The guy clearly has zero experience in the theology of either religion, or he wouldn't have included Islamic 'scripture'.
Being well-versed in both, I can affirm that of the three 'Abrahamic' faiths, Islam is utterly illegitimate. The Judaic faith laid the groundwork to
move the world from brutal tribalism to lawful nationhood & general human rights (learn about the 'Jubilee' within Judaic law - incredibly advanced
social guidelines). The Christian faith represents the fulfilment of the Judaic promise (as recorded by the Jewish prophets) with the arrival of
Messiah (the anointed one) whose earthly ministry, execution, bodily resurrection & ascension to the heights of heaven, ultimately provided a means of
individual salvation for any person otherwise spiritually lost/stricken with suffering in one form or another.
This salvific operation also generated a new mode of civilisation, which combined the law-giving of Judaism with the call for charity, brotherly love,
forgiveness, mercy & grace accompanying the Christian tradition. This gave rise to a faith system (Christianity) which further advanced a liveable
synthesis of the key Judaic precepts - Justice, Mercy & Humility. These precepts were stated in the Old Testament by God (via the prophet Micah) as
the foundation of moral inclination which was required of Humanity in its 'fallen' condition.
We cannot be perfect, yet we can implement our decisions & behaviours in accordance with this tripartite grouping of 'perfect principles'. These
precepts were to be assimilated & expressed as prime over all other basic considerations in the moral life, and were seen to be more valuable than the
perpetual sacrifices of the Jewish religious tradition. When the atonement provided by Christ is combined with these principles of perfection then we
have the completion of the Abrahamic tradition. It is written, it is fulfilled. The advance to Christendom was an evolution in world civilisation,
and the amalgamation of Jewish & Christian tradition, with the best aspects of the Greco-Roman tradition too, is what gave rise to our Western values
of democracy, law & order, civic duty, duty of care to neighbours & countrymen, etc. Without this synthesis of religious thinking, the morality of
'the next best civilisation' (Roman civilisation) was still predominantly lacking in any modern sense of human love, equality & righteousness. Sure,
they had justice of a sort, and learning of a sort - but scratch the surface & it was cold, brutal, even whimsical & perverse in its darker spheres of
And so, what of Islam? Why does it claim to be an Abrahamic faith? And why is it so overwhelmingly bent on terrorism & domination of other cultures?
How can Christ's wonderful 'Sermon on the Mount' be forced to suffer any supposed legitimate connection to the utter barbarism of the Quran, Hadith &
Sunnah (the oral sayings of the prophet & his successors)..?
Well, the facts are rather interesting, and you'll perhaps be surprised to learn that the barbarism was predicted long in advance, with the fact of
Islam's illegitimacy as an Abrahamic faith being formalised in the same ancient prophetic reference material. You see, the Abrahamic promise ("..the
whole Earth will be blessed through you [Abraham]") basically amounts to the following:
With the Jewish tradition having been in place for over a thousand years at the time of Christ's birth, the Middle East was primed to receive the
presence of the Messiah, who had been forecast to appear & take Humanity, via the Jews, to the 'next level' of civilisation, of spiritual wisdom,
offering a means of salvation for those who had gone down wrong paths & fallen afoul of the Universal law, which we might term 'karma/dharma' in
summary of the basic Judaic canon. Before the ministry, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ, there was no way that a fallen & lost human could
turn the nature of his/her soul back upon itself - there was no way to be made clean, made whole, made righteous. Any deliberate actions to change
one's ways would be difficult, and would not engender any sense of triumph, only a dull plodding of day by day actions without the sure knowledge of
salvation. Once it had become possible to be 'born again', a sort of magical solution had passed through the soul-stuff of the human collective
unconscious - it had become apparent that it was possible to start again, to make amends, to do so joyfully & in certain assurance, deep within one's
spiritual sense of self, that such a change had indeed been wrought. Not only that, but it became apparent that people could even get in direct
contact with God - to sense the presence of the Holy Spirit, to receive wisdom & guidance, comfort & strength - directly from God's own hand.
With the advent of Christendom taking us zooming towards democracy & scientific enlightenment (with some bumps in the road along the way), what
purpose could 'another' Abrahamic faith have? The answer, is NONE. The work had been completed. The promise of salvation was made via the Judaic
canon; the actual salvific act came about in the person of Christ, and the Apostles ministered that salvation plan to the world, in no uncertain
Islam? It contributed nothing at all, except a barely-understood rehashing of Judaic religiosity, plus a mandate for brutal conquest, enslavement,
theft, rape, abuse & destruction on an industrial scale never before witnessed in world history. Convert or die was the message; every good man
perished, every vagabond was overjoyed to convert - he could take four wives & as many servant girls as he pleased, and he could force himself upon
any of them at any time, whether they consented or not. As part of the Caliph's army he enjoyed prime access to stolen treasures, satisfied his
bloodlust on a regular basis, and basically had a wild old time.
Thomas Aquinas (Christian saint, tenth century) described how a righteous man, confronted by Mohammed when the Caliphate came to his doorstep &
expressed the desire to convert his people & receive tribute, asked Mohammed for a sign to prove that his mission was godly. Mohammed replied that
the sign he brought was that he came to rule the land & was justified in so doing purely by the strength of his arm - essentially saying his natural
earthly strength/power was. in itself alone, a sign from God that he was supposed to rule. Thomas Aquinas rightly observed that this was nothing but
the exact same sign demonstrated by thieves & murderers, with the clear implication that there is nothing at all godly about Mohammed, and his own
words proved it. Mohammed could claim no true godly inspiration, and the utter depravity which followed him down the centuries (see Hadith & Sunnah)
after the appearance of Islam is testament to the fact that he was absolutely NOT divinely-inspired. The precept of Taqiyaah means that a Muslim is
permitted to deceive people by any means possible if it is profitable for the success of Islam, and so neither is there any personal honour in the
world of Islam. The only time honour is mentioned is if a woman is murdered for somehow dishonouring her family. Perhaps by desiring an education,
desiring to choose her own husband, or by having been raped. Yes, it is the woman's fault, if she is raped.
edit on DecemberFriday18012CST08America/Chicago-060047 by FlyInTheOintment because: general edit