How America’s Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration, by Daniel Greenfield

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization”, praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors” whose depredations had caused Christianity to have “practically vanished from the two continents.”

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the “mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian.”

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?” asked President Stump.

“Thank Allah, yes,” responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?” continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

“Blessed be Allah, it does!”

“Then you believe in polygamy?” asked Captain George Ellis.

“We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do,” chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

“That settles it,” said President Stump. “You won’t do.”

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.


Infidel said…
That’s an interesting angle on the problem, indeed.
fsy said…
I just looked over the 1905 SOTU speech, and I don’t see any explicit mention of Moslems. He does say that “the entire Chinese coolie class, that is, the class of Chinese laborers, skilled and unskilled, legitimately come under the head of undesirable immigrants”.

The speech looks very interesting and relevant to today’s debates about immigration, but of course modern-day “Progressives” (Teddy’s label) have no interest in anything from earlier than last week.

Anonymous said…
Feminism 1.0 favored sex/gender indifference (put your fairness hat on and swallow it), feminism 2.0 favors ‘sex /gender differentiation’ with a twist though, it is men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men. Is there a contradiction? Not, at all. Please, take your fairness hat off. This was never meant to achieve equality. Think like a Marxist, it is total sexes war, they don´t take prisoners, weak effeminate men is good, women virilization is their jihad. The end result being no-children western societies taken over by faster reproducing muslims. Why would that be a problem? Vanderclintons are happy.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said…
All you have to do to invalidate such a law today is to convince 5 Supreme Court justices (most notably Anthony Kennedy) to invalidate the law through judicial review, with a First Amendment claim of “free exercise” and a sprinkling of Fourteenth Amendment “due process.” Both claims are phony charades that make our national charters into a subjective farce, starring today’s lawyer oligarchy. If there ever was a Progressive temple in America, it would have to be the Suoreme Court building. That’s where the real action happens… first the sham oral arguments, then non-debate and decision in private chambers, then the lofty scripture writing, and the sausage-making all comes to an end when the dictum is handed down on judgment day, the product of the Great Oracles of SCOTUS. Allah be praised! (Read: you can’t say “God” anymore, that’s a violation of another’s conscience)

That is our modern “living” Constitution — whatever the majority of Supreme Court justices believe (not think/reason) it is. And we’ve just learned that this most recent SCOTUS term was torture for one Justice Ginsburg, with all the ties preventing definitive Progressive pronouncements of law. But the long, tortured prose of today’s Supreme Court opinions are just rationalizations for their emotional (posing as sophisticated, learned) Leftist conventions.

It is claimed the Supreme Court is our nation’s last defense against the tyranny of the majority, as evinced by the abject bigotry of those against polygamy. We’ve made such… Progress since Teddy’s time. Teddy didn’t see the errors his Progressivism would unleash. Woodrow Wilson understood it all too well. We are living Wilson’s dystopian political vision today.

What’s a “good American citizen” when we’re told by our betters that we are “citizens of the world?” And what is to happen across the pond when the European Union chief says national borders are “the worst invention ever? This is all presumably because national cultures are so troublesome to the “common good,” as determined by the erudite Leftist. That’s what you get from someone who is from the quasi-nation state of Luxembourg, which specializes in offshore finance and postage stamps. This man has no idea why he speaks French or how his value system was formed. Yeah, the West needs more sharp thinkers like THAT guy.

Meanwhile, in America, the Leftists hector us about what we can and cannot have in our laws, and if they lose they take it to the Supreme Court, where 5 of the 546 officials under the Separation of Powers can make things all right again. Today’s chic Americans have reconciled themselves as “world citizenry,” most notably our president, whom we still know as little about personally as we did in 2008. And that’s Progress. The country be damned. Countries are bad.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for one of our nation’s intrepid, courageous journalists to ask Khizr Khan whether the thinks Islamic Law (as practiced in the shariah) supersedes the authority of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I suspect his truthful answer is yes (as his prior writing shows). And a bonus would be someone to point out that his meek, headscarf-wearing little woman is a boba fide pediatrician who has to communicate in sophisticated ways all day as a professional. Are you moved by the media’s “cultural sensitivity” and phony compassion? This pair is a clever ruse. Enough of Khan’s lecturing about reading the Constitution when only the Qu’ran will do. Deception, indeed. But deception requires a willing deceived…

Anonymous said…
The issue of taquiya goes to the hear of Trump’s proposal to vet moslems. Once the first moslem is interviewed, then the questions are known and the “correct” answers disseminated.
Jamie H. said…
Great essay. I was just thinking about Theodore Roosevelt yesterday and his ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ quote, wishing we still had leadership like that.
Anonymous said…
Other forms of extreme vetting:

1) If you have more than one wife.
2) If your wife is under 16.
3) If you live according to Shari’a law and believe it is superior to Constitutional law.
4) If you or your wife or your girlfriend/fiance wear a hijab.
5) If you refuse to touch a piece of bacon.
6) If you own one or more slaves.

