Imam in Canada preaches Islam, which is to say, the politics of hate and destruction

Once again we see how both leftism and Islam bring nothing to the table. In fact this was the reason for the King of Persia to reject Islam in the first place, when Mohammad and his army rode up to the kingdom and demanded they all convert to his religion, as was Mohammad’s method of conquest. Surrender and be slaves of sorts (Dhimmis), convert and be Muslims and pay the 10% Zakat, or be conquered by war.

The King of Persia was quoted by Pope Benedict who explained in his speech, that the Persian leader felt that there was nothing new in Islam. It was just the same Jewish-Christian material with Mohammad as leader and the sword as the implement of persuasion. That it offered nothing in terms of enlightenment or enrichment of thought. Just an engine of destruction and death. Leftism is exactly the same. It offers nothing except the negation of what is. It seeks the destruction of biological reality as it negates our culture and customs. The more one studies Islam and leftism, the less daylight one can see between them.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

4 Replies to “Imam in Canada preaches Islam, which is to say, the politics of hate and destruction”


    Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
    Tuesday, 12 September 2006

    “That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason…”

    “I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1]”

    “…on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.”

    In the seventh conversation… …on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.”

    “…as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?”

    “…Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”

    “…French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]”

    “Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the ?????”. God acts, ???? ????, with logos. Logos means both reason and word.”

    “This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history…”

    “…We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons…”

    “Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.[13]”

    “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”

  2. Best to read the whole speech rather than pick bits out here and there. It was the way the Media took the words of the Byzantine Emperor about Islam out of the context of the whole speech (which was a scholarly speech at a University), and focused on those few words that caused the riots in the Muslim world. That is something the media often do, look for the sensational, they could not have been unaware of what would happen next.

    It was a call for genuine dialogue, not for what passes for dialogue today. How many leaders would dare mention Islam and violence in any conversation with Imams? It’s the elephant in the room.

    As for Pope Benedict making another statement about Islam, what he says in this speech is very clear, there is nothing elusive about it, it may require a little time and effort, but so do most things that are worthwhile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *