Who are the real radicals?
All contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson.
All rights reserved. No part of this document or the related files may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher.
* * *
Radical: adjective \ˈra-di-kəl\
: very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary
: very basic
and important
: having extreme political or social views that are not
shared by most people.
: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
: very different from the usual or traditional
: extreme
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary (emphasis mine)
* * *
Dominating the news in the
last several weeks have been reports of a group of Islamic terrorists that
exist in and around Iraq and Syria variously called ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) who have murdered
thousands of fellow Muslims as well as those they regard as Infidels. Included
in this recent spate of murders are the beheadings of two American freelance
journalists. These beheadings were placed on YouTube for all the world to see.
The executioner in the first video is a 23 year old British “rapper” turned
Jihadist whose father once worked for Osama bin Laden. The West has been on
edge as they have watched this group grow in number, acquiring materials and
arms and issuing threats to create even more chaos and havoc than has already
been manifest.
United States President,
Barack Obama seemed quite taken by surprise when finally faced with the naked
ferocity of ISIS after the videos of men, women and even small children were
slaughtered, and their heads cut off and placed upon pikes for all to see. Despite
National Security briefings offered to him for more than a year as to the
critical nature of ISIS, Obama instead referred to them to the gathered press
in January of 2014 as a “JV team,” (JV standing for Junior Varsity). The
implication was clear: ISIS was not to be taken as a serious threat. As far as
this president was concerned they were mere posers on the terrorist stage.
The press has been uneven
with respect to their coverage as well. One looking on might believe that
despite their cruel viciousness, ISIS should indeed be regarded as a minor
player on the Middle Eastern stage. Others in the press seem to agree that they
are a clear and present danger, but regard them as an anomaly; something “out
of step” with Islam and Muslims in general. On its face, one would have to
agree that such barbarism; such murderous behavior should indeed be a fringe belief.
The problem is that it is not. Any minor student of history is well acquainted
with the historical behaviors of previous Islamic Caliphates. Those same minor
historians are also very aware that the behavior displayed by ISIS is
completely in keeping with the teachings of the Qur’an. While the word,
“Caliphate” may be new to some people, it is a well known theocratic system in
Islam.
The word comes from the
root, “Caliph” which is Arabic for the word, “successor.” The question then is
asked, “Successor to whom?” The answer, of course, is the Prophet Muhammad,
founder of Islam who died in June of 632 AD. In much the same way that the
Catholic Church has retroactively installed the Apostle Peter as the first
Pope, Islam retroactively installed Muhammad as their first Caliph. The
difference is that while Peter never regarded himself as the head of the Church
– deferring to Jesus Christ on that point, Muhammad had no reservations of
taking on such a title or position. Regardless, the term Caliph was not used
during his lifetime. It was not until the reign of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, the second caliph
after Muhammad’s death that the term “caliph” came into use as a title of the
civil and religious head of the Muslim state.
While this information
might make for an interesting read for a history class, of what use is it here?
Well the understanding why things are as they are is rooted in their
formations. Muhammad had created a powerful movement in his day. Unlike many
leaders of such a profound movement, Muhammad had the good fortune of enjoying
the fruits of his labors for many years. However when he died, his lack of
foresight regarding a successor eventually led to a split amongst his
followers. It was a split not unlike that of the Catholic Church and the
Eastern Orthodox Church (as opposed to the Catholics and the Protestants), but
far more vicious. The salient point in this chronology is to highlight
something very basic and fundamental respecting Islam which is lost on most in
the West. It is this fundamental understanding which is causing the West –
perhaps even including Barack Obama – to certainly underestimate ISIS in
specific, but even Islam in general. What is it they are missing? Let me
explain.
On September 11th,
2001, four 747 jets were hijacked by Islamic terrorists associated with the
group al Qaeda. Subsequently, two of these jets were deliberately flown into
the World Trade Center towers in downtown New York City in the early morning
hours just as people were settling into their work day. A third jet was flown
into the Pentagon complex in Washington D.C. The forth jet, which was thought
intended for either the United States Capitol building, or perhaps the White
House was instead crashed into a field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania
when certain passengers on board fought back against their attackers.
