The Unbelievable Hypocrisy of Muslim Outrage . . .
Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 09:49AM 
Throughout the Islamic world, Muslims continue to express their outrage that Pope Benedict the XVI dared to make mention of a 14th century conversation between a Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam. Benedict didn't say whether he agreed with the comment or not . . . He simply made an oblique reference to the discussion. Now, Muslims everywhere are outraged. (I saw this picture on Drudge--I'll bet this guy is a hoot at family get-togethers).
Give me a break! Where was this Muslim "outrage" when nineteen of their own flew two jumbo jets into the Twin-Towers and one more into the Pentagon?
Where was this Muslim outrage when Richard Reid tried to blow up a jet-liner with a shoe bomb?
Where was the Muslim outrage when suicide bombers killed scores of Aussies in Bali?
Where was the Muslim outrage when a Muslim shot-up the El-Al counter at LAX, killing a heroic young security guard?
Where was the Muslim outrage when two men rode through the DC area sniping at unaware innocents, killing in the name of Allah?
Where was the Muslim outrage for the bombings of trains in Madrid and the subways in London? Dozens of men and women were killed while going about their daily business.
Where is the Muslim outrage at news of the attempted bombings of more than a half-dozen jet-liners over the Atlantic?
This is a religion of peace, right? Where is CAIR? Where is the condemnation of acts of terror by Islamic scholars and noted Imams? Their collective silence speaks volumes.
If Benedict apologizes for this, he is absolutely crazy! An apology will only encourage more Muslim rage anytime someone dares to state in public that Allah is not the true God and Muhammad is not a prophet.
Let us see this for what it is--an attempt to subjugate other religions to Islam by silencing them through threats of violence. But then this has always been the Muslim way.
Meanwhile, let us preach Christ and him crucified, for this is the power of God unto salvation!
Reader Comments (47)
Your definition of "fundamentalism" is a secular "progressive" definition. Fundamentalism was a Christian movement that stood for affirming the "fundamentals" of the faith--the idea that there are certain principles that may not be disavowed, no matter what the prevailing winds of theological dogma seem to be. In that sense, the Reformation was a "fundamentalist" movement. Making "fundamentalist" mean "no fun," and "mental," (a common way of looking at it) is anti-Christian inherently. I never use the term to describe Muslims any more than i use the word "Catholic" to describe the Roman Church. All those who profess the true religion (Christianity) together with their children, and who are marked out by the countersign of baptism, are members of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that we confess in the Creeds. It has nothing to do with fellowship with the Roman Pontif.
At any rate, i sincerely disagree that speaking in strong terms about the Mohommadan religion and its inherent moral and spiritual bankruptcy is somehow un-Reformed. Such an idea would leave us with, if you will pardon my own strong words, a sissy kind of faith and not the manful religion that we should be presenting to the world. We should have just as strong rhetoric as they do, without the violence that accompanies it. When i read the works of the Apologists of the early Church, i read men who would stand up for the "Faith once for all delivered to the Saints" come what may. They would not lash out in violence, but they were not afraid to proclaim our faith is right and true, and theirs is false and dangerous--with their own actions proving that it's the case. If Christians (particularly leaders of our nation) would start doing just that, we might see Muslim retaliation and the martyrdom of more Christians (like that Roman Nun in Somalia and the attacks on Greek, Anglican, and other Christian churches throughout the world--for no other reason than that they are Christians), but we would, i believe, see the tide turn in public opinion.
We will not see Islam defeated without martyrs, but true martyrs are never going to be caught saying, "I respect the Muslim religion's beliefs and values, and long to work with those who practice Islam to a brighter future for America and the World." Indeed, the Byzantine Emperor was right: there is nothing new in the Mohommadan religion that is not vile and evil.
i do not look to "overtake" or "defeat" anything, pastor, but to perpetuate the faith once delivered as a true deposit. i do believe that christians can work together with non- in the city of man. the assumption that my views might somehow compromise the faith by not employing rhetoric is off base. that said, i have no sympathies and nothing but contempt for both liberal and conservative social gospels, despite what you might be trying to imply. i am not an activist and have no hope for the programs of men to effect heaven on earth.
also, the reformation was a recovery of the biblical faith, not a movement of men. so to use the term 'movement' is a poor choice of words, i think. fundamentalism, just like evangelicalism, no matter what apparent good intentions, etc. was essentially flawed and doomed to disaster. the evangelicals, just like the liberals before them, is bankrupt. we would do well not to hold up a phenomenon like fundamentalism is a good light. we have everything we need in the confesisonal tradtion. we do not need a confessional movement or an evangelical experiment. these things are compromises of the true faith.
zrim
Thanks so much for your dead-on comments on Islam. The Muslim hypocrisy needs to be exposed for all to see!
