The Apple Of God's Eye

November 14, 2009

Muslim Violence: Politically Correct Weakness Was Inevitable Precursor To Fort Hood Deaths!

www.freerepublic.comAccording to a November 10 Newsmax article, 10 Percent of 2000 U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad and extremism, the FBI Estimates.

Here are some astounding facts about Islamic thought in the USA. About a quarter of the Muslims in America ages 18 through 29 believe that suicide bombings can be justified, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Generating those attitudes are imams who preach jihad and hatred in American mosques and postings on the Internet, according to FBI counter terrorism officials interviewed for the book, “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack. The same source said, “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants, it’s the Muslims.” …

The Bible shows that we have a muddled, minority-privilege, criminal-as-victim rationalization within our societies. This view is fueled largely by our liberal leadership and media’s look-the-other-way response and pretending the greatest danger in the war on terror is increased discrimination against peaceful American Muslims. Nothing, but nothing seems to prevent us from prioritizing “sending the right message” to the Islamic world over dealing with the truth.

That sort of thinking puts into perspective  the problem facing us as we ponder the meaning of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Numerous signs point to Hasan’s jihadist motives:

  1. His attendance at a mosque with a jihadist hate preacher—Anwar al-Awlaki, the same “spiritual adviser” to three of the 9/11 terrorists.
  2. His labeling of the war on terror a “war on Islam.”
  3. His identifying his nationality not as American, but Palestinian.
  4. His being reprimanded during his postgraduate work for inappropriately proselytizing for Islam.
  5. His efforts, noted by U.S. intelligence officials, to contact members of al Qaeda.
  6. His evident approval of a Muslim terrorist killing an Army recruiter in Arkansas this past summer.
  7. His statements (according to colleague Col. Terry Lee), that Muslims had the right to attack Americans, and that “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”
  8. His lecture to doctors at Walter Reed in D.C. where he warned that “adverse events” could occur if the military didn’t release Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors.
  9. His statement, in the same presentation, calling non-Muslims (in the words of the Sunday Telegraph) “infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire,” and saying they “should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
  10. His statement to a neighbor the morning of the attack, as he gave her a Koran with his business card, “I’m going to do good work for God.”
  11. His shout of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great) before he mowed down his victims.

More motives are appearing by the minute and it is clear that the radical element of Islam influenced Hasan.

Don’t expect many retractions from any who assume Hasan’s religion had no bearing on his motive in the attack. That is because political correctness is cherished more than truth. Most in power or in the press have downplayed the jihadist connection from the moment the tragedy happened. They ascribed the attack to Hasan’s supposed mental imbalances, stress from counseling traumatized soldiers, or harassment he endured for being Muslim. Everything at all, except the fact that he is a Muslim with extreme views.

Gen. George Casey, the U.S. Army chief of staff, said it’s important not to speculate about the role his Muslim faith played in the outburst. Well, why not given the facts stated above? Because his concern is to prevent a backlash against Muslims in the military.

President Obama also issued a statement saying, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”  sounds noble right, except this is the same man who, before knowing all the facts, glibly judged that the Cambridge police’s actions against Henry Louis Gates fit a pattern of racial profiling in America.

I don’t see that these 13 murders will do anything to change the culture of political correctness strangling our Western nations. They have a stubborn, unshakable conviction that the best way to fight Islamist terrorism is to avoid offense. This runs parallel to a prophecy in Isaiah which states: “[W]e have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.”

The Prophet Moses warned that the end-time nations of Israel, of which the U.S. is one, would suffer. Among their punishments: “The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.” And why? “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them” (Deuteronomy 32:25, 28).

Doesn’t the above information adeptly show a nation void of counsel and bereft of understanding? As long as we continue to cherish political correctness above truth and value diversity over life itself, we will continue to suffer. The reason? Our life is void of God’s word.

Advertisements

September 5, 2009

London Mayor Calls For Day Of Fasting – To Better Understand Muslims

Filed under: Muslims,Newswires — melchia @ 5:08 pm

Mayor Boris Johnson is calling on Londoners to set aside a day for fasting, but certainly not for anything like national repentance or to petition God for help in dealing with the many problems Britain is facing. He’s calling on Brits to fast in order to better understand London’s Muslim community.

Johnson spoke at the East London Mosque and London Muslim Center to commemorate the start of Ramadan, where observant Muslims fast from dawn till dusk, every day for a month.

“I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbor and break your fast at the local mosque,” he said. “I would be very surprised if you didn’t find that you share more in common than you thought.”

Eventually, the Bible says, Britain will awaken to the “sickness” that is spreading from within (Hosea 5:13). When it does, however, it will be too late.