9/11 as it has come to be
known has left a deep scar on the conscious of the world. Not since the
Crusades has Islam made such a bold move against the West. It is a safe bet
that most of the 2,977 souls lost on that day had scant knowledge of the
Crusades much less the motivation which led the leader of this particular
attack, Muhammad Atta, to pilot his hijacked 747 into the North Tower at 8:46
AM. This after a night spent with prostitutes and generous amounts of liquor –
both forbidden under the Qur’an.
Why do I start a
commentary which is supposed to give a balanced view of a particular faith with
an example of one of its most egregious breeches of conduct in modern times? I
do so because I do not believe the actions of al Qaeda on September 11th,
2001 are an anomaly within the tenets of Islam, but rather the fundamental
actions of true believers. Such a stance is certain to upset many who regard
the Qur’an as a Holy book and Islam as a truly peaceful religion unfortunately populated
with small groups of fanatics who take matters to the extreme. After all, every
religion has its kooks, fanatics; disaffected members who take certain aspects
of their faith far too seriously and don’t understand that such religions
desire we all live in peaceful co-existence. That may well be true for most
religions, but Islam is decidedly a different religion altogether.
Islam stands apart from
the world’s other two great “religions” to which it is most closely associated
in a very stark way: Islam was not originally conceived as an entirely
different message than that of Christianity; it was not intended to be an
offshoot of Judaism or Christianity. Initially, Islam was intended to be an
extension of Christ’s Gospel message. It is a certainty that few are familiar
with this aspect of Islam just as it is a certainty most in the West who defend
Islam are unaware how a gospel message could change so dramatically into the religion
it has become under Islam. To answer the question of how and why, it is
necessary to delve just a bit into some more history. Please note that there is
much reverence which surrounds Islam and Muhammad’s name which you’ll find
absent in this commentary. In examining various faiths—Christianity included, I
dispense with such localized idolatry as it invites a particular bias. I intend
only to give the facts.
Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd
Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib
ibn Hāshim is the full name of an Arabic man from Mecca born approximately in
570 AD. We know him today simply as Muhammad. At the age of 40, Muhammad
claimed he was visited by the angel Gabriel while he was alone in prayer in the
cave of Hira near his home. This visit by the angel was the first of two
revelations given to Muhammad before he eventually began to preach to the
people about what he had learned. Three years passed from the time of this
revelation and his public ministry. While there is no direct evidence to
counter this claim, the three year span of time from revelation to preaching is
very interesting due to its coincidence with another “preacher” within the
Biblical canonical scriptures. I’ll go more into that later.
Muhammad’s time in Mecca
was not good for him. The message the angel Gabriel had given him was a message
of peace, a message of non-violence. He was given a message of compassion which
ran counter to the tribal teachings found in Mecca in the middle 7th
Century AD. Muhammad reflected these struggles in his writings. For example in Surah
Al-Muzzammil 73:10, God tells Muhammad to be patient with his opponents "Be patient with what they say, and
part from them courteously." Such would certainly seem to stand
opposed to the position of ISIS or al Qaeda towards those who are regarded as
infidels. How can it be possible that these terrorists could treat their
“opponents” so horrifically and obey the teachings of the Qur’an? How indeed.
After 13 years of suffering
in Mecca with very little in the way of either earthly or spiritual success,
Muhammad’s uncle and primary protector, Abu Talib, died leaving his nephew
defenseless. This final loss caused the “prophet” to gather his small band of
followers and flee for their lives; driven from Mecca due to threats of harm
from other tribal leaders more than likely wary of his strange ideas and
fearing a loss of their own power and position. Thus, Muhammad found himself
exiled from his place of birth seemingly forever.
But on that long road
towards Medina (approximately 286 miles distant), Muhammad began to take stock
of his life. What he had preached for years had led to his banishment. The
peaceable message given to him by Gabriel had become a cruel joke. How was
anyone made better by being ridiculed, threatened, physically assaulted with
many attempts made on their very life? Muhammad concluded that he had to have
missed something. It is lost to history what exactly caused the change in
Muhammad, but that there was a change is not in dispute. By the time he arrived
in Medina, it was not long before he had begun to preach these changes,
incorporating them in his writings.
No, Muhammad did not cease
his writings with his change in attitude and in fact, his writings began to
grow in length. The short, direct peaceable surah’s of Mecca gave way to long,
ponderous and increasingly combative surah’s of Medina. Thus Surah Al-Muzzammil
73:10, "Be patient with what they
say, and part from them courteously." Was supplanted with Surah
Al-Baqara 2:193, " And fight them until there is no
mischief and be there worship of one Allah, then if they desist, there is no violence
save against oppressors."
The tribal leaders in
Medina looked upon this new message favorably as it mirrored local tribal
customs. By embracing these various tribal customs in his writings, Muhammad gave
their way of life some legitimacy. Based upon this, Muhammad’s fortunes soon
changed in a dramatic way. Poverty and destitution gave way to plenty and
position. Muhammad soon found himself the leader of these people of Medina and
as his fame grew, so did his power. Many centuries later, an English Catholic
historian, politician and writer named Sir John Dalberg-Acton would point out
that, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Is
this the same malady which now affected Muhammad?
One of the customs
ubiquitous amongst the tribal people of Arabia in the 7th Century
was to take multiple wives. Age was of no issue as the typical lifespan was
approximately 40 years. Even without war, life was brutal and short. These were
people who did not enjoy much in the way of luxury, essentially being nomadic.
Marrying a young girl ensured many years of child bearing to a husband. Just as
in the West, the Middle Eastern people recognized that there was strength in
numbers and the more children the better. Because of the basics of biology,
polygamy was not native to just the Middle East, but was practiced by most
people almost world-wide in antiquity. Thus a man of means would take many
wives to ensure he would have many children and raise his stature amongst the
others in the tribe.
Muhammad eventually took
13 women and girls as his wives. Two of these marriages took place while he was
living in Mecca. The remaining eleven women and girls were taken to be his
wives after his arrival in Medina; another of the stark contrasts between the
two eras.
Oftentimes in addition to
the mere number of children, marriages (just as in the West) were arranged to
join two clans and make them stronger. This brings us to the case of Aisha,
Muhammad’s 3rd wife. Aisha was 6 years old when she was married to
the 50 year old Muhammad. Aisha was the daughter of the close friend and
another tribal leader named Abu Bakr. This alliance worked well for both men as
in addition to giving Muhammad another wife, it joined two clans which averted
any future potential warring. Upon Muhammad’s death, Abu Bakr became the first
caliph.
It is of note that Abu
Bakr wasn’t exactly excited about Muhammad taking his daughter at first:
Sahih
Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The prophet asked
abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "but I am your
brother." the prophet said, "you are my brother in Allah's religion
and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."
Many peoples of today
betroth children to one another at very young ages. The Western mind has a
difficult time grasping the concept of wedding children, much less a small
child to an old man. In the 7th Century, however, it was more or
less commonplace. Muhammad’s marriage to a 6 year old girl raised few eyebrows
– if any. Regardless the prevailing customs of the time, the question most in
the West have is to whether Muhammad was sexually attracted to his 6 year old
wife. The best source as for the answer would be Aisha herself who wrote about
her husband:
Sahih
Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234
Narrated Aisha: the
prophet engaged (married) me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and
my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, um ruman, came
to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called
me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me
by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then,
and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face
and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw
some ansari women who said, "best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good
luck." then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the
marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's apostle came to me in the forenoon and my
mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of
age.
Sahih
bukhari volume 8, book 73, number 151
Narrated 'Aisha: I
used to play with the dolls in the presence of the prophet, and my girl friends
also used to play with me. When Allah's apostle used to enter (my dwelling
place) they used to hide themselves, but the prophet would call them to join
and play with me. (the playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden,
but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet
reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-bari page 143, vol.13)
Sahih
Bukhari volume 1, book 4, number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman
bin Aasar:
I asked 'Aisha
about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off
the clothes of Allah's apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots
were still visible."
