President Obama's targeting of memorials and places of national pride in the government shutdown battle are symptomatic of the twin heresies that were at the heart of his upbringing.
Ayatollah Obama; Twin Heresies
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”—Ishaq:324
When Constantinople fell in 1453 the conquering Turks systematically expunged all evidence of Christian influence there. Perhaps the most egregious thing they did was to convert the world famous Haiga Sophia, basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to a mosque, plastering over the magnificent mosaics that adorned the walls of that famous house of Christian worship. This act of vandalism was hardly unique in the history if Islam; Islam tolerates no competitors in the lands they take by force.
We have seen this in our own time, with the Taliban’s destruction of enormous statues of Buddha in Afghanistan as well as Islamists destroying such artifacts in Timbuktu. We have heard calls by Muslims to destroy the pyramids in Egypt and the tomb of St. Joseph of Shechem in 2000, as well as Al Aqsa. We have seen the desecration of the Church of the Nativity by Palestinian militants hiding from the IDF. They eventually left after a siege, leaving the floor littered with feces and trash.
And this is not limited to holy sites; after Islamic Jihadists destroyed the Twin Towers in New York a Muslim proselytizer came along to establish a victory mosque on the site. Victory mosques are common practice, a way of rubbing the enemies nose in their defeat.
Islam permits no competitors; there are two kingdoms, the Dar Al Islam and the rest. If you are not with them you are their enemies. Enemies must be destroyed.
Consider these verses from the works of Ibn Ishaq, the collections of Islamic oral traditions:
Ishaq:552 “When the populace had settled down, Muhammad went to the Ka’aba and compassed it seven times on his camel, touching the Black Stone with a stick. Then he went inside the Temple. There he found a dove made of wood. He broke it in his hands and threw it away.”
Ishaq:552 “The Ka’aba contained 360 idols which Lucifer had strengthened with lead. The Apostle was standing by them with a stick in his hand, saying, ‘The truth has come and falsehood has passed away.’ Then he pointed at them with his stick and they collapsed on their backs one after the other.”
Ishaq:85 “The people were afraid to demolish the temple and withdrew in terror from it. Al-Walid said, ‘I will begin the demolition.’ He took up his pickaxe and walked up to Allah’s House saying, ‘O Ka’aba, do not be afraid. O Allah we intend nothing but good.’ The he demolished part of it near the two corners.”
Islam makes it a priority to destroy the holy places, the shrines, the places of honor of its enemies.
The recent showdown between the House of Representatives and the Senate and President Obama over funding of the Left’s sacred cow - universal healthcare - has led to a partial shutdown of the government. In an effort to make the shutdown as visible and painful as possible, President Obama issued orders to shut down numerous parks and historical landmarks across the nation and even in Europe. He closed the WWII memorial, ordering it barricaded and taped off and giving orders to the Park Police to arrest any elderly veterans who made honor flights to visit their memorial.
Mount Vernon, privately owned, was also almost shut down, or rather barricaded by the government. So too was the cemetery in Normandy and others across the globe..
This desire to strike out at sacred symbols of our national heritage is interesting in that the man ultimately responsible for the orders is one Barrack Hussein Obama. Mr. Osama’s father (about whom he waxed so poetic in his books) was a Muslim, as are his siblings. So too was Osama’s step-father Lolo Souter, who saw fit to have young Barrack educated in a Madras in Indonesia. Mr. Obama may not be a practicing Muslim, but Islam was certainly a major influence on the man, especially in his formative years. (He is certainly not a Christian, at least not in the normal sense of the term. He has described the Muslim call to prayer as a beautiful sound, and has said he would stand with the Muslims if push came to shove.
It is not far-fetched to think Obama understands the importance of conquering the shrines and holy places of the infidel.
The ancient Chinese military historian Sun Tzu offered this admonition:
“Begin by seizing something which your opponent holds dear”
And Obama knows that, especially where the Tea Party is concerned, these monuments are near and dear to us. Forcing his opponents to fund Obamacare is his version of a victory mosque.
But there’s more.
Islam is a Christian heresy. Heavily reliant on Jewish and Christian beliefs, Muhammad created a new faith that included the Jewish Law sans Jews and Christian beliefs while denying the Deity of Christ.
Islam flourished where Christian heresies flourished. Donatism, Socianism, Arianism, Islam held appeal for all of these, and possesses elements of them all. Ditto Mithraism, an early competitor of Christianity in the Roman Empire, provided some of the framework for Jihad. Mithraism held great appeal for soldiers as it called them to holy war, and it was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, the Persian religion, so it’s incorporation into Islam held great appeal in the East.
These heresies all flourished in the Middle East, where Islam would take root. Also, the top-down nature of Orthodox Christianity, controlled as it was by the Byzantine Emperor, associated it with the rich and powerful. Islam appealed to those who hated the corrupt Church/State alliance. Strangely, Islam was worse, creating a true theocracy where the religion was the law.
Read Hilaire Belloc in his description of Christian heresies on Islam.
Belloc, writing in the early part of the 20th century, predicted the re-emergence of Islam as a world force based entirely on the models provided by previous heresies.
Belloc says of Islam:
“Mohammedanism was a [heresy]: that is the essential point to grasp
before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It
was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It
was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon
gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary
with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a
misuse, of the Christian thing.”
And Belloc was absolutely correct; it piggybacked on Christian beliefs and Christian tradition, twisting it out of shape, claiming Muhammad was the Paraclete prophesied by Jesus.
It is interesting to note that Belloc explains the success of Islam as one tied to the redistribution of wealth; wherever the Muslims conquered they forgave debt and seized the property of the wealthy and successful. Does that sound familiar?
