This is a very serious and real threat just like any anti-Christian crusades throughout history have been and echoes the need for more Lollard groups to be prepared to tell the world about the "light/truth" when churches may be as scarce here as they are in Europe and Asia... Just Google "Islam in the news" on any day and you will see a blood bath which is consistently defended by our public officials? This is a harsh reality that our children will likely face so the time is now to begin making a proper defense; a defense that has God as our foundation...
Europe has now came to the acceptance that within a single generation they will be about 50% Islamic and they are scared to death of Islam and everything about it much like they were of Hitler during the Nazi era. Similar to that era Europe is willing to completely submit to Islam in the hopes that they will be left in personal peace and affluency but they are deluding themselves much like they thought they could appease Hitler. The United States is at least 2-3 generations behind Europe in their submission to Islam though leaders like President Obama are attempting to greatly speed up the process. Should we gravel before Islam like Europe? I think not. That is why we need to act now...
On a good note most Islamists are equally scared and are without honor having little to no skills in unarmed combat and this is why they resort to shootings and attacks on the defenseless as well as bombs, etc. Similarly Islamists rarely know anything about Islam or the Quran let alone Christianity. Therefore a Christian that knows the basic tenants of Christian theism's strenghts coupled by Islam's weaknesses can easily reason with why Islam is so implausible; however the Islamists will often times resort to violence in an attempt to silence you which is where the self-defense piece comes in. 9 out of 10 times a Christian with just a basic knowledge of the "physical" measures discussed on this site can best a group of 4-5 Islamists as well as besting an entire auditorium of Islamic scholars "mentally/spiritually". But we must not be cowards as the majority of Europe and the liberals are.
It is becoming quite undeniable by practically secular and non-secular alike that Islam is taking over the world at an alarming rate. As I have shown below, most Muslims would leave Islam if it were not enforced by the state governments up to and including the death penalty for those who attempt to leave Islam (even many Islamic leaders admit this). Perhaps this is God purifying His people who have fled from and denied Him in a similar matter that He used the Arabs to lead off into captivity the Jewish Nation via the Babylonian Empire? Regardless of the "why" it is inevitable that with growing secularism more worried about money and political correctness than they are God, they not only are no longer having children but they are being rapidly replaced by Islamic populations with the majority of Europe being Islamic by 2050 and Canada by closer to 2065. This inevitably will make my own generation (I am 35 years old) but especially the next a growingly persecuted one. As I say on the opening pages (and the purpose of my writing, research and this website) is to Lord willing help provide us all for this future so that we will handle it more like the Chinese Church where "authentic" Christianity is growing and flourishing under persecution becuase they were prepared; compare this to Russia or Nazi Germany where they were not prepared and they died off rapidly and are now in a current state of "pseud-relativistic Christianity" devoid of any true appearance of biblical Christianity. It was also during this time (and I expect the same would happen in the United States by and large) we see Christians agreeing to support Stalin and Hitler in unifying Hitler's "Positive Christianity" in which the (fake) church itself became an instrument of the state and even helped persecute Jews and Christians not alligned with Nazism or fascism. What will we do in the future? If we just "hope for the best" and do nothing I picture us joining the next Islamic/Nazi regime as a "pseudo-Christian" in name only... Let us not sugar-coat it... As someone with degrees in Religious Studies and History I cannot help but conclude that Islam is demonic at its core (not Muslims necesarrily). They literally make human sacrifices (just watch any of the numerous beheadings where as they are chanting prayers they slit the throat of the victim and compare to a sacrifical system; then compare the fact that Islam is responsible for approx 90% of all world violence and lastly compare the Scriptures to what they say concerning anti-Christ descriptions such as they will deny the Son of God, etc.) Either way the choice is ours.
