The Problem With Islam.

Today I watched Ahmadinejad, you know, the president of Iran . . . excuse me, president of The Islamic Republic of Iran, as it is officially entitled, make a speech before the UN.  The UN that is headquartered in New York City, in Manhattan.

President Ahmadinejad, the terrorist turned politician/president (yes folks, terrorist . . . need I remind you that Ahmadinejad was one of the terrorists that took part in holding Americans hostage during the Iran Hostage Crisis?  Well, he was.) addressed the UN on American soil and accused the U. S. of violent colonialism, exportation of brutal capitalism that has resulted in poverty, crime and human rights violations across the globe, terrorism in the Middle East and murder in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Finally, his crowning moment, Ahmadinejad stated that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Americans in the name of good old-fashioned American greed.  He claimed that America perpetrated the attacks in order make money and help the American economy by the trade of arms and the business of war.  I am not making this up.  He said it.  Thankfully, not long after Ahmadinejad opened his mouth, the American and British representatives present at the time got up and walked out.

I am happy they walked out.  But my question is, why are we giving this Islamist a platform, especially one on American soil, to spout such garbage?

But this is not my main point.  His speech reminded me of a recent and often debate I find myself in with people.

In light of the recent Ground Zero Mosque debacle, the majority of people have invoked the First Amendment to justify the construction of said mosque.  I hold the position that the First Amendment does not apply to this situation for two reasons.

One, the First Amendment, while it makes "no laws regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof," in no way guarantees a building permit.

Two, and this is the argument that most people disagree with me upon, pure and simple, Islam is not a religion.

My opposition's stance, stated as simply as possible, is that since Islam claims a belief in a monotheistic being and has certain "religious" bylaws and goals, that it is indeed a religion.  My stance, stated as simply as possible, is hogwash.

The first question, logically, is what is the definition of religion?

Merriam-Webster answers thus:

"1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."

So, by all appearances, Islam is indeed a religion.  Islam claims "service and worship of God . . . commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance."  Islam also has "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices."  So, it appears my argument is dead in the water.  But, I say this requires deeper probing.

I will not argue that Islam fulfills the second part of the definition of religion.  Islam indeed has commitment and devotion and an institutionalized system of "attitudes, beliefs and practices."  It is with the first part of the definition that I have contention.

The first part of the definition is "service and worship of God."  All definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

The verb "serve," means simply "to be a servant," and comes from the Latin "servire," which means to be a slave.

The word "service," means "the occupation or function of serving," and shares the same Latin root as "serve."

"Serving," means "to be a servant to," and, again, has the common Latin root.

So, what defines a "slave" and a "servant?"

A "slave" is "1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence."

A "servant" is "one that serves others (a public servant); especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer."

So, I think it can be agreed that "service" to God requires a surrender of the will to Him.  Those in service of God "perform duties about" the House of the Lord.  Christ Himself says so.

Now, let us look at the word "worship."  Worship is "reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence; a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual."

So, what about "God?"  "God" is defined as "(capitalized) : the supreme or ultimate reality; as : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

Thus it can be said that the first definition of religion, "the service and worship of God," can be best explained as surrender of the human will in reverence to the supreme and ultimate reality, the Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.  Is that agreed?

The crux of the issue is this:  the Judeo-Christian God is bound by the natural law that He Himself established.  The Judeo-Christian God does not, by any means endorse the murder of nonbelievers.  In fact, when we hear one claim that he killed in the name of the Judeo-Christian God, we label him a nut.  Do we not?  When was the last time any legitimacy was lent to a person who claimed that God told him to murder?  When?

Natural law forbids murder, period.  There is no room for murder in Judeo-Christian religions.
But, I won't even use the mass-murder of Christians and Jews in the name of Allah as an argument against the religious status of the Islam movement.  Instead, I will use something much more abhorrent.

Judeo-Christian God, as mentioned earlier, is bound by the established Natural Law.  The Judeo-Christian God never asks his faithful to contradict either Natural Law or reason.  This is not the case with Islam.  Allah's will is ultimately supreme, and does not incorporate Natural Law.

Now, getting back to the more abhorrent example than murder.  As stated, Islam is legalistic, and this legalism is said to be the supreme will of Allah, Allah is the source of all Islam law.  In Islam, it is legal for men to marry prepubescent females.  Indeed, Mohammed himself took his wife Aisha when she was merely six years old, and consummated this marriage when she was only nine years old.

We read in the Hadith of Bukhari that "the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."

Furthermore, we read in the Qu'ran, 65:4, referencing divorce, that "If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated."

