“For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.”
The following is an article written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and was an article in the April 2010 issue of The American Legion Magazine. Thought you would find it interesting & scary; I did.
For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.
Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.
Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.
That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.
What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor – the one its adherents use. They call it “Shariah.”
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Shariah is that it is authoritative Islam, which presents itself as a complete way of life – cultural, political, military, social and religious,
all governed by the same doctrine. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam.
Rather, Shariah – which translates from Arabic as “path to God” – is actually binding law. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program. Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes.
The immutability of Shariah-adherent Muslim hostility toward the rest of us derives directly from the central tenet of Shariah: Muslims are explicitly required to seek the triumph of Islam over all other faiths, peoples and governments.
The ultimate objective of Shariah is the establishment of a global Islamic state – Sunni Muslims call it “the caliphate” – governed by Shariah. The means by which this political outcome is to be achieved is called “jihad.”
Since 9/11, many Americans have become unhappily acquainted with the terrifying, violent strain of jihad. Under Shariah, violence – often described by non-Muslims as “terrorism” – is the preferred means of securing the spread and dominion of Islam, as it is the most efficient.
While Shariah deems jihad to be the personal obligation of every faithful Muslim capable of performing it – man or woman, young or old – they can forgo the violent form when it is deemed impracticable. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. Taken together, the latter constitute what renowned author and expert Robert Spencer calls “stealth jihad.” Adherents to Shariah call it “dawah.”
Examples of stealth jihadism abound in Western societies, notably Europe and increasingly in the United States. They include the demand for symbolic and substantive accommodations in political, economic and legal areas (for example, special treatment or rights for Muslims in the workplace, in public spaces and by government); the opportunity to penetrate and influence operations against government at every level; and the insinuation of the Trojan horse of “Shariah-compliant finance” into the West’s capital markets.
If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb (House of War). It follows that those who seek ostensibly to impose Shariah through non-violent techniques – notably in the West, the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood – are our enemies every bit as much as those who overtly strive to defeat us by murderous terrorism.
Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, we know from the 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation – the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history – that the Muslim Brothers’ mission in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad to destroy Western civilization from within … by their own miserable hands.”
Another Brotherhood document, titled “The Rulers,” was seized in a 2004 raid and describes how the organization will try to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in five phases:
• Phase I: Discreet and secret establishment of elite leadership
Phase II: Gradual appearance on the public scene, and exercising and utilizing various public activities
• Phase III: Escalation, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through the mass media
• Phase IV: Open public confrontation with the government through the exercise of political pressure
• Phase V: Seizing power to establish an Islamic nation, under which all parties and Islamic groups will become united
“The Rulers” makes plain that all the above-mentioned phases “are preliminary steps to reach the (fifth) phase.”
The Muslim Brothers know that by masking their ideological agenda as a religious program, they can use Western civil liberties and tolerance as weapons in their stealthy jihad. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah.
Adherents to Shariah insist that their law prohibits any slander against Islam or Muhammad. Under such a catch-all restriction, virtually any kind of conversation about – or critique of – Islam can be considered impermissible if Muslims find it offensive. Particularly in Europe, the ever-present prospect of violence, like that which followed the September 2005 publication of Danish cartoons poking fun at Muhammad, is generally sufficient to induce self-censorship.
In this country, the application of such prohibitions seems unthinkable, given the guarantees of free speech enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Obama administration last year co-sponsored with Egypt a relevant and deeply problematic resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council, promoted for years by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim-majority nations that stridently embraces Shariah and seeks to legitimate and promote its advance around the world.
The resolution calls on members of the United Nations to prohibit statements that offend Islam. It also calls for criminal penalties to be applied to those who make such statements.
The U.S. implementation of such a resolution would obviously be a matter not just for the executive branch, which supported it, but for Congress and the judiciary as well. It is a safe bet that any formal effort to supplant the First Amendment in this way would meet with great resistance.
To a stunning degree, U.S. leaders have been effectively conforming to Shariah slander laws for some time now. For instance, presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both repeatedly described Islam as a “religion of peace,” without acknowledging the requirement for jihad its authorities demand, pursuant to Shariah.
At the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have barred the use of perfectly accurate terms like “Islamic terrorism.” The U.S. government has also embraced the Muslim Brothers’ disinformation by translating jihad as nothing more than “striving in the path of God.”
Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the favored name for the enemy has been “violent extremism” – a formulation that neither offers clarity about the true nature of our foe nor lends itself to a prescription for a successful countervailing strategy. Even when al-Qaeda is identified as the enemy, it is almost always accompanied by an assurance that its operatives and allies have “corrupted” Islam. Ignored, or at least earnestly obscured, are two unhappy realities: such enemies are implementing Shariah’s dictates to the letter of the law, and they have millions of fellow adherents around the world who view Islam’s requirements the same way.
One of the most egregious examples of this practice of unilateral disarmament in the battle of ideas is the January report of the independent review of the Fort Hood massacre, co-chaired by former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark. Their 86-page unclassified analysis purported to dissect an event allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – a medical officer whose business card described him as “Soldier of Allah,” whose briefings justified murder of his comrades in the name of jihad, and who shouted the Islamic martyr’s cry “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is great!”) as he opened fire, killing 13. Incredibly, the words “Islam,” “Islamic terror,” “Shariah,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were not used even once in the West-Clark report.
Such political correctness, or willful blindness up the chain of command, doubtless caused Hasan’s colleagues to keep silent about his alarming beliefs, lest they be punished for expressing concerns about them. Now, reportedly, six of them have been designated as the scapegoats for what is manifestly an institutional failure.
The painful truth is that however we rationalize this sort of behavior, our Shariah-adherent enemies correctly perceive it as evidence of submission, which is the literal meaning of the word “Islam,” and what Shariah demands of everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Indeed, Shariah offers non-believers only three choices: conversion to Islam, submission (known as dhimmitude) or death. Historically, dhimmitude was imposed through successful Muslim conquests. In more recent years, tolerant Western nations have increasingly succumbed to stealthy jihadism, backed by more or less direct threats of violence.
That trend, worrying as it is, may be giving way in this country to a new campaign: jihad of the sword. The past year saw a fourfold increase in the number of actual or attempted terrorist attacks in the United States. Sadly, that statistic will likely be surpassed in the year ahead. Four of the nation’s top intelligence officials have testified before Congress that it is certain new acts of violence will be undertaken in the next three to six months. Worse yet, a blue-ribbon commission has calculated that the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction somewhere in the world by 2013 is now over 50 percent.
Is this dramatic upsurge in violent jihad directed at the United States unrelated to our behavior? Or does it reflect a growing calculation on the part of our Shariah-adherent enemies that violence against the United States is now, once again, practicable?
Either way, the time has clearly come to make a far more serious effort to defeat both the violent and stealthy forms of jihad being waged against this country. If we are to do so, however, we have to start by telling the truth.
Our enemy is not “violent extremism,” or even al-Qaeda alone. Rather, it is the millions of Muslims who – like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and their allies – adhere to Shariah and who, therefore, believe they must impose it on the rest of us.
We are at war with such individuals and organizations. Not because we want to be. Not because of policies toward Israel or the Middle East or anything else we have pursued in recent years. Rather, we are at war with them because they must wage jihad against us, pursuant to the dictates of Shariah, the same law that has guided many in Islam for some 1,200 years.
What is at stake in this war? Look no further than The American Legion’s Americanism Manual, which defines Americanism as “love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Such values cannot coexist with Shariah, which demands the destruction of democratic nations like the United States, its governing institutions and liberties. Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home.
The extraordinary reality is that none of this – the authoritative and malevolent nature of Shariah, its utter incompatibility with our civilization, and its adherents’ determination to force us to convert, submit or die – is concealed from those willing to learn the truth. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas. Interestingly, on Dec. 1, 2005, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on his troops to expose themselves to precisely this sort of information: “I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”
As it happens, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and Army Reserves intelligence specialist recruited by the Joint Chiefs to be their expert on the doctrine and jurisprudence of jihad, took Pace’s admonition to heart. He wrote a master’s thesis inspired by the chairman’s quote, titled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.”
Coughlin’s briefings explicitly and repeatedly warned military leaders of the enemy’s “threat doctrine” – drawing from, among Islamic texts, passages the Fort Hood suspect used to justify his massacre. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January 2008 when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.
In short, we are today confronted by the cumulative effect of a sustained and collective dereliction of duty, one that is putting our country in extreme peril. Our armed forces – like their counterparts in the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement – have a professional duty to know the enemy and develop appropriate responses to the threat doctrine. If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home.
The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free. This toxic ideology, if left unchecked, can destroy the country and institutions that are, indeed, “the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness.”
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and host of the nationally syndicated program “Secure Freedom Radio.”
The only flaw in his thinking is that he thinks the enemy is merely those muslims who want Sharia law.
On Christmas Day, 2009, a wealthy, well educated Muslim young man from England attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian student at a London school, the wealthy son of Umaru Abdul Mutallab, the retired chairman of one of Nigeria’s largest banks, had the explosives in his underwear. He was trained in Yemen and Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the attack, claiming it was in retaliation for a US Predator attack a couple of weeks ago that killed many terrorists in Yemen.
The attempted bombing of Flight 253 failed due to two reasons: 1) Young Umar failed to detonate the bomb properly and it only caught on fire instead of blowing up;admittedly it is a rather difficult thing to practice blowing one’s self to smithereens, but you would think they would have some dry runs with inert chemicals. Maybe he peed his pants and that messed up the explosives?
2) An intrepid passenger a few seats over apparently leaped over several people and beat the hell out of the underwear bomber, they got a fire extinguisher and put out the sizable fire.
What failed was the expensive and extensive security system that is designed to prevent things like this from happening. 1) This dog of muslim loser was on the terror watch list. 2) He bought a one way ticket. 3)With cash. 4) And no luggage. 5) He was MUSLIM, HELLO! 6) He was a young man. WHY WAS THIS MAN ALLOWED TO FLY? Look, you can have all the nice watch lists and rules, but if the airlines cannot be relied on to get flights out on time, and lose your luggage, and have employee theft, of course the occasional stray muslim terrorist will get through explosives stuffed in his butt crack.
