Ami Horowitz interviews Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the United States and elsewhere, and they are surprisingly candid with him, exploding the narrative of the establishment media and Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S., who claim that the Brotherhood has no presence here and is benign anyway. Be sure to watch the whole thing.
CogitoErgoSum says
It’s been a while since I last visited Rhode Island. When did the accent of the people born there change to sounding Middle Eastern? But what that Rhode Islander said is even more concerning to me than his accent. What do we do about evil if we can’t defeat it by peaceful means? His words and his accent sound evil to me and that noise at the beginning of the video has now become the most evil sound I have ever heard.
BVC says
Cogito, i am a born rhode islander (got out many years ago). TRUST ME, that is NOT a rhode island accent!!
CRUSADER says
Reasons why the Founders came up with the FIRST and SECOND Amendments.
kenolson90631 says
Very good and alarming work. This is right before our eyes and many are fooled. Ban the Muslim Brotherhood before even more tentacles take control.
BVC says
These organizations should be disbanded here in the west and their members deported. As for the American citizens that belong to them? Strip them of their citizenship and ship them off to the middle east where they belong. Their acts and way of thinking are absolute treason!! One of those men live freely after killing an officer in Egypt? What makes our leaders think he will have ANY respect for our own PD here stateside? I am sure he is on some sort of “watch list”, but they have ways around them (as we have seen).
I bet, if any of our wonderful world leaders see this, they will say the makers are “islamophobic” and we misunderstand the meaning of what was said. Their meaning was loud and clear!!
Terry Gain says
What law empowers the government to strip these adherents of this evil conquest ideology of their American citizenship? I am amazed at the number of people who think this Muslim conquest can be defeated with illegal measures.
President Trump has asked Congress to declare the MB a terrorist organization. With the House now in the hands of traitors his request is not likely to be acceded to.
The MB is quite open about its plans for America. Horowitz’s video is devastating. The lack of outrage even more so.
BVC says
I am writing my own opinion here on what should hapoen.
As far as laws for this, as the world moves forward with this “crisis”, we may find new laws being made because the game is changing. We are finding ourselves with a new enemy in our midst, but one that has been overseas for a long time. New enemy…new threat =new laws enacted to deal properly. We will see things change, it will have to.
Terry Gain says
Your opinion is worthless if does not take into account the law. You sound unhinged.
somehistory says
To Terry Gain,
Your rude reply…”you sound unhinged” and “Your opinion is worthless if does (sic) not take into account the law,”…..is also wrong in that you evidently didn’t read completely the comment to which you replied.
As an example…”we may find new laws being made because the game is changing. ” is just one of several times BVC referred to the “law” and explained that “new laws” might have to be written.
In America, new laws are written every session of Congress. Many are enacted right away, others have a future beginning point in order to give time for people/companies/States to make changes.
Therefore, it is not impossible…though it would be a challenge…for new laws to be written and enacted immediately with these new circumstances, specifically dealing with moslim’s actions in society.
RICO was such a law, written to deal with a certain situation. And it has been used against groups that behave much as the mb does. RICO could easily be used against this moslim “umbrella” and its many shoots.
I’m American and have studied American Law. I see no problem with people wanting a law to cover this situation and the actions and illegal plans for this country. In fact, these moslims are “conspiring” against this country. And there is certainly a law against criminal conspiracy. (see RICO)
As Gi has written, if the moslim came into the country and lied on any form or to an American government agent, he/she could be stripped of citizenship and deported.
And. orgs that violate the law can be declared illegal and if someone joins that illegal org, they can be arrested, charged, tried and sent to prison.
You may, or may not, know that bad guys…and those not so bad…were sent to the island that became the nation of Australia….as punishment for breaking laws. It would not be impossible to write into law a similar punishment for people who do what these members of moslim “gangs” are doing…even if they were born here.
gravenimage says
Terry:
“Trump officials pushing to strip convicted jihad terrorists of citizenship”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/trump-officials-pushing-to-strip-convicted-jihad-terrorists-of-citizenship
If someone lies while obtaining citizenship this may be grounds for stripping them of that citizenship.
Other nations are considering the same thing:
“Germany planning to strip citizenship from future jihadis”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/germany-planning-to-strip-citizenship-from-future-jihadis
LR says
They sure as heck should lose their citizenship. Can’t happen soon enough.
b.a. freeman says
gi, Terry sounds as angry as i feel when i see the profound ignorance of islam in our “leaders,” so we should probably cut him some slack. nevertheless, as U and others have pointed out, if *we* do not obey the law, we are as bad as the left and the ummah. the *ONLY* thing that keeps us free is rule by law, not by men. and that *ABSOLUTELY* means that we must obey the law. otherwise, the republic will die by *OUR* hands.
gravenimage says
I wasn’t giving Terry a hard time, b.a,–I was just pointing out that the US and some other countries are indeed addressing this issue.
And yes–I do believe that we can defend against Islam within our laws. It is just that our laws are often not enforced when it comes to Islam.
