1,000 missionaries.’ He asked U.S. missionary societies to send ‘Bibles, Bibles and more Bibles.’
“Can you imagine a U.S. president or American general asking for missionaries as a part of our foreign aid program?”
“MacArthur knew that a spiritual vacuum resides inside of every person.”
“Without Christ, a life will be filled with something else. That something else can be very destructive and cruel, as the world experienced in the struggle against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.”
“We’re seeing the same kind of cruelty today in the terrorism of Islamic fascism.”
Unfortunately those in the higher-ups in our own U.S. government and military today do not seem to grasp the truth of what MacArthur knew. We want to win “hearts and minds”, right? So they won’t become jihadists and attack us, right? Money won’t do that. The U.S. occupation authorities in Japan led by General MacArthur understood the link between Shintoism and the aggressive Japanese militarism responsible for the war in the Pacific. Accordingly, the new constitution of Japan forbid “state supported Shintoism” and mandated true freedom of religion, speech, etc.
In Afghanistan, our own U.S. government and military authorities stood by and allowed Islamists to write the new constitution, based on Islamic shariah law. And making Islam the official state supported religion.
The Situation is so bad in fact, it has Chris Matthew agreeing with us! But all this “care and concern” of soldiers from the left is all pomp and circumstance, i.e., political opportunism to express “religious liberalism,” as Gateway Punditpoints out:
Now the Obama Administration is planning on cutting healthcare benefits for active duty soldiers while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The Free Beacon reported:
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.
The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.
“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”
In other words, the president continues to siphon off more and more money from our defense infrastructure — hitting our warriors first, last and hardest in the process — to fund his green energy scams and public sector union cronies (which, coincidentally, also contribute heavily to his campaign).