Glenn E. Chatfield said…
That is some really, really interesting history. Thanks for that!
Anonymous said…
All law, including immigration law, should improve life for our citizens. Our society is based on Anglo-European culture. We do not need to increase our numbers. Certain limited immigration may help us by accepting candidates who have a strong likelihood of positive contribution. We would not invite an offensively smelling, acting, looking vagrant into our home.

Our standard of living comes from meritocracy, freedom, creativity, enthusiasm. It’s not a “blessing” or “luck”. Most refugee cultures are primitive cesspools of violent hatred, superstition, pestilence, corruption. They remained primitive until colonization, then when freed, chose to regress.

So, why make this a hard decision? Our culture is clearly superior; our rejection of the “diverse” is an excellent default stance.


Mark Matis said…
Our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to their utopia of One World Government, and the Muslim invasion as well as the Central American invasion are merely their preferred means of accomplishing their goal. They understand that a nation without a national culture is NOT a nation. And that importing “immigrants” with “cultures” vastly opposed to ours takes care of that problem for them.

By the way, it is not just the Democrats looking to destroy the United States as an independent sovereign nation-state, but the Republicans – especially the ROVE Republicans – as well.

Anonymous said…
Well T.R. was POTUS back before the mohammedans had access to piles of petrodollars to pay off US government officials.
I not only believe muslim polygamy is being practiced in the USA but that kafir al najjis taxpayers in the USA are funding it — after all, not every shiftless, uneducated jihadi can afford to support 4 wives and a dozen children on their own riyal, er dime.
I believe Mr. Greenfield stated in another article that the current US government is a government of traitors.
Anonymous said…
It was the Mormons that got us riled up against polygamy, and exclusion of Muslims was a lucky side effect. Whether in a marriage, club, neighborhood or nation, let’s face the fact that homogeneity of language and culture avoids many problems that occur in more diverse situations.

A considerate tourist can find and learn scores of tips on how to navigate the do’s and dont’s of a destination culture. We Americans have our own rules; we like them and they work for us. Disregard by one seeking residence is callous and likely hostile.

A newcomer should adapt; mostly before arriving. If he doesn’t come capable and willing to fit in and contribute, there is no rational reason to accept him.


Anonymous said…
Can’t Stump the Stump!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

French court overturns burkini ban after staged controversy over forced beach burkini removal, a post from Jihad Watch with reader’s comments

The French ban on burkinis has been a major headline issue, particularly the story about the woman having to take off her burkini covering right in front of four infidel cops, standing over her as she does so.

“‘Forced to strip,” went one headline, retweeted tens of thousands of times, propelling the issue to such heights that nary a credible news site didn’t cover it. It became such a political hot potato that France’s burkini ban was subsequently overturned by the highest court. Yet a French writer’s voice was heard in the midst of those controlled and terrorized into political correctness. She stated “If you’re upset by burkini cop image, you’ve have been sucked in by Islamist propaganda,” and also:

A belief shared by many is that this “victim” and the snapper wanted the police to intervene — the photos are brilliant Islamist propaganda. They will provoke and inflame, foster a resentful mindset among French Muslims and encourage the narrative of “victimisation” that cripples action on Islamic extremism.

Jihad Watch ran a story with the same premise yesterday, highlighting the manipulation of the victimology subterfuge by Islamic supremacists, intended specifically to drive the Islamophobia agenda to beat down critics. We quoted the Muslim Brotherhood Plan for North America outlined in its memorandum:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers

No surprise, Arabic Muslim social media was abuzz over the ban and the image of four infidel cops forcing a Muslim woman to remove her burkini.

The plot, the intended fallout, the Islamophobia narrative — all working swimmingly as France succumbs to dhimmitude.

burkini france

“Provocative French writer says ‘If you’re upset by burkini cop image, you’ve have been sucked in by Islamist propaganda”, The Sun UK, August 2, 2016:

“THEY are the pictures that whipped the world up into a righteous fury.

The next shows the woman having to take off her tunic under the watchful eye of the cops, looming threateningly over her.

“Forced to strip”, went one headline, retweeted tens of thousands of times.

The chorus on social media was deafening. The poor woman only wanted a bit of sun and a swim, dressed as she pleased, and is subjected to this disgusting affront.

It has become a frequent collective howl, the outrage at secular France’s decision to ban burkinis on more than a dozen beaches to calm religious tension.

Yet the pictures also tell another story.

Most citizens support burkini ban

Look closer, especially at the photo taken BEFORE the police show up.

One shows the woman seemingly sleeping, alone, lying directly on the sand.

She has no book, no sun cream, no beach bag. Her clothes are not suited to swimming.

Another shows her sitting quietly, looking around, as if waiting for the police to come. Hoping for the police to come?

