Category Archives: Islam

Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America

Travel Bans, Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America  “Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad. “

by Bill Lockwood

Mark Miller, a senior attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, writes in today’s The Hill regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling declaring unconstitutional an immigrant-deportation law defended by the Trump Administration. Now the High Court turns attention to an immigration-related case, Trump v. Hawaii, which has “bigger stakes,” according to Miller.

According to Miller, the “highest profile” question before the court is “does the travel ban violate the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause?” The challengers submit that the president’s “travel ban” amounts to “religious discrimination.” Oral arguments are underway this week.

The Establishment Clause refers to the first line of the First Amendment, of course, which forbade the federal government from establishing an official state religion in America.

Islam and Religion?

The fundamental error here, repeated daily in the press and in education, is that Islam is a religion. In truth, it is a political movement that has very little “religion” to it. Islam is nothing but communism that sails under a religious flag. Its goal is world domination by the edge of the sword. Global Islamic Rule.

Muslim leaders world-wide have been bold and blatant that their efforts are toward an Islamic-dominated world. Iranian leader Ahmadenejad declared it (2006); Leading Muslim cleric in the UK Anjem Choudary insisted that the Muslim flag will one day “fly over the White House;” the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) chair Omar Ahmad confessed in 1998 that the Islamic goal is “to become dominant worldwide;” and the Muslim Brotherhood has given us “The Project”—a 100 year-plan to establish “Islamic government on earth.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, created in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, claims to have more than 70 affiliated terrorist organizations throughout the world. It states that “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Note that they define “jihad” for us. It involves “dying in the way of Allah.”

“Jihad” is the sacred obligation to impose Islam upon the entire world. This is not the creation of a few extremists or the hijacking of a peaceful religion by a handful of radicals. Jihad is mandated in the writings of the Quran, was practiced in bloody earnest by the false prophet Muhammad, and is overwhelmingly defined by classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists as a military concept of “waging war.”

According to the eminent scholar of Islamic history and culture at Princeton University, Bernard Lewis, and Cleveland Dodge, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, the “term ‘jihad’ has usually been understood as meaning ‘to wage war.’ The great collection of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad in which the military meaning predominates. …According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an obligation imposed upon all Muslims by God, through revelation … It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

Muslim Brotherhood

This brings us back to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Their outlined strategies for western world takeover include the “appearance of moderation,” the “use of deception to mask good,” the “extensive usage of social networks,” and to “cultivate Islamist intellectual community;” “using Western institutions until they convert them into the service of Islam.” Changing the laws of the United States is the primary target. Stealth Jihad.  As Muslim Brotherhood leader Qaradowi stated, “jihad can be fought with the pen, then the sword.”

Muslim practitioners have no intention of following the Constitution of the United States. It is a devious political movement.

The great world –class scholar and former president John Quincy Adams warned America that Muhammad had poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. … Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], a war of twelve hundred years has already waged. The war is yet flagrant … while the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motive to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Although Adams called Islam a “religion” himself, the essence of it, even by his own definition, is a political movement that presses physical war. If the High Court of the United States would recognize these simple facts Islam would be seen for what it is and travel bans would be not be challenged on the basis of “religious discrimination.”

Co-Exist!–Deceptive Diagnosis Leads to Deceptive Remedy

Co-Exist!–Deceptive Diagnosis Leads to Deceptive Remedy- Katy Perry’s worldview apparently has been formed by bumper stickers…”

by Bill Lockwood

Katy Perry, the social media pop star, commented on this week’s Islamic terror attack in Manchester, England. While on “The Elvis Duran Show” she related that she feels “devastated” by the attack. To solve the “horribleness” of these types of events, Perry suggested that we all need simply to “unite and love on each other, and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

Katy Perry’s worldview apparently has been formed by bumper stickers that are prolific in the San Francisco Bay area. One version of the sticker uses an Islamic crescent moon for the “C”, a peace sign for the “O”, a combination of male and female symbols for the “E”, the Star of David for the “X”, a pentagram of modern occultism for the dot on the “I”, a yin-yang of eastern religions for the “S”, and a Christian cross for the “T.”

In a more sophisticated version of “just love each other” from Katy Perry, Omer Taspinar, in a 2009 SAIS Review of International Affairs, suggested that the “new strategy” to prevent radicalism is by American funding of “social and economic development” in the Middle East. In other words, siphon-off the wealth of taxpayers to put an end to Manchester, England-type of jihadi attacks.

The last administration of Barack Obama was larded with liberal Marxist academicians who preached this same “pop star” theology of Perry about “let’s just all learn to love each other.” Maria Harpf, the State Department spokeswoman for Obama boldly suggested that to “stop the slaughter” of innocent civilians by Islamic State militants Americans need to pony-up more money. Why? Because the main problem, per Harpf, is “poverty.” This is the “root cause” of jihadic violence and it becomes the duty of America to “help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

Lack of jobs. Lack of western money. Economic depression. Not enough love. Let’s just all agree to co-exist. Liberalism is steeped in these nonsensical and unrealistic views of the world. I suggest this is the primary problem facing America: liberalism’s delusional view of reality. What is its taproot?

Socialism

Socialism is worldview that is totally at war with Christianity. This is so because the foundation of socialism is a materialistic concept of the world. Every action of man is explained solely on the basis of what a person does or does not own or is able to “access” in society. This is the “devil’s gospel” of materialism, which is why materialists such as Harpf, Perry, and an academy full professors continually harangue “the system.”

The one cause of all human problem has a materialistic root. This means that all ills in society—be it violence, jihad, thievery, murder and mayhem stem directly from the lack of this world’s goods and opportunities or these types of “injustices” in the system.

What then is the remedy? How is the free world to help stop the violence in the world? The Devil’s Gospel is: “redistribute the wealth” and material possessions—or at least pay boatloads of money to establish better conditions. All problems can only be resolved by government-sponsored (not free-will giving) redistribution.

The above is what many preachers in nominal “Christian” pulpits apparently have not taken time to discover, as evidenced by their lack of cross-examination of materialistic and socialistic philosophies. Even the National Council of Churches majors in this mis-diagnosis of misbehavior, suggesting that the cure lies in more redistribution. The cultural malaise that is occurring in the western world is grounded almost totally on socialistic folly.

Pulpits have forsaken the God-given diagnosis of the world’s problems. Sin. And this forgetfulness is the more amazing since the entire biblical worldview demonstrates that sin embedded in the heart of man (Rom. 4:15; 6:23) is the source of all of society’s ills. And sin is the result of personal free-will choices that people make. Forgiveness in Christ is the remedy.

