After the shocking news that “home grown” Muslim “terrorists” (more rightfully called jihadis) planned to blow up nine aircraft full of passengers mid-flight over US metropolitan areas which would have killed thousands of innocent people (mostly infidels in their eyes) – in other words, mass murder of enormous proportions – there have been renewed calls for more interfaith dialogue with “our Muslim brothers and sisters”. These calls for more interfaith dialogue are naïve at best, downright stupid, dangerous and appeasing at worst.
One engages in dialogue with people who are yielding enough, with people who are willing enough to shift their opinions somewhat, in order to be able to reach a compromise. Muslims are totally and utterly unyielding. There can be no compromise with them. None at all! They believe they are right. They believe they are God’s (more correctly Allah’s) chosen people, the people who have a monopoly on the truth. They believe that we are inferior beings to them simply because we do not belong to their faith group, because we have not accepted Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah. Further, they believe that we are unclean and unworthy. Their stated aim is to take over the world, to Islamize it. This is the aim of jihad. How can one engage successfully in dialogue with such people?
To engage in dialogue with Muslims is a futile exercise. Nothing will come out of it. Ex niliho nihil fit. This is not a defeatist attitude; rather, it is a realistic one. Islam is out to dominate the world, out to supersede Christianity as the only worthy faith, and out to annihilate Israel and the Jews. With such people, one does not engage in dialogue; rather, one fights them, one thwarts their ambitions, one vanquishes them.
In any case, what is there to discuss? Muslims deny all the basic tenets of Christianity: They deny that Jesus was the Son of God; they deny that Jesus was crucified (hence the cross is anathema to them); they deny that true Salvation can be found only when one accepts Jesus as one’s Redeemer; indeed, they deny that Jesus is the Christ.
If someone doesn’t believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about.
In actual fact, Muslims believe that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for all time. They believe that Muhammad came to bring this perfection about. They believe that Muhammad was the ultimate prophet of Allah, and that Jesus was the penultimate one. Jesus is therefore a lesser ‘prophet’ in their eyes than Muhammad is. This should surely be anathema to Church leaders; but it apparently is not. So dilute has our faith become in the eyes of the Church elders!
It defies belief that our Church leaders are prepared and willing for Muslims to deny - absolutely - the raison d’être of the Church. What Church leaders should be urging their priests to do is evangelize, they should be bringing Muslims to task for their heinous crimes against humanity, and showing them the Way, the Truth and the Light. That, after all, is what they are paid to do; it’s their raison d’être. But they seem not to know it!
Do churchmen not know that every country in which Islam has put down roots it has eventually taken over and snuffed out Christianity almost for good. Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the Lebanon are good cases in point. Yes, there are still some Christians left in some of these countries – just – but these countries are now Islamic, and the indigenous populations are minorities in their own lands. Christianity never thrives where Islam takes hold. So what on earth are our Church leaders aiding this process of our own destruction for? Don’t they really believe that Jesus is the Christ? Don’t they really believe that Jesus was crucified for our sins? Don’t they really believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light?
Interfaith dialogue with Muslims is a waste of time and effort. So I do not believe in it; rather, I believe in thwarting the enemy within, and making them submit to our way of life. After all, if they don’t like it here, then they are free to leave and find other pastures. Nobody is keeping them here; and there is easy access to airports throughout the UK. This is true not only for the UK, but for other Western countries, too. In fact, I would hazard a guess and say that the vast majority of Westerners would be relieved if they did leave, since hell will freeze over before Muslims integrate!
To get to this point, we have made many, many mistakes. Here are some of them…
First of all, we shouldn’t have allowed so many Muslims into the West in the first place. We should have done our homework first. Successive political leaders should have read a few history books on the 1400-year struggle between Christendom and Islam. That would have set off some danger lights. Instead of this, nothing was learnt from history. People thought that the wheel could be reinvented. They were let in in their droves. And – astoundingly – they are still being let in! Moreover, if we truly live in a democracy, as our leaders keep telling us, then the people should have been consulted about allowing them in, and warned of the dangers of such a course of action.
Secondly, the ones that were let in should have been told – in no uncertain terms – that they can come here if they abide by our laws, and live according to our customs; otherwise they would not be welcome here. Instead of that, the West has gone down the politically-correct, multicultural route, thus forcing the indigenous population to make all the concessions. I always liken it to guests in my home: They are always welcome, as long as they abide by the rules of the house. I make the rules in my household. I am always the boss in my own home. Once someone starts to tell me how I should run my home, I politely show him/her the door. This should have been done with these immigrants from the start. They need to be placed on the defensive. They must be shown that they are not in the driving seat in our countries, no more than we are in the driving seat in theirs.
