Today is Thursday, August 13, 2015. At about 0840, CST, on his radio show, Glenn Beck joined the party where it comes to teaching the truth about Islam. Unfortunately, as is usual when it comes to Spiritual matters, Beck missed the mark. It’s true, he is in the ballpark, but he is still outside the stadium in the area under the bleachers. He can hear and feel the game, but he can’t quite see it because he has embraced a false set of teachings. These teachings lead him to believe that men can save themselves. That is a Spiritual lie. If we could save ourselves, we would have no need of a Savior. God would have left us under the Law of Moses. But that is a topic for another subject. The point at hand is that you understand that Beck has finally found the truth about Islam, but — as is the case with all Progressives — he is trying to change that truth. Please, stay with me as I explain.
If you listened to Beck today, he finally explained about the Hadith (sayings and customs of Muhammad). He also explained that everything in the holy writings of Islam was written by or authored by Muhammad. Finally, and this is important, Beck explained the principle of abrogation. However, if you understand Islam, the way Beck explained it leaves you wondering how well Beck learned from reading the Qur’an.
I say this because Beck correctly explained that Muhammad changed his early commandments to Muslims as he got older. Beck said that Islam understands the later ‘prophecies’ of Muhammad to have over-written the earlier ones. Beck even explained that the more peaceful parts of Islam are found in the early days of Muhammad, and the violent parts toward the end of his life. But Beck never mentioned the word ‘abrogation.’ Now, he opened his explanation by telling the audience he had read the Qur’an, Hadith and gone to the most authoritative experts on Islam in the Middle East. So why didn’t he mention the Islamic term for this practice of setting aside the older ‘prophecies’ of Muhammad in favor of the later ones? He uses and explains the Islamic term, ‘Hadith,’ but no mention of ‘abrogation?’
But then, Beck also leaves those who truly know Islam to wonder why he did not explain that the Qur’an is not written in linear form. The chapters in the Qur’an are arranged according to length, not when they were written. The longer chapters are at the front and the shortest at the back. This is a crucial point that — had he actually read and understood the Qur’an — Beck should have explained. The Qur’an is not written in chronological order. Why is this important? Well, even if you know the newer ‘prophecies’ of Muhammad set aside the earlier ones, if you do not know about the jumbled order of the Qur’an, you will not know which commands abrogated the others. This means you can never understand Islam as Muhammad defined it.
Finally — and this is the most important point — Beck has never explained to his audience that Islam cannot change. Muhammad said so — many times. This means that the Muslims Beck calls ‘radical’ are not radical, they are Muslims. And the Muslims Beck says are ‘not Muslim enough’ are — according to Muhammad — not Muslims! They are apostates (Muhammad usually calls them hypocrites), and Muhammad commanded they be killed — even before the infidel. This goes a long way toward explaining the Muslim-on-Muslim violence we see in the Middle East, but because he clings to his false understanding of the truth, Beck continues to act and speak as though Islam can be reformed. It cannot, and this is something that Beck should explain or he will lose any credibility he may have on the issue of Islam — at least, he will lose it with those who actually know Islam.
If You Have Not Read the Qur’an and Hadith, Beck’s New Book, “It IS About Islam,” Will Do More Harm than Good!
24 thoughts on “GLENN BECK: It IS About Islam”
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
One can only pray the apostates already In this country remain apostates OR, prepare.
I agree, but that is the problem: we cannot know for sure. Most Muslims in this country are Sunni. Sunni are content to wait until there is a Caliphe. But once a new Caliphe is seated, if (when) he declares global Jihad, then even the Sunnis we think of as ‘moderate’ may suddenly start trying to take heads. If that happens, I hope there are enough cowboys left to play cowboys and Muslims…and win.
I once posted on your site, a
Year and a half or so ago, about a dream/nightmare I had about fighting in the streets of our communities. I can’t shake that thought.
Above is me
I remember, and I can see it happening 😦
For Free book – KILLING PROPHET MUHAMMAD go to: http://www.godofmoralperfection.com
You talk about lies then imply Beck is a progressive. Why is it seemingly so important to you that he didn’t use the term abrogation?
Beck has been saying Islam is the problem for years, has done several specials on his network about it and has called on ALL Christians to combat the growing influence of it. I wonder is your problem Beck because he is Mormon?
No, my issue with his religion is separate from the way he deals with Islam. My problem with Beck over Islam is that he presents HIS version of it — a version that does not and cannot exist within Islam.