What our cultural elite absolutely refuse to entertain is the truth. Behavior of people is rooted in their ideology—not pocketbook. What a person, or group believes is the single motivating factor. Until the west totally abandons the worldview of socialism violence will increase. Jihadi terror will continue.

Islam

Specifically regarding Islam—the problem is the religious ideal itself. Not “extremists,” not “fringe radicals”—but the doctrine of Mohammed as codified in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah (his biography).

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is the perfect example for those calling themselves Muslims. Yet, Muhammad’s authoritative biographer, Ibn Ishaq, made perfectly clear that conversion to Islam had little to do with religion and everything to do with violence and jihad. The last chapter that came from his mouth is his marching orders for future generations of Muslims: “Fight and slay pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:4).

Katy Perry and the New Agers of San Francisco may sway and sing for “Co-Existence” and Maria Harpf, now a television commentator, may lament the lack of American tax-payer money sent to Islamic nations, but Americans who have not been brainwashed by socialistic or Islamic doctrine can see that the root is the ideology behind the behavior.

“We are All Muslim?”

“We are All Muslim?”- Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.”

by Bill Lockwood

National Public Radio website highlighted a “We are All Muslim” rally in New York City’s Times Square this past weekend. Designed to express solidarity with Muslims in protest to President Trump’s executive orders that temporarily suspends immigration from 7 terrorist nations which are predominantly Muslim, the rally was organized by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. The FFEU is a “coalition of religious groups led by record label founder Russell Simmons, Rabbi Marc Scheider and others…” Simmons decried that the president is intent on being a “wrecking ball … to destroy our nation’s foundation of freedom.”

Barack Obama’s stated goal for this nation was Fundamental Transformation. It appears he was successful at least to this degree: Liberals have fundamentally transformed their own thinking processes so that they have become mindless robots unwilling to examine basic structures of thought and doctrine. The Foundation apparently believes that more “ethnic understanding” will alleviate our problem.

First, Islam itself is a system of slavery. For example, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square and was later was sentenced to jail in 2010 defiantly told to the court: “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom.” Was Shahzad expressing some “extremist view” of Islam? Not at all. In reality, Islam is a system of totalitarian slavery that looks very different from freedom.

Imam al-Mawardi wrote in 1996 that because people reject Mohammed as a prophet Islam law “dictates that Jews and Christians may live in Islamic states, but not as equals with Muslims.” They must not build churches; they may be forced to quarter Muslims; they are subjected to humiliating regulations such as the payment of the “jizya”—a second-class citizen tax.

The Koran itself teaches that “men are better than women” (4:34); that a woman’s testimony in court is only one-half as valid as a man’s because “she is forgetful” and needs another to assist her memory; polygamy is taught only for the man. Chattel slavery itself was encouraged by Mohammed: “Marry women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one or a captive slave that your right hand possesses…” (4:3).

Michael Moore says, “We are all Muslim.” Really? Perhaps he ought remove his little ball cap, sit down and actually read the Koran; stand up like a man and tell us why he defends chattel slavery and expresses solidarity with it. Tell us, Michael Moore, why do you defend Mohammed who declared that women are only one-half as good as men? “We are all Muslim” can only mean you defend that doctrine.

Again, from the Koran: “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered—the freeman for the freeman; and the slave for the slave; and the female for the female” (2:178). The Jalalan Commentary on this verse says, “The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, … A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman.”

Slaves are “not equal” with freemen. This is Islam. Michael Moore says to Donald Trump: “We are all Muslim. Deal with it.” Well, according to Islamic doctrine, you, Mikey, are not equal to Muslims. You are only one-half as valuable. Deal with it.

To really get the lesson, let some of these women, including the Muslim women who were wearing “American flag hijabs” in the New York rally and speaking out against Trump—go over to an Islamic nation such as Afghanistan or Pakistan—rally in the street, speak openly and socialize with men. The “equality” of Islamic ideals of which you speak would bring a severe beating and jail-time for public lewdness and daring to think that Islam gives you freedom of expression. Michael Moore is right that “we are all children of God” and should be treated this way, but basic inhuman principles of Islam are those with which we are dealing, and those are carried here by Muslim people.

Second, Islam is a system of totalitarian warfare. The supposed 124 verses in the Koran which teach “peace” are all “abrogated” by commands from Mohammed himself which call for violent war and jihad. All religious Muslim scholars attest to this fact. The last word in the Koran on how a Muslim is to deal with unbelievers is Surah 9:5, “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

According to the Suyuti scholars, “The order for Muslims to be patient and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but when they became strong they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated” (Part 3, p. 61). Ibn Arabi said, “The verse of the sword (9:5) has abrogated 124 verses.”

Samuel Zwemer (The Moslem World, 48) put it succinctly. “The spread of Islam in three continents for well-nigh twelve centuries was due to the power of the sword and to the law moral standards of the new faith.”  This is what Michael Moore and the FFEU are wishing to bring to America. Low moral standards.

Third, the Main Stream Media and liberals do not know what is real Christianity. A couple of years ago Michael Moore was hosted on “Real Time” with Bill Maher and related that the United States is in the “dark ages” because of the Christian right. He then equated “Christian extremism” with “Islamic extremism” (The Christian Post).

What Moore and his ilk refuse to see is that Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of the Middle Ages, which brought us the Dark Ages, is nothing akin to Christianity. The Roman system itself is bold apostasy from pure New Testament Christianity. It is nothing less than a crushing authoritative secular government joined with a few Christian principles. Nothing of the RCC hierarchy, the pope, the cardinals; nor any of its canon laws, its worship practices, its images, its peculiar doctrines or any vestige that makes the Roman Church Roman is found upon the pages of Holy Writ.

The Roman Church herself fielded armies and conquered territories just as has Islam. She persecuted to blood thousands of Christians for translating the Bible into the common vernacular. None of this is defensible biblically speaking. These are actions of a secular government, which is what is the Roman Church. The point here, however, is that it is popular to equate Muslim atrocities with so-called “Christian atrocities” of ages past. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Testament Christianity does not teach nor practice any of this, no more than our Lord Jesus Christ fielded armies to fight against the Romans.

We are not all Muslim. Some of us hold to Christian principles which instill freedom instead of oppression.

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad

The Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Looting, and Civilization Jihad- “The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS.”

by Bill Lockwood

Archaeological looting is a global issue that threatens the preservation of our shared cultural heritage” writes Robin Ngo in Biblical Archaeology Review in September, 2016.  “In the Middle East, archaeological looting and the deliberate destruction of archaeological sites and monuments amid ongoing warfare have captured international attention.”