As one French Muslim journalist, Ahmed Meguini, tweeted under the picture: “It’s 35C! Off to the beach for a nap in the sun in my ski outfit, like, totally normally.”

The pictures — sold worldwide by an agency — are not credited. They are, however, professionally shot.

The photographer was there long before the incident.

A belief shared by many is that this “victim” and the snapper wanted the police to intervene — the photos are brilliant Islamist propaganda.

They will provoke and inflame, foster a resentful mindset among French Muslims and encourage the narrative of “victimisation” that cripples action on Islamic extremism.

Among those furious at the pictures is the Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France (CCIF) — an activist outfit that has taken the French State to court in a series of high-profile cases.

Its attempts to have the burkini beach bans declared illegal have lost in local courts but yesterday, it won the right to make a case in front of the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court.

But the truth is that most French citizens at both ends of the political spectrum SUPPORT the bans.

This includes French Muslims, especially women.

They agree with Laurence Rossignol, France’s Socialist women’s minister, who suggested burkinis were designed to “hide women’s bodies in order better to control them”.

To liberal Muslims — still the majority in France, where the burka has been banned since 2010 — the burkini is the latest of encroaching advances made by the ultra-conservative Salafist Muslims.

Other demands include school meals to be halal and for municipal swimming pools to segregate boys and girls….

…Burkinis serve as a painful reminder of an unwanted and extreme take on Islam.


  1. Rose says

    August 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    I subscribe to Die Welt, a German newspaper. I speak fairly fluent German and enjoy keeping up with their news (its so much ours too), especially after visiting last September after twenty-five years and becoming alarmed at Angela Merkel’s dangerous open border policy towards refugees….which then became anyone who wished to take advantage of the naivete of Western Europe.
    Well, I commented on the latest “burkina-on-the-beach” photo op and, in German, politely suggested that the woman had done so purposely to provoke the police and gain the news story she hoped for. I ended with “nut eine gedanken” , only a thought. They deemed it not acceptable.

  2. Angemon says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Provocative French writer says ‘If you’re upset by burkini cop image, you’ve have been sucked in by Islamist propaganda

    And he’s right.

  3. overman says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Burkini’s and any other muslim apparel that covers women [esp. the head], is a symbol of the male oppression of women, and nothing less. lt should be banned in any form, simply because slavery can’t exist in civilized society.

    “But the truth is that most French citizens at both ends of the political spectrum SUPPORT the bans”

    Yes, on the News today:

    89% of French ppl SUPPORT a ban.

    11% of ldiots oppose it.

  4. Ted Tyler says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    If law enforcement required a woman to remove any of her garments in public, I would consider that to be a bit rude. It looks as though the police have set themselves us to be knocked down. A better approach would have to simply eject her from the beach – fully clothed – because burkas are not allowed on the beach.

  5. 762x51FMJ says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    he boasted of having been carried to heaven, and so delivered his country to iron and flame. He cut the throats of fathers and kidnapped daughters; and only gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death
    Islam is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born Muslim, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him.

    Edited Voltaire,

  6. marina says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    This woman should have stayed away from the beach to show solidarity with the French people especially after those heinous terrorist attacks. But these Mohammedans have to have their own ways.

    They care about only their own when they are not busy killing each other.

  7. More Ham Ed says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Someone with enough extra time and money should hand out free ham sandwiches to everyone on the beach, videotape it, and see what controversy that stirs up.

    • CogitoErgoSum says

      August 26, 2016 at 7:23 pm

      Good idea. The French should show more concern toward the comfort of their guests at the beach. I was just thinking that instead of police coming to check on the woman it should have been paramedics. Ouch! Lying in the sand on a sunny 35C (95F) degree day while wearing so much dark clothing must have been …….. enervating (I love that word). At the very least one of the life guards should have brought her a complimentary cold pina colada or an icy margarita. (Only one to a sunbather, of course.)

  8. common sense says

    August 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Police enforce the law of the land and the Jihadist sets up a photo for every other Jihadist to get ‘offended by’ so the can regress a law.

    Pam Geller just posted a photo of a beheaded university student who’s headless body was rigged as an IED. Where are the offended Muslims now? Somebody was killed so I guess the so called moderate Muslims just snicker to themselves and continue to breed and they’d probably only be offended if ISIS had not kill the poor man.

  9. Berengaria says

    August 26, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    The French were “set up” by the Islamic Propaganda Machine, & apparently it worked. The French Government, not the Gallic People, have a LOVE/HATE relationship with Muslim Scum.
    The Overthrow of the Ban on Burkinis, shows how readily the GOV gives into the Demands of their own Assassins.
    It would probably happen in the USA, too. The GOVS have already committed to Islam, but the CITIZENS ARE HAVING NONE OF THAT DEATH WISH.

  10. Troybeam says

    August 26, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    She was not nude according to the photo: here’s the thing as with the burka, hidden weapons, bombs, knives and who knows what else. This Islamic BS is getting out of hand and we the non Muslim will be sorry we did not stand our ground in any nation that has this Islamic BS going on. Simply Islam wins ans we lose.

