Submission to Satan

The refusal of the Jews and Christians to follow a corrupt and erroneous theology that they knew was riddled with errors, inspired by hatred, revenge, and intolerance, which represented a badly plagiarized version of their own prophesy, enraged Muhammad and made practitioners of the peaceful predecessor religions into Islam’s mortal enemies. From thence forth, he started attacking them verbally and urged his followers to attack them physically! The bigger his following among the social rejects of his day, the more empowered Muhammad felt. At some point, Muhammad crossed the line from delusional to sociopathic. At some point, he sold his soul to the devil.

The rest of Muhammad’s life is devoted to brutal warfare for Islam’s supremacy and domination over the Arabian Peninsula. And his legacy over the next 1300 years has been about global Jihad and oppression that sets human rights back to a prehistoric level. As with anyone who would bargain with Satan, Muhammad began to run up a string of very lucky and unlikely successes on his path to establishing the murderous and evil empire that it became in the Middle Ages and that it is yearning to reacquire today: a system of complete control over people’s hearts, souls, minds and bodies.

Reform-Proof Prophesy Custom-Tailored for a Tyrant

To understand Islam, you must understand the Quran. “Al-Qura'n” is an Arabic word, literally meaning 'reading' and 'recitation'. The Quran is also commonly also called Al-Furqa'n ('the discrimination' as between what is “truly” “right” and “wrong”). It is a compilation of writings produced from Muhammad’s trans-like meditation sessions, recorded by scribes, reflecting what Muhammad claimed were final, divine commandments and corrections to Biblical scripture. The Quran is compiled as a series of suras (chapters), like books of the Bible, but it is not a ballad, or metaphor, or a series of riddles and contemplative gestures. It is unambiguous instruction, the meaning of which is very clear once you understand what was happening at that moment in time.

Thus, the Quran must be read in its context, with reference and understanding of the events witnessed by

 Muhammad at the time any given Sura was written (this is the orthodox principle of Sha’ne Nozool). Muhammad revealed his prophesy incrementally. On certain days, he would retire in isolation and dictate his prophesy from a supposed trance to a scribe who wrote it down as he uttered it. This took place over the course of Muhammad’s life. So you absolutely must know what was happening to Muhammad at the time of the verse, and you must understand the environment that surrounded him in order to connect meaning to the Suras.

This is why I find it so odd that Muhammad—the man who felt personally and strongly that Jewish and Christian prophesy was corrupt because it conflicted with his tribal interpretations, also just happened to be identified by himself as the man chosen to receive prophesy that reinforced his personal worldview! What are the odds of that? This sentiment was reiterated by Aisha, Muhammad’s child concubine (whom he raped when she was only seven). Aisha said: “Often Allah seems to be very anxious to fulfill Muhammad's will”. Dangerous words from a concubine.

So to understand the driving rationale behind the Quran, and its purpose to Islam, you must understand that Muhammad created this “holy book” as a way to discriminate, or discern “truth” from “falsehood” as he defined it to suit his purposes, and to delineate “real” prophesy from “false” prophesy, so he could gain the allegiance of those who rejected or doubted the prior monotheistic religious heritage of Judeo-Christianity. His basic premise was his assertion that Jews and Christians had “corrupted” their scripture and/or were not adhering strictly enough to the ancient laws of the prophets as he saw them. Therefore the Quran was written as a way to deliver very specific, eternal commandments and “truth”.

On History and Histrionics

This is why Islam’s edicts can never, ever be interpreted as vague, euphemistic, merely suggestive, or relative. To all Muslims everywhere, the ethics and tenets set forth within the Quran are eternal, immutable, and perfect... precisely as Muhammad demanded when he broke from previously established Abrahamic prophesy. Yet today, you will hear Muslim apologists and deceivers incessantly assuring you that Islam is a religion of the “heart”, one that can be personalized and customized and “reformed” to be as harmless and gentle as say Christianity or Buddhism. Please know that this sentiment is as incorrect and absurd as any thinking can be. Therefore, such assertions should be considered as having a deceitful ulterior motive.

