Saturday, February 7, 2015

Are Jihad and the Crusades Morally Equivalent?

Of course President Obola, the Moozlum in Chief, likes to compare Christianity to Islam and jutify the horror of Islam base on supposed Christian misdeeds.  You can almost always bet that if BHO's purple lips are moving, he's lying.

This article contains an excellent video by Dr. Bill Warner that demonstrates that Islam came out of Arabia and attacked classical civilization.  They committed 548 battles and conquered a Christian Middle east and have pursued relentless jihad for 1,400 years (620 AD - 1920 AD).  By comparison, the Christian Crusades (1080 AD - 1260 AD) only totaled about 16 battles and were defensive in nature - an attempt to free Christians who had been enslaved by Islam.  The Crusades ended centuries ago, but jihad continues today.  There is no comparison between the Crusades (a defensive response to aggression) and jihad, a violent, murderous movement whose purpose is to enslave the kafir, and which continues to this day.



Are Jihad and the Crusades Morally Equivalent?


Franklin Graham Compares Jesus and Muhammad:

In response to President Barack Obama drawing a parallel between the barbaric acts of the Islamic State today with actions by Christians during the Crusades, which ended 700 years ago, evangelist Franklin Graham said there was a difference between Jesus Christ who “taught peace “ and did “not take life” versus Mohammed, who “was a warrior and killed many innocent people.”

Now, now… let’s not start spouting historical facts and realities here, Franklin Graham… we’re talking about the blatherings of a President who never saw a fact that couldn’t be ignored or twisted to fit his desired policy goals. And as for the quoted scholars, well… until they learn to sweep distasteful history under the rug, they’ll never get tenure in the Ivy League institutions that train our leaders.

Bringing up the true story of Mohammad’s life, and the unfortunate fact that the Crusades (while certainly not justifying all they did) were a response to countless prior acts of murderous Islamic jihad… er… um… prior acts of the… the “death cult” (thank you, Mr. President, that’s good) which followed the example of Mohammad and claimed to be Islamic way back then, it’s just not… appropriate. We must always support our Dear Leader’s consummately self-assured view of things.

Seriously, we can only address what’s happening today if we will be honest about it. Obviously the White House resident is a long way from being able to address reality.

The Faithful Clarity of a Moral President:

The most troubling aspect of the moral equivalence President Obama tried to draw in his speech last Thursday was that Christians cannot look at the disturbance in the Middle East and make valued judgments based on the faith of the Islamic radicals.
...I have many Muslim friends, all of whom look on ISIS with distain. But none of them claim ISIS is not practicing Islam. It is just a variant of Islam. Unfortunately, it is a rapidly growing part of Islam. Islam itself means "submission," and our president goes to great lengths to avoid pointing that out.
...
The president and intellectual leaders in the United States are not people of faith. They reject deity, having constructed gods of their own from government or self-interest. Morals are passe, faith is mythology and everybody is ultimately the same. These people cannot give moral clarity to the causes of the day because it would require them to take a moral stand, which they are not capable of doing.

When in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to legislation that would require life-saving treatment for a child born alive after an abortion. Our president took the position that a child, born alive, could still be killed. He is, perhaps, the last person we should let lecture any of us about faith, considering the only faith he seems to possess is in himself.
Obama's Morally Confused Prayer Breakfast Lecture

Obama's Religious Hypocrisy

Jindal Shreds Obama: Medieval Crusaders Are Not A National Security Threat


Journalist Jonah Goldberg, a Jew, writes, "When Obama alludes to the evils of medieval Christianity, he fails to acknowledge the key word: 'medieval.' What made medieval Christianity backward wasn't Christianity but medievalism." Mr. Goldberg continues, "President Obama can't bring himself to call the Islamic State 'Islamic,' but he's happy to offer a sermon about Christianity's alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium."

President Obama concluded his presentation with, "And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion."
Our religion? As one who, as president, still wears on the third finger, left hand, a gold ring with the inscription, "There is no God except Allah," one has to wonder just what religion he references.

 
In the most national prayer breakfast, Obama diverted the subject from ISIS and began to express his hatred against the Christian Crusades. The reason for this is because Obama hates Christians and Christianity, and is himself a Muslim jihadist. He continues to support Islam while hating Christianity, and heavily funds and supports the jihadists in Syria. His own family are Muslims and work with terrorists.

The Crusades go against everything Obama stands for....
This story, unto itself, explains why Obama would hate the Crusades: they go against everything that he is striving for now. He is supporting the jihadists, and if the Crusaders were alive today, they would not only fight against the jihadists, but they would also fight against him.

No comments:

Post a Comment