Islam may be looked at in the same way Christianity may be viewed in the mundane. The same spectra are at work in both: Literal to figurative, conservative to liberal, traditional to textual, etc. This then raises the issue of how one defines Islam. Does Islam encompass everything everyone who claims to be a Muslim believes, or is Islam only that which Mohammed expressed? I hold with the latter. It is the same position I hold vis-à-vis Christianity. Christianity is only what Jesus expressed. Anything that diverges from Jesus's meanings and intentions is not Christian.

The Islam of tradition is a mixed bag. Some traditions allow and even encourage female education. Others do not.

However, if we remove everything from consideration concerning Islam that is not in sync (as much as that's possible) with Mohammed's world and spiritual view as contained in the Qur'an, then we will be in the proper position to compare and contrast Islam with Christianity.

Mohammed was a sexist. There is no doubt about that. There are differences between the sexes of course, which suit them to certain roles. Men don't give birth except by women. Men don't breast feed babies. That women carry developing babies in their wombs and give birth to them and breast feed them doesn't mean that the differences between males and females stops with those aspects. Neither does it mean that all women are particularly well suited to those things. It also doesn't mean that there are not effeminate males.

Mohammed though set down rules about the role of females which rules were never expressed by Jesus. In fact, the rules of Mohammed run contrary to the spirit of Christ as expressed in the four Gospels of the narrow canon.

Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 or 7. The marriage was a contract. Aisha remained with her parents until she was 9. Then according to the Hadith (held to be sacred text in Islam), she went to live with Mohammed who had sexual intercourse with her when she was a 9-year-old. (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234) Did the Holy Spirit move him to do this?

Jesus said the following:
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (Mark 9:42)

Aisha didn't believe in Jesus of the Gospels though. Regardless, the idea concerning not doing an offense against a young child is clear. The term offense here is to be understood within the whole context of Jesus's message and not within the culture of Mohammed at the time or the current worldly culture.

If we apply only what was or wasn't permissible within a given culture at the time, then what human behavior has ever crossed the line into that which was never acceptable in the eyes of God?

What was offense, and still is, to Jesus is what offends God. Did God join Aisha and Mohammed together or did some other spirit do that?

If God joined them, then it was not a sin. If it was not a sin then, then it is not a sin now for a man in his 50s to have sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old. (Let me say that I am 55, and it would be a clear sin for me to do what Mohammed did. There is no doubt about it.) That's because Mohammed was aware of the Gospels. He had read them or had them read to him. He had heard the words attributed to Jesus Christ in the aforementioned Gospels. He was not ignorant about Jesus's position. He was not in the relative position of Moses vis-à-vis Jesus — coming before Jesus walked the Earth.

It is also an error to excuse Mohammed by comparing him to those who have done worse.

Of course, the prohibition against having one's sexual way with children (too young to comprehend and who will be emotionally damaged by such activities) is not the only area in which Mohammed selfishly deviated in a highly qualified manner from the teachings of Jesus as rendered in those Gospels. He ignored in very selective ways the prohibition against violence, acquisitiveness, slavery, and more.

He did not except Jesus on Jesus's terms. He rather claims to have been told by the archangel Gabriel that the Gospels are full of lies. Mohammed said, and had committed to the Qur'an, the following concerning Jesus and Jesus's followers, including the closest Apostles who lived with Jesus:

They say, "The Most Merciful has begotten a son!" Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! As if the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin that they should invoke a son for the Most Merciful. For it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Merciful that He should beget a son: Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Merciful as a servant. (Qur'an 19:88-93.)

Those who hold that Jesus did not preach against violence, acquisitiveness, slavery, and sexual depravity are mistaken. Their reading of scripture is inaccurate. They are failing to comprehend and properly to interpret.

Consider the case of the Episcopal priestess who claims both Christianity and Islam with her bishop's blessing and encouragement in that. It is confusion. Her bishop and she are suggested that one may hold to diametrically opposed theologies at the same time. One may do this only via deep mental and spiritual disorder.

In the final analysis if one is considering Islam and Christianity with an eye to believing, one is confronted with the question of whether Mohammed's view as expressed in the Qur'an or Jesus's view as expressed in the said Gospels is correct. They both cannot be correct, because they contradict each other in ways that are irreconcilable.

Mohammed's authorization of violence and other things not allowed by Jesus leaves the door open to much more difficulty for his followers in figuring out where to draw lines. Writings considered sacred to Muslims indicate that Mohammed confused his closest followers by telling one person one thing and another person another thing which things were completely at odds with each other and irreconcilable. When asked about this, Mohammed had no clear answer. His answer, tantamount to saying that his seemingly inconsistent whims at the moment are God's word (a clever answer for the gullible and those craving direction so much so as to become uncritical in their analysis and appraisal), was indicative of one whose view (contrary to the case with Jesus) is inconsistent and doesn't stand up.