Islam also legalized the sexual revolution, allowing a man four wives and as many concubines (read hookups) as he wished. Sound familiar?
Islam was strongly anti-clerical, with no established religious hierarchy. There was (and is) no theology but that which one wishes to believe. Muslim warlords delighted in murdering and disgracing Christian priests and Bishops. Sound familiar?
Islam was monistic in that it unified Church and State under a leader who was concerned with all aspects of life. The subjects of the State were under the control of the Muslim elites, who not only governed but ruled almost all aspects of life. Sound familiar?
Meanwhile, the same can be said of Liberalism.
Liberalism has likewise been described as a Christian heresy.
As Ross Dothan, author of the book Bad Religion, in an internet debate with William Saletan, states:
“[W]hen I look at your secular liberalism, I see a system of thought that looks rather like a Christian heresy, and not necessarily a particularly coherent one at that. In [his recent book] Bad Religion, I describe heresy as a form of belief that tends to emphasize certain elements of the Christian synthesis while downgrading or dismissing other aspects of that whole. And it isn’t surprising that liberalism, which after all developed in a Christian civilization, does exactly that, drawing implicitly on the Christian intellectual inheritance to ground its liberty-equality-fraternity ideals.
Indeed, it’s completely obvious that absent the Christian faith, there would be no liberalism at all. No ideal of universal human rights without Jesus’ radical upending of social hierarchies (including his death alongside common criminals on the cross). No separation of church and state without the gospels’ “render unto Caesar” and St. Augustine’s two cities. No liberal confidence about the march of historical progress without the Judeo-Christian interpretation of history as an unfolding story rather than an endlessly repeating wheel.
And what’s more, to me, contemporary liberals’ obsession with the supposed backwardness of Christian sexual ethics—an obsession that far outstrips sex’s actual role in the preaching and practice of Christian faith—reflects a subconscious liberal knowledge that Christianity is their theological mother, and they’re its half-rebellious child. You can see in it the child’s characteristic desire to finally overthrow the last bastion of parental authority, joined to a continued desire for the parent’s approval for their choices and beliefs. ...
The more purely secular liberalism has become, the more it has spent down its Christian inheritance—the more its ideals seem to hang from what Christopher Hitchens’ Calvinist sparring partner Douglas Wilson has called intellectual “skyhooks,” suspended halfway between our earth and the heaven on which many liberals have long since given up. Say what you will about the prosperity gospel and the cult of the God Within and the other theologies I criticize in Bad Religion, but at least they have a metaphysically coherent picture of the universe to justify their claims. Whereas much of today’s liberalism expects me to respect its moral fervor even as it denies the revelation that once justified that fervor in the first place. It insists that it is a purely secular and scientific enterprise even as it grounds its politics in metaphysical claims. (You will not find the principle of absolute human equality in evolutionary theory, or universal human rights anywhere in physics.) It complains that Christian teachings on homosexuality do violence to gay people’s equal dignity—but if the world is just matter in motion, whence comes this dignity? What justifies and sustains it? Why should I grant it such intense, almost supernatural respect?”
Liberalism was born as the evil twin of the Protestant Reformation. Unlike Protestantism it rejected the Christian spiritual trappings while maintaining a core of the beliefs. That is why Liberals preach Christian virtues like charity, tolerance, forbearance, equality, and whatnot. But they do not preach it as individual actions but as collective, state-sponsored works. The State replaced the Church in the Liberal worldview. This can be traced back to Jean Jacques Rousseau, who created the notion of Nationalism, whereby the “nation” was to be worshipped as the sum of the collective will. Rousseau knew what he was doing; he wanted to break the power of the clergy, of the Church, of the “superstition” of Christianity. He wanted a false god on the throne. He was also quite taken with Islam, and proposed it as a model.
And that explains why liberals are so missionaristic, so eager to expand their beliefs. They, like the Muslims before them, broach no dissenters. They are willing to kill - as many people as it takes - to guarantee the victory of their beliefs. Look at Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Hitler, Castro, etc..
The similarities between Islam and Liberalism are striking. Both are engaged in Jihad.
Barack Hussein Obama was the child of both worlds. He was sired by a Muslim, educated by Muslims, raised by a Muslim. His mother was a radical leftist, as was the grandfather who took on the task of raising him after Mr. Soetero departed, and his father’s good friend and next door neighbor was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist, who took the boy under his wing. Obama taught a class on Saul Alinsky, the father of leftist radicalism (who dedicated his book to Lucifer, the first rebel). Obama went to Chicago, home of the most radical leftists in America, to launch his career. He became a member of the communist New Party, and a communist terrorist named William Ayers launched his political career.
He is the crux, the person at the crossroads between the blood brothers of Islam and Liberalism.
I am not saying Barack Obama is going to cut off heads, or burn down Christian churches or Jewish synagogues, but I am saying he comes from two very ruthless strains of thought, neither of which tolerates opposition. And he understands the importance of symbols to his enemies. If we are to understand the man we must understand his roots, his intellectual influences, his religious beliefs, his upbringing. Obama was brought up steeped in Jihad - both Islamic and Leftist. He will destroy his opponents (as indeed he has personally destroyed almost everyone he has run against rather than actually beaten them with ideas.) His actions in this continuing resolution battle are absolutely predictable. It should come as no surprise that he would go after our monuments and places of honor.
In the end, Obama can be forced to retreat to fight another day. But that requires that we continue to fight. Like Charles Martel in France, or Jan III Sobieski at Vienna, Obama can be defeated. It simply takes determination. Let us hope the GOP finds that sort of backbone.