Thirdly, who gave our leaders the permission to try and turn our countries into pluralistic havens anyway, into utopias for all the peoples of the world. Were you ever asked to vote on this? I wasn’t; I know that. And had I been asked, I would have voted a firm ‘no’, without any hesitation.
The politicians have got themselves into a fix; and they don’t know how to get out of it. They haven’t got the courage to take the necessary Draconian measures to fix this problem, so they ask for dialogue instead. This goes for the Church, too. They no longer believe in the Scriptures as they should do; so they embark on a dilution of our faith instead, so that it doesn’t offend Muslims. Church leaders will never fill the empty pews that way. People are sick and tired of their prattling! That probably goes a long way to answer why the pews in Europe are pretty empty, and are continuing to empty still further, too.
We have embarked on a perilous journey: a journey of self-destruction. If people don’t wake up to the realities of what we are facing soon, then it will be too late. It is already five to midnight!
President Bush, for the first time in a long time, had the courage recently to state that we are engaged in a war with “Islamic fascists”. This is the most truthful thing he has stated in a very long time. I applaud him for having the courage to say it. He should say it again and again, until it sinks in with the general public. But if he really wants to hit the nail on the head, he should come out and say that this is not so much a “war on terror”, but a ‘war on the jihad’, the jihad which is out to annihilate us, and annihilate freedom and democracy, and annihilate all that the West stands for. This is indeed a battle between two civilizations. In such a battle, there is no room for dialogue, there is room only for victory. For, as Churchill so wisely stated during the Second World War, “without victory, there is no survival”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say: You ‘interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for ‘interfaithing’!
©Mark Alexander
25 comments:
what church leaders are you referring to? examples please, christians arent a monolitic group
I am referring to many in the established churches. But, in particular, I am referring to the elders in the Church of England, which you, in the States, call the Episcopalian Church.
Criacuervos:
I don't understand your comment. I'm sorry.
This is indeed a battle between two civilizations
A war between civilizations requires at least two. So that statement is logically false.
Kepiblanc:
No, it isn't. It could be between three! Hairsplitting will not help the 'war effort'!
"In any case, what is there to discuss? Muslims deny all the basic tenets of Christianity: They deny that Jesus was the Son of God; they deny that Jesus was crucified (hence the cross is anathema to them); they deny that true Salvation can be found only when one accepts Jesus as one’s Redeemer; indeed, they deny that Jesus is the Christ.
If someone doesn’t believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about."
Wrong. The West does not have to come into war with every society that does not accept religious tenets of Christianism. That would be to do exactly the same thing as Islamofascists want to do to us.
As long as you respect my natural rights of life, property and the liberty to pursue my own happiness in my own way, I don't really care whether you believe in Christ, in Allah, in ET or whoever you want.
Indeed, Jews do not accept that Jesus was the son of God or that redemption only comes through acceptance of Him. But we do not have Jews blowing themselves up to kill us. The same with Buddhists, Hindus, etc. And still, I find that I do have much to talk about with them.
Thus, you got it wrong in thinking that the reason we are at war with Islam is because they do not accept Christ as the Saviour.
Jaime Raúl Molina:
As long as you respect my natural rights of life, property and the liberty to pursue my own happiness in my own way, I don't really care whether you believe in Christ, in Allah, in ET or whoever you want.
You are clearly IGNORANT of the nature of Islam! I, like you, don't care what people believe in as long as they leave me alone to live my own life, to follow my own beliefs, etc. This is not what Muslims do. Muslims will pester you until you submit to Allah, they will kill you if you say something nasty about Allah or his prophet, Muhammad, etc. So there is no way that YOU can live your life the way you want to UNLESS you submit to Allah and his messenger, Muhammad. But then, you wouldn't be living your life as you want to anyway. I'm sorry to have to say it, my friend, but you are NAÏVE!
Indeed, Jews do not accept that Jesus was the son of God or that redemption only comes through acceptance of Him. But we do not have Jews blowing themselves up to kill us. The same with Buddhists, Hindus, etc. And still, I find that I do have much to talk about with them.
No they don't; and we don't have them blowing themselves up. That's the difference in the nature of the Jew, Hindu, etc. They are willing to live and let live. Muslims are not. Get real, my friend! Get real! You are living in 'cloud cuckoo land'.
Thus, you got it wrong in thinking that the reason we are at war with Islam is because they do not accept Christ as the Saviour.
No, my friend, I have got NOTHING wrong! YOU have got things wrong. You are HOPELESSLY naïve. You need to get real, you need to start understanding the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be. People like you will get us all killed. People like you will bring our civilization down.