  11. Ciudadano says

    August 26, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    Islamic terrorists are at war with France. Jihadist organizations, like ISIS, and fundamentalist Islamic theocracies that support terrorism, like Arabia Saudi and Iran, force women to wear niqabs and burqas. Repression and subjugation of women is part of the enemy’s ideology. Muslim women in France wearing dark niqabs and burqas are showing support for the ideology of the enemy. If they were loyal to France they wouldn’t don the clothes Jihadist impose on women.

    Modesty is just an excuse these women use to justify wearing those gloomy clothes. They could wear other modest clothes, but colorful and happier, that blend better with the surroundings, instead they choose to wear those dark and gloomy burqas. The message they are sending is what side in this war they support.

    Western countries must fight the enemy’s ideology. This is a war and wars demand exceptional measures. Banning the burqa and niqab is an attempt of doing that, albeit the way it was implemented was myopic and clumsy. What is needed is a comprehensive plan and policy to combat the enemy’s ideology, including banning and punishing any public expression of support for the enemy’s ideology.

    The problem is that this war has been poorly articulated. Politicians and judges, executive and judiciary, must be in the same page. Western countries can not rely on liberal judges to win this war. The only thing worse than a liberal politician is a liberal judge.

    In my country liberal judges are releasing inmates because jails are in “inhuman” conditions and don’t want to send to jail small drug dealers.

  12. billybob says

    August 26, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    They’ve done a piece on this over at Fox…

    “Don’t be fooled, the burkini has nothing to do with Islam or faith”


    “I’m a conservative, an American, and a Muslim reformer. As a Muslim woman I was disappointed on Friday to see the France’s highest court overturn the burkini ban. For a liberal society, the decision means the protection of free expression. For watchdogs like myself who look to the horizon, we know this sets a second precedent: the acceptance of Islamist culture. Friday there were two wins: the first for a tolerant society and the second for Islamists waging a soft civilization jihad.”

    Read it all…

    • Zammana says

      August 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

      If a woman or anyone, for that matter, wants to wear a heavy black tent on the beach, why should I object? I suppose you could respond that they could have “anything” under that mountain of cloth – from an AK to a nuke – but you could hide the same thing in a big cooler or a folded up umbrella.
      What I do object to is the covering of the face in public. I think if I wore a ski mask or maybe a Joker mask, that the cops would pull me aside or over and question that, but I’ve been very uncomfortable when I was in a bank line waiting for a teller, and this person (female, male?) walks in with only a veiled slit for the eyes showing. That shouldn’t be allowed – nor should the Muslima in Florida who wanted her driver’s license photo be taken of her in the burka. Right. I think maybe the whole purpose of the photo is to be able to identify the person – and for a cop (male or female) to be able to compare that photo to the person who handed it to them. Otherwise, why demand photos from the rest of us.
      But demanding that a woman show her body is just plain insane. It’s undemocratic, anti-libertarian, and just plain weird of you to insist. Let them swelter in their own juices and smell like a goat – their husbands evidently like that.

  13. Jack HOLAN says

    August 26, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    How shocking!! You would almost think those clever Muslims out-skunked those savvy Frenchmenbecause THEY DID FOLKS! You might even think they read the Rosa Parks Story. It was a set-up and Frenchmen you naught right into it. First why would you even toy with the idea of using male officers for an operation such as this? Are you short female officers? Secondly why remove these banned swim outfits? You know from the start that this is a losing operation. The Burkini is banned so you have Female officers approach violators inform them of the ban give them a choice leave the beach and change or leave the beach and don’t come back. Make no mistake the idealic photos and traitor journalists aren’t coincidences.

  14. davej says

    August 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    You have to choose your battles. Is this one, so easily portrayed as repressive, the way to respond to mass attacks? Let the idiots sweat in their swaddling suits but crack down hard on hate speech, mosques. woman molestors and the Quran.

  15. ktulu says

    August 26, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Such an obvious set up of *Islamic victimization*, choreographed to the nth degree. Another victory for the creeping muslim assimilation of France and yet more erosion of liberty, egalite, fraternity.
    Very sad.

  16. citycat says

    August 26, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    “Suckered by Islamist propaganda”- yep, looks like an attention diverter while Islam outbreeds the infidels, outcreeps the infidel, out streetwises the infidel, outswerves the infidels mentally, and other allys.
    The infidel has to realize the fact that Islam intends to totally wipe the infidel from Earth in whatever and so many ways and on all possible levels.
    This is in the minds of virtually all Muslims, the only exceptions being apostates under the death penalty, who say this very thing about Islam.
    Muslims in the west are swerving things using any trick they can till the big take over day, which is being assisted by westerners who are either ignorant, scared of Islam, or some other reason.
    Who knows what’s being said behind closed doors.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A few conundrums in the Islamic view of sin

There are a few conundrums in the islamic view of sin as I see it.