Regardless the
whitewashing by his apologists, it is clear that Muhammad was sexually
attracted to Aisha. To Muslims, this was a situation which had to be cleared up
once and for all. In 2000, (1421 AD on the Islamic Calendar), The permanent
committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed
the question presented to the grand mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-Shemary, the
question forwarded to the committee by the grand scholar of the committee with
reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421 (Islamic calendar).
After the committee
studied the issue, they gave the following reply:
As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon
him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have
intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and
prayer of Allah be upon him placed his [male] member between her thighs and
massaged it softly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member
not like other believers.
Sahih
al-Bukhari, volume 7, book 62, number 17
Narrated jabir bin
'abdullah:
When I got married,
Allah's apostle said to me, "what type of lady have you married?" I
replied, "I have married a matron." he said, "why, don't you
have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said:
Allah's apostle said, "why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might
play with her and she with you?"
Of course Islam isn’t all
about sex, but it does go to the character and mentality of the “Father of
Islam.” Several hundred years earlier off the coast of Italy on the Island of
Capri, the Roman Emperor Tiberius was engaging in similar behavior with
children which his countrymen found aberrant even within the decadence of Roman
culture. It is thought by many historians that Tiberius’ mental state at this
point in his life was degraded to such an extent that he was quite possibly
insane. Could the same be said of Muhammad, or was he clear of mind, but just
harboring certain predilections for young girls?
The Western mind-set has a
difficult time with Islam and Arabic culture in general. These are a people who
for the most part have lived in their lands for thousands of years. While there
may not necessarily be a documented paper trail as we in the West create, these
are a people who through stories can trace their origins much farther back than
can the typical Westerner. Customs and traditions they have lived with which
stretch back thousands of years are difficult to surmount. It was out of these
cultures, traditions and practical realities that Islam was birthed.
In Judaism, God is
referred to by various names. The name of God in Judaism used most often in the
Hebrew Bible is the four-letter name יהוה
(YHWH), also known as the Tetragrammaton. YHWH is more commonly known as the
pronoun Yahweh. Is this God’s name? In Exodus 3:14, God simply says that he is
I Am. So where do we get Yahweh? Where does Islam get Allah? Interestingly
enough, both terms are mere transliterations for the term Eloh.
Eloh is another of those
words which have led many astray due to a presupposition. Eloh on its face
simply means god. Not a proper pronoun, not a formal name, but rather a title –
a designation; a position. That is it; that is all. It is why in the open verse
of Genesis, the original language says that, “In the beginning gods (the plural use Elohim being used
here) created the heavens and the
earth. It does not say, nor intimate that God Almighty created the heavens and
the earth. Scholars for generations have fought over the meaning of this use of
a plurality. It has generally been distilled down to two solutions based upon a
presupposition only:
The first is primarily
from a Jewish perspective: The use of a plurality to denote god in Genesis 1:1
describes the muti-fold spirit of God Almighty.
Thus it would more accurately read, “In
the beginning, God in all His many forms, created the heavens and the earth.”
While that is certainly plausible from the Jewish perspective, is it accurate?
The second is from the
Christian perspective: Interestingly it is really not too dissimilar than that
of the Jewish perspective when one dissects the actual meaning of both. “In the beginning, God, Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit created the heavens and the earth.”
One deals with the
multi-fold spirit of God, the other describes the Trinitarian aspect of God.
However, is that what is really meant or are we reading into the scripture –
and the literal words used – something that isn’t actually connoted?
Consider that in the
Gospel of John, chapter 8, Christ is talking to some Pharisees who believe in
Him as the Messiah. Despite their belief, Christ calls them “children of the
devil.” Why would Christ say such a thing? Was not it already established that
these Pharisees believed in Christ?
To the Jews who had
believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my
disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
They answered him,
“We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you
say that we shall be set free?”
Jesus replied,
“Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no
permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son
sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s
descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room
for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and
you are doing what you have heard from your father.”
“Abraham is our father,”
they answered.
“If you were
Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is,
you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I
heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your
own father.”
“We are not
illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God
himself.”