In a related article (11-23-16) Marek Dospel soberly warns that “Cultural heritage around the globe is constantly under threat and needs to be protected not only as a constituent of peoples’ historical memory and identity, but also as the source of future dialogue and understanding between peoples and cultures.”

While it is inevitable that what comes down to us from the material relics of the distant past is a mere shadow of what human talent has created, the new global phenomenon of the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage can and should be prevented. Especially disturbing are images of material destruction related to immense human suffering in the Middle East, where scores of people are being killed or displaced every day and cultural heritage is being wiped out forever.”

The Ancient Lamassu

Articles in Biblical Archaeology Review have noted a number of UNESCO designated sites which have been obliterated by the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In total, thousands of sites and artifacts detailing ancient history have been destroyed by Islamic warriors. One of the cherished archaeological sites, for example, is the Nergal Gate, one of the gates into 7th century B.C. Nineveh, the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

With sledgehammers and drills in hand, the ISIS insurgents toppled, smashed and defaced millennia-old antiquities as well as modern replicas,” Ngo lamented (ISIS Destroys Antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, 2-27-15).

Among the destroyed relics was a seventh-century sculpture of a lamassu (a human-headed winged lion). The lamassu was conceived by the ancient Assyrians to be a protective deity that guarded the Nergal Gate. Other similar sculptures at one time decorated the palace of Neo-Assyrian King Sargon II (721-705 B.C.). Sargon is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 20:1 as the monarch who attacked Ashdod and captured it.

Palmyra

Another devastating blow to historical and cultural heritages of the world is the recent destruction by Islamic warriors of a “landmark ancient Roman monument and parts of the theater in Syria’s historic town of Palmyra” (Fox News, 1-20-17).

Militants destroyed the façade of the second-century theater along with the Tetrapylon, a cubic-shaped ancient Roman monument that sits in the middle of the colonnade road that leads to the theater.” Satellite images have verified these news reports coming out of Syria.

Also destroyed in Syria are many “ancient temples including the Temple of Bel, which dated back to A.D. 32, and the Temple of Baalshamin, a structure of stone blocks several stories high fronted by six towering columns.” The new report adds, “The militants also blew up the Arch of Triumph, which had been built under Roman emperor Septimius Severus between A.D. 193 and A.D. 211.”

Islam

The common thought is that this destruction is perpetrated by “an extremist group”, namely ISIS. This implies that if somehow the real Islam would rein-in these extremists, cultural sites would be safer. To civilization this is a fatal mistake.

Two years before his death, Mohammed was finally able to marshal enough forces to capture his old home of Mecca. Having waged relentless war against all tribal enemies on the peninsula of Arabia, he marched triumphantly into Mecca. By the time he died in 632 A.D., Islam had subjugated all Arabia. As part of this jihad Islam, led by Mohammed himself, annihilated the entire culture of the peninsula. This was not “extremist” or an example of many Muslims spinning out of Mohammed’s personal control. It is pure Sunna.

Upon Mohammed’s personal orders the entire city of Mecca was “purged” of what he perceived to be paganistic influence and all artwork, cultural artifacts, sculptures, and monuments were systematically destroyed. And so it has ever been. Civilization jihad.

Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be Hindu cultures. Where are the Hindu relics of old in these nations? The second caliph after Mohammed, Omar Ibn Al Khattab (about 645 A.D.) set fire to the library of Alexandria per the fatwa. The world itself lost several centuries of knowledge, thought, and history due to that Islamic fire. Egyptian culture was crushed.

The indigenous cultures of Afghanistan were Zoroastrian, Greek, Hellenistic, with some Buddhist and Hindu mixed in. Very little, if any, traces of those cultures remain today, and that is the way it has been since it was captured for Islam during the 7th through the 10th centuries.  Today 99.8% of the Afghan population is Muslim. The same story is re-told regarding any civilization that is dominated by Islam. This cannot be explained on the basis of persuasive thought-provoking reasoning, but only on the basis of violence.

Compare America’s history. Although a Christian culture as conceived by the Founders, it did not systematically destroy every artifact or historical vestige of the cultures that preceded it, even if misinformed liberals insist that “we” somehow “annihilated” the Indian peoples. Instead, the remnants of Indian tribes are carefully preserved in museums and archaeological remains are cherished. Nor was the population of America ever forcibly brought into the Christian Church.

But with Islam it is all about Civilization Jihad. As Islam gains ground, down will come such time-honored sights such as the Washington monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and certainly Moses will be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court building. The ACLU will assist in this, and Bible verses will certainly be purged from the collective American memory.

If Americans wish to honor and protect their own cultural heritages or memories, and even their own civilization which gives them their identity as a peoples, understanding the extreme danger of Islam itself is paramount. Tragic it is that with the advance of Islam the world itself loses its heritage.

Immigration and the “House of America”

Immigration and the “House of America”- “Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite.”

by Bill Lockwood

America is on fire. Mobs rove about the streets, harass passengers at airports and erupt over social as well as Main Stream Media and a placard-bearing rabble has become a daily sight around the country. Hollywood itself has become one gigantic Democratic Political Action Committee as awards banquets turn into more vitriolic spleen-venting against our president. Disruption of society is socialism on the march.

Just what is their beef today? Obedience to and enforcement of immigration laws by President Donald Trump. According to PolitiFact the presidential order “targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.” Refugees fleeing from Syria are also affected. President Trump pointed out that “This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”

But the riotous left is unhappy. Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite. Let’s examine it—assuming that there are enough lefties remaining out of socialistic clutches who will soberly consider facts instead of ranting about the countryside.

First, consider the Founders’ position on immigration. As explained by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, it is for the happiness and tranquility of a society that states actually join league together to form a federal government. Regarding that union, “Every species of government has its specific principles. … To these [principles] nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. …They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, form one extreme to another.”

America will change dramatically from the God-given principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence in which “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Instead of individual rights we will see, Jefferson warned, a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass” precisely because they will “infuse into it [America] their spirit” and “warp and bias its direction.”

That this has already occurred cannot be doubted. Sharing identical or similar values is the key. For this reason, until the late Ted Kennedy practically single-handedly changed our system, immigration into America was regulated by the federal government taking into consideration the countries of origin of immigrants. Today, masses of people pour across our borders with little regard for our laws or Constitutional system founded upon God-given individual rights.

Second, America must beware of Muslim immigrants, period. Trump and the Republicans are laboring to explain to recalcitrant hordes that “this is not about religion” as evidenced by the fact that Muslims from over 40 different countries are not affected by this order. Be that as it may. In spite of the words of former president Obama on “Climate Change”– “the debate is closed”—the debate has not yet even occurred on Islam. Islam is much less a religion than a political system which is in the world to conquer. Islam is defined by three books called “The Trilogy.” All three volumes, the Koran, the Biography of Mohammed, and the Hadith, are nothing but basic strategy manuals on how to conquer a civilization by violence and bloodshed.

When Mohammed himself died in Arabia there was not a single person on the peninsula that disagreed with the man. This cannot be explained on the basis of freedom, but upon an authoritarian system at war with mankind—and America. If America cannot come to grips with this fact it is doomed.

Third, mob-actions mobilized by the socialists to disrupt society are unabashedly hypocritical. Elliot Abrams, in Newsweek (9-13-16), pointed out what has been obvious to many. His article is entitled “The U.S. Bars Christian, not Muslim, Refugees from Syria.” Abrams recognizes that “the headline for this column—the U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria—will strike many readers as ridiculous. But the numbers tell a different story.”

Abrams goes on to show that as of September, 2016, America has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, “of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.” However, “10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.”

So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?”  This gross injustice, Abrams explains, is because even in the refugee camps, there is a persecution against Christians by refugee Muslims. Christians are therefore forced to flee their own United Nations refugee camps. The result: very few Christians enter America.

The point here is: Where were all those righteous placard-carrying street organizers or Hollywood elitists to protest this injustice against Christians? Why no protests against Obama or the Muslims he consistently defends in spite of their persecution of Christians? The legs of the lame are not equal.

Further, perhaps the American people ought to awaken from the stupor of political correctness to recognize that what is mentioned above regarding Islam in general is valid. Even less violent Muslims, who do not as consistently practice Mohammed’s jihad, are dangerous themselves, even if persecuted by their own kind. This is what America is allowing to enter the doors of our house.

Fourth, it is admitted that travel bans and immigration enforcement alone will not solve the problem. But it is a start. The real issue is the welfare state. Our republican government, as conceived by the Founders, was designed to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

Samuel Adams stated, “The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown.” He adds that these concepts are “in our government unconstitutional.”

But what has occurred? Over the past 75 years our nation has repudiated sound constitutional principles and turned into a socialistic morass in which government regularly plunders its citizens for redistribution. Ron Paul, former Congressman from Texas, adequately sizes up the situation in a recent column.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.”

Paul adds that, “The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.”

Get America back to a Constitutional government is the true solution.

Fifth, the Leftists in America complain against Trump’s immigration policies that they are “unchristian.” Christianity should be about caring for the poor and downtrodden, not closing borders against the persecuted.

Confusion reigns here. America has always cherished its Christian principles. Above and beyond the Welfare Plunder State which is the legacy of the FDR’s and Lyndon Johnson’s, American churches continue to give away much more than any other peoples in history, whether it be to the foreign poor or to the home-born poverty-stricken. It is with little grace or reflection that street hordes denigrate the charity of America.

Charity, however, only encompasses individual action or congregational action. Government programs do not begin to answer God’s demands.

The centerpiece of socialism, on the other hand, is that individuals or groups are entitled to the wealth produced by society— to the material goods produced by others.  The “poor” are entitled to education, healthcare, food and the necessities of life. But these necessities are provided by someone else. Dig deeper into this idea.

The transfer of necessities or goods may occur in only one of two ways: (1) Free-will giving (contribution); or (2) Theft. As every American understands, our national leaders, both Republican and Democrat, are solidly in the second category. This has created the modern welfare state. But this is only about one thing: government forcibly removing from one citizen to re-distribute to another. To call this Christian charity betrays an abysmal ignorance as to the true nature of Christianity as well as of socialism.

To mask the real nature of this stealing the Left uses the phrase “Social Justice.” Liberals are demanding forcible redistribution, but are re-branding THEFT as “Justice.” As the National Association of Scholars defined it: “social justice” it is the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” That is, others have a “right” to my income. So preaches Obama. So preaches socialists.

The French economist of yesteryear, Frederic Bastiat, provided us with a simple test to determine if something is actually “giving” or “stealing.” He wrote, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”

This is exactly where we are in America. So accustomed have the insurgents in our nation become to this mass stealing under socialism that they are now rioting from the State House to the streets and airports when any attempt is made to curtail it.

What all of this really is about is explained by Ann Coulter when she noted that “Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating for 20 years about how post-1965 immigration would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. They called the new emerging majority ‘George McGovern’s Revenge.’”
Nothing we are seeing in the wake of Trump’s executive orders has a thing to do with Christianity or charity. It has to do with turning America’s house upside down.

Blood for Blood

Blood for Blood- “…he had come to this country expecting to see the emergence of a prophet whose time was at hand.

by Bill Lockwood

Saturday night a Somali Islamic terrorist knifed shoppers in a Sears store in the Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota before he was gunned down by an out-of-uniform police officer. Earlier the same day the Islamic man we now know as Ahmad Khan Rahami allegedly set off bombs in New York and New Jersey, injuring many. He has since been arrested. Islamic terrorism is advancing in America.

Law enforcement, however, is absolutely hamstrung to solve the rising tide of violence by Islamic terrorists in our nation. The lack begins with the initial question that reporters and politicians love to ask: “How were these men radicalized?” This is to begin the entire conversation with the ASSUMPTION that Islam is a “peaceful religion” and that somehow these Muslim terrorist have strayed from real Islam.

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is the perfect example for those calling themselves Muslims. Yet, Muhammad’s authoritative biographer, Ibn Ishaq, made perfectly clear that conversion to Islam had little to do with religion and everything to do with violence and jihad.

For example, even in his early years in Mecca, before his hijra to Medina and the opening of warfare against all in order to force “conversion” Ishaq tells of a supposed “prophecy” given by a Jew from Syria (Ishaq, 136). The Jew had emigrated from Syria to the “land of hardship and hunger” (Arabia). When his Jewish fellows asked why he had come so far, he responded that, “…he had come to this country expecting to see the emergence of a prophet whose time was at hand. This was the town where he would migrate and he was hoping he would be sent so that he could follow him. ‘His time has come,’ he said, ‘and don’t let anyone get to him before you, O Jews; [Jewish man admonishing fellow Jews] for he will be sent to shed blood and to take captive the women and children of those who oppose him. Let not that keep you back from him.” In other words, he warned them to convert to Islam or pay with their blood.