The reaction to this terrorist act would be humorous if it weren’t so pathetic. Janet Napolitano, director of Homeland Security must surely strike fear in the hearts of terrorists everywhere with her “the system worked” then, “the system didn’t work” statements. This is reason number 357 why the Obamasky rule is so pathetic. I think I would have picked some big city police chief, Director of the Highway patrol, or a an airborne ranger general, or some other big tough mean guy who hates terrorists and instills fear in the enemy. Janet Napolitano is inadequate for the task.
President Barack Hussein Obamasky reassured us after the attack that this was not part of a broader threat, it was an isolated incident. Hello! Didn’t he say that after the attack at Ft Hood by Major Malik Hasan? THEY ARE NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS PEOPLE! WHAT LINKS ALL OF THESE ATTACKS, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM, IS ISLAM!!!!
And for the TSA and airlines to come up with some stupid new regulations about not getting up to go to the bathroom 1 hr prior to landing or having anything in your laps for that last hour shows how desperate and ignorant we are. The logical conclusion to things like this is to fly naked at the position of attention.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS LITERALLY KILLING US. Was Abdul whatsisface a Baptist? Was he a Methodist? Lutheran? Pentecostal? Atheist? Jew? Hindu? Buddhist? HE WAS A MUSLIM JUST LIKE 99.9% OF ALL OTHER TERRORISTS! GET A CLUE PEOPLE, THE ENEMY IS ISLAM! OUR ENEMIES HAVE STATED THAT THIS IS A RELIGIOUS WAR. WE MUST START PROFILING BY RELIGION AND NATION OF ORIGIN TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY SAFE. This is really not very difficult. If you are muslim and want to fly you should be interrogated and stripped naked. If you pass inspection you get to fly.
Additionally, there should be two armed air marshals on every single fight. We are at war people!
Next, we should tell the Muslim world, that for every successful muslim terror attack on the US one muslim city will be bombed by a squadron of B-52’s or B-1’s. No precision guided munitions, just lots of nice 2000lb bombs dropped safely from 35,000 feet. That worked pretty well on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it should work on Islam. I know that sounds brutal and unjust, but we must deal with islam in the manner they understand. They are at war with us, we are not yet at war with them. A Nigerian city ought to disappear yesterday!
Has anyone noticed that this attack came on Christmas Day? Do you think that was just an accident? IT WAS INTENTIONAL PEOPLE! THEY ARE MUSLIMS AND THEY HATE CHRISTIANS! IT’S WHO THEY ARE! When we fight we are very careful about not shooting up mosques and not fighting on their holy days like the month of Ramadan. But on Dec. 25th, here’s a butt bomb on an airliner- Merry Christmas from Mohammad!
PREDICTION: There has been an increase in terror since Obama-the-muslim has been elected. Anyone else notice that? IT WILL GET WORSE WITH EACH DAY THIS IMPOSTOR IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WE WON’T GET SERIOUS ABOUT ISLAMIC TERROR UNTIL THEY NUKE US. Has terrorism gotten better since Obama bowed to the Saudi king? Since he spoke in Egypt? Since he promised to close down Gitmo?
Here are the story links:
Below, Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano says the system worked:
but here she says it didn’t work:
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Today the Islamic fascist state of Iran testfired an intermediate range ballistic missile, nuclear capable and solid fueled. This missile has a range of 1200 miles which means it can hit all of our US military bases in the middle east, all of Israel, and southeastern Europe. Because it is solid fueled it can be launched more quickly and is more accurate. This type of missile is more versatile and can be set up with more ease in more places.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran. Excuse me, have sanctions worked on Iran or North Korea before? How long have we been sanctioning Iran?
Here is the bottom line: Do you really want a radical muslim state to be armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles? Do you think they just might give a nuke or two to somebody like Hamas or Al Qaeda? Do you think they might really attack Israel?
Our current policy will allow Iran to fully develop nuclear weapons and the missiles with which to deliver them. There are only two options: 1) Attack Iran now (or allow Israel to attack), 2) Allow Iran to get nukes and do whatever they want to us, Israel and the other Mid East nations.
What are the consequences of the above choices?
1) If we attack Iran now we will be vilified by the world, cause an oil crisis resulting in $300 a barrel oil and $10 a gallon gas in the US which will send us into the Great Depression part two and lead Obamasky to nationalize the oil companies. The Russkies will not be happy and likely retaliate in some manner, perhaps by invading the Ukraine or Georgia. China will also not like it and do something like call in our debt leading to yet more financial problems. North Korea may also take advantage of this chaos to invade South Korea.
2) If we do not attack now and Iran gets the nukes in the next couple of years, then you get a nuclear arms race between the various mid-East countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria. Though they are all muslims they hate each other and don’t trust each other. Imagine that. Then, at some point, the Iranians will attack Israel which country they have repeatedly made threats against simply out of hatred for the Jews. If Israel is attacked with nukes they will respond in kind and likely not just against Iran. If Israel feels its very existence is threatened I would look for the Aswan dam to be hit, flooding Egypt, Damascus would be hit, and maybe even Mecca. Burn the house down ya know.
What is not likely to happen is Peace in Our Time.
And who will be our President? Barack Hussein Obamasky.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus, our only true hope.
In an age where some schools are even disallowing red and green (i.e., Christmas Colors, non-religious) paper plates and plastic ware at “Winter Holiday Parties”
and Christmas carols are being banned, to have second graders at a school perform a “Holiday Program” that includes a song praising Allah is OUTRAGEOUS!
In Fishers, Indiana, at the Lantern Road Elementary School,
Principal Danielle Thompson defended the program that included things from Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Las Posadas, and Kwanzaa. While only a few local parents protested the inclusion of a song about Allah, the word got out to the American Family Association and a national campaign developed to stop the song in praise of Allah.
“School officials removed a phrase saying “Allah is God” after the American Family Association launched a protest of the program on its electronic newsletter.The change was made, Thompson said, because no other deities were directly named in the program.”
At Pamela Gellers’ website, Atlasshrugs, some of the words to the program that the children were to sing are included:
“Allah is God, we recall at dawn,
Praying ‘til night during Ramadan
At this joyful time we pray happiness for you,
Allah be with you all your life through.”
But when it came time to perform the “Christian” part of Christmas, children were assigned to say:
“I didn’t know there was a little boy at the manger. What child is this?
I’m not sure if there was a little boy or not.
Then why did you paint one on your nativity window?
I just thought if there was a little boy, I’d like to know exactly what he (sic) say.
Micah Clark, executive director of the Indiana AFA, launched an Internet protest once he heard about the allegations. “What surprised me here is that we’ve had a secular scrubbing of Christmas for so long and the school apparently didn’t see the problem with kids singing to Allah,” he told FOX News Radio. “You won’t even mention Jesus and you’re going to force my child to sing about Allah?
The first problem here is the desire to be “inclusive”. This modern innovation in our society and education system is inherently self loathing and destructive, although it sounds nice. Historically, America has been a “melting pot” that has rightfully welcomed immigrants. However, the goal has always been (until recently) to have E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many- One. The goal is to make Americans not to have a thousand different little cultures perfectly preserved, included, and respected.
We should be inclusive in the sense that, wherever you come from, whatever your past, you are welcome to come to America to start afresh. But starting afresh means you are willing to become Americanized. You learn our religion (Christianity), you learn our language (English) and you learn our culture.
Modern day inclusiveness directly implies that all cultures are equal and are of equal value and truth. It teaches that we cannot judge other cultures as inferior and we must respect everyone’s culture, religion, etc. It teaches that it would be wrong to make immigrants change their ways when they come here. This belief is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
What makes a nation is three things: 1) a geographic border; 2) a language; and, 3) a common worldview (based upon core beliefs, most frequently religion).
Christmas is about as American as you can get. As a Christian, and former Baptist Pastor, I know that Christmas is itself a melting pot of a tiny bit of biblical Christianity, a dash of paganism, a lot of Roman Catholicism, some folk lore from Germany, England and America, and a lot of American entrepreneurial spirit. The early Puritans who founded New England tended to stay away from Christmas as too Popish.
But Christmas is THE BIGGEST HOLIDAY IN AMERICA. Christmas is inherently about Christ, hence the name, and any attempt to put it on an equal footing with Hanukkah, Kwanzaa (a totally made up, non- African holiday) and Ramadan is just plain wrong. Now I can respect Hanukkah and celebrate it because Christianity and Judaism are somewhat intertwined and the Jews are a wonderful people and culture that have contributed immensely to Western Civilization.
But should a public school try to celebrate and link all these different religions in one holiday celebration in the name of Inclusiveness or Diversity? NO!
The SECOND problem with Lantern Road Elementary’s celebration is that they FAVORED Allah over Jesus. Allah was proclaimed as being God, but Jesus was left out of Christmas entirely and the song even cast doubts on the nativity. In the last 50 years there has been a steady war against Christianity in the public schools, but now we are seeing a deliberate attempt to teach islam in the schools, to favor islam and give muslims special rights.
Does Ms. Danielle Thompson even know that in most muslim societies she would be given the lash for how she dresses and for being a woman out in public and daring to teach girls in a school? I don’t think so.
The one quote in the article that stands out as being the most nonsense is this:
But one state Muslim leader said the school’s decision to remove the word Allah was far from inclusive.”It’s unfortunate if that was removed from the program just because of Islamophobic feelings,” said Shariq Siddiqui, executive director of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana. “Schools are a place where we should learn more about each other rather than exclude each other based on stereotypes and misconceptions.”
Please point out how inclusive and ready to learn about other religions the schools in Islamic countries are? Wherever Islam goes, oppression and ignorance follow. Do you really think that if muslims were the overwhelming majority in this school district, and were allowed to practice sharia law, that they would allow Hanukkah or Christmas to be celebrated equally with Ramadan?
The last problem in this story I want to address is this quote:
In the week before the program, the principal said, about 30 people called with concerns — and only four of the complaints came from local families. Thompson said many callers were appeased when they heard the program’s purpose and scope.
Only 4 local families called to complain? This is either a complete lie or, what I fear, it shows complete dhimmitude and apathy. People don’t know and they don’t care to know what Islam is really like. We have grown complacent and sheeplike, afraid to speak out.
I am convinced that we must eventually address the “free exercise and establishment clauses” of the First Amendment in light of Islam. This is dangerous territory for a secular state can then slap restrictions on all religions. But the problem is that Islam is spreading aggressively in the West and in America now as well. They have learned to “game our system”. Their goal is not an equal playing field, it is total dominance.