Mark,
First off, I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you.
You say:
"If someone doesn't believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about."
Nothing to talk about? Is that your idea of being fishers of men?
You know Leftists love equating Christianity and Islam. They usually bring up episodes of forced conversions in history. If you want the moral high ground, then words and charity are the only way. Conversion by force is the Muslim's game: "The religion of Mohammed is [spread] by the sword".
The only thing I would agree with is it would be good to have state power to prevent Muslims from killing apostates (or carrying out all the dhimmitude laws... goes without saying). But nothing beyond that.
(Full disclosure: I'm a Jew, not a Christian. But anything is better than Islamonazism.)
Zionistyoungster:
I think you have indeed misunderstood me.
"If someone doesn't believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about."
I am referring to ineterfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. I am not saying that only Christians have a right to live. I am criticizing the Church's readiness to have interfaith dialogue even when Muslims will not budge an inch. That's all!
Nothing to talk about? Is that your idea of being fishers of men?
When it comes to Muslims, I suppose it is, yes. Christian missionaries have been singularly unsuccessful when it comes to converting Muslims. They simply are not ready to convert to anything, believeing, as they do, that Islam is the PERFECTION of religion for man for ALL time. I am no idealist; rather, I am a realist.
If you want the moral high ground, then words and charity are the only way.
Where did you get that stupid notion from? Muslims, if you understood them, understand only one thing: strength. Period!
RAVENING WOLVES ALERT
Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism all teach 'Do not do to another what would be hurtful to you'
Islam teaches 'Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them'.
Genuine religions develop the best aspects of their followers' personalities - love, generosity, tolerance and wisdom.
Islam and Satanism develop the worst aspects of their followers' personalities - hatred, greed, lust, arrogance and ignorance.
As the Man said "By their fruits ye shall know them".
Good post, Mark. I think both Mr. Molina and Zionist Youngster missed the point that the first part of your essay was in objection to interfaith dialogue. I know you well enough to know that you support Jews, and you support the Western principle of freedom of religion.
Your point was simply, there is no room for interfaith dialogue with a faith which is diamtetically and absolutely opposed to Christianity.
I agree with you there.
As you note, history teaches us all we need to know about the history of how Christians and Jews fare under Islam. They dwindle and dwindle until they are almost non-existent.
Today, I was driving around and thinking about the fact thatt Europeans more than any other civilization have had direct contact with islam. Europe has been besieged by islam repeatedly throughout its history.
Things have been so bad between Islam and Europe that several nations, Corsica, Sardinia, and the UK have flags that directly descend from the struggle to banish Islam from their shores.
What more do Europeans need to know?
How could they posssibly have thought it was a good idea to allow millions upon millions of Muslims to settle among them?
Mark,
I am not naive as regards Islam. I am very clear that it is not a religion of peace. I am very clear that it is an ideology of totalitarianism. And I am very clear that, as an ideology, either it goes through very substantial changes, or we will have to fight it.
What I do not agree with is the ARGUMENT you use. The argument against Islam is not that they do not accept Jesus as the Saviour. That is precisely why I mentioned that Jews (and Hindus, and Buddhists) do not accept Jesus as the Messiah and I still do not have any problem with them. This is simply because followers of those religions do not have the intention of imposing their beliefs upon me. They do not say "behead whoever does insult Moses", for example.
I know that if I go to a synagogue and say "hey, I bring loads of pork for you all", I won't be looked upon with kindness. But I know also that I won't be beheaded (or stoned to death).
That is the difference with Islam. Islam does not accept dissent. Islam means submission, and the whole culture of Islam is one of submission without rational critique.
Christianity, on the other hand, does not have a problem with dissent. You may even insult Jesus (make as many cartoons as you want), and some people will even say nasty things to you (it is also their right to express themselves). But you don't have to fear for your life.
The superiority of our Western culture, is precisely that we have come to accept that each person's beliefs are an intimate matter. One of the basic tenets of Christianism is human free-will. God Himself did not take away man's free-will when He expelled man from Eden. But He did not do that. Because God still wants you to CHOOSE. Surely He wants you to choose the Good over Evil. But in order for your choice to be laudable, it must be that: a choice.
Our difference with Islam is fundamental. It goes to the core. Islam does not base itself on human free-will. Islam FEARS free will. For Christianity, free-will is absolutely fundamental. Without it, man ceases to be a man.
I totally agree with Mark in that we have to fight Islam. It is the argument (that they don't accept Jesus as the Saviour) that I can't agree with.