If you tell me the Constitution is the law of the land, then argue it is a living document, you can make it into anything you want — as Progressives have actually done.
Likewise, if you argue that Radical Muslims are the problem, then change the word you use and say no, there is no such thing as a ‘radical’ Muslim. Then say that Islamists are the problem and not Islam, itself. You have just done the same thing: you have turned Islam into something it is not and was never meant to be.
The best authority on the Constitution are the founders, especially the discussion in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
The best authority on Islam is Muhammad, especially in the Hadith. According to Muhammad’s words and actions, there are no ‘moderate’ Muslims. You either obey EVERY command he gave, or you are an apostate. Glenn calls these ‘apostates’ “not Muslim enough.” Now, why does he do that, but then attack Progressives who could be described as just “not Constitutional enough” — IF we flipped things around on beck, that is?
Beck is trying to ‘save’ Islam. He argues it should be reformed but never explains that this is impossible. Muhammad commanded no change in Islam. So, if it is to be reformed, then it means returning to the beliefs Beck is calling ‘Islamist.’ To do that, Beck has to change what Muhammad said.
So THIS is my problem with Beck regarding Islam: he is not explaining it accurately as MUHAMMAD would explain it. If he did, then people would realize there is no way to ‘rescue’ Islam.
BTW: He did use the term abrogation in his book. I say so. What he did not do is explain how it works and how the Qur’an is arranged so that others will know and understand. If you do not know Islam and you start reading the Qur’an — even if you know about abrogation — you will have no idea what verses have been replaced because you do not know the order they should be read. To know that order, you have to read Muhammad’s biography, which Beck never mentions is necessary to understand the Qur’an and Hadith.
So, again — half-truths and omissions. Which brings us to your other question.
I did not say Beck IS a Progressive: I am saying he is acting and arguing like one. Beck, himself, attacks Progressives for changing words, injecting fallacious claims into an argument and leaving things out of the equation for the purposes of deceiving people. He has done all of this in his new book. So, if the actions fit the definition…
I’m going to agree on your point that Islam cannot be reformed. Or it can possibly, but it would not be Islam anymore. I like Glenn Beck. I think he does a lot of good. I see no other national conservative speaking out against Islam and the murder and slavery of Christians in the Middle East as much as him. Also this book has put him and his family in extreme danger. For just those things alone I’ll give him a break were we disagree.
I have said repeatedly that I like Beck, as well. I have said the nation owes him a debt for teaching us a great deal of what had become ‘lost history.’ Were it not for Beck, we would not now know what a Progressive is, let alone what they believe. We’d still be calling the Left ‘liberals,’ which confuses things when people read that our founders were Liberals (in this case, we have to say Classic Liberals to differentiate them from Progressive liberal).
I also understand that writing this book puts Beck at risk, but so does writing this blog — maybe more so. I do not have former SEALS and spec ops boys protecting me, and I can assure you — judging from the number of people watching in the Muslim nations on my admin board — I have the attention of people who would be happy to kill me for what I am saying. They just may, too.
But I am not going to give the man a pass when he is being two-faced in the things he brings to his audience. I am holding him to his own standards. When those on the Left tell half the story, or tell people something that is not true, Beck exposes it — sometimes even viciously. So, when he does the very same thing — especially in an area as crucial to our survival as understanding Islam — I am going to scream warnings.
After all, as Beck has said: if we do not know and understand the threat, we cannot defeat it. Now, how much ‘good’ does Beck do by suggesting Islam is OK, we just need to reform it and face-down those he calls ‘Islamists?’ He might as well be telling people NAZIs are OK, we just need to reform it and deal with the racists trying to kill the Jews within the movement. It’s just not going to happen, and telling people it can BLINDS THEM TO THE THREAT!
I cannot countenance anyone who deliberately blinds this nation to the true nature of what we are facing.
I rarely make snap comments and reading your responses reminds me why. I came across your post by accident while looking for something else related to the book. I will have to do more research before I feel comfortable commenting further on this subject. I will say I like what I’ve seen here and have added your blog to my favorites. Thank-you, Sean
Thank you. I hope I do not disappoint. If you have time, please read the more recent post explaining my issues with the message in Beck’s new book.
