Islam as a Christian Heresy: Comments

15 Jul

I was surprised with the number and quality of the comments on my recent post. I had meant only to serve as a sounding board on Emmet Scott, an interesting if not somewhat Islamophobic reactionary writer out of Britain. Scott’s book Mohammed and Charlemagne, Revisited is a fascinating examination of the cause of the Western Empire’s collapse, and MUST reading for anyone who has to hear how wonderful Al Andalus was as a society, when the rest of Europe was burning witches/whatever the slur of the day is. In fact, the whole praise of Islamic Spain is nothing more than a continuation of pro-Elizabethan-England propaganda of the “black Spaniard,” designed (possibly as projection) to prevent a return of England to the Catholic Church (and a divestment from robber barons of their stolen Church lands); England was the only Roman province to go Protestant, and it did not happen willingly, unlike much of the Calvinist Netherlands and the Lutheran Teutonic lands.

Some points raised, that I missed a chance to answer. Will S notes the following, with my internal commentary added:

Is Islam merely a Christian heresy?
No. But it started as one. Nice try on adding a “merely.”

As I understand it, ‘heresy’ denotes a religion that claims to be the same one as those followed by those who define themselves as ‘orthodox’, but simply doctrinally different on key points.
Heresy derives from the Greek word meaning ‘to take away.’ So, if you start with Christianity and take away the divinity of Christ, you have a heresy. If the dogma is whole cloth that cannot have one part removed without unraveling, then the heresy necessarily cannot survive with the Orthodox.

I submit that Muslims, not considering themselves to be Christians but instead followers of the religion of submission to Allah (not considering Christ divine, but merely an exemplary human who was close to God), must be considered indeed as followers of a separate religion, apostates rather than merely heretics.
I think Islam in the 7th century would be much more recognizably Christian than today. But that judgment is based on the views of people at the time.

Now, note one purpose overlooked by Will in my argument. If Islam DID begin as a Christian heresy, and the scholarship is there to prove it, then Islamic fundamentalism must necessarily make Islam MORE Christian. It certainly, if it WAS a Christian heresy, drifted much further afield over time. As I wrote:

Clearly, they should be made to know the Good News. Part of getting the record straight is using tools WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM to bring them to this point. I would not argue that Islam now is close (80% aligned) with Christianity. I think it probably once was, and if I want to save those souls, then I need to find a way to move it closer to its roots. 

Lastly, this comment and response by Will I thought worthy of, pardon the term, resurrection:

And furthermore, as much as I’d love to think they could be fellow patriactionaries, I’m of the opinion that instead, they remain our age-old civilizational enemies, as they always have been, since I see little attempt on their part to embrace us trad Christians as culture war allies.
The Muslims don’t take 40-50% of my family’s income to support the culture of death, Will. In any fair accounting of the last, say, 100 years, we’ve killed a lot more of them than they have of us. Of course, they don’t HAVE to kill us: our culture of death is doing that already. If they actively bomb us, we can fight them. But if they simply adhere to their faith and keep average birthrate at 2.8 to 3 per woman, they will bury us. They seem to know this, while the Progressives who rule the West do not, or do not care. So long as they do NOT embrace the Progressive faith, God will continue to bless them. Should they join the Progressives in a culture war against us, they will suffer the barren-womb end curse of all Progressive societies, an empty cradle with no hope in the future, no reason to “feel” Christmas.

Agapoula (belated welcome to Patriactionary!) writes:

Before reading it all, I will say that I find it difficult to believe Mohammed did not exist. There is record and account of this, and I was just recently reading what Aisha his 9 year old wife said, which I am not sure, but I THINK it is in the hadiths.
Well, compare the Quran and life of Mohammed to the Gospels. We’re pretty certain that most of the Gospels were written within 70 years of Christ’s death. As the linked articles note, the things about Mohammed are hundreds of years later. That’s MUCH harder to cite as authoritative.

If they do not believe Christ is savior, they can not be Christians in any form. Even Christians who are heretic acknowledge our Savior died on cross, yes?
An interesting question. Arians believed Christ was not God, but human. Now, how could a human be the Savior? I think the Unitarians think along the same lines. They might object to not being called Christians, but I largely agree with you.

