and the 'Abrahamic Religions' scam
King James Version:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
So what are the fruits of Mohammed's death-cult?
- Child rape and murder
- Boysex (Bacha bereesh)
- Bullying Supremacism
- Torture and Mutilation
- Overpopulation and Ecological Disaster
- Medical malpractice
- Educational disintegration
- Vaginal mutilation
- Lying and Hypocrisy
- Human Sacrifice and Ritual Murder
- Subversion and Sedition
- Litigation Jihad and Harassment
- Vile Perversions
- Drug Pushing
- Gang Rape
- Street Violence
- Arrogant sense of unearned entitlement
- Acid attacks
... and much, much, more loathsome evil!
And although Jesus told the truth about Mohammed, Mohammed lied about Jesus.
Mohammed was a conman. He lied about Jesus, contradicted him and tried to belittle him to boost his own ego. Muslims claim to revere Jesus for the sake of peddling their 'Abrahamic Relgion' scam (see below), but in fact they disregard him and follow Mohammed. For example, Jesus forbade stoning, but Mohammed encouraged it and it still continues as this horrific video shows.
To the Muslims, Mohammed is the greatest of all the prophets, and Jesus is a second rate minor prophet.
As this comment by gravenimage points out, the account of Jesus in the Koran is a total travesty and pack of lies:
"Christianity trumps Islam across the board, not the least of ways being the far more admirable character that Jesus is compared to Mohammed. The wonder of it all to me is that Muslims, who claim Jesus as one of the greater prophets before Mohammed, don't see that Jesus excels Mohammed in every category."
That is because—as I'm sure you're aware—the Muslim 'Isa' has almost nothing in common with the Jesus of the gospels.
In the Qu'ran, 'Isa' is presented as cautioning that one may not claim "associations with Allah", i.e. one may not consider him the Son of God. It is not just that Islam doesn't recognize Jesus as the Son of God—this is true of a number of non-Christian faith traditions. It is that Isa himself condemns anyone who holds such beliefs as bound for hell.
In the Muslim tradition Isa is not crucified. More than that, though, he cravenly compels one of his followers to suffer and die, nameless, in his place.
There is no sign in Islamic texts of the peaceful, loving Jesus at all.
What is Isa's main purpose in Muslim texts? It is to return in the "Last Days". So far, that may seem similar to the Christian tradition. But Isa's role in the Last Days is to "break the cross and kill the pigs". This is usually understood to mean that he abolishes dhimmitude—the small, insecure space Jews and Christians have had under Muslim rule of retaining their own faith.
After this, the only choices for Jews and Christians are conversion or death. In other words, Isa's main role in Islam is to kill Christians.
I doubt most Muslims have more than the most passing understanding of who the Jesus of the gospels is."
The Abrahamic Religions scam
Islam claims to be the ultimate development and final perfect expression of the two preceding 'Abrahamic faiths' - Judaism and Christianity, which have become corrupt. The numerous contradictions between the Koran and the Jewish and Christian Gospels are explained by claiming that Jews and Christians have falsified their original documents.
Of course any textual criticism will show that the true picture is the opposte - Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea. (Mark 9:42). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam.
Lack of shared values
"To facilitate Islam's advance in the Judeo-Christian West, it is often deceptively referred to as an Abrahamic religion based on the claim that these religions have "shared values". But how can Islam have "shared values" with Judaism and Christianity, when its doctrines are so hateful toward those religions, and when Jews and Christians suffer terrible persecution and discrimination in the Muslim world???
[Note: Islam Watch, as a nontheistic/atheistic forum, does not recognize any conception of God. This article is published here as it discusses the Islamic conception of God and its foundation, but not to endorse any conception of God, Islamic or otherwise, discussed in it.]
Unless one believes, as a matter of faith, that Muhammad’s actions constituted a divine mission to deliver God’s message to the human race, then it is simply too plain for argument that Islam is best understood as nothing more than a reflection of Muhammad’s alter-ego, and that Allah and Muhammad are one and the same. Accordingly, the Islamic faith should never be described as an Abrahamic religion as such—a description is used to facilitate its appeal to Jews and Christians. Anything that assists Muslims in their dawah (proselytizing) obligations is detrimental to the interests of all non-Muslims.
Islam is often referred to as an Abrahamic religion to Western audience as an attempt to promote interfaith harmony and the spread Islam via persuasion and/or a deceptive attempt to ease mainly Judeo-Christian Westerners' apprehension about Islam. Regardless of the motive, referring to Islam as an Abrahamic faith lends it, at least in some circles, certain credibility that it does not deserve.
If one defines "Abrahamic religion" as any religion originating from one of Abraham's descendants and further assumes Muhammad to be descended from Abraham though Ishmael, then one may call Islam an Abrahamic religion.
However, Wikipedia defines "Judaism, Christianity and Islam" as Abrahamic religions, because they “share a common origin and values”. And most people call Islam an Abrahamic religion in the sense of this Wikipedia definition. But, a closer examination of three faiths excludes Islam from the same league.
As such, it is an egregious error to label Islam as an Abrahamic religion as its material values are so far removed from, indeed hostile and diametrically opposed to, both Judaism and Christianity, to the extent that it is unfair and cruel to Jews and Christians to claim that the three religions ‘share the same values’. Islam is simply too far removed from Judaism and Christian in its perception of the nature of God to ultimately share any material values with the latter.
Moreover, throughout the world, Jews and Christians (other non-Muslims too) suffer terrible persecution in most countries wherein Islam predominates and is patently inspired by Islamic doctrine. Therefore, it is contradictory to claim that Islam, despite sharing common beliefs with Judaism and Christianity, persecutes latter’s followers. It is also, in essence, a cruel injustice to Christians and Jews, and adds to their pain, to say that a religion with their shared values is causing terrible sufferings to them.
While it is true that all three religions have some common beliefs and that Islam borrowed, albeit imperfectly, stories from both Judaism and Christianity, and copied many ceremonial aspects of Judaism – some with and some without modification – that hardly means that all three religions share the same values. One only need to do a cursory review of the Islamic doctrine and look at the prevalence of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bigotry amongst Muslims throughout the Islamic world to understand that Islam shares very few, if any, material values with Judaism and Christianity. However, a comparative analysis of the religions is beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, my goal is to establish that Islam is nothing more than a reflection of Muhammad’s alter-ego, and that Allah and Muhammad are one and the same. By alter-ego, I mean to convey that Islam and Allah are nothing more than secret names or code-words for Muhammad’s ideology, commands and Muhammad himself. Consequently, instead of adding ‘peace be upon him’ when Muhammad’s name is written or spoken, it would be far more accurate to add ‘doing business as Allah’ or ‘d.b.a. Allah’.
Even Muslims have tacitly admitted the truth of my observations about Muhammad. In ‘The Future of Islam’, Wilfred Scawen Blunt accurately points out that Islam is not amenable to change, because even ‘students of the Sheriat (Sharia Law) have not inaptly compared the Koranic law to a dead man’s hand, rigid and cold, and only to be loosened when the hand has been cut away.’
Such an observation, given that Sharia Law is based on the Quran and hadiths both of which are either the work of Muhammad or based upon his life and statements, reveals the nature of the Islamic faith as inextricably entwined with the life and beliefs of Muhammad. It is hardly a giant stretch from that obvious and unassailable conclusion to see why anyone, well-schooled in the Islamic faith, could easily come to the opinion that Allah is nothing more than Muhammad’s alter-ego, and as a result, Muhammad’s ‘dead hand’ is the unforeseen element in all acts based upon Islamic doctrine.
Even Muhammad’s favorite child-bride, Aisha, and other early Muslims that personally knew Muhammad saw in the Quran the very essence of Muhammad’s character. In his timeless classic, ‘The Faith of Islam’, Edward Sell revealed how early Muslims viewed Muhammad:
‘It was common practice of the early Muslims when speaking of the Prophet to say: ‘His character is the Quran.’ When people curious to know details of the life of their beloved master asked Aisha, one of his widows, about him, she used to reply: ‘Thou hast the Quran, art thou not an Arab and readest the Arab tongue? Why dost thou ask me, for the Prophet’s disposition is no other than the Quran?’
