Islam, Not Climate Change or Poverty, Inspires Terror

It's amazing that studies even have to be carried out. But we live in a world where few people seem to have the ability to accept people's explanations for why they do the things they do. Muslim terrorists are pretty clear about things. Yet the liberal media keeps insisting that even though it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it's really a turtle.

But this is our world today. A strange one, no doubt.

Now, you may want to site down for some shocking news. Ready? A recent study has shown that Islam is in fact what motivates Islamic terrorism.

I especially liked the comments of Raheem Kassam. Here are some choice morsels:

Indeed, the only reason that some were surprised by the study's results at all was "because we have now had decades of indoctrination in this regard," he told LifeZette. "We are continually force-fed false narratives that are built to advance multiculturalist agendas and fetishization, usually in the name of cheap, migrant labour." 

When asked about the numerous excuses liberal and Islamist apologists have provided for the root cause of Islamic terror, Kassam said, "I've heard them all, but the climate change theory is particularly galling." 

"The Left is tying itself in knots trying to excuse radical Islam while advancing its Marxist agendas elsewhere," he told LifeZette. "They haven't yet realized they sound more like The Onion than reputable sources of news and analysis." 

"It is fairly evident from the Quranic verses often cited by Islamist leaders, as well as lectures freely available online, that there isn't so much a 'perversion' of Islam going on, as establishment leaders so often suggest, but rather, a literalist interpretation of what that book and the Hadiths openly state," Kassam said. 

While "one study scarcely ever proves anything," he said, "in my estimation this comes closer to the truth than the public pronouncements of Barack Obama and Theresa May ever have."

Read it all at Lifezette.

Paul Wood on Trump's Poland Speech

Loved this insight from Paul Wood at his blog, A Political Refugee from the Global Village. I think he is making a really good point--that President Trump is willing to recognize an obvious reality that neither Bush nor Obama were willing to acknowledge, or perhaps even able to see.

Here is most of the post:

Trump's speech yesterday at Warsaw was a very good one, though I have mentioned that I disliked him seeing the Assad regime and Iran as hostile.  

George W. Bush went to lengths to insist the West was not in conflict with Islam. He declared war instead on an abstract noun, terrorism, even though you can't win a war with an abstract noun. Barack Obama said the terrorist murders in Paris, several massacres ago, were "an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share", even though values are not really universal.

Donald Trump yesterday at Warsaw declared that Western culture, not universal values, are under assault in Europe and the U.S. This is an important step forward.

Read the rest of it here. And do leave comments over there.

Part XXIV: Terror in London, Nihilism, Islamic State

Part XXIV: Terror in London, Nihilism, and the Islamic State

by Abu Daoud

Some time ago I received an e-mail from a colleague and friend with ministry experience in the UK and Africa. He asked some questions about Islam, terrorism, and the Islamic State. I thought I would share my answers to his questions with you all. His questions are in italics.

I am (rightly or wrongly) slightly put off by some Christians who are very anti-Islam and see ISIS as the true face Islam. But I wonder if ISIS is not a Western phenomenon in many ways?

You are right in that many Christians are indeed very anti-Islam. I think it is important to not assume that ISIS is 'the' face of Islam. On the other hand, to dismiss it as 'not Islam at all' as all the pols in the UK (and many in the USA) do--that is clearly wrong too. When I share with Christians here about Islam, which I do often, I encourage them to form Christ-centered relations with Muslims. If Muslims are in fact the enemies of the Church, then we know how to treat them--love your enemy. If, on the other hand, they are merely our neighbors, we also know how to respond to them--love. The witness of the love of God in the life of a Christian is powerful and strong and is the main thing we see drawing Muslims to Christ around the world today.

As to ISIS being a Western phenomenon, I would say no. Islamic State has a very real and valid claim to trying to emulate the very first generations of Muslims, even with all their brutality and terror. Muhammad himself said, "Allah has made me victorious through terror." So why would Muslims not do this today? He, as the founder of Islam, imparted a very specific DNA to his community, and while it can mutate and change, it can only go so far. Same thing with Jesus and Christianity. Churches that become so divorced from the original praxis and doxa of the Church eventually die out (Church of Scotland, for instance) or become distinct religions (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses). IS in killing and terrorizing and raping is following the Qur'an. They are doing it more literally than most Muslims do (thank God), but there is no question that they have a Qur'an warrant for everything they do. 

If there is one area where the IS is Western, or modern, really, it is in their use of Internet and media. They are very good at this. This is a key reason why IS has been successful in doing what Al Qaeda (another important reform movement in 20th Century Islam) was not able to do.

I am also perplexed about the horrible bombings in Europe, and occasionally in America, which are seen as expressions of Islam rather than as expressions of a nihilistic Western culture - in which maladjusted and non-practising Westernised Muslims, usually drug addicts, seem to go crazy. The Anders Breivik, Thomas McVeigh and Columbine rampage killings seem to fit into the same category of deranged young men taking their frustrations out on society. 