This is an extremely important point, because post-modern, revisionist Islamists excuse the very clear and repeated commandments to violence and hatred that is well-documented within the Quran and Hadith as situational and relative, having no bearing on contemporary Islam. And to justify this unequivocally invalid assertion, they always refer to the violence displayed by God and God’s followers in the Judeo-Christian Old Testament as a way to shift the argument from self-evident Islamic evil to the supposedly similar evils of Judeo-Christian foundation. But this reasoning is completely errant. Once again, such bold, logical and factual errors can only come from the minds of a people intent of purposeful deceit. Here’s their syllogism:

1. Revisionist Muslims admit what is written in the Quran as being inherently Islamic. They admit that Muhammad is their final prophet, so no subsequent revisions can be considered canonical. Muhammad told Muslims to slay non-Muslims until only Islam prevailed in the world. This is the commandment of Islam to all Muslims for all time. Muslim warriors are revered as having the highest and holiest status of all mortals, and are rewarded with the best benefits in heaven.

2. But revisionist Muslims explain that today, one can be a Muslim and believe that this scripture is no longer absolute or instructional, that it can be understood as metaphorical even as the expression of such sentiments are clearly established in the Quran and Hadith. Such Muslims explain that today, Jihad is simply a personal, war of conscience for “goodness” against “evil”.

3. As evidence for the validity of their assertion, revisionists explain that Christians accept peace and love as their guiding principles, yet the Bible’s Old Testament refers to God invoking war against non-Israelites in a campaign to claim the “holy land” for the “chosen people”. Since Christianity is overtly instructive to pacifism, it must have evolved from earlier violent prophesy to become so. Therefore, this same process can describe how Islam can be regarded today as peaceful, because it evolved from earlier violent historical precedent.

Describe or Prescribe

But the flaw in this reasoning is so simple, it can easily be overlooked. There is a difference between prophesy of fact and prophesy of commandment. Prophesy of fact is the belief that something happened. It is a lesson of history for those who accept that prophesy. Prophesy of commandment is a lesson of judgment, a god-given advocation of virtue or vice. Thus, Historical-prophesy is descriptive...it tells you what you should believe actually happened. Whereas, commandment-prophesy is prescriptive...it tells you how you should behave.

So, it is perfectly acceptable for a specific prophesy to incorporate both descriptive, historical lessons and prescriptive invocations to behave a certain way. If so, it is possible that historical prophesy may reveal divine acts of aggression or divine commandments for a particular prophet to engage in given acts of aggression, while at the same time revealing that subsequent followers of the religion which came from that prophesy should never act aggressively. These two components of such an established religion are not incompatible, because one part is a chronicle of what happened and the other part is part is advocacy.

To determine which part is advocacy and which part is historical context, you need to read the scripture. If you want to understand whether an act of violence within your religious heritage is to be interpreted as a chronicle or an edict, you must read the scripture to determine if a) it really commands without limitation to place, time, and circumstances, and b) if followers of the religion that is derived from such prophesy themselves generally and widely believed the act to represent how they should behave...in other words, did they perpetuate the acts of violence by referencing the commandment?

In the case of the Old Testament, the answer for both Jewish and Christian faiths is no. There is no scripture in the Bible or Torah that indicates Jews and Christians are to wage wars of aggression or in perpetuity. There are specific acts of “divine” revelation requiring specific acts of aggression, such as Joshua storming Jericho and taking over the city, and killing its inhabitants. But this event is not described as a general rule for followers to emulate. It is described as God’s will for that place and time. Moreover, the religions that were produced from that ancient prophesy have never claimed such behavior to be their right or duty to emulate. It’s just accepted for what it is: faith-based fact...historical prophesy, not commandment.

