Abusing The “Sheeple”

Abusing the Sheeple

The despicable 1st Class people of the church

By Jim Allen

The opening scene of a video shows an elderly white lady sitting down next to a black man in economy class on an airliner. The camera closes in to capture her dreadful facial expression when she realizes her hapless seat assignment is not at all to her liking. At first opportunity she asks the passing stewardess, “Will you please find me another seat?” The stewardess politely responds by saying, “I’m afraid the economy class is overbooked.” Visibly shaken the elderly lady snarls, “I’m sorry but I’m not going to travel beside a black…Do Something!”

The startled stewardess responds, “I’ll speak with the captain.” Returning a few minutes later the stewardess says, “The captain found a seat in 1st class and apologizes because it’s unbelievable a passenger would need to travel beside such a despicable person.” The elder lady crinkles a smile and a sigh of relief. The stewardess, turning to the black person said, “Sir, would you please follow me to 1st class!” (Source)
I love this video. It speaks to a spiritual truth like no other I know. Simply put, we are not to judge others less worthy than we (John 8:7)! While racial discrimination is bad enough, its practice is not just a white problem. Blacks and other races discriminate too. Discrimination, in any form, is a heart condition and a despicable thing.

The practice of judging others unfairly also applies to sex, age, and other forms of discrimination. But, there is another kind of despicable judging that is equally disturbing. It is alive and well in the church. It is a distinguishing trait from more leaders than I care to count. They are men and women of God who profess to be “anointed!” They believe God looks upon them as 1st class travelers having a “special up front seat” with God.

According to these anointed, common believers are lowly and mindless sheep that need to be guided and corralled for their own good, ready to serve the pastor and staff at every whim. Failing to answer the call by missing a meeting, performing a church duty, or putting a family need ahead of church priorities would cause leadership to label you as rebellious and backslidden. Worse yet, the 1st class anointed refer to laity as “sheeple,” dumb and rebellious animals unable to defend and fend for themselves. This is discrimination. This is un-Christ like. This is unnecessary and unprovoked putdown.

One recent example flows from prophetess Juanita Bynum who was videotaped unloading on the sheeple for daring to challenge their pastor’s authority over them.

Trudging across the platform in a flowing white gown, this leader shook her finger, berating those who would dare question the man of God in the pulpit. She said in a fit of frenzy, “God never gave you permission to correct your pastor…so sit down!…If the pastor says you can do it, you can’t do it!”

As expected, many clapped and praised Bynum for telling it like it was and giving these despicable sheeple (who would dare question the pastor) a well-deserved spiritual spanking. Of course, Jesus was not amused. He most assuredly does give the sheeple permission to question any spirit in the pulpit including the words of the prophetess.

While the Bereans would have been looked upon as sheeple, they would never have allowed themselves to be intimidated by self-anointed leaders. If the Bereans would have been told to sit down, they would have stood up! They would have challenged the finger shaking by searching the scriptures daily to see if these things were indeed true (Acts 17:11). The Apostle Paul said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Bible never speaks about believers in a disparaging manner. Yes, there are verses for reproof, correction, and righteous instruction but never administered in an unloving way. “Paul saw the saints as gifted and knowledgeable. He had no interest in controlling, micromanaging, and babysitting them. He expected them to be spiritually-competent enough to exercise their spiritual gifts in decency and order (1 Corinthians 12,Romans 12:6-8).” (Source) The apostle John said test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1-6):
The Lord used the metaphor of a Shepherd and His sheep to illustrate His protective nature, guidance, provision, tender care, oversight, and sacrificial love for us. The Lord calls us “sheep” as a term of endearment, not to imply that we are idiots, aloof, or simpletons. (Source)
Calling people sheeple displays a haughty attitude. Telling them to shut up is hardly an expression of endearment and compassion. Demeaning a believer or anyone is never okay (Galatians 6:1-3). What is more, the words “shepherd and sheep” are word-pictures showing a loving relationship in the form of guidance, care and protection availed to the flock (Psalm 23, Ezekiel 34, Matthew 25:31-33, Hebrews 13:20, 1 Peter 2:25; 5:2-4). God looks upon us as children, works in progress with many lessons yet to learn along the way (Philippians 1:6).

Discrimination of this sort in the church is pride, a work of the flesh and a diabolical practice that hurts people and diminishes the cause of Christ. I have experienced these “1st class anointed” first-hand and openly attest to the loathsome influence they have on everyone.

In closing, these lofty souls who think they guide the sheeple to truth see themselves as deserving to fly 1st class. Sitting among the sheeple in economy class is not a fate they would ever welcome or imagine possible; and yet, this is where Jesus would sit (by choice) if on such a flight.

There is a message here. Fatefully and like the elderly white lady, Jesus would make sure these despicable (1st class) people get their full reward (Matthew 19:30). As for the economy class, those who belong to Christ will hear the Captain calling them forward to sit in 1st class, away from the abiding aloofness of despicable souls (John 10:27).