CRUSADER says
*** “Not Merely Islam”
C. S. Lewis ~
Assesses the Religion of Mohammed
(by Jacob Fareed Imam)
https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=30-03-042-f
Living in Christian Oxford as he did and dying in 1963, C. S. Lewis never directly witnessed the growing scale of Islamic immigration to the United Kingdom in the years after World War II. His exposure to Islam was more literary and intellectual than personal and actual.
Daily interactions between Muslims and Christians in Britain (and throughout the West) have increased vastly since Lewis’s time, yet mutual understanding has not grown with the same rapidity.
Particularly now, as Islamic extremism threatens the West with yet another holy war, Christians must understand Islam apart from polemical analyses.
Samuel Huntington argues in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) that both of these world religions grew markedly in the twentieth century in large part because many tried to escape modernity and secularity in tradition-dependent claims to truth.
Given that so many settled within these traditions, it would be interesting to examine what a major religious thinker of the time thought about the other religion.
Lewis, as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the twentieth century and somewhat ahead of his time in his familiarity—albeit literary and intellectual—with things Islamic, may assist us in understanding Islam from a Christian perspective.
Historical Understanding: Let us review the general historical understanding of Islam from within the Christian tradition.
St. John of Damascus’ De Haeresibus (Of Heresies) is the earliest extant robust evaluation of the Islamic faith. John’s use of the word “heresy” here amounts to an admission that Muslims, despite their many departures from Christian orthodoxy, are in the same world of discourse as Christians, although the disparities are substantial. The wider Christian world did not discount John’s categorization but adopted and continued it—most famously in Dante’s Divine Comedy, where Mohammed is placed in the infernal circle of schismatics because he sundered Christian unity in Asia and Africa with his Arabian heresy.
According to Hartmut Bobzin in The Qur’an as Text (Brill, 1996), the idea that Islam is a heresy, even the “epitome of all heresies,” and the Qur’an “an awkward figment of Satanic imagination” and a “treasury of heresy,” would become popular not only in eighth-century Byzantium, but also in twentieth-century Europe. Many thought the Qur’an held nothing but a mixture of old heresies that earlier church verdicts had refuted.
At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther himself declared that Mohammed was one of the heads of the anti-Christ (the pope, of course, was the second head!), and he sought therefore to strengthen preaching against the Islamic “temptation.” Catholics, for their part, declared that Islam was merely ritualism devoid of sacraments and mystery. People often heard the idea that the Islamic faith forced Muslims to submit blindly to a tyrannical overlord.
Here we must understand that although the word “Muslim” means “one who submits” or “submissive one,” the word holds no negative connotations for Muslims themselves. The mim-sin-lâm root (m, s, and l) that is the basis for Muslim as well as for Islam, which means “submission,” connotes a general entrusting of one’s wholeness to another. Another word with the same root is salam, peace (a neighbor of the Hebrew word shalom). A Muslim understands himself to submit to Allah that he might be salim—unbroken—and may find peace in the bosom of Allah’s law. Thus, a follower of Islam does not primarily think of himself as submitting to an ironclad despot, but as submitting to Allah that peace might indeed flourish.
Nevertheless, “Muslim” was deployed with a pejorative connotation by Christian commentators—though until relatively recently their common designation was not “Muslim” but “Mohammedan.” All great heresies are known by their founders (e.g., Marcionism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.) and therefore Islam, for as long as it was still considered a Christian heresy, was generally known as Mohammedanism.
Interestingly, prior to becoming a Christian, C. S. Lewis used the word “Moslem,” as evidenced by a letter of July 9, 1927. After his conversion, he more typically used the term “Mohammedan,” meaning thereby to indicate Islam’s position as a heresy rather than an independent religion. In Arthurian Torso (his study of the poetry of Charles Williams) he describes the faith started by Mohammed as “strong, noble, venerable; yet radically mistaken.”
By definition, a heresy is a selective and distorting interpretation of an earlier system of thought (the root meaning of “heresy” in Greek is “choice” or “opinion”). Heresies adopt the same basic framework as the source religion, but pervert its essential claims by simplification; thus Lewis claims in Mere Christianity that “it is simple religions that are the made-up ones.” “The greatest of such attempts [to simplify religion],” he writes in “Religion Without Dogma,””was that simplification of Jewish and Christian traditions which we call Islam.” Thus he shared the traditional (though not the modern) view of Islam as heresy.
This was also the view of G. K. Chesterton, who had a profound influence on Lewis, but Lewis did not adopt the ironic or mocking tone towards the religion that can be found in Chesterton (see “The Flying Inn” or “The New Jerusalem” for examples).
…
CRUSADER says
…
Allah’s Untrammeled Will
Many attacks made by Christian theologians against Islam and the Qur’an have produced more heat than light, but those who have genuinely sought to understand the Islamic claims of truth have found two major differences from Christianity: God’s Trinitarian nature and the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.
For Muslims, it is not only foolish but near damnable to declare a characteristic of Allah’s nature; beyond his singularity, a radical monotheism, nothing should be said about his essence. All pronouncements about Allah in the Qur’an find their basis in Allah’s will rather than in his nature. To take Surah 10:99 as an example: “And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed—all of them entirely.” Although a ninth-century Muslim group called the mu’tazilites did affirm and publicly teach the existence of a “natural right,” analogous to the “natural law” of Thomistic philosophy, according to George Hourani, “theological subjectivism is the prevailing view of classical Islamic jurisprudence and theology” (The Basis of Authority of Consensus in Sunnite Islam).
