Twelve Things to be Thankful for in the Midst of Affliction
http://www.biblestudytools.com/blogs/mark-altrogge/12-things-to-thank-god-for-in-the-midst-of-affliction.html?utm_source=Bible%20Study%20Tools%20Weekly%20-%20BibleStudyTools.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=09/16/2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Biblical Prophecy Accuracy [Link]
Links to Accuracy of Bible prophecy
http://www.bibleevidences.com/prophecy.htm
http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Is_Jesus_Really_the_Only_Way_to_God/Part_8
http://www.2christ.org/prophecy/
[below cited from Sid Roth, They Thought For Themselves, 2009]
Hundreds of Bible predictions have come true already. And the scientific dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves no one entered these predictions after the events. For instance, God said He would bless the Jewish nation beyond any people that ever lived if they were obedient to His laws [Deut. 28:1]. However, if they disobeyed, they would lose their country, be persecuted and scattered to the four corners of the earth; and wherever they fled, they would be persecuted [Deut. 28: 36-7; Isa. 11:12; Deut. 28:65]. The Bible says that even though many of the disobedient Jews would suffer and die, they would always be preserved as a distinct people [Jer. 31:36]. The Jews endured 1900 years without a homeland, suffering persecution in all places of residence, yet they were miraculously not assimilated into the various cultures/nations in which they lived. In this century, 1948, their homeland has been restored [see Jer. 16:14-15].
Amos said once they returned, they would rebuild the waste cities [9:14]. Today, the cities of Israel are built upon other ancient cities. Tel Aviv is as modern a cosmopolitan city as any in the world. Isaiah said the desert would blossom as a rose [Isa 35:1]. Israel reportedly exports more roses to Europe than any other nation. Ezekiel prophesied the reforestation of Israel [Ezek. 36:8]. And Isaiah tells us "The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground a bubbling spring." [Isa. 35:7]. Israel has developed the technology to bring underground water to the surface, supporting the growth of vegetation in the barren desert. The water is warm, enabling growth in even the cold seasons.
Two hundred years before Cyrus, king of Persia during the Captivity, was born, Isaiah identified him by name [Isa. 44:28; 45:1,13]. How did Isaiah know his name?; and moreover, how did God get a heathen to restore Jerusalem?
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Grace/Forgiveness: Two Visions
Below is the description of a vision that came in a dark time of deep contrition and repentence to my friend, Jim Willis. As he desribes it:
What is the darkest place you've been? Imagine you are isolated in darkness, real physical darkness like a cave or a dungeon underground. Now visualize the total absence of light around you in this place...
In prayer and repentance I looked up to the Lord and He showed me through Grace a vision of His great Mercy and Love.
Within the total darkness of acknowledged sin, at a distant point above me I saw a faint bit of light from an opening door grow into a beam of light reaching down into the darkness surrounding me. The light shot out, sharp-edged like a sword made of light carving into the darkness - outward and downward toward me, illuminating the darkness and me in a shaft of light that stood in stark contrast to the darkness beyond me.
I saw a white dove fly out of the door toward me and in tears of repentance I came to know that when we look to the Lord in Faith, His Mercy and Love fly to us in Grace since we have no wings of our own. This vision of faith, repentance, grace, mercy, love and forgiveness was revealed to me as I describe it here.
Reflecting back on this I know that God reveals to us through His Holy Spirit that He created everything and it is in His nature to gather His creation to Himself for His purpose, not by force but by invitation. Some question a god that needs to be loved, but that’s not it at all. God is Love, and God completes His Creation and each one of us in union with Him, in and through Him, together with each and every one of us, in the Body of Christ. I know now what it means and the true wonder of it, that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.
Jim Willis
“My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.” John 10:27
I was sitting on my deck drawing near to God. My failures and shortcomings always are the first to come into focus when I draw near to God. This day, they seemed particularly daunting. I did not want to lift my eyes toward Him. I hang-doggedly lifted up all my known character defects, which were legion. I heard His voice in my mind: "Mark, do you think that My grace is not sufficient to cover all that?" Then He took my attention to a spot in the woods behind my house where I had buried our dog, Alf, about 15 years ago. He asked "If you dug in the earth, what would you find of Alf?" "Not even a bone probably remains at this point Lord," I replied. "That is your sin. And the earth covering it is my Grace." Then He showed me a flower growing out of that earth, and a honeybee coming to take nectar and flying away to make honey.
Mark Graham
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Democracy, Christianity, and Islam
Religion is not the enemy of democracy. Tyrannical religion is its enemy. Healthy religion must be equally yoked with democracy in order for it to survive. Christianity must never be put on an equal basis with Islam for this reason. Christianity, in its true essence, can never be tyrannical because its namesake didn't have an ounce of tyranny in His personhood. He was never violent, and He taught His followers to love their enemies [Matthew 5:44]. He was [and is] a valiant and supremely courageous spiritual warrior; and as such, transcended physical violence. Skeptics will point out incidences of tyranny being enacted under the name of Christ; but these are aberrations, as all true practitioners of the faith will attest. Violence, terror, and tyranny are the normal outflow of Islam as history has attested, because the Qu'ran endorses these activities as the highest form of religious practice: namely jihad. Mosab Hassan Yousef, Muslim turned Christian, has clearly elucidated this in his book, Son of Hamas, in which he describes Islam as a ladder, with the lowest rung being praise and worship of Allah; the middle rung acts of charity and service, and the highest rung, jihad. He explains that those on the lower rungs have guilt because they are not enacting jihad.
Islam lacks faith to the degree that it imposes its doctrine and suppresses public discourse. Christianity invests faith in the direction of freedom--in the human potential to seek and find Truth, which Christ claims to be. Jesus stands at the door and knocks [Revelation 3:20] but He never beats down the door and demands anyone to confess His messiahship or suffer at the hands of men. No one can be coerced into the Kingdom of God--only invited. Islam fails to recognize or trust this process characterized by the endorsement of freedom. It therefore appeals to violent men who need to control; and it induces guilt in those who are compassionate. The Qu'ran, whether it was the original intent of Muhammad or not, ordains and sanctifies sociopathy, promising to reward it in heaven. At it's highest level, it becomes populated by sociopaths, because compassionate men [like Mosab's father] cannot embody it; only support it from the sidelines, with the aforementioned guilt.
Democracy without the healthy leaven of Christianity becomes vulnerable to tyrannical religion. This is true because humans in all cultures have historically demonstrated an inner drive toward religion. The best efforts of atheism have no hope of eradicating this inner, seemingly hardwired, need in man. In fact, atheism becomes itself a type of religion, complete with its own evangelists, etc. But atheism can never win against sociopathic religion, with its promise of the afterlife. Only healthy religion [Christianity] can win this battle. Mosab Yousef and other Muslim converts are wonderful examples of this. Islam will not be defeated politically or militarily; it can only be won over by Christ Himself, Who already has an inroad because He is respected by the Qu'ran [though His historical actions and divine role are distorted therein]. Neither political systems nor atheism has this influence in Islam. That is why it is counter-productive, in the war against terror, for non-believers to work against Christianity. It would be much more intelligent for them to endorse and support the Christian faith, as they would support the military that protects us from the violence of Islam. The military and security forces can only hold at bay what Christianity can transform.
Democracy and the freedoms it endorses are children of the Judaeo-Christian faith--faith that recognizes God's freedom and His demand that His people be free from the tyrannies of man--even religious tyranny. The God of the Bible has entrusted us with free will, and the responsibilities that accrue thereto. Historically we [humans] have misused and abused that freedom, and we have suffered because of it; but God has not yet taken it from us, and He does not ordain that we deprive each other of it. He has given us His Holy Word--written, and in the flesh as Jesus Christ--and offers us His Holy Spirit to enable us to exercise our freedom in a manner that brings blessings and prosperity to the human family. Freedom, unfettered from the healthy restraints of Christianity, becomes licentious and decadent. And that drift in our nation has been the focus of much criticism in Islam and in developing countries who do not wish to import it; and from the Christian viewpoint we understand this, and agree with it. We disagree heartily however on the methods used to combat it. In addition to the imperfect but wonderful democratic system of government, innumerable ministries to the manifold sufferings of man have issued out of Judaeo-Christianity, as any objective study will attest; and it [Judaeo-Christianity] must and will continue to flourish on the earth in order for freedom and peace to flourish.