Jaime Raúl Molina:
All I can think of, Jaime, is that you have totally misunderstood what I stated. In no way did I imply that one had to accept Jesus as one's Saviour. Perhaps you should read it again. Are you, perhaps, reading into this essay something which simply isn't there?
No, Mark. I am reading something that is quite there in what you wrote. Remember also that I was not the only one to understand that I interpreted from your original post.
"In any case, what is there to discuss? Muslims deny all the basic tenets of Christianity: They deny that Jesus was the Son of God; they deny that Jesus was crucified (hence the cross is anathema to them); they deny that true Salvation can be found only when one accepts Jesus as one’s Redeemer; indeed, they deny that Jesus is the Christ.
If someone doesn’t believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about."
I don't have the privilege of knowing you personally, so in contrast to Pastorius, I can not apply to what you wrote any external knowledge of what you might have meant. I can only interpret your writing from what is written there.
Mark, read again your own post. "If someone doesn't believe in these tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about." What are "these" tenets? Logically, "these tenets" refer to what you wrote immediately preceding that phrase. And what are those? Having Jesus as the Christ, that Jesus is the Son of God, that Jesus was crucified, and that true salvation can only be attainted by accepting such tenets.
In any case, I don't see why any interfaith dialogue would necessitate the previous acceptance from every party to that dialogue, of such tenets. It would be illogical, as the acceptance of those tenets makes you, automatically, a Christian, and therefore it would immediately cease to be an "interfaith" dialogue to become an "inTRAfaith" conversation.
I can think of interfaith dialogue between Christians and Jews, PRECISELY because it is not necessary that Jews accept those tenets beforehand.
It seems to me, Mark, for the reason above outlined, that by setting that standard as a sine qua non for any interfaith dialogue, you are automatically ruling out ANY interfaith dialogue, not just that between Christians and Muslims. Your standard for interfaith dialogue makes this a logical impossibility, for if you demand that for you to enter into dialogue with someone of another religion, that other person must first accept as truth the very tenets that make the core of your religion (and that, by definition, differentiate your religion from all the others), then as soon as that person meets your criteria, any dialogue that you enter into with that person becomes automatically something that cannot possibly be an interfaith dialogue.
The intention of dialogue in this context is to start from common ground and find ways to coexist peacefully. For that, I don't need that the other person accepts the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. I would only require for dialogue with anybody in that context, that he recognizes that I am a person with the right to life, property and the liberty to decide my own faith. And that person must renounce any intention to coerce his will upon me.
Again, Mark, I am convinced since long ago that Islam is a serious threat to Western Civilization. But not because of the reasons outlined in your essay.
Mark,
"I am referring to ineterfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. I am not saying that only Christians have a right to live. I am criticizing the Church's readiness to have interfaith dialogue even when Muslims will not budge an inch. That's all!"
I agree dialog for the sake of dialog is a waste of time (much like academic symposiums). But surely there is at least some dialog involved when you try to convert Muslims to Christianity, no? Dialog like that which Paul engaged in on Mars Hill and such?
"Christian missionaries have been singularly unsuccessful when it comes to converting Muslims."
I think the law of death to apostates has something to do with it.
The only thing you require is that that law be defanged. The USA should be doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, now that it's there, but isn't. I suggest you raise this issue wide and high, because it's crucial.
"They simply are not ready to convert to anything, believeing, as they do, that Islam is the PERFECTION of religion for man for ALL time."
Most religionists believe the religion they were raised on is the best. By that way of thinking, no one can ever be converted. You know it isn't so.
"Muslims, if you understood them, understand only one thing: strength."
That's when we're talking about politics, military and counterterrorism. Not when we're talking about religious conversion.
Zionistyounger,
your fatal error is that you treat Islam as a religion (the notion of "religion" that we, westerners, have). That, unfortunately, isn't true. Islam is MORE than a simple set of beliefs. It claims to be a WAY OF LIFE, a set of rule governing men's relation with the world. Sharia is ABOVE all other law, be it civil, military etc. You cannot separate faith from politics/military in Islam's view. So, Mark has a point here, and you missed yours (but just barely). Though being quite moderate in my views, I do not think talking is the best way to cope with a rabid bear charging towards me. Sorry.
Quetzal
Quetzal,
I recognize the nature of Islam. I know it claims to be a way of life. I'm aware of its closer kinship to Nazism and Communism rather than Christianity. That said, I used the term "religion" because Mark's post talks about things like what the church should do, and in that vein.