Moreover, whenever a clearly commanded ethical edict--on which a religion is founded, is delivered, a “sect” of that religion cannot form by claiming that the commanded behaviors are no longer commandment, just historical artifact. If one desired to establish a new faith, a new religion based on the guidance of a new prophet, one could certainly abandon or keep whatever parts of predecessor scripture one wished, but you can’t simply claim that the scripture doesn’t mean what it clearly says it means so as to persuade a religion of hate to become peaceful. This is exactly the problem with Muslim dissemblers and apologists. Revisionist Muslims are free to claim that Muhammad didn’t really mean what he said when he declared all infidels “unclean”, or that Allah cursed the Jews and Christians, or that Allah desired Islam to conquer the world by the power of the sword. But in order to do so, they would have to begin a new and different religion altogether, because Islam is what the Quran says it is.

The process of spinning off a new religion is what happened between Christianity and Judaism. Christians accept provision of the “Law” (AKA, the Law of the Prophets, AKA the Torah) that contradict Jesus’ ministry, but only as historical context not as commandment. They believe that when Christ arrived, adverse provisions of the Law was replaced with Grace, and the commandment for mercy and sacrifice and love makes conflicting prior prophesy merely historical, but no longer prescriptive. Thus a new religion was born which invites personal choice to be good and peaceful, even while admitting that earlier people and earlier Godly intercessions were most certainly not peaceful encounters. This is why, for example, Christians don’t believe in the sanctity of kosher foods, because Christ specifically rescinded those provisions of the Law.

For those who buy into the idea that Old Testament, God-instigated violence makes Christianity an aggressive, hypocritical religion, the comparison is nonsense. The Old Testament references to God’s intercession on earth in which the Israelites were told to wage wars, cannot be understood as ethical commandments by Jewish prophets prescribing how Jews should decide to behave. Quite the contrary is true. Christian ethics are embodied in the Ten Commandments, including “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, and the eleventh commandment issued by Jesus, essentially: “love thy neighbor as thyself; love thy enemy; turn the other cheek; be merciful and compassionate not judgmental, and pledge yourself in sacrifice to your fellow man.” Biblical references to God’s involvement in acts of war or murder in the Old Testament are considered historical context, not commandments. But the same is not true of Islam. Islam was established as a way for Muhammad to “discriminate”...to tell the “errant” people what is “right” and “good” versus “wrong” and “bad”. Thus when Allah informs Muhammad to slay the resistors of Islam, he literally commands all present and future Muslims to damn well go out and do that. How is that the same as believing that God told Joshua to sack Jericho? The difference is: all invocations in the Quran are declarative statements. They represent eternal, ethical commandments, which can never, ever be rescinded or watered down by subsequent Muslims.

The Bible likewise cannot be diluted. Thus, Christians can accept Christ’s subsequent ethical commandment not to murder and to love one another and live in peace, and Christians can still believe that Joshua really lived at some date and place, and that God really did tell him to slay the citizens of Jericho. But when the Bible says murder happened, we accept it as history, and when the Bible says “do not murder”, we accept it as commandment. Equivalently, when Muhammad says wage war against the infidels, Muslims must accept it as commandment...there is no way to claim that this alludes to previous history lessons. There is no room for argument on this point. There is no excuse for revisionist Islam, except as a strategy of war, to deceive gullible Westerners to accept all religions in parity and tolerate Islamic encroachment. It is the wedge strategy.

You Say You Want a Revolution

So if you wish to start a revolution and a new religion out of an old religion then go ahead and do so and good luck. But one cannot change the part that is advocacy into the part that is historical in order to free one’s self from the advocation, and still claim to accept the religion that made a clear distinction between the two parts. Thus, Islam cannot claim the same transitional process. First of all, it accepts Christian prophesy as a matter of historical fact, but it rejects its messages of advocation. It does this clearly and repeatedly in the Quran. Muhammad said unequivocally, slay the nonbelievers, enslave them, tax them, and force them to submit to Islam. Christ never said you could do that. It’s a black-and-white issue. Thus for followers of Muhammad, in creating the new religion of Islam, Christian ethics and advocacy were completely overturned. This is why Muslims...on behalf of Islam have always been so treacherous and destructive.