Later, as Muhammad’s power began to accumulate, just before migrating to Medina from Mecca, he was visited by Muslims coming from Medina to Mecca to observe a “fair.” One night about seventy of the Muslims went to meet Muhammad. He recited the Koran to them and “invited” their allegiance to Islam on the “basis that you protect me as you would your own children.” The Medinans gave their word.

One of the Medinans, however, asked what about their now-severed ties with the Jews in Medina? If they assisted Muhammad with arms would he go back to Mecca? Muhammad replied, “No, blood is blood, and blood not to be paid for is blood not to be paid for” (Ishaq, 297).

Biographer Ishaq explains, “He would treat blood revenge and its obligation as common to both parties.” Islam’s invitation to “convert” is blood for blood. What is happening in America is the revealing of the real Islam. What radicalizes the behavior of Muslims is the so-called Prophet himself.

Back to Homepage

Missing in Orlando

Missing in Orlando

by Bill Lockwood

Liberalism is a brain disease which rewires one’s cognitive functions and reasoning capabilities. Under its umbrella philosophies such as Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Progressivism flourish. This is startlingly apparent in the aftermath of Orlando which emboldens Presidents and other leftists to leave out the most crucial pieces of the puzzle in analyzing and explaining the terror. Sadly, many on the right are afflicted with the same brain disease as well. What are the most critical puzzle pieces missing which we as a culture have declared off-limits for consideration?

First, refusing to look at the SOURCE material of Islam. It is beyond belief that Americans would continue to be patient with President Obama as he scurries to console—not American citizens who have been targeted for jihad—but members of Omar Mateen’s religious group, Muslims. Obama reassures them that no one is ready to judge them for Mateen’s murders. He must comfort Islam that all is well. By so doing he is warning Americans not to entertain any views that may reflect poorly on Islam.

Quick to take the cue, even conservative pundits rush to judge skeptical Americans who are dubious about Islam itself. “Moderate Muslims” must be our partners, say they. Our first duty seems to be to protect Muslims and their feelings of inclusion into America. The gigantic assumption here is that if the Orlando carnage is Islam, it is only some “radicalized” version of it and not representative of real peaceful Islam. Brain dead liberals expect Americans who can read to be brain dead as well. The real questions are: What did Muhammed himself DO? What did Muhammed himself TEACH in the Koran? In the Hadith? This leads us to the Fountainhead of Islamic teaching: The Koran and The Sura (life of Muhammed).

The prophet of Islam, Muhammed, butchered many more than Omar Mateen shot. He personally oversaw the beheading of thousands. Islam conquered the entire peninsula of Arabia in his lifetime, not because of defensive wars but because of offensive bloody strategems including butchering, raping, pillaging, and instilling fear into surrounding countries. His followers hacked their way across most of Asia and into Europe during the ages succeeding, following Muhammed’s example.

Not only did Muhammed practice what Mateen carried out, but he ordered his followers to do it as well. The last Surah that came from his uninspired lips included this: “Fight and slay pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:5). Another commands Muslims to “behead” their enemies (47:4). Muhammed himself taught and practiced what is styled “radical Islam.” Why do modern-day know-it-all’s in the press continue to discuss Islam with little or no reference to the source of it all—Muhammed?

Another second puzzle piece conspicuously missing from analyzation is this: Leaving unexplained how a Muslim can be “radicalized.” This is all we hear. Mateen became “radicalized;” let’s continue to allow Muslims to come into our country but hope they do not become “radicalized;” we need to watch for “radicalization;” and on and on. Not a single one of these pundits or politicians tell us: Just how is a Muslim radicalized? How specifically doe that occur? Is it by laying aside the Koran and doing something different than what is read? Or, is it by digging deeper and deeper into the Koran and the Sura to imitate the prophet of Islam himself? What exactly is radicalization?

Only one answer is available. By becoming more and more aligned with the heart of the Koran one is radicalized.  If not, let President Obama or Hillary Clinton lay out in detail the process of “radicalization” and explain to America just how this happens. But that is something the left will never do. Instead, they will parade before us such horrendous explanations as that Orlando is the result of “too ready access to guns;” or that it is the result of “one person believing he is right and all else are wrong;” or, “Orlando’s occur” when people are “mentally disturbed.”

Missing in the Orlando analyzation: common sense. And common sense is the refusal to begin with the premise that Omar Mateen could not possibly represent what Islam actually teaches.

Back to Homepage 

Islam: America on Borrowed Time

Islam: America on Borrowed Time

by Bill Lockwood

In Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq discusses the Salmon Rushdie affair of several years back. Rushdie published an expose on several verses of the Koran after which the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued an international “death warrant” for him. Warraq noted the strange tendency—we must add “dangerous” also– of “western scholars” to “pass off” the warrant has having been issued by “Muslim extremists.” Observes Warraq, “Even more dishonest is the continuing attempt to exonerate Islam itself—especially by using phrases such as ‘Islamic fundamentalist,’ ‘Muslim fanatic,’ and so on.

The term ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ is itself inappropriate, for … Muslims have not moved away from the literal interpretation of the Koran: all Muslims—not just a group we have called ‘fundamentalist’—believe that the Koran is literally the word of God. … No amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty is going to make the unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear. … Khomeini’s actions directly reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Koran, in the acts and sayings of the Prophet, or the Islamic law based on them.”

Careful consideration of these easily discerned facts about Islam exposes not only our president, who continues to use the microphone to brainwash Americans that “Islam is a religion of peace,” but also the more conservative-leaning news outlets such as Fox News which insists on a difference between “Islam” and “Radical Fundamentalist Islam.” Such a distinction does not exist.

What are the teachings of Islam with which America must be concerned?

First, Islamic “sacred obligation” is to impose Islam upon the entire world. Islamic authority Brigitte Gabriel correctly points out that this is “not a distortion of Islam, nor is it the creation of a few extremists who have hijacked a peaceful and tolerant religion. It is mandated by the holy writings of Islam, as interpreted by a vast majority of the classical authorities.”

These authorities include the Koran itself; the Hadith (or “Traditions” – reports of what Muhammad did and said); the “Sharia,” or Islamic law; and the Biography of Muhammad, called the Sura. “Throughout the Koran and the Hadith, “war” and “killing, slaughter” are ordained by Allah as the “unavoidable and immutable punishment for refusing to convert to Islam.” This means aggressive warfare for the imposition of Islam. Islam is a foreign political power, cloaked in religious garb, bent on world domination. To allow it in our midst is identical to harboring and nourishing communist cell-groups which plan to overthrow our government.

