Debunking Islam

Mike Konrad has an article at the American Thinker today that speaks to the historical accuracy of Muhammed and Islam. Or not, as the truth more and more is that Muhammed is total fiction, and that Islam is a very poor copy of Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, they badly understand these two religions, for if they did, they would understand the peaceful nature of both of these religions. For man's true purpose is to be a faithful image of God himself on earth. The fact that we will never be that faithful image because we are fallen doesn't mean that we can give up and just do what we want. God has given us 10 commandments to live by, starting with to love, fear, and trust Him in all things. Jihad and suicide bombings are not part of God's plan, nor is lying and murder.

Konrad starts his article by discussing the historicity of King Arthur.

As an amateur historian -- and probably not a good one -- I go nuts when I see amateurish fictions tendered as core premises. This is no more frequently found than in Hollywood; but do not kid yourself, it is not confined to Hollywood.

The following famous movie scene (based on the play) is a case in point, one worse than most:

Camelot is unique. And we have, by far and away, the most equitable climate in all England -- Camelot (1967)

A) The King Arthur stories hail back to the collapse of Celtic Briton, after the Roman garrison left in 410 AD. England did not exist at the time.

B) King Arthur might have been based on the life of a Celtic tribal chief, who fought the Anglo-Saxons (the proto-English). The English were not the heroes.

C) The Medieval castle in the far background of the movie scene would not have existed at that time.

D) South Britain rarely has hard freezes as the movie shows. The Gulf Stream usually keeps London above freezing in winter. Miserably raw, but rarely snow and ice buildup on the trees.

E) The only thing the movie got right -- probably by accident -- was casting Richard Harris, an Irishman and Celt, in the role. Especially since Artuir mac Áedán, a sixth-century Gaelic Scot, the grandson of an Irish king, is the best possible candidate for the real Arthur (that link is great, but it also erroneously shows medieval castles). And even that speculation about Artuir mac Áedán is questionable.

So, Konrad concludes that King Arthur might possibly have existed, though not in the Middle Ages, not in a place called Camelot, and not in a country called England. Then he launches into the real reason he is writing today, the fact that Muhammed is less historical than King Arthur. Indeed, Muhammed did not even exist.

It is now coming out into the popular realm that the historicity of Mohammed may be a total fabrication. Not merely a distortion, but a total fabrication. Robert Spencer has written a polemic questioning the whole historicity of Islam’s founder. And not just Robert Spencer, but Dr. Jay Smith.

As Dr. Jay Smith points out, in the 19th and 20th centuries, Christianity was subjected to higher criticism, in which much of its basic history was questioned. Though the academic assaults were brutal, in the end, Christianity held up, as one by one, its critics were shown wrong. For ex: The historicity of Pontius Pilate was doubted until 1961, when the Pilate Stone was discovered in Caesarea, Israel.

Not so with Islam.

When Western academics finally started applying higher criticism to Islam, unlike Christianity, Islam quickly folded like a deck of cheap cards. The Muslims cannot handle this.

I have read Robert Spencer's book which makes a pretty airtight case that at the very least the existence of Muhammed is doubtful. But Spencer himself seems convinced that Muhammed was a fabrication, and that the Quran was put together from Christian writings in Syriac.

Dr. Jay Smith is more accessible, being on Youtube, and presents much evidence that the origins of Islam lay in the fight against the Arian heresy. Arius believed that Jesus was not divine. While this heresy was disposed of at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, many Arians remained and escaped to the East. So, a ruler that believed in Arianism could impose that belief on the people under him. In other words, the fight against the West has always been a fight between Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians.

Of course, if you read the Old Testament carefully, you will notice that there is first God-YHWH. Then there is the Spirit of the LORD, acting independently of YHWH but of course it is His Spirit. Then there is the Angel of the LORD which we are told carries the Name of the LORD or YHWH. He appears a number of times in the Old Testament. So, the Trinity is already there in Jewish theology before Jesus is born. It takes Christian readers systemitizing theology to come up with the term "Trinity."

Jesus claimed to be that person, the Angel of the LORD, of YHWH in the Old Testament. You either believe him, in which case that makes you a Christian, or you believe that the Messiah is yet to come, which religiously makes you Jewish. Islam is not a real religion. It is a fabrication of a ruler who followed long debunked Arius. Those are the facts.