They have been at war with us, we are not yet at war with them.
President Obama’s strategy, announced in his West Point address on Tuesday, Dec.1, is doomed to fail. This failure is not Obama’s alone, but rests also in the laps of his Generals, and in the actions of the Bush administration. The failure is rooted in a confidence in a limited war strategy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the religious and historical roots of this war. In this article I will critique the President’s speech and express my reasons for believing the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause.
First of all, however, let me present my credentials. I am a lifetime conservative, have always voted Republican, was a US Army Infantry Officer during the Cold War and am the father of an active duty Infantryman in the Army. I have always been known as a “hawk”. I supported President Bush’s response to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq, yet thought that his responses were too limited, too constrained and insufficient.
That is who I am, now allow me to critique Obama’s speech and strategy and offer my alternatives.
“To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services,” the first problem was the venue. Did Obama have the right to speak at the USMA at West Point? Certainly, he is the Commander in Chief. However, in making his speech there was he politically using the cadets, instructors and support staff as a prop? Chris Matthews even baldly stated that Obama was “going into the enemy’s camp” to give the speech.
It is a common perception among the military and amongst conservatives that Pres. Obama, and most other liberal politicians, is “anti-military”. This is seen in everything from the DOD budget to replacing the USMC band playing “Hail To The Chief” in favor of some piano player playing jazz when the President enters. So, yes, it would seem that the West Point crowd would be expected to be somewhat skeptical of the President’s speech. Numerous commentators noted the less than enthusiastic response to the President and his speech.
“to bring this war to a successful conclusion”- this is as close he gets to using the words “Victory” or “Win”. Like all good one-worlders, he cannot think in terms of winning wars. Everybody loses when you fight a war in his mind. It is a zero sum game.
“it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight.” He goes into a decent explanation for the beginning of the war, and he at least calls it a war.
“a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.” It is here that the single largest failure of Obama, Bush and the Generals comes in. On the one hand, you can say that Islam is one of the world’s great religions, but, if you actually study what Islam teaches, how they treat their women, and what Islam has done in history, there is NO WAY you can call it a great religion. 1) Islam has, from the very beginning, been spread by the sword. It is a barbaric and bloodthirsty religion of conquest. Islam’s stated goals are to either convert everyone in the world (a goal shared by Christianity) or kill them (not a goal shared by Christianity) or enslave them (not a goal shared by Christianity). 2) Islam has always been authoritarian, despotic and corrupt in every country it has ruled. It is anti-democratic. Do Islamic lands have equal rights for women? Do Islamic nations have real free speech, real religious liberty, real free press? Are Islamic countries actually tolerant?
By any objective standard, the history and teachings of Islam, compared with the history and teachings of Christianity demonstrates that Islam is an abysmal religion. Despite all the failings of Christianity and individual Christians, the bottom line is that Christianity has a God who sent his Son to die for us, while Islam has a god who tells you to send your son to die for him. Jesus said, “Love your enemies” and Muhammad says, “Off with their heads,” while he “marries” a 6 yr old girl (but doesn’t have sex with her til she is 9).
The failure of George Bush, BArack Obama and all the Generals is the failure to recognize that this is in fact A RELIGIOUS WAR AS DETERMINED BY OUR ENEMIES. TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE ENEMY’S THINKING IS A CLASSIC MISTAKE IN STRATEGY. TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE WAR IS A GROSS INEPTITUDE. As the 9/11 commission itself said, “They were at war with us, we were not at war with them.”
In past American wars we successfully adapted to the mode of warfare our enemies understood. In King Phillips’ War in 1675-76, the English colonists had to deal with an enemy who did not march out to war in formation. The Indians attacked at night, raided villages and killed or captured everyone. They used torture and hid behind trees, conducted hit and run raids. The colonists had to learn a whole new way of fighting. This was later used to good effect against the English in the Revolutionary War. In the wars with the Indians in the 19th century villages were razed, whole herds of buffalo were killed off, and the Indians starved. In WW2 in the Pacific Theater we learned that the fanatical Japanese who worshiped their Emperor, mixing religion with politics, war and honor, would fight to the last man, not surrendering in order to spare precious lives, but in order to extract honor for themselves and their emperor and kill as many of us as possible even for a losing cause. That led us to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A proper response I might add. With the London blitz using night bombers and then the V-1 and V-2 rockets, the Nazis brought in the idea of punishing the civilian population. So we bombed Dresden.
But now, we are too civilized for all that. A bunch of towel heads learn to fly jet liners in our schools (but not to land) and we want to wage a limited war with rules of engagement that would make any civilian police department proud. Our Marines and Soldiers cannot fire if civilians are in the area. WE cannot do night raids and take people in for questioning. WE have to read the Miranda warning now. This is not waging war to win. Give me William Tecumseh Sherman and Unconditional Surrender Grant. Give me ol’ Blood and Guts George S. Patton. Firebomb their cities like they did New York.
Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. He is stating that Al Qaeda and the Taliban took over because America and friends had turned our attention elsewhere. Even though we helped oust the Soviets from Afghanistan these people turned against us. They allowed their country to turn into a TAliban cesspool. Should we have intervened earlier in A-stan? If we did, the demoncrats would have caused a ruckus. Why would we want to intervene in a country like A-stan? We cannot prevent every national disaster in every country. But we can respond properly when a country attacks us. What happened in A-stan was not our fault. A people generally get the type of government they deserve (which explains much about Amerika today).
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. This is the equivalent to a declaration of war because the Constitution does not specify what terminology to use in declaring war. Notice the great degree of agreement on this then. But since then, in the political waters of today, how unified are we? Where are the demoncrats on this issue now?
For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. The NATO response has been underwhelming. The British have helped us the most, but they, too, have slashed defense spending in the last 15 years. One would think the Canadians would have helped us more. After our 60 years of defending Europe, and this is the thanks we get?!
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It’s enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.- Obama can’t help himself, he MUST criticize the Bush/Cheney administration. While I did support the invasion of Iraq, it, like the invasion of A-stan, was conducted under Don Rumsfeld’s minimal force policy rather than the Powell doctrine of Overwhelming Force. While certainly that policy worked as far as defeating Sadaam Hussein and his military, it utterly failed to prevent the chaos after the war which led to the civil war in Iraq and the consequent disaster.
Limited War, minimal force, a small footprint, all seem to guarantee failure. The last war we actually won was WW2 where we went full out, whole hog, requiring Unconditional Surrender by our enemies. Korea- a draw and now the North has nukes. How did that Truman policy work for ya? Viet-Nam, a limited war, and a loss. Gulf War 1- we accomplished our limited objectives but in the long term, it failed because we had to go back to finish the job…oh wait…we are finished yet. Afghanistan… small footprint…now our longest war. If you are going to fight a war, then fight like hell to win, all or nothing. No holding back.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end– Not “winning” nor “victory”. Bush had a limited war so now we cannot be said to win, and Obama does not like to win anyway.
But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.– True, the Bush administration did not fight seriously in A-stan because Iraq had become such a problem. Why is that? Other than what I have already said, I would say it is because of the “Peace Dividend” proclaimed by Pres. George HW Bush and the cuts by Pres. Bill Clinton that HALVED our military. Despite going to war in 2001 Bush never increased the size of our military by more than about 10%. The US Army is seriously overworked and is beginning to suffer long term ill effects of the continuous deployments as we lose mid grade officers and NCOs. The Army needs to be DOUBLED IN SIZE to meet the current ops tempo and mission requirements. So too with the Navy, Marines and Air Force.
There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.– This is all BS. He is a war time Commander in Chief whose first priority was destroying the American Health Care system and nationalizing the Car industry. This reinforcement of A-stan should have been taken care of by April. This is inexcuseable dereliction of duty.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.– The General requested between 40,000 and 80,000 troops and he is getting 30,000. This is a cagey way to appear to be supporting the generals but instead assuring failure so that the blame can be shifted to the military.
Here is where I go radical. I absolutely disagree with the generals on this. Arrogant of me, I know, as I was but a lowly Captain. But to do the job right, would require at least 500,000 if not 1 million. Here is the problem:
A-stan is a landlocked country and all of our air routes are going over not-too-friendly countries like former Soviet republics and Pakistan. The one land route through Pakistan is fraught with perils and is inherently unreliable. By any standard of military history, if you put a field army in a place that is impossible to quickly and reliably resupply, you are being foolhardy.
WHAT IF RUSSIA or CHINA exert enough pressure on Kyrghizistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan to cancel all of our overflights and bases or potential bases?
The bottom line is we do not have a reliable means of supplying our troops in A-stan and to increase the size of our army there places more troops in harm’s way. If we had fought this war in the WW2 manner we would have invaded Iran first, (the real source of most of the Islamic trouble anyway, since 1979) and established a secure ground route through that country to Afghanistan.
After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. – This is the most stupid thing he could have said. He is attempting to reassure the American people that we will bring the troops home, and give hope to the troops, but he is also challenging the Karzai government to “get your act together or else…”. However, he is also telling the Taliban and al qaeda to hold on for 18 months then we will leave. This is incredibly foolish. No more stark contrast can be drawn between Bush and Obamasky. Bush said we will stay until the job gets done, Obamasky says, we are outta here in 18 months! Incredibly naive. This is the deal breaker and ensures defeat.
Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. – Good luck with that .
Well, I could go on and on here, but let me leave it with this. I think that the idealistic American way of conducting limited wars for noble causes is bunk. If you have to fight, go in with everything you’ve got, kill off enough of the enemy to change their culture, move in, occupy and westernize them, take some reparations to pay off our war debt, then get out. Limited war does not work, it is costly in lives and treasure, and does not accomplish the goals. We must recognize that our enemy is in fact Islam and has been since the 7th century. We are trying to fight these muslims on our terms instead of theirs, and that is a losing proposition. Bush did some things right, but did some things wrong and now Obama is compounding the wrong things.
We need to either get out of A-stan or do it right.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Dr. Rodney Stark’s book, “God’s Battalions: the Case for the Crusades”, HarperOne: New York, 2009 (276pp.) is essential reading in our day of two wars in muslim lands and endless muslim terrorist attacks upon the west. If you want to know the historical background to the east-west tensions of today, this is an excellent place to start. Stark’s thesis is that the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries were a response by God- fearing Christians to unanswered muslim aggression that stretched back to the 7th century, but that the Crusades are NOT one of the real problems that have produced the modern age of terror. Stark says that the muslims basically did not think much of the Crusades for centuries; it is only recently, in the 20th century that muslims have begun using the Crusades as an excuse.