They keep saying that Allah forgives sins without punishment but if the sin is a crime then sharia punishes with a fine or a flogging or stoning or mutilating someone?

So there is no forgiveness if the sin is a crime.

Secondly if some human act is not a crime and there is no punishment by Allah then why bother calling it a sin in the first place? It may not be the best behaviour but it is not a sin because there is no punishment. If a fly lands on your arm is the fly committing a sin? It might be a slight annoyance but is it a sin? It’s the same thing with Allah. If some human behaviour causes Allah some slight discomfort like a fly flying around your food in a restaurant is the forgiveness or the sin a big deal? Neither is a big deal is it? If a behaviour is not punished then it is acceptable even if it might be slightly annoying but it doesn’t cause Allah any pain such that he has to punish it. It is just an acceptable imperfection but why call it a sin in that case?

God is not like this in the bible. In the bible there are no small sins. All sins are mortal sins with eternal death as the punishment. Eve took the forbidden fruit. Every sin is a specific disobeying of a commandment to love God with all and our neighbour as ourself . The bar seems to be set a lot lower in Islam so the offence is a lot smaller. As long as a Muslim worships, pays his taxes and keeps his family under control he has done his duty. The biblical God demands a lot more, namely perfection.

It appears to be that there are differences between the concept of sin in the bible and in Islam. These should be born in mind when we are talking about which God is more merciful and forgiving.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The so-called prophets of Islam could not have been saved by law works because according to Paul their righteousness was through the blood of Christ

Romans 3 v 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

According to Islam the so-called Muslims who lived before Jesus were justified by keeping the law and receiving God’s forgiveness and this was not achieved through the death of Jesus Christ and it never would be because, according to Islam, he was not crucified.

However Paul denies and refutes this clearly because he states that the blood of Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the sins that were committed before Jesus the Son of God came to earth; namely all past sins ever committed by the dead saints in glory. This includes all the sins of all the saints of the OT, including Abraham, Enoch, Moses, Job and Elijah just to mention a few OT saints of God. None of these were Muslims because they were saved by faith.

The phrase “of sins that are past” includes all the sins of all the saints of the OT going all the way back to Adam.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Islam and ISIS, Execution of Prisoners, a video by the Masked Arab

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Islam and ISIS, Slavery and Concubines, a video from the Masked Arab

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How much should a woman cover herself? Does Islam go too far?

Eve’s face wasn’t covered after she sinned.

Rebekah veiled her face when Isaac was near just before they got married. Probably to keep her beauty a surprise for him till the wedding day. Before that she was not veiled.

In the NT the head of the woman had to be covered during worship. She had to dress moderately at all times.

So the bible is against full face covering as a permanent state of dress for the woman.

It is a disfigurement or marring of the image of God in man and should not be allowed in society.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Raymond Ibrahim: Meet Ahmed al-Tayeb, the “Most Influential Muslim in the World”, by Raymond Ibrahim from Jihad Watch


Pope Frances Tayeb al Azhar

There’s nothing like knowing Arabic—that is, being privy to the Muslim world’s internal conversations on a daily basis—to disabuse oneself of the supposed differences between so-called “moderate” and “radical” Muslims.

Consider the case of Egypt’s Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb.  Hardly one to be dismissed as a fanatic who is ignorant of the true tenets of Islam, Tayeb’s credentials and career are impressive: he holds a Ph. D in Islamic philosophy from the Paris-Sorbonne University; formerly served as Grand Imam of Egypt, meaning he was the supreme interpreter of Islamic law; and since 2003 has been president of Al-Azhar University, considered the world’s leading institution of Islamic learning.   A 2013 survey named Tayeb the “most influential Muslim in the world.”

He is also regularly described by Western media and academia as a “moderate.”  Georgetown University presents him as “a strong proponent of interfaith dialogue.”  According to The National, “He is considered to be one of the most moderate and enlightened Sunni clerics in Egypt.”  In February 2015, the Wall Street Journal praised him for making “one of the most sweeping calls yet for educational reform in the Muslim world to combat the escalation of extremist violence.”

Most recently he was invited to the Vatican and warmly embraced by Pope Francis.  Al Azhar had angrily cut off all ties with the Vatican five years earlier when, in the words of U.S. News, former Pope Benedict “had demanded greater protection for Christians in Egypt after a New Year’s bombing on a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria killed 21 people.  Since then, Islamic attacks on Christians in the region have only increased.”

Pope Francis referenced his meeting with Tayeb as proof that Muslims are peaceful: “I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they [Muslims] think.  They seek peace, encounter.”

How does one reconcile Tayeb’s benevolent image in the West with his reality in Egypt?

For instance, all throughout the month of Ramadan last June, Tayeb appeared on Egyptian TV explaining all things Islamic—often in ways that do not suggest that Islam seeks “peace, encounter.”