Contrarily, we are inundated daily with the violent and destructive fruit of Qu'ranic Islam. Any objective evaluation cannot deny this. We have to examine this reality in light of truth, avoiding any prejudice. Muslims, Jews, atheists and Christians must all seek the truth about this phenomenon. It is fair to say that any theology or ideology is responsible for the fruit it bears in civilization. Christianity is responsible for what Christianity spawns in the world. And Islam is responsible for what it spawns in the world. This is true no matter what perception the world outside that theology has of it. In other words, the non-Christian world is not responsible for how Christianity has responded to it. And the non-Muslim world is not responsible for how Islam has responded to it. No theology can blame anything or any people-groups outside itself for what it has spawned in the world. It can only be legitimate if it takes responsibility for the fruit it bears. And any theology, in order to be legitimate, must be able to stand in the arena of free expression of ideas. Any theology that violently or threateningly shuts out civil discourse that opposes it cannot be trusted as true. Truth does not need to be defended violently; it only needs an open arena of expression. The freedom of speech, including a free press, provided by our Constitution is vital in this regard, and they must be protected. One of the goals of terrorism is to suppress this freedom; and that fear must not dominate.
One of the freedoms that must be granted in any legitimate theology is the freedom of open doubt. Faith that is not tried in the fire of doubt can never be legitimate. A theology that labels doubt as heresy and ordains the punishment of that heresy can not be legitimate. And a theology that threatens physical harm, or even death, for apostasy [abandoning that faith] reveals that it is not secure in its tenets. If I must build a wall to keep my people from straying, or to shut out foreign concepts, I likely fear that there may be something better outside the wall. Or I do not trust my people to be mature enough to handle whatever truth may be on the other side of it. And fear of exposure [of adults] to ideas outside one's traditions can never be a legitimate motivator of theological doctrines. We must live in the freedom of love and faith; not confined behind the walls of fear. [Judas was free to betray Christ, and the Pharisees were free to crucify him; and He did not allow His disciples to use violence to protect Him. But God worked it all for good.]
I am not a scholar of the Qu'ran. I have, like anyone who is paying attention, seen some of the verses that are feeding the radical jihadists, and I have a basic understanding of Sharia as the law under which all Muslims must abide, and under which, according to the Qu'ran, all the world must ultimately be brought into "submission"--the very meaning of the word Islam". I can not see how, based on this understanding, Qu'ranic Islam can integrate with our Republican Democracy. They seem to be opposing forces that cannot mutually embrace each other as set forth in the Qu'ran and in our Constitution. In fact, Islam has and continues to violently and oppressively militate against every theology and political ideology that has touched its boundaries. In this light, I call upon all American non-Muslims [as well as all "moderate" Muslims] to diligently protect our Constitution. All our laws should be only in accordance with the Constitution; and any laws that are not should be confronted and, if necessary, civilly disobeyed, in the pattern of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. "One nation under God" should be deeply understood and vigilantly guarded as a reality--not a meaningless phrase. The Founding Fathers who instituted freedom of religion also instituted the Constitution. It is impossible that they intended to grant freedom to a religion that would usurp or undermine the Constitution.
And in all our endeavors to protect and defend what God has given us, we must be very careful to always be motivated by the courage, faith and especially love of Jesus Christ our Lord. Our method of jihad is to guard our hearts against fear and against hatred. To the degree that we are motivated by either of those, we are losing the battle.
Mark Graham
Islam lacks faith to the degree that it imposes its doctrine and suppresses public discourse. Christianity invests faith in the direction of freedom--in the human potential to seek and find Truth, which Christ claims to be. Jesus stands at the door and knocks [Revelation 3:20] but He never beats down the door and demands anyone to confess His messiahship or suffer at the hands of men. No one can be coerced into the Kingdom of God--only invited. Islam fails to recognize or trust this process characterized by the endorsement of freedom. It therefore appeals to violent men who need to control; and it induces guilt in those who are compassionate. The Qu'ran, whether it was the original intent of Muhammad or not, ordains and sanctifies sociopathy, promising to reward it in heaven. At it's highest level, it becomes populated by sociopaths, because compassionate men [like Mosab's father] cannot embody it; only support it from the sidelines, with the aforementioned guilt.
Democracy without the healthy leaven of Christianity becomes vulnerable to tyrannical religion. This is true because humans in all cultures have historically demonstrated an inner drive toward religion. The best efforts of atheism have no hope of eradicating this inner, seemingly hardwired, need in man. In fact, atheism becomes itself a type of religion, complete with its own evangelists, etc. But atheism can never win against sociopathic religion, with its promise of the afterlife. Only healthy religion [Christianity] can win this battle. Mosab Yousef and other Muslim converts are wonderful examples of this. Islam will not be defeated politically or militarily; it can only be won over by Christ Himself, Who already has an inroad because He is respected by the Qu'ran [though His historical actions and divine role are distorted therein]. Neither political systems nor atheism has this influence in Islam. That is why it is counter-productive, in the war against terror, for non-believers to work against Christianity. It would be much more intelligent for them to endorse and support the Christian faith, as they would support the military that protects us from the violence of Islam. The military and security forces can only hold at bay what Christianity can transform.
Democracy and the freedoms it endorses are children of the Judaeo-Christian faith--faith that recognizes God's freedom and His demand that His people be free from the tyrannies of man--even religious tyranny. The God of the Bible has entrusted us with free will, and the responsibilities that accrue thereto. Historically we [humans] have misused and abused that freedom, and we have suffered because of it; but God has not yet taken it from us, and He does not ordain that we deprive each other of it. He has given us His Holy Word--written, and in the flesh as Jesus Christ--and offers us His Holy Spirit to enable us to exercise our freedom in a manner that brings blessings and prosperity to the human family. Freedom, unfettered from the healthy restraints of Christianity, becomes licentious and decadent. And that drift in our nation has been the focus of much criticism in Islam and in developing countries who do not wish to import it; and from the Christian viewpoint we understand this, and agree with it. We disagree heartily however on the methods used to combat it. In addition to the imperfect but wonderful democratic system of government, innumerable ministries to the manifold sufferings of man have issued out of Judaeo-Christianity, as any objective study will attest; and it [Judaeo-Christianity] must and will continue to flourish on the earth in order for freedom and peace to flourish.
Contrarily, we are inundated daily with the violent and destructive fruit of Qu'ranic Islam. Any objective evaluation cannot deny this. We have to examine this reality in light of truth, avoiding any prejudice. Muslims, Jews, atheists and Christians must all seek the truth about this phenomenon. It is fair to say that any theology or ideology is responsible for the fruit it bears in civilization. Christianity is responsible for what Christianity spawns in the world. And Islam is responsible for what it spawns in the world. This is true no matter what perception the world outside that theology has of it. In other words, the non-Christian world is not responsible for how Christianity has responded to it. And the non-Muslim world is not responsible for how Islam has responded to it. No theology can blame anything or any people-groups outside itself for what it has spawned in the world. It can only be legitimate if it takes responsibility for the fruit it bears. And any theology, in order to be legitimate, must be able to stand in the arena of free expression of ideas. Any theology that violently or threateningly shuts out civil discourse that opposes it cannot be trusted as true. Truth does not need to be defended violently; it only needs an open arena of expression. The freedom of speech, including a free press, provided by our Constitution is vital in this regard, and they must be protected. One of the goals of terrorism is to suppress this freedom; and that fear must not dominate.
