Exposing a Source of Hatred

John R. Houk
© August 16, 2010

Christopher Logan is one of my favorite bloggers who stands against Jihad, Islamism and those Muslims that comprehend the abrogated verses of the Quran. I include the last phrase for there are many Muslims in America that claim to be moderate Muslims or Islamic organizations yet constantly engage their Muslim community with information that vilifies the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness under the rule of law based on the U.S. Constitution. When Muslims emphasize Sharia Law over the best human made document in world history establishing the rights of people which has continually improved American culture until America’s Left began to filter the U.S. Constitution through the eyes of the so-called “Living Constitution” rather than Constitutional “Original Intent”. (Yes, I inserted my two-cents)

Anyway, back to Logan’s blogging about anti-Jihad issues.

Logan noticed that a Muslim website used one of his posts as an example of Islamophobic hate-speech. The Muslim Website listed 16 points to counter the Islamophobic hate-speech of the type that Logan alleged represents. I am probably in the status of no-name blogger or I could have just as easily have been grouped with Christopher Logan. The few Muslims that have visited my blog usually take umbrage with my stand that the Quran is a document of intolerant evil and that Mohammed was an intolerant racist, intolerant of those that rejected Islam, intolerant of equal rights for women, was behaviorally pathologically violent with an eye for female children and beautiful woman in the realm of sensuous exploitation.

There is definitely a sense of vitriolic hate-speech in my description of the legacy of Islam. The problem with been accused of utilizing hate-speech or incitement to violence is that Islam’s own holy documents tell the story of all that I have just related. The blinders are on the eyes of Muslims because of generations of ingrained thought that Mohammed was the perfect man and that all the messages of Mohammed is the prophetic revelation of Allah the all knowing and eternally merciful one. Thus the very wickedness of the acts perpetuated by Mohammed is obscured by thoughts imputed as perfection. If Mohammed was perfect man then there must be a moral explanation of his perfidy that has been a legacy of harm to humankind in the name of a theopolitical Allah.

The concept of perfection goes a long way toward explaining the current Muslim acts of violence against humanity today. Violent Muslims are merely following the example of the perfect man Mohammed. Moderate Muslims justify the violence as defense to protect the Ummah and that Mohammed’s words of peace and inner peace with a message of Allah’s mercy offered to all who accept submission to Allah to be the true Mohammed.

The reality is the Mohammed considered the true example is the Mohammed who preached in Mecca before the Hegira to Medina. That Mohammed was an awesome example moral persuasion toward Arab polytheists. Undoubtedly Mohammed had contact with Jewish and Christian monotheism and adopted that which he knew from those faiths to entice a free will acceptance that Mohammed was a prophet in the tradition of the Jews and the Christians. Mohammed offered his view of Allah as the final culmination of Jewish Torah and Christian Messiahship in which the buck stopped with him.

After the Hegira Mohammed’s Jewish friends in Medina became rivals when the Jews rejected the Prophethood of Mohammed. The greater the rivalry the more vitriolic Mohammed became toward Arab-Jews. As the Jews were exterminated from Medina and Mohammed became the leader the words of hate toward Jews and later toward Christians abrogated the awesome Mohammed of Mecca. The irony is most Muslims are taught more of the theology of the Mecca Mohammed in da’wa and know less of the Mohammed of Medina. And that which they know is interpreted by Imams and Clerics who tell the members of their Mosque that Mohammed’s extermination of Jews was justified because the Jews betrayed him – the perfect man. A closer scrutiny of the Quran and Companion commentaries (Hadith) demonstrates a fallible Mohammed that somehow changed from the cool dude of Mecca.

Mohammed’s change begs the question: What happened to transform Mohammed from a peaceful proselytizer to a brutal conqueror? Was it insanity? Was it that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? From a Christian perspective one could ask: Did Mohammed embrace the dark side of humanity during the Hegira and become demonized in which his personality transformed from gentleness into a bloodthirsty seeker of riches and sensuousness?

If a Muslim asked these kinds of questions especially in a Muslim dominated land would be a capital crime. If a non-Muslim (Jew, Christian, polytheist et al) asked these kinds of questions in a Muslim land, it would be doubtful a non-Muslim (aka kafir) would even make to a Court Room. The Kafir could be murdered for such questions and get away with for the questions would insult and dishonor Mohammed, Allah and Islam.

When Westerners do their utmost to expose the Mohammed of Medina and post-Medina as the Quranic-superior suras in relation to non-Muslims, the Westerners are called Islamophobes. If exposing Islam’s true nature is Islamophobia then I accept the appellation with honor. Let it be known though that I do not have an irrational fear of Islam as the term “Islamophobe” would imply. Rather I have a healthy respect for the American culture I reside in and do not wish it to be threatened by innocent or intended deception that Islam is a religion of peace. Most of the peaceful Islam has been abrogated by the post-Hegira Medina violent Islam as espoused by Mohammed. As an Islamophobe that exposes Islam to the light of truth I am not endeavoring on hate-speech; however I do understand it can incite violence by Muslims who have fallen prey to the theology of the perfect man as exampled by Mohammed.

This kind of incitement cannot be hateful. Revealing the nature of Islam is not and should not be an excuse for non-Muslims to act out violence toward Muslims; however centuries of theopolitical indoctrination could result in violent rioting and the threat of assassination from a Muslim toward a non-Muslim. Violence exacted in the name of Allah and his last prophet Mohammed is the actual acts of hatred. This is all the more reason to expose the violent nature of Islam on an unsuspecting humanity that might be persuaded by the Mecca peaceful portions of the Quran when the Median portions of the Quran are judged by Muslim Clerics outweighing the Mecca portions when decisions are made.

I am not inciting violence with hate-speech. I am exposing a source of violence from Islamic Superiority hatred.

JRH 8/16/10