It was an interesting and well written post but I do think it is a poor representation of what real Sharia Law entails. For example, the wife was requesting a divorce, and the person who I am assuming was a Mullah or a Judge was willing to grant that if abuse, or addiction was present.
Which I do not agree with. If my husband become alcoholic, I am still not justified to divorce him in my opinion. Divorce is a very very last resort. Even in cases of abuse it is better to leave from the husband for some time so he can get help. Not divorce. Divorce is terrible. And I believe it tells us much about Islam that they even have “Nikah mut‘ah”. (In Shiah Law, not Sunni.) Which is temporary marriage. It is insane!
First, how do we clone you, Agapoula? If every woman had the same attitude towards divorce, we would be in very good shape. Note that as the token Papist around here, I also view divorce as a bad thing. The point of the post was that the “backward” Persian society and justice system had not gone anywhere near as far as the “enlightened” West in stripping men of the rights to their marriages and their children. I do not know if Cyprus has no-fault divorce, but we do. We are NOT a nation of Agapoulas, but one where the weaker sex is encouraged to blow up their childrens lives for less than 30 pieces of silver. (Really, read the link, and you’ll understand American context on divorce.)
As to the temporary marriage, it makes a lot of sense. Unlike the utterly debauched West, the Persians refuse to allow for sex outside of wedlock, even if they have the ridiculous 1-hour marriage to allow for prostitution (sorry, sex work.)

What is frightening about president of USA hosting Iftar dinner is that the man is supposed to be a Christian, leading a Christian nation.
We are most definitely NOT a Christian government. I refer you to Matt Forney, no Trad Catholic he, and his article America’s Four Hundred Year War Against the Catholic Church. I could point out any number of other denominations that also face oppression by the US government, elected by that same “Christian” nation.

Thanks to Jonathan W for more links on the original idea. Nice to know that the Reformed are also looking at it.

Infowarrior raises some interesting points about Mary. I refer him to this comment, one of the most insightful about feminism I have read: “The mixture of feminism and pedestalization … has produced the mess in America.… It may be the rejection of Mary in the American Christianity (so the eternal feminine is embodied in actual women instead of a religious figure). But the reverence that American men put on American women is the (reason) feminism has been so harmful.”

Lastly, Will notes: “Now, if only we could crush that wrong belief, too…”

I used to be of similar mindset. But crushing beliefs was abjured by the Church in Vatican II, and I cannot disagree with it. Live by the sword, die by it: ally with the state that will do violence on your behalf, and it will someday turn that violence against you. As Lincoln once said to a man who criticized him for befriending his enemies instead of destroying them: “But do I not destroy an enemy when I make him into a friend?” We have Reason, Faith, Music, and Art, all sacred (well, not you Reform: bunch of iconoclasts there), and they have… what, exactly, to compete with that? It is a MUCH more difficult struggle, I will grant that, but a victory over Islam, especially one that leads it back to its closely Christian roots by gently using its texts to show it its internal truth (derived from Christianity), is more likely when done with love and charity. I should say we ought to smother that wrong belief.


Posted by on July 15, 2014 in Uncategorized


46 responses to “Islam as a Christian Heresy: Comments

  1. Will S.

    July 15, 2014 at 11:26 pm

    Hey ElectricAngel, I didn’t specify by what means I thought we should crush that wrong belief, and indeed, I’m open to using any and all means at our disposal, whatever works – and I’m not convinced of the need to go to war with them necessarily in order to accomplish it. But I also wouldn’t rule it out, either.

    If we could convert them, that would be great! Especially if we could use their own texts to change their minds; that would be quite a coup! But I think many of them are as strongly wedded to their beliefs as you and I are to ours.

    I am familiar with that Lincoln quote. And was Lincoln able to make the Confederacy friends, and get them to see what he saw as the error of their ways, and end slavery, and restore the Union peacefully? Alas, no; he ended up instead crushing them utterly, in civil war. (He didn’t start it, granted, but he certainly finished it.) Setting aside the question of rightness or wrongness, war certainly is a means of settling things permanently; the South hasn’t seriously threatened to rise again. And where are Germany’s Nazis today? We crushed them, and they are no more (notwithstanding some post-war neo-Nazis, who are no threat today). Again, not saying that war should be a first resort, but it may be a final one.

    Of course, I don’t really want a war between our civilizations; in fact, I really don’t want one; I’d rather co-exist peacefully, as long and as much as possible…

  2. Will S.

    July 15, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    I can buy that Islam started out as a sort of Christian heresy. Of course, it evolved into full-blown apostasy, in time – same as one might argue Christianity was a Jewish heresy, yet evolved into a separate faith, perhaps.