Hence, when it comes to the laws of Islam, nothing demands their necessity, as is the case within the Christian tradition, for their basis is not any necessary aspect of God’s essence, but rather an ultimately unnecessary and inessential expression of Allah’s untrammeled will. Hatred, for instance, could have been declared as valid as love; the superiority of the latter over the former rests solely in Allah’s voluntary preference for love, not because he “is love,” as in the Christian formulation (1 John 4:8).
Lewis thought the “heavy lucidity” of the Islamic doctrine of “mere Monotheism” was a belief that affirmed “unity in such a way that ‘union [between man and God] is breached.'” For mere Monotheism, he explains in Arthurian Torso, “blinds and stifles the mind like noonday sun in the Arabian deserts till we may well ‘call on the hills to hide us.'”
These words become all the more telling when we note that the latter phrase comes from Luke’s Gospel, where it is found on the lips of Christ as he walks up Golgotha and says to a group of women,
Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children; for, behold, the days are coming in which they will say, “Blessed are the barren and the wombs that did not bear and breasts which did not nurse.” Then they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us,” and to the hills, “Hide us.” (23:28–30)
Lewis does not go on to explain why the monotheism of Islam should be so “stifling,” but we can get a clue to his meaning from his discussion of the Euthyphro argument in Reflections on the Psalms, where he says that there were “terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ . . . Such a view of course makes God a mere arbitrary tyrant.”
No Foothold for Love
Without a Trinitarian model, love cannot “find a foothold in [God’s] own nature,” Lewis has Screwtape say in a letter to Wormwood. For a Christian, the basis of law is not willed assertion but love, and the basis of love is the nature of God—a nature eternally and necessarily expressed in self-giving, begetting, and proceeding. To simplify the doctrine of the Trinity down to Unitarian monotheism is to fix the determination of laws on sheer divine volition—as classical Islam would affirm. Without a self-giving, Trinitarian nature, God becomes, in Lewis’s view, an arbitrary and inscrutable tyrant, not requiring a freely willed and intelligent response from his followers, but immediate, unquestioning submission.
In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Annunciation narrative in the Qur’an omits Mary’s fiat, “Let it be done to me according to thy word,” which Christians have long understood to be the unforced, loving response of “yes” through which the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh. The Marian fiat is, in Christian theology, a personal, holistic welcome of the divine approach, and, as such, an echo at the human level of the loves eternally exchanged at the divine level. It is quite different from an automatic compliance with a supernatural compulsion. As Lewis memorably puts it in The Screwtape Letters, God “cannot ravish. He can only woo.”
In Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis says that God’s “laws have emeth, ‘truth,’ intrinsic validity, rock-bottom reality, being rooted in His own nature.” If the law is rooted in his nature, then it is a manifestation or an externalization of God’s own inward nature—something ready to be internalized by his followers: a palatable part of his being that Christians are to consume and find “sweeter than honey.” For Lewis, consuming the law results in delight, the satiation of one’s “appetite for God.” This phrasing captures the physicality of the longing; every aspect of a human being’s nature—both spiritual and carnal—yearns for God.
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis memorably depicts a distortion or perversion of this longing for sweetness. Edmund, having met the White Witch and listened to her blandishments, requests Turkish Delight—a means of sensual satisfaction and sweet bliss. Desiring the tasty treat is not wholly wrong, for it is the seeking of a good, namely delight, as the name of the confection itself indicates. Edmund, however, only finds a privation of true Delight, because he seeks it through the Witch and not from its ultimate source. Aslan, whose name means “lion” in Turkish (Lewis found it in “the notes to Lane’s Arabian Nights” as he says in a letter of January 22, 1952), stands as the true form of divine Incarnation, and though he is not physically edible, he is certainly physically sensible and familiar. Real joy, Lewis seems to suggest through this subtle word-play, comes in finding the true yet undiscovered Delight of the Turks: the second person of the Trinity.
The Dignity of Matter
Lewis discusses Islam’s dismissal of the Incarnation at some length in Arthurian Torso, perhaps his least known work of prose. The book contains several summaries of Arthurian legends written by his late friend, Charles Williams. In one legend, Le Conte du Graal, Williams deliberately makes Islam contemporary with Arthurian Britain. Lewis, affirming the appropriateness of the anachronism, explains that a Saracen foe diametrically opposes the central Christian doctrine of the Incarnation:
Islam denies the Incarnation. It will not allow that God has descended into flesh or that Manhood has been exalted into Deity. . . . It stands for all religions that are afraid of matter and afraid of mystery, for all misplaced reverences and misplaced purities that repudiate the body and shrink back from the glowing materialism of the Grail.