Jesus said to them,
“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I
have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the
devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from
the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he
lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me
guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever
belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do
not belong to God.”
- John
8:31-47
Here Jesus paints a very
stark contrast with respect to those whom the Jews regard as god and who Christ
knows is God. The Jews had followed
the teachings of YHWH or Eloh. Again these are mere titles of positions. A
Western understanding of the term Eloh, Yahweh or even Allah would be President
or CEO. In the United States, we have had 44 presidents to date, but they are
not all the same person. President is a title. Emperor Nero was not the same as
Emperor Diocletian, though both were Emperors of the Roman Empire. We
immediately jump to a conclusion that because we see the term, “God” in
scripture, it is referring to Creator God Almighty. Even a cursory read of the
Old Testament scriptures absent this presupposition will leave one with the
clear understanding that this is not what is being conveyed.
In his letter to the
Colossians, the Apostle Paul makes a very stunning declaration respecting the
work of Jesus Christ on the cross and those whom control this present world:
“When
you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumscision of your sinful nature,
God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us
and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross. And
having disarmed the Powers and Authorities, He made a public spectacle of them,
triumphing over them by the cross.”
- Colossians 2:13-15
It is these Powers and
Authorities which Christ really battled – and conquered. These same Powers and
Authorities are also referenced in Ephesians 6:12. But what are these Powers
and Authorities? Are they beings or are they just conditions of say … the human
heart? Where in all this does Satan enter the picture? In Galatians 3:19, Paul
explains that the Mosaic Law – the Law which was thought to have been given to
Moses on Mount Sinai by God Almighty, was actually given to Moses by angels.
(yes, that is a plurality being used) Luke expands on this event in Acts
7:35-38.
In Galatians 4:3, Paul
explains the situation we exist under while here in the flesh. He says that we
are in slavery under the basic Elements or Principles of this world. The word
“Element” in this context is the Greek stoicheion,
which means any first thing or principal. This is more than a mere philosophy;
Paul is describing our rule under spiritual entities. These Entities are
referred to as Celestial beings in 2nd Peter 2:4 and Jude 8.
So why is any of this
germane to a commentary on Islam? It is germane for this reason: as I mentioned
earlier, Islam may have been originally conceived as an extension of the Gospel
message. Muhammad may have heard the Call of Christ to go forth and make
disciples of all nations, but unlike the Apostle Paul who heeded that call on
the Damascus road up to his death, Muhammad seems to have had a change of
heart. It is at that pivotal point in his life which Muhammad chose to follow
the basic Elements of this present world. In so doing, his message turned dark.
Rather than share the Light of Christ, Muhammad became a messenger of death
under the rule of these Celestial beings. These Celestial beings are and always
have been what we would regard as Satan.
As much as God, Yahweh,
Eloh, Jehova, Allah are not proper pronouns, but rather titles, so is the term
Satan. It is not a name, but an adjective. Satan means accuser, or to accuse.
Any number of beings can be Satan and have been over the breadth of human
history. It is for this reason Christ said what He did to those Pharisees in
John Chapter 8, it is why He wept over Jerusalem, wanting to gather them about
Himself as mother hen would gather her chicks.
As Allah is in reality a
Celestial entity, so too is the Jewish god. He is called Lucifer in the book of
Isaiah, but Lucifer is a translation of his real name into Latin. Lucifer’s
Hebrew name is Helel. Given the acrimonious relationship between the Jews and
the Muslims, I have often thought about who Allah is amongst the Celestial
complement. My best guess based upon a passage in the book of Enoch is a
Celestial being named Yekun (or Jeqon which means “Inciter” Enoch 68:4), but
that is mere speculation on my part. Suffice to say, neither “god” is Creator
God Almighty. Just as Christ freed us from the Mosaic Law, so too did He free
us from subsequent laws such as the Muslim Qur’an.
“But
the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
- Galatians
5:22-23
So what exactly is it the
West is missing when we are looking at Islam? Is it the fact that Allah is
nothing more than a malevolent spiritual entity? Partly. There is no doubt that
not understanding the construct of the enemy has not helped to combat him. But
what the West is missing in attempting to understand Islam is just how
fundamental the teachings of the Qur’an are to Muslims.