    But given that it is now a separate religion, I’m not sure how to emphasize the elements that remain somewhat orthodox, if any really can still said to be, in a way to use that to proselytize to them. If it can be pulled off, great! I just have trouble visualizing it…

    As for the question of whether Islamic fundamentalism will make them more like what they were originally – a heresy – rather than the apostate, separate faith they are now, (a) has it done so? and (b) can Islamic fundamentalism really be thought of as similar to Christian fundamentalism? Christian fundamentalism is a very tiny sliver of the faith as a whole, though the term gets applied more broadly to a wide variety of traditionalist movements, yet inaccurately. Christian fundamentalism was just centred around five key points of doctrine which certain Baptists and some Presbyterians and others decided to emphasize, from Scripture. Have Islamic resurgents done anything similar? They are divided between Shia and Sunni, of course, and they haven’t seemed to rally around anything other than the Shahada, which is something both Shia and Sunni can get behind, along with a few other doctrines, of course. But notwithstanding some of their spokesmen and preachers emphasizing to Westerners that they, too, recognize Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc., I don’t know how central such things are to the fundamentalists, but I have my doubts. And as such, I’m not convinced they can easily become more orthodox in such matters just because they’re more committed than secularized Turks or Bosnians, say. They seem to be doing just fine without having much of a doctrinal framework to hang their revolution on…

    You’re right that they’re just going their own way and ignoring our cultural war, instead counting on outbreeding us, and that’s just it – they aren’t looking to build bridges with us to help us fight progressivism. They’re content to wait out the progs, and if possible, at that point, pick up the pieces, and defeat us as a civilization, once and for all. I admire and respect their strategy, but I don’t see it helping us, in any way. On the contrary, since they aren’t helping us, and since like many minority immigrant groups, they’re happy to vote for highly pro-immigration parties to keep their kind flowing in, even if they hold their noses and ignore the pro-gay, pro-abortion stances, etc., that functionally places them as aiders and abetters of the progs, I think. I’m not a foaming-at-the-mouth kind of ‘if they’re not with us, they’re against us’ type in all circumstances, but I have trouble seeing it any other way with them. If I saw any evidence that they eschewed voting for Democrats and Liberals, and instead were willing to go conservative while remaining doctrinally faithful and not wanting to be painted as ‘moderate’ (like Calgary’s Muslim mayor), the way that some Conservative and some Orthodox Jews have done, joining the political and culturally conservative movement, I might be more optimistic. As it stands, I see little reason to be, unless and until that changes. When I see them joining conservative movements, speaking out as political conservatives against gay marriage, abortion, etc., and when I see them wanting to limit immigration of less desirable kinds of immigrants (ones who end up welfare or in criminal gangs), then I might be convinced otherwise. Till then, I wish them well in fighting against modern trends within their own community, but I can’t see them as allies in helping our societies, as a whole, fight such.

  3. infowarrior1

    July 16, 2014 at 4:09 am

    @Will S.

    There are 2 methods to put to rest a heresy other than war. Outbreeding them and superior apologetic.

    Foster critical thinking in general and destroy all obstacles to the knowledge of god.

  4. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 7:52 am

    @ infowarrior1: Quite true, indeed.

    We just need time, then to outlast the progressives, and we should start pumping out documents online and in pamphlets that undercut Islam, highlight its internal contradictions, and so on, to weaken them from within – then we can meet them with our faith! 🙂

  5. infowarrior1

    July 16, 2014 at 8:16 am

    @Will S.

    Then there is also the manner of prayer. God must be at work to ensure that all our efforts do not come to naught. The fact that Jesus appears in visions to muslims all around the world is also important. I remember reading a book of when a group of people prayed to god about certain imams and those imams had visions of God. The fact that the quran endorses dreams and visions in order for muslims to recieve revelation also is probably why muslims are more likely to have visions of Jesus.

  6. kronbergweb

    July 16, 2014 at 8:28 am

    So, is Islam the the Second falling away after Roman Catholicism — taking the Orthodox p.o.v. that Romanism was the first protestantism.

    Another point of view might be that Islam is influenced by Judaism: the Talmudic religion; I recall reading that Mohammed had a Jewish mystic as spiritual guide for a while: I keep coming across similar attitudes towards the unbeliever or goy.

  7. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 9:17 am

    @ infowarrior1: Good points.

  8. Taco

    July 16, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    “England was the only Roman province to go Protestant, and it did not happen willingly”

    Only the wholesale genocide of Calvinists prevented France from going Protestant.

  9. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    @ Taco: Indeed, the Huguenots were quite a sizeable minority and growing fast, before they were dealt with… I’d love to see someone write an alternate history imagining France coming to terms with them, rather than slaughtering and scattering them… Everything would have been different, esp. the French Revolution…

  10. Taco

    July 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    @ Will

    I doubt there was any “coming to terms” as a realistic option. Eventually, by Salic Law, the Protestant Bourbons were going to achieve the throne. France was either going to be Protestant or Catholic. If Protestant, the revolution might have come a century sooner.