So the question is, can we believe people when they tell us why they are doing what they are doing? Breivik and McVeigh told us why they did what they did, and neither had to do with Christianity or the Bible or Jesus. They were motivated by nationalism or racism, if I recall the two cases. Similarly, when Muslims carry out attacks they are quite clear about why they are doing what they are doing. What warrant do we have to say that they do not in fact understand their own motives? Their answers are very clear and they cite the Qur'an and the hadith carefully. It is true that some of them (especially in Europe) are not well-educated. But many of them came from lives of frug use and morality and their decision to wage Jihad was part and parcel of their reformation as they left those things behind. In Christian circles it is not uncommon to hear of a drug-addict or criminal who had a dramatic conversion experience and went on to become an evangelist or pastor. We simply have the Muslim parallel here. 

Is it perhaps really nihilism that motivates these young men (and increasingly, women)? Nihilism is a philosophical school that asserts that all religious and moral principles are to be rejected, and that life is meaningless. Now that is certainly not what these men and women believe. It is precisely because they believe that they are called to assert the absolute triumph of Allah and his Prophet that they are called to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) and "fight in the way of Allah" (Qur'an 2:190) "until the religion--all of it--is for Allah" (8:39). After all, as the Prophet, the ideal human and template for all human action, said, "Paradise is in the shade of swords." Whatever that is, it is not nihilism. It is rather a community of young men who are rejecting the nihilism of the secular West which can no long alert any absolute truth about anything at all. They are rejecting that nihilism and they hate it--as they should, for it is inhumane and hopeless--and then they are taking up a great and noble quest: to establish the absolute of reign of Allah over the whole earth--until all religion--all of it--is for Allah.

So, on the contrary, it is against nihilism that these men strive.

It is also incorrect to conclude that these people are doing this out of thuggery. Some do come from that background. But many of the most eminent mujahidin were well educated. All of the 9/11 men were, the men who executed the July 7 operation in the London Tube were too. The head of Al Qaeda is a medical doctor. The Caliph himself holds a PhD in Islamic Studies. Many more examples could be given.But that sword cuts both ways (it always does). If we dismiss their sincerity and devotion because they are not educated, then we must surely toss out the window most of the Apostles and that uneducated peasant girl, Mary. Are you ready to do this? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As to 99.9%, that is certainly wrong. Also, the word 'terrorism' is misleading. One man's terrorism is another man's struggle for freedom. What the West calls terrorism, many Muslims don't. In the UK alone there are 26,000 Muslims under the surveillance of MI5. One of the recent attackers at the London Bridge had been on that list, but there were other 'higher priorities' to deal with, so they stopped monitoring him. That doesn't equal .1% at all. 

Thanks for the questions! Very good. And let me know what you think. I'm glad to continue this conversation.

Tom Holland on the origins of Islam

The death of the West

R. R. Reno over at First Things really knocked it out the ballpark with this new article, 'Return of the Strong Gods.'

Check this out:

Our political struggles over nations and nationalisms are best understood as referenda on the West’s meta-politics over the last three generations, which has been one of disenchantment. The rising populism we’re seeing throughout the West reflects a desire for a return of the strong gods to public life. 

Or this:

[After WW2] many political and cultural leaders assumed that restoration of a more humane way of life in the West would require softening and weakening. 

And this:

Our present-day view of the good life “has the features of lightening.” All of this is summed up in his catchphrase the “weakening of Being,” which he sees as a happy unburdening of the West, for weakening promotes tolerance, peace, and freedom. If there are no strong truths, nobody will judge others or limit their freedom. If nothing is worth fighting for, nobody will fight. 

But do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. It is well worth your time.

Attack in Sweden: Just say, "It has nothing to do with Islam..."

So Sweden,

How's that diversity working for you?

–Abu Daoud

Did Muhammad Exist? The Qur'an was canonized in 1924...and other gems

Well, well. What can one say about Jay Smith? He's....a special fellow!

In this great video he gives us a great lecture summarizing the latest research about controversial topics: did Muhammad exist? Was Petra, not Mecca, the original qibla. Did Abd al Malik invent Muhammad? Why did the earliest mosques not face Arabia at all? How is it that sections of the Qur'an have been found that predate the alleged life of Muhammad?

Check it out. You will not be disappointed.

 

Terror in London: "a perversion of a great faith"?

David Wood takes on the PC police of Great Britain. Sad to see people living in denial. Their grand children will no doubt enjoy life under the shari'a in Londonistan.

Winston Churchill on Islam

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. 

"The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

 -- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

Does Islam need a Reformation?

