The absurdity of Sohail's comment

Submitted by Maggie4Life (Australia), Oct 10, 2006 at 04:30

To Sohail,

the reason that the Pope did not quote from the Bible is that it would have been out of the context of the Regensberg Speech to have done so. It is so obvious that you have not bothered to take the time to read what is in the Regensberg address. The issue was not Islam. The issue of the speech was "faith and reason".

After a lot of study since this controversy began, I have discovered that the Islamofacists belong to a cult based upon blind faith. They also indulge in the same form of intimidation that was used by the false prophet Mohammed (mhrih). However, I think that the behaviour of rage and intimidation is also an indication that this is a people who indulge in idolatry. I know that you claim that you worship only one god, and that is Allah, but you also place Mohammed on a pedestal. That is why you falsely claim that one cannot even do a drawing of Mohammed. This is a form of idolatry, because the notion that one cannot make an image of either Allah or Mohammed is equating Mohammed to Allah, which is giving Mohammed divine powers. He did not have those powers.

I have seen some of the early drawings that were made of Mohammed, and there is certainly an amount of mythology that surrounds the life of Mohammed that needs to be dissected, and removed to reveal the very unsavoury character that was the real Mohammed. The mythology was the means by which the followers of Mohammed have stolen from the Jews and the Christians with regard to the Scripture that Jews and Christians have in common. Where for instance did Mohammed hear the name of Gabriel? It was from Christianity, because Gabriel was the angel who came to visit Mary and announce she was to be the mother of the Messiah. However, Islam does not stop with this deception. There is more. Another example is the stealing of the story of the descendants of Abraham who are the children of the promise made by God to Abraham. The truth is in Genesis. Isaac, the son of Sarah is the son of Abraham who was the descendant of the promise - not Ishmael who was born of the slave woman Hagar. The angel of the Lord made a promise to Hagar in relation to Ishmael, but no such promise was made to Abraham. When this is correctly interpreted in the light of the history of the Chosen People, as it is written in Genesis, what we are being told in fact is that the descendants of Ishmael were always jealous of the descendants of Isaac and that they have constantly made war on the descendants of Isaac because of that jealousy. This is an interpretation that is borne out in the Scripture that Jews and Christians hold in common.

There is still more to this deception. The whole idea of the Madhi is also a part of the deception that shows how Islam has stolen its ideas from Judeo-Christianity. The Jews continue to wait for the promised Messiah, for they have failed to understand that the Messiah is not going to be one who will lead them in a worldly battle, but is the one who leads them in the Spiritual battle against Satan. Once they understand that point, there will be no further reason for Jews and Christians to be separated as brothers and sisters in Christ. I continue to pray that the day will come when this will happen and we can continue to learn from each other. Christians believe that the Messiah has come to earth, that He was crucified and died on a cross as though He was a criminal, and that after three days in the tomb, He rose again from the dead. Then He ascended into Heaven. Muslims have stolen this information and they have created the mythology of Mohammed being transported to Jerusalem, and that he rode a horse into heaven...

If ever a Muslim did any introspection, then he or she should be able to see that the accusation of idolatry has some force. Without such introspection, Muslims will never be able to remove the impediments that keep them from being truly productive members of a world community.

I agree that there are violent passages in the Bible. However, if you read the Scripture of Jews and Christians, it should be obvious that there is no demand by God to continue the killing of anyone. There is one episode that is also repeated in the Koran (and the repetition is totally wrong) involves the golden calf incident. The Koran has this story wrong because it names the Samaritan, but Samaria did not exist and there were no Samaritans with the Hebrew who had escaped from Egypt. On the other hand there were Egyptians who had gone out from Egypt with the Hebrew. One has to keep in mind that the story tellers were also writing from a certain perspective (the priestly tradition springs to mind) in which the writer was making the point that idolatry brings death upon the people. Context and perspective is all important here.

There are other stories that also point to the destruction of those who do wicked deeds, who disobey the Will of God, and basically are idolators. However, not one of these stories is relevant to the Regensberg address. It would be totally out of place to quote from the Bible, and it would have been equally out of place to have quoted from the Koran because neither source had anything to do with the subject matter of the Regensberg speech. That subject matter did not even concern Islam, but it did concern the attitude of Europe and the attitude of theologians who have divorced faith and reason. If a case could be built for a reference to Islam, then you must look at the last portion of the speech where there was an invitation to dialogue.

The violence and rage in the streets in the usual places showed that this invitation to dialogue was being rejected. It is obvious to an outside observer that Islamofacist mullahs were inciting the mobs to start their riots, and many used the situation as an excuse to vandalise more churches, murder a nun, and to further intimidate Christians who have continued to live in the Middle East.

One point remains clear, and that is, according to the Islamofacists there cannot be any dialogue other than where the Kaffir agree to submit to Islam. Well that is not going to happen. The imposition of sharia laws would be worse that attempting to impose Judaic laws on the new Gentile-Christians in the early days of Christianity. Such an imposition is an enslavement that is unacceptable and it is ultimately a rejection of God's love for us.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".