The West, from historian
to diplomats, errantly believe that those Muslims who go about terrorizing
others, blowing people and themselves up, are somehow “radical” Muslims. This
is absolutely in error. The radicals in
Islam are those who defy the teachings of Muhammad.
Consider this: The Qur’an
contains approximately 109 verses which call Muslims to war with nonbelievers
for the sake of Islamic rule. Not taken into account are those contained in the
Hadith (accounts of the acts of Muhammad by others) or Siras (biographies of
Muhammad by others). These calls for violence are not contained within a
specific time constraint, but rather are open-ended. What was penned 1400 years
ago is still very much in effect today.
Surah
Al-Baqara 2:191-193 "And
kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned
you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist,
then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping
of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression
except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.”
Surah
Al-Baqara 2:244 "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah
Heareth and knoweth all things."
Surah
Al-Baqara 2:216 "Fighting
is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a
thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But
Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Surah
Al-i'Imran 3:56 "As
to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world
and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Surah
Al-i'Imran 3:151 "Soon
shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined
companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."
Surah
An-Nisaa 4:74
"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for
the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious,
on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Surah
An-Nisaa 4:76
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
And so on and so on. It
was brought up earlier that the Meccan writings were not at all like the
Medinaian writings in tone or content. That is true; Muhammad went through a
transformation between the two cities. This leaves the West confused.
Apologists of Islam always point to the Meccan writings to prove that Muhammad
is being misunderstood and that he was really a peace-loving guy at heart. What
the West is largely ignorant of is how Islam deals with the incongruent
writings of Muhammad within the Qur’an. Much like with Judeo-Christianity, I
suspect these “theologians” know the truth, but prefer the lie.
Within Islam is something
called the Law of Abrogation. (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh) Simply put, where
Qur’anic verses contradict one another, the latter writing is the one which is to
be obeyed, abrogating the former; the chronological timing in which a verse was
written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. This
cannot be underscored enough. When those “Experts on Islam” in the West point
out the peaceable verses within the Qur’an to prove it is not a violent religion,
they are doing so out of ignorance, or deliberate deceit. In either case, it
should nullify their self-appointed title of “Expert.”
In all faiths there are
doctrinal “truths” which must be followed if one is an adherent of that faith.
Christians follow specific tenets and doctrine as do Jews and even Muslims. A
Christian cannot be called a Christian by denying Christ for example. A Jew cannot
be called observant if they deny the existence of Moses. Following these basic
doctrines is fundamental to that particular faith. Those who do not are
generally called heretics or sometimes radicals.
When one takes the Law of
Abrogation into account, the tenets of Islam become startling clear. Thus the
true “Radicals” in Islam are those who seek peaceful co-existence with their
fellow man. The terrorists of today - ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. - are Fundamentalists. Words mean things and
Islam loves nothing more than allowing the West to believe that it is a mere fringe
segment of Islam which blows people up. The truth is that were the Caliphate to
actually come to fruition worldwide, the “Religion of Peace” would show its
true face without having to hide behind such as the Law of Abrogation.
Another point lost on the
West is their understanding of “The Religion of Peace.” The Western mind
immediately connotes an image of true peace, or at the very least, détente; two
peoples with widely divergent views being able to live peaceably side by side.
This cannot be further from the truth with respect to Islam. Peace as defined
by Islam is the absolute absence of any contrarian thought. Those who do not
conform to the tenets of Islam are removed. Through such culling on
non-believers, peace is attained. Thus the name is appropriate enough, even if
the meaning is lost on most all of Western academia.
President Barack Obama
refuses to refer to the latest group to rear its head, ISIS, by that acronym.
Obama prefers to use the acronym ISIL. As I mentioned earlier, ISIL stands for
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What exactly is the Levant and why does
Obama prefer ISIL over that of ISIS? Why does it matter?