  11. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    The character of the Revolution might have been different, too; it may have been less aggressively secularist, less radical; more like the American one…

  12. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    And now, welcome to our new segment at Patriactionary: When Canadians talk US history. First up, Will:
    I am familiar with that Lincoln quote. And was Lincoln able to make the Confederacy friends, and get them to see what he saw as the error of their ways, and end slavery, and restore the Union peacefully? Alas, no; he ended up instead crushing them utterly, in civil war. (He didn’t start it, granted, but he certainly finished it.)

    Maneuvering the South into firing his desired first shot was classic Lincoln. The interesting thing in your comment is to see Lincoln as a proto-neoconservative. Personally affable, given to the right impulse to seek to find WHY an enemy is an enemy. Give him the reins of power of a large industrial state, however, and there is NO negotiation. Send in the troops/drones/torture squads. Sorry to have baited you, Will: you now have my invite to get me to discuss Benedict Arnold and the invasion of 1776, about which I know one thing: you Canadians will never let us live down the defeat.

  13. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    But given that it is now a separate religion, I’m not sure how to emphasize the elements that remain somewhat orthodox, if any really can still said to be, in a way to use that to proselytize to them. If it can be pulled off, great! I just have trouble visualizing it…

    I have trouble visualizing Heaven, but I believe it exists. It is a tough nut to crack. I think the faith they follow is hostile to us and will be a challenge. We’ve tried to beat them with military force; they have demographic numbers, and they don’t have our Progressive ideals undermining them as much. We need to ask WHY they are our enemy, and see if we cannot redirect that impulse elsewhere. Using reason and respecting their faith can direct them back to roots. I certainly think that a Muslim is less likely to cause me harm than a US Government official; the latter threatens me everyday with violence for noncompliance, the former, not so much.

  14. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm


    taking the Orthodox p.o.v. that Romanism was the first protestantism.
    OW! Lumping me in with heretics like Will? Low blow! Filioque!

    I’d guess we’re 90-95% simpatico. The similarities are less with further drift. I wonder: what percentage of current Catholic belief is also held by Muslims? And what percentage of what they believe do Christians believe? Maybe 40-50%?

  15. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    @ EA: 🙂

    I don’t pretend to be any historian of the U.S. Civil War, but as a paleocon, I sympathize much with the paleo, revisionist view of Lincoln as the first modern American tyrant, consolidator of a collectivity of sovereign states into a unitary republic; where people used to say, pre-Lincoln, “The United States are…”, they since then always say “The United States is…”.

    Anyway, I was just noting the apparent gap between what Lincoln preached, and what he practiced. 🙂

    Benedict Arnold started out bad, but died a hero in the end. 😉

  16. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    @ EA: “I certainly think that a Muslim is less likely to cause me harm than a US Government official; the latter threatens me everyday with violence for noncompliance, the former, not so much.”

    For now. If you lived in the Dar-al-Islam – if that came to you – under Sharia, it might be different…

  17. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm

    @Will and Taco,

    I think the Revolution is essentially the same social class as the Huguenots taking power. They finally get their hands on France, slaughter thousands (millions, if you count their wars in the rest of Europe) of Catholics in the Vendee, and get to seize all that juicy land. I’d guess they were no more than 10% of the population. But they were the sort of Bourgeois who were jealous of the throne and landed aristocracy. The same sort of thing happened in England

    The conclusion of this modern grassroots scholarship is that bulldozing the Catholic Church off the face of medieval England was not a “bottom up” revolution in which Henry merely acquiesced to his people’s wishes by throwing off a widely hated foreign domination. To the contrary, it looks increasingly like Henry and his circle imposed the Reformation “top down”, unleashing 100 years of deep anger and alienation that was only overcome by sustained politicking and ruthless force.

    So, the deaths of 30,000 in the St. Bart’s massacre were what Stalin might call a statistic. The Huguenots were NOT able to use the tools of central power to enrich themselves on Church lands, create themselves as a new aristocracy, and enforce their religious will on the peasant population, like the English one a dedicatedly Catholic one. Given what the Elizabethans (“in 1571 legislation was enacted making it treasonable to be under the authority of the Pope, including being a Jesuit, being Roman Catholic or harbouring a Catholic priest. The standard penalty for all those convicted of treason at the time was execution by being hanged, drawn and quartered.”) thought of religious liberty and was just to do to their religious minorities, let alone Cromwell, this probably saved more lives than it cost.

    The French Revolution, of course, killed many more Catholics who did not care to see their Cathedrals turned into “temples of Reason.” I can just imagine what iconoclasm would have done to Notre Dame de Paris. Wait, that actually happened.