The Arthurian quest for the Grail—the chalice in which the Lord’s blood was made present at the Last Supper—implies man’s recognition of the dignity, not just of spirit, but also of matter, most importantly, the human body, a dignity underwritten by God not just in the act of creation, but in his assuming human flesh at the Annunciation. God “likes matter. He invented it,” Lewis dryly remarks in Mere Christianity; and Christ’s assumption of a human body is “the grand miracle,” on which the whole of Christianity stands or falls.
Lewis’s own 1945 novel, That Hideous Strength, also gives attention to the Saracens. Alcasan, a scientist who heads the villainous “National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments,” or N.I.C.E., is a French-speaking Arab. His Islamic origin is never explicitly stated but is clearly implied in the title of the ninth chapter: “The Saracen’s Head.” Before we track this point, we should recall that That Hideous Strength is, as Lewis states in the preface, a narrative rendering of The Abolition of Man—a book in which Lewis draws from the texts of every main religion to validate natural law—every one, that is, except the Qur’an.
Alcasan emerges in the plot as the supposed next phase of human evolution: a Head set on a pole with “less and less body”—truly gnostic and wholly tyrannical. His lack of body is a fictional rendering of the philosophical point Lewis made in The Abolition of Man when he suggested that “by his intellect [man] is mere spirit.” But if all he has is a head, he lacks that by which “man is man”: for angels and demons also have intellect (spirit), but only man is a rational animal, only man combines the head with the belly. Thus, for Alcasan to have only a head means that he is no longer human, no longer incarnate. Using the acronym is “N.I.C.E.” is a philological joke on the part of Lewis: nice is etymologically connected to nescius, “to be ignorant.” Alcasan, like N.I.C.E., is ignorant of what it truly means to be human: his spiritual solitude cannot unite with the world, for it is stripped of the world’s matter.
This scientist does not have the mediator, that is, the chest, which sits between “cerebral man and visceral man.” “Almost free of Nature, attached to her only by the thinnest, finest cord,” this Head is not equipped to salvage the organic. Nor is that the intention. Rather, for the next stage of evolution to be realized, the organic must be escaped entirely.
It is reasonable that Lewis alludes to Christ here as well, whom St. Paul considers “the head,” yet not a stand-alone Head, for he is the “head of the body.” This Head “innervates and vivifies all the members of the body that he controls” says Pope Benedict XVI in his Saint Paul. This Head reconciles all things to God “who is Spirit” (John 4:24). Without the Incarnation, God would have remained completely other, but in Christ the divine and the human are united.
Having this understanding, Professor Filostrato, a member of the N.I.C.E., views Alcasan as a mere arbitrary tyrant, as when he says to Mark, “he will speak to you within this hour, and . . . you will obey.” Without the doctrine of the Incarnation, no reasonable evidence exists to proclaim God’s essence as Love. The eternal existence of the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love they share—that is, the Father who is the Lover begetting his Beloved, the Son, and the Love that they share, the Holy Spirit, proceeding between the two, has only been revealed to humanity through Immanuel.The Incarnation is the revelation of the Trinity. The Head of the N.I.C.E does not enliven a body but only leads a legion. Filostrato, as his Greek name suggests (“army-lover”), knows his place within the army, the hierarchy; he takes his orders and recognizes people as soldiers who must submit without a participatory element.
…
CRUSADER says
…
No Fall, No Reconciliation
The line “he will speak . . . you will obey” insightfully expounds the anthropic ontology within Islam: Islam has no doctrine of the Fall, the ontological worsening of man has no place within Islamic thought, and thus Islam does not need a miraculous, reconciling Atonement. The Christian notion of sin is replaced with the Islamic notion of crime. Crimes cause no eternal gulf between man and Allah as do sins; Sharia and the Qur’anic commandments attempt to correct one’s relationship and orientation to Allah but do not act to reconcile people with God.
Because Islam lacks a robust doctrine of the Fall, it also lacks a doctrine of separation from God, and therefore it lacks hope for greater intimacy with God. Or, as Charles Williams put it, “For if we deny the image we are losing, then clearly there is no loss to be accepted,” for “we affirm the image at the very moment of affirming its opposite.” If we deny the reality of sin, then we simultaneously deny the chasm between man and God and the prospect of and need for Christ, the True Bridge, providing a path for man to journey from depraved separation to glorious consummation with the Divine.
In his essay “Shelley, Dryden, and Mr. Eliot,” Lewis analyzes Percy Bysshe Shelley’s understanding of sin as -portrayed in The Revolt of Islam—a poem that, in Shelley’s own words, considers “how far a thirst for a happier condition of moral and political society survives among the enlightened and refined”—but not in Islam. Shelley, according to Lewis, considers that it is “self-contempt which arms Hatred with a ‘mortal sting.’ The man who has once seen darkness in himself will soon seek vengeance on others,” and thus, in Lewis’s mind, “If a man will not become a Christian,” finding forgiveness in Christ’s sacrifice, then recognizing one’s own wrongdoing is an “excellent recipe for becoming much worse.”
Does Lewis believe Muslims to be more inclined to hatred because their religion dismisses the need for forgiveness? The description of the obviously oriental Calor-menes in The Horse and His Boy might suggest so: “they have dark faces and long beards. They wear flowing robes and orange-colored turbans, and they are a wise, wealthy, courteous, cruel and ancient people.” Cruel seems almost out of place within this otherwise dignified description, but it is in keeping with Lewis’s other remarks on Islam.