Note: The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it a crime to discriminate against anyone based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

Published 9-3-2014

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

cameron muslims

Source: www.dcclothesline.com

By Daniel Greenfield

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims inthe east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderateIslam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderateIslam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderateIslam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderateMohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When aWestern leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defendingMuslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport,in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

 
 
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE REAL “WAR ON WOMEN” IS ISLAM!

Source : http://www.americanthinker.com

Stoning: Women and girls may be stoned to death for any number of so-called crimes, including the crime of being raped. If a woman is a victim of rape, her nightmare is only beginning as she may soon find herself buried up to her shoulders in a hole that is then filled back in with dirt, after which time a crowd of men will throw rocks at her head. Until she is dead. Stonings are performed in public, with multiple sub-humans taking part while crowds cheer them on.

Whipping/Flogging: Women are routinely whipped, with multiple lashes cutting deep into the skin across their back, legs, arms, and/or feet. Like stoning, this brutal treatment is carried out in public with a cheering crowd. (Unless the woman is being whipped by her husband in the privacy of their home, which is another common occurrence.)

Hey, Sandra and all your feminist friends! Do you hear that? Do you get it?

No?

Wow. OK. Keep reading.

Acid attacks: Women and girls are subjected to gruesome attacks when acid is thrown on their face or their entire body. Some endure multiple surgeries to try to repair burns that leave their faces unrecognizable and limbs all but destroyed. Some are burned to death; others die of complications from massive burns. Still others, in excruciating pain and abject despair, commit suicide.

Sandra, et al, still think you’re the ones who are “oppressed?”

Not sure? Holy cow. Alright, please continue reading. And after you read the next section, please chime in on “rape culture.” Because it seems a lot of Muslim men cannot control their sexual urges.

Rape: Violent sexual assaults by Muslim men against women are common. Rape has become rampant in European countries where Muslim men involved with human trafficking kidnap girls, rape, torture, and groom them to be prostitutes. Although the Muslim population in Europe is still the minority, the majority demographic in positions of power cower in intimidation, leaving women and girls abandoned and unprotected. Recently we have seen the deplorable results of this dhimmitude as the police and social services in the United Kingdom, and other countries around the world, ignored (and continue to ignore) the plight of girls who have been kidnapped by grooming gangs, repeatedly raped, and tortured. And why the refusal to enforce the law, hunt down the barbarians, and prosecute them? Fear of appearing insensitive to other cultures. (Yes, you read that right.) In Sweden, one in four women will be raped while Muslim men comprise nearly 80% of the rapists. If the attackers are caught and if they are prosecuted their punishment is often light, as Sweden, like so many Western countries, has abandoned its moral and legal will to protect innocent civilians against barbarians. Rape has also become a form of institutionalized torture on a massive scale as ISIS and other terror groups sweep across the Middle East in their quest toward establishing the Caliphate.

Feminist/progressives of the world: Can you imagine a culture — a Western culture no less — so intimidated and so cowardly that it turns a blind eye to girls being repeatedly raped for years, some of them doused in petrol and threatened to be set on fire? Can you imagine living in a country where one in four women are raped and the culture is so lacking in moral fortitude — no less a willingness to enforce the law — that it avoids strong punishment (if any) for the rapist?

Think about it. That is what “rape culture” looks like. But if you still aren’t moved, imagine that after being raped you are then brutally murdered because you were raped. If you think that sounds sick beyond words, you would be right. Please read on.

Honor Killing: Honor killings are another way women and girls meet untimely and brutal deaths. Honor killings are sanctioned — even required — under Islamic law. And what has the female done to deserve this terrible fate? As with other cases of punishment, she has done nothing more than live her life. And this is not just happening in Muslim-majority countries. It is also happening in America where the media and those in law enforcement often try to paint these deplorable acts as “domestic violence” or something “cultural” in nature.

Ms. Fluke, do you see a pattern here developing?

A little bit?

Good, you’re starting to wake up. Keep going.

Enslavement/Human Trafficking: Islam institutionalized slavery. One can find numerous verses in the Koran that sanction it. During battle (which is a central tenet of Islam), women are often kidnapped, raped, and sold as slaves. We see this today as women and girls are being kidnapped and enslaved as Islamic terror expands its reach around the world. Women living under Sharia law are also routinely enslaved as they are locked in their homes, forbidden to go out in public, unable to speak their minds, get an education, and so on.