  18. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:51 pm


    The character of the Revolution might have been different, too; it may have been less aggressively secularist, less radical; more like the American one…

    I cannot imagine French Calvinists being anything like their Puritan co-religionists in the UK. But maybe. A lot of the religious repression in England arose out of the fear of divestiture of the new aristocracy’s lands, seized from the Church. That fear drove a propaganda industry that disconnected the Puritans from reality. If the Huguenots simply sought religious freedom and not temporal and economic power, I doubt that France would have been convulsed. But I cannot help but see a lot of the high-level elite seizure of commonweal goods as having its parallel in our oblivious power elite in the USA’s impoverishment of the whole country to suit their own ends.

    And the US revolution, I think, WAS radical. I think its endgame was always going to be PC. I’ve come to admit: you Canadians were right, and the “founding Fathers” were traitors to their just king.

  19. electricangel

    July 16, 2014 at 5:56 pm


    For now. If you lived in the Dar-al-Islam – if that came to you – under Sharia, it might be different…
    OF course, I don’t live in it. Now, if Islam is a threat, then my government would do everything it could to keep it away. It doesn’t.

    I think I would prefer the Dar-al-Islam (except Saudi Arabia.) At least there I wouldn’t have to bow and scrape and pretend that my rulers had my best interests at heart. Is the Jizya a higher percentage of income than USA tax rates?

  20. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    @ EA:

    “I’ve come to admit: you Canadians were right, and the “founding Fathers” were traitors to their just king.”

    Ha! Welcome to the Dark Side! 🙂

    I agree that the U.S. revolution was radical; I am a monarchist, after all. However, I do think the French one was worse; look how much further along they are in secularism, moral decline, decadence – and Islamic takeover of entire swaths of French big cities…

    Re: the Huguenots, and the English Reformation: Well, indeed, both sides had a tendency to be quite nasty and vindictive towards their enemies; there’s certainly enough blame to go around; I won’t pretend the Protestants had clean hands, of course. I’m glad that eventually, the English finally got tired of the constant back-and-forth, and decided to learn to live-and-let-live… Sad the French didn’t get to be able to come to that understanding, as well…

    “Now, if Islam is a threat, then my government would do everything it could to keep it away. It doesn’t.”

    I can’t tell if you’re joking, or not, but I certainly don’t think the elites have thought things through that well – or, they don’t care… Not sure which.

    “Is the Jizya a higher percentage of income than USA tax rates?”

    Maybe not. But c’mon; would you want to live in a land where you can’t legally drink, and have to make do with rotgut moonshine instead of good stuff? 😉

  21. James and the Giant Peach

    July 16, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Islam is much more macho and patriarch oriented: for now. My family came from the middle east to America and there are a lot of things to note:

    1)If the family westernizes, it falls into the same pitfalls as Christianity. Women are started to become pedastalized and although it is much slower due to Islam’s cultural inertia, I presume a century or two from now, you will find extremely progressively denominations of Islam, especially in the West.

    2) We see that Islamic countries that are not interfered with tend to slowly become more secular. This was true of Iran before constant U.S. intervention and also of Turkey before the constant wars of the past decade. Everytime we poke a Muslim country whether with ground troops, CIA funded weapons aid, or airstrikes, the country almost always becomes MORE Islamic. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt is arguable, Syria. Not to mention the Islamic Party gaining traction in Turkey due to feeding off the peoples’ fear of instability. If we want to stop radical Islam, and also islamic immigration, it is probably not a good idea to keep poking them over and over.

    3) In any middle eastern country the West is associated with Christianity. Doesn’t matter if it is a half truth, but the West has invaded the Middle East countless times over the past few centuries.
    Martin Luther once wrote that he thought the Turks were demons sent by God to punish the West which fell alway from its roots. Today, people in the Middle East think the same of Christians, and westerners. America, Britain, France, Germany, etc.. are all demons in the eyes of Muslims. Every time they come the state is collapsed, widespread death occurs, quality of life drops dramatically, etc..

    The reason why Islam in the Middle East will remain a patriarch leaning society is because the Western governments, the troops who fight for it, and the people who vote for it, keep it that way. There are no feminists in a country with so many orphans, so much death, so much instability. You only have reality and that is patriarchy. And they will never side with the immoral Christians in promiscuous societies who fly and sail across the oceans to bomb and obliterate their entire family and way of life. Why would they? From their justified point of view, we are demons.