Whom does "To those that have not menstruated" refer to?  Only females who have not reached sexual maturity "have not menstruated."  Referencing a waiting period for females who "have not menstruated" clearly shows that not only is it permissible to give a female away at such a young age, but it is also permissible to consummate a marriage when the female is prepubescent.

Islam was handed down to Mohammed in a cave by one of Allah's angels.  This is what Mohammed himself has claimed.  No one else was present, and the law came to Mohammed directly from Allah.  According to the Supreme Law of Allah, given the world by Mohammed, permits sexual intercourse between mature men and prepubescent females.

Getting away from this disturbing bit of info, let us look at Islam in a political-historical light.

Mohammed, after claiming to be the voice of Allah, not only consummated a marriage with a nine year old female, but also waged war.  Mohammed claimed that Allah instructed him to wage physical war against the infidels and gain land for Allah.  Mohammed founded Islam in 622 A. D.  In the same year, Mohammed rallied the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula by promising them land and money, not by promising them eternal salvation.  A mere ten years later, in 632 A. D., the entire Arabian Peninsula was ruled by Mohammed and the Supreme Law of Allah.  A mere 28 years later, in the year 661 A. D., the Islam caliphate's land stretched, east to west, from modern day Pakistan to modern day Tunisia, and north to south from modern day Chechnya to the Indian Ocean and the southernmost tip of the Arabian peninsula.

It is a historical fact that this was not done peacefully.  This was done by warfare, no historian disputes this.  This was not done by a peaceful spread of the gospel, but by the violent thrust of the sword.  Then, by 750 A. D. the Supreme Law of Allah reigned from the border of China and India all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, to include Spain, Portugal and Morocco.  I ask you, was this done by the Grace, salvation and redemption that Islam offers, or was it done by the sword?  Interesting parallel:  at the outset of Chrisitanity, the early Christians were being murdered, at the outset of Islam, Muslims were murdering.  The fact is, Islam doesn't believe in Divine Grace.

Mohammed, who is the only go between regarding Allah and his people, refers to Jews as "pigs" and "dogs."  Mohammed also called for the extermination of the infidels.  Here it is important to note the the great Islamic philosopher Averroes taught that a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran was proper for the masses.  Compare this to the great Western philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas who both emphasize reason.  Islam unquestionably demythologizes reason, whereas Christianity and Judaism elevate it as an aid to salvation.

The only way to salvation for Muslims is strict adherence to the will of Allah, which has been dictated by a sexually perverse, violent, greedy illiterate man who spent the night in a cave.  Please note that the Judeo-Christian idea of Paradise, or Eden, or Heaven, is fulfillment and perfect happiness due to the fact that we behold God.  In contrast, the Islamic idea of Paradise is "a place of physical and spiritual pleasure, with lofty mansions (39:20, 29:58-59), delicious food and drink (52:22, 52:19, 38:51), and virgin companions called houris (56:17-19, 52:24-25, 76:19, 56:35-38, 37:48-49, 38:52-54, 44:51-56, 52:20-21)."  Mind you there are seven of these heavens.  Heaven, for Islam, is a physical ecstasy, not a spiritual one.  Christians are called to have our spirit triumph over our flesh, but Islam constantly indulges the flesh.  Whether it be through power, money, sexual perversion, sex in general, blood lust, political power, land entitlement or heaven, Islam constantly seeks fulfillment of the flesh.

How do I tie this all together you ask?

Aristotle defined God as a substance, which indeed makes Him a reality.  As I said earlier,"the service and worship of God," can be best explained as surrender of the human will in reverence to the Being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.  Also stated earlier was that "God is the supreme and ultimate reality."

So, if God is a substance, a reality, who is perfect in goodness, does it not stand to reason that rejection of the established Natural Law is also a rejection of the supreme and ultimate reality, the perfect goodness, namely God?

Can a system that dictates actions based on the musings of an illiterate, perverted murderer claim to serve and worship the supreme and ultimate reality, the perfect goodness, God?

Islam does not serve and worship God, which is the first definition of religion.  They serve themselves.  They reject natural law and endorse evils across the whole spectrum.  The Judeo-Christian God and Allah are not the same god. Muslims have 99 names for Allah, and not one single one of them is Father.  The Christian God is Triune, Allah is not.  The Christian God is bound by His own natural law that He set in motion, whereas Allah dictates morality supremely, and the result is murder, rape and sexual perversion.

Is Natural Law not an ultimate reality?  Is morality not an ultimate reality?  The only was Islam is morally justifiable is through moral relativism, which is, of course, self-defeating.  Natural Law is an ultimate reality set in motion by the Ultimate Reality, the Final Substance, God.  Islam does not serve an ultimate reality, but rather a fleeting humanity.  In this regard, Islam is not a religion.