Does Islam need a Reformation?
by Abu Daoud

I have noticed a good deal of talk regarding the hope that exists in the West of a Reformation for Islam. There are two points I wish to make in response.

The first is regarding what exactly constitutes a "reformation." Historically the term refers to a decentralized group of reformation movements throughout western Europe in the 16th Century. But there is a significant gap between what the Reformers intended and actually accomplished. The complete picture is complex, but Calvin and Luther (among others) would be horrified to see the seemingly endless multiplication of Protestant-tradition churches we see today--that is, the continual splitting of denominations and ecclesial bodies.

The Reformers did, however, claim that they were returning Christianity to its original, if obscured, Apostolic and Biblical roots. There was a concrete and pervading desire to reject what the Reformers understood as traditions that departed from the original Biblical mandates. The relation of the believer to God was also made more direct, jettisoning the role of the priest or the bishop as the representative of Christ. The Reformers also introduced what were either entirely new or recovered principles of interpreting Scripture. Inherent in this entire and largely uncoordinated group of reform movements was a decentralization of power from the bishop of Rome (the Pope) to local pastors, congregations, laity, royalty, and governments.

So the second question is what would "Reformed Islam" look like? Well, it would discard centuries of traditions that people adopted to live with the presence of diversity and plurality--even taking into account how minor those accommodations were. It would also release the individual Muslim from accountability to his community, making him directly accountable to God and his mandate for perpetual and global jihad. It would finally lead to a proliferation of schools of interpretation, many of them accusing the other of faithlessness in right interpretation of the Qur'an.
I would therefore argue that we have in our midst a highly-Reformed Islam in the form of what is alternately called Wahabi or Salafi Islam. There is an interesting history behind each of the words and they are not identical. Suffice to say that followers of Salafiism understand themselves as interpreting and living out the Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) in accordance with the original and plain meaning understood by Muhammad and his companions (the salafi, which is Arabic for "predecessors.")

It was indeed this school of Reformed Islam that highly influenced the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not for centuries have we seen a government that so faithfully and perfectly obeyed the pattern of the early Muslims (salafi). In other words, the Afghanistan under the Taliban was Reformed Islam. It was Islam stripped of accretions not mandated by the Qur'an or his companions (who play a role like the Apostles in many ways), who understood themselves as interpreting the Qu'ran plainly and simply, without the influence or intermediary of distracting scholars and philosophers and theologians.

Part of Reformed Islam is the return to active, vigorous and perpetual jihad, as was the custom of Muhammad and his companions. Muhammad himself was part of over 70 battles/raids during his own lifetime, very few of which were defensive. The expansion of jihad we see today is not radical or fundamentalist Islam. It is Islam in its most historically accurate and pure form.

Islam: A Religion (and an Empire too!), Part 1

Islam: A Religion (and an Empire too!), Part 1
by Abu Daoud

There are two central aspects of Islam that folks in the West tend to misunderstand. Because of these two flaws in our understanding we continue to make decisions and take actions that are ineffective or counterproductive in the Dar al Islam.

The second thing is the relation of power to grace. But the first thing, which is related to the second, is that Islam, properly speaking, is not simply a religion, but an entire civilization. Islam is a holistic and organic system of life that includes very specific regulations and laws regarding everything from inheritance to divorce, investing to commerce, and—here is sticking point—regulations regarding government.

Muhammad was the civil and religious ruler of the Umma (the Islamic nation) at the time of his death. Since a prophet gains immunity against sin once he has been called by God, he can do no wrong. This certainly gets around the messiness of dividing and distributing power, which the founders of the USA attempted to do. But there is a problem: original sin. For all have sinned! There is not one righteous, no not one!  

Christianity has flirted with the union of all civil and religious power under one person, specifically in the idea of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was considered by some to be rex et sacerdos—King and Priest. But overall we have tended to separate the two spheres in some way or another.

For traditionally-minded Muslims, the idea of separating the two kinds of authority is unnatural and an affront to the human person, who is at once a political and religious being. Before you dismiss this insight, let me point out that the so-called alternative (secularism) is running into great problems nowadays. The reason for this is that it is very difficult to figure out where to draw the line between the religious person and the political person—as Islam rightly argues. Does the line exclude a prayer before Congress meets? Does the line exclude students from bringing Bibles into public schools? Does the line exclude atheists from holding public office? What about Satan worshippers? My point is simply that Islam has a good point here: the human being is at once political and religious, reflecting the unity (tawheed, wahda) within God. So any attempt to divide the two spheres must be, to some extent, artificial, mutable, and provisional.

But what is a religion? This might seem like a simple question, but in fact it is very difficult to answer. Christians in the USA these days like to say that Christianity is a relationship (with Christ), not a religion. I appreciate the sentiment behind that statement, but it is in reality totally false. A religion, speaking generally, is any system of beliefs and practices that teach people(s) how to relate to Ultimate Reality (what we call God). So the very idea that Christianity is relational is a very religious idea: we should relate to God personally, not impersonally; or personally, and not communally. Some people say they are spiritual and not religious—I used to say that. Now I say I am very religious. Let people draw their own conclusions.