Mass Killings Are Not Uniquely American

 We are constantly told that mass killings only happen in America, that we are a uniquely violent nation, while other nations are peaceful.  This is a lie.  In terms of overall violence, the United States ranks in the middle.  While some of the more violent places may not have as many shootings, they make up for it with bladed weapons, vehicles and so on.  Today, at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton has a piece entitled 12 Killed in Mass Shooting in Montenegro. I want to highlight these mass shootings in places around the world to try to convince you that they are not unusual, nor uniquely American. They are just the result of a fallen humanity, sadly in desperate need of Jesus Christ.

The United States has a reputation for mass shootings. Part of that is because we have certain...entities in this country with a vested interest in misrepresenting the number of such shootings to try and create political change. We don't actually have nearly as many as those entities claim, but since the media likes the scare tactic, this is what we get.

Plus, we're told these are "uniquely American." Over and over again, those who demand gun control pretend these don't happen anywhere else, which is absolute nonsense.

Of course, the attack on Bourbon Street should illustrate that maniacs will still find a way to kill without needing a gun.

And, unfortunately, we have a stark reminder that even European-style gun control won't stop a mass shooting.

Knighton goes on to quote from the Voice of American piece on the shooting. You can go and read it for yourselves. It is pretty gross. But note, the gun whatever it was, didn't shoot anyone, it was the man, using the gun as a tool. The prime minister of Montenegro is pushing a total ban on firearms, as if that could actually be enforced. Montenegro is a surrounded by Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia, with a shall shoreline on the Adriatic Sea. Do you think guns could not be smuggled into Montenegro?

Prime Minister Milojko Spajic is, unfortunately, already talking about enacting a total firearm ban, but we also need to keep in mind that Montenegro has already cracked down on guns not that long ago. Following two mass murders in Serbia, officials offered an amnesty where people could turn in guns, no questions asked, and implemented a two-year moratorium on gun licenses as well as an examination of all lawful gun owners.

Clearly, that didn't seem to accomplish anything.

However, like politicians pretty much everywhere, the failures of previous efforts should never be considered as evidence that maybe the problem lies somewhere else. Indeed, I don't know why the Left seems so enamored of killers.

Perhaps the gun-grabbers here should look for another solution to the problem of violence. It is not the guns, or indeed any of the tools used to kill and maim. It is the people themselves. Stop letting murderers go on to commit more crimes.

Teaching the Anti-Gunners to Tolerate Guns

On Monday, I had a post entitled I am not holding my breath speculating on the thought that a Trump administration might pass and sign nationwide concealed carry. Today, at Bearing Arms Ryan Petty has an article entitled National Constitutional Carry: The Second Amendment As Written that takes it a step further and to the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry nationwide. Of course, the full Second Amendment would require not only that anyone who could legally own a weapon could carry it anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that we could also own and train with the same weapons used by the military. That is because one purpose of the Second Amendment was that all men* were to be part of the militia. I like it, but there are a number of hurdles, some of which Petty outlined.

1. Building a Majority in Congress

A bill to establish national Constitutional Carry would need a simple majority in both the House and Senate. With a slim Republican majority in the House and the Senate split nearly evenly, every vote counts. This means we’d need unwavering support from pro-Second Amendment legislators and likely a few Democrats from swing states to cross the aisle. While possible, the current hyper-partisan climate makes bipartisan support on gun rights a tall order.

2. Overcoming the Filibuster in the Senate

Even if a majority in the Senate supports Constitutional Carry, the filibuster rule remains a formidable obstacle. To overcome a filibuster, 60 votes are required to invoke cloture and move the bill to a vote. This means securing support from at least 9 Democratic or independent senators—a nearly Herculean task given the Democratic Party’s current stance on gun control.

3. Presidential Support

Assuming a hypothetical Trump administration or another pro-Second Amendment president in office, the likelihood of signing such legislation into law would be high. However, any hint of executive hesitation would embolden opposition, so strong presidential backing is non-negotiable. As I've written elsewhere, and discussed on Cam & Company, a key step would be to remake the Biden administration's White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

4. Litigation and Judicial Review

Even if passed, expect immediate legal challenges. States with restrictive gun laws—like California, New York, and Illinois—would likely sue to block the legislation. This would eventually land before the Supreme Court, which, fortunately, is currently aligned favorably toward a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bruen decision provides a solid legal foundation to defend such a law.

Petty out that Constitutional Carry is already the law of the land. He is correct, of course. The problem is that too many don't treat it that way. They treat it as a second or third rate right that can be infringed at will. That is an even longer process.

* At the founding, only men fought in wars.  That doesn't mean women weren't important.  They were expected to keep and manage the home and raise the children - no small task.