During one episode, he reaffirmed a phrase that is almost exclusively associated with radicals: in Arabic, al-din wa’l-dawla, meaning “the religion and the polity”—a phrase that holds Islam to be both a religion and a body of rules governing society and state.

He did so in the context of discussing the efforts of Dr. Ali Abdel Raziq, a true reformer and former professor at Al Azhar who wrote a popular but controversial book in 1925, one year after the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate.  Titled, in translation, Islam and the Roots of Governance, Raziq argued against the idea of resurrecting the caliphate, saying that Islam is a personal religion that should no longer be mixed with politics or governance.

Raziq was vehemently criticized by many clerics and even fired from Al Azhar.  Concluded Tayeb, with assent:

Al Azhar’s position was to reject his position, saying he forfeited his credentials and his creed.  A great many ulema—in and out of Egypt and in Al Azhar—rejected his work and its claim, that Islam is a religion but not a polity.  Instead, they reaffirmed that Islam is both a religion and a polity [literally, al-din wa’l-dawla].

The problem with the idea that Islam must govern the whole of society should be obvious: Sharia, or Islamic law, which is what every Muslim including Tayeb refer to when they say that Islam is a polity, is fundamentally at odds with modern notions of human rights and, due to its supremacist and “anti-infidel” aspects, the source of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims the world over.

That this is the case was made clear during another of Tayeb’s recent episodes.  On the question of apostasy in Islam—whether a Muslim has the right to abandon Islam for another or no religion—the “radical” position is well known: unrepentant apostates are to be punished with death.

Yet Tayeb made the same pronouncement. During another Ramadan episode he said that “Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished.”

While his main point was that those who do not follow Islam are prone to being criminals, he especially emphasized those who exhibit their apostasy as being a “great danger to Islamic society. And that’s because his apostasy is a result of his hatred for Islam and a reflection of his opposition to it. In my opinion, this is grand treason.”

Tayeb added what all Muslims know: “Those learned in Islamic law [al-fuqaha] and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed.”  He even cited a hadith, or tradition, of Islam’s prophet Muhammad calling for the execution of Muslims who quit Islam.

Meanwhile, when speaking to Western and non-Muslim audiences, as he did during his recent European tour, Tayeb tells them what they want to hear.  Speaking before an international forum he asserted that “The Quran states that there is no compulsion in religion,” and that “attempts to force people into a religion are against the will of God.”  Similarly, when meeting with the Italian Senate’s Foreign Policy Commission Pier Ferdinando Casini and his accompanying delegation, Tayeb “asserted that Islam is the religion of peace, cooperation and mercy….  Islam believes in freedom of expression and human rights, and recognizes the rights of all human beings.”

While such open hypocrisy—also known as taqiyya—may go unnoticed in the West, in Egypt, human rights groups often call him out.  The Cairo Institute for Human Rights recently issued a statement accusing Al Azhar of having two faces: one directed at the West and which preaches freedom and tolerance, and one directed to Muslims and which sounds not unlike ISIS:

In March 2016 before the German parliament, Sheikh al-Tayeb made unequivocally clear that religious freedom is guaranteed by the Koran, while in Cairo he makes the exact opposite claims….  Combating terrorism and radical religious ideologies will not be accomplished by directing at the West and its international institutions religious dialogues that are open, support international peace and respect freedoms and rights, while internally promoting ideas that contribute to the dissemination of violent extremism through the media and educational curricula of Al Azhar and the mosques.

At any rate, if Tayeb holds such draconian views on apostasy from Islam—that is, when he’s speaking in Arabic to fellow Muslims—what is his position concerning the Islamic State?  Last December, Tayeb was asked why Al Azhar refuses to issue a formal statement denouncing the genocidal terrorist organization as lapsing into a state of kufr, that is, of becoming un-Islamic, or “infidel.” Tayeb responded:

Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity….  I cannot denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, but I can say that they cause corruption on earth.

As critics, such as Egyptian talk show host Ibrahim Eissa pointed out, however, “It’s amazing.  Al Azhar insists ISIS are Muslims and refuses to denounce them.  Yet Al Azhar never ceases to shoot out statements accusing novelists, writers, thinkers—anyone who says anything that contradicts their views—of lapsing into a state of infidelity.  But not when it comes to ISIS!”

This should not be surprising considering that many insiders accuse Al Azhar of teaching and legitimizing the atrocities that ISIS commits.  Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and Al Azhar graduate once exposed his alma mater in a televised interview:

It [Al Azhar] can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic].  The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?  Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it].  Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate.  Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc.  Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya.  Al Azhar teaches stoning people.  So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?

Similarly, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches.  He went on to quote from textbooks used in Al Azhar that permit burning people—more specifically, “infidels”—alive.