The Levant is a
geographical locale which comprises the Eastern Mediterranean. By referring to
the Levant rather than specifically to Syria, Obama is tacitly rejecting the
sovereignty of Israel as well as giving pass to Syria’s complicity. Understand
that and be aware of his use of ISIL every time he uses it; Obama is essentially
telling Israel they are illegitimate.
Surah
Al-i'Imran 3:54 "And they (the disbelievers) schemed,
and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."
Surah
An-Nahl 16:106
"Whoso denies Allah after believing in Him save him who is compelled and
his heart is firm in belief, yes whoso becomes infidel with open heart, upon
them is the wrath of Allah and for them is the great torment.”
Barack Obama is lying
about who ISIS is and what role Islam and the teachings of Muhammad have to do
with the current state of affairs in the Middle East. Under Islam, it is fine
to lie in order to attain the objective. This is another absolutely foreign
concept to the West. Too many believe that Islam is just another form of
Judaism or Christianity. Hopefully through the course of reading this
commentary and looking up references, the reader has become aware that Islam is
decidedly different.
Israel today is a secular Parliamentary
Democracy. It was founded by a United Nations Charter which gave them their
ancient land under the Abrahamic covenant as outlined in Genesis 17:8. A relatively
recent poll of Jews in the United States figure as high as 50% of Jews are
essentially atheists. (2001 Center for Jewish Studies) That they do not believe
in God didn’t hamper their ability to observe their traditional customs, however.
Such customs have become a part of their life and have no bearing on their
belief. My point is that despite their belief (or lack thereof), Jews do not
operate in a theocracy. Modern Israel is thus a totally secular state.
Contrast that with any
Islamic kingdom on earth today. All are theocracies and rule straight from the
pages of the Qur’an. This is an aspect of incongruity which cannot be lost on
even the dimmest of academicians or the press in the West. Stunningly these “intellectuals”
in the West are people who simply hold virulent anti-Semitic views and as the
old saying goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The West has been poorly
served by many of its academicians due to such blatant prejudice. Not only is
the world aflame because of such lies, but today men, women and children are
being slaughtered in huge numbers as a result; sacrificed on a pyre of
Progressive Liberal ideology.
These same anti-Semites
then blame the bloodshed on the Jews. “If only they would leave Israel!” is the
constant refrain. To be clear, the entire Jewish population could set up camp
on Mars and it would not stop the slaughter from Muslims against their fellow
man. Jews may be a convenient scapegoat at present (and I believe there is a
spiritual aspect to this which is unseen at present), but once removed, Islam
would find someone else to target. It has to. Its very nature is parasitic.
What should the West do to
counter the rise of the Islamic Caliphate? I am neither a diplomat nor a
politician. There are many strong tendrils which reach deep into the fabric of
the West’s relationship with the Middle East that are not easily severed. Politicians
are creatures who operate solely on power. Without this power, they become
non-entities; non-persons. Such people have no qualms of devastating any and
all in their way on this quest for power. Thus, Faustian bargains have been
made by a great many of them in their climb, never giving thought to the day
the debt is called. Such people are wholly unable to do what is necessary to alleviate
the growing threat because such people have already sold their allegiances for
a “supposed” safe haven in the new order. Judas accepted 30 pieces of silver to
do no less.
It is therefore the duty
of the citizens of the West to educate themselves; to stand up to these
traitors in our midst. Such people must be removed from positions of power and
authority so as to preserve our Republic and our way of life. But more than
that, to wrest free those still under bondage in the East under the cruel boot
of Islam. The free West and the United States of America in particular – is still
the last bastion of freedom on the face of the earth. Once we fall, so does the
world.
We can pretend that Islam
is a benign religion all we want; that there is no difference between Judaism,
Christianity or Islam, but as has been demonstrated quite clearly in just this
commentary, there is a huge difference. Christ came to free us from the heavy
strictures and burdens of the Law – Mosaic or Islamic. Islam insists on placing that heavy yoke back
upon the shoulders of all and kill those who refuse. Even the most ardent
apologist is going to have a difficult time conflating Christianity with Islam.
When we willingly buy into the lie of “The Religion of Peace,” we become complicit
in the murders committed in its name.
