A Few Things About Islam That Should Be Blatantly Obvious

I watched a TV debate on Islam the other day. It was one of those standard discussions where the Muslim panellist blamed everyone but Islam and its adherents for the massive problems that exist wherever Islam has a noticeable presence, while the non-Muslim counterpart offered very tepid arguments to try to refute those claims.

Whenever I watch debates like this, it always amazes me that the non-Muslims have such difficulties in delivering clear and concise arguments describing the true nature of Islam. They are unable to do so in a manner that completely annihilates the insidious arguments offered by the supporters of Islam. Because it should be a pretty straightforward process for those who possess more than a basic knowledge of Islam to verbally eviscerate this pernicious ideology, to show how absurd it is to worship such a deviant philosophy and how absolutely outrageous it is for its followers to insist that their ideology is worthy of anyone’s respect.

  • Hard Little Machine

    the Presbyterians officially announced that Mohammed was a prophet.

  • Maggat

    I think it is pretty simple why the nonmuslim side does not present a good argument. They are bloody well afraid that they will be attacked and killed by their debating opponent’s goon squads.

  • Gary

    I watched a debate on the CBC that was about the radical islam and jihad terrorism showing its ugly face in Canada since the Toronto-18 muslims terrorists that were born here and NOT in poverty.

    But the CBC has its own definition of a Balanced debate because Muslims are only about 2.5% of the population where we are told that 99% are peaceful and reject violence.
    Out of 5 Muslims on the debate panel only 2 were the Liberal secular that rejected armed jihad and the radical mosques in canada. Of the other 3 , one has now had their islamic org tied to funding Hamas along with their history to defend almost every alleged and convicted muslims terrorist in Canada as a victim of islamophobia since 9/11/01 .
    While all of these 3 “moderate” muslims freely state that they want Sharia in Canada , they have never been at the anti-Jihad march but can be seen at the pro-hamas Jew-hating rallies.

    So according to the CBC, the 99% peaceful muslims only 40% of the debate panel while the radical pro-jihad homophobes which are to be the 1% are given 75% of the panel.

  • FivePointSpurgeon

    As a Reformed Baptist, I actually agree with the bottom two signs.

    • And yet Jesus made Saint Peter His Successor.

      Rest assured that the Islamofascists are equal-opportunity Christian-haters.

      • FivePointSpurgeon

        There’re few things I enjoy as much as discussing Matthew 18 and the alleged succession of popes.

        Oh, I fully realize they hate all infidels. One is just much better prepared to withstand it. I’ll take the Baptists and our history.

        • Who has been around for two thousand years?


          • FivePointSpurgeon

            The church based in Rome is the one Paul wrote Romans to. Why didn’t Peter?

            Please cite chapter and verse where Peter is declared Bishop of Rome.


          • I thought you knew Matthew 18?

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            I do. In English and Greek and neither appoint Peter.

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            Here’s a question for you.

            Let’s assume for just a second you’re right and Matt 18 says that. Why isn’t it corroborated in Scripture? Jesus dictates seven letters in Revelation and doesn’t direct Colossae nor Laodicea to just address their problems to Peter.
            Paul writes all those epistles to churches. Why? Peter is the pope. Why not just write everybody and say “send a messenger to Rome, Peter will help?”

          • But there’s that pesky little conversation Jesus had with Saint Peter.

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            It’s not peksy at all. Context is your friend. The confession is the article Jesus is referring to not Peter. Why do Romans 10:9, Philippians 2:11, 1 John 1:9 refer to confessions as the road to salvation but there are zero references to Peter as a successor?

            Furthermore, there are all these epistles and seven letters dictated by Christ Himself. How come exactly zero of them corroborate any succession plan?

          • I’ve always wondered about this. Do Protestants believe that Christendom existed before 1517 (or whichever date you prefer)? Was there no authentic Christianity? Was, say, Dante not really a Christian?

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            Let me give a short answer now and a longer one when I’m not hunting and pecking on an iPhone.

            Christendom will exist until His return and started on Pentecost. The issue largely revolves around the Roman church’s untethering to the Bible. Indulgence payments, purgatory, limbo and the like are not Christian and same goes for the Marian Doctrines.

          • But there are no King James versions of the Bible in Catholicism.

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            I’m not a KJV guy. I’m ESV or NASB.

          • That’s good because it will still say the same things.

          • Strange how context refer to me and not thee.

            To whom was Jesus speaking?

          • FivePointSpurgeon

            I fully agree he’s speaking to Peter. Question still stands: why say “this rock” and not “you are the rock” if the article He’s referring to is Peter? The confession is the rock.

  • Jaedo Drax


    Adjacent countries, both were once part of the British empire, spot the difference

  • DMB

    Keep appeasing these people Francis because it isn’t going to end well for you if he continues on this path.