  22. Will S.

    July 16, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    @ James: I remember you said previously (here, and also here and here) that you are yourself a convert from Islam, and since that is part of ElectricAngel’s subject here, I was wondering if you could share with us, a bit of how you came to know Christ, and if in sharing the Gospel with you, anyone pointed to any parts of the Koran that dealt with Christ, or Old Testament prophets like Moses, and Abraham, and used such in teaching you, and what you think of the notion of us Christians doing so, to try to reach Muslims living in our midst, or elsewhere for that matter? Do you think that can be part of an effective witnessing / evangelizing strategy? Does the fact of Islam having certain elements of teachings in common with Christianity help reach Muslims? Or does the distortion of them (e.g. the misunderstanding / misrepresentation of the Trinity, the Islamic teaching that Jesus was horrified at the notion of being considered divine, etc.) present a barrier? Or is irrelevant?

    Just wondering what your thoughts might be on the subject.

  23. James and the Giant Peach

    July 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    I am studying at the moment but I will comment perhaps later tonight or sometime tomorrow at the latest

    • Will S.

      July 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm

      I understand.

      Would you perhaps be interested in doing a guest post on the subject? I’m just thinking your response might be long enough and deserve its own post, itself. 🙂

  24. infowarrior1

    July 17, 2014 at 5:16 am

    Some helpful advice:

    Its best to avoid attacking the quran and muhammed which would just causethem to harden their hearts. Just preach the gospel to them.

  25. Will S.

    July 17, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Makes sense.

    I look forward to hearing from James as to how he came to reject Islam and embrace Christianity.

  26. Agapoula

    July 17, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Electric angel, thank you for answering my comment. I appreciate your answer. 🙂 . And thank you for the welcome, I enjoy it here.
    Sorry I am delayed in answer but I have been very busy with my father.

    And I am now getting ready to go to dinner, so I will give my thoughts on this later this evening. 🙂 .

  27. electricangel

    July 17, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    “I’ve come to admit: you Canadians were right, and the “founding Fathers” were traitors to their just king.”

    Ha! Welcome to the Dark Side!

    The Canadian “dark side.” Here’s how they torture you: they seat you in a room and apologize for about 3 hours about how they’re sorry they have to inflict pain on you to extract information, and wouldn’t it be good if you just told them now, eh? By the end of an hour, your brain is mush. At the end of two, you willingly rip off your own testes and donate them to the torturer. At the end of three, with not a single cigarette applied to your eyeball, but only apologies, you tell them everything they want to know. Which turns out to be one thing: don’t you think Canada is better than the USA?

    Maybe not. But c’mon; would you want to live in a land where you can’t legally drink, and have to make do with rotgut moonshine instead of good stuff?
    I support censorship and repression. Look at the artwork made in the Soviet union, or by Verdi in Italy, spurred by censorship. In the same way, it would cause me to up my brewing ability. I understand no public drunkenness; but the private parties I’ve seen in Iran really exceed what we do here. They seem to respect the private space more, because of the tight control on the public space.

  28. electricangel

    July 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm


    I, too, would welcome a guest post. It would be a fascinating tale. Agree with infowarrior: Its best to avoid attacking the quran and muhammed which would just causethem to harden their hearts. Just preach the gospel to them.

    I would refer you to the most important leadership book you’ll ever read: Cialdini, boiled down to action items. In there we note: “Don’t give negative feedback. It only makes people defensive.” In other words, don’t push away; lead toward.

  29. electricangel

    July 17, 2014 at 1:57 pm


    Good girl! After you have properly attended to the needs of the Patriarch in your home, we will welcome more input from you.

  30. Will S.

    July 17, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    @ EA: That’s how we broke you? Awesome!

    And here I thought we’d have to threaten to force-feed you poutine… 😉

  31. Will S.

    July 17, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    @ EA: Soviet art? Why, the rugged masculinity of New Soviet Man portrayals had some beauty about them, but overall… I presume you jest.

    I’m happy to hear Iran has wild parties at least (some release rather than none), but instead of see-sawing between public pietism and private debauchery (as that Zmirak book I reviewed noted, the opposite of a vice isn’t a virtue, but another vice; the sweet spot is in the middle), I’d like to be able to also publicly have a drink or two out at a pub or restaurant, rather than only clandestinely downing much greater amounts with other desperate souls at someone’s home. But that’s just me. 🙂

  32. James and the Giant Peach

    July 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    @Will You can make it a guest post or not, I’m not sure if it is worth a self post but it is up to you.

    But anyways, before I was a Christian, I noticed that the way Christian political leaders, pastors and newspapers in America work is that they appeal via moral superiority to the masses. As a specific case (divorce), Dalrock himself points this out constantly by referring to articles on the Christian Post, or Focus on the Family, where the author is very happy that the Christian divorce rate is lower than the general population rate. Despite the Christian divorce rate still being around a giant 30%. So then Christians are able to be happy and exclaim, that there must be something real about Christianity if it lowers divorce rates so much! And indeed there might be.