Meanwhile, Tayeb—the face of and brain behind Al Azhar—holds that Europe “must support all moderate Islamic institutions that adopt the Al-Azhar curriculum,” which “is the most eligible one for educating the youth.”  He said this during “a tour [in Germany and France] to facilitate dialogue between the East and the West.”

As for the ongoing persecution of Egypt’s most visible non-Muslim minorities, the Coptic Christians, Tayeb is renowned for turning a blind eye.  Despite the well-documented “severe persecution” Christians experience in Egypt; despite the fact that Muslim mobs attack Christians almost “every two to three days” now—recent examples include the burning of churches and Christian homes, the coldblooded murder of a Coptic man defending his grandchild from Muslim bullies, and the stripping, beating, and parading in the nude of a 70-year-old Christian woman—Tayeb recently told Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros that “Egypt represents the ultimate and highest example of national unity” between Muslims and Christians.

Although he vociferously denounces the displacement of non-Egyptian Muslims in Buddhist Myanmar, he doesn’t have a single word for the persecution and displacement of the Copts, that is, his own Egyptian countrymen.  Instead he proclaims that “the Copts have been living in Egypt for over 14 centuries in safety, and there is no need for all this artificial concern over them,” adding that “true terrorism was created by the West.”

Indeed, far from speaking up on behalf of Egypt’s Christian minorities, he has confirmed that they are “infidels”—that same label he refused to describe ISIS with.   While he did so in a technical manner—correctly saying that, as rejecters of Muhammad’s prophecy, Christians are infidels [kafir]—he also knows that labeling them as such validates all the animosity they feel and experience in Egypt, since the mortal enemy of the Muslim is the infidel.

This is consistent with the fact that Al Azhar encourages enmity for non-Muslims, specifically Coptic Christians, and even incites for their murder.  As Egyptian political commentator Dr. Khalid al-Montaser once marveled:

Is it possible at this sensitive time — when murderous terrorists rest on [Islamic] texts and understandings of takfir [accusing Muslims of apostasy], murder, slaughter, and beheading — that Al Azhar magazine is offering free of charge a book whose latter half and every page — indeed every few lines — ends with “whoever disbelieves [non-Muslims] strike off his head”?

The prestigious Islamic university—which co-hosted U.S. President Obama’s 2009 “A New Beginning” speech—has even issued a free booklet dedicated to proving that Christianity is a “failed religion.”

One can go on and on.   Tayeb once explained with assent why Islamic law permits a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman, but forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a Christian man: since women by nature are subordinate to men, it’s fine if the woman is an infidel, as her superior Muslim husband will keep her in check; but if the woman is a Muslim, it is not right that she be under the authority of an infidel.  Similarly, Western liberals may be especially distraught to learn that Tayeb once boasted, “You will never one day find a Muslim society that permits sexual freedom, homosexuality, etc., etc., as rights.  Muslim societies see these as sicknesses that need to be resisted and opposed.”

To recap, while secular Western talking heads that don’t know the first thing about Islam continue squealing about how it is being “misunderstood,” here is arguably the Muslim world’s leading authority confirming many of the cardinal points held by ISIS: he believes that Islam is not just a religion to be practiced privately but rather is a totalitarian system designed to govern the whole of society through the implementation of its human rights abusing Sharia; he supports one of the most inhumane laws, punishment of the Muslim who wishes to leave Islam; he downplays the plight of Egypt’s persecuted Christians, that is, when he’s not inciting against them by classifying them as “infidels”—the worst category in Islam’s lexicon—even as he refuses to denounce the genocidal Islamic State likewise.

Yet this well credentialed and respected scholar of Islam is considered a “moderate” by Western universities and media, from Georgetown University to the Wall Street Journal.  He is someone whom Pope Francis trusts, embraces, and quotes to reassure the West of Islam’s peacefulness.

In all fairness of course, Tayeb is neither a “moderate” nor a “radical.”  He’s merely a Muslim trying to be true to Islam.   Put differently, he’s merely a messenger.

Critics would be advised to take it up with the Message itself.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Misunderstanding of “the Messiah” in Islam and Its Ramifications, a post from Answering Muslims by Tony Costa


The irony with Islam and its relationship with Christianity and Judaism is that, it agrees on the one hand with Christianity that Jesus is the Messiah over against Judaism, which denies Jesus is the Messiah. However, Islam agrees with the Jews that Jesus was not the Son of God over against Christianity.

Muslims believe Jesus was the Messiah, but then agree with Judaism in trying to eradicate the messianic prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah!

As I noted before, the Qur’an never defines what “Messiah” means which demonstrates that Muhammad simply appropriated that title to Jesus as he heard Arab Christians use it as we would use “Jesus Christ”.

There is no indication in the Qur’an that Muhammad even knew what “Messiah” or its Greek equivalent “Christ” meant. Yet the Qur’an claims to be clear in its explanation of its contents, “We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things” (Q 16:89; Yusuf Ali). If this is so, why is Messiah never defined?

