Mohammad Talked A Lot About Jihad Because It Worked

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted only a 150 people. He was driven out of Mecca and went to Medina. In Medina he became a politician, jihadist and warlord. He averaged a jihad event on the average of 1 every 6 weeks and as a result every Arab was converted to Islam. The religion of Islam was a failure, but politics and jihad triumphed absolutely. Mohammed talked a lot about jihad, because it worked.

Bill Warner, “He Seemed Like Such a Nice Guy


Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Heidelblog
    Author Image

    The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

    More by Heidelblog ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. I think there is a tremendous amount of context that is missing as well as what it was Mohammed opposed. In addition, Mohammed distinguished between what he saw was real Christianity and Judaism vs what he opposed. What he opposed was the materialism that caused the upper class to ignore and even oppress the lower class.

    This is not to justify the wars or to advocate Islam or even justify its actions. But when we consider the crusades, the colonialism practiced by Europe starting with around the 1600s, and today’s western imperialism, according to Romans 2:1, nobody can judge and group of Muslims for practice jihad without condemning themselves for our wars of conquest. In other words, Muslims do not have a monopoly on the “jihad” that is defined above.

    • Yep, Mohammed was not a power crazed, bloodthirsty religious fanatic, he was just a poor misunderstood protosocialist. Workers of the world unite…

      • Mark,
        Certainly, he was not innocent but at the same time his actions are still misunderstood by those who claim to stand for truth, justice, and the American way.

    • Seriously, who is on board here defending colonialism, imperialism, crusades, and all that nonsense? Nobody.

      What Curt here is peddling on countless threads is a slanted meme that indicts the Reformed religion as a (the?) catalyst to social domination of alien culture. His religion is pure and undefiled, because he assumes that his vision takes better care of widows and orphans in their distress.

      The problem, as he sees it, is not aggrandizement of secular power; but whose hands are pulling the levers. Better the “saintly” hands of Robespierre and Marat, than the blood-sticky fingers of Girondists? The problem wasn’t socialism/communism per se, but the unfortunate moral lapses of the visionary leaders Lenin, Stalin, Mao, PolPot, and…well, all of them so far. But not the latterday saints of the 21st century, right Curt?

      No, Virginia, the problem isn’t in the biblical faith, Reformed and always reforming. But in every utopian vision of what this world is presumed to be, as made-over by the political visions of power-hungry people, some of whom have a Religious Streak.

      • Bruce,
        if you are not defending imperialism, why are not criticizing it as being equal to Jihad?

        BTW, how can you be always reforming when your basic human traditions, such as the Westminster Standards, are considered above reproach? How can you be always reforming when you only go to the past to answer questions from today?

        finally, I agree with you about utopian visions and how they are either corrupted or co-opted. But not all who ask for change have visions of Sugar Plums dancing in their heads. Those who believe in non elite-centered societies, whether those elite come from the private or public sector, are simply saying that the more centralize power, the greater the evil that results. And, as far as I can see, the only way to limit the evil from any group is to limit the “authorities” and extend democracy.

    • Curt,
      It’s only in your playbook that I’m required to go on record as to what I’m for or against politically. But I don’t play by your rules, by your Confession.

      You want RSC to blog by your rules too, and mount a particular kind of critique that balances certain scales to your satisfaction. Or else you feel the urge to come in and play “teacher.”

      Your ignorance is showing. The Westminster Standards aren’t above reproach, by their own self-witness; and by the witness of history that shows when, where, and how they’ve been amended–in the American context, anyway, which is right where this conversation is taking place.

      The particular amendments aren’t of concern here; merely the fact that they have been amended gives the lie to everything you alleged as to: that these man-made forms of sound words are received by us on par with revelation. When the church–as opposed to the Magisterium of Curt–determines that we need to confess the Scripture’s doctrine more carefully or more particularly, then we should do so.

      But maybe you think you’re the next Guido de Bres… hey, knock yourself out. Run your content up the flagpole and see who salutes it.

      Finally, modern mass-democracy is utopian. Progressivism is covertly elitist. The best hope for restraining the power-mad is localism, combined with a variety of forms of governance–be they tin-horn despotisms or town-hall meetings. “Don’t tell us how to run our business.” Not every place will be filled with joy. But competition serves as a bridle on both ambition and cruelty.

      As for the church, it has a prescribed form of government. It is not at liberty to follow social fads, old or new.

      • Bruce,
        I am not requiring anybody to play by “my rules.” In fact, though I don’t always agree, Dr Clark has always responded to my comments respectfully and I appreciate that. I simply state my views. And there are times when I agree with Dr. Clark. I celebrate those agreements and express the disagreements.

        And certainly, the Westminster Standards are not “above reproach.” The question about these standards regards the pedestal on which they are placed. And when church officials are limited to the number of exceptions they can take to the standards, we can question that pedestal. And when public criticisms of the standards are limited, then we need to examine that pedestal. When the Standards are virtually treated as a red letter version of the Bible, and they are by some, we need to examine that Pedestal. There are some wonderful things in the Standards. And there are things that need a public questioning.

        Finally, I will disagree with you about the utopian nature of modern mass democracy. The people I read would strongly disagree with your analysis as well. As I said before, a more participatory democracy distributes power and therefore can better limit its destructive use. It also pushes us to treat each other as equals more than hierarchical societies do. Note that there are no absolutes made in those statements. We are just exploring the idea of how to make things better. We do so because of the exploitation that exists and the self-destructive nature of our current systems. I can understand the resistance to a more participatory democracy which those who hold to the Westminster Standards have considering how these standards emphasized the categorization of people into superiors, inferiors, and equals. But just consider the culture and society that existed when the Standards were written. Should we question the emphasis on those categories that the Standard expressed?

    • Nope, Curt. You’re advocating for the world as you wish it was, not how it is. The Bible tells us how human nature is invariably, and your vision of the success of mass-democracy has me convinced that “the people” you read (and presumptively agree with) are not in subjection to the Word that corrects our thinking.

      I don’t say “let little-Napoleons be” because I think his/her subjects are well-off. But because it isn’t possible to make heaven on earth, and social-engineering efforts to Progressively remake the world in the blueprint imagined by the philosophes are messianic.

      Each new crew thinks they have hit upon the formula for success that the last ones missed. And yet they all end up with the same mountain of skulls. While the front-men are all preaching the virtue of the 51%, the manipulators in the shadows are greasing up the guillotines.

      The problem is a false Anthropology. The problem is thinking that there can actually be worldly society that escapes a pure principle of nature: that hierarchy (superiors/inferiors/equals) is inevitable–because the Sovereign distribution of gifts is unequal.

      We are all better off if the damage done by social/cultural/political failures are limited by borders, and we resist the urge to forcibly socialize the costs of such failure by making it seem less damaging than it is.

      Given the inflexible Laws of nature and the immutable fact of the Fall, the best we can hope for are small societies, with manageable spans of control, in which electoral franchise (where it is present) is exercised by a closely accountable body. The larger the democracy, the more subject it is to factional and cartel control. We get the smoke-and-mirrors of cyclical plebecites, American-style.

      In the USA, power was sucked upwards under Progressive hegemony. Popular election of national Senators was the death-knell for Constitutional limitations on the consolidation of the unitary-state (there were many other factors).

      The Founders were wiser in their generation. Even if the majority of them were practitioners of a religion-of-convenience, they possessed a secular version of Christian anthropology. “Men are not to be trusted.” It was this axiom that Progressives have ever regarded as fundamentally mistaken.

      Progressivism is secular Pelagianism. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Comments are closed.