Dr. Stark clearly sets his book against many others who have written on the Crusades. He gives multiple examples of how writers of serious history have glossed over the atrocities committed by muslims and focused instead on the atrocities committed by Christians. He demonstrates with direct quotes how one sided many historians have been.
And there were plenty of atrocities on both sides. Herein is one of Stark’s strengths in the book: he admits that it was a cruel age and that medieval warfare was brutal. He demonstrates how Christian Crusader armies fought other Christians, especially the Eastern Orthodox, who invited the western armies to join the cause initially, but who then betrayed the Latin warriors repeatedly. Stark also, evenhandedly, demonstrates how disunity affected the muslims as well. Stark does not shy away from the several shameful episodes of Christians oppressing and slaughtering Jews. But in the end, he conclusively proves that Islam was the aggressor, they did conquer the Christian lands in Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Egypt,North Africa, Spain, southern Italy and Sicily. Islam did not expand peacefully.
Stark shows that it was a change in muslim leadership that brought about the change in how Christian pilgrims were treated in the Holy Land in the 11th century. The Seljuk Turks were very aggressive and brutal when compared to the Arabs. With pilgrims being captured and sold into slavery, killed and raped, Pope Urban II of Clermont made an appeal for Crusaders to go protect the pilgrims and assist Constantinople.
Stark also seeks to debunk the myth that there ever was a great muslim civilization in chapter 3. He takes on the highly esteemed scholar Bernard Lewis and his book, “What Went Wrong?” by boldly stating, “This chapter documents my answer to Lewis’s question: nothing went wrong. The belief that once upon a time Muslim culture was superior to that of Europe is at best an illusion.” (p.56). Using example after example Stark shows that the Arabs used the Christians, the dhimmis, as their intellectual elite, scientists and inventors. Stark shows how the muslims adopted things from the Persians and Indians, and did not themselves invent them. Take Arabic numerals for instance. They are actually of Hindu origin. Muslim architecture is primarily Persian and Byzantine, not Arabic.
Stark also debunks the whole concept of the “Dark Ages” and shows the intellectual origins of that concept. This is in accord with other writers I have read who have now clearly demonstrated that the Dark Ages were not so Dark.
Stark does not hesitate to take on some of the theology of the times either. Clearly there was the understanding of pilgrimages and crusades having some effect of mediating grace to the participants. “In many ways, the conversion of Constantine was a catastrophe for Christianity” (p.101) is one of my favorite lines. “Since the pope could not get the knights of Europe to observe a peace of God, at least he could enlist them to serve in God’s battalions and to direct their fierce bravery toward a sacred cause. And to bring this about, Urban proposed something entirely new- that participation in the Crusade was the moral equivalent of serving in a monastic order, in that special holiness and certainty of salvation would be gained by those who took part.” Chilling.
Do not misinterpret Stark and this book as pro-crusade, pro-catholic, or pro-war. He is simply telling the whole story in a very brief , succinct manner, that turns the conventional wisdom upside down and backwards. He clearly demonstrates that there were very valid reasons for the Crusaders doing what they did and that they were responding to an outrageous aggression by the muslims.
The main stream media and many academics would have us believe that the terror attacks by the muslims against us are caused by our own actions during the crusades. They would have us believe that Islam is a peaceful, creative force that is only responding to western aggression. Read Rodney Stark’s book, “God’s Battalions” and you will see that there is another side to this debate. I am convinced that every Christian and every American can profit by reading this book. Put this one on your MUST READ list! If we do not understand what happened in history from the 7th-13th centuries, we will not understand what is really happening today. If you want to have what you were taught in school and told by the MSM to be uprooted, changed, and shaken, read this book!
For a different viewpoint check this out:Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )
“The main idea is that Islam is a dangerous religion of demons, it is built upon lies and cruelty that goes back to this prophecy in Gen.16, and we as Christians must unite and oppose and expose Islam for the evil it truly is. I am convinced that we, the Church, have been silent in the face of too many evils and our silence is allowing evil to spread.”
Genesis Class 11-08-2009
Gen. 16:11-12 “Ishmael, Islam and the Atrocity at Fort Hood”
Bryan E. Walker
Read Gen. 16:1-12
Introduction: Where were you on Tuesday morning, September 11th, 2001? Do you remember 9/11? What were your feelings? your thoughts? Do you remember anything about Sunday, September 16th, 2001? Did your pastor preach about the attack on America? Did he preach about the nature and source of Evil? Did he discuss Islam at all? Or did he preach that “America’s chickens, were coming home, to roost?” I preached on the problem of evil, Islam and what our response should be to the evil. Since that time we have engaged ourselves in two wars that are still going on, 8 years later. Over 4000 of our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen have died. Since 9/11 there have been at least 4 successful, homegrown terrorist attacks inside America, (can you name them?) three of which have been labeled as crimes and the latest one is likely to be labeled a crime instead of a terrorist attack. Many more attempts have been made, but spoiled by law enforcement.
This last Thursday, November 5, 2009 the most successful homegrown terror attack has occurred since 9/11. US Army Major, Medical Corps, Nidal Malik Hasan, a natural born American of Palestinian parentage and a lifelong muslim, shot and killed 13 American soldiers and a civilian, and wounded over 30 others, while yelling “Allah akhbar!”, Allah is Great, the standard Islamic jihadist battle cry. Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, has cautioned us to not jump to conclusions, the press and the experts are examining the Psychiatrist to see what made him snap, some are already blaming it on his own stress from listening to the war stories of the war vets he was counseling combined with his own imminent deployment and being harassed for his religious and ethnic background.
This attack has affected me almost as deeply as did 9/11 though, obviously, the casualties were far fewer. But 9/11 was conducted by people here on visas or illegally, the Battle of Fort Hood was conducted by a Traitor and Infiltrator, an enemy who had been commissioned as a US Army Officer. The attack was directly against soldiers inside their “safe zone”, at the heart of Ft. Hood. This betrayal is the equal, at least, of Benedict Arnold’s treachery in the Revolutionary War. May Nidal Malik Hasan’s name be remembered as is Benedict Arnold.
I could not come here this morning and just carry on in Gen. 15 as if nothing had happened. I have to search the Scriptures to make sense of this. Therefore, I have jumped ahead to Gen. 16 this morning. What do I want to accomplish here this morning? I want to: 1) interpret Gen. 16:11-12, 2) briefly explain the nature of evil, 3) explain the spiritual nature of this war in which we are involved, 4) give a brief history of this conflict, and, 5) give some suggestions for how we as Christians and citizens should respond. The main idea is that Islam is a dangerous religion of demons, it is built upon lies and cruelty that goes back to this prophecy in Gen.16, and we as Christians must unite and oppose and expose Islam for the evil it truly is. I am convinced that we, the Church, have been silent in the face of too many evils and our silence is allowing evil to spread.
- I. Genesis 16:11-12 Ishmael Shall Be A Wild Donkey
- A. Ishmael was Born Out of a Failure of Abram’s Faith
- 1. In 15:4-5 God specifically promises Abram “your very own son” and innumerable offspring. God enters into a formal covenant with Abram and in 15:18 promises to give his offspring this land. Abram’s faith is a saving faith, a justifying faith, proclaimed by Moses in 15:6.
- 2. In 16:1-4 Abram and Sarai decide to engage in a relevant cultural practice of giving a servant girl to Abram to have as a concubine so that Sarai can obtain children through her. Mathews writes, (NAC vol.1B, p.185) “Sarai never speaks directly to Hagar or speaks her name; Hagar is a tool to relieve Sarai’s embarrassment. Yet Sarai never claims Ishmael as her son…. Ancient Near Eastern custom provided for the substitution of a slave for the purpose of bearing a child in the case of a barren mistress. If the wife could not produce children, the husband might marry another; perhaps the offer of a substitute circumvented the acquisition of a second wife. That barrenness was grounds for a divorce after a ten-year period is a rabbinic explanation for Sarai’s actions…Employing the language of chap. 3, vv.2-3 describes Abram’s agreement to Sarai’s plan and her presentation of the slave girl. Abram’s misguided compliance… is cast in the same terms as Adam’s obedience to his wife (3:17). That Sarai ‘took’ (laqah) her and ‘gave’ (natan) Hagar ‘to her husband’ (v.3) portrays the matriarch as another Eve (3:6). Reference to Abram’s residence in Canaan for ‘ten years’ 9v.3; 12:4) without a child indicates that patience for Sarai had run its course. The wait, however, had only begun, for it would be another fifteen years before Isaac…” Mathews, then, says that the language used by Moses in this story links Abram and Sarai to Adam and Eve in Gen. 3, and says that Abram was here, misguided.
- 3. John Calvin writes, (pp.422-424) “Moses here recites a new history, namely, that Sarai, through the impatience of long delay, resorted to a method of obtaining seed by her husband, at variance with the word of God….For however laudable was Sarai’s wish, as regards the end, or the scope to which it tended; nevertheless, in the pursuit of it, she was guilty of no light sin, by impatiently departing from the word of God, for the purpose of enjoying the effect of that word….Nor was even Abram free from fault, in following the foolish and preposterous counsel of his wife….The faith of both of them was defective…”
- 4. Application- it is all too easy for us to believe God and then, upon growing impatient, take matters into our own hands and do things our way instead of God’s way. It is not always easy to know the difference. Abram, Sarai and Hagar all did something that was perfectly legal, moral and even expected in their day. But it was not of faith and was therefore sin. In our response to the actions of muslims today, we must be careful to not act out of our own understanding, but to act in faith.
- B. Ishmael Is Going To Be a Wild Donkey of a Man
- 1. You shall call his name Ishmael- the name means “God hears” or “may God hear”, and is related to what immediately follows “the LORD has listened to your affliction”.
- 2. I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered- vs.10 gives Hagar a similar promise as was given to Abram. Today muslims number about 1 billion. Muslims do look to Ishmael as their ancestor, claiming that the true line of promise ran through him instead of Isaac, Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael.
