It's not a secret that I do not like Islam. That, however, does not mean that I am unaware that there are people who call themselves Muslims, who think they are following the Islam of Mohammed, who do not understand the actual requirements of the core text of Islam (the Qur'an) including within the historical context of the various battles and such that occurred during Mohammed's time and shortly after, during the establishment of the Caliphs.
Many of those self-styled Muslims (ignorant about the requirements of their core scripture or simply ignoring those requirements or falsely believing they can morph Islam into what the Qur'an rejects) stand opposed to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
What I am saying to them is that their Qur'an requires all Muslim males of fighting age who are physically and mentally capable (and Islam is not a religion of pacifism under any stretch of the imagination save insanity) to come to the military aid as directly as possible of all fellow Muslims being militarily attacked by any entity. Yet, most of those self-styled Muslims do not do that requirement. IS, on the other hand, believes IS is laying the groundwork to do just that.
I am also saying that the vast majority of what IS is doing is definitely allowed and even required (it's beyond debating) by the Qur'an while those others, the self-styled ones, fail to do much at all, if anything, that is definitely required along military lines.
Lastly, I am saying that if those others do not want to engage in militarism against all who make war on Muslims (for whatever reason), I say good for them but that they need to understand that they are not Muslims except in name only and that what they should do, rather than attempting to "reform" Mohammed/Islam, is renounce their membership in Islam and even though Islam itself doesn't allow anyone the freedom to leave it.
Anyway, here are two links to data I believe those on all sides of the Islamic issue should read.
Please note that a number of "Islamic" states were left out of the second one undoubtedly because Pew Research was unable to conduct adequate polls in those places for reasons beyond Pew's control, such as that the authorities wouldn't allow any such polls.
I do not like Islam (the Qur'an) at all. That does not mean I'm phobic concerning everyone who terms himself or herself "Muslim." I do fear ignorance causes, or at least allows, evil to be perpetuated.
Let us leave off slavery, fully allowed by Islam. That's just for starters. Let everyone admit that logic dictates that Mohammed's teachings could not possibly be for all time.
There is something obviously flawed about a man who abrogated his own earlier teachings while simultaneously claiming to be the final word from God right from the start. If he was the final word, his final word was pro-slavery and pro so much more that we know to be evil, especially when directly compared against the teachings of Jesus Christ revealed in the Gospels and not as deliberately distorted by Mohammed for the sake of worldly empire building couched in holiness.
As Jesus Christ said, "The truth will set you free." The Qur'an will not. Amen.
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)