BTW: for the record, I have strong reasons to suspect that Beck did not write the parts of this book with which I disagree. However, this would also indicate he has not read it and may be relying on what he has been told by those who did the research for him. This could explain the contradiction in his message. Then again, it could just be that Beck does believe Islam can be reformed. In that case, my objection stands.
Interestingly, I just wrote and sent a letter to Glenn Beck on this topic this morning and found then found the Oil for Your Lamp website. Below is the letter I wrote and sent to him.
Congratulations on your new book, It IS about Islam. I have a question for you. What took so long?! I have been following you since your days on CNN and have many times emailed you and others in the media concerning the truth of Islam
I recently heard you on your radio show stating that you could explain Islam to the public in two minutes. I think I can do it in less than a minute:
It is a “complete way of life,” an all-embracing social, political and legal system that breeds a worldview peculiar unto itself. Islam is what Islam is: Muhammad taught his followers (the umma) that there is nothing holier than jihad warfare, and to offer unbelievers (non-Muslims, the kuffar) three choices: conversion, subjugation (dhimmitude), or death. These are Qur’anic teachings (the absolute words of Allah, not to be questioned but obeyed) and are not marginal doctrines or historic relics—they are part of Islam and have been exercised for over fourteen (14) centuries by the majority of the sects of Islam. Sura 9 (including the “Verse of the Sword”) abrogates all previous “peaceful” and “tolerant” verses written in Mecca when Muhammad was a preacher of peace as opposed to those written in Medina when he turned to being a warlord—it was the last section of the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad. Peace to a believer means the end of jihad, and that will come when the world is living under Shari’a (Islamic) law.
You point out that you have interviewed experts on Islam for your book. Including among these experts is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser founder of The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).
The AIFD states that it is “directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State.” It further states that “the purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.”
How can this be? Islamic intolerance and violence are imbedded in its own religious texts. Muslims must believe, and accept that the Qu’ran is the absolute, immutable words of Allah not to be questioned but obeyed. Any change to Qur’anic instruction will in the least be considered heresy, if not apostasy punishable by death.
Have you discussed this with Dr. Jasser?
Moreover, as you know from your investigations into Islam there are two formal doctrines of deception when dealing with infidels. Not only do these doctrines give the umma permission to lie to and deceive the kuffar in matters concerning Islam, these doctrines specifically instruct all Muslims to be missionaries of Islam and spread Shari’a, but to be ready to become soldiers when the occasion calls for it. One is called “taqiyya,” or concealment in which they can lie about what they believe, denying aspects of their faith to protect themselves from unbelievers. The other is “kitman,” or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with the intention to mislead.
Have you discussed this with Dr. Jasser?
As I indicated previously, Islam is a “complete way of life,” an all-embracing social, political and legal system that breeds a worldview peculiar unto itself. The separation of Islam into political and religious ideologies is not possible without dismantling the core tenets of Islam that define being a Muslim.
Have you discussed this with Dr. Jasser?
Good luck with you new book.
I am torn where Beck is concerned. I have listened to him for more than ten years now, and I have grown very fond of him. This country owes him a great debt when it comes to educating us. In many way, we owe him more than we do Rush. But Beck causes me great concern whenever we cross the line between the purely secular and the Spiritual and Islam is most definitely on the other side of that line.
I see what you see: there is no way to argue for a ‘reformed’ Islam and still have Islam. Jasser is either crazy –or he is lying! Walid Shoebat argues that Jasser is lying, and Shoebat used to be a Muslim terrorist. Beck disagrees. He thinks Islam can be ‘reformed. Even with his new book, in which he claims Islam cannot change, he still speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
I tend to think closer to Shoebat’s position than Beck’s, but that is probably because I have actually researched Islam and taken Muhammad at his word. I honestly doubt Beck did this. I suspect he is repeating a great deal of what he was told in briefings by the people who actually did the research. Otherwise, Beck should not be trusted on anything anymore because it would mean he is intentionally lying to his audience. Sadly, he may actually be lying to himself, which is why he is blind to the contradiction in his public position on Islam.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your letter. I agree with you. You will have to let us know if you receive a reply. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say to you.
You and I are in total agreement. Over the years since 911 I have written emails, letters, and letters to the editor (some of which did get published) most were ignored. Twice Hannity had on his TV show the son of Hamas Founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, Mosab Hassan Yousef who declared h that moderate Islam Islam doesn’t exist and that all Muslims believe in Jihad. When asked specifically about moderate, peaceful Muslims Yousef said they are not practicing their religion. There may be moderate Muslims but there is definitely not a moderate version of Islam.