In his short essay “What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?” Lewis says, “If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, “Are you Allah?” he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off.” Similarly, in his “Rejoinder to Dr. Pittenger,” Lewis, explicating the difference in posture towards self-denial between Christianity and Islam, writes that if a man can read the Sermon on the Mount with tranquility and find pleasure in such commands as “turn the other cheek,” “such a man is not yet ripe for the Bible; he had better start by learning sense from Islam.” This acerbic remark can only refer to the violence demonstrated within the religion.
Perverted Sexuality & Genuine Union
The expression of violence against the body subtly hints at another implication of rejecting the Incarnation, which Lewis explicitly teaches in The Arthurian Torso. There he reveals his understanding that all heresies that deny the Incarnation result in a perverted form of human sexuality; those who forsake the presence of the Lord in the physical world come sooner or later to misunderstand the inherent sanctity of physical acts, with the result that “the law of exchange,” of true self-donation, of genuine giving and receiving, becomes impossible: “the strain [i.e., human lineage] gives itself not to another strain but only back to itself.” This strain encroaches on freedom and dilutes the will so that the basis of human dignity, the unconfined conscience, can make no decision for itself.
Lewis vividly depicts this twice in The Horse and His Boy, when Aravis is threatened with forced marriage to Ahoshta and when Susan is threatened by compulsory nuptials with Rabadash. There is no question of women choosing their husbands here: they simply must submit. Within Islam, human loves do not image and incarnate the love of God, but they might unveil the unassailable relationship Allah commands with his people.
Lewis writes in Reflections on the Psalms that the “language of nearly all great mystics . . . confronts us with evidence that the image of marriage, of sexual union, is not only profoundly natural but almost inevitable as a means of expressing the desired union between God and man.” (He notes that some of these mystics are Islamic, but he is most assuredly referencing Sufis, for, first, they promote Islamic mysticism and, second, a dear friend of Lewis, Martin Lings, was a Sufi. This order of Muslims, however, is outside this paper’s scope.) Eroticism mirrors the heavenly summit of the soul, but not the soul by itself, rather, the embodied soul.
Thus at the end of That Hideous Strength, Jane relinquishes her study of Donne’s “triumphant vindication of the body” and instead triumphantly vindicates her own body by giving her whole self to her husband Mark and by receiving his whole self in return—their sexual union is no longer rendered incomplete by contraception. No longer does Mark use her as a mere instrument of indulgence, but now embraces her in a true incarnate union. Union is only a true unity if it is fully self-emptying, fully en-fleshed, and fully incarnate. Because man is both spirit and matter, a social impress of love must be physically expressed, lest it be rendered invalid or not fully ratified due to a lack of outward manifestation. This is what the villains of the N.I.C.E., headed by the bodiless Saracen, fail to understand.
Not Without Hope
Nevertheless, the fact that Islam falls short of the fullness of the Christian doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation does not mean, for Lewis, that all Muslims necessarily reject God.
Here it will be helpful to turn to Lewis’s depiction of the Calormenes in the Narnia Chronicles. The Calormenes do not represent a seamless allegory of Islam, because, for example, the statue of Tash in the temple would be considered an intolerable blasphemy according to Islamic thought. But there are a number of hints that leave the Calormene religion as an impression of Islam. The phrase, “Tash, the irresistible, the inexorable,” alludes to the Islamic phrase “Allah, the beneficent, the merciful”; and the response to a mention of Tisroc, “May he live forever,” mirrors the near-liturgical response to Mohammed’s name, “Peace be upon him.”
Because Lewis lived in a very different time from ours, he could have gotten away with saying far harsher words about Islam and Muslims than he could today. We should, therefore, remember that his charity is manifest in the fact that his rhetoric does not reflect the typically brutal rhetoric directed against Muslims in his day.
Thus, even if we take the Calormene religion of Tash-worship to be a caricature of Islam, we can see that while Lewis understands Islam to be cruel and militaristic, he does not see its adherents as being all without hope. As Aslan says to the Calormene soldier, the aptly named Emeth, in The Last Battle, “I take to me the services which thou hast done to [Tash] . . . [for] unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” Emeth thus lives up to his name, for he followed the laws that have “emeth, ‘truth’, intrinsic validity, rock-bottom reality, being rooted in [God’s] own nature.” Even though he thought he was worshiping Tash and never knowingly worshiped Aslan by name, his commitment to the Calormene religion was no final obstacle to his salvation.
Some Muslims, according to Lewis, do worship Christ, though not explicitly. Taking comfort in the fact that other religions “contain at least some hint of the truth,” Lewis did not dismiss Islam as completely anti-Christian. Moreover, in acknowledging Islam as a heresy instead of an independent religion like Hinduism, he gave it a certain dignity in his mind for having been birthed from the root of Christianity. And among the many differences that he notices between the two religions, he also sees a number of structural and ethical similarities, including the fact that both religions reject the caste system, fight discrimination and immoral forms of paganism, praise the mutual triumph over desert dualism, and adhere to the stability found in creedal affirmations (see the letter of January 21, 1940, Arthurian Torso, 125, and the letter of March 21, 1962).
Indeed, Lewis believes that many good truths lie within Islam and within the beauty birthed from the umma—the Islamic community. He also believed that by following, obeying, and loving Allah, Muslims may indeed be searching for and worshiping the true God. “I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God,” he wrote to a Mrs. Johnson on November 8, 1952, “is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow.” This statement is less about different religions and more about the followers of those various religions. But a few years later, on February 8,
1956, in a letter to Fr. Griffiths, Lewis wrote,
One often wonders how different the content of our faith will look when we see it in the total context. Might it be as if one were living on an infinite earth? Further knowledge wd. Leave our map of, say, the Atlantic quite correct, but if it turned out to be the estuary of a great river—and the continent thro’ wh. that river flowed turned out to be itself an island—off the shores of a still greater continent—and so on! You see what I mean? Not one jot of Revelation will be proved false: but so many new truths might be added.”
Lewis does not say that those who believed doctrines contrary to the Christian faith were correct; rather, he insinuates that the totality of knowledge is not held within Revelation and that we ought not dismiss extra-biblical, extra-Christian beliefs with haste.
Although Lewis disagreed with Muslims, he undeniably loved them in person, and although he regarded Islam as heretical, he also respected it as “strong, venerable, [and] noble.” But the beauty that he witnessed in his friend Martin Lings did not alter his analysis of the religion. He could not neglect the false and de-humanizing aspects of Islamic belief while trying to promote the true and vivifying faith in the Blessed Trinity and Christ, the Incarnate.
https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=30-03-042-f
CRUSADER says
It is important to see why Spencer encourages us to watch the entire video “Truth About the Muslim Brotherhood” made by Ami Horowitz….
Akram Adlouni authored Memo:
Ikhwan’s work in America is a grand jihad to destroy the miserable house and eliminate Western Civilization… with specific agenda to dominate and expand and undermine… what they see as decayed society.
Nidal Mohammed Sakr is interviewed, freely espousing his view on the Ikhwan’s operations, which are tailored to different nations and policies. Democracy can help to create the further emergence of the Islamic rise in the West. “Islam is the solution to problems everywhere, because of standing morals (which Muslims represent).”
The prison systems in the US are becoming Islamist conversion centers. 75% of the chaplains, many who are imams, have some following of and sympathy toward the Muslim Brotherhood.
“The way the U.S. is going, and with all its vulgarity, its divisiveness, it will get replaced eventually. Revolution is going to be the color of blood. We are opposite to the American Way, we are completely against it. We will die for a purpose. We are proud to be radicals.”
America has been targeted for decades by the growth of organized Muslim groups, which work in concert to spread the Islamist ideology. The Leftists are natural supporters and defenders of Islamism.
Samuel Tadros, of Hoover Institute, is also interviewed by Ami Horowitz. Irony of a Muslim Brotherhood adherents stating that Pro-Israelis and Pro-GOP are “Heil Hitler” advocates.
——————
Angemon says
Why wouldn’t they be – which MSM group will give Ami a platform?
E T says
The Muslim Brotherhood is everywhere, they have a plan, it is just a matter of time. Why do you think Imam Mazin Abdul-Adhim, who lives in London, Ontario, the Canadian leader of Hibt it-Tabriz, a worldwide terrorists group is allowed to operate in Canada? Why did all the NDP and all the Liberals—except cya Justine vote in favour of M103, but allow this evil to spew his caliphate is coming crap—“if the ummah understands what is required of us as Muslims, what does a caliphate look like? What a system of Islam looks like and how to re-establish caliphate, according to the method of (Muhammad) the ummah will rise up and know exactly what we will have to do.” What is the matter with all the politicians in Canada that they are not raving about the Traitor and demanding he be sent back to Iraq and all the radical Imams who are spewing hate should be kicked out of this country. I am looking for politicians with a spine, patriots, who will stand for this beautiful country and all the wonderful Canadians who have been kicked around by this UNCANADIAN, disgraceful group of mental midgets we have in Ottawa, they are not liberals, they are trained seals, who follow Justine, the little “feminine” puppet of Georgie Soros. What politician in Canada does not know the OIC came up with the term ISLAMOPHBIA some 50 years ago to push their agenda, please spare me the bullshit.
gravenimage says
Video: The truth about the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.
……………..
Yes, and in their own words.
Ami Horowitz is a *very* brave man.
E T says
Yes GI, he is a very brave man and now we need to elect brave politicians who stand up for FREEDOM, politicians who will openly state that Shari’ah law does not supersede our laws, politicians who will say there is no room for the Muslim Brotherhood hoods in our country.
No slaves
No sex with children or marriage with children
No blasphemy law
No “hitting” your wife
No cutting off body parts
No flogging, stoning, throwing acid
No prison for homosexuals or execution
One wife
No captives of jihad or owning anyone.
Too funny listening to Sakr talking about morals.
gravenimage says
+1
Carol the 1st says
Yes, it was striking – nasty idiots who believe their own press.