One of the freedoms that must be granted in any legitimate theology is the freedom of open doubt. Faith that is not tried in the fire of doubt can never be legitimate. A theology that labels doubt as heresy and ordains the punishment of that heresy can not be legitimate. And a theology that threatens physical harm, or even death, for apostasy [abandoning that faith] reveals that it is not secure in its tenets. If I must build a wall to keep my people from straying, or to shut out foreign concepts, I likely fear that there may be something better outside the wall. Or I do not trust my people to be mature enough to handle whatever truth may be on the other side of it. And fear of exposure [of adults] to ideas outside one's traditions can never be a legitimate motivator of theological doctrines. We must live in the freedom of love and faith; not confined behind the walls of fear. [Judas was free to betray Christ, and the Pharisees were free to crucify him; and He did not allow His disciples to use violence to protect Him. But God worked it all for good.]
I am not a scholar of the Qu'ran. I have, like anyone who is paying attention, seen some of the verses that are feeding the radical jihadists, and I have a basic understanding of Sharia as the law under which all Muslims must abide, and under which, according to the Qu'ran, all the world must ultimately be brought into "submission"--the very meaning of the word Islam". I can not see how, based on this understanding, Qu'ranic Islam can integrate with our Republican Democracy. They seem to be opposing forces that cannot mutually embrace each other as set forth in the Qu'ran and in our Constitution. In fact, Islam has and continues to violently and oppressively militate against every theology and political ideology that has touched its boundaries. In this light, I call upon all American non-Muslims [as well as all "moderate" Muslims] to diligently protect our Constitution. All our laws should be only in accordance with the Constitution; and any laws that are not should be confronted and, if necessary, civilly disobeyed, in the pattern of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. "One nation under God" should be deeply understood and vigilantly guarded as a reality--not a meaningless phrase. The Founding Fathers who instituted freedom of religion also instituted the Constitution. It is impossible that they intended to grant freedom to a religion that would usurp or undermine the Constitution.
And in all our endeavors to protect and defend what God has given us, we must be very careful to always be motivated by the courage, faith and especially love of Jesus Christ our Lord. Our method of jihad is to guard our hearts against fear and against hatred. To the degree that we are motivated by either of those, we are losing the battle.
Mark Graham
Monday, September 1, 2014
Islam: Composite
Below is a link to an incredibly intelligent and insightful lecture entitled "The Logic of Islam" by Horowitz. It exposes the true problem that must be addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94L8o44_94
Below is link to Jordan Peterson speaking to issue of Islamic migration, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk5DXEzwOBw
This post could be sub-titled "Pulling Our Heads Out of the Sand".
Dinesh D'Souza on Islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uou2EA6is8U
The only way to defeat radical Islam is to destroy its roots; and that is the Quran. The Quran, whatever the "moderates" assert, continues to spawn terrorists. All freedom-loving non-Islamists must expose the Quran as a flawed [unholy] book. But this will meet with the greatest resistance from those who are entrenched in its grasp of distorted reality. Mark Graham
This movie was produced by a Pakistani X-Muslim. He was deported from Spain as a "threat to national security" despite his appeal to higher courts alleging that his freedom of speech had been violated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7gwcuG2jb9k&bpctr=1412877842
Islamic Mahdi compared to the Anti-christ:
http://michaelyoussef.squarespace.com/michaels-blogs/the-antichrist-and-the-muslim-mahdi-part-2.html?utm_source=The+Antichrist+and+the+Muslim+Mahdi+%28Part+2%29&utm_campaign=Antichrist+2&utm_medium=email
Courageous article: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4344/imran-firasat-spain
Logical arguments against Islam and the Quran:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/fallacies.asp
Debra Burlingame, [sister of Capt. Charles Burlingame, III, pilot of Amer. Airlines Flt. 77, hijacked and murdered by crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11] became after 9/11 a very serious student of Islam and its terrorism. She speaks truth, clearly and calmly in this 27 min. interview:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/19/911-family-member-and-former-liberal-our-weak-president-puts-us-all-at-risk/
What can we do?
On a practical level, churches can:
Here is a link to a site entitled "political Islam", which refers to Islam's teachings about "kafirs" or non-Muslims. http://politicalislam.com/
Following is a quote from the book Son of Hamas, by Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding leader of Hamas. Mosab is now a Christian. He describes Qur'anic Islam from the perspective of one who has lived inside its reality. He writes with deepest respect and love for his father and grandfather, both immams or Muslim religious leaders and teachers. They were men of compassion and mercy, but, as Moab describes, the Qu'ran and Islamic doctrine carried his father, and millions of others, into a violent mindset and lifestyle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94L8o44_94
Below is link to Jordan Peterson speaking to issue of Islamic migration, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk5DXEzwOBw
This post could be sub-titled "Pulling Our Heads Out of the Sand".
Dinesh D'Souza on Islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uou2EA6is8U
The only way to defeat radical Islam is to destroy its roots; and that is the Quran. The Quran, whatever the "moderates" assert, continues to spawn terrorists. All freedom-loving non-Islamists must expose the Quran as a flawed [unholy] book. But this will meet with the greatest resistance from those who are entrenched in its grasp of distorted reality. Mark Graham
This movie was produced by a Pakistani X-Muslim. He was deported from Spain as a "threat to national security" despite his appeal to higher courts alleging that his freedom of speech had been violated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7gwcuG2jb9k&bpctr=1412877842
Islamic Mahdi compared to the Anti-christ:
http://michaelyoussef.squarespace.com/michaels-blogs/the-antichrist-and-the-muslim-mahdi-part-2.html?utm_source=The+Antichrist+and+the+Muslim+Mahdi+%28Part+2%29&utm_campaign=Antichrist+2&utm_medium=email
Courageous article: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4344/imran-firasat-spain
Logical arguments against Islam and the Quran:
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/fallacies.asp
Debra Burlingame, [sister of Capt. Charles Burlingame, III, pilot of Amer. Airlines Flt. 77, hijacked and murdered by crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11] became after 9/11 a very serious student of Islam and its terrorism. She speaks truth, clearly and calmly in this 27 min. interview:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/19/911-family-member-and-former-liberal-our-weak-president-puts-us-all-at-risk/
What can we do?
On a practical level, churches can:
1. Pray fervently for
Christians in persecuting nations, for Muslims who've converted to
Christianity; and for more to do so. Pray for our nation's leaders to
make prayerful and wise responses to hatred and terrorism. Pray for
our military and especially for evangelicals in persecuting cultures.
2. Support
organizations that support evangelicals in persecuting cultures. God
has raised up a number of ministries to our brothers and sisters in
those nations. We need to support them. See this site for resources.
http://www.pohick.org/persecutedchurchresourses.html
Also here: http://www.actforamerica.org/ [This organization works passionately to dispense truth about radical Islam, and to defend America against its sharia law encroachments.]
Also here: http://www.actforamerica.org/ [This organization works passionately to dispense truth about radical Islam, and to defend America against its sharia law encroachments.]
3. Delegate a group of
mature Christians to do an in-depth study of Islam and educate church
members as to how to minister and witness to them; as well as how to
safeguard our children from falling into its deceptions. This group
can also research and determine which ministries to persecuted
Christians would be most worthy of the church's financial support.
[see my blogsite, marlyn249.blogspot.com, post entitled “Islam:
Composite” for resources].
4. Do not fear; and do
not hate any person—though it is quite appropriate to hate the evil
and destruction that has been spawned by Islam, and to channel that
hatred into constructive action.
Here is a link to a site entitled "political Islam", which refers to Islam's teachings about "kafirs" or non-Muslims. http://politicalislam.com/
Following is a quote from the book Son of Hamas, by Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding leader of Hamas. Mosab is now a Christian. He describes Qur'anic Islam from the perspective of one who has lived inside its reality. He writes with deepest respect and love for his father and grandfather, both immams or Muslim religious leaders and teachers. They were men of compassion and mercy, but, as Moab describes, the Qu'ran and Islamic doctrine carried his father, and millions of others, into a violent mindset and lifestyle.
What
my father saw in those early days was the part of Islam that reflects
love and mercy. What he didn't see, and what he perhaps has never yet
allowed himself to see, is the other side of Islam.
Islamic
life is like a ladder, with prayer and praising Allah as the bottom
rung. The higher rungs represent helping the poor and needy,
establishing schools, and supporting charities. The highest rung is
jihad.