As one who has studied ancient history and religious studies as well as having worked with Muslims over the years, I am not attempting here to provide any extensive breakdown of Islam (I will at the end of this page provide you with some readings that do just that). But it is without question that to the historian or philosopher that Islam lacks any great deal of explanatory scope or plausibility to believe it to be true. Now a person may appeal to blind-faith or tradition and that is completely acceptable, but no one is a follower of Islam because it is the most plausible or likely to be true based on our own senses. For example most people are quite ignorant to the religions of Montanism or Manichaeism that like Islam were offshoots of Christianity but that came in the 2nd and 3rd centuries whereas Islam originated in the 6th century. They like Islam built a base off of Christianity and they also had a "prophet" like Islam and they grew to power quite rapidly but then disappeared because they did not have a good grounding for "truth." On the contrast Islam would have followed the same fate but it unlike Montanism or Manichaeism developed its own armies as well as governmental systems that limited if not outlawed any type of challenge to itself (Islam). Why would a religion need to build into itself such laws that to even challenge it was "illegal"? If you have truth then why would you be afraid of any other competing truths? Just show them to be false and have faith in God - true?
Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the most reknowned Muslim scholars of the 20th century and is still alive today; he made the statement in February of 2013 that he supported the killing of a Muslim who left Islam because: ""If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today." I believe this sentence summarizes perfectly why Islam has remained constant over the centuries. I have long said that if all Muslim countries allowed freedom of religion and the ability to compare/debate Islam against all competitors including athiesm, Buddhism, Christianity, etc, and allowed no penalty for leaving Islam, that Islam would lose close to 50% of his members within a generation. But obviously as Qaradawi stated above, Muslim leaders see this and will continue to keep thier populace in the dark as to the implausibility of Islam.
As a historian and philosopher of religion I truly am dumbfounded when anyone even asserts that Islam or the Quaran are to be considered to be superior either historically or philosophically. Like I said, if one wishes to maintain a blind and unchallenged faith that is fine, but to even dare to assert the historic coherency of Islam is just to show ones iggnorance.
Some of the largest notable points of contention within Islam include:
- Islam developed (at least) 600 years after Christianity and 2,100 years after the Torah.
- It also is a “works” based religion. (Good deeds vs. Bad ones will be weighed against each other in the end). Any philosopher will agree that it is illogical for a true religion to be works-based simply because there is no way an "infinte being" (God) could "need" something from a finite being (humans).
- It follows a long list of other religions that were off-shoots of Christianity where a new leader and prophet (such as in Montanism, Manichaesim before it as well as many many others (even today with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Church of Christ Iglesia and a sleu of other 20th century religions). Each builds upon Christian doctrines but changes various aspects of them and has a "new" prophet to lead the way.
- Islam is based on one man’s (Mohammed) revelations vs. Christianty's 40+ authors from all walks of life saying the same thing over thousands of years – Also Mohammed did not think they were revelations for a until convinced by his wife. We know very little of the historical Muhammad. The Koran was compiled about 100 years after his death (Having studied early Qur'an manuscripts, John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." He comes to this conclusion by analysing the state of development of the script used in the two of the oldest manuscripts available at the time he was writing, the Samarkand and Topkapi codices. The codices are both written in the Kufic script. It "can generally be dated from the late eighth century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case.") The Hadith's were written over 200 years after Mohammed's death (anything over about 50 years becomes VERY problematic for the historian where wild legends and myths become built into the fabric of the story and with Islam there is 100+ years for the Koran and 200+ for the Hadith which is more than enough time for legend and embellishment to build into it. Compare this with Christiantiy where even the most skeptical historian grants that the New Testment Gospels and letters of Paul date to within 20-50 years of the events they portray with the oral tradition going back to within 1.5-3 years of Christ's Ressurection.