Relic says
knows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QVRUE0cemU
CRUSADER says
*** Obama administration enabled an Islamist monster.
From the Obama administration’s perspective, the revolt against Mubarak, which was led by the Muslim Brotherhood, was an indication that Islamism and democracy were complementary ideals….
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274113/mohamed-morsis-death-reminder-why-he-was-dangerous-caroline-glick
Reports of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s sudden death on June 17 in a Cairo courtroom where he was being tried for espionage for the Hamas terror group centered around his poor prison conditions.
The former Egyptian president and Muslim Brotherhood leader, who was deposed by the Egyptian military in July 2013, had been jailed since shortly after his removal from office. He was charged and convicted of a host of crimes ranging from the deliberate killing of protesters to treason and espionage.
Very few of the details about his actions as president have been mentioned in the sea of reports about his untreated diseases during his prolonged imprisonment.
And that is a shame. For as bad as his suffering may well have been in prison, the suffering that Morsi and his colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood were inflicting on Egypt and the Middle East, and the even greater suffering his retention of power would have inflicted on the region and the world as a whole, was far greater than his private travails in prison.
Today, as tensions rise seemingly by the day in the standoff between Iran and its proxies on the one hand, and Iran’s neighbors, the United States, and Israel on the other, it is important to consider just how much worse things would be today had Morsi remained in office in 2013 and we were now in the seventh year of his rule.
In January 2011, the wave of revolutionary fervor that had swept through Tunisia the previous month came to Egypt. After 29 years of authoritarian rule under President Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian people seemed to have had enough. Unrest began in Alexandria and Suez, with protests and assaults on police stations, and quickly spread to Cairo. The Obama administration, with the eager support of former Bush administration officials, viewed the unrest with satisfaction. From the Bush administration alumni’s perspective, the popular protests were proof that George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” was resonating with the peoples of the Middle East.
From the Obama administration’s perspective, the revolt against Mubarak, which was led by the Muslim Brotherhood, was an indication that Islamism and democracy were complementary ideals.
Washington was unmoved by the warnings, which grew in intensity during the two weeks of protests that led to Mubarak’s abdication of power on February 8, 2011, from Egypt’s Middle Eastern allies and from Mubarak himself. The Israelis, the Saudis, and other allied governments warned the Americans that the only force in Egypt with the power to replace Mubarak was the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, which was formed in 1928, developed the ideology for Sunni jihadists from Hamas to al Qaeda, which it spawned.
Its slogan — “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope” — left no doubt about its intentions or its planned policies.
And yet the Obama administration closed its eyes and ears to the danger. It disregarded the fact that for nearly 30 years in power, Mubarak was a steady U.S. ally. He studiously maintained Egypt’s peace with Israel and so ensured the prevention of a major regional war. He was also a consistent ally in the fight against al Qaeda. Under Mubarak’s rule, the Egyptian regime was committed to ensuring the safety of the Suez Canal.
Rather than stand by the man that had served as the anchor for the U.S. alliance system with the Sunni Arab world, the Obama administration demanded that he abdicate power while insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood was a positive force.
In testimony before Congress two days after Mubarak was forced from power, James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence, maintained that the jihadist Brotherhood was “a largely secular” organization that was dedicated to advancing “social ends and the betterment of the political order in Egypt,” in Clapper’s words.
Notably, a week after Clapper’s testimony, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yousouf Qaradawi, who had lived in exile in Qatar for 31 years, made a triumphant return to Cairo. There he delivered a speech to two million Egyptians at Tahrir Square. He ended the speech with a rousing call for the Egyptians to renew their war against Israel and to conquer Jerusalem. His words were met with roars of approval from the vast assembly.
Qaradawi said, “Egypt, who fought four wars on behalf of Palestine, should not break from this path.”
….
CRUSADER says
….
The ground was set for the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt during the 16 months of the military caretaker government that ran Egypt from February 2011 until Morsi’s inauguration in September 2011. On September 10, 2011 a mob destroyed a concrete barrier protecting the Israeli embassy in Cairo. After hours of siege, it stormed the embassy. Two Israeli security officers were spirited out by Egyptian forces just moments before the embassy was overrun. Saving them required the direct intervention of President Obama, as Egypt’s military regime refused to take calls from Israel’s leaders.
Israel deployed a military transport jet to Cairo airport to evacuate its personnel. Netanyahu referred to the ransacking of the embassy as “a blow to the fabric of peace.”
In 1979 Egypt’s conclusion of its peace treaty on the one hand, and the Islamic revolution in Iran on the other, transformed the two allies into enemies. From 1979 through February 2011, no Iranian warship was permitted to transit the Suez Canal. Two weeks after Mubarak was forced from power, and in a signal to the global community that Egypt’s geopolitical position was rapidly shifting, two Iranian warships traversed the Suez Canal en route to Syria.
In October 2011, Egyptian military forces massacred Coptic Christians in what became known as the Maspiro demonstrations. In the meantime, during the course of the elections campaign, Morsi and other leading Muslim Brotherhood members and clergy insisted that their victory would represent the “second Islamic conquest” of Egypt. Under their rule, the Copts would be treated as second class citizens in line with Islamic sharia law, and be forced to pay the jizya, or poll tax, on pain of death.