- 3. He shall be a wild donkey of a man- Vs12 is a quatrain giving us four lines describing Ishmael. First, he will be a wild donkey of a man. Calvin says, “The simple meaning is that he will be a warlike man, and so formidable to his enemies, that none shall injure him with impunity.” (p.434). Victor Hamilton writes, (NICOT, p.454) “Ishmael is to be a wild ass of the steppe land. This designation is derogatory and derisive. Here we have the metaphorical use of animals, a frequent device in the OT. The wild ass is the onager, whose habitat is in waste places (Job 39:5-8; Isa 32:14; Jer. 14:6; Hosea 8:9), suggesting a desert, nomadic life-style for Ishmael and his descendants.”
- 4. his hand against everyone- he will be aggressive and belligerent, proud and violent.
- 5. everyone’s hand against him- because of his violent and aggressive ways, everyone will respond negatively to him and will give him violence in return.
- 6. he shall dwell over against his kinsmen- he won’t even be able to get along with his own kin, breaking the bonds of family loyalty. See 25:18.
- 7. Luther writes on this passage, (Luther’ Works, vol.3, pp.66-67) “Strictly speaking, this description applies to the Arabs, who do not stay in a definite place but carry all their possessions with them in carts and live mostly on plunder…the Arabs…consider it their rightful privilege to live by plundering and robbery…They often harassed the Romans and Persians with their marauding.”
- 8. Application- This derogatory description of Ishmael has been kept by all of his descendants, the Arabs, and passed on to the spiritual heirs, the muslims. They self identify with Ishmael. We should take them, and this text, seriously. I will speak more on this in a bit.
- C. Ishmael is not the Child of Promise
- 1. In 17:18-21 Abram pleads, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father 12 princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac.” Mathews writes, (p.206) “The birth announcements of Ishmael and Isaac present a striking contrast in the destinies of the two sons, Ishmael will become the father of a great people, but he and his offspring will be outsiders, whereas Isaac will assume his father’s inheritance.”
- 2. Gen.21:8-21 Ishmael is making fun of his little brother, and he is about 13-14 years older than Isaac, so this is a case of bullying, fitting considering the prophecy. Ishmael and his mother are sent out from the camp.
- 3. Application- do we not see this still played out today between the muslims and Jews?
- A. Ishmael was Born Out of a Failure of Abram’s Faith
- II. The Problem of Evil Luke 13:1-5
“There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
The critics of Christianity would say that we Christians believe in a God who is both all Good and all Powerful. The problem then, is the presence of evil. Evil does exist so either the good God is unable to eliminate it, and thus is not all powerful, or he is able to powerfully eliminate evil, but chooses not to, therefore proving himself to not be good.
Today we are without question facing raw, hellish evil. A man who was serving as a Major in the US Army, a psychiatrist whose job it is to provide some measure of emotional, psychological and mental healing, attacked an Army unit and singlehandedly killed 13 and wounded about 30 more, all the while yelling, “Allah Akhbar= God is great”. In the Luke passage above we see that Jesus lists two different examples of the problem of evil- 1 was an accident and 1 was a deliberate act of evil committed by a person in authority.
In Gen. 1:31, at the end of 6 days of creation, “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” We have the assurance from God’s Word that everything was not just good, but Very Good.
Psalm 86:5 says, “For you, O Lord, are good” and Psalm 119:68 “You are good and do good”. Jesus himself said in Mark 10:18 “No one is good except God alone”. Scripture says scores of times that God is good, that he is righteous, that he is loving, merciful and just. Why then does evil enter into his universe?
Scripture does not DIRECTLY answer that question, and that is why so many object to the Christian answer. But the Bible does give us many very good points to consider in seeking an answer.
1) God created everything for his Glory.
Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”
36″ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
We believe that God created because he wanted to, not because he was compelled to from anything outside of himself. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Isaiah 43:7 “everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” And in John’s Gospel ch.9 in the story about the man born blind, the disciples wondered who sinned, the man’s parents or the blind man himself. But Jesus said “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed though him.”
If God then created all things good, and the heavens declare his glory and all people are created for his glory, and even something as horrible as being born blind is part of God’s overall plan, we see that the universe is not man-centered, it is God-centered; it is all designed to somehow give God glory as the Creator.
2) Therefore, even allowing evil into his universe through Satan, and through the sin of Adam and Eve somehow gives God glory. This is a hard truth but must be brought out. In what possible way could the Devil’s rebellion and Adam’s sin give God glory?
We believe God is ultimately just. Now we know there is very often no real justice in this world. The just seem to suffer and the unjust prosper all too often. Nonetheless, our very idea of justice and all our efforts at obtaining and administering justice point to something bigger than us, outside of us, that is just. God is just, he will finally, at the end of time, on the Day of Judgment, mete out justice. Evil will one day be punished and righteousness exalted. That will give God glory. His holy justice will be on display for all to see. So in that sense, allowing the presence of evil will ultimately serve to display God’s justice and bring him glory for his justice. When a notorious criminal in our day gets caught, goes on trial, and gets sentenced, we all do have a sense of satisfaction that justice has been served.
Now the problem for us is the timing. In this world we do not always see justice, so we complain against God that he is not just and that evil exists. Did the soldiers who died Thursday deserve to die in our eyes? No. This attack was a gross injustice. We want justice immediately. But for the Christian, we understand that there is coming a solution for the problem of evil. God is eternal, outside of time, the creator of time, and he will execute justice on the day of His choosing. The answer then, to the problem of evil, is that this Good God who is indeed All-Powerful, will Ultimately bring about a just resolution to the problem of evil in his timing. In other words, while we are complaining about the problem of evil, we are not looking at it from God’s eternal perspective; God is not finished yet, evil is temporary.
Even though I am as hurt, scared and angry as any of you at this unjust attack on our country, I have confidence that ultimately God will judge the perpetrator.
3) God is also loving, gracious, forgiving and merciful. God’s love and grace are poured out upon us in the context of suffering, pain and evil. This contrast of God’s Goodness while still allowing evil also gives God glory as he displays his attributes of Goodness- lovingkindness, forgiveness, grace, steadfast love. I believe that ultimately, God’s justice and his love will both be on display for his greater glory.
We see this most clearly in the cross of Christ. On the cross we see God’s Son suffering an unjust penalty by men. Jesus was sinless, but we sinners condemned him to death on the cross. At the same time, God the Father was allowing his Son to die in our place, as our substitute. He bore our guilt and shame and he received in himself God’s justice that we deserved. Jesus was punished for our sins when he himself was sinless. So on the cross we see the holy and just wrath of God and the utter depravity of man along with the sinlessness and perfect obedience of God the Son. But since the cross is God’s chosen means for our salvation, we also see the love of the Father poured out on us through the blood of His Son. In the cross then, is the solution to evil. God’s wrath and love both on display in one act.
- III. The Current Conflict with Islam Is Not Just Political/Military, It Is Spiritual and Theological
- A. The World Denies the Spiritual Nature of the Conflict
- 1. The World Believes All Religions Are the Same- beginning in the 19th century and the not so scientific theory of evolution and the German efforts at higher criticism that seemed to lead them to view the Scripture as a evolutionary document, an opinion developed that all religions could be boiled down to a common essence of there being a creator god who loves us and we are to love him and love our neighbor. All religions worship this same creator god, by different names and methods. Today, all religions are viewed as being equal in value although some religions are more equal than others.
- 2. Because we have freedom of religion- it is not PC to criticize minority religions, like Islam, but it always seems PC to criticize the majority religion, Christianity.
- 3. Therefore, if one religion makes truth claims that are outlandish, the world doesn’t much care, unless it is Christianity. Islamiscists are claiming that their jihad is based upon their religious convictions from the Koran. The world doesn’t listen to that nor take it seriously.
- 4. The politicians, military and press are not seeking any type of a religious input or response to the Islamic claims about why they are attacking the west. They just want to negotiate or carry out the war in secular terms.
- B. The Spiritual Background to the Conflict
- A. The World Denies the Spiritual Nature of the Conflict
We began by looking at what God said about Ishmael in Gen. 16. That prophetic statement is certainly true in the descendents of Ishmael and the Arabs claim Ishmael to be their ancestor and all muslims look to Ishmael as their spiritual ancestor. In Gen.25 is a list of the descendents of Ishmael and the names are Arabic. In 37:28 we find that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery to some Ishmaelites. This is a picture of the antipathy between God’s people and the descendents of Ishmael that continues down to this day and is played out in our world by not just the muslim hatred for Jews, but the muslim hatred of Christians, or of any non-muslim.
Many groups in the mideast would be descendents of the ancient Canaanites, Hittites, the children of Esau, the children of the incestuous Lot named Moabites and Ammonites. In short, all the ancient enemies of Israel including the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Persians are still the enemies of Israel and Christians.
Now here we do have to be careful because they are not the only enemies of Israel and Christians. Don’t forget that it was Rome who crucified Christ and persecuted the early Church. There are many Americans who are atheistic and hate the Church and the Jews. The Marxist-socialists who run this country are not Christian friendly! The world system is fundamentally anti-christian. The communists have long hated the Christian west and the Jews. But this morning we are focusing on the war with Islam.
The main idea for this point is that the people who we are fighting are the same people the Bible says were opposed to God’s people. This has not changed in 6,000 years. That is a long history of hatred and war. We would be naïve to even begin to think that the UN or any negotiators can fix what has been going on since Ishmael picked on Isaac 6,000 years ago.
This lengthy history is not just a bunch of raw facts. It has a spiritual point. The devil is at war with God and has used and will continue to use certain people groups to conduct his war in every age. But this war is primarily spiritual, not racial.
Keep in mind that God also chooses to save some from the nations that he has cursed. Melchizedek was a king and priest in Salem, Jerusalem, and was a Jebusite. Rahab of Jericho was a Canaanite. Moses’ father in law was a Midianite. Ruth was a Moabite. There is excellent evidence that Job could have been an Arab. Jonah preached to the Assyrians and many repented and believed. The wise men who sought out the baby Jesus were either Arabs, Babylonians or Persians.
Remember that Jesus died to save people from the whole world. God is saving many out of Islam whatever their ethnic origins. So, Yes, the war is against Islamiscists, usually of mideastern descent, but while we should support the war, we should, above and beyond that, support the conversion of muslims first and foremost.
Our enemies have boldly defined their jihad against us as being fundamentally a religious war. We need to see it in those terms because I believe they are correct in calling it a religious war. We must compare Islam with biblical Christianity to find the root causes of the war. Islam teaches that they must win over the entire world through convincing others of the truth of Islam, through conquest and enslavement or death. Islam and Christianity both have a world wide mandate but are taught, from our founding documents, very different means to the end.
Look at 1Cor 10:20 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.
Paul tells us here that the pagans are not worshipping any real god, they are worshipping demons who are called gods. 1John2: 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
John tells us that all who do not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ have the spirit of the antichrist.
Therefore, since Islam worships a god who in no way resembles the God of the Bible, and since Islam only reveres Jesus as a prophet, not as the Christ, not as the Son of God, then muslims are actually worshippng and following a demon, not the one true God. Conversely, muslims call Christians polytheists because we believe God exists as a Trinity.
When you hear politicians or news reporters or liberal preachers say things like we all worship the same god just in different ways, you ought to be sickened by that kind of talk. That is unbiblical, unchristian, and philosophically illogical, unreasonable and fundamentally ignorant and condescending. No committed muslim would agree with that kind of statement and no committed, biblical Christian could agree with it. Joint prayer services that include Christians, Jews and muslims are nonsense at best, an abomination at worst. It would be like the prophet Elijah having a joint worship service with the prophets of Baal but not seizing them at the end.
The muslim has as their authority the Koran while we have the Bible. The way of salvation for the muslim is by a combination of good works and the mercy of allah while the way of salvation the Bible teaches is of God’s grace alone, through faith alone, not of works, lest any man should boast. In Islam there is no atonement for sin offered while in Christianity Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and he was raised again so that we could have eternal life. In Islam there is absolutely nothing to compare with 1John 4:8 God is love or John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son. Islam commands its adherents to convert the world to islam through any means including conquering and enslaving or killing the infidels. Christ teaches us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us and pray for those who do wrong against us. Christianity is to spread by the preaching of the gospel and doing acts of goodness and kindness. In Islam you must give your son up for allah while in Christianity God gave up his Son for humanity.
I do not even have the time to get into the horrid moral code of Islam nor could you stomach that kind of discussion in church. I cannot get into the treatment of women by the Koran and islam. But suffice it say that Christ lifts up woman and islam puts down woman.
The consequences of the differences in the worldviews of Christianity and Islam are demonstrated clearly by the two civilizations that have resulted. One civilization has peaked at the level of the 13th century and the other civilization has brought about Handle, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Michaelangelo, Leonardo DaVinci, Rembrandt; Dumas, Tolstoy, Dostoevesky, Dickens and Twain; polio vaccines, heart transplants, landing on the moon and super computers.
Because Islam is anti-trinitarian, is authoritarian at its core, and has the Koran as its founding document instead of the Bible, the muslims as a whole cannot respect our form of government. When you look at what is happening in Britain, now even in Canada, and beginning to happen in some places here in America, you see the spread and acceptance of Sharia Law, the muslim law code. In England and other places in Europe they have two legal systems, one for muslims and one for others. This violates equal protection under the law. Muslims treat their women and children, especially girl children, in a way that is very cruel and against our way of life because Western Civ has been affected by the doctrines of the Bible and our law codes reflect it. The two systems cannot co-exist, they are at odds at the very core.
The west is treating Islam with toleration but Islam is the most intolerant of all religions. The media tries to make the point that in medieval times Islam was more tolerant than the west and points, legitimately to how Christians persecuted the Jews, but then they fail to note the fact that in muslim lands, non-muslims were given a special tax simply to live there, and they could have no political power at all, their rights were limited. The west has obviously made much progress with liberty for all, but the muslims have not. Their worldview prohibits that.
- IV. A Brief History to the Current Conflict With Islam
It seems to have been the attack on the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich in 1972 by the muslim Black September group that started this modern wave of terrorism. The US Ambassador to Sudan was assassinated at Khartoum by the same Black September group in 1973; in June of 1976 two US diplomats were kidnapped and executed in Beirut; also that month Palestinian terrorists seized an Air France jet and landed at Entebbe Airport, Uganda where the Israeli anti-terrorist team freed them in a courageous raid; in 1979 our Ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs was assassinated; Nov. 4, 1979 the Iranian radicals took over the US Embassy- Pres. Carter attempted a weak rescue with a weakened military that failed miserably. Weak Presidents who weaken our military and Intelligence lead to worse conflicts than if we maintained a strong military and an active Intelligence force. This defeat led to Ronald Reagan’s election the following year and the Iranians, knowing they were dealing with a strong President, released the hostages on inauguration day. And President Reagan went on to strengthen our military and end the Cold War. Yet muslim terrorism continued under even President Reagan.”
“April 18, 1983 the bombing of the US Embassy of Beirut killed 63 and injured 120, but in October of that year the Marine Barracks in Beirut was bombed with 242 Americans killed. In 1984 another Beirut embassy official, William Buckley, was kidnapped and murdered. The TWA hijacking in June of ‘85 was led by Hezbollah terrorists and resulted in their execution of a US Navy sailor who was aboard that flight. October of ‘85 the Achille Lauro ship was pirated and one US citizen was executed for being a Jew by the muslim terrorists.”
“In Dec. of 1985 at Rome and Vienna, muslim terrorists attacked the airports, focusing on El Al airlines. March of 1986 a Palestinian terror group bombed TWA flight 840 coming into Athens airport killing 4 Americans. April 5th, 1986 two American GIs were killed in a Libyan muslim bombing in a Berlin disco, 79 service men were wounded. President Reagan subsequently ordered the bombing of Libya in retaliation. Feb. ‘88 LTC William Higgins, USMC, was kidknapped and murdered in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Dec. 21, 1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan AM flight 103 was blown up by Libyan terrorists and one of the key muslim masterminds of that bombing was released from his life sentence in prison back in 2009 and returned home to Libya.
Feb.26, 1993 the World Trade Center in NY was bombed the first time by muslim terrorists at the direction of an Egyptian cleric teaching in NY. In April of 1993, former President George HW Bush was in Kuwait when an Iraqi assassination attempt failed. March of 1995 two US Diplomats were killed by muslims in Pakistan.” The 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building by Tim McVeigh had an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link.
“In June of 1996 a terrorist attack at the US military barracks of the Khobar Towers killed 19 and wounded 240 Americans. On July 17th, 1996, TWA Flight 800 was shot down accidentally by the USNavy as they tried to shoot down a terrorist flown small plane that was intent on ramming the larger jet.
Feb.23, 1997 a Palestinian terrorist sniper killed 1 and wounded several at the Empire State Building in New York. August 7, 1998 two bombs went off simultaneously at two different US Embassies in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killing a total of 301 and wounding hundreds more. October 12, 2000 the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen killing 17 US Sailors.”
“Sept. 11, 2001 the attacks on NY and Washington DC killed over 3000. Jan. of 2002, Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal was kidnapped and later beheaded by muslims in Pakistan. In the fall of 2002 there were the Beltway Sniper killings led by John Allen Muhammed which killed at least 10 people. In Feb. 2007 Sulejmen Talovic, an 18yr old muslim, shot several people in a Utah mall before being shot by an off cuty police officer. In May of 2007 six muslim men were arrested for plotting an attack on soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Do you remember hearing about the Somali Pirates off the Horn of Africa earlier this year? Guess which religion they are! Muslim. In June of this year Abdulhakim Muhammad shot and killed a soldier at the Little Rock Recruiting Station. On Nov. 5, 2009 that infamous Traitor, Infiltrator and Enemy Combatant- Major Nidal Malik Hasan- killed 13 fellow troops and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood here in Texas.”
Since Sept. 11, several Muslim men have either used their vehicles to run over innocent bystanders or shoot people at or near military bases, synagogues and shopping malls. Naveed Afzal Haq is on trial for going on a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building. One survivor said Haq stated his attack was a “personal statement against Jews.” Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar ran over nine students at the University of North Carolina with his SUV. Officers said he told them afterward he wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide. Omeed Aziz Popal ran down 18 pedestrians with his car at a Jewish center in San Francisco. Witnesses say he said, “I am a terrorist,” at the scene. None of these guys were rogue Baptists, crazy charismatics, nor radical Mormons.
“I could go on an on here because there have been many other small attacks by muslims inside America and many efforts that failed and were broken up by good police work. But by now you get the idea. The answer to the question, “Why has this happened?” is that we have not taken the threat of Islam seriously. The one thing that all of these attacks have in common is not a nationality, not a race, not a language, not a common set of socio-economic status, not an education level. The ONE THING they all have in common is a RELIGION, ISLAM.”
“Islam teaches that muslims will, must, rule the world and either convert, enslave or kill all unbelievers. That is their stated purpose. The jihad movement is islamic to the core, it is being a good muslim. They preach in the mosques that they build here in the United States and in other western countries, that to die fighting the infidels, that would be us, is to go to heaven where the 72 virgins await their new master for eternity. Their view of heaven is one of a sexual orgy with their 72 young virgins forever. Their treatment of women today reflects that.”
In all fairness to Pres. Obama, the former Presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter are also guilty. America just has never had the guts to admit that an entire religion was at war with us. We did not want to call it a religious war even though our enemies explicitly did call it a religious war. It goes against our principles to discriminate against someone because of their religion. It perfectly fits into THEIR principles to absolutely discriminate because of religion. WE celebrate religious freedom and diversity, they do not. But this religion wants to kill us and has used the freedom we provided as cover for their evil desires.“
“Americans have gone to war now four times in recent years to help muslim nations. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United States led a coalition to protect Saudi Arabia and then, in 1991, to invade Kuwait and kick the Iraqis back out. In 1992/93 we sent troops to muslim Somalia to feed the starving people in that chaotic, war torn land, and then, under Pres. Clinton, attempt to arrest one of the most vicious war lords and restore some sense of order. It resulted in a huge battle, the deaths of many US Army Rangers, and the movie Blackhawk Down. In Bosnia, the United States and NATO forces defended the Bosnian Muslims in 1994. In the Russian Chechen War, President George W. Bush chastised Russia for its actions against the muslim Chechens. In 2001 President Bush sent a small contingent of special ops forces into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and liberate Afghanistan. We still have troops there. In 2003 we invaded Iraq and captured Sadaam Hussein. Most Iraqis thanked us for that. We have diligently tried to set up democratic governments in both countries but success is still some years away, if at all. The only country we had a legitimate beef with was Iran and we never went to war with them. All of our good deeds towards muslims around the world, and they still hate us.
The last 30 years is not the first time America has fought with muslims. Back in World War I the Ottoman Turks sided with the Germans against England, Italy, France and America. In the 1930’s and early 40’s there was a lot of contact between the Nazis and the Palestinians, this is where so much of the radical hatred for the Jews came from. To this day Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a best seller in the middle east.
Our first war with muslims as a nation came shortly after independence in the 1780s. America was a major shipbuilding and trading nation so the sea lanes were important to us. But the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, all muslims, pirated our ships, stole our goods and enslaved our sailors. The muslims required huge ransoms for the captives and bribes to leave our ships alone. The European nations paid the bribes, and America paid some, for a while. But finally we had had enough, and in 1801 President Jefferson refused to pay the $225,000 demanded by the Pasha of Tripoli and the Pasha declared war on the US by cutting down the flag at the US Consulate. President Jefferson took the muslims seriously and commissioned the building of 6 new frigates and sending some to the Mediterranean to wage war. The rally cry in those days was, “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!” Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.”
“After many battles and a long blockade against Tripoli the war was won by the US Navy and Marine Corps in 1804 with a new treaty agreed to and signed in 1805. Heroes such as Commodore Edward Preble, Captain William Bainbridge, Lt. Stephen Decatur, Consul William Eaton and Lt. Presley O’Bannon of the USMC led the way in a victory that is memorialized in the Marine Corps Hymn, “From the halls of Montezeuma, to the shores of Tripoli“.”
“But long before our wars with the Barbary Pirate muslims, western civilization had been at war with them since the 7th century. Few people today realize that in 1683, during the height of the Baroque Music period, Vienna Austria was under siege by the Ottoman Turks, muslims all. Vienna, the home of great music, almost collapsed. But the allied army of Poles, Germans and Austrians, led by Jan Sobieski attacked and routed the Turks on Sept. 12, 1683. Notice that it was not Westerners invading muslim lands, it was muslims invading the west. This was not the first attempt by the muslims to capture Vienna. In 1529 Sulieman the Magnificent lay siege to Vienna but failed to capture it.”
“While many point to the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries as the reason why muslims hate us, and therefore it is all our fault, it must be pointed out that long before the crusades, the middle east and North Africa were Christian lands. The Crusades were in many ways a horrible example of what happens when you mix political power with religious fervor and military might. The main idea of the Crusades, however, was to regain the Holy Land that had been lost by conquest to the muslims. The Crusades were a response to pleas of help by besieged Christian Constantinople, which had been attacked by the moslem Turks. Islam was not spread by peaceful missionaries founding hospitals and orphanages, using reasoned arguments from godly men to win hearts and minds. Islam has always been spread by the sword.”
“Does anyone know why it was the year 1492 when Columbus discovered America? In that year, Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen of Spain finished the “reconquista” and finally forced the Moors (muslims) from their last stronghold in Spain at Granada. The war finished, they had the funds available to outfit the three ships for Columbus to make his voyage of discovery.”
“Have you ever heard the story of Charles Martel, Charles the Hammer of France? In 732 he led a Frank army to defeat a muslim army that had crossed over into France from Spain at the Battle of Tours. If he had not won that battle, all of France would have fallen to the muslims.”
“Why am I giving you this long history lesson in a week where we have seen so much death and destruction? Is it because I hate the muslims? No, I have had muslim friends. I can love and respect individual muslims. But I cannot love or respect a religion that clearly states it wants to convert, enslave or kill me. I gave you this history lesson because we need to know and remember why this has happened. It happened because we did not listen to our enemies. We did not learn from the battles we have fought recently. We did not learn from history. Perhaps now, in our agony of defeat, maybe we shall learn.”
“There are those out there who desire to kill us, enslave us or convert us in the name of their God. I am convinced that this atrocity is the result of a muslim terrorist attack. The attack was successful because for too long the political leaders of our country, both Republican and Democrat, did not recognize the threat or treated the threat lightly, thinking that we could bow to the Saudi king, speak some arabic in Egypt, quote the Quran here and there and talk about the rich culture of this religion of peace and by our niceness it would make them love us. WRONG! And today we are paying for those mistakes.”
- V. How Should Christians Respond?
- A. Spiritual Response
- 1. Pray- We should pray for the casualties and families of the Battle last Thursday. Pray for our leaders to recognize that what happened Thursday was not a crime, it was another battle in the war on terror; that Major Hasan was not a wacked out criminal, he was a jihadist. Pray that the press and news media would report the truth and not obscure the truth with their lies. Pray imprecatory prayers against islam. Look at Psalm 58
- A. Spiritual Response
58:1 Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?
Do you judge the children of man uprightly?
2 No, in your hearts you devise wrongs;
your hands deal out violence on earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent,
like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers
or of the cunning enchanter.
6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord!
7 Let them vanish like water that runs away;
when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime,
like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns,
whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
surely there is a God who judges on earth.”
- 2. There is nothing wrong with praying for victory over evil forces and praying for their destruction. When you realize that Islam is sending a billion people to hell with their demonic beliefs, and that they are tormenting the rest of us along the way, you will understand that we can and should pray against them. Pray for the conversion of muslims to Christ. Pray for our mission efforts in islamic lands. Pray that America would wake up to the danger we have allowed in to our country.
- 3. Inform yourself. Have you studied Islam or the history of the ongoing conflict between Islam and Christianity? Have you studied how they treat women? Have you studied the Word of God about how God views false religions? Inform yourself.
- Here is a list of books that could be helpful for you:
- 4. Do not remain silent. I used to work with a muslim who was Americanized and moderate, theologically; he thought we all worshipped the same god and it was all about being good. He was not very open ot the gospel. But he was not moderate in his politics. He hated Israel and the Jews and voted for democrats because they favored the Palestinians against Israel. He was against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have to be careful how we speak to muslims because they are very easily upset and the PC culture in America right now restricts free speech. You can get fired for sharing your faith because it automatically discriminates against muslims. But we need to share a biblical view of islam with those with whom we converse. We need to share the gospel with muslims and with others who are saying that all religions are the same.
- 5. Speak out against evil. When an outrageous example of muslim evil happens, like this past Thursday, we need Christians to say, Thus saith the Lord! We need to speak truth to evil and not just say, “Oh how awful” or, “I will pray for the soldiers”. We need Christians to speak out loud about the evil.
- B. Can/Should Christians Do More?
- 1. Clearly when you read the OT you see God’s people taking direct action. Samuel hacked Agag to pieces in 1 Sam. 15:33. Elijah did lead the people to slaughter the prophets of Baal in 1Kings 18:40. I think it would be very wrong to take those passages and use them as a basis for committing violent acts today. But we can and should use every legitimate, social and political tool to protect ourselves and our nation from the evil that is attacking us. In Acts, Paul, at times, used his Roman citizenship wisely to protect himself and proclaim the gospel. Action is called for today.
- 2. This past Friday I called both of our Texas Senators and my Congresswoman to formally request that they contact the DoD to request that the soldiers who were killed and wounded in the Battle of Fort Hood be awarded the Purple Hearts they deserve. You see, if it is just considered a crime, no purple hearts are awarded. But if it is recognized that Major Hasan was an enemy combatant, and that what happened was an engagement with the enemy, then the medals can be awarded. What does that do? 1) it respects the soldiers. 2) it changes the wording, and meaning of the situation. It calls it what it is.
- 3. We Christians need to seriously challenge our politicians, news media and others with every legitimate means over the issue of islam and muslims in America. To do so, will open ourselves up to the charge of racism, so we need to still show love for our enemies, here. But we need to take a stand against the evil that is in our midst.
Conclusion: Islam is the self proclaimed enemy of Christianity, Christians, Jews and the western world. Biblically, this goes back to Gen. 16 and the problem of Ishmael. Historically, it is verifiable, beyond dispute, that Islam has been a constant aggressor and has spread by conquering previously Christian lands. Recent history has shown that while not all muslims are terrorists, about 98% of all terrorism in the last 40 years has been islamic. Christians have been silent in the face of raw evil for way too long. It is time to speak out.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 16 so far )
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army Psychiatrist at Fort Hood, went on a very well planned shooting that has killed about 13 soldiers and wounded over 30, apparently using two handguns. He was shot by civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley.
It has been reported that Major Hasan had been upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq. He had been recently transferred to Ft. Hood, TX from Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, DC.
Hasan was born in Virginia to parents of Palestinian background and is a lifelong muslim. As he was shooting the soldiers, he was yelling, “Allahu Akhbar” or- God is Great in typical jihadist fashion.
The interviews of experts I have heard have been careful to say this was not a terrorist act. However, though it has not yet been proven he had terrorist cell connections, he was known for protesting American foreign policy, the war “against islam”, and for trying to proselytize his patients.
If a muslim shoots up a liquor store, that is probably a crime. If a muslim enters an Army base and shoots up 40+ soldiers, that is terrorism. Wake up America!
Here is the link to my sermon on this topic:
And here are news/opinion links to the story:
More to follow.
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Sarah Palin spoke at an economic conference in Hong Kong the other day and here are some of her notes that I copied from Pamela Geller’s site at atlasshrugs. I will make some comments and interact with her a bit, but I am focusing on what she said about Islam and national defense. She gave a speech that was close to an hour and a half long, so this is just a small bit. I love Sarah Palin and would consider voting for her for President. She gets some things wrong here about Islam, so I will chastise her a bit.
Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.
They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.
This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. Here is where she goes wrong. This is most decidedly a war between civilizations that has been going on since the 7th century. Why even conservative/evangelical politicians cannot read history remains a mystery to me. The Koran calls for all good muslims to convert, enslave or kill all infidels. That would be us. Palin is right in one sense, WE are not at war with Islam. BUT Islam is at war with us! This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. She has a partial truth here. Islam does have a bloody civil war on its hands, but the war is over tactics, not the main goal. Furthermore, I remain convinced that MOST muslims do in fact hate the West, hate Christianity or Western Atheism and, though they may fear and even hate al queda or the taliban, they always seem to applaud when the west suffers a loss. One of the images of 9/11 that will FOREVER BE STAMPED ON MY MEMORY is of a market scene somewhere in Israel that had a Palestinian majority, and I saw women and children watching the towers fall on a TV and cheering, dancing and celebrating in the streets. If you push the average muslim into a tight spot the hatred for Jews and Americans, Brits and Aussies, Swedes and DAnes, Germans and French, will come out. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children. Islam has always been a bloody religion both to infidels and to their own people.