    No Muslim will ever be convinced by that argument. Take for example, my Muslim family. My mother is 1 of 7 children. My father is 1 of 7 children. Out of my vast amount of relatives there was maybe 1 divorce. That’s it. The country my parents come from currently has a divorce rate of about 20% which is seen as super high, and as a result, the Islamist party gets elected into power to restore traditional values. The 20% general population divorce rate isn’t even half of the United States general population divorce rate and people are already trying to change society to counteract this. And this country, is one of the most liberal Muslim states in existence. So the whole “Christians are a positive moral influence on general society” argument doesn’t appeal to Muslims because from their point of view, even the Christian standard is lacking compared to the most liberal Muslim state. This isn’t only specific to the case of divorce though, but that’s beyond the scope of this post and divorce is just the example I am using to show you the Muslim mindset. Also, any argument you enter with a Muslim person, they can show that Christian/Western government influence has always made them worse (and more Islamic). You can take the entire MiddleEast and North Africa region as an example, Churchill causing a systematic famine in the Bengal areas of India killing 4 million people contributing to the almost entirely Muslim state of Bangladesh, etc. etc. If you want to play the moral superiority game with Muslims, they will beat you at your own game by pointing cultural trends, and in addition to that point out countless examples in the past centuries where Western countries (which they associate wholly with Christians) have utterly messed up Muslim countries/communities. So if you want to convert Muslims, you really have to avoid that route.

    Now what you do have to your advantage is that most Muslims haven’t actually read the Bible. The Qur’an states that Jews and Christians originally had the right teachings, but it was corrupted. Therefore most Muslims haven’t even read the Old Testament or New Testament. That’s a fresh field to plant seeds! I myself was invited to a Bible study from a minister on the street. Curiosity is what made me go the first time. The first Bible study I was given was of Zaccheus the tax collector. He climbed a tree to see Jesus from a far, but had to come down to really see Jesus as he is. So while I didn’t believe the Christian version at that time yet, I could agree with the point of the story that I cannot let pop culture or my own distanced perceptions of Christians and Jesus define what Christians believe. So I gave it a shot and went to bible study around 2x, 3x a week. What convinced me a lot were the universal truths in the Bible, things that I could read and immediately see being true, even from my own experience. And the biggest point of all was that the minister lived as he preached. The minister just started the church in the city I was in, so it had no congregants. The minister lived frugally and self-sufficiently (not like the church pastors you hear on the news with Rolls Royces or Mercedes-Benz, eating fancy dinners at 5 star restaurants etc.), lived with patience and love (I had never ending questions), lived with a true purpose and dedication to God. Something drove him that I quite couldn’t place my finger on. And I don’t mean ambition for wordily things. I believe you can’t fake that. A person can tell when a pastor or minister has ulterior motives. Not always, but you can feel the desparateness of a pastor looking to fill his pews for tithe not for saving of souls and establishing a fellowship with them.

    So this is continuing, maybe several months in, and I start comparing it to the things in the Qur’an. If God in the OT chose Israel as his chosen tribe, language, people and all, and in the NT Jesus opened it up to everyone, why does the Qur’an instate Arabic as the official language again? It would seem like a backwards move given God’s track record. Jesus was crucified because he refused to use violence, so why would the next prophet use violence? Wouldn’t have God made Jesus use violence the first time if it was OK anyways? And so on. Eventually the system I had in my head of what Islam was collapsed in the face of all these questions. I was convinced, in light of the minister’s way of life (the fruit) and the teachings of the Bible (the wisdom) that whatever the tree was (Jesus/God) must have been good.

    If you want to try and convert Muslims, first you have to hook them with the curiosity of a Bible they’ve never read, make them stay for a while with your own actions and lifestyle, and then let the Bible speak for itself. Other than that the best witness to a Muslim community is if Christians fix up their own communities and lives. In my country there are some Christians (less than .5% probably) that are Eastern Orthodox. They say they converted because of the lifestyle they saw them living and eventually the truths in the Bible. They also say they would have never converted to American or Western European Christianity because what they preached never matched how they lived their lifestyle, and that it was evident in their community, culture, and morals. (Of course this is not true of all Western Christians, as I myself have been heavily influenced by one). Don’t underestimate your own lifestyle, actions and deeds in the eyes of a Muslim. That draws them in to stay around and read the Bible which ultimately converts them.