After taking power in June 2012, Morsi and his colleagues in the Egyptian parliament set about keeping their promises. In December 2012, they amended the Egyptian constitution in a manner that would have transformed the country into an Islamic state governed by Sharia law, while rendering Muslim Brotherhood rule permanent. In November 2012, Morsi signed a presidential decree proclaiming that his decisions could not be checked by judicial authorities, effectively transforming himself into a dictator.
The month Morsi arrogated to himself absolute power to rule Egypt, Hamas opened a missile campaign against Israel in which more than a hundred rockets and mortars were shot into Israeli territory in 24 hours. Israel’s responded with an eight day counterterror operation called Pillar of Defense. While Morsi played a role in mediating the conflict, he also facilitated Hamas’s aggression. Upon taking office, he opened the Egyptian border with Gaza and allowed the free flow of missiles and other offensive weapons to Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood terror regime. Hamas terrorists, for their part, were deployed to Egypt as shock troops to defend Morsi and his regime. On Monday, when Morsi collapsed in the courtroom, he was being tried for coordinating the January 2011 prison breaks in Suez with Hamas. Morsi and thousands of other Muslim Brotherhood members were freed in that raid, allegedly carried out by Hamas terrorists who had infiltrated Egypt from Gaza.
During his 13 months in office, Morsi also moved swiftly to rebuild Egypt’s relations with Iran. He visited Tehran in August 2012, signaling the shift. In February 2013, he hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Cairo, rolling out the red carpet at the Cairo airport, where Morsi greeted the Iranian leader in an official ceremony.
Morsi would have been successful in his bid to transform Egypt into an Islamic state, had it not been for his incompetence in handling Egypt’s economic crisis. During his short tenure, Egypt’s foreign currency reserves disappeared. As a country that imports half of its grain, its bankruptcy rendered Egypt incapable of feeding its people. And on the eve of Morsi’s overthrow, the Egyptian people were on the brink of mass starvation.
Morsi failed to secure a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which would have attenuated the crisis because he refused to introduce austerity measures the IMF required.
It was Egypt’s financial collapse that convinced Egypt’s Minister of Defense, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, to take action to remove Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power. Morsi’s radical Islamist policies terrified the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates who pledged to support Egypt in the event that Sisi and the military acted. Israel, for its part, worked assiduously to block a cut off of U.S. aid to Egypt in the aftermath of Morsi’s overthrow.
Morsi’s rise was the result of a combination of American bipartisan imprudence and Islamist determination and power. Had he and the Muslim Brotherhood successfully retained power, the Egyptian-Iranian alliance he was forging would have mounted a challenge to the Muslim world and to the West that has rarely if ever been contemplated by Western policymakers.
Morsi’s fall was a testament to the Egyptian people’s ability to recognize and correct their mistakes. It was a testament to Sisi’s courage. And it was a testament to the wisdom and willingness to act of the Israelis, and the Sunni Arab states who recognized the danger, even as Washington willfully refused to see it.
It is regrettable that Morsi apparently received ill treatment in Egypt’s prisons. But his failure to maintain power is a blessing for humanity.
(FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE)
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274113/mohamed-morsis-death-reminder-why-he-was-dangerous-caroline-glick
somehistory says
So, the meeting “barracks” for moslims in America “are burning.” I hadn’t heard that. If they all burned down, moslims would claim a big “phobia” was at work and demand arrests for people not liking them.
These moslims in America are planning a takeover. They freely admit it. They are working with moslims all over the world…having been “sent here” and “placed here”…for the sole purpose of destroying the country and forcing their evil will on the rest of us.
This is conspiracy. Every one of them should be arrested, charged with criminal conspiracy, tried and imprisoned in cells that house only those already moslim and already sentenced to long, long terms. Any who are not citizens should be treated accordingly for the safety of this country’s innocent citizens.
In any case, our Almighty Creator will soon see that this evil scourge from satan the devil is destroyed completely from the earth.
E T says
The Federal government just announced they will spend 45 million more dollars on “hate speech”. Justine told veterans they are “asking for more than we’re able to give right now”. What a disgrace excuse of a man he is.
Carol the 1st says
Trudeau’s evil narcissism is revealing itself more clearly on his angry face and in his angry words every day. He has hateful rhetoric and actions towards the Canadians who shaped this land.
E T says
Disgraceful, Any leader who can not help the very people that defend the country should be made to step down. I loathe this Soros tool.
E T says
The Canadian federal government defines Islamophobic in the latest report as: “Including racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear of acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. in addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial pro?ling, Islamophobic can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level”. No mention of Christians, Jews or other minorities. 45 million dollars for more Soros bullshit.
Mixtli says
And the muslims don’t stop to reflect that throughout their 1,400 years of the existence of Islam, what have “they” contributed to the world for a better life for the people? Were it not for the vast petroleum reserves found in the ME, the gulf states, S.Arabia,Iraq and Iran would be as penniless and corrupt as the other muslim countries. For Evil to succeed(Islam)a good man need not do anything.