Political correctness, and willful ignorance will be the death knell of Western Civilization.
This is one of the most important aspects of the Sunni/Shi’a rift that Beck does NOT explain. The Shi’a believe they can launch their own personal Jihads, but the Sunni believe they have to wait for the Caliphe to declare a glabal Jihad. These ‘moderate’ Muslims are mostly Sunni. If they ever recognize a Caliphe and he declares global Jihad, many of these ‘moderate’ Muslims will suddenly become active Jihadis — just like ISIS is now.
Our PC idiocy is madness. It will destroy us unless we turn back NOW!
One thing ignored in these nuclear negotiations, besides all the obvious, is that Shi’a believe in the return of the Twelfth Mahdi/Imam. “This belief system posits that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, also known as the Mahdi, whose advent can be hastened by creating the right set of circumstances: friction and misunderstanding among the nations and violent upheavals in a welter of blood and fire.” (See http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/01/05/the-return-of-the-twelfth-imam/) A nuclear bomb on Israel or the US starting a world war would do the trick.
PS A little on moderate Muslims that I wrote some years ago.
I have trouble with those that are identified as peaceful Muslims. People speak of moderate, peaceful Muslims as opposed to fanatics or fundamentalists, but what does “moderate” or “peaceful” mean. If it means those who will not take an active part in jihad and terrorism then there are a lot of them. If it means those who disapprove of jihad, then there are fewer of them. If it means those who speak out against jihad? Then that reduces the number even further. Or is a moderate Muslim one who actively engages the jihadists in a theological battle, trying to convince Muslims that jihad terrorism is wrong on theological grounds? That would leave a handful. “Bad Muslims,” those that you may consider peaceful, who reject the historical teachings of Islam, may be laudable in human terms but does nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine. There may be peaceful Muslims but there is no peaceful Islam!
Scroll down the page. You will find that I have addressed Shi’a Islam and Islamic prophecy quite a bit. Look for my posts on the black flags of Khurasan 🙂
Will do Joe. All I have responded to are emails that have come directly to me. I haven’t been on the website.
I am going to be away for a day but will look at them when I get back. For now it is too late and I have to hit the hay.
I am happy though that I found a few people that are aware of what is going on in the world and know some history.
I’m not knowledgable about Islam so I can only assume you’re correct about Beck’s misunderstanding. Regardless, he’s proposing the same endpoint as I assume you would – Islamists need to change their belief system. So it seems to me you’re just arguing technicalities saying Islam cannot change.
On a final note, your understanding of Islam is much better than Mormonism if you think John believes “that men can save themselves” and don’t need The Savior. But hey, you can’t be an expert on everything.
I believe you missed the one of the points I was making in my letter to Beck. Let me try again.
As with others who call for the reformation of Islam, an important issue is neglected: Muslims must believe, and accept, that the Qu’ran is the absolute, immutable words of Allah not to be questioned but obeyed. Any change to the Qur’an will in the least be considered heresy, but more than likely considered apostasy punishable by death. So the question remains, how is Islamic reformation possible without dismantling the core tenets of the religion that define being a Muslim?
As for Mormonism I know a little about it. I lived in Logan, Utah for three years and still have friends in Utah. I have attended Mormon services in the local “Steak” house. Steak referring to a grid of land in the town. So many steaks have a Temple. I’ve read parts of the book of Mormon. However, I am not Mormon just a good Christian.
As a male if you go on a Mission and go through the Temple to be baptized you have the possibility of not only being saved but having your own kingdom.
You cannot change Islam and still have Islam. This is the point. It is not ‘technical.’ It is like saying you can take out the nationalism and racism and still have NAZI-ism. You don’t. You just have plain old fascism bordering on communism. And that will leave you fighting the die-hard NAZIs who do not want their ideology changed.
As for my understanding of Mormonism: it is just as sound. Smith said a savior is needed — ‘after you do all you can do.’ This is not true. Men are imperfect. there is NOTHING man can do to justify himself before a perfect and Holy God. Not even a little. We need a Savior, but He either redeems ALL of our sins all at once and as a free and undeserved gift (Grace), or He redeems nothing. What’s more, that redeemer must be God — and there is only One God. Thus, what Smith taught is entirely different from what the Old and New testament teach.