Second, the “Great Commission” of Islam is to kill infidels. “Fight in the way of Allah … and slay them wherever you may find them … And fight with them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah” (2:190-193). The following verse intends Christians and Jews as “idolaters.” “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you may find them … But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, the leave their way free” (9:5).

Islamic scholar Samuel Zwemer translates this passage: “slay the polytheists”—which, in Islamic terminology means Christians. Commenting, he continues, “Before he fell sick Muhammad had given orders for an expedition to the Syrian border … and no sooner was Abu Bakr proclaimed caliph than the faithful hastened to the command” (The Moslem World, 37).

Islam is a foreign terrorist political power fighting beneath a flag of “religion.” American had better awaken to this reality lest we lost our stars and stripes for a flag emblazoned with a crescent.

Back To Homepage

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

Founding Fathers Supported Islam?

by Bill Lockwood

President Obama has jumped the gun. He had hoped that by now his Common Core education standards would have already dumbed-down Americans to the point that they know nothing of our own history nor would they be able to read the Koran for themselves. So he lectured America this week from a Baltimore mosque that “Islam has always been a part of America.”

Visiting the Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday, Obama eagerly assured Muslims that the dramatic rise in Islamic bloody terror against Christians and non-Muslims around the world should not in turn cause suspicion of Islam. Anti-Muslim bias and ill-feeling must be denounced, regardless of how much infidel blood flows at the hands of Muslims.

Within his remarks Obama showed what purposeful brainwashing can do to a mind. To support his thesis that Islam has always been woven into the fabric of America he pointed out (1) That the religion of many African slaves brought to America in the 17th century was Islam; (2) That Thomas Jefferson wanted the “Islamic” religion to be protected as was other religions, and; (3) That Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran. It is difficult to believe that any person considers these sophomoric suggestions as proof that somehow “Islam has been woven into the fabric of America from the beginning,” let alone a president who was supposedly Harvard-trained. Stunning.

Regarding Jefferson’s view of Islam, consider that even Columbia-degreed Denise Spellberg, author of Thomas Jefferson and the Quran: Islam and the Founders, reminds us that the Founders believed both Catholicism and Islam were violent religions and that Jefferson himself had a “personal disdain” for Islam. Jefferson knew from his experience as Minister to France that Islam was spread by the sword.

In spite of his disdain, Jefferson urged “toleration” toward individual Muslims who may be in America. However, to equate this toleration to “Muslims being a part of the fabric” or “founding” of America insults intelligence. Further, that Jefferson and Adams owned a copy of the Koran does not mean they appreciated any of Muhammed’s teachings any more than owning a copy of Dreams From My Father means anyone likes the content.

Perhaps Obama, while he is on Thomas Jefferson—who launched America’s first war against Muslim Barbary Coast Pirates–will announce to the public what Jefferson himself reported to John Jay and to the Congress regarding Islam. He learned it directly from the Tripoli Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The ambassador answered us that [the right of piracy] was founded upon on the laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Other Founders

What exactly did the Founders of America think of Islam? Not only did they eschew it, but were outspoken that CHRISTIANITY is the great basis upon our free republic rests. That the liberty to even be in America while believing Muhammad’s Koran is traceable solely to Christian concepts of freedom—it certainly does not work the other way around.

The Father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.” Story went on to point out that not only did the Founders as a whole wish Christianity to receive “encouragement” from the state, but that the real object of the First Amendment “was not to countenance, much less advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity …”

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, made the same point in 1788. But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices … But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, suggested that if Muslims ever became officials of the United States that it would be “an unfortunate” event and could only happen if people laid aside the Christian religion altogether. He likened this, as did other Founders, to having elected officials who were devoid of religion completely. Similar quotations could be multiplied many times over. The Founding generation, far from remotely supposing that Islam was “woven into the fabric” of our nation, disdained it as a violent religion.

Obama’s reminder that some of the African slaves brought to America is likely the truth. What he refuses to acknowledge, however, is that not one of those African slave came to America without the complicity of Muslim slave traders on the African continent. The Koran not only endorses slavery, but Muhammed himself, the epitome of what a Muslim should be, personally owned black slaves.

It is beyond sad to witness the occupant of the Oval Office so stultify his intelligence by re-writing history. But it is a forecast of what his Common Core standards have in mind for all students.

Back to Homepage

 

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

by Bill Lockwood

It is surprising to see the number of Christian people who, apparently from lack of informative study, would suggest that the “God” of the Bible and the “God” of Islam are one and the same. One of the basic concepts of biblical Christianity is “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18-20) (The Trinity) which Islam refers to as blasphemy. That Jesus Christ is Deity (Col. 2:9) and equal to the personage of the Father (John 10:30) and worthy of our worship is also a core Christian concept. But this too Islam declares to be rank blasphemy. But these comparisons only touch the hem of the garment regarding the differences.

The chief attribute of God is “love” (1 John 4:8). But this characteristic is completely lacking in the Islamic description of God. Again, the capricious nature of Allah is set forth in the Koran compared to the one true God who “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2). “But of a God of infinite Holiness and of infinite Love, Muhammad had no idea whatever” writes Islamic scholar William Tisdall (Religion of the Crescent). Can it be that Allah and God are one and the same?

Character of God

From the fact that “God is Love” flows also the fact that God is our Father and man has been created “in His image” (Gen. 1:27). But in the ninety-nine Titles or “Names of God” repeated by Muslims the name of Father is not one of them. “Not only so, but the very application of this term to God in any sense seems to the Muhammadan mind to be the most utter blasphemy.” Instead, Muhammad’s conception of God was altogether a Deistic one. Being created “in the image of God” man has an affinity with and to God. But there is not the slightest approach to any kinship between man and God in Islamic theology. No sympathy with man and no possibility of it.

Paganistic Concept of God

It is so well documented that in “Pre-Islamic” Arabia “Allah” was regarded as a pagan name for a peculiar pagan Arabian deity that to note all references would be a large task. But they include Encyclopedia Brittanica, I:643; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Houtsma, I:302; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Gibb, I:406; Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Lewis, III:1093. “Allah is a pre-Islamic name … corresponding to the Babylonian Bel” (Encyclopedia of Religion, eds. Meagre, O’Brien, Aherne, 1979, I:117).