    You aren’t going to convert Muslims wholesale by pointing at Christian society or morals. You are going to convert them on a 1 on 1 basis, using your own life as a living testimony, and proof of God. The reason why so many people followed Jesus is because he backed up his actions by words. Heck, half the time the Pharisees taught things approved by him (do what they say, not what they do), but because the Pharisees themselves did not do it they didn’t have the same sort of authority Jesus did. That and being the son of God thing also helps. It really shows the power of actually doing and not just saying. If you have an obese, diabetic man sitting on the couch all day giving you diet and workout advice, you in no way shape or form want to listen to any advice he has for you, despite the fact that the advice could be true. And when a Muslim, sees a sick, immoral, adulterous, divorcing Christian society, that constantly invades his homeland, trying to give advice on how to live a good life, be a good person, how to live for God, do you think he will want to hear it? So you either have to fix your own society, or go to him as an healthy Christian individual. In my conversion it was an individual that helped convince me so never underestimate the impact of one person.

  33. Will S.

    July 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Thank you very much for this, James! Very interesting testimony, and I appreciate your personal POV as someone who well knows his own people, how they think and react. I do think your comment at least deserves its own post, even though you fashioned it just as a reply, so I won’t make it into a guest post, per se, but I will use it as a springboard, and quote it verbatim, with your name in the subject line, and give my prompting as an introduction to it.

  34. sfcton

    July 20, 2014 at 11:12 am

    The best way to convert moslems? Give them the same three options islam gives the world, conversion, slavery or death.

    Course Christain never want to do anything that is actually effective

  35. Will S.

    July 20, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Islam’s options for Christians and Jews are conversion, gizya, or death; for non-Christians and non-Jews, only conversion and death.

    Slavery, while tolerated within Islam to some degree, is not usually an option they give.

    Anyway, we can’t threaten death, because that would be murder, and thus wrong.

  36. sfcton

    July 20, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Will I have a lot o the moslem world. Slavery is alive an thriving; gizya is slavery when you look at it.

  37. Will S.

    July 20, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    Yes, I’ve heard slavery is still around. But how do people become slaves? Is it hereditary? Do they still engage in the slave trade? I don’t know, but I suspect that the slavers of, say, Zanzibar, were simply involved in the African slave trade of the same kind the Europeans got into; they were merchants, not warriors doing jihad and making people who wouldn’t convert into slaves, were they?

    Are Muslims doing that?

    Gizya, if heavy, no doubt is a burden, but is it anything like actual slavery? I realize there’s a certain sort of ‘apartheid’-ish thing where those under gizya have less rights than Muslims, re: property ownership laws, whatever, but is that really like slavery? Blacks under apartheid in South Africa were nobody’s slaves, even if second-class citizens. Blacks in the Confederacy were mostly slaves; big difference. Are ‘People of the Book’ property?

  38. Will S.

    July 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    ISIS isn’t giving Christians the slavery option:

  39. sfcton

    July 21, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    Will as I understand it gizya can be whatever the moslems want it to be. In some.cases it was a lite yoke, in others a moslem could rape, kill or steal at will, a Christain could not own a horse or house if a moslem did not own one etc.etc.

    Think of it this way: The South imported very few slaves. 500k or so. The large slave population in the South was due to natural increase and there was little in the way of up risings. That cannot be said of slavery in moslem nations (or anywhere else in the new world either)

    Ottoman empire was famous for enslaving Christians and making them fight for islam or be sex slaves.

    Current version of slavery. Yep. Some of it is a straight up sale, others come over for legitimate work then have their passports stolen, never allowed to leave. More of an indentured servant scam but it’s slavery regardless of the term used.Many moslem cleric openly call for an increase in the slave trade as a way to improve the economy and save moslem girls from sexual sin. Ie kidnapping Rushian girls in Chechnya and selling them in Kuwait.

    moslems should be exterminated not engaged and unless you are learning about islam from original sources you are being lied to for political reasons (same about the South)

    • Will S.

      July 21, 2014 at 9:25 pm

      This is a Christian site, and we don’t believe in extermination.

  40. Will S.

    July 21, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    It’s one thing to be unafraid to engage them in battle; it’s another to advocate that…

    I would request that you please kindly refrain from calling for such, in the future, at this site, thanks.

  41. Will S.

    July 21, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    i.e. henceforth.

  42. infowarrior1

    July 22, 2014 at 8:57 am

    Romans 12:19
    Never avenge yourselves my friends but leave room for the wrath of God for it is written: “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord I shall repay”

    Look even if the canaanite conquest is genocide. And for that matter the flood. The prerogative belongs to God alone. Are Christians nowadays commanded to commit genocide against unbelievers? No rather we are to be ambassadors of Christ to help God to save souls from the ultimate fate of judgement.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s