I think I'm the realistic one as opposed to two unrealistic poles, the one thinking only dialog is the solution, the other thinking only force is the solution. My stance (and I'm making it short, it's in full here) is both are required: force first, ideological neutralization second. First you use force to remove the physical threat (homegrown suicide bombers at home, terror-supporting regimes abroad), then you use your power to create an environment where, after a few decades, the ideology itself (Islam) is eradicated. Without force, Islam holds on through fear (the law of death to apostates is, again, the crucial point); without uprooting the ideology, military victory is a temporary victory, leading to ideologically-driven regrouping and rearmament following the evacuation of the infidel garrison. Both are needed to achieve a permanent victory and lasting peace.
Jaime:
You really did not understand my essay at all. I have re-read it myself, and I now understand why you are confused. You are confused because you fail to understand that I am addressing the stupidity of the Church of England. That's what I was addressing in this essay, not the reasons why Islam and the jihad are a threat to the West.
Please read it again, in a different light.
Mark,
You wrote in reply to Jamie:
"You are confused because you fail to understand that I am addressing the stupidity of the Church of England."
I suggest putting that background note at the head of the post, because, as you can see, a lot of readers got confused.
Thank you.
On my website, A New Dark Age Is Dawning nobody seems to be confused. I consider my message to be very clear. There must be something in the air over there in the States this past few days.
Mark,
I know that you are addressing the stupidity of Christian clerics in the UK in thinking that the whole problem with Islam can be solved by mere dialogue. And I have said several times in this discussion that I totally agree with you on that.
Again, it is your reasons (and not all of them, basically just the one I pointed out to you) what I don't subscribe to.
Mark, we are not discussing the what to do. We are discussing the why. I already explained why to demand that a counterpart in any interfaith dialogue accepts Jesus as the Son of God serves no purpose.
Please remember that one can reach a valid, true conclusion, starting from valid premises, and still have used faulty reasoning. In that situation your case is not as strong. I have pointed out to you that the argument you have used is at fault, even though I am convinced that the struggle against Islam is a moral one. I have done so because, as long as you use faulty logic, you will not convince as many people. Zionistyounger and I have not been convinced by your argument. We are convinced already, but if we weren't yet, your argument certainly wouldn't have convinced me that Islam is the enemy.
For me, accepting Jesus as the Son of God has nothing to do with this. It is a non-issue.
What is essential is that Islam does not accept the tenets that Western Civilization holds as sacred: that every individual is sacred and has certain inalienable rights (life, property and liberty to choose own path, as long as he respects other individuals' same rights). They don't believe in practical separation between religious and secular matters. For them, every single thing must be ruled by Sharia. Even, literally, where to look when was goes to the loo.
Islam is still a 7th Century ideology that does not really believe in the sanctity of man. They are collectivists. For Islam, the Umma is more important than the lives of individual persons. Individual persons don't matter, as long as the community lives under Sharia. It is collectivist in the same sense as Socialism.
Again, I still don't see what is the relevance of accepting Jesus as the Christ.
Accepting the 'Son of God" has everything to do with it if you are a Christian priest. For God's sake, give up! You are TOTALLY missing my point. You really HAVE NOT understood the message of my essay. This is not about whether a person is worthy, or not worthy, simply because he accepts, or does not accept, the words of Jesus; rather, it has to do with the clergy of the Church of England, and their inability to focus on what SHOULD BE their raison d'être. You really ARE totally missing the point of the whole essay.
No Mark. You simply use faulty logic, that's all. Don't blame it on me.
Jaime:
I give up on you! You have your nerve to say I use faulty logic. You haven't even understood my essay! You probably don't understand what's going on in hte politically-correct Church of England; so saty out of the debate. Further, you have read the essay with blinkers on. No, Jaime, you are no person to tell me that I have used faulty logic.
You seem to think that I believe that a person is not worthy if he doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. That is not so. I am talking about the necessity of priests and other clergymen to believe in Him; otherwise they shouldn't be in the Church. That is a fact. And you can't dispute that.
You are not in a position to talk of my faulty logic!
As far as I am concerned, I consider this discussion with you closed. There is nothing more to talk about. I don't wish to waste my time discussing the matter further with you. Not, at least, until you re-read what has actually been said, and undertood it. Goodbye!
Mark, you have obviously overreacted to what is just peer review/critique.
You don't have to agree with me, but since the very first moment you have taken critique in a very personal way, and that's a shame, because my critique is to what you wrote, not to you as a person.
You jump too quickly to the use of unnecessarily strong words aimed at the person who criticizes you, instead of the critique itself.
Intellectual argument requires cool heads. You obviously are an intelligent person, Mark, and you have my respect. But it is to your own detriment to jump to strong words whenever someone criticizes something you write.
Post a Comment