According to Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, whose translation of the Koran is still used today, in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, like the worship of Baal, was an astral religion in that it involved the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Witness the Islamic crescent-moon symbol. Alfred Guilluame, another Arabian scholar, explains that in Arabia the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god and one of the names by which he was known was “Allah” (Islam, 7). This moon god was married to the sun god by which three daughters were produced—Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. These too were viewed as on top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Could it possibly be that Christians who worship the God of the Bible and Muslims who worship Allah honor the same deity?

For those who are in doubt regarding this, examine Surah 53 of the Koran where the original text reads of three daughters of Allah: “These are exalted females, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for.” These, of course, are the much-discussed “Satanic verses.” Impeccable Muslim sources (al-Tabari; Waqidi) verify the original reading. Later, Muhammed changed the verses and declared that “Satan” had put the original ones in his mouth.

It is sad that Christians are the only ones who insist upon being ill-informed on this subject. “…though the liberal Muslim may admit that Christians or Jews call upon Allah, he could never speak of the Allah of the Christians or Allah of the Jews” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. Hastings). The spirit of compromise unfortunately is alive in the Christian world.

Back to Homepage

Shedding of Blood

Shedding of Blood

by Bill Lockwood

A chasm as wide as the world separates Christianity and Islam. Whether one compares the founders or the doctrines or the practices, the difference is as stark as beams of sunlight piercing the gloom of inky darkness. The living Christ is the light of the world while cultures created by following a dead Muhammad are comparable to descending into dark dungeons of ignorance. To see and feel the distinction, consider in the following the doctrine of what might be called The Shedding of Blood. Christianity and Islam each have a teaching surrounding the shedding of blood.

Prophetic Preparation

Christianity. The Old Testament canon was completed almost four centuries prior to the arrival of Christ and contains more than 300 specific prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. At the heart of these predictions is Isaiah 53 which, with great specificity, speaks of the shedding of blood in the life of the Messiah. It was a vicarious suffering on behalf of mankind.

“Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrow: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed. … And as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people for whom the stroke was due? … Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul of offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 8, 10).

Islam. What does one find when one turns to the religion founded by Muhammad? There were no predictive prophecies of him, of course, because true prophecy requires divine inspiration, which is lacking in Islam. However, later biographers of Muhammad invented “predictions” which they put into the mouths of individuals which were supposedly spoken by persons before Muhammad. One of the earliest of such biographers was Ibn Ishaq.

And what “prediction” do we read in Ishaq’s treatment of Muhammad? Ishaq relates that a “Jew” came to the Muhammad’s Arabian tribe of the Koreish which lived in Banu Qurayza. He was looking for a “prophet” from among that people and he issued a “warning.” This “Jewish warning” was that a “prophet” would “emerge” who would be “sent to shed blood and to take captive the women and children of those who oppose him.” Ishaq reminds the reader that later, when Muhammad “besieged Banu Qurayza” (626 A.D.) the “young men” remembered this prediction. (The Life of Muhammad, p. 94).

One was predicted to shed his own blood in a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind; the other was to wear an iron sword and “shed blood” by besieging cities and destroying people.

The Founding of the Religions

Christianity. One fourth of the gospel material (Matthew-John) centers on the voluntary self-sacrifice of Jesus shedding His own blood on behalf of others. The writer of Hebrews emphasizes that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Actually, the very theme of the Hebrews demonstrates that the Old Testament has been replaced by the New and that all of the sacrificed animals under the Old system were but types of Christ who has now “once for all” shed his blood for the redemption of mankind. He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26).

At the core of Christianity is the blood of Christ. Through faith “in his blood” which was voluntarily shed (John 10:17, 18) our redemption was purchased (Rom. 3:23-25) and we are now “justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9). The entirety of the New Testament is summarized in his blood (1 Cor. 11:25).

But the shedding of blood is only efficacious to us because, as all four gospel records relate, Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead. Hinging upon this truth is the entire corpus of Christianity (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 12-15). This is why Christianity is “good news.” The late New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce explains:

“For the Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. … And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, … in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?).

Therefore, it matters not how many times President Obama or those of his ilk point to the bloody Crusades of Medieval times as a period of shame. These were apostate Roman Catholic physical wars that had nothing to do with any doctrine of Christianity.

Islam. What do we find when we turn to the religion of Islam? There is indeed the “shedding of blood.”

Islam is defined by the trilogy of texts: Koran, Sira (the biography of Mohammed) and Hadith (his traditions). The complete foundation of Islam is laid in these authoritative texts. What did Mohammed do, and what did he say? Without this there is no such thing as Islam.

Muhammad claimed that Allah commanded him to fight bloody wars with unbelievers in Islam until they become Muslim and carry out the ordinances of Islam. All Muslim scholars without exception agree on this. In the hadith collected by Bukhari Muhammad said, “I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay [money]. If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me.” (Bukhari, vol. I, p. 13).

These wars were not just “defensive wars.” Dr. Muhammad Sai’id Ramadan al-Buti, one of the modern Azhar scholars in Egypt, his book Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, explains: “The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them.” With this dictum all Saudi scholars agree.

The practice of Islam is the Iron Rule. Might makes right. “And one who attacks you; attack him in like manner as he attacks you” (Surah 2:194). There is nothing “defensive” about “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:5). “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (47:4). “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” (Jihad in Allah’s Cause, Bukhari, Vol. 4, book 56, no. 2818).

The above texts are not aberrations. This is the heart of Islam. Measuring in the complete trilogy the amount of texts devoted to Jihad is one-third. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad and spells it out in detail. The Sira is a strategic manual of how to wage jihad and two-thirds is dedicated to violent jihad. “Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion (the first period of his life, bl), Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year” (Bill Warner, Factual Persuasion).

The founder of Christianity shed his own blood in sacrifice for others; the founder of Islam personally shed the blood of multitudes to force compliance.

Marching Orders

Christianity. Following the example of Jesus Christ himself, Christians are commanded to copy their Master. Instructed “not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1) but, like the Lord, be self-sacrificial for others. “Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good unto edifying. For Christ also pleased not Himself…” (15:2, 3).

Going forward, the purpose of the cross and the shedding of Jesus’ blood is “leaving you and example that you should follow his steps … who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judges righteously” (1 Pet. 2:22,23). The New Testament is replete with such-like admonitions of self-sacrifice, putting others and their needs above our own.

Islam. Since Mohammed’s time his doctrines have inspired the murder of more than 270 million and the rape of tens of millions of women. Led by the example of the false prophet Mohammed himself, Islam hacked its way across Europe, violating treaties and destroying kafir (unbeliever, non-Muslim) cultures. The pretended inspiration of the Koran has motivated centuries of violence after the order of the marauding Bedouin.