Source: Trumpet.com

June 14, 2009

The Violence Of Islam

—————————————————————————————————-
Editors Comment: I posted this article  from probe.org in its entirety because I thought it contained a good insight into a politically incorrect subject. Too many are willing to minimize what is plainly evident before our eyes today. Islam is not a religion of peace, though many practice it that way. From the outset, as the article states, Muhammad conquered with the sword and this philosophy is now manifesting itself again in a huge way worldwide. Any opposition is worn down through suppression – either violent or non-violent through political pressure by integration into other societies.
—————————————————————————————————-

On September 11, 2001 Americans found themselves confronted by an enemy they knew little about. We had suddenly lost more lives to a sneak attack than had been lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor and yet few understood the reasons for the hatred that prompted the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and part of the Pentagon. Even in the days that followed, Americans were getting mixed signals from the media and from national politicians. One voice focused on the peaceful nature of Islam, going so far as to argue that Osama bin Laden could not be a faithful Muslim and commit the acts attributed to him. Others warned that bin Laden has a considerable following in the Muslim world and that even if he was removed as a potential threat many would step in to replace him with equal or greater fervor.

Some argued that fundamentalist Muslims are no different than fundamentalist believers of any religion. The problem is not Islam, but religious belief of any type when taken too seriously. This view holds that all forms of religious belief, Christian, Jewish, or Islamic can promote terrorism. Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania writes that:

If Osama Bin Laden were a Christian, and he still wanted to destroy the World Trade Center, he would cite Jesus’ rampage against the money-changers. If he didn’t want to destroy the World Trade Center, he could stress the Sermon on the Mount. [1]

His view is that terrorism can be justified by any religion when people are economically depressed. He adds “there is no timeless, immutable essence of Islam, rooted in the Quran, that condemns it to a medieval morality.” [2]

This claim points to the question: Is there something inherent in Islam that makes it more likely to resort to violence than other world religions like Christianity or Buddhism? While it is important to admit that all religions and ideologies have adherents that are willing to use violence to achieve what they believe are justified ends, it does not follow that all religions and ideologies teach equally the legitimacy of violent means.

People have committed horrible atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ, from the inquisitions to the slaying of abortionists. However, it is my position that it is not possible to justify these actions from the teachings of Christ Himself. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus teach that one should kill for the sake of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, or to defend the honor of Jesus Himself.

What about Islam? My contention is that Islam’s founder Muhammad, and the Quran, its holy book, condone violence as a legitimate tool for furthering Allah’s goals. And that those who use violence in the name of Allah are following a tradition that began with the very birth of Islam.

Muhammad

As mentioned earlier, there are followers in most of the world’s belief systems that justify the use of violence to achieve their religious or political goals. However, this says more about the sinfulness of humanity than it does about the belief system itself. It is important to look past the individual behavior of a few followers to the message and actions of the founder of each system and his or her closest disciples. In the case of Islam, this means Muhammad and the leadership of Islam after Muhammad’s death.

One cannot overstate the centrality of Muhammad’s example within the religion of Islam. One of the greatest Muslim theologians, al- Ghazzali, writes of Muhammad:

Know that the key to happiness is to follow the sunna [Muhammad’s actions] and to imitate the Messenger of God in all his coming and going, his movement and rest, in his way of eating, his attitude, his sleep and his talkGod has said: “What the messenger has brought–accept it, and what he has prohibited–refrain from it!” (59:7). That means, you have to sit while putting on trousers, and to stand when winding a turban, and to begin with the right foot when putting on shoes. [3]

Although considered only human, one Muslim writer describes Muhammad as “[T]he best model for man in piety and perfection. He is a living proof of what man can be and of what he can accomplish in the realm of excellence and virtue. . . .” [4] So it is important to note that Muhammad believed that violence is a natural part of Islam. Many passages of the Quran, which came from Muhammad’s lips support violence. Followers are told to “fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them (9:5),” and to “Fight those who believe not in God, nor the Last Day.” (9:29) Muhammad also promises paradise for those who die in battle for Allah, “Those who left their homes . . . or fought or been slain,–Verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;–A reward from the Presence of God.” (3:195; cf. 2:244; 4:95)

While living in Medina, having escaped from persecution in Mecca, Muhammad supported himself and his group of followers by raiding Meccan caravans. His fame grew after a stunning defeat of a large, well defended, caravan at Badr. Muhammad was also willing to have assassinated those who merely ridiculed his prophetic claims. The list of those killed included Jews, old men and women, slaves, and a mother of five children who was killed while she slept. [5] Also, in order to violate a long-standing ban against warfare during a sacred month, he claimed a new revelation that gave him permission to kill his enemies. [6]

Violent expediency seems to have been the guiding rule of Muhammad’s ethics.