Islam teaches that part of the relationship between the political ruler and the religious ruler is all encompassed within the submission, yielding, sublimination, or surrender (various translations of the Arabic word islam) that must characterize the community and person before God and his Prophet. So to those who say that Christianity is a personal relationship, not a religion, the traditional Muslim replies that Islam is a political relationship, not just a religion.

Orthodox Archbishop Job on Christianity and secularism

I love this quote:

"The role of the Church is to witness to sanity. To real sanity in a world which has gone berserk. A world in which people speak of freedom, but no longer know what that means...people who speak a language which has lost its meaning."

What a great quote! Check out this interview from the 90s with Archbishop Job.


HT to The Sounding Blog.

The Prophet: Victorious through Terror?

Sahih al Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 220

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." 

Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Sweden's Rape Epidemic (Gatestone Institute)

Sweden continues to destroy itself...

Christian refugees in Germany being persecuted by Muslim refugees

Such sad news. And so sad to see how Germany is slowly but surely destroying itself:

"Despite increased reports about this problem by the media, charities, human rights organizations, church leaders and Christian organizations, German authorities and politicians have hardly ever launched an investigation. Instead, we believe that incidents are deliberately downplayed and even covered up. ... Even in police stations, religiously motivated attacks on Christian refugees are not documented as such."

Read it all HERE.

Why the Morocco Declaration on Christianity is not as good as it sounds

The folks at Christianity Today are falling all over themselves explaining how great the recent Morocco Declaration on Christian rights is. This should give you an idea:

In particular, the declaration references the charter’s “principles of constitutional contractual citizenship” and “freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law,” in regards to Muslims and non-Muslims.

I'm just not convinced. The declaration needs to explicitly claim that Christians who at one time in the past were Muslims are also included and should be afforded the same legal rights as folks born in Christian families.

And plus, Morocco doesn't even have an indigenous Christian population, aside from a couple hundred converts from Islam, and those have mostly been hounded and persecuted until they left the country.

I hope I'm worn to be so cynical about this, but we saw this back in the time of the Ottoman Empire with the hat-i humayun. At that time (1850's) Protestant missionaries were overjoyed because they thought these lofty statements about rights meant that Muslims could legally convert to Christianity. But nope. 

So...very nice words. But in the end, dust in the wind. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see that this is much more than a pretty piece of PR fluff which will enable the sheeple of Europe and North America to keep repeating to themselves 'religion of peace, religion of peace...' while their neighbors continue to be killed and their daughters raped.

In the UK: Permitting rape preferred over being charged with Islamophobia

Update from the UK:

• At least 1,400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013 in the town of Rotherham, mostly by Muslim gangs, but police and municipal officials failed to tackle the problem because they feared being branded "racist" or "Islamophobic."
  
  
  Read more at Gatestone Inst. HERE.

Were the Paris attacks really Islam?

Here is my reflection Paris:

We're used to this by now. Muslims kill scores of people, and explain that they have done this because they are Muslims, because the Qur'an commands them to do so, and their authorities issue detailed legal arguments explaining why said acts were legitimate acts of struggle (in Arabic the word is jihad) against the unbelievers. 

And then we get the response. 

But Muslims could never kill fellow Muslims! 

No one mentions that according to Islamic State and Al Qaeda and friends any 'Muslim' who collaborates with the unbelievers is not actually a Muslim anymore. And we get citations from the Qur'an, like "Whosoever kills a man...it is as if he killed the whole of mankind..." (Qur'an 5:32).

But then others note that the entire verse reads, "whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men..." 

In other words, if someone is spreading mischief, like criticizing the Prophet or his successor (which is what the word caliph means in Arabic), then well, it is ok to slay him. So where is the truth? Let me propose an analogy to the Christian faith.

Read the rest of this article by yours truly HERE.

Bp John Harrower on context and Bible

I really liked this quote from the outgoing Anglican Bishop of Tasmania:

I often say to people when they say 'Christians should be reading the Bible', 'well, Christians should be reading the newspaper.'

HT to VirtueOnline for this tidbit.

Newbigin: "The secular society is a myth..."

Hear the words of this great prophet!

The secular society is a myth, and it has the power of a myth to blind people to realities. A powerful myth, such as this, has in it the power about which I was speaking in the chapter on “principalities and powers.” Christian affirmation in this context requires the unmasking of the powers. It calls for a new kind of enlightenment, namely the opening up of the underlying assumptions of a secular society, the asking of the unasked questions, the probing of unrecognized presuppositions.

Newbigin, Lesslie (1989-10-30). The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (p. 220). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.