Muslim Immigration – The False Equivalence Between the Bible and Koran

The executive order issued by the Trump administration banning immigration from seven Muslim nations gives us the opportunity to debunk any moral and doctrinal equivalence between the arguments Jews and Christians have derived from the Bible to justify religious violence vs. Islamic obligations based on the Koran and Hadiths to wage holy war.

Because both the Bible and Islamic texts frequently discuss warfare against opposing religions, it has been suggested that Muslims are not inherently more difficult to assimilate into Western norms than Christian or Jewish immigrants.

As usual, this argument made by the Left is false.  When Biblical endorsements of violence are put in their right context and then compared to the doctrine of Jihad, Islam stands out as uniquely incompatible with Western civilization.

Because the New Testament borders on pacifist, the crux of this debate centers over how the Old Testament compares against the Koran.  The Old Testament records numerous stories where the Israelites came into fierce conflict with their neighbors and how God favored the House of Israel provided they were sufficiently devoted to God.

The essential difference between these justifications of Israelite violence and Muslim jihad is that Israelite defensive obligations are limited to only defending the land of Israel as promised by the Abrahamic Covenant.

Unlike Islam there is no Old Testament obligation to forcibly conquer all of mankind under Judaism.  Provided they are not at war with Israel or a threat in Israel’s immediate vicinity, Jews are nowhere commanded to subjugate or forcibly convert Scythians, Ethiopians, Greeks, Numidians, Chinese, Persians, Romans, Carthaginians, Gauls, Indians, or any other peoples contemporary with Ancient Israel.

Islam however is commanded to militarily conquer the globe.  Though they do not always follow this tenet of faith, they do strike at their non-Islamic neighbors whenever they feel they have the upper hand or are consumed with enough religious fanaticism that are willing to engage a superior opponent.  This command is not only distinguishes it from Judaism and Christianity but it also distinguishes Islam from any other known major religion.

It is the worldwide ambitions of Islam that make its followers inherently incompatible with Western civilization, and any non-Islamic Third World nation, and why its employment of violence against non-believers cannot be reconciled with civilization as Biblical faiths can.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Muslim Immigration – The False Equivalence Between the Bible and Koran”

  1. Trying to compare, and ‘put into correct context’, the exhortations to violence in both Bible and Koran is pointless – it will come across as sophistry and hypocrisy for the average Islamophile.

    All you have to do is point out the contrasting character’s of the respective founding figures – Jesus and Muhammad – and the enormous contrast between the nature and spread of early Christianity vs that of Islam.

    Jesus – pacifist hippy who sacrificed himself
    Early Christians – pacifists from the poorest sections of society who faced vicious persecution but managed to spread their religion despite this until (300 odd years later) it became the religion of the Emperor’s and Roman elite

    vs

    Muhammad – child raping, slave trading, warmonger
    Early Muslims – violent imperialists who spread their religion purely via war on Christians/Jews/Zoroastrians/Budhists/Hindus and established themselves as colonial elites in the regions they conquered

    This comparison starkly illustrates the inherently violent nature of Islam which is derived directly from it’s founding figure and earliest followers . Violent ‘Islamism’ is not a corruption; it is the truest form of Islam. It is the (Few) tolerant, peaceful, Muslims who are ‘not true Muslims’ but rather Munafiqun. Violent, intolerant, slave trading and child raping Muslims can simply point to Muhammad and the early Muslims and say “I’m doing as the Prophet and the early Ummah did.”

    On the other hand whenever some apologist tries the ‘BUT WHAT ABOUT VIOLENT ‘CHRISTIANS’ LIKE THE KKK!!?!?!?’ canard you simply have to point out that there is no justification in the example of Christ, or the earliest founding Christians, to justify their behaviour.

    Like

  2. All you have to do is point out the contrasting character’s of the respective founding figures – Jesus and Muhammad – and the enormous contrast between the nature and spread of early Christianity vs that of Islam.

    Ahh, but you see Muslim apologists have little in the way of violence to point to in the New Testament; therefore they normally don’t draw comparisons with Islam from it.

    If they bring up Biblical cases where God endorsed the use of violence it is taken from the Old Testament. When they do the key point to keep the argument on track is that the destruction of the Canaanites, or whatever, was restricted to the Holy Land. There are no commands from the Hebrew God to forcibly convert everyone on earth to Judaism as Islam is replete with.

    This comparison starkly illustrates the inherently violent nature of Islam which is derived directly from it’s founding figure and earliest followers .

    By all means make that argument, but it will be stronger still if you make the point that Islam is the only religion that requires its followers to seek world domination.

    Like

  3. As far as I know there is no other non-Western religion other than Islam which seeks world domination. I’m not aware of any similar doctrine to Jihad in pagan European societies, or the Far East.

    Perhaps Imperial Japan twisted the Shinto religion to advocate Japanese world domination during WWII? But that wouldn’t count as an ancient doctrinal command comparable to Islam.

    Like

  4. From my experience, when one confronts Muslims with the truth about the barbaric ways of Muhammed, they deny it. Are there any good references about the life of Muhammed, ideally written by a Muslim scholar, and that is in English?

    Like

  5. From my experience, when one confronts Muslims with the truth about the barbaric ways of Muhammed, they deny it.

    Who wants to admit a revered prophet of their religion is a barbarian?

    Are there any good references about the life of Muhammed, ideally written by a Muslim scholar, and that is in English?

    I’m not aware of many Muslim scholars in any field. There are probably a few but I doubt they would be inclined to give an accurate presentation of Mohamed’s life, at least not in English to a mostly Western audience.

    Like

  6. @Lioncub and TUJ

    On Islam (from a separate blog post, maybe I will post there.)

    To understand Islam, Muhammad and Jihad, I recommend the following key book Legacy of Jihad:
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ju8xJ5JBXgsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    (This book contains huge extracts of the Koran, Hadith and the opinions of Islamic scholars, over a thousand and more years, on the theory and practice of Jihad. It also contains accounts of historical conquests.

    I would also recommend the Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tdx3M-bHj34C&dq=raymond+ibrahim&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizm-v59f_RAhUlB8AKHbLNDYIQ6wEIJjAB

    I think Why I am Not A Muslims by ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq is excellent. Furthermore, he has a wealth of citations, and there you find names of many key classical Muslim scholars like Tabari who have written about Muhammad.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s