Early Islam

Muhammad’s life as a prophet was a precarious one. After fleeing Mecca and establishing himself in Medina, Muhammad was constantly being tested militarily by those who considered him a religious and political threat. Although at an initial disadvantage, Muhammad wore down his opponents by raiding their caravans, seizing valuable property, taking hostages and disrupting the all-important economic trade Mecca enjoyed with the surrounding area. [7] The turning point for Muhammad and his followers seems to have come in what is known as the Battle of the Ditch or the Siege of Medina. A large Meccan force failed to take the city and destroy the new religion. Suspecting that a local Jewish tribe had plotted with the Meccans to destroy him, Muhammad had all the men of the tribe killed and the women and children sold into slavery. [8] In 630 A.D. Muhammad returned to Mecca with a large force and took it with little bloodshed. He rewarded many of its leaders financially for surrendering and within a short period of time a large number of the surrounding tribes came over to this new and powerful religious and political movement.

Muhammad continued building his following by using a combination of material enticements, his religious message, and force when necessary. With the fall of Mecca, many other tribes realized Muhammad’s position as the most powerful political leader in western Arabia and sent representatives to negotiate agreements with him.

Muhammad’s death in 632, just two years after his triumphant return to Mecca, thrust an important decision on the community of believers. Should they choose one person to lead in Muhammad’s place or do they separate into many communities. The decision was made to pick Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s father-in-law and early supporter to assume the role of caliph or successor to Muhammad. Immediately, many who had submitted to Muhammad refused to do so to Abu Bakr. Several tribes wanted political independence, some sought to break religiously as well. The result is known as the Apostasy wars. At the end of two years of fighting to put down both religious and political threats, Abu Bakr had extended his control to include the entire Arabian Peninsula. Islam was now in position to extend its influence beyond Arabia with a large standing army of believers.

Violence and warfare seems to have dominated early Islam. Two of the first four caliphs were assassinated by internal rivals, and within the first fifty years of its existence Islam experienced two bloody civil wars. Rival tribal loyalties within and the religious struggle or jihad against the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires made the first century of Islam a bloody one.

Jihad

Historian Paul Johnson writes,

[T]he history of Islam has essentially been a history of conquest and re-conquest. The 7th-century “breakout” of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. [9].

From the beginning, Muslims “saw their mission as jihad, or militant effort to combat evil and to spread Muhammad’s message of monotheism and righteousness far and wide.” [10] Although many Muslims in America have argued that jihad primarily refers to a struggle or striving for personal righteousness, Bernard Lewis, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University writes that, “The more common interpretation, and that of the overwhelming majority of the classical jurists and commentators, presents jihad as armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates.” [11]

Although highly regulated by Islamic law, the call for every able- bodied Muslim to defend Islam began with Muhammad and has continued with the fatwas of Osama bin Laden in 1996 and 1998. Bin Laden argues that his attacks on American civilians and military has three specific complaints: America has placed infidel troops on holy soil in Saudi Arabia; America has caused the death of over a million Iraqi children since Desert Storm; and American support for the evil Zionist nation of Israel.

Regarding the history of jihad in Islam, an ex-chief justice of Saudi Arabia has written “[A]t first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory, . . .” Muslims are to fight against those who oppress Islam and who worship others along with Allah. [12]. He adds that even though fighting is disliked by the human soul, Allah has made ready an immense reward beyond imagination for those who obey. He also quotes Islamic tradition, which says, “Paradise has one hundred grades which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidin who fight in His Cause.” [13]

Numerous passages in the Qur’an refer to Allah’s use of violence. A surah titled “The Spoils of War” states, “O Prophet! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you . . . they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.” [14] Another says, “O ye who believe! When ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. . . .” [15] It adds that those who do will find themselves in hell, a significant incentive to fight on.

Muslims and Modernity

Islam was born in the midst of persecution and eventually conquest. Muhammad was adept at both religious and military leadership, but what about modern Islam? Do all Muslims see jihad in the light of conquest and warfare?