The
ladder is tall. Few look up to see what is at the top. And progress
is usually gradual, almost imperceptible...
Traditional
Muslims stand at the foot of the ladder, living in guilt for not
really practicing Islam. At the top are fundamentalists, the ones you
see in the news killing women and children for the glory of the god
of the Qu'ran. Moderates are somewhere in between.
A
moderate Muslim is actually more dangerous than a fundamentalist,
however, because he appears to be harmless, and you can never tell
when he has taken the next step toward the top. Most suicide bombers
began as moderates. [pp11-12 of 2011 copyright]
When
Dr. Daniel Shayesteh (the former co-founder of the Islamic terror
group Hezbollah) appeared on my radio program, I asked him whether
true adherents to Islam could peacefully assimilate into American
culture and embrace constitutional law and order. He responded,
"It is impossible for a person who follows Mohammed and says, 'I
am a Muslim' and follows the instruction of the Koran to align
himself with other laws and cultural values. That's impossible,
because everything other than Islamic culture and principle is evil."
Peter
Heck
Omar
Ahmed, chairman of the supposedly moderate Council on
American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a group of California
Muslims in 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any
other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran...should be the
highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on
earth." Peter Heck
Here is a link to a genuinely moderate Islam organization that opposes Islamism, including CAIR.
http://aifdemocracy.org/
Here is a link to a genuinely moderate Islam organization that opposes Islamism, including CAIR.
http://aifdemocracy.org/
In
Federalist #2, Founder John Jay addressed the dangers of foreign
force and influence. In the course of the essay, he celebrated,
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one
united people — a people descended from the same ancestors,
speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to
the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and
customs." Jay understood that perhaps America's greatest
protection against the threat of foreign manipulation was our
overriding sense of unity as a people.
Peter
Heck
Some questions about Islam:
- Is there a pluralistic culture on earth that Islam has entered into and enhanced the overall quality of life for anyone in that culture other than Muslims? Can we find a non-Muslim witness in any such culture who would stand forth and say “Yes, we welcome the arrival of Islam into our land. The Muslims have added much to our culture and way of life. They have assimilated themselves into our culture in a very beneficent manner.”?
- Why is it that the “moderate” Muslims seem to spend more time confronting “Islamophobia” and criticizing western culture’s persecution and misunderstanding of them, than they spend confronting those extremists in their own ranks that keep enacting terror and thereby sowing seeds of fear regarding Islam? Those of us who fear Islam are desperate to hear some Muslim voices decrying the violence in no uncertain terms. It does not comfort us when the “moderates” keep telling us that our fears are unfounded when we see with our own eyes the Muslim-enacted terror continuing.
Moderate Muslims, please join with us in denouncing your terrorist
extremists as loudly as you denounce our misunderstanding of you!
- How would a panel of unbiased historians evaluate the overall contribution to society of the 1400 years of Islamic influence?
- Are the moderate Muslims sincere? Do they indeed support a pluralistic society, freedom of religion, and the Constitution? Or are they the soft, deceptive frontline voice of the more sinister radicals that will emerge when their power and numbers grow large enough? And in answering this question, let us take a broad, objective look at the whole of Islam throughout history, and a careful examination of the Koran.
This link is an article about a Pakistani x-Muslim who was exiled from Spain for criticising the Quran. The Spanish court decided he posed a threat to national security. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4344/imran-firasat-spain
The only way to defeat radical Islam is to destroy its roots; and that is the Quran. The Quran, whatever the "moderates" assert, continues to spawn terrorists. All freedom-loving non-Islamists must expose the Quran as a flawed [unholy] book. But this will meet with the greatest resistance from those who are entrenched in its grasp of distorted reality. Mark Graham
It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously
REV. JAMES V. SCHALL, S.J.
Islam has no central or definitive body or figure authorized to define what exactly it is. Opinions about its essence and scope vary widely according to the political or philosophic background of its own interpreters. The current effort to establish an Islamic State, with a designated Caliph, again to take up the mission assigned to Islam, brings to our attention the question: “What is Islam?”
The issue of “terror” is a further aspect of this same understanding. Many outside Islam seek to separate “terror” and “Islam” as if they were, in their usage, independent or even opposed ideas. This latter view is almost impossible seriously to maintain in the light of Islamic history and the text of the Qur’an itself.
John Kerry, however, insists that what we see is “terrorism” with nothing to do with Islam. The Obama administration seems to have a rule never to identify Islam with “terrorism,” no matter what the evidence or what representatives of the Islamic State themselves say. The vice-president speaks of “Hell” in connection with actions of the Islamic State. Diane Feinstein speaks of “evil” behind the current slaughters in Iraq and Syria. The pope mentions “stopping aggression.” The English hate-laws prevent frank and honest discussion of what actually goes on in Islamic countries or communities in the West. Not even Winston Churchill’s critical view of Islam is permitted to be read in public.
Ecumenism and liberalism both, in their differing ways, because of their commitment to tolerance and free speech, make it difficult to deal with what is happening in Islamic states. Islam is not friendly to relativism or to subtle distinctions.
Is terror intrinsic to Islam?
What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. I do not conceive this reflection as definitive. Nor do I document it in any formal sense, though it can be. It is a view that, paradoxically, has, I think, more respect for Islam than most of its current critics or advocates.
This comment is an apologia, as it were, for the Islamic State at least in the sense that it accepts its sincerity and religious purpose. It understands how, in its own terms, the philosophic background that enhances its view does, in its own terms, justify its actions, including the violent ones.
The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim. The “terror” we see does not primarily arise from modern totalitarian theories, nationalism, or from anywhere else but what is considered, on objective evidence, to be a faithful reading of a mission assigned by Allah to the Islamic world, which has been itself largely procrastinating about fulfilling its assigned mission.
To look elsewhere for an explanation is simply not to see what the Islamic State and its friends are telling us about why they act as they do. The tendency among pragmatic Western thinkers, locked into their own narrow views, is to exclude any such motivation as an excuse of raw power. This view shows the intellectual shortcomings of Western leaders and the narrowness of much Western thought.
Jihadism, as it were, is a religious movement before it is anything else. Allah does grant violence a significant place. It is over the truth of this position, or better the inability to disprove it, that the real controversy lies. A recent essay in the American Thinker calculated that over the years of its expansion, from its beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries, some 250 million people have been killed in wars and persecutions caused by Islam. Nothing else in the history of the world, including the totalitarianisms of the last century, has been so lethal.
If Islam is a religion of peace, what sort of peace does it bring?
Other understandings of Islam’s record, though not its mission, within Islam may be also plausible, but no more so than this jihadist interpretation. It may be possible for some to read Islam as a religion of “peace.” But its “peace,” in its own terms, means the peace of Allah within its boundaries. With the rest of the outside world, it is at war in order to accomplish a religious purpose, namely, to have all submitted to Allah in the passive way that the Qur’an specifies.
Islam can at times be defeated or stopped, as at Tours or Vienna, but it will always rise again as it is now bent on so doing. To picture the jihadists and leaders of the Islamic State as mere “terrorists” or thugs is to use Western political terms to blind ourselves to the religious dynamism of this movement. No wonder our leaders cannot or will not understand it. This purpose, when successful, is a terrible thing. But we are not seeing a group of gangsters, as many are wont to maintain. The roots of Islam are theological, rather bad theology, but still coherent within its own orbit and presuppositions.
Briefly put, Islam, in its founding, is intended to be, literally, the world religion. Nothing else has any standing in comparison. It is to bring the whole world to worship Allah according to the canons of the Qur’an. It is a belief, based on a supposed revelation to Mohammed, of which there is little evidence. Sufficient justification to expand this religion, once founded, to all the world by use of arms is found in the Qur’an and in its interpreters to explain the violent means used, often successfully, to establish, pacify, and rule tribes, states, territories, and empires.
In Muslim doctrine, everyone born into the world is a Muslim. No one has any right or reason not to be. Hence, everyone who is not a Muslim is to be converted or eliminated. This is also true of the literary, monumental, and other signs of civilizations or states that are not Muslim. They are destroyed as not authorized by the Qur’an.
