City Of Dis: The Political Strategy Of Mahomet, Calvin, Luther & The Founding Fathers Of The US

'And I: 'Master, I can clearly see its mosques
within the ramparts, glowing red
as if they'd just been taken from the fire.
'And he to me: 'The eternal fire
that burns inside them here in nether Hell
makes them show red, as you can see.'
Inferno viii

Is it any wonder that Dante places mosques in the City of Dis? If City of Dis is properly understood as a city that revolts against the Divinely Ordained form of Government by refusing entry of the two Imperial emissaries, then one can look at the life of Mahomet and his rebellion against the Roman Empire, and draw the conclusion that the City of Dis represents all forms of man made government that rebel against the Divinely Ordained form of government.

What was the political strategy of Mahomet? Simple, introduce a new belief system, man made of course, rejecting the One True Faith – The Holy Roman Catholic Faith. Mahomet was following the bad example of Jeroboam who would be made king of Israel:

'And Israel revolted from the house of David, unto this day. And it came to pass when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they gathered an assembly, and sent and called him, and made him king over all Israel, and there was none that followed the house of David but the tribe of Juda only.' 3 Kings 12

King Jeroboam would hold onto his kingship by separating his followers from the True religion (at the time), by making idols of gold, and creating new and different ceremonies. Once this was done it would be hard for his followers to go back to the True religion:

‘And Jeroboam said in his heart: Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David, If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem: and the heart of this people will turn to their lord Roboam the king of Juda, and they will kill me, and return to him. And finding out a device he made two golden calves, and said to them: Go ye up no more to Jerusalem: Behold thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other in Dan: And this thing became an occasion of sin: for the people went to adore the calf as far as Dan.’ 3 King 12

This is the simple political strategy for all those men who would make themselves king and revolt against the Divinely Ordained authority of the Roman Emperor. Make a new religion.

You want to hold onto your man made political power? Make up new religious ceremonies, a new belief system, new doctrines, all contrary to the One True Faith so as to separate your followers from Rome. This will help you keep your man made political power (for awhile):

Mahomet did this.
The Greeks did this.
The Russians did this.
Calvin did this.
Luther did this.
The Founding fathers did this.

So is it any wonder that Dante places mosques in the city of Dis? Many conservatives, neo-conservatives, independents, ethno-nationalist are opposed to the influx of Islam into their territories, as if the rebellious Muslims do not have a place in a rebellious modern democratic state such as is found all over Europe and here in the U.S.A. The whole world is a rebellious democracy. The whole world revolted against the Divinely Ordained form of Government The whole world is the City of Dis.

Mosques and the political and religious institutions of the heretics belong side by side in the city of Dis. The Mosques were not found outside the confines of the walls of iron but were within the walls of iron. Dante has a very clear vision on the nature of political rebellion and of those who engage in such endeavors, and this is why he placed the Mosques within the walls of iron, along side with the political and religious heretics. The walls of iron are meant to keep out the influence of the Divinely Ordained form of government, just as the walls of modern democracy are meant to keep out the influence of the Divinely Ordained form of government.

You still refuse to accept that modern democracy and Islam have anything in common? That these two political rebellions are not cut from the same cloth? Read what some of the Founding Fathers of this rebellious democractic nation had to say about their rebellious political cousins - the Muslims:

‘Thus if solemn assemblies, observations of festivals, public worship be permitted to any one sort of professors, all these things ought to be permitted to the Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and others, with the same liberty. Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Gospel commands no such thing. The Church which "judgeth not those that are without" wants it not. And the commonwealth, which embraces indifferently all men that are honest, peaceable, and industrious, requires it not. Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal and trade with us, and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and worship God? If we allow the Jews to have private houses and dwellings amongst us, why should we not allow them to have synagogues? Is their doctrine more false, their worship more abominable, or is the civil peace more endangered by their meeting in public than in their private houses? But if these things may be granted to Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christians ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian commonwealth.’ A Letter Concerning Toleration John Locke 1689

‘rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan.’ Thomas Jefferson Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786)

‘True freedom embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion.’Richard Henry Lee June 7, 1776 Addressing Congress

‘the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians,’
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

From the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

'See how I rend myself, see how mangled is Mohammed!'

Inferno xxviii