Such statements suggest that even Aisha was skeptical of Muhammad’s claim to a divine mission and that she recognized the Quran for what it was – the work of her own husband. There are hadiths, which clearly show that Aisha was cryptically skeptical of at least some of her husband’s revelations. For example, when Muhammad desired to marry a fifth woman, beyond four wives allowed in earlier verses (4:3 etc.) and Allah quickly revealed a new verse allowing Muhammad only to marry unlimited number of women, Aisha wittily remarked: ‘Your Allah seemed eager to grant your earthly desires’.
Bear in mind that it would have been impossible for Aisha and other early Muslims to openly question Muhammad’s claims, as to do so would have been tantamount to apostasy and would have resulted in a death sentence. It may well be then that the foregoing claims were none other than code for communicating that Muhammad made up his alleged revelations and that Muhammad and Allah were, therefore, one and the same. What else would explain Aisha’s equation with what was supposed to be the word of Allah with Muhammad’s character? While I have no doubt that slick Islamic apologists can craft an alternate explanation, any acceptance of such an alternate explanation requires, in my view, blind faith in Muhammad himself and his alleged divine mission... " Full article
The difference between predatory cults such as Islam and real religions, is that a true religion attempts to bring out the best in people, whereas a predatory cult does the opposite.
Muslims inhabit a different moral universe from the rest of us, where good is evil and evil is good, if it serves the purposes of Islam.
While other religions teach goodwill to mankind, Islam teaches hostility to all non-members of the cult.
Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, taught his followers to help all people in need, irrespective of their religion. Jews are commanded to be a light unto the nations. The Buddha taught compassion for all suffering beings.
But in Islam, charity applies only to fellow Muslims, and in fact many Islamic charities are money-launderers for jihad.There is no Golden Rule in Islam. There is no place for conscience in Islam. Peel away the thin veneer of religiosity, and all you find is vicious, primitive, predatory tribalism.
Nothing in common
Islam, in the West, is fighting its battle of acceptance and legitimacy. Muslim activists are working fervently trying to improve Islam's image. Their goal is to create an environment in which Islam can be easily propagated. Their tool is as old as Islam itself, but they have just rediscovered it. This tool is telling Christians that Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. They cite Islam's belief in the Bible, God, Jesus, Mary, the prophets, the day of judgment and Paradise.
Moral equivalence is moral cowardice
Those people who use the moral equivalence argument to compare Islam with other religions need to examine their own subconscious psychological motives. They are not only attempting to delude others, but are in deep denial and trying to delude themselves.
The conscious part of the argument takes the form "Christians and Jews have committed atrocities such as the McVeigh, Breivik and King David Hotel bombings, so Christianity and Judaism are just the same as Islam. Therefore Islam poses no special threat."
The fallacies are obvious: Christian and Jewish acts of terrorism are rare and infrequent; they are rejected by the majority of followers of the religions, go against the core teachings of the religions, and are committed by a few isolated loonies. In contrast, Islamic acts of terrorism are commonplace, are encouraged by the Koran and are supported, if not actually carried out, by a substantial proportion of Muslims.
The unconscious and self-deluding part of the moral equivalence argument is the refusal to face the fact that Islam is an intrisically violent totalitarian ideology that has infiltrated our civilization, and is bent on our conversion, subjugation or elimination. To acknowlege this would be deeply disturbing and well outside the comfort zone of most people (remember the popular enthusiasm for appeasement of Hitler and 'Peace in Our Time'?) . So we reassure ourselves, by the moral equivalence argument, that Islam is just like other religions.
It's far easier to stay in denial and regard Islam as being no more threat to our lives and culture than the Quakers or Lubavitcher Hasidim. That way we don't have to worry about the looming global clash of civizations, or think about the unpleasant courses of action that may be necessary to reduce the threat. We can leave that for our children to sort out.