Muhammad’s final instructions to his followers were to wage jihad which is why his religion is named “Islam”—submission. This violent fighting is not optional for the Muslim. “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing that is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and ye know not.” . How then are we continually lectured today by our cultural leaders that violence-mongers are only a “handful” of Muslims who are somehow “misinterpreting the Koran”?

The contrast between Christianity and Islam is as stark as can be imagined. Turning to the Bible from the Koran is like stepping off of shifting sand onto solid rock. Most damaging of all, therefore, is the common paradigm that Christianity is a religion and Islam is a religion, and the two somehow must be on an equal footing before our Constitution.

With the ongoing blood-letting rampages in America, from the Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hasan, to the Boston bombing at the hands of the Tsarnaev brothers, to the recent San Bernardino, California Islamic terror massacre by Farook and his female partner Malik, it would seem that Americans would be willing to peer beneath the false façade that Islam is merely another religion. But alas! Too many are still scratching their heads in bewilderment, unable to understand that Islam is nothing less than political communism with a sharp religious edge.

The late Belgian Muslim jihadist responsible for the recent Paris blood letting, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, can be seen in a photograph that has now been published world-wide. In a silent message he is seen holding forth in his outstretched right hand a copy of the Koran and in his left he clutches the flag of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). From the professorships in the university to the media and law enforcement the question that continues to be so elusive is, “How did he become radicalized?” But to those who have not been so willfully blinded by politically correct whitewashing the answer is obvious.

Back to Homepage

America’s War Against Christ

America’s War Against Christ

by Bill Lockwood

The handwriting on the wall translates pretty simply. America has an elected leadership that openly wars against Jesus Christ and those who call Him Lord. Issuing from the White House and running through all departments of the government, Barack Obama’s hostility to God is manifest. Nothing that comes before the citizenship of America overturns that conclusion, but rather reinforces it.

Homosexual Marriage

If Americans were somehow in the dark about this hostility, the Supreme Court Obergefell decision this summer dispels that mist. For the first time since mankind has been managed by governments, God, all of history, Natural Law, and common decency were boldly cast behind its back by redefining marriage as to officially include same-sex unions.

As Justice Alito pointed out during oral arguments, there have been many “cultures that did not frown upon homosexuality …Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds.” And yet, America is the first culture to engraft this into law. Homosexuality has always existed, but never did any peoples confuse it with legitimate marriage—until the liberals in America captured politics and the media. The fallout of this Supreme Court Sodomite decision will be enormous, and our nation is already feeling its effects. Obama’s lawyer, Donald Verilli, stated to the Supreme Court during Obergefell argumentation when asked about the impact on churches and other non-profit groups, “That WILL BE an issue.”  But this is just the beginning.

Equality Act of 2015

Before the current Congress is a bill introduced into the House and the Senate called the Full Equality Act of 2015. Sponsored by Democratic and homosexual lawmakers it would expand existing federal laws to include legal protections for LGBT individuals in areas such as housing and employment. As reported by CBS News its “most sweeping move” is to “add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classes protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” It proposes to forbid businesses from discriminating against LGBT people in hiring, firing and supposedly would “exempt” religious schools and hospitals from the legislation.

But WorldNetDaily noted that a recent Chicago event hosted by a “gay rights group” called Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT leaders discussed their agenda for The Equality Act. They proudly boast of gutting the protections written into the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Their agenda? “[B]eliefs cannot provide a claim, defense or basis against the progressive agenda of the LGBT special interests.” Governing authorities agree. We cannot allow personal beliefs to trump state doctrine.

Illustrative of this is the 2013 case of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. The owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, Barronelle Stutzman, was asked to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. The state of Washington had redefined marriage the previous year. Robert Ingersoll had been a regular customer of Arlene’s Flowers for nearly a decade and Stutzman was his friend. There never was any refusal to serve Robert Ingersoll. However, when Ingersoll asked Stutzman to serve his “wedding” to Curt Freed she kindly refused citing her relationship to Jesus Christ. She knows what common sense Americans also realize: There is a difference between serving homosexual individuals and being forced to participate in a homosexual wedding.

The homosexual agenda does not allow a religious conscious to operate freely in the market. Friendships, niceties and even familial relationships are mere facades for an aggressive trampling of Christianity. A lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers therefore ensued and the state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, pointed to violations of the state’s sexual orientation laws. A judge ruled against Ms. Stutzman and her property is still at risk of government seizure.

Misdirection by CBS

Having seen the case above, now read the recent “news coverage” of The Equality Act by CBS News (7-23-15) in the article mentioned above. It reports that The Act is needed because it would “clarify that RFRA cannot be used to sanction businesses’ discrimination against LGBT customers.” (emp. added) But Baronelle Stutzman never refused to do business with her homosexual friends. No case of which this writer is aware has a private business—whether florist, photographer, wedding chapel, or any other—refused services to a homosexual. What has been refused is PARTICIPATION in celebrating a homosexual “wedding or honeymoon.” There is a vast difference and CBS News does not want you to find it.

Let’s see if the government itself knows the difference.

When it comes to accommodating Islamic faith, our government bends over backwards to assist. From the Live Trucking website is this current headline: “Muslim Truck Drivers Who Refused To Haul Alcohol Awarded $240,000 In Religious Discrimination Suit.” “They were fired after refusing the load due to religious beliefs.”
Two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol were awarded $240,000 by an Illinois judge for their termination. Mahad Abass Mohammed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale had been fired from Illinois-based Star Transport in 2009 for their refusal to transport alcohol, citing religious faith as the reason.

On their behalf the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a government arm, stepped up to sue Star Transport. Star Transport now is ordered to pay the punitive damages. This is the same EEOC of which Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University Law is a member and has gone on record against CHRISTIAN RESERVATIONS on the homosexual issue. Feldblum wrote: “For all my sympathy for the evangelical couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried, straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero-sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play … I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”

With all the manufactured soberness at her disposal, EEOC’s Feldblum must come down against Christianity in favor of homosexual marriage. It is a serious civil rights issue, after all. But violate a Muslim’s faith and the same EEOC will side with Islam. What is the difference? Only one explanation exists for those who still have eyes to see. Our culture is not deteriorating beneath a “religious war.” It is an all-out assault specifically against Jesus Christ and His Church. As explained by Paul, “Our wrestling [fight] is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.”

Back to Homepage

« Older Entries