It is the religious responsibility of Islam to carry out its assigned mission of subduing the world to Allah. When we try to explain this religion in economic, political, psychological, or other terms, we simply fail to see what is going on. From the outside, it is almost impossible to see how this system coheres within itself. But, granted its premises and the philosophy of voluntarism used to explain and defend it, it becomes much clearer that we are in fact dealing with a religion that claims to be true in insisting that it is carrying out the will of Allah, not its own.
If we are going to deal with it, we have to do so on those terms, on the validity of such a claim. The trouble with this approach, of course, is that truth, logos, is not recognized in a voluntarist setting. If Allah transcends the distinction of good and evil, if he can will today its opposite tomorrow, as the omnipotence of Allah is understood to mean in Islam, then there can be no real discussion that is not simply a temporary pragmatic stand-off, a balance of interest and power.
Whenever incidents of violence are witnessed in the Islamic world, or in other parts of the world caused by Islamic agents, we hear complaints that almost no Muslim voices rise to condemn this violence. When the original 9/11 happened, there was not condemnation coming from within Islam, but widespread celebration. Islam was seen as winning. But all Muslim scholars know that they cannot, on the basis of the Qur’an, condemn the use of violence to expand their religion. There is simply too much evidence that this usage is permitted. To deny it would be to undermine the integrity of the Qur’an.
Obviously, the enemies of the Islamic State and its jihadist allies are not only the “Crusaders” or the West. Some of Islam’s bloodiest wars were its invasion of Hindu India, where the tension remains marked. There are also Muslim efforts into China. The Philippines has a major problem as does Russia. But Islam wars with itself. The Sunni/Shiite struggles are legendary. It is important to note that one of the first things on the Islamic State’s agenda, if it is successful in surviving, is to unite all of Islam in its creedal unity.
The unfinished business from Tours and Vienna
All existing Islamic states are some sort of compromise between the true Islamic mission and forces, usually military forces that limit this world-wide unification. Almost all standing Muslim governments recognize the danger to themselves of a successful Caliphate. They all have some form of jihadist presence within their boundaries that seek to control it in the name of their very survival. There are or were Christian and other minorities within these states that are, to a greater or lesser extent, tolerated. But they are all, as non-Muslims, treated as second-class citizens. The Islamic movement renews that purist side of Islam that insists in eradicating or expelling non-Muslim presences in Muslim lands.
The Archbishop of Mosul, on seeing his people exiled and killed, forced to choose between conversion and death, empathized that his buildings were destroyed, the archives and all record of the long Christian presence in that area destroyed. He warned that this form of treatment is what the nations of the West could expect sooner or later. There are now significant Muslim enclaves in every part of America and Europe to be of great concern as centers of future uprisings within each city. There are now thousands of mosques in Europe and America, financed largely by oil money, that are parts of a closed enclave that excludes local law and enforces Muslim law.
Yet, we can ask: is this Islamic State anything more than a pipe-dream? No Islamic state has any serious possibility of defeating modern armies. But, ironically, they no longer think that modern armies will be necessary. They are convinced that widespread use of terrorism and other means of civil disorder can be successful. No one really has the will or the means to control the destructive forces that the Islamic State already has in place.
The Islamic State strategists think it is quite possible to take another step in the expansion of Islam, to take up again the assault on Europe left off at Tours and Vienna. Muslim armies have always been known for cruelty and craftiness. Men often shrank in fear before its threat, as they are intended to do. A Muslim theoretician once remarked that their aim was to make the streets of Western cities look like those battlefields we see in the cities of the Middle East. Again with the suicide bomber and believers in their use, for which they are said to be “martyrs,” this may be possible.
Finally, the case of the Islamic State and of the jihadists is not just a threat arising out of Islam’s mission to conquer the world for Allah. It is also a moral case, that the life of the West is atheist and decadent. It does not deserve its prosperity and position. The mission of mankind is the submission to Allah in all things. Once this submission is in place, the sphere of war will be over. No more beheading or car-bombings will be necessary or tolerated. No dissent within Islam will be possible or permitted. All will be at peace under the law of Islam. This is the religious purpose of the Islamic State. It is folly to think of it in any other terms.
But with great opposition both from the West and from within Islamic states to this vision, is there any possibility of its success? Pat Buchanan thought that a group of Seals one of these days would eliminate the new Caliph. Existing Muslin government officials know that their days are numbered if the Islamic State succeeds. But, at the same time, this vision does seem to be the real impetus of the Islamic peoples.
It is easy to write this movement off as fanatical and ruthless, which it is. To the outside world, it sounds horrific, but I suspect not to those who believe its truth and see the current revival of Islam with relief. The second or third class ranking of Islam in the modern world is over. But to the degree that we misjudge what is motivating the renewal of Islam, we will never understand why it exists as it does.http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/time-take-islamic-state-seriously
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. His latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic from Catholic University of America Press; Remembering Belloc from St. Augustine Press; and Reasonable Pleasures from Ignatius Press.
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
by Larry Abraham, January 29, 2004
“I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives.
The information is too critical to be over looked in the madness of this election year.”
James T. Clifford, Program Manager, WMD Training
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this "war." If they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the election.
The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.
This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence. No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.
What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.
With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.
The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.
Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran; Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.
The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"?
Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate".
What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.
As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)
The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.
Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.
The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.
What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons. Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".
By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel. Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.
What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished.. "two steps forward, one step back".
A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable hypocrite.
Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.
**************End of Report************************ Note....this was written before John Kerry had the nomination sewed up...but recent events clearly demonstrate that Kerry is going to fulfill Abraham's prediction of the Democrats calling for the UN and the French/Germans/Spain coalition to force the US out of Iraq. Also understand that the current 9/11 hearings are a political 'show' and Clarke's book were timed for these hearings and the campaign. And this is why Condoleezza Rice is seeking a private meeting with this commission to 'tell it like it is'. The national security issues involved around 9/11 cannot be an open book to the public, and I believe we have to understand that.
This is scary stuff. President Bush and the Republicans are obviously extremely cautious in bringing this issue to the campaign because the left-leaning media and the Kerry Democratic left would call this 'racist' against Islam and a distraction for the alleged lies of WMD and our reasons for going into Iraq. Bush correctly referred to the 'axis of evil' (Iran, Libya, Iraq and North Korea) as a pointed strategy to blunt the WMD-terrorist movement and he has been very successful in thwarting al Qaeda, despite what everyone on the left says. We are far better off without the threat from Iraq and Libya ? all within the last 12 months. We are threatened in Pakistan and if Musharraf is assassinated (it's been tried several times in the past year), we can see how the militants will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, which have already spread to Iran (by a militant Islamic scientist) and if Musharraf is 'taken out' we have both Iran and Pakistan as militant Islamic power bases armed with nuclear weapons And let's not overlook Abraham's issue about the potential for militant Islamic states who would control 75% of the world's oil.
This probably why Dick Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Wolfowitz are so committed to the belief that we are in this struggle for the free world as we have known it and focused on defeating the militant Islamic-al Maida's global strategy. They skirt the core issues raised by Abraham in this article because of the political-correctness implications, but after reading this, you understand what is at stake here. Kerry and the liberal Democrats want control of Washington at any price. Abraham clearly spells out what price that is: Victory for al Qaeda and the Islamic militancy. Abraham's article brought all of these issues together and why it is important for us to gain this perspective and educate our friends and associates.
This is a deeply impressive, cogent, and intelligent overview of the militant Islamic movement. Pass on Abraham's article to those who have a need to know, which is just about everybody.
James T. Clifford
Program Manager, WMD Training
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
The only way to defeat radical Islam is to destroy its roots; and that is the Quran. The Quran, whatever the "moderates" assert, continues to spawn terrorists. All freedom-loving non-Islamists must expose the Quran as a flawed [unholy] book. But this will meet with the greatest resistance from those who are entrenched in its grasp of distorted reality. Mark Graham
It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously
REV. JAMES V. SCHALL, S.J.