I am glad we do agree on a good bit, but one thing i must disagree with is that i *AM* looking to overtake and defeat all pagan and irreligious ideas. I seek to take every thought captive, and we long to see the day when, after the rider on the white horse has gone forth conquering and still to conquer, the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ.
You can't deny that this is a battle. The question is how it will be fought and won. It is wrong to expect the kingdom of God to grow at the edge of the sword the way Islam seeks to spread its ascendancy. Yet, we should never *EVER* be lulled into talking in anything but absolute terms about the greatness of our God, of his might and power, and of the truthfulness of everything about our faith. In a world (i.e., the Muslim world) where people only hear the way you say what you say, it does us no good to hem and haw around.
When the Iraqi Prime Minister spoke before *OUR* Congress in joint session, the very first words out of his mouth were, "In the name of Allah the merciful and almighty." Muslims, whatever else they have wrong with them, do understand that we are in a clash of civilizations, and they are not afraid to claim their faith as the heart of their civilization. We will lose (this battle in) the war for our world unless we fight in the name of Jah and for his glory and ultimacy in the pantheon that we see set up today. We will lose just as the Israelites lost so many times when they went to battle in their own strength and failed to fight for the Lord's glory and honor.
I'm not saying take up arms and kill all Muslims. What i am saying is that we need, at the very least, to speak boldly and openly as Christians in the most broad and sweeping terms. We will do battle with our children (Psa. 127) and with the ideas that we present to the world that they perpetuate. Muslims understand that better than Christians (steeped in individualism) seem to these days.
I seem to remember Paul writing something about hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, ... and what those who do these things will not inherit.
Maybe this is out of context, but;
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
Hey Zrim,
How about those ism's. There doing great these days arem't they?
Make that- "they're doing great these days aren't they?"
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=468
chris, i always love good -ism's! i also love when folks correct their own english, but you only took care of one of your barbarism's:
"How about those ism's. There doing great these days arem't they?"
you corrected your wrong use of the possesive pronoun well. but you also need a "?" at the end of your first sentence, to place a comma after "days" and to revisit the spelling of "aren't."
i would have recommeneded 'a secular faith' by hart to pastor TA, but he may find it unuseful. speaking of which and in the spirit of grammatical correction, hart has two spelling errors in that fine piece of work. the first is on page 58; he spells the name 'Strong' without an 'r.' the second is on page 96; he omits the letter 'n' in the word 'continued.'
maybe i need that beer and hot dog KR suggested not long ago...
zrim
I have a tendancy to overuse commas and thought, perhpas, I had already used enough of them on that post.
As far as the question mark is concerned, here are a few extra in case I forget again. ???????
Feel free to use one or two of them on your own posts.
zrim
Of course friendly :)
Oh, and thanks for using one of the "?"s
btw, is is ism's or isms?
make that "is it" not "is is"
since you asked me, my answer would be "-ism's." but that might be a zrimism. when composing my Word software's spellcheck wrinkles its nose at some things i come up with...i mean, "wrinkles its nose at things with which i come up."
now, we are OT...uh, "down with muslims and vanquish islam from all the earth." just a joke, folks.
zrim
I'm booing you off the stage. I'm not seeing any "ham-fisted" rhetoric here. It appears you're setting up another of your straw men.
I didn't get it, sorry about that. I dont think resurgence of conservative Catholicism is going to do any good to the souls of people, just look at all the time after the reformation. Thats why I said Benedict would be hypocritical for what he said. I dont want the muslims to think they can get away like these cheap threats, just think of how they will act towards missionaries and church plants, its already really bad. Sadly it looks like they will be getting away, but thanks to God He is the power unto salvation, His Word is sure.
zrim
Nobody gets away with anything.
From Revelation 1
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
and Rev 22
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Blessed are those who wash their robes,so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
So you see, nothing to worry about. Even OJ will be judged correctly.
Certainly there are people within the Roman Catholic community that have come to faith in Christ. Yet I would be dishonest if I did not say that I'm committed to what I see as the truth that apart from Christ's sacrificial death, God's regenerative work and a person's trust in Jesus, there is no right standing with God.
I hope we concur that one of the many blind spots in the thinking of people the world over is that man has the inherent capacity to earn or merit his own salvation. This thinking has, in my view, affected not only non-Christian religions, but also manifests itself in many "Christian" circles. So I stand with Calvin, Luther, etc. (and Paul!) on Rom. 3:28: "We maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the Law." (And I'm also persuaded that a genuine faith will invariably produce the fruit of good works, per Jas. 2:14-16!)
Nevertheless, I was undoubtedly insensitive in the way I worded my remarks.
I won't be posting at the "Riddleblog" for a while ... we're headed back to Montana to retrieve our van - which broke down during our August vacation!
Meanwhile, good discussions to all who appreciate the thought-provoking and humorous posts at this site!
This post was about Islamic hypocrisy. Whenever people make absolute statements about Islam, they're being "ham-fisted" in your opinion.