The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But do not mistake their internecine fighting for one side being FOR the West and the other side not. Neither side is FOR the WEST. They do disagree with each other on tactics, but not the long term goal. Do those muslims who are COLONIZING EUROPE through immigration and huge birth numbers have a love for WESTERN CIVILIZATION? NO! But this will be a long war, Yes, it has been a long war. For the west it has been going on recently since the Munich Olympics in ’72, but don’t forget the Ottoman Turks were against us in WW1 and sided with the Germans. Before that America fought the muslims in the Wars with the Barbary Pirates in the 1789-1815 time frame. And prior to that was the Siege of Vienna in 1683 when the Turks had Vienna Austria surrounded, but ended up losing. And so on back to the 8th century and Charles Martel defeating the muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732. and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.She is close to being on target here, but she needs to see the spiritual dimensions of this war, it is a THEOLOGICAL and SPIRITUAL BATTLE as well. And THIS IS WHY WE ARE NOT WINNING YET: WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE REAL SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM WHICH IS ISLAM AND THE KORAN. When we fought and WON WW2, we defeated the ideologies of both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. We did not merely defeat them militarily, we defeated them spiritually. Nazism was out of favor after the war. Emperor worship was a moot point after he surrendered. We are not fighting TERROR Gov. Palin, we are FIGHTING ISLAM. Or we should be. Terrorism is merely a tactic. The ideas behind the tactics are all Islam.
During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy – because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there. Very True. As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the “necessary war” and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed. Demoncrats always oppose war with those who threaten us.
Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy. Here is my problem. I do not think even our military is asking for enough troops to really do the job. Again, the goal should be to completely change Afghanistan, including their religion and ancient tribal culture. As worthless as that place is, it may not even be worth that effort, which would need 400,000 troops and a secure ground corridor through either Pakistan or Iran. A-stan should have just been bombed back into the stone age.
We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. I do not think an islamic, tribal society like A-stan is capable of such. Historically this is an unproven idea. And we must do what it takes to prevail. 400,000 troops and decimating the population, destroying every mosque.The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote inabout the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:
“The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.”
That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. It took Rome 3-4 generations to defeat the Carthaginians. We will need that kind of “staying power” if we are serious about winning.That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision.
That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny. No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts.
We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the view of the current Administration. They’re spending everywhere and with disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness. Though we are engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced from current levels!
First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillionStimulus Package funding – even though many military projects fit the definition of “shovel-ready.” In this Administration’s first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed.
Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range power. Despite the Air Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration successfully sought to end F-22 production – at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt. Here, Sarah is right on target. The only departments to really take sizeable cuts are the Defense Dept. and NASA. Obama’s goal is to weaken the US and strengthen our enemies. Obama, like most Demoncrats, despises American exceptionalism and thinks we are the source of evil in the world.
Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners.
Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia.
She is clueless on Islam.(Pamela Geller’s comment). I agree with Pamela on this one. Islam is inherently a non-democratic worldview/religion. Sarah is just plain wrong here. Indonesia is the most populous islamic country and is somewhat democratic, but they do not have freedom of religion culturally, nor true freedom of speech, so how democratic are they really? Islam is an intolerant religion that will never tolerate free speech or true religious liberty. Yes, I know that historically, many muslim areas tolerated Jews and Christians, but only as dhimmies, second class citizens who paid extra taxes for the privilege of not being sold into slavery or killed. Furthermore, Islam never permits proselytizing. You cannot leave Islam and convert to Christianity. So, are they really democratic?
God bless Sarah Palin and it will be intriguing to see if she runs for the Presidency in 2011/12. She has the most conservative ideology and track record of any of the main candidates I have seen, including Mitt Romney. But the MSM/Press Pukes will be unmerciful. Our politicians are STILL MAKING NICE WITH ISLAM and that has to stop. The historical and theological truth must be told boldly.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainsville, Florida, has figured out a way to bring the world to their church: post a large sign beside the road that says, “Islam is of the Devil”. Now, atheists, liberal Christians, Jews, agnostics and muslims are lining the road to protest the church’s right to free expression.
Here are the money quotes for discussion from the news article:
“It creates hate,” said Shahnaz *****, who described herself as someone who is proud to be a Muslim.
“This church is condoning what should be condemned,” said Logan ****, who described himself as a “diehard atheist” and a soon-to-be freshman at Santa Fe College.
“It’s persecution of religion and that’s why our country was founded — to get away from religious persecution,” said Barbara ****, the school nurse at Terwilliger Elementary School and member of the First Baptist Church of Alachua.
Now let’s take these quotes one by one.
“It creates hate,” said one muslim. The sign is an inanimate object that is unable to create or do anything. As an expression of faith by the Dove church it cannot create hate in anyone. According to the pastor, Terry Jones, it is actually intended to show a love for the souls of muslims by challenging their beliefs and getting them to think. Hate is not a creation of someone else, it is the emotional response, a decision even, by someone for a variety of reasons. This sign does not create hate; it may bring out the hate that is already in the hearts of a muslim or a liberal wh disagrees with the theology of the Dove church, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sign or even the message from the church to create hate.
This concept of free speech becoming “hate speech” is a method for liberals and muslims to slowly eradicate our 1st Amendment right to Free Speech, a Free Press, and Freedom of Religion. Already in Europe hate speech has been criminalized and used to silence Christians, ministers of the Gospel, and conservative politicians like Geert Wilder in Hollland. There is a bill in Congress that is designed to do the same thing here. Those who complain of “hate speech’ are intolerant tyrants who are going to take away our liberty. If an atheist group had placed a sign up that read, “Christians are all Fools- There Is No God” nobody would have complained.
2nd- “This church is condoning what should be condemned,” said Logan ***, who described himself as a “diehard atheist” Now I find it a bit strange that a “diehard atheist” would choose sides here. He is saying that the church’s position that Christianity is the only true religion, particularly as opposed to Islam, should be condemned. Why would an atheist defend Islam against the claims of Christianity?
But for now, ignore the fact of his atheism, notice the double standard that may be rooted in ignorance. What offends this individual is that the Church is making a truth claim that says Christianity is right, true and good and Islam is wrong, false and evil. Yet Islam ALSO claims to be THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION. Islam is notoriously intolerant, indeed, after communism and liberalism, is the most intolerant of faiths. So the statement, This church is condoning what should be condemned, is a nonsensical statement. If the atheist had said, “Both Christianity and Islam should be condemned for being exclusive in their belief systems” then the statement would make sense. It would still be value judgment by a person who, as an atheist, has no grounds for making a value judgment.
3rd statement:“It’s persecution of religion and that’s why our country was founded — to get away from religious persecution,” said Barbara ******, the school nurse at Terwilliger Elementary School and member of the First Baptist Church of Alachua.” If you want to know what is wrong with our education system today, here it is. the school nurse cannot tell the difference between a publicly stated opinion and persecution. The sign, nor the church behind the sign, cannot persecute anybody. It merely states an opinion out in the public. The persecutors would be the local authorities who might try to force the church to take down the sign, or the lawyers and judges and plaintiffs who might sue and try the Church for stating their opinion.
Notice that this particular libtard is a Baptist. I am a Baptist. I can attest to the ignorance of many a Baptist. Libtard Baptists of the Jimmy Carter variety really, really irritate me. This Baptist obviously doesn’t know her history. The first Baptist in the country was Roger Williams who was run out of Massachusettes Bay Colony because of his beliefs. Baptists were arrested and fined and jailed in many of the early colonies. Yes, the Puritans came to America to escape the persecution in England, but they in turn persecuted others. And by persecution I mean not merely expressing of harsh opinions, I mean imprisoning, fining and even executing those who disagreed.
What Dove World Outreach is doing is in no remote way persecuting muslims and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.
Here are some of the signs held by the protestors:
Several protesters carried or wore signs that hung by lightweight twine or cords from around their necks. One sign depicted a frowning face with tears falling from one eye. A few included Bible references, such as Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Another, carried by 8 1/2-year-old Talbot Elementary student *******, bore an equation “God = love.”
Without getting into a very lengthy and detailed exegesis of the Bible texts cited by the protestors, let me just say a few words. Matt.7:1 cannot possibly mean that we should just ignore the differences in all the world religions. Hello, Jesus was directly confronting the Jews with the sermon on the mount. The entire Bible confronts all other religions. What was the point of Paul and the other apostles suffering all they suffered for the gospel if they weren’t confronting the false beliefs of the Jews and the pagans? When people mis-apply Matt. 7:1 like this they are saying that the message of the Bible, the message of Christ, is to accept all religions as equal. That is devilish idiocy.
Likewise with the child holding the sign saying, “God = love” referring to 1John 4:8 “God is love”. Does the sign holder, or in this case, the 8 1/2 yr old’s mother/father, mean that God loves all people of all religions equally and that all will be saved? That is not the message of the Bible. Yes, for God so loved the world…but it also says, that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life. God loves the world, but there is a huge qualifier here, whosoever believeth on him…if you don’t believe in Jesus you will not be saved.
Guess what? Muslims do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior of men. Therefore they are not saved and will not have everlasting life.
Now to the sign itself. “Islam is of the Devil” This is a reference to 1Corinthians 10:20 “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” and 2Cor. 11:14 “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” Christians not only believe in a real spiritual being called the Devil/Satan, but we believe that all false gods are in reality demons or the Devil. Islam is a false religion that worships a false god, allah, and therefore, Islam is of the Devil.
In conclusion, I absolutely agree with the message of the Church sign and even congratulate the church on its boldness in creating a conversation on this difficult but important topic. Americans have been fed pablum for way too long. If the God of the Bible is god then follow him. If Allah is God, then follow him. But you cannot have both. For the average American libtard who wants to say all religions are true equally, you need to do some serious thinking. All religions might be false, but they all cannot be true. They are logically opposed to each other and mutually contradictory.
Here are the links:
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
« Previous Entries