What is strange however is that in the Qur’an 4:157 where it records the denial of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, it has the Jews claim that Jesus was the Messiah,

“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain” (Pickthall; italics mine).

We know the “their” is referring to the Jews because in verses 154-156 of surah 4 the Jews are the intended referents. In Q 4:154 (cf. Q 2:63; 7:171) we have the story of Allah raising the mountain over the heads of the Jews and threatening to crush them if they do not keep the Sabbath according to the covenant Allah made with them. This story of course is nothing new as the Jews of Medina would have known about it as it is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zarah 2b-3a), centuries before Muhammad, and the Jews of Medina would have relayed the story to Muhammad.

In Q 4:155 it speaks of the Jews slaying the prophets and being disbelievers except for a few. Then in Q 4:156 it mentions the Jews “speaking against Mary [the mother of Jesus] a tremendous calumny” (Pickthall). Where in the Qur’an does it mention this “tremendous calumny” against Mary? Nowhere. But scandalous statements are made against Mary (and Jesus) in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a,b; Shabbath 104b; Yebamoth 49b) including charges of adultery and licentiousness, which again Muhammad would have heard from the Jews of Medina.

In Q 4:157 we have a strange confession of the Jews that they slew “the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary”. While it would be understandable for the Jews to have said we slew the false Messiah Jesus, they do not according to the Qur’an. Which Jew in his / her right mind would have knowingly killed their Messiah, the King and Redeemer of Israel? Some Qur’anic translators have noted this peculiarity in the wording of the Qur’an to the point that they have tried to change the sense of 4:157 to mean that the Jews made this claim “in boast”. Notice of all the translations below of Q 4:157, they all correctly translate the verse but Yusuf Ali and Hilali-Khan insert the phrase “in boast” which I have highlighted in bold below.

Pickthall And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
Yusuf Ali That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God”; – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Hilali-Khan And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]:
Shakir And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Sher Ali And for their saying, `We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of ALLAH;’ whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.
Khalifa And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
Arberry and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’ — yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty — no indeed;
Palmer and for their saying, ‘Verily, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God’…. but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about him are in doubt concerning him; they have no knowledge concerning him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill him, for sure!
Rodwell And for their saying, “Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.” Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him,
Sale and have said, verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented [by one] in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him, were in a doubt as to this [matter], and had no [sure] knowledge thereof, but followed only an [uncertain] opinion. They did not really kill him;

Why was the word “in boast” added by Yusuf Ali and Hilali-Khan? Obviously because these two translators saw a problem that you and I see. Which Jew with full knowledge would have killed their Messiah? None. However, if the Jews wanted to mock Jesus as a false Messiah they would have boasted with sarcasm much like the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus as King by crowning Him with a crown of thorns, placing a robe on Him, and giving Him a reed as a mock scepter (Mark 15:17-19; Matthew 27:28-30; John 19:2-4). To add the word “in boast” is to add to the Qur’an words that are not in the original Arabic text which Muslims always tell us is the true and authentic Qur’an. Are these translators guilty of corrupting the text of the Qur’an? The Qur’an claims to be “clear” as we see in Q 11:1, “Alif Lam Ra. A Bookwhose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware” (Arberry; italics mine). Did you notice the Arabic letters at the beginning of this verse, “alif”, “lam”, and “ra”? What do they mean? Hilali-Khan states about these letters, “These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur’an and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings”. This is an incredible statement as these letters appear in the same verse that says the verses of the Qur’an are “clear” and yet the meaning of these Arabic letters are ….unclear! You will also notice that the translator Khalifa in his translation above tries to avoid the problem by not translating the quote of the Jews in the first person plural as the Arabic has it, “we” killed, slew, have slain Jesus the Messiah. Khalifa translates the phrase as a reference to the Jews in the third person plural, “And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus (italics mine)”. Notice the quote by the Jews in the first person plural is missing. Is Khalifa guilty of corrupting the Arabic text of the Qur’an here?

One of the reasons that Q 4:157 claims the Jews slew their Messiah knowingly is most likely due to the fact that Muhammad merely assumed that “Messiah” (al-Masih in Arabic) was simply another name or title for Jesus and that Muhammad was completely and utterly unaware of the doctrine of the Messiah in the Old Testament much less the Talmud including its ramifications. The ‘redeemer’ aspect of the Messiah in Judaism was completely unknown to Muhammad. He clearly did not understand the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah, and even much worse, he did not understand the New Testament understanding of Jesus the Messiah. As a result, Islam presents a Jesus who is completely foreign to the historical Jesus and has reduced Him to a copy cat of Muhammad. As a result Islam has given Muslims “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

According to Jesus John the Baptist is greater than Islam’s second-greatest prophet Abraham. Which religion is telling the truth?

Matthew 11 v 11

King James Bible
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7 v 28

King James Bible
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And John testifies that Jesus is greater than him:

John 1 v 30

King James Bible
This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment