Tag Archives: islam

Gullibility and Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

We live in an era of great deception. Propaganda flies in all directions and we have to be careful what we believe, being especially alert for half-truths or false fronts where there’s enough truth or goodness to make us ignore or excuse the lies and badness. We can also be easily sidetracked if we get too close to a truth, and must be alert to attempts to deflect and misdirect. So whenever I can I try to expose stories that don’t add up or are incomplete, including the bias and lies of the mainstream media and terrorist organizations like CAIR. We must leave our comfort zones in order to examine all pertinent evidence, and sometimes that means “dumpster diving” (rummaging through material we’d rather not have to look at).

That said, I felt the need today to assemble material on one particular individual, Walid Shoebat. He has made a nice living from his claims to be a former Islamic terrorist turned Christian, even to the point of the US government and military inviting him to serve as an expert consultant. I’ve questioned also the wisdom of allowing any brand new believer to be hailed as an expert on prophecy (or anything else) by the churches, who gulp down his novel interpretations without hesitation. Everyone from generals to churchgoers simply assumes his claims are true. This is foolhardy and dangerous.

Now I’m no fan of Islam, or our corrupt government, or the lack of discernment rampant in the Christian community these days. But I have to consider testimony from all sides, and that means at least hearing what various sources say about this man, even if I don’t trust them much more than I trust him. And in examining the testimonies I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Shoebat is a fake and a scam artist.

But motive is an essential consideration in any investigation or cross-examination. As American Christians we want to believe him, because we like converts and we have been told that our country was attacked by Muslims. Our government can always use someone like Shoebat to reinforce patriotism and acceptance of whatever the military might do to “protect” us. And money is a powerful motive for anyone who knows both of those things and who has the skills to play the part. So the government, the churches, and Shoebat himself all have motives that might contribute to a scam being perpetrated on us.

The motive of the investigators is important to note as well. For me personally, I’m after the truth. I am a staunch defender of the Constitution and want to believe that our country is led by capable and patriotic people, but there is too much evidence to the contrary. I wanted to believe their Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11, so I read a lot about Islam (including the entire Quran) to “know my enemy”, and there are plenty of internet resources proving that Islam teaches world domination by force and trickery and betrayal. But while I am convinced that they had the motive and intent to attack us on 9/11, I do not believe they had the power on their own, especially against the most sophisticated military in the world. (No, I’m not going to allow that debate to rage in the comments here, so don’t start “troofer bashing”; I’m just trying to explain that I am NOT biased in favor of Islam.) Islam is inherently intolerant of other faiths or secular governments; this is indisputable if one looks at its history, especially post-9/11.

But though it was tempting at first to believe Shoebat, and his prophecy claims were intriguing on the surface, red flags began to fly the more I learned about him. In addition to his inconsistent accent (not all Rs “roll”, for example), Shoebat travels and speaks freely without threats or protests from Muslims. There have been no confirmed fatwas or denunciations issued, that I’m aware of. More importantly, the US government has never investigated him or detained him as a terrorist threat; mere assertions of one’s religious conversion are not accepted. (I’ve seen videos showing testimony, some congressional, which convinced me that the US government has been behind the creation and funding of groups such as the Taliban [US-trained in Afghanistan against Russia at the time] and Al Qaeda. Even Oliver North testified that he would obey his commanding officer/the president to the point of violating the Constitution.) In addition, we hear every day of the brutal execution of anyone converting away from Islam in Muslim-controlled areas, so for Shoebat to (a) marry a Christian while still a devout Muslim and (b) live to tell about it is quite… remarkable.

But I also know that “even a broken clock is right twice a day”, so all things must be weighed. There is as much reason to be suspicious of supporters of Shoebat/government/church articles or videos as there is for their opponents. I realize that this quest is like trying to find out from a group of toddlers which one broke the vase, but I think it’s worth a try. And please don’t read a few lines/listen for one minute and go “Oh, this is such hogwash, I can’t stand any more!”; try and patiently go through it all.

Below is the material I gathered, and you’ll note that the sources are not necessarily trustworthy. There will be truth mixed with error, good and bad logic, real and perceived faults. For example, not everything Shoebat has said about Islam is false, and for Muslims to say that the Ft. Hood shooting was anything but Islamic terrorism is denial. “Tolerance” is indeed being used against Americans and Christians to subvert and destroy, by both Islam and the corrupt officials in our government and churches. Yet at the same time, fomenting blind hatred is no improvement. But keep in mind that I’m not trying to cover the entirety of politics or religion here or solve the problems of the Middle East, but only to show why I believe Shoebat is a fraud.

  • CNN report video: pt. 1, pt. 2
  • another video (Not the best quality, but listen to the lack of thick accent by Shoebat, esp. at the :57 mark, and note that this predates the CNN interviews [he is younger], meaning that rather than losing his accent as time passed, he picked it up.)
  • article (Read carefully, but one good point is that the kind of Christianity Shoebat is promoting is actually the Dominionist, “kingdom now” heresy. Another is that his claims don’t add up.)
  • comment
  • The Secret Government and The Elite Exposed (ref. corruption in the US)

When Enemies Fall

Posted on by

The world is talking about one thing right now: the death of Osama Bin Laden. Putting aside the inevitable questions (how he was able to have been “hiding” in a mansion instead of a cave, why he was buried at sea [was he a sailor? so nobody could verify identity by exhuming the body later?] and why so fast, how we can even know whether it’s really him or just a stunt to boost someone’s tanking approval rating for the next election cycle, another excuse for Islamic rioting and western collective guilt, etc.), this is a good opportunity to discuss how Christians should react to the death of an enemy– and not a personal one, but one allegedly responsible for the deaths of thousands. We as nations have in the past cheered the deaths of the likes of Hitler and Stalin, was that wrong? What does the Bible say? There are two polarized reactions among Christians: do not gloat, or rejoice, and both cite scripture in support:

Yes, it is okay to rejoice when enemies fall or to pray for them to fall

  • 2 Chron. 19:2
  • Ps. 44:7
  • Ps. 92:11
  • Ps. 139:21
  • Micah 5:9
  • 2 Sam. 19:6
  • Mt. 23
  • Gal. 5:12
  • Phil. 3:2
  • 2 Tim. 4:14
  • 2 Peter 2

No, we must never be happy when enemies fall or ask God to punish them

  • Prov. 24:17-18
  • Ezekiel 18:23
  • Ezekiel 33:11
  • Mt. 5:43-48

I’ve mentioned before that love for enemies can border on treason against God, and that the post-modern Christian community can’t seem to identify wolves or even know for sure that they exist. But in the verses above, it seems to me that we’re overlooking some important factors in how the people of God in either Testament are to view God’s enemies. On a personal level there is consideration for ignorance and mercy for the truly repentant, but there does come a point when even God shuts the door and “gives them over” to evil. If we continue to placate and treat such people as friends (ironically, often better than our own Christian siblings if they aren’t as “nice” as we demand), are we not siding with God’s enemies? Are we not loving Satan more than God? So the question is whether we can know a person has reached that point, or even if it matters. Of course none of us is God, but is that an excuse to refuse to ever exercise discernment? Can we not continue to pray for someone while also condemning what they do? Can we not praise God for the death of His enemies and the administration of justice for their victims?

But what about the national level? Are we to be like King David who mourned the death of his enemies and thus shamed his own army? Read 1 Sam. 19:5-7–

Then Joab went into the house to the king and said, “Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines. You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you. I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead. Now go out and encourage your men. I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall. This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come on you from your youth till now.”

OBL was not the kind of enemy we have as individuals; this is not a case of someone cutting us off in traffic or robbing us or cursing us. This is a case of the leader of those who took thousands of innocent lives out of hatred for Christians and westerners, and added many more in the ensuing wars which continue to this day. We as a nation have been hoodwinked into blaming ourselves for being victims, much the way Islam blames women for being raped. It’s a loathsome mentality that punishes victims and sends flowers and candy to criminals.

Now look at the scene in heaven when God has come to the end of raining down terrible judgment on the earth in the coming Tribulation. In Rev. 19:1-2 we read,

After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: “Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”

The martyrs early in the Tribulation also asked for revenge (Rev. 6:10) and were not rebuked by God, but only told to be patient. So here we see that rejoicing over fallen enemies is not always wrong, and that love does not mean you never ask for justice.

I think this is the big sticking point: what limits are there on loving one’s enemies? The context in which Jesus said those words, the Sermon on the Mount, was that His followers must internalize the laws of God; that is, it isn’t enough to have only outward righteousness. The “enemies” in that context were neighbors and fellow citizens, not criminals or hostile kings. Yes, we are to reach out and show mercy and pray for them, but does this extend to aiding and abetting one sworn to exterminate us? Are we not to rejoice when such threats are taken away? Is there no difference at all between those who persecute us for our faith and those who would murder us, our children, and our country?

Many who decry the rejoicing of Christians over fallen enemies point to “black and white” thinking as a fault or lack of maturity, yet they themselves are thinking in terms of black and white as well when they equate thanking God for taking out an enemy with gloating as the wicked do, such as dragging a dead body through the streets, going on killing sprees to take vengeance into our own hands, throwing parties, etc. How can it be wrong to thank God for removing evil from our lives? Is that not a display of ingratitude?

I believe in loyalty and honor, and because of that I see the muzzling of Christians who rejoice when their real enemies fall as “You love those who hate you and hate those who love you.” Why are so many Christians so bent on dictating the reactions of other Christians? Why do they feel the need to continually micromanage? Why do they set themselves up as judges, and how can they not see the hypocrisy in doing so when the charge they bring against their brothers and sisters is “judging the hearts of others”? The job of the left hand is not to constrain the right; it is not the place of any of us to dictate our personal convictions on other believers. Let each of us “be fully convinced in our own mind” (Rom. 14:5); let those who cry “judge not” stop judging.

As with many other points of contention regarding the scriptures, there is support on both sides of this issue. But we must be careful that we don’t fall for the “plain reading” method and miss the big picture. If your personal conviction is that you must not feel happy when God’s enemies fall, then don’t be happy. If your personal conviction is that it is treason against God to show no gratitude for His taking the wicked out from in front of us, then show gratitude without shame. But please, try not to gloat over the “falling” of your “enemies”, your own spiritual siblings, who disagree with you. The greatest blunder in all of this would be that we turn on each other instead of our real enemies. State your case and let others state theirs, but don’t harbor ill will toward anyone who disagrees with you.

Pied Piper Patriarchalist Pushes Poisonous Propaganda

Posted on by

In this article from The Christian Post, the infamous John Piper of patriarchy fame has decided that Christians need to “understand Islam” as the saying goes, to the point that we are to equate the outrage they feel when their Koran is burned to what Christians feel concerning the crucifixion of Christ.

Outrage, Mr. Piper, is what we should feel against those who would equate the two.

Oh I know the comparison is between reactions, but your message is very clear: Christians should kowtow to Islam and not offend them because… well, because they will react badly and you don’t think Christians should ever defend themselves or express outrage. But before we examine that claim, let us first of all put this Muslim outrage in perspective. Take a look at The Religion of Peace site and note the current featured photo and caption:

muslim violence If we should respect the Quran because not doing so causes Muslims to get angry and kill, then here are the other things we should stop doing: Educating women. Selling alcohol. Pre-marital sex. Sharing a non-Muslim religious faith. Democracy. Disaster relief. Sporting events. Allowing women to dress as they please. Being gay. Being Hindu. Being Christian. Being Jewish. Being Buddhist. Being Sikh. Being Ahmadi. Being Sufi. Going to the wrong mosque…

Of course I don’t condone everything in that list as compatible with Christianity, but the point they are making is that Islam tolerates nothing and no one, and will react to anything we Christians say or do simply because we live and breathe. To blame us for how Muslims react, especially compared to how most other religions in the world react, is a myopic and naive attitude that only serves to handcuff Christians and lead us off into slavery. We are already made slaves of the world by virtue of the poisonous teachings of many “Christian leaders” today, but we will be made literal slaves of Islam once it takes over our country. Just look at how Christian communities are being treated wherever Islam has power. And don’t ask any dhimis in the West about it, but the many reports of atrocities against Christians in many parts of the world. There are “honor” killings happening in the US right now, and Islam is quickly cementing its goal of being the one protected religion here. (Another excellent source is Jihad Watch, whose authors have received numerous death threats from “misunderstanders of Islam”.)

It should be obvious that appeasement never works, whether the bully is on a playground or commands a nation or religion. Piper of course believes the opposite, advising battered women to appease their abusive men by submitting better— a term well familiar to Muslims, for Islam means “submission”. He will claim it works but the overwhelming evidence to the contrary exposes his claim as quite false. So in spite of all evidence to the contrary concerning Islam, he naturally believes the best response is to bow and scrape because this will cause the Muslims to drop their blood-stained swords and become Christians. Yet anyone with minimal understanding of the teachings of Islam knows that such appeasement is a sign of weakness and an open invitation to be conquered. That is, Piper’s advice is for Christians to commit figurative (and later literal) suicide.

What kind of shepherd lays down the staff designed to both help fallen sheep and beat off wolves, and invites the wolves into the sheep pen for a nice steak dinner? This is exactly what appeasement is to Islam. This is NOT “witnessing” but cowardice and failure to guard, and in fact is treason against the Body of Christ. Would Piper and his ilk actually react to armed robbers in his home by bowing low before them even as they go through the house killing and destroying and stealing? Such a man is “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8)!

Now to the issue of provocation, which is how many view the burning of copies of the Quran. They will say that it is only permissible to burn such things if they were once ours, once our religion, and we are showing that we have renounced it (Acts 19:19). Yet not only is this incident not repeated everywhere Christianity spread, it is never discussed in the Letters, which are “the teachings of the apostles” (Acts 2:42). So if we don’t get our teachings from Acts, then we can’t lean on this incident as normative, and this alleged rule is only a matter of personal preference, not decree. Otherwise we must also, as some have done in the past, take everything else they did in Acts as normative and divinely mandated.

But if we are to use that incident in Acts as a rule, then let us turn to the examples of the apostles in many other instances, and of course to the examples of Jesus, to get a complete picture. Jesus called Herod “that fox” (Luke 13:32); Peter defied national authorities and convicted them publicly (Acts 4, and remember these authorities were not Christians); John the Baptist and Jesus both called the Pharisees names (Luke 3:7, Mt. 23; Jesus continually vexed and provoked them); Paul played the Sadducees and Pharisees against each other (Acts 23:6) and forced Roman officials to publicly escort him out of a city (Acts 16:37); Paul expected God’s revenge on an unbeliever who had done him harm and told Timothy to be on his guard against him (2 Tim. 4:14-15); everywhere the gospel was spread there was upheaval (Acts 17:5), so the mere spreading of the gospel should be defined as provocation according to Piper et al!

Now consider this on another level: do we not think it’s right for Christians to speak out against harmful laws, against crime, against violence? Remember that Islam takes even the mildest disagreement as provocation, so we are continually provoking them just by not being Muslims. There is no real difference between figuratively and literally “burning” the words of Mohammad, so if we are not to burn Qurans with literal fire then we must, to be consistent, stop ever criticizing it or even saying it isn’t what we believe. Do we not provoke the lost in general just by being who we are, but especially by protesting abortion, campaigning against porn, advocating ratings on entertainment to protect our children, etc.? Where is the line drawn, and is it consistent?

To stand for our faith is to provoke; there is no avoiding this. Our existence as Christians is offensive, the Cross is offensive (Gal. 5:11), the Bible is offensive. So those like Piper who would say we can never offend the lost must explain how it is even possible to be Christians then. An unoffensive Christianity is very offensive to Jesus! (Rev. 3:16)

The burning of other religion’s books is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether we have crossed the line from loving the lost to committing treason against our Savior, showing that we are ashamed of Him (Mark 8:38, 2 Tim. 1:8). If Piper wanted to express concern he should have gone to that pastor privately and explained why he thought it to be in poor taste or dangerous to Christians. But instead he did just what the other dhimmis in the world do: renounce his own people in public and show by word and deed that Islam is to be respected and followed. This is not a catholic/protestant thing or a Baptist/Lutheran thing, but a Christ/Antichrist thing. Our outrage should be that we so willingly tolerate “leaders” and “pastors” and “teachers” like Piper who would surrender to “Rome” and sell us all into slavery out of a twisted passivity that does more to insult Jesus than to honor Him.

We MUST learn the difference between seekers and destroyers, between peace and appeasement, between reaching out and collaboration (ref. High Treason). Peace as defined by Islam is the “peace” of death, but the peace of Christ is the peace of safety and unity of spirit; the two cannot be farther apart. To appease Satan is to offend Jesus, and it’s time for Christians to choose where their allegiance lies. The best reaction to those among us who burn Qurans is to contrast the reaction to offenses between Christians and Muslims. This, not cannibalizing our own people, would be a strong and clear witness to the gospel. Whether the pastor who burned it acted unwisely or not is between himself and God, but for the likes of Piper to point fingers at anyone else is the height of hypocrisy, for he continually provokes and consigns to abuse half the Body of Christ (he’d qualify that with “for a season”, as if that makes it better).

If we are NOT provoking Islam every day just by being the “salt and light” Jesus commanded us to be, then we are worthless witnesses. Let the Quran-burning pastor answer to God if he has done something wrong, but look in the mirror and ask yourself how much you have offended others, and whether you really are ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

Newspaper Eschatology

Posted on by

Many believe, as I do, that there will be a global religion half-way through the last seven years of life as we know it, the time of God’s wrath on earth known as the Tribulation. But while many prophecy teachers taught that the world religion would be Roman Catholicism, the rise of Islam has caused many of them to change their minds and now believe Islam will be the world religion.

But both views ignore two important facts: the religion the Antichrist uses to rise to power (Rev. 17) is not the same as when he demands that the whole world worship him (Rev. 13), and the former is represented by a harlot, which is a very strange representation for Islam but which fits well with Roman Catholicism. And the latter is not any existing religion at all (Dan. 11:37) but direct worship of the Antichrist himself as God. Yet another fact to consider is that scripture never mentions a particular religion in the prophecies of who will come against Israel, but only particular nations. Surely the fact that these nations are Islamic explains their motives, but this does not make Islam the coming global religion.

As for the identity of the Antichrist (or Beast, or “the first beast”, etc.), many likewise have switched from saying he will be Roman or Jewish or Catholic (or even space alien) to being the Muslim al-Mahdi. We can speculate all we want but the decisive identifier given in scripture is that he will renew a seven-year covenant between Israel and “many” (Dan. 9:27), and half-way through that time he will violate it and declare himself God in the yet-to-be-built Jewish temple (Dan. 12:11).

Clearly the rise of Islam has contributed to global upheaval, which in itself is a prophetic sign (Dan. 12:1, Jer. 30:7, Mt 24:6-8). But the time of the end is not as simple as some would like to make it. There are other passages besides Daniel’s “70 Weeks” prophecy and the book of Revelation (Psalm 83, Ezekiel 38-39, etc.) and these seem to tell us that the Islamic nations that come to destroy Israel once and for all will be decimated on the mountains of Israel before the Antichrist is even revealed.

Yet Jesus said we must “recognize the signs of the times” (Mt. 16:3), so where is the line drawn between this and “newspaper eschatology”? As I hope to have shown already, we need to think logically and base everything on all pertinent scriptures. The fact that there is an Israel at all (and in unbelief– Ezekiel 37, Dan. 9:24 [the purpose of the Trib. is not only to judge the world but also to finish the punishment of Israel, requiring that they still be in rebellion at the time]) is the biggest sign of the time because it essentially started the prophetic clock again. But Islam as a religion is never mentioned at all and did not exist till 600 years after Christ. We need to remember that there is a connection between the Roman destruction of the previous Jewish temple (Herod’s) and the “prince that shall come”. It is the nations surrounding Israel that were involved then, not the religion called Islam.

In addition to the political/religious signs, there are many other indicators of the lateness of human history: the expected simultaneous reversals of the magnetic poles of both the earth and the sun, the possible near-passage or impact of significant asteroids or comets, and even the possibility of a close encounter with the gravitational pull of a mysterious “Planet X” that has to be seen with an infrared telescope– which, curiously, is being hurriedly built at the South Pole of all places (article, another article). The scenarios these cosmic events could cause bear an uncanny resemblance to many of the judgments of Revelation.

These are certainly “interesting times”, but we need to stay anchored in scripture and sound reasoning, because another characteristic of this time is deception (Mt. 24:5, 2 Thes. 2:3-11). Don’t be like the people described in 2 Peter 3:3-13, but eagerly look for Jesus (Mt. 24:33, 2 Tim. 4:8).

Wicked World, Callous Calumny

Posted on by

My alliteration alludes to the most ancient of blame games, started by Adam himself: “that woman you gave me” (Gen. 3:12). I read frequently from a political site called American Thinker, which normally has good articles. But recently they had a rather misogynistic one called The Descent of Woman, which engaged in the typical scapegoating and stereotyping of women for all that is wrong with the world. In spite of some in the comment stream appealing to reason, history, fact, and much evidence against the article’s premise, others there continue to see women as satanic little Jezebels bent on emasculating men and destroying the world. “Enmity” indeed (Gen. 3:15)!

Like the leftist media’s continual squealing that the evil “vast right-wing conspiracy” is to blame for everything from nuclear war to broken fingernails, male supremacism cannot separate its hatred from reality. And if anyone still wants to claim that our culture is pro-woman, let them explain how so many secular venues still want the Ozzie and Harriet world, where women knew their place and men did whatever they very well wanted, when they wanted (well, as long as other men approved!). But woman’s place, as I’ve written often, is the place of a child who is never allowed to reach full adulthood in all respects as men are allowed.

One would think that with the glaring evil displayed by Islam all over the world, that women would at last be seen as victims instead of instigators. But even when they are bound up like mummies they are still blamed for men’s lack of self-control. In fact, I’ve seen reports that the rampant homosexual pedophilia in some Islamic-controlled areas is admittedly due to women being so removed from public life and seen only as baby-makers. If a woman is raped, she is blamed and often tortured or murdered for it. If she objects to being forced to marry someone 3 or 4 (or more) times her age, she is hunted down and punished. But somehow, western men (and many women too) can look at that and still blame western decadence on women.

When oh when will these misogynists be brought to justice, Lord? How long must women be trampled? Even those who say they honor and value women still treat them like children who must have men’s permission for many things, and like second-class citizens who can never fully use their spiritual gifts. When will the day come that the last are put first, the weak shame the strong, the oppressed are freed, and the burdened are relieved?

Remember, women, you do not need permission to grow up. You do not need permission to be free. You do not need to politely request to preach the gospel, run a business, study theology, support your family, wear whatever you want (both men and women need to dress modestly though!), demand the same purity that men demand from women, teach grown men, council married couples, or change the world for the better as have many brave women in the past. Be strong and brave; don’t buy the lie anymore. Jesus died for you, and in time He will lift you up. “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay’, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). May that day come quickly.

Fiddling While Rome Burns, Part 2 of 2

Posted on by

In Part 1 we saw the record of someone’s journey out of Islam into atheism. They made many excellent points about the spiritual void in people, the willingness to be brainwashed, and the escape from such brainwashing by means of acknowledging that reason is not the enemy of enlightenment and freedom, but its defender. Facts are what they are, and they cannot be wished away or dismissed– objections from religious and scientific zealots to the contrary notwithstanding.

But what would you say to this person now? What facts could you present to convince them that they have only jumped from the frying pan into the fire? Experience? Good behavior? A testimony of your own journey? Community acceptance? Fire insurance? A better “imaginary friend”? A set of rules that makes this person a little king or god over others?

All of those things are what religions do, whether theistic or not. Even atheism has its community, its good deeds, its sense of fulfillment in helping others or achieving some lofty goal. And most of what passes for Christianity is no different. I’ve said before that if the Christian faith is nothing more than community service and love and peace, then there is no need to become one. And if its a cold legalism fronting for the same sins as one finds in the world, then again, there is no need to become one. In fact, I think most professing Christians would be hard-pressed to present anything at all to this atheist that would tip the scales.

That’s why it is so vital for us to know what Jesus came to do, and how to spot errors in logic that lead to faulty conclusions. For example, atheism has its scapegoats and rules and blind faith (in matter to create and order itself), its infallible prophets (philosophers, evolutionist scientists), its sacred texts, its denial of facts which cast doubt on its tenets. This person’s testimony included a brief practice of Buddhism, a non-theistic religion but not really much different from atheism. About the only thing atheism has really given up is the pretense of the supernatural and strict adherence to a particular individual’s teachings.

Remember this last paragraph from Part 1?

But I’m not as arrogant to claim I possess “The Truth”, with a capital tee. In conclusion, for the Muslims in the audience, a quotation from Stephen F. Roberts who eloquently said it best: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

The irony of the last sentence is profound, for the atheist has only renamed God instead of rejecting Him: the atheist’s ultimate god or authority is really magic. They can claim to be free of the illusion of the supernatural and the magical, but this claim can only be sustained by denial– of how anything physical ever came into existence, how it became ordered, or where the concept of a god ever came from if people are incapable of imagining anything that didn’t already exist in the natural world. Whatever the First Cause may be, they conclude, it just can’t be a god. Yet that is no more rational or less taken on blind faith than any theistic religion’s god.

And I can’t help but notice that the first sentence contradicts the most foundational premise of the whole testimony: that fact is what it is and cannot be altered or denied just because we wish it. How can atheists say they do not have the truth without saying truth is unknowable– a very Zen Buddhist belief in itself? Isn’t truth absolute by definition, or it wouldn’t be truth at all? And if all truth is relative, then how can anything be called false?

When asked all these questions, the atheist must face the fact that their belief system is no more free of internal contradiction, blind faith, and denial than any religious philosophy. Atheism simply cannot make exclusive or primary claim to rationality, “free thought”, or non-reliance upon make-believe forces that created the universe. The very arrogance this particular atheist mentions finds its ultimate expression in the fact that in spite of being just like all the other religions and philosophies, it nonetheless claims superiority over them all; it has only moved the line in the sand.

So how does one find Truth through rational inquiry? I think the atheist has overlooked a critical clue: a copy implies an original. That is, if there are many false beliefs in the world, all laying claim to Truth yet all suffering from the same fatal flaws, does this not point to an underlying truth that has simply been overlooked? The rational person would then concentrate their efforts on finding not the similarities among belief systems, but critical differences. And that is the point at which I believe the Bible and its teachings shows itself to be that Original.

Now I have other articles here and more I link to on the Resources page that go into the reasons for my belief about the Bible. But the important issue here is that Christians, sincere though most may be, have probably chased more people away from the Truth than they claim to have attracted. Lame arguments, bad personal examples, failure to do one’s own study instead of allowing paid clergy to think for them… there are many factors.

What we need to do as a group is go back to the simple foundation of the gospel: that Jesus rose from the dead. Many implications flow from that point, but this is the one thing that stands out among all the religions and philosophies in the world. We only undermine this uniqueness when we say everyone worships the same God, or that “doctrine” is hateful, or that the most important thing about salvation is knowing your place in a chain of command. Ecumenism tries to blur all the lines and bring “peace” through outward conformity to those qualities that even atheists can exhibit. But standing on a legally verifiable fact of history, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is that very Rock of Truth against which all other “isms” are smashed.

Rome is burning, Christians… are we going to keep fiddling or are we going to be the rescue squad and fire department that puts the fire out?

Fiddling While Rome Burns, Part 1 of 2

Posted on by

As any student of Bible prophecy would expect, there is much upheaval in the world today, politically, spiritually, and commercially. As a longtime “churchian” and Bible student, I am keenly aware of both the rapid changes occurring now and the deep, long-term roots of those changes. But while the Christian community has been dissecting the Body of Christ with cold and clinical detachment, both the “church” and the world have been spiraling downward to destruction. This must stop.

How is it possible that so many want to nitpick over who exactly can pray out loud, or lead a study, or exercise any other spiritual gift– all on the basis of their genes and not their spirit or education– while the plight of the lost and the backslidden is forgotten? We excuse this by saying (a) we can nitpick while also spreading the gospel and (b) it is natural for people of a religion or philosophy to focus on the details of their faith. But the truth is that it isn’t what Jesus set up that we are focused on, but our own rules and systems.

Now I’m as much a studier of minutiae as anyone, and I love plumbing the depths of scripture and language. But if such study leads us to deny the essentials– freedom from the burden of religious practice, freedom from the control of sin, restored relationship with God through Jesus alone– it has become an idol and a distraction.

The illustration is given of a farmer plowing a field. If the farmer looks down at the ground or off to the side, the rows will be crooked. But if the farmer stays focused on a distant point, the rows will be straight. The plowing still happens, but it must remember its goal. In the same way, we need to remember why we study and why Jesus came.

That focus is the purpose of my book Reconciled, and I would encourage you to read it. But now I’d like to show you what happens when we fail in this charge to be salt and light to the world. This long quote is from someone who made a journey from agnosticism to Islam to atheism, and only highlights points that either show the ways in which Christians are so easily fooled or how we utterly fail to preach the gospel accurately.

The second part will raise questions from the first, and address the reasons people reject God and specifically Christianity.

(source)

Then, I was given a prayer mat, many Islaamic books and Syed Abu-Ala Maududi’s Arabic-English Qur’aan with his famous commentary. This was a totally different ideology given to me before they knew I was “with them” and not simply interested in studying the religion as a kaafir (unbeliever).

Once the Christian had encountered inconsistencies in the substructure of his faith, he became more open to the possibility of Biblical errancy. Faced with numerous contradictions, the keen recipient would be guided to a more agreeable theology found within the Qur’aan. They knew not Arabic, so we provided selected material to them.

Once the non-Muslim was eagerly reading the Qur’aan and Islaamic material, I would present Muhammad as a prophet of God no different from the accepted Hebrew prophets. Guilt and fear were common tactics used to pressure the conversion process.

Without equivocation, the notorious “Yusuf Ali” Qur’aan was a translation that pandered to Western liberal values attempting to lure non-Muslims to Islaam.

Everyone adopted an Islaamic first name, shunned music, and only ate halaal. We new Muslims delightfully welcomed a “brainwashing” since years in kufr (disbelief, ungratefulness to Allaah) left us feeling filthy. An unadulterated Islaam was difficult for the kuffaar (unbelievers) to digest so deviants evidently had a higher success rate in their propagation of Islaam (da’wah) as they modified principles to suit the nafs (carnal self) of recipients. The moderate and sanitized version of Islaam that initially brought me to conversion had to be reassessed.

The ideal of freedom was vehemently rejected as implausible, even in a democracy; the latter we ridiculed as “democrazy.” The plan we envisioned was a homologous Islaamic ummah comprised of compliant Muslim nations willing to accept this nostalgic ideology, followed by a pan-Islaamic government. Funded by Arab petroleum sales, this jihaad could be sustained because Muslim countries held approximately 80% of the world’s readily accessible reserves of crude oil.

With hindsight, I perceive the quintessential factor sustaining my Islaamic faith to be fear. I had buckled under the coercion.

This erroneous and biased wager sought the necessity of considering God for personal convenience, without considering the necessity of truth for the sake of truth itself. There lies Pascal’s Flaw. When emotions took precedence, in dire desperation, I abandoned my most cherished opinions and chose to surrender voluntarily as Allaah’s slave.

Truthfully, I found nothing “revealed” by Prophet Muhammad that couldn’t be influenced by or plagiarized from existing sources, especially from the Judeo-Christian tradition (Tanakh, Talmud, New testament, apocryphal works). Everything Islaamic could be traced to pre-Islaamic origins, from theology to pilgrimage rites.

The god of Islaam, likely just Muhammad’s alter-ego, displayed masculinity, anger, indecision, misogyny, and other moral weaknesses unbefitting of a majestic deity. Between Muhammad and Allaah, there was an uncanny resemblance in personality. Similar to the 1939 musical fantasy film, ‘The Wizard of Oz’, I realized that the Wizard (Allaah) was a fabrication concocted by the man (Muhammad) behind the curtain.

My mind clustered with doubts and objections as I raged with discontent. The deity was fictitious and cruel, the founder deplorably barbaric and sinful, the scripture mediocre and uninspired, the laws primitive and unjust. I perceived Muhammad as a fraud and Allaah as his imaginary friend.

Reverts from a Christian upbringing, because of their dire hatred for Christianity, were blinded to the core principles as taught by Jesus. The grass seemed greener on the other side. But the reality is, where Christians sought forgiveness for sinners, Muslims sought punishment. Muslims prayed towards an inanimate object (i.e., the Ka’bah at Makkah), while Christians prayed towards the heavens. Ahl us-Sunnah proudly ate on the floor with their hands like animals, while the kuffar used chairs and utensils like rightly guided people. As for the corpus of Islaam, unable to find a shred of originality, I concluded the Qur’aan as the most unoriginal composition in religion.

For Christians, Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, while Muslims held the Qur’aan as the Word of God made text.

The Qur’aan says to make no distinction between the Prophets, yet, the hadeeth-inspired Islaam with “Allaah and His Messenger” was awfully similar to the “Father and His Son” in Christianity. Islaam has elevated the Prophet Muhammad to an infallible hero with almost godlike status. However, when Allaah commanded fifty prayers a day in the night of al-Israa’ and Mi’raaj, Muhammad could not “submit” and disobediently sought to reduce the amount repeatedly until it was down to five. Women could legally have no more than one husband, while the Prophet Muhammad could and did have several in one day.

Arrogantly speaking, we Muslims were “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” (3:110) So when an atrocity occurred that was obviously committed by Muslims in the name of Allaah, my fellow brothers and sisters were complacent. We obsequiously forsook the human rights violations in Muslim countries, even when the victims were Muslims. The conspiracy theories widespread in my Muslim society were outright delusion. Not even the moderate Muslims, who neglected salaat and committed zinaa (illegal sex; fornication, adultery, etc.), could accept the Muslim identities of the 9/11 pilots. As my Afghani classmate remarked, “It was the Jews!” When the opportunity arose for self-criticism, inevitably, we instead blamed the Jews, our favourite scapegoat.

We proudly acknowledged the jihaad, yet acted stupid if questioned by a kaafir and responded to their accusations with, for example, “How do you know it was done by Muslims? Where is the evidence?” Although they were not blind to the videotaped confessions by boasting Muslim terrorists, they chose to be. Not all Muslims were terrorists, although it was unequivocally but agonizingly true that most terrorists were Muslims. Sunni Muslims, to be exact. If some Americans or Jews died, there was sympathetic joy and I observed this particular behaviour genially absorbed by one Muslimah just five years old.

The greatest threat to dogmatism is doubt because thinking leads to kufr (disbelief). Islaam thought for us. My classmate Mohammed once said, “You know what your problem is? You think too much!” Ironically, freethinking and open-mindedness brought me to tolerate their da’wah and convert. I embraced Islaam and gave Allaah my undivided worship. But because I now kindly disagree, Islaamic scholars say I should be killed. Even moderate Muslims living in the West concede with my death sentence.

I found it deplorable that Muhammad, a man over fifty years of age, married six year-old ‘Aishah and then consummated the marriage when she was nine. His hatred for the Jews rivaled the antisemitism of Adolf Hitler. The Prophet, supposedly guided by God, did not abolish slavery but actually possessed slaves. He waged systematic campaigns to exterminate opponents. I came from a civilization where murder was considered, believe it or not, wrong?

We had to agree with the inferiority of women, the amputation of the hand for thieves, and antisemitic hatred of the Jews. There was stoning of women and animal sacrifices. Even the incentives of Islaam were ignoble. Paradise, an apparent Club Med in the sky, contained earthly sensuality and materialism catering to primitive man, such as numerous women, wine, and couches. A married Muslimah would spend eternity attending her husband as he titillated with numerous women in bed. A sensible man should expect better treatment for his wife (i.e., an equal human being that is someone’s daughter, sister, or mother). No progressive interpretation of such scripture could hide the ignominiousness.

But I’m not as arrogant to claim I possess “The Truth”, with a capital tee. In conclusion, for the Muslims in the audience, a quotation from Stephen F. Roberts who eloquently said it best: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Part 2 to come…

Nine Years Ago Today

Posted on by

Who would have thought that Muslims and Islam, not Americans and Christianity, would be paraded daily by our media as victims in such a short time?

Who would have thought that Americans, not terrorists, would be digitally strip-searched at airports and lied to about the technology every step of the way– by our own government– because we were the victims of the terror of Muslims and Islam?

Who would have thought that Americans and Christians would be defending the right of Muslims to build a victory mosque at “ground zero” while simultaneously denouncing the right of an American citizen to burn whatever they want on their own property– and threaten them with fines, and pre-blame them for physical violence that will occur worldwide just for planning it?

Who would have dreamed that the daily worldwide atrocities committed in the name of “the religion of peace” would merit them protection and special treatment while praying publicly in the name of Jesus would get a pastor fired?

Who would have dreamed that anyone would consider allowing Sharia law to operate in America, when that law violates our Constitution and is a slap in the face of this country’s founders?

Who in their worst nightmares would think the thousands who died that day would be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, even to the point of blaming the Jews for what their bitterest enemies did?

In only nine years America has gone from world power to world patsy, from the last bastion of freedom to an oppressive police state crawling with high-tech spies, from an industrial giant to a debt-ridden spoiled brat, from a constitutional republic to a caliphate.

We have been betrayed, and I can only grieve for the country that used to be. God is undoubtedly judging us, but as He did with the ancient enemies of Israel, He is quite capable of raining down even greater judgment on ours. The world’s biggest crybaby religion/government is Islam, and right now its tantrums are getting it everything it demands. But this will not last, for judgment is soon to begin on the entire world. The reign of the antichrist will be short-lived.

Metamorphosis Complete

Posted on by

What do you call it when a citizen openly fraternizes with enemies of the state? What do you call it when one spouse openly and brazenly cheats on the other? And what do you call it when a Christian openly and unapologetically fellowships with those who “bring another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4, 2 John 1:10-11), not to witness to them but to accept them as part of the ekklesia?

There have always been apostates among us; there have always been weeds among the wheat (Mt. 13:24-30). But if you read that whole parable, you’ll notice that the harvest is when the difference between wheat and weeds is obvious. So if the differences between believers and unbelievers among us are stark and open, the final redemption of the ekklesia is surely at hand.

Judgment has come upon “the church”, and as Peter said, “For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17). God sends delusion on those who have hardened their hearts (see all the “So God gave them over”s in Rom. 1), and this has surely come to pass in the visible church.

A prime example is found in in this article, whose title, sadly, is more literal than I had hoped when I first saw it. This “church”, this club for Christians (as they all really are), hired an unbeliever to one of their staff positions. Clubs and businesses can hire whoever they want, but when their primary focus is supposedly the gospel of Christ, hiring unbelievers is, shall we say, a mixed message at the very best. We’re not talking about unbelievers attending services or social functions, but being official representatives in some capacity.

This would be like the US military commissioning active and loyal officers of the Chinese army. And these officers keep in daily contact with the Chinese government, openly and unashamedly. They bring their official Chinese army manuals and practice their Chinese army drills right there in the American army camps. And the US Army is okay with that. After all, these are exemplary officers and role models for the soldiers. Now if that scenario were not to produce at least a little “shock and awe” among Americans, then I’d have to question both their loyalty to their own country and their sanity.

Yet here we see virtually this very scenario happening in the churches. Islam has another Jesus who isn’t the Son of God and didn’t die on the cross or pay for anyone’s sins, has a god who does not love the world, teaches Muslims to not befriend infidels unless it is to win their trust so they can be converted (never the other way around), and teaches them to lie to infidels. Yet the bulk of the Christian community believes the god and Jesus of Islam are the God and Jesus of the Bible.

All of this is the fruit of a long indoctrination in the dialectic, where Christians have been systematically trained to abandon scriptural doctrine in favor of outward conformity, and to put outward niceness over the honor and holiness of Jesus. Islam never budges an inch, while Christianity is not only doing all the moving but doing it with gusto. And this is nothing less than spiritual adultery. Yet those of us who see it for what it is are mocked (see the article: “ridiculousness” over the ground zero mosque, and a gratuitous jab at Sarah Palin thrown in for kicks). It “never occurred” to the pastor of that church that hiring this enemy of the gospel “might be a problem”.

That pastor asks, “Does his practice of faith threaten or diminish mine? Are the prayers he offers in a quiet corner of the office harmful to the rest of us? What’s a church to do?” in apparent and woeful ignorance, not only of Islam but of “what a church is to do”. Was Paul a flaming nutcase for all his impassioned railings against compromising the faith? Why did he worry so much about threats to the faith, and why didn’t he invite the Judaizers and Pharisees and pagans to be leaders? After all, what harm could it do, according to this pastor?

To paraphrase an old saying, “With shepherds like these, who needs wolves”? Heck, let’s get rid of the fences and gates and shepherds so the wolves and sheep can be friends! Wolves are only mean (well, only some of them of course) because of bad shepherds who actually try to beat them off and tell the sheep how to spot them.

This pastor further laments that “I’ve yet to find biblical directions for how best to address what, apparently, may be a scandalous outrage.” What?? No directions at all, no situations that might give guidance, no Holy Spirit to provide a tiny clue? Worse yet, it is claimed that “if Jesus were here he would gratefully welcome Mohamed to the church staff… More than that, I think Jesus would extend a hand of friendship, engage in honest and respectful dialogue about faith and actively look for all the things we share in common rather than creating and fanning irrational fears that drive us apart.” Wow… I guess reading the New Testament is a total waste of time them, since it tells us nothing about the purity of the faith, the deadliness of compromise, and the eternal fate of all who deny the divinity and humanity of Jesus.

If the example of this Muslim on the staff of a Baptist church is so much better than that of the Christians, then surely we should conclude that the Christians are simply not living their own faith. And that’s because we have forgotten our own faith and replaced it with a cheap imitation that cares nothing for the exclusive and non-negotiable claims of the real Jesus. We have swallowed whole the sanitized version of Islam that is never seen in the countries it has overtaken, and we refuse to believe that Islam is still preaching a very different message among its own from the one made for western consumption.

The pastor should try asking this exemplary employee what would happen should he renounce Islam and embrace the true Jesus of the Bible, and also what will happen to all the Christians once Sharia law is the new law of the land. We’ll see whether the smallest protest is raised when the girls are forced to marry old men and the women are wrapped like mummies and kept as prisoners in their homes. We’ll try and remember what love and peace even mean when men are executed for leaving Islam or tortured for listening to music. Today’s squabbles over mosques will seem like the good old days. But such questions will not be asked, because apparently there’s no reason at all to renounce Islam.

I would like to hope that I’m not alone in my shock and grief that this is what Christianity has come to. But sadly, many who would object at all would sooner do so only because the pastor in this case is a woman! Yet clearly the males are no better, teaching and promoting all kinds of heresies and acting more like Islam’s founder than Christianity’s. Truly the churches are fully apostate now, and the angels are being summoned to begin the harvest to separate wheat from weeds. We “fiddle” over truly ridiculous things like gender roles while the essentials of the faith are burned before our eyes.

Jesus will return when “the full number of the gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25), after which God will turn His attention back to Israel in order to finish the prophecies about her and finally judge the world for its evil. Let those of us who still remember what the gospel is get busy spreading it so that number can finally be reached. The longer we take, the more pervasive the error, and the more of the lost there will be who are told by “Christians” that they are just fine the way they are.

The Road to Hell

Posted on by

As the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It means that the good one intends to do is worthless if it’s never put into action. As it says in 1 John 3:18, “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” It can be extended to include starting some good thing but not finishing it (Acts 20:24, 2 Cor. 9:4-5).

But I’d propose that it can be extended as well to the human capacity for either denying or being ignorant of the consequences or logical conclusions of one’s beliefs, or to join groups that champion a good cause as a cover for an evil cause.

For example, a person can have a genuine heart for animals and sincerely oppose cruelty to them, and they may join a group such as PETA. But they may not be aware, or choose to ignore, PETA’s hypocrisy and ultimate agenda. I’ve seen reports of PETA members being caught abusing animals, and quotes of their goal of destroying western civilization and ultimately wipe the “cancer” of humanity from the earth. Can those who join this group claim they do not condone what the group does? Can they continue to support it without sharing the guilt of its crimes? Or take Islam for another example. The “moderates” claim they don’t condone what the radicals do, but they have to deny or invent novel interpretations of their holy books to condemn what the radicals practice.

In the same way, there are groups, systems, and teachings under the very vague and broad umbrella called “Christianity” that blend good with evil or law with grace (Mt. 13:24-30, Luke 5:36-39, Gal. 5:9). Many who are involved in these will try to distance themselves from the “extremists” or “fringe” and claim only the good parts as their own. Yet how is this possible, without denying the whole thing in principle? They may claim to only be “separating wheat from chaff”, but then again, they may really be “eating at the table of idols”.

The key difference between those two things is whether the part can logically be separated from the whole. If the whole brings us to a certain conclusion, can anyone just say “I don’t agree with that” and still keep the arguments or principles that lead there? I don’t think they can. Granted they may not have thought through the implications of what they believe, but neither can they cry foul when someone points it out to them.

A specific example would be the common claim that the many pastors who are humble servants cannot be guilty of pride or “lording over”, even though the very teaching of hierarchy in the Body of Christ necessarily leads to that conclusion. If someone is convinced that they exercise God-given authority over other believers, how can this ever be reconciled with “not so among you”? How can it not be called “pride”, regardless of the sincere desire of the one holding this power to wield it benevolently? Can they read the scriptures against hierarchy and also believe that God would turn completely around and establish it? These are two mutually-exclusive principles! To have convinced oneself that the impossible is true is not humility but self-delusion.

Likewise for male supremacy. The same God who said “not so among you”, “no lording over” (NOT “benevolent lording over”), “submit to one another”, and “in Christ there is no male and female”, could never contradict Himself and say “This does not apply between male and female”. And since even the mildest form of male supremacy preserves the arguments and proof-texts of the most extreme, we cannot separate one from the other. It would be like taking a trip to a certain city but stopping at the outskirts because you don’t like that city and don’t agree with what goes on there. You tell other people to take the route you took, but that they too should never actually go into the city. They are only fooling themselves.

So the next time I hear someone defend any sort of hierarchy in the Body of Christ, I will ask them to explain how they can deliberately take the route that leads to that “bad place” but claim not to have wanted to go there. I will ask them how they can recommend a famous steak house but tell everyone the steak is terrible. And I will ask them how they can believe all the teachings of hierarchy but claim they don’t condone practicing it.

Is your pastor “just another servant”? Then why single them out among all the spiritual gifts? Are the husband and wife equal in being? Then why is the man the designated leader of the woman, in spite of all other qualities and abilities? And what exactly is the point of giving lip service to either hierarchy if it is not to be practiced (e.g. “soft comp”)? Or how can monetary giving be voluntary and coerced at the same time (and be honest: guilting someone into giving “cheerfully” is coercion!)? Or how can God force someone to sin and then punish them for sinning, without first giving them a chance to turn from it?

We need to grow up now; we need to face the consequences and implications of our beliefs; we need to “own” what we support or promote. We must stop beliving contradictory things or making excuses for tacit support of those who teach such contradictions.

Beyond Climategate

Posted on by

If you only read mainstream news media, you don’t know much about “climategate”. It’s the news that scientists in charge of the global warming scare, with emphasis on it being somehow caused by humans, have been exposed as frauds. Yes, it’s proof of a large-scale conspiracy, and proof that there is a global agenda to abolish all national sovereignty and send civilization back a thousand years. But that’s not the most important point.

What this incident does is show the tip of the iceberg. It isn’t just global warming that is covered in lies and whose purpose is global domination. There are many other avenues of conquest, including evolutionism and socialism. But the most glaring and pervasive and obvious at the moment is Islam.

At the Frontpage site you can read about the book, A God Who Hates by Wafa Sultan, a former Muslim. She exposes the lies of Islam fearlessly, something the traitors in our western governments hate for anyone to do. Islam is their ticket to the New World Order, their “goon squad” of global governance. It is ruthless and intolerant, warring and deceitful (see more at the Religion of Peace site). They should read this very telling quote from Wafa:

Wafa speaks powerfully about what America means to her. It manifests itself in little things. She leaves her house at 5 am and makes her way to Starbucks to have her coffee without fearing that someone might see her and accuse her of immoral behavior. To her, America means saying “good morning” to her neighbor and chatting with him for a few moments without being accused of having spent the night with him. America, for this courageous woman, means that her daughter can come home and tell her that she had lunch with her boyfriend without being beaten or accused of having impugned the family honor.

The more we capitulate to Islam, the closer we are to becoming all that Wafa ran from. She goes on to explain why this will happen:

“But I was afraid,” she explained when I interviewed her recently, “to express my feelings. I was afraid to express my thoughts, because under Islamic sharia, a Muslim who dares to leave Islam or dares to convert to any other religion is to be killed. And every Muslim has the right to kill someone who has left Islam without being asked a question. This is the Islamic law. Once you were born as a Muslim, you’re not allowed to leave it. This is simply the Islamic law, and it seems to me it’s very hard to convince Americans that this is the way it is.”

The recent Rifqa Bary apostasy case shows how right Wafa is about that, and how urgent her message is. Rifqa Bary is the teenage girl, a Muslim in Ohio, who left Islam four years ago and converted to Christianity. When her father found out about her conversion, she fled from her home in fear for her life. She said she ran away to Florida because she wanted to get as far away as she could — because not only her family but the mosque and the community in Ohio is very devout, and as an apostate she is in danger. But now she has been returned to Ohio, in large part because American authorities don’t know anything about Islamic apostasy law.

If they had read A God Who Hates, Rifqa might be in a safer place today. “This case,” said Wafa, “showed America in a very ugly light, that we will sacrifice a young girl on the altar of political correctness rather than do the right thing.”

I have sent emails to my governor and others, and of course I’ve gotten no response. He is sympathetic to CAIR and especially to the Somali population in Columbus, who apparently helped to get him elected. Those are his true constituents, not the people of Ohio. And if we continue to stand for this, by silence or reelection, we have the blood of all the Rifqas who have died or will die in this country at the hands of their own parents or brothers. Yes, it can, and already has, happen in America.

Wake up! The leaders of the world have betrayed us. Don’t trust them or the media that they control. This is NOT a free country and has not been for some time, though we have held on to many small-scale freedoms so far. But it will not last, and if we care about our children at all, we must get rid of all the traitors to our Constitution. Don’t let the 2010 election see you doing the same old thing.

Look at what’s going on in the rest of the world too, especially at “carbonhagen” where the elites intend to forge ahead with their man-caused warming fearmongering in order to take away our rights. They blame western civilization for everything, ignoring all the advances in medicine and level of comfort we’ve enjoyed as a result of freedom. We are not the evil gluttons they paint us as, and the third-world countries are not suffering because of us. They suffer because their leaders confiscate aid at the borders, deny people the freedom to own and farm their own lands, and only care about power.

This is a rant and a warning, not a time to haggle over politics. It is a time to stand against globalism, starting here in this once-free country.

Jumping to Conclusions

Posted on by

In my previous post I compared the arguments for male supremacy with those formerly used for slavery. But now I’d like to compare two religions. I’ll start by making a list of things common to both of them, but if you can’t already tell which ones they are, please don’t jump ahead to find out which two religions this list is about. This list really only scratches the surface, but should be enough to make a point.

  1. A “spiritual seeker” is dismayed by the corruption in existing religions.
  2. He prays for enlightenment to find the true religion.
  3. He experiences one or more visions wherein an angel of God appears.
  4. The angel tells him the other religions are corrupt and he should join none of them.
  5. He is told that he is the only one pure enough in heart to receive the truth and restore it to mankind, and is the last of the chosen prophets.
  6. He is shown plates of gold with God’s own writing on them.
  7. He copies the words from the plates.
  8. He tells others that these words are the true, restored writings of God.
  9. Though there were no reliable witnesses to any of this, he gathers some trusted followers but soon opposition forms.
  10. He and his followers resort to violence, but claim it is always in self-defense.
  11. He receives “new revelation” that reverses some of the least popular teachings among his followers, especially the more influential ones.
  12. Personally, he practices polygamy and denounces his detractors.
  13. In spite of having denounced “denominations” as being proof of corruption, his religion splits into factions, each claiming to be the “true” religion.
  14. The majority of followers claim that only extremists do violence.
  15. Their religion’s leaders claim the right of “progressive revelation”, at the level of either the basic teachings or interpretations.
  16. History is continually and meticulously rewritten to support the religion.

Now before I say what you’ve probably already guessed by now, consider the popular pastime of claiming that all religions worship the same god. After all, similar teachings must indicate a common spiritual truth, right? Shouldn’t these two religions just join together and work out the details later? Or better yet, maybe they could both agree to dispense with whatever differences there are and only keep the common teachings. Or perhaps, like a hostile corporate takeover, one could assimilate the other and then rewrite history again to perpetuate the myth of purity and truth.

Now multiply this scenario by the number of religions in the world and you’ll have some idea of the aim of the global elite in consolidating power through not only industry and politics, but also religion. All of them have some commonality, such as the privileged class, the ostrasizing of wayward peons, and the exclusion of women from places of authority. Sadly, these things are as true of what passes now for Christianity as for any other religion. Money, power, corruption, and control of the masses know no religious bounds.

What are the two religions in the list? Mormonism and Islam.

So shouldn’t we say that they both really teach a spiritual truth? Or instead, shouldn’t we wake up to the fact that since neither is true, then blending them together will not produce truth either? And shouldn’t we take this as a lesson in how gullible people are in swallowing any tale told by a “seer”?

Think about what’s going on in the churches now, online or off. There is a relentless push toward assimilation, which is claimed to be in the interest of peace and unity. But if we learn anything from history, we should never fall for this dialectic process which tries to pass off two wrongs as making a right. Real unity is found in the Spirit and Truth, not in ignoring truth or sacrificing inconvenient facts on the altar of “communitarianism”.

Imagine how easy it will be to blend all the world’s religions by first of all claiming that they all teach “different paths to the same god”. Add a cup of mysticism and a tablespoon of nature worship, mix with socialism and bake in an oven of fear. The result is not going to be the utopia these “cooks” envision, but a monstrosity that devours its creators.

Changelings

Posted on by

World Net Daily has published some pretty wild and sensational things, but there are legitimate reports as well. Today’s include an exposé of something called “Chrislam”, which I have called Islamanity. But while my article focused on the treatment of women, this one on “Christians Celebrating Ramadan” shows just how far compromisers (aka traitors) in Christianity are willing to go.

Notice how something that started as a great idea— using Ramadan as a reminder to focus prayer on Muslims for their salvation by accepting Jesus as Savior— has been hijacked into a full-blown apostasy from the gospel. Quotes:

The origin of this international prayer network came about as a group of Christian leaders were praying during a meeting in the Middle East in April 1992. God put a burden on the hearts of these men and women to call as many Christians as possible to pray for the Muslim world.

But a smaller left-wing Christian sect, often referred to as “the emerging church,” is now also taking a very different approach. This year, a group of emergent Christians led by one of the United States most influential pastors, Brian McLaren, has announced that it will actually be “observing” the Muslim holy month, along with a Muslim “partner.”

McLaren’s insistence that he has not converted to Islam is belied by what is obviously a repudiation of the exclusive truth of the gospel:

Our main purpose for participating will be our own spiritual growth, health, learning, and maturity, but we also hope that our experience will inspire others to pray and work for peace and the common good, together with people of other faith traditions … as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.

A similar quote from Tony Campolo demonstrates exactly what I wrote about recently concerning the Hegelian Dialectic and mysticism, revealing a pattern of pushing contradictory things:

What is also so concerning to observers of the growing emergent Christian movement is its tendencies to rarely express the Christian gospel while loudly and often proclaiming either a classic humanist message or outright religious pluralism.

This quote from Campolo is particularly blatant:

“I’m not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians,” stated Campolo. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say he believes many Muslims do not even need to be evangelized.

[W]hat can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, “But he hasn’t a personal relationship with Christ.” I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn’t know it.”

Can it get any more obvious? And the influence of these apostates is growing; I see it all the time online. It’s bad enough when the secular governments of the world commit political suicide by “embracing Islam”, but when the “church” commits spiritual suicide, persecution of the few remaining followers of Jesus as God in the flesh can’t be far behind. Standing for the truth and the exclusivity of salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone will be seen as a capital offense, not only by government but especially by the religious. As Jesus said in John 16:2, they will think that putting us to death is a great spiritual service to “God”, whoever or whatever they perceive that to be. It’s a small step from merely hating us to having us executed, and the hate is already here.

Stand strong on the gospel and don’t concede an inch, because these fake believers will take a million miles. “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses” (Prov. 27:6). Better to offend than to smile as they skip merrily to hell.

Islamanity

Posted on by

Back in the 60s there was a movie called “The President’s Analyst”. At one point the analyst (psychiatrist) is captured by a Russian spy, who says something that turned out to be disturbingly prophetic: “Every day Russia becomes more capitalistic, and America becomes more socialistic. Eventually we will meet in the middle and join hands.”

People are easy prey for gradual attacks; we’ve seen it in the US for a long time in the political realm. But I am seeing the same sort of assault on women in Christianity, and it has now reached a very ominous stage. I have assembled here a brief comparison between the teachings of many respected Christian leaders and the official teachings of Islam. I will take Islamic quotes from The Religion of Peace; other quotes are cited with their individual sources.

  • Sura (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them [women]“
  • Sura (24:31) – Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.
  • Sura (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…”
  • Bukhari (62:81) – “The Prophet said: “‘The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women’s) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).’” In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her legs.
  • Ishaq 969 – “Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons.” – This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.
  • The fourth Caliph, who was Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin, said just a few years after the prophet’s death that “The entire woman is an evil. And what is worse is that it is a necessary evil.”
  • A traditional Islamic saying is that, “A woman’s heaven is beneath her husband’s feet.”
  • The revered Islamic scholar, al-Ghazali, who has been called ‘the greatest Muslim after Muhammad,’ writes that the role of a Muslim woman is to “stay at home and get on with her sewing. She should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbors and only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband… and seek to satisfy him in everything… Her sole worry should be her virtue… She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband’s sexual needs at any moment.” [as quoted from Ibn Warraq]

Now for some “Christian” quotes:

  • “A wife’s submission to her husband should parallel the church’s submission to Christ. ” (CBMW)
  • “God has placed the husband in the position of responsibility.” ( CBMW )
  • “Christian fathers will be built-up and encouraged in their role as spiritual leader of the home.” (Source) [Note the insulting disclaimer there: "We ask that these CDs be listened to by men only. We would not want to stir up expectations in a mom's heart that might not be fulfilled and then be a source of discouragement for her." In other words, "Don't hold your husband to these principles, but by golly, you'd better hold to the rules he makes for you!"]
  • “The first and golden duty of a Christian wife in the home is SUBMISSION [sic] to her own husband (Eph. 5:22). This is first demonstrated when on their wedding day she publicly admits to forfeit her fathers name and takes pleasure in being called by her husbands name. She recognizes and accepts him as her God-given head and leader of the newly formed home… If the altar of intercession collapses in the home, he is to be blamed.” (Source)
    • the alpha male in action

    the alpha male in action

  • “…God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7)…” CBMW
  • “Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.” CBMW, The Danvers Statement, Affirmation #3

(Note: I may blog about that last one next; that “statement” is filled with false accusations and distortions of its own.)

I would invite any of my readers to add to the comparison, as I have only shown the tip of the iceberg. We could also add a ton of anecdotal evidence, such as the prairie dress / burkha parallel.

Any religious system which treats any human as less than human (treats, regardless of the rhetoric offered in an effort to make subservience into equality), which gives entitlement to one over another, which tries to homogenize all men into this and all women into that (same for any other kind of prejudice), which bases spiritual things on the flesh, is an ungodly and un-Christian one, and thus a fake. The same goes for any system of salvation by good deeds, by hidden knowledge, or by mystical practices. Elitism is elitism, and it’s not a Christian virtue.

The picture is from The Religion of Peace as of May 1, 2009. It was taken in Albania.

Global Insecurity

Posted on by

That title isn’t another one of my plays on words, it’s an actual organization, and a globalist one. At Constance Cumbey‘s blog you can read the text of a speech given at a conference by the same name on July 14-15. Pay careful attention to the terms and the obvious intensified push toward global government– and especially to the broad-brush term fundamentalism as the identified enemy.

How all religious fundamentalists (but we all know it’s really just Christians) get lumped into 9/11 is one of the great deceptions of our time. There is only one religion associated with that terrible day, only one religion known for its global terrorism, only one religion that openly markets hate, fear, murder, and repression and still gets glowing press coverage: Islam. Why are they so afraid to say it’s Islam and not “fundamentalism”? (And by the way: in calling the Muslim terrorists “fundamentalists”, if they insist they really do include them in the name, they admit that these are faithful practicing Muslims, thereby putting the blame on Islam as a religion.)

Why indeed. What other religion issues serious death threats against any and all detractors? What other religion is having the red carpet rolled out for it all over the world: their own washrooms in public places, their own food served in public schools, their sharia law enforced even in places like England? What other religion is fueled by oil riches to buy weapons and influence?

People rage about the Christian far-right and the Zionists, but for some strange reason they have a conniption if you say something bad about Islam. Are they Christophobic? Judophobic? Theophobic? Free-o-phobic? If the rest of us are Islamophobic, then the shoe fits. But the truth is, Islam is the only religion they know will come after them with swords and guns if they criticize them, so it’s open season on everyone else. It is they who are the real phobics.

But little does Islam realize that it is playing the prophetic role God (the real one, not some moon-demon) assigned to them. They will be the reason for the war of Ezekiel 38-39, and their utter ruin will be the reason for Israel’s false sense of security, and that will be the time the Antichrist signs the 7-year peace treaty between Israel and “many”. They are being set up for destruction.

Bring it on!

Out of Thin Air

Posted on by

I felt that in these deceptive times, especially when the news reports students being suspended from school in England for not performing Islamic prayers, it was important to help spread truth about the history of the Middle East. Here are some good articles, with excerpts.

Sources:

Myths of the Middle East
More Myths of the Middle East
The Islamic Claim to the Temple Mount

Excerpts:

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Palestine has never existed — before or since — as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

My recent commentaries on the Middle East have touched off a virtual international firestorm on the Internet.

Since writing “Myths of the Middle East” less than two weeks ago, I have been inundated with e-mail from all over the world — at least 5,000 letters from Israel alone! The article has been translated into a dozen languages. It has been the subject of network television debates. It has been read on Israeli national radio. And, while most of the reaction has been passionately favorable, there have been threats on my life and the lives of my family members. There have been vicious, obscene, vulgar and profane denunciations.

The reaction illustrates just how far apart the Arabs and Israelis are in the so-called “peace process.”

There has clearly been no progress since 1947.

In fact, there is ample evidence that some Arab leaders are right now attempting to revise history in new ways that strongly suggest there is nothing Israel can ever do to appease the violence in their hearts.

Jerusalem’s role as “The Third Holiest Site in Islam” in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. It was created by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini

Most of the problems surrounding Jerusalem can be traced to two areas of dispute. One is the political area that asks Jerusalem to be the capital of both Israel and the nascent Palestine. The other and most contentious problem is the holiness of Temple Mount to both Judaism and Islam.

The role Jerusalem has in the Hebrew holy works is well known and not open to debate; however, there are varying opinions on the holiness of Jerusalem, specifically Temple Mount to Islam.

Many if not most opinions that counter Islam’s claim point out the Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and did not occupy any special role in Islam until recent political exigencies transformed Jerusalem into Islam’s third holy site.

Jerusalem’s role as “The Third Holiest Site in Islam” in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s.

The Islamic claim to the Temple is very recent, since 1930

Blind Bats and Boiled Frogs

Posted on by

There is a familiar illustration for how easily people can be destroyed by gradual change: If you put a frog in a pot of water and very slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will not jump out to save itself because it can’t detect the slow change in temperature. Likewise, people are easily fooled, controlled, or destroyed by gradual assaults rather than blunt frontal attacks.

But what I read today in a news article about “no-go” areas in England where non-Muslims are not allowed to be, it occurred to me that not only are we all in some very hot water right now, but people are also blind as bats to the history and tactics of Islam.

Does anybody remember the riots in France? How about the muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry people with service animals? Or the high schools where muslims get their own washrooms and interrupt the school day with non-voluntary (to the muslims) prayers? Or the minarets blasting calls to muslim prayer in Michigan which violate public nuisance laws but continue nonetheless? Does a day go by where there isn’t news of a beheading, an “honor killing”, a riot where muslim men shout murderous threats to entire nations?

Wake up, people! Open your eyes. Islam is no “religion of peace”, but a treaty-breaking, hate preaching, aggressive, militaristic, repressive Big Brother. You haven’t seen political correctness till you know how life really is for people in islamic-controlled countries. Under such systems you can kiss freedom, music, love, peace, and pretty much everything else goodbye. And if you just sit there in the boiling water and do nothing to object or repel this evil juggernaut, you are voting in favor of this religion of hate.

Act or boil.

What’s Honor Got to Do With It?

Posted on by

I never cease to be amazed at people’s capacity for twisted thinking and blind devotion to reprehensible traditions. I refer to today’s news article about a Muslim woman who got “re-virginized” before her wedding.

Talk about things that make you go “Huh??”!

She wants to honor her family by “proving her virginity” to her husband-to-be. I don’t know about you, but isn’t there something just a little wrong with sleeping around and then putting a bit of body tissue where something else used to be and calling it “virginity”? And what could motivate such obviously hypocritical thinking?

The answer brings us to another case of “honor”-related madness: murdering someone to keep them from shaming you. If anyone found out that this woman wasn’t in fact a virgin, they’d kill her. I say there is no honor in killing one’s own relative just because they were immoral. How many of the killers are immoral? How many of those self-righteous Muslim men are virgins themselves? We’ve seen story after story about devout Muslim men who trained to be martyrs in the name of their “religion of peace”, but before they blew people up they spent time in brothels or strip clubs. And these people talk about honor!

Such a lopsided view of religion should make Islam nothing but a bad memory, but this same kind of madness is infiltrating the churches. Many want to go back to the dark ages and treat women like property, and teach that only women are supposed to be pure and chaste. It wouldn’t take much for such men to slide down to the level of Islam.

Mind Meld

Posted on by

Today’s news headlines included one saying the leaders of the Muslim world want to get with the Pope on finding areas of agreement– as long as we don’t wage war on them, oppress them, yadda yadda yadda.

Two little points about that.

One, it’s kind of the old “have you stopped beating your wife?” thing. Real Christians don’t start wars. But we do defend when attacked, and to fail to do so would be sinful because it would be irresponsible and cowardly. However, they seem to have forgotten 9/11, and the fact that only the Quran expressly commands war against one’s enemies (the NT does not). There are many proofs of Islamic war, oppression, etc. against Christians wherever Islam is dominant. So for them to even say this is to be in utter denial of their own religion’s bloodstained hands. And they live under the great delusion that the US government’s actions have anything at all to do with Biblical Christianity.

Two, they think the Pope represents Christianity. Not true at all. That religion’s teachings use Biblical terminology but that’s where the resemblance ends. I can see many parallels between their teachings and those of Mormonism for example, another religion claiming to be Christian. But the Pope is all too eager to assimilate meld with the Muslim world, not for “peace”, but for control. Islam is brutal, but Roman Catholicism is very sneaky and politically powerful worldwide.

At any rate, I really don’t care what they do. I am a member of that group which is quickly becoming the scapegoat and common enemy of them both, because I believe there is only one God, YHWH, one Savior, Jesus, and one Resurrection. The prophetic days are here, and soon the persecution will begin. Any who turn to Jesus when the New World Religion is formally organized will be executed, mostly likely by beheading as the Bible tells us. And who better to do that particular job than Muslims?

Religion of Peace?

Posted on by

Muslim Response to Danish Cartoons was Predictable

Mohammed Himself Authorized the Assassinations of Those Who Satirized Him (See examples below)

“Muslims who attack or threaten death to those who mock Mohammed are following in the footsteps of Mohammed himself.” — Randall Terry, President, Society for Truth and Justice

According to Islamic law, satirizing Mohammed has been a capital offense. Here are historic examples:

It is a capital offense under Islamic law (punishable by up to death) to satirize or mock Mohammed.

Islamic law (the Shari’a) is the political aggregate of the Quran, the sayings of Mohammed (the hadith), and the deeds of Mohamed (the Sunna – not to be confused with Sunni Muslims)

In Mohammed’s lifetime, he ordered the assassination or the execution of individuals who satirized him. His actions are the foundation for why it is a criminal offense to satirize, speak ill of, or in any way publicly deny the authenticity of Mohammed’s mantle, mission, and message.

We can expect the following:

Muslims worldwide will demand that no cartoons or satirizing of Mohammed be allowed in any nation that enjoys freedom of speech and press.

Some newspapers will bow to these demands, others who cherish the freedom of speech and the press will resist such political and cultural incarceration.

We can expect and Islamic religious leader to issue a fatwa (judgment and condemnation) against the author(s) of such cartoons, calling for their death for the crime of blasphemy.

Threats of death or assassination attempts will be levied against those who authored the cartoons.

Threats, assassination attempts, or destruction of property for the newspapers who ran the cartoons will begin to happen.

Here are two historic examples of Mohammed orchestrating the assassination of someone who satirized him: (Please Note: the following accounts are recorded by one of the most respected Islamic historians in the world, Ibn Ishaq; his work dates from the 700s A.D. THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF A DETRACTOR, BUT RATHER OF A DEVOUT MUSLIM.)

Example 1) Ibn Ishaq recounts the killing of “the enemy of God” named Ka’b son of al-Ashraf. After Badr, Ka’b “began to inveigh against the apostle”" He wrote satirical verses of poetry that were insulting to Mohammed and Islamic women. Mohammed said, “Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf”" Muhammad son of Maslama said, ‘I will deal with them for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.’ He said, ‘Do so if you can.’” Mohammed then gave the assassin permission to lie and deceive the target of his wrath. Amazingly, the killer recruited the victim’s foster brother, who had become a Muslim. Together, with the foster brother having the victim’s confidence, they led him on a midnight stroll pretending to visit and conduct business with him. On signal, they lunged on him. The assassin reported: “I thrust [my dagger] into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground… Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life” (See page 365 — 368, Ibn Ishaq)

Example 2) Tragically, we see that women are not exempt from this type treatment. When Abu ‘Afak was assassinated for publicly speaking against Mohammed’s killing of another man, Asma daughter of Marwan wrote verses of poetry against Mohammed for Abu ‘Afak’s murder. Ishaq records: “When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter”‘ Umayr… who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he (Mohammed) said, ‘You have helped God and his apostle, O Umayr!’ When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her…’” (Ibn Ishaq, 675-676)

Source: The Life of Mohammed; Ibn Ishaq. Translated by A. Guillaume. Oxford University press, Pakistan, 1967.

Randall Terry, President, Society for Truth and Justice, comments:

“If we are going to understand the Islamic mind, we must study the life of Mohammed. “What would Mohammed do?” needs to be the grid through which we view Islamic culture, law, and acts of terrorism. If you want to understand the Middle East: study Mohammed.”

“Muslims who attack or threaten death to those who mock Mohammed are following in the footsteps of Mohammed himself.”

“The best thing that newspapers in America and around the world can do is to run the cartoon of Mohammed over and over and over; in this we will simultaneously show the true nature of freedom, and the true nature of Islam.”

ABOUT RANDALL

Randall Terry has spent the last year and a half studying Islam. His studies have included: beginning his Arabic studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; college courses on Islamic history and sociology; spending seven weeks studying historic sites in Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Greece; doing research in Islamic primary sources for a lengthy project comparing Christ and Mohamed. Mr. Terry is the author of five published books; he is currently the President of the Society for Truth and Justice.

Mr. Terry has a B.A. (with a concentration in communications) from the State University of New York; a B.A. from Whitfield College School of Religion; and a three-year degree from Elim Bible Institute, majoring in Scriptural Studies.