Islam has no central or definitive body or figure authorized to define what exactly it is. Opinions about its essence and scope vary widely according to the political or philosophic background of its own interpreters. The current effort to establish an Islamic State, with a designated Caliph, again to take up the mission assigned to Islam, brings to our attention the question: “What is Islam?”
The issue of “terror” is a further aspect of this same understanding. Many outside Islam seek to separate “terror” and “Islam” as if they were, in their usage, independent or even opposed ideas. This latter view is almost impossible seriously to maintain in the light of Islamic history and the text of the Qur’an itself.
John Kerry, however, insists that what we see is “terrorism” with nothing to do with Islam. The Obama administration seems to have a rule never to identify Islam with “terrorism,” no matter what the evidence or what representatives of the Islamic State themselves say. The vice-president speaks of “Hell” in connection with actions of the Islamic State. Diane Feinstein speaks of “evil” behind the current slaughters in Iraq and Syria. The pope mentions “stopping aggression.” The English hate-laws prevent frank and honest discussion of what actually goes on in Islamic countries or communities in the West. Not even Winston Churchill’s critical view of Islam is permitted to be read in public.
Ecumenism and liberalism both, in their differing ways, because of their commitment to tolerance and free speech, make it difficult to deal with what is happening in Islamic states. Islam is not friendly to relativism or to subtle distinctions.
Is terror intrinsic to Islam?
What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. I do not conceive this reflection as definitive. Nor do I document it in any formal sense, though it can be. It is a view that, paradoxically, has, I think, more respect for Islam than most of its current critics or advocates.
This comment is an apologia, as it were, for the Islamic State at least in the sense that it accepts its sincerity and religious purpose. It understands how, in its own terms, the philosophic background that enhances its view does, in its own terms, justify its actions, including the violent ones.
The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim. The “terror” we see does not primarily arise from modern totalitarian theories, nationalism, or from anywhere else but what is considered, on objective evidence, to be a faithful reading of a mission assigned by Allah to the Islamic world, which has been itself largely procrastinating about fulfilling its assigned mission.
To look elsewhere for an explanation is simply not to see what the Islamic State and its friends are telling us about why they act as they do. The tendency among pragmatic Western thinkers, locked into their own narrow views, is to exclude any such motivation as an excuse of raw power. This view shows the intellectual shortcomings of Western leaders and the narrowness of much Western thought.
Jihadism, as it were, is a religious movement before it is anything else. Allah does grant violence a significant place. It is over the truth of this position, or better the inability to disprove it, that the real controversy lies. A recent essay in the American Thinker calculated that over the years of its expansion, from its beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries, some 250 million people have been killed in wars and persecutions caused by Islam. Nothing else in the history of the world, including the totalitarianisms of the last century, has been so lethal.
If Islam is a religion of peace, what sort of peace does it bring?
Other understandings of Islam’s record, though not its mission, within Islam may be also plausible, but no more so than this jihadist interpretation. It may be possible for some to read Islam as a religion of “peace.” But its “peace,” in its own terms, means the peace of Allah within its boundaries. With the rest of the outside world, it is at war in order to accomplish a religious purpose, namely, to have all submitted to Allah in the passive way that the Qur’an specifies.
Islam can at times be defeated or stopped, as at Tours or Vienna, but it will always rise again as it is now bent on so doing. To picture the jihadists and leaders of the Islamic State as mere “terrorists” or thugs is to use Western political terms to blind ourselves to the religious dynamism of this movement. No wonder our leaders cannot or will not understand it. This purpose, when successful, is a terrible thing. But we are not seeing a group of gangsters, as many are wont to maintain. The roots of Islam are theological, rather bad theology, but still coherent within its own orbit and presuppositions.
Briefly put, Islam, in its founding, is intended to be, literally, the world religion. Nothing else has any standing in comparison. It is to bring the whole world to worship Allah according to the canons of the Qur’an. It is a belief, based on a supposed revelation to Mohammed, of which there is little evidence. Sufficient justification to expand this religion, once founded, to all the world by use of arms is found in the Qur’an and in its interpreters to explain the violent means used, often successfully, to establish, pacify, and rule tribes, states, territories, and empires.
In Muslim doctrine, everyone born into the world is a Muslim. No one has any right or reason not to be. Hence, everyone who is not a Muslim is to be converted or eliminated. This is also true of the literary, monumental, and other signs of civilizations or states that are not Muslim. They are destroyed as not authorized by the Qur’an.
It is the religious responsibility of Islam to carry out its assigned mission of subduing the world to Allah. When we try to explain this religion in economic, political, psychological, or other terms, we simply fail to see what is going on. From the outside, it is almost impossible to see how this system coheres within itself. But, granted its premises and the philosophy of voluntarism used to explain and defend it, it becomes much clearer that we are in fact dealing with a religion that claims to be true in insisting that it is carrying out the will of Allah, not its own.
If we are going to deal with it, we have to do so on those terms, on the validity of such a claim. The trouble with this approach, of course, is that truth, logos, is not recognized in a voluntarist setting. If Allah transcends the distinction of good and evil, if he can will today its opposite tomorrow, as the omnipotence of Allah is understood to mean in Islam, then there can be no real discussion that is not simply a temporary pragmatic stand-off, a balance of interest and power.
Whenever incidents of violence are witnessed in the Islamic world, or in other parts of the world caused by Islamic agents, we hear complaints that almost no Muslim voices rise to condemn this violence. When the original 9/11 happened, there was not condemnation coming from within Islam, but widespread celebration. Islam was seen as winning. But all Muslim scholars know that they cannot, on the basis of the Qur’an, condemn the use of violence to expand their religion. There is simply too much evidence that this usage is permitted. To deny it would be to undermine the integrity of the Qur’an.
Obviously, the enemies of the Islamic State and its jihadist allies are not only the “Crusaders” or the West. Some of Islam’s bloodiest wars were its invasion of Hindu India, where the tension remains marked. There are also Muslim efforts into China. The Philippines has a major problem as does Russia. But Islam wars with itself. The Sunni/Shiite struggles are legendary. It is important to note that one of the first things on the Islamic State’s agenda, if it is successful in surviving, is to unite all of Islam in its creedal unity.
The unfinished business from Tours and Vienna
All existing Islamic states are some sort of compromise between the true Islamic mission and forces, usually military forces that limit this world-wide unification. Almost all standing Muslim governments recognize the danger to themselves of a successful Caliphate. They all have some form of jihadist presence within their boundaries that seek to control it in the name of their very survival. There are or were Christian and other minorities within these states that are, to a greater or lesser extent, tolerated. But they are all, as non-Muslims, treated as second-class citizens. The Islamic movement renews that purist side of Islam that insists in eradicating or expelling non-Muslim presences in Muslim lands.
The Archbishop of Mosul, on seeing his people exiled and killed, forced to choose between conversion and death, empathized that his buildings were destroyed, the archives and all record of the long Christian presence in that area destroyed. He warned that this form of treatment is what the nations of the West could expect sooner or later. There are now significant Muslim enclaves in every part of America and Europe to be of great concern as centers of future uprisings within each city. There are now thousands of mosques in Europe and America, financed largely by oil money, that are parts of a closed enclave that excludes local law and enforces Muslim law.
Yet, we can ask: is this Islamic State anything more than a pipe-dream? No Islamic state has any serious possibility of defeating modern armies. But, ironically, they no longer think that modern armies will be necessary. They are convinced that widespread use of terrorism and other means of civil disorder can be successful. No one really has the will or the means to control the destructive forces that the Islamic State already has in place.
The Islamic State strategists think it is quite possible to take another step in the expansion of Islam, to take up again the assault on Europe left off at Tours and Vienna. Muslim armies have always been known for cruelty and craftiness. Men often shrank in fear before its threat, as they are intended to do. A Muslim theoretician once remarked that their aim was to make the streets of Western cities look like those battlefields we see in the cities of the Middle East. Again with the suicide bomber and believers in their use, for which they are said to be “martyrs,” this may be possible.
Finally, the case of the Islamic State and of the jihadists is not just a threat arising out of Islam’s mission to conquer the world for Allah. It is also a moral case, that the life of the West is atheist and decadent. It does not deserve its prosperity and position. The mission of mankind is the submission to Allah in all things. Once this submission is in place, the sphere of war will be over. No more beheading or car-bombings will be necessary or tolerated. No dissent within Islam will be possible or permitted. All will be at peace under the law of Islam. This is the religious purpose of the Islamic State. It is folly to think of it in any other terms.
But with great opposition both from the West and from within Islamic states to this vision, is there any possibility of its success? Pat Buchanan thought that a group of Seals one of these days would eliminate the new Caliph. Existing Muslin government officials know that their days are numbered if the Islamic State succeeds. But, at the same time, this vision does seem to be the real impetus of the Islamic peoples.
It is easy to write this movement off as fanatical and ruthless, which it is. To the outside world, it sounds horrific, but I suspect not to those who believe its truth and see the current revival of Islam with relief. The second or third class ranking of Islam in the modern world is over. But to the degree that we misjudge what is motivating the renewal of Islam, we will never understand why it exists as it does.http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/time-take-islamic-state-seriously
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. His latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic from Catholic University of America Press; Remembering Belloc from St. Augustine Press; and Reasonable Pleasures from Ignatius Press.
"We
have almost forgotten how to arm ourselves against barbarism. We can,
in fact, do it in only one way: by stating that terrorism is always
and in every circumstance wrong, that it must be resisted by every
means at our disposal; and that those who practice it must not only
be punished but repudiated by those who share their political aims."
Paul
Johnson, Historian
September
8, 2007 The Times
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
Andrew
Norfolk
One of the world’s most
respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad
should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam”
worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani
argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as
Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until
they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth
that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a
distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20
years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an
adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular
visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The
Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the
most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to
suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying
Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case
for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification
for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global
Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and
Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek
to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book”
because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and
ideology.
The final chapter delivers a
rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to
defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is
permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is
unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching
of Islam.
For Mr Usmani, “the question
is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If
it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial
expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not
commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question
thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . .
because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the
religion of Allah.”
These words are not the
product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the
most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition [which currently
comprises the majority of mosques in the UK].
Mr Usmani told The Times that
Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu
book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the
original”.
© Times Newspapers Ltd
2010 Registered in England No. 894646 Registered office: 1 Virginia
Street, London, E98 1XY
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
by Larry Abraham, January 29, 2004
“I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives.
The information is too critical to be over looked in the madness of this election year.”
James T. Clifford, Program Manager, WMD Training
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this "war." If they don't do that between now and November it may cost them the election.
The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one none the less.
This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence. No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.
What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.
With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France, after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.
The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.
Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran; Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is Wahhabi as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.
The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"?
Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate".
What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.
As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, just yesterday.)
The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.
Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.
The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.
What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons. Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little known politician as the thrust point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon".
By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants, minus Joe Lieberman, to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam, once the U.S. leaves it will not go back under any circumstances, possibly even the destruction of Israel. Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.
What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors; V.I. Lenin admonished.. "two steps forward, one step back".
A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences which are now obvious. And, Jimmy Carter himself, the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable hypocrite.
Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.
We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.
**************End of Report************************ Note....this was written before John Kerry had the nomination sewed up...but recent events clearly demonstrate that Kerry is going to fulfill Abraham's prediction of the Democrats calling for the UN and the French/Germans/Spain coalition to force the US out of Iraq. Also understand that the current 9/11 hearings are a political 'show' and Clarke's book were timed for these hearings and the campaign. And this is why Condoleezza Rice is seeking a private meeting with this commission to 'tell it like it is'. The national security issues involved around 9/11 cannot be an open book to the public, and I believe we have to understand that.
This is scary stuff. President Bush and the Republicans are obviously extremely cautious in bringing this issue to the campaign because the left-leaning media and the Kerry Democratic left would call this 'racist' against Islam and a distraction for the alleged lies of WMD and our reasons for going into Iraq. Bush correctly referred to the 'axis of evil' (Iran, Libya, Iraq and North Korea) as a pointed strategy to blunt the WMD-terrorist movement and he has been very successful in thwarting al Qaeda, despite what everyone on the left says. We are far better off without the threat from Iraq and Libya ? all within the last 12 months. We are threatened in Pakistan and if Musharraf is assassinated (it's been tried several times in the past year), we can see how the militants will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, which have already spread to Iran (by a militant Islamic scientist) and if Musharraf is 'taken out' we have both Iran and Pakistan as militant Islamic power bases armed with nuclear weapons And let's not overlook Abraham's issue about the potential for militant Islamic states who would control 75% of the world's oil.
This probably why Dick Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Wolfowitz are so committed to the belief that we are in this struggle for the free world as we have known it and focused on defeating the militant Islamic-al Maida's global strategy. They skirt the core issues raised by Abraham in this article because of the political-correctness implications, but after reading this, you understand what is at stake here. Kerry and the liberal Democrats want control of Washington at any price. Abraham clearly spells out what price that is: Victory for al Qaeda and the Islamic militancy. Abraham's article brought all of these issues together and why it is important for us to gain this perspective and educate our friends and associates.
This is a deeply impressive, cogent, and intelligent overview of the militant Islamic movement. Pass on Abraham's article to those who have a need to know, which is just about everybody.
James T. Clifford
Program Manager, WMD Training
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
“We
think of the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western
victory in the Cold War, and some of us credit President Reagan more
particularly with that victory. For Osama bin Laden and his
followers, this was a Muslim victory in the jihad. And if one looks
at what actually happened, this is not an implausible interpretation.
It was, after all, the Taliban in Afghanistan that drove the Red Army
to defeat and collapse. And, as he put it, "We have now dealt
successfully with the more deadly, the more dangerous of the two
infidel powers. Dealing with the soft, pampered, and degenerate
Americans will be easy." …
I am
inclined to believe in the sincerity of Ahmadinejad. I think that he
really believes the apocalyptic language that he is using. Remember
that Muslims, like Christians and Jews, have a sort of end-of-time
scenario in which a Messianic figure will appear. In their case, in
the case of the Shiites, the hidden imam who will emerge from hiding,
who will fight against the powers of evil, the anti-Christ in
Christianity, Gog and Magog in Judaism, and the Dajjal in Islam, a
role in which we are being cast now. And he really seems to believe
that the apocalyptic age has come, that this is the final struggle
that will lead to the final victory and the establishment of the
kingdom of heaven on earth….
I think that the way that Ahmadinejad is talking now shows quite
clearly his contempt for the Western world in general and the United
States in particular. They feel they are dealing with, as Osama bin
Laden put it, an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real
resistance. And they are proceeding on that assumption. Remember that
they have no understanding or experience of the free debate of an
open society. Where we see free debate and criticism, they see fear,
weakness and division; they proceed accordingly, and every day brings
new evidence of that from Iran.
I think it is a dangerous situation. And my only hope is that they
are not right in their interpretation of the Western world. I have
often thought in recently years of World War II - you were told
earlier that I'm ancient myself. The most vividly remembered year of
my life was the year 1940. And more recently I have been thinking of
1938 rather than of 1940. We seem to be in the mode of Chamberlain
and Munich rather than of Churchill.
Prof
Bernard Lewis, Princeton Univ. Pew Forum
Islamic
fundamentalism, as expressed through sharia law, contradicts the
notion that all human beings are entitled to be treated with equal
dignity and have inalienable rights. Sharia law separates believers
from non-believers, sanctioning inferior status, if not outright
death, for the latter. In this worldview, religious tolerance is a
one-way street. Women in Islam are degraded to submissiveness under
misogynist laws. Children are taught to hate. Critical thought that
questions official Islamic doctrines is regarded as the crime of
defamation of Islam, punishable by death.
Western democracies must recognize that we are facing a global threat from a supremacist political-religious ideology that is at complete odds with self-government, human reason and individual liberties. We must challenge the ideas and methods of radical Islamists at every turn, not make excuses for them, accommodate them or pretend that a serious threat to our freedoms does not exist.
Western democracies must recognize that we are facing a global threat from a supremacist political-religious ideology that is at complete odds with self-government, human reason and individual liberties. We must challenge the ideas and methods of radical Islamists at every turn, not make excuses for them, accommodate them or pretend that a serious threat to our freedoms does not exist.
(The Religion of Islam)
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
- Islam means (peace and surrender)It’s the peace that comes with total surrender to “Allah”
2. Mohammed is believed
by the Muslims to be the final prophet. He was
given the
word of God from the archangel Gabriel.
3. Mohammed lived 570-632AD
in Mecca.
- “Allah” means_(the God)
- The two main texts are:__Qua’rn (Koran)-the word of God revealed to Mohammed by the archangel Gabriel.
Hadith-
a collection of the sayings of Mohammed.
5. “Jihad” means a
person who exerts himself to the utmost to follow the teachings of
Islam. He expends all the powers of body and soul, his wealth,
possessions and even his life in the fight against evil forces of the
world.
II.
THEOLOGICAL BELIEFS
The Five Pillars of Islam:
1.The declaration of faith: ‘I
bear witness that there is none worthy of
worship except Allah
and that Muhammad is his servant and messenger.
- Muslims must pray five times per day. (Upon rising, at noon, in mid-afternoon, after sunset, and before going to bed)
- Fasting observed for Ramadan. (Ramadan is a month, considered Holy, because Muhammed received his initial commisson as a prophet and ten years later made his journey from Mecca to Medina.) From daybreak to the setting of the sun neither food nor drink passes their lips-after sundown they may eat, but only in moderation.
- Charity_means those who have more should help lift the burden of those who are less fortunate.
- Pilgrimage – Once in his lifetime every Muslim(who is physically able) must travel to Mecca where God’s revelation was first disclosed.
Six fundamental beliefs to be
the foundation of the Islam faith are:
- A single, indivisible God, (God, the creator, is just, omnipotent and merciful. “Allah” is used to refer to God)
- The Angels
- The divine scriptures which include the Torah, the Psalms, the rest of the Bible, (as they were originally revealed) and the Qur’an (which is composed of God’s words, dictated by the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad.)
- The messengers of God, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad—the last prophet. Muhammad’s message is considered the final, universal message for all of humanity.
- The Day of Judgment when people will be judged on the basis of the deeds accomplished on earth, and will attain a reward in heaven or punishment in hell. They do not believe that Jesus or any other individual can atone for another person’s sin. Hell is where unbelievers and sinners spend eternity. Heaven or Paradise is a place of physical and spiritual pleasure where the sinless go after death.
- The supremacy of God’s will
- MISCELLANEOUS
Other beliefs of the Islam
religion include:
- God did not have a son.
- Jesus is a prophet, born of the Virgin Mary. They regard the Christian concept of the deity of Jesus to be blasphemous; it is seen as a form of polytheism.
- It is the existence of Satan who drives people to sin.
- Muslims who sincerely repent and submit to God return to a state of sinlessness.
- Jesus was not executed on the cross. Instead He escaped crucifixion and was taken up into Paradise.
- All people are considered children of Adam. Islam rejects racism.
- When a child reaches puberty an account of their deeds is opened in Heaven. When the person dies, their eventual destination (heaven or hell) depends on the balance of their good deeds.
- Alcohol, drugs, eating of pork should be avoided.
- Gambling should be avoided.
Why the Peaceful Majority
is Irrelevant
by
Paul E. Marek
History
lessons are often incredibly simple.
I used to know a man whose
family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a
number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German
people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and
guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very
few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the
return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was
one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So,
the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we
knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the
world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a
concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We
are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is
the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just
want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be
true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to
make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of
fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The
fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is
the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically
slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are
gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is
the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It
is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics
who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful
majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and
extraneous.
Communist
Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace,
yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about
20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s
huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed
to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese
individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet,
Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an
orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million
Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who
can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be
said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History
lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our
powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of
points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the
fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t
speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one
day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world
will have begun.
Peace-loving
Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis,
Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others,
have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was
too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to
the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of
life.
Adar
28, 5767 / 18 March 07
A few days ago on National Public Radio I heard an interview with
someone who represented the Latin American voting populous in the
U.S. He stated something like:
“A
new situation has arisen in America which explains why candidates are
courting the Latin American vote: A president can no longer be
elected if he does not appeal to that population.”
The
first thought that occurred to me, like a bolt of electricity, was
“What if that ever becomes the case with the Muslim community in
America? What if they increase in numbers to the point that they
could determine policy, sway elections, determine laws and how they
are interpreted?”
When
we see what has happened in Muslim nations, and is happening now in
Libya, Egypt, and Yemen-- violent protests against those who have
tried to be their friends, sparked by something that would hardly
make a blip on the average American’s radar screen,--we realize
that the America envisioned by our Founders and preserved by the
blood of our ancestors would disappear in a Muslim dominated
political system. We realize that Gen. 16:12, written thousands of
years ago, is still true today.
I
know that many people, like myself, in many arenas of life are
watching the Muslim threat with growing alarm, perhaps dismay, not
knowing what to do about it. Political and military advances against
Islam are ineffective. The” immutable word of Allah” is not
dented by man’s mere political ideologies nor daunted by his
armies. Today it struck me with an equal jolt that the answer is
clear and right before our eyes. I’ve know this for some time, but
it came into a more powerful focus, and with a greater sense of
urgency.
WE
MUST LIVE AND ADVANCE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
The
Christian faith is the greatest bastion against the advance of Islam.
We have just recently heard of an Iranian pastor, Yousef Nadarkhani,
[http://www.therightscoop.com/hallelujah-iranian-pastor-yousef-nadarkhani-acquitted-of-apostasy-and-released-from-prison/
]who had been sentenced to death for basically being a Christian, who
refused to recant his faith, even at the threat of death. Could we
expect agnostics, atheists or even marginal Christians to be so
faithful and courageous? Or would they instead “submit” to
Allah—or pretend to, and go along with the Islam agenda, being
careful to not make waves, while the roots of its heresy grew deeper
and deeper into the culture? And of what use is the military against
an army who believes that death for Allah is the only guarantee of
heaven? The military is certainly a short term necessity, but the
only long term solution is the Love of Christ, so deeply rooted in a
culture that the fear and hatred of Islam cannot overcome it. Pastor
Yousef is only one of many examples of Muslims who have come to know
Christ and given us an amazing example of faith lived out in the
crucible of persecution. These provide a light of hope for those
lost in the darkness of Islam. For Christians to be silent or
complacent in this time is analogous to those who stuck their heads
in the sand in Nazi Germany. We must be mature and faithful enough to
live the Faith, overcome fear and hatred, speak the Truth of the
Bible—and especially hold forth for Jesus as the Messiah Who arose
from the dead—doctrine that is denied by the Koran.
In
short, the solution to the Islam problem is for more of us than ever
to live, courageously and passionately, the Great Commission of
Christ recorded in Matthew28:19-20:
Go
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen
The
Truth of the Bible is that Jesus is our only hope. When we look
deeply into His life and teachings, and into what is now happening in
our world, we can see more clearly than ever that He indeed is. God
help us to live the Reality of His teachings so that we will provide
the only viable immunity to the creeping cancer of Islam. Even if
you are not a Christian, if you want to stop the threat of Sharia law
and extreme intolerance of freedom and religious expression, you
should support Christianity in the same manner that you would support
the military that was protecting your country from a hostile foreign
invader. Secularism has no weapons that work against Islam. You
cannot fight spiritual darkness with earthly weapons; only with true
Faith in the loving merciful God revealed by Jesus Christ.
May
our fear or concern regarding the growing threat of Islam drive us
toward a growing Faith in and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
especially a greater effort to advance His Kingdom—our only
effective response and refuge. God please help us in this endeavor.
Mark
Graham, 9/15/12
http://politicalislam.com/
http://www.leadingtheway.org/web/guest/world
Bible verses relative to Islam:
http://politicalislam.com/
http://www.leadingtheway.org/web/guest/world
Bible verses relative to Islam:
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Cor. 3:11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)