Second, one cannot translate Quranic calls to jihad and the repeated slander of non-Islamic religions as metaphorical ex post. Muhammad meant what he said, that Christians and Jews were the enemies of Allah, and must be brought to shame and humiliation or converted to Islam. One cannot now claim that Muhammad was referencing an earlier prophesy when he said that. He’s the one that made it all up. One cannot believe that Muhammad’s participation as the leader in dozens of unprovoked wars of aggression against peaceful neighboring communities as being in alignment with self-evident Christian ideals of peace and brotherhood. If Quranic references to war can now be deemed allegorical, why did the prophet Muhammad wage war, take slaves, and rape little girls? What would have changed that would allow one to say, yes, we accept that it happened, but it no longer represents advocacy in our religion? What changed? You can’t burn your own holy book and claim title to the religion, as a “reformed” new strain.

Such revisionist Islamists conclude by admitting that Christianity and Judaism are not dangerous, but rather they are peaceful, and therefore, Islam can be interpreted equally as peaceful or relatively as violent, depending on one’s perspective. But all Muslim clerics know that such a notion sets Islam completely on its ear. Islamist propagandists only say these things to a Euro-American audience to lull their natural suspicions. Back in the Madrasas, they teach the unvarnished truth, that Muhammad rejected God’s calls in Biblical scripture for peace; that he proclaimed war was not only the answer, but that Islam is required to obliterate the other “false”” religions. Neither Jews nor Christians have ever believed such supremacy was their mission. In fact, you’d have to refer to the Aztecs or Mayans to find such a bloodlust in any other religious ideology.

This is why Muslims who bother the read the Quran and understand what Muhammad was doing are certain that Americans, Jews, and Europeans are evil, who must be overcome as Muhammad had proclaimed such resistors of Islam to be. What prophet would write a “discrimination” to correct what he saw as invalid interpretation of God’s eternal prophesy, only to tolerate its dilution and allow it to be made into a subjective, customized, self-defined religion without any real distinction to other religions that were readily available to Muhammad’s contemporaries? Do not believe such absurd claims. Islam was forged to create a system of laws over every aspect of a person’s life, his education, his marriage, his liturgical obligations, his legal system, his food habits, his clothing his economic system...everything, just like socialism. Everything is either required or forbidden. Freedom exists only in the context of the collective, which Muslims call the Ummah. There is no middle way, no room for “moderation” or subjective interpretation. And this is why Islam can never be reformed.

Muhammad’s prophesy was one of termination. He claimed to have the last word on all matters big and small. This was his way of attracting a following. It would have done his cult no good to have been unable to create a market distinction in his brand vs. Judaism or Christianity. He claimed that everything he said to do was to be eternally and perfectly emulated (unless he changed it). You simply cannot claim to be a Muslim and consider Islam to be metaphorical. But Christians were never told that beyond the bounds set forth by God through Christ’s prophesy, that there is no room for free will. In fact, for Christian believers, the freedom to decide right and wrong according to Christian principles is apparently the entire point to life. This principle explains why there is no Christian terrorist movement in a world of one and a half billion Christians!

But the opposite is true for Islam. The reason Islam has not in fact changed much over the years (except where it had to do so to compete with Christian, Jewish, and eastern religious enlightenment) is because Muhammad said it could not be changed. Revisionists would have you believe it is because their “reformation” movement has not yet arrived. To think this way is pure wishful ignorance. The lie is exposed not only in Quranic scripture, but also in the actions of many Islamic Jihadists, who bothered to take their holy instruction seriously. In a world of a billion Muslims worldwide, the majority both desire and expect to engage in an epic battle of aggression (offensive warfare) against the Jews and Americans for the destiny of the earth. Islam is absolutely insulated against change. Do not ever forget it.

But there was a time when Islamic prophesy did change, because there was a time when it was still being forged by the madman who established it. As you can imagine, coming from an imperfect mortal, Muhammad found it hard to remain consistent. He was often tripped up by his own words. So he devised a way to have it both ways.

>>>> Next Page