- The Koran is written in a mostly poetic/story way not really as a history; in other words whereas the Old and New Testament provides clear details to events that happened, battles fought, rulers who ruled, mannerisms, customs, names and even dollar values of slaves, etc, that can all be corrabarated and tested whereas the Quaran simply makes allusions to the deeds of Mohammed but not truly a historical account in the true sense of the word. Therefore the Bible is truly the only religion based truly within history that is testable and verifiable and after tests after tests, the Historical Jesus Quests as well as Dead Sea Scrolls research and 1st Century Palestine studies ALL have done nothing but increase the totality of credibility for the Bible holistically.
- Honeslty - How anyone can really believe the Koran is a better historic record written well over 600 years later than the New Testament is just crazy?
- Would anyone believe Joseph Smith had no biblical influences? Of course not he built upon them as even LDS will admit and agree to so to say the Quaran had no influence from the Bible is ludicrious even by the most liberal historians and religious scholars.
- The genius with Islam lies behind its unification of State Law with its religion so that it is illegal to go against it. Just look at Islam’s long history throughout Asia and the Middle East and Africa to see it is a very coerced religion as Rodney Stark, Philip Jenkins and countless other historians have shown.
- Skeptical scholars, nonetheless, point out that the earliest account of Muhammad's life by Ibn Ishaq was written about a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text. Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events.
The absence of contemporaneous corroborating material from the very first century of Islam has raised numerous questions as to the authenticity of the account provided by later traditionalist sources. All that is preserved from this time period are a few commemorative building inscriptions and assorted coins. Patricia Crone, studying the origins of the Qur'an, has focused on the examination of the vast body of the Greek, Armenian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic accounts of non-Muslim neighbors of the 7th and 8th centuries which in many cases contradict the traditional Islamic narratives. She argues that the consistency of the non-Muslim sources spread over a large geographic area would tend to rule out a non-Muslim anti-Islamic motive to these sources.
While MUCH more could be said on these points such as the compiling of the Quaran well after Mohammed's death under very suspect circumstances (the Wars of Apostasy and Battle of Yamamah saw many evolutions and revolutions of Quaranic thought with over 700 alleged Mohammed followers who had memorized many of the Prophet's revelations killed; this lead to the Caliph Uthman (that is "if" you are a Sunni Muslim if not you would not accept Uthman in the first place (see Shia vs Sunni)) instructing Zayd ibn Thabit to travel around collecting at random Quaranic sources that were alleged revelations of Mohammed. To this task Zayd himself reported, "I swear to God that had they asked me to move a mountain, it would have been easier than that task assigned to me." This hardly seems like Zayd had great confidence in his task. Nonetheless, Zayd traveled all over Arabia collecting supposed sayings that are now part of the standardized Quran that Muslim scholars assert is much more reliable than the Bible (don't ask me how they come to this conclusion). Zayd went on to say: "So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478)." Again this does not impress the professional historian or religious scholar looking for solidity that is found in the Bible. It actually gets worse... Not only is this all very "suspect" if we were before a Grand Jury but then the Caliph Uthman was approached by various others who did not agree with Zayd's collection but Uthman proceeded to destroy all other copies and use the one he supervised Zayd to collect; this would eventually then form into the standardized Quaran we see today even though questions such as: "How can we know for sure Zayd collected the right things so long after Mohammed's death, what manner did he collect them that would have us trust them, did Uthman destory the right copies or did he just use the one he wanted, etc, etc, etc." So again - someone is not a Muslim because it is the most plausible because it is very much non-coherent even amongst itself, but we see why Qaradawi stated that if all Muslims knew how scanty their religious foundation is built and how solid Christianity's is there would be a mass Exodus from Islam so in his view better to keep the threat of death upon them and continue to live a lie?
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today."
- Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Feb 2013)
Today we need to begin organizing groups of dedictated Christians (not the normal nominal ones); this includes pulling our children out of the indocrtination of public schools in favor of private and homeschooling (which ANYONE can do) as well as teaching ourselves, wives and children lollard-like attributes on sharing the biblical message with others as well as defending ourselves from attacks. The choice is yours.........
More info: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101