Peaceful Muslims Are Not Islam

Peaceful MuslimsThe word “Christian” is often used with “hypocrisy” for numerous reasons. Christians often oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty, for example. Christians criticize divorce, but do not accept homosexual marriage, for another. In each instance, these are grounds for accusations that Christians say one thing and do another, which is what hypocrisy is. Never mind that by that standard, the accusers are mostly projecting their own hyper-hpocrisy.

Another area of the tar and feathering of Christians is over violence. From the Crusades to modern acts of criminal destruction, Christians are called hypocrites for not being the pacifist that Jesus was. After all, Jesus commanded that His followers love their enemies and a potential Christian who guns down people at an abortion clinic is not following orders. Again, never mind that the pacifist view of Jesus comes from atheists pretending to be Christians who get their feelings hurt when it is suggested that Jesus is God and as God will most likely use some serious, earth-shattering violence against mankind (oh, I’m so sorry for the micro-aggression … peoplekind) when He returns.

Since Christians are called to love their enemies (by which the atheists / progressives mean submit to the total rule by Communists) violence in the name of Jesus looks like violence in the name of Muhammed. For sure, someone somewhere is fully convinced that Muhammed taught his followers to love their enemies.

If Christians are hypocrites for acts of violence, Muslims are hypocrites for their acts of peace.

Christians are followers of Christ and the primary thing that Jesus did was to die a horrible death voluntarily at the hands of his enemies in order to offer salvation to those who accept it (leaving damned those who will not). One of the last things Jesus is reported as saying is “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

As for Muhammed, Baylor University professor Rodney Stark, in his book God’s Battalions, writes

In what become known as his farewell address, Muhammed is said to have told his followers: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah'” … In this spirit, Muhammed’s heirs set out the conquer the world.

Stark then goes on to briefly describe numerous wars of conquest in the name of Islam throughout the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, leading up to Christendom’s response to being conquered, the Crusades.

Having this example of violent conquest started by Muhammed and then brought full bore by his followers, when a Muslim commits an act of violence in the name of Allah or Muhammed, they are not hypocrites. They are doing exactly what a follower of Muhammed would be expected to do; kill his enemies in violent conquest in the name of Islam. It is the Muslims who wish to simply live a peaceful, prosperous life (and immigrating to Christian nations to do so) who are hypocrites for not following the example of Muhammed. Islam is not, nor ever can be, a religion of peace.

Christians who seek peace while allowing for violence in extreme situations are not nearly the hypocrites that peaceful Muslims are. Christianity was founded on self-sacrifice and forgiveness. Peace with others is the rule, only be violated in the most dire of circumstances and only in just ways. Islam was founded on merciless conquest. Violence is the rule while peace is merely a facade until violence can be successfully unleashed.

There is nothing for the devout Christian to be ashamed of when a Christian, so-called, commits an act of violence. For there is grace and forgiveness for the violent, for such is Christ. However, there is something for the devout Christian to be concerned with, even afraid of: peaceful Muslims on Christian shores. These are hypocrites pretending Islam is peaceful while knowing full well that at some point, the forgiving Christian must either submit or be killed.


Standing Outside The Church

Outside The ChurchThe question of why men in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries avoid active involvement in the organized parts of Christianity, such as going to church, remains an important topic. For example, The Art of Manliness has several articles on the feminization of Christianity and Return of Kings asks why modern Christianity is so weak. And then there are the trends that deliberately rebel against historical Christianity, such as Emergence Christianity and the house church movements.

Time and again, the Church has been brought to task for not doing enough to attract and support its male members. Many blame institutionalized Christianity and say that a decentralized religion free from fixed rituals is the solution. But even the un-church church is feminized in some way.

The problem is said to be that churches are not “guy friendly,” that they do not necessarily provide spaces that allow guys to be guys. On his Church for Men website, David Murrow presents the common and faulty understanding of men.

Men and young adults are drawn to risk, challenge and adventure. But these things are discouraged in the local church.

While this may be true enough, it still does not address a fundamental issue. What Murrow’s statement does is call the local church to be in effect a man-cave, a place where men can be what war movies, muscle cars, and video games stir them to be. While there is nothing wrong about the masculinity in these pursuits, there is still something vital that churches discourage men from doing. When they come to church they are looking for a certain aspect that once defined men and now black list them. They are looking for patriarchy.

What they find is equality. Many men know what both history and scripture declare when it comes to the sexes.

But I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3 MEV).

They may also know what women are admonished to do.

Wives, be submissive to your own husbands as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head and Savior of the church, which is His body (Ephesians 5:22-23 MEV).


Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord (Colossians 3:18 MEV).

as well as

Likewise, older women should be reverent in behavior, and not be false accusers, not be enslaved to much wine, but teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, and to be self-controlled, pure, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored (Titus 2:3-5 MEV).

Most men know by teaching if not by common sense that men are to protect and provide for the opposite sex as husbands, fathers, and Church leaders.

But what are men to do when women do not follow the admonition of tradition and scripture? What is to be done when women do not recognize men as their head, when wives do not submit to male authority, and when women do not obey their husbands? In other words, what are men to do when they are called to be guys, but not to be men? How are they supposed to handle Christian equality when Christianity has historically been hostile to the idea?

They either accept their demoted position as “a guy” or they abandon the Church to avoid the demotion.

Men are called to govern, lead, provide, and protect women with the understanding that there are divine consequences for disobedience (1 Peter 3:7). When women rebel against male authority in the name of equality, there is little recourse for men to counter the rebellion because the Church tells them they have no recourse and goes on to blame them for the rebellion. Men are then faced with all of the responsibility of being men with none of the needed authority. As guys, they are reduced to being nothing more than a “best friend” of Jesus and women.

Now, there is an entire counter-equality movement outside of the church where men rely on science, philosophy, and atheism to promote a rebuilding of guys into men and men into a new patriarchy. And the new church continues to promote various shades of feminism, from outright liberalism to the dubious concept of completarianism.

If the Church wants to truly call men to re-enter and re-engage, it would do well to openly embrace the concept of Patriarchal Nationalism. It would mean restoring male authority and openly chastising female rebellion while emphasizing Christianity’s call to men to be Sons of God. Until that happens, the Church will continue to be dominated by women and forced to settle with males whose only statement of identity is “I’m just a guy.”