Therefore based upon the foregoing, it is not the correct approach to moderate or liberalize Islam but rather convert from being a follower of Mohammed to becoming a follower of Jesus. Teach them real Christianity.

This message needs to get out to the Islam countries as well as everywhere else. The following are Islamic countries or countries with considerable Muslim populations:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Albania
  3. Algeria
  4. Azerbaijan
  5. Bahrain
  6. Bangladesh
  7. Benin
  8. Brunei
  9. Burkina Faso
  10. Cameroon
  11. Chad
  12. Comoros
  13. Djibouti
  14. Egypt
  15. Gambia
  16. Guinea
  17. Guinea-Bissau
  18. Guyana
  19. Indonesia
  20. Iran
  21. Iraq
  22. Jordan
  23. Kazakhstan
  24. Kuwait
  25. Kyrgyzstan
  26. Lebanon
  27. Libya
  28. Malaysia
  29. Maldives
  30. Mali
  31. Mauritania
  32. Morocco
  33. Mozambique
  34. Niger
  35. Nigeria
  36. Oman
  37. Pakistan
  38. Palestine
  39. Qatar
  40. Saudi Arabia
  41. Senegal
  42. Sierra Leone
  43. Somalia
  44. Sudan
  45. Suriname
  46. Syria
  47. Tajikistan
  48. Tunisia
  49. Turkey
  50. Turkmenistan
  51. Uganda
  52. United Arab Emirates
  53. Uzbekistan
  54. Western Sahara
  55. Yemen


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Were Phestus

      I hereby wish to know more about with your doctrine as I am interested to share some of my ideoligies with you.

      • Were Phestus,

        I hope that's your real name. If it isn't, I believe I'll have to begin insisting upon legal names. How unfortunate it would be that so many people coming here to comment refuse to honor the simple comment policy, but that's just a sign of this fallen and unrepentant and un-repenting generation, isn't it?

        So, I proceed under the assumption that Were Phestus is your real name or at least a nickname that is not just a made up Internet handle. Okay?

        Now, if you want to know more about God, feel free to read what is openly available on this site.

        Does your ideology have a common/mundane name? If so, what is that name/term?

        If it is Islam, I already know about it. Is it your intention to attempt to proselytize for Mohammed here? If so, let me state in anticipation that Mohammed is dead in the sense that Jesus uses the term. He was false, violent, war making, greedy, and (if the reports in Islamic literature are accurate), a sexual predator who had intercourse with a nine-year-old and who coveted another mans wife and convinced him to give her over to him.

        If you follow him after being made aware of these things, you go to Hell.

        If you are here to discuss an ideology other than Islam, then don't worry. I have not assigned the sin of following Mohammed to you.

        If you are offended, consider holding your peace and considering further.

        If you wish to debate, follow the rules here.

        Jesus is as the Gospel's represent. He is not as represented in the Qur'an, period. Jesus is next to God, and Mohammed isn't there.

        Mohammed claimed Jesus as a real prophet but commenced to trash the Gospels from whenst Mohammed even ever heard of Jesus.

        Mohammed had a bloodline feud with the Jews. He made up a story as a pretense/platform upon which to build violent empire under his family deity. He was a caravan robber who took people as slaves and sold them and gave them to his band.

        There is no excuse. No amount of sheep's clothing helps. I care not about the story told by Muslims in a vain attempt to build up Mohammed.

        Now, if on the other hand, you are here thinking that because I hold these views that I also hold with tolerating all that Islam stands against, you are mistaken.

        I don't approve of violent coercion. That does not mean that I condone other iniquities such as pornography, homosexuality, and usury and many of the other things against which many Muslims also rightly stand. So consider that before you continue if it applies to you.

        If my tone comes across in your head as harsh, consider reading it with a voice other than your own.

        If you hold with something other than Mohammed or some other perversion, proceed.

        "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." (Matthew 12:43-45)

        I shall not live with seven other spirits more wicked than myself. I shall live alone with God rather than cave into false fellowship.

        I see what's going on. Make no mistake.

        "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:19 KJVR)

        Just because I build up some of what one does, doesn't mean that I accept the evils of that one. I reject them within. I do not testify on behalf of those who begin to rise but who then seek to cause others to fall into depravity. I rather say they are being Satan when they do that. "Make the tree good"!

        Bless All With Truth,

        Tom Usher

        P.S. The rules say do not put anything in the URL textbox other than a real address. You put characters in the box.