While it is probably safe to say that American born Muslims apply the teachings of Muhammad and Islamic traditions differently than Saudi or Iranian Muslims. The use of violence in the propagation of Islam enjoys wide support. Part of the reason is that the concept of separation of church and state is alien to Islam. Muhammad Iqbal, architect of Pakistan’s split from Hindu India, wrote, “The truth is that Islam is not a church. It is a state conceived as a contractual organism. . . .” [16] Responding to the inability of Islam to accommodate the modern world, an Algerian Islamic activist points to the example of Muhammad:

The Prophet himself did not opt to live far away from the camp of men. He did not say to youth: “Sell what you have and follow me. . . .” At Medina, he was not content merely to be the preacher of the new faith: he became also the leader of the new city, where he organized the religious, social and economic life. . . . Later, carrying arms, he put himself at the head of his troops. [17]

The powerful combination within Islam of immediate paradise for those who die while fighting for Allah and the unity of political, religious, and economic structures, helps us to understand the source of suicide bombers and children who dream of becoming one. Young Palestinians are lining up by the hundreds in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to volunteer for suicide missions. Eyad Sarraj, the director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Project, detects a widespread zeal. “If they are turned down they become depressed. They feel they have been deprived of the ultimate award of dying for God.” [18] Palestinian support for suicide bombers is now at 70 to 80 percent.

Islam and Christianity both require its followers to sacrifice and turn from the world and self. Yet while Islam equates political conquest with the furtherance of Allah’s reign, Jesus taught that we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. Christianity recognizes that the advancement of God’s kingdom is not necessarily a political one. The New Testament did not advocate the overthrow of the Roman Empire. Muslims are given the example of Muhammad’s personal sacrifice in battle so that Allah’s enemies might be defeated. Christians are given the example of Christ who gave His life as a sacrifice, so that even His enemies might believe and have eternal life.

Notes

1. Robert Wright, http://www.msnbc.com/news, 10/30/2001.
2. Ibid.
3. Norman L. Geisler & Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993), p. 82.
4. Ibid., 84.
5. Ibid., 175.
6. The Quran states, “They ask thee Concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offense)’; But graver is it In the sight of God To prevent access to the path of God.” (2:217)
7. John Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, (Oxford University Press, 1999), p 10.
8. Geisler & Saleeb, p. 79.
9. Paul Johnson, National Review, October 15, 2001.

10. John Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam, p. 13.
11. Bernard Lewis, “Jihad vs. Crusade,” The Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2001.
12. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Humaid, “Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah,” http://islamworld.net/jihad.html, p. 4.
13. Ibid., p. 8.
14. Qur’an 8:65.
15. Qur’an 8:15-16.
16. Kenneth Cragg & Marston Speight, Islam From Within, (Wadsworth Inc., 1980), p. 213.
17. Ibid., p 228.
18. Eric Silver, “Bomber quit intelligence service to join Hamas two days before attack,” Independent Digital (UK) Ltd, 03 December 2001, www.independent.co.uk.

April 16, 2009

President Obama Denies His Country’s Foundation

21“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation,” President Obama said while in Turkey last week. “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” These comments were similar to those in his inaugural address, when Obama referred to the United States—the largest Judeo-Christian nation on Earth—as “a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus.”

But the fact that the U.S. president chose to make this point while in a Muslim nation was especially significant.

“I don’t know what ‘we’ consider ‘ourselves,’” David Limbaugh writes on Newsmax.com, “but I do think we ought to examine that statement and why Obama felt compelled to make it a part of his world apology tour. Can you imagine the Saudi king coming to America and bragging that his nation is not Muslim? I assure you that he’s not ashamed of the Islamic character of his nation, even though his nation is demonstrably less tolerant of other religions.”

Limbaugh continues:

So is (or was) America a Christian nation? … [I]f we are talking about the ideals that led to the very colonization of this land, our declaration of independence from Britain, and the formulation of our Constitution, then the answer is certainly “yes.”

In the words of Prof. John Eidsmoe, author of Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, “If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation.”

Why does this matter? Simply because our dominant secular culture delights in demonizing Christianity, distorting its character, conflating it with less tolerant faiths, and associating it with all our societal woes. History revisionists have convinced many that we mainly owe our liberties to secular humanist ideals and those borrowed from the Greeks, Romans and the French Enlightenment.

To the contrary, our freedom tradition can be traced to our predominantly Judeo-Christian roots. …

Our constitutional framework of government can be understood only in the context of the framers’ predominantly Christian worldview. Although they believed in man’s dignity, they also believed in his depravity and that it would be possible to establish a scheme of individual liberties only if they imposed limitations on government.

Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law. Indeed, English legal giants Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke both believed the common law was based on Scripture. …

Our ruling class today is dominated by those who no longer believe that our rights are God-given or that our liberties depend on effective limitations on the state. They are so divorced from true history and American statecraft that they fail to see the irony in their dissociation with and apologies for our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is responsible for making this the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth for people of all races, ethnicities and religions.

Source: Trumpet.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.