Hey Sandra Fluke, Barbara Boxer, and all the rest who shriek that conservatives are anti-woman: Anti-woman is being locked inside your house or unable to express yourself freely without risking your very life. Anti-woman is treating women as chattel. Anti-woman is routinely torturing, maiming, raping, dismembering, and murdering women for one single reason: because they are female. That is a war on women! But if you still don’t believe me, by all means, keep reading.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Girls are forced to have their genitalia mutilated whereby the clitoris is removed (clitoridectomy). This barbaric act is performed as girls are forcibly held down, without anesthesia, using a shard of glass or a dull, rusty, and/or contaminated razor. In many cases, the labia is completely removed as well (infibulation), after which the vagina is stitched or held together in some primitive way (sometimes using thorns) with just a tiny hole to pass urine and menstrual fluid. Afterwards, the girls’ legs are tied together for several weeks to keep their vagina tight. In addition to the excruciating pain of this heinous act, genital mutilation causes lifelong physical and psychological health problems including chronic infections, an inability to have a normal pelvic exam, and PTSD. Additional trauma is brought to bear when a woman’s vagina is reopened for marriage, when she engages in intercourse, as well as uniquely blinding pain when she gives birth. For women who have been mutilated in this way, there are often complications during childbirth with an increased incidence of stillbirths. And that’s for those who survive. Many girls die during the procedure from blood loss while countless others die of sepsis from untreated infections that develop.

Child marriage: As dictated in the Koran, girls reach maturity at the age of nine, at which point they can be forced into marriage. If the girl refuses to marry the man or tries to run away, she will be hunted down and killed. In addition, girls who are kidnapped by jihadists may be sold or given to men at ages even younger than nine.

And if all of that were not deplorable enough, women endure other forms of murder: Being burned alive, decapitated, intentionally run over by a car, bound and thrown in the ocean. Among a seeming endless list of inhuman acts.

Still thinking birth control? Still pounding your fists on the table about fair pay? Still complaining about being objectified? Consider having to submit to a dress code. And I mean a very serious dress code — one that renders you invisible and one that is enforced by the Morality Police. And when the Morality Police expect you to submit, they’re not kidding around.

Dress Code: Millions of women living under Sharia law are required to wear a burqa when they go out in public. A burqa is essentially a cloth coffin as black or drab blue-gray material envelops the entire body from head to toe. All that remains exposed are the eyes, where a tiny slit in the material is made. In some cases there is a mesh screen in front of the eyes. You cannot tell one woman from another, or even if the person is a woman. Wearing a burqa, a woman’s senses are muted. It is difficult to hear. It is difficult to see. The sense of touch is dulled if gloves are worn (and they often are). And it’s suffocatingly hot.

Or what about this, Ms. Fluke and all the rest? What do you think of sexual jihad?

Sexual Jihad: Muslim women may offer themselves as “comfort women” to boost the spirits of psychopaths waging jihad. In other words, women give their bodies to be sexually exploited by murderers. And that’s the best-case scenario on the sexual jihad front. Jihadists call on parents to bring their young girls to jihadist encampments to be used for sex. In addition, jihadists kidnap girls and rape them. And in some cases, murder them.

Suicide: A disproportionately high number of Muslim women living under the tyranny of Sharia law kill themselves. Self-immolation is not uncommon as these desperate women decide that setting themselves on fire is preferable to living another dark and dreadful day.

In sum, the use and abuse of women in the name of Islam is pervasive and sick beyond words. And yet, the left has myriad ways they defend what amounts to institutionalized savagery.

I’ve heard people rationalize this thoroughly barbaric behavior by saying that we must respect the religious norms of other cultures.

Come on. Can we please be serious?

How can a person genuinely argue that it’s acceptable for millions upon millions of women around the world to be subjected to stonings, floggings, acid attacks, honor killings, and physical mutilation simply because they are women? Is there any other demographic group for whom such an absurd perspective would be indulged?

I think not.

And if I can briefly add: Many on the left express outrage when, for example, Americans oppose abortion or gay marriage. If the rule is to respect cultural or religious norms, why is that respect not extended in these cases? You can’t have it both ways. And anyway, no thinking person can compare a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding to institutionalized barbarism whereby a woman will be tortured to death simply for being alive.

But more importantly, if a person is willing to defend or accept barbarism by saying it’s just another culture and we must respect it, then where do they draw the line? What happens when another “norm” of that “culture” is to commit genocide against people they consider to be non-believers? At what point does common sense and self-preservation kick in to override being an apologist for brutality?

And then there is this argument: Many on the left say they agree that the practices described in this article are horrible. But they are not common. Some claim, for example, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a personal story that is dreadful, but one that does not represent any kind of a norm.

To those who make that case I can only say one simple thing: You are wrong. The facts do not support your assertion. Shred your talking points and learn. The truth is sometimes hard to face. But it could save your hide.

From those stragglers who are completely dug in and refuse to face the truth, there is yet one more argument that is made to defend their defenseless position: That there are many interpretations of the Koran, including feminist interpretations. To which I say, that’s all very interesting except (1) Koranic scholars disagree with you, (2) it matters little if the people wielding the power, the stone, the whip, the knife, the flame, the razor, the rope, and the sword are the ones whose actions rule the day, and (3) beware of taqiyya which is religiously-sanctioned deception with the intent to mislead.

Those are the facts. So while leftists are busy reading about fantasy scenarios of empowered Muslim women and human rights and the Koran, Muslim women are suffering and dying in droves because they are living in the real world.

If, by this point, feminists, you still find yourselves unable to face the truth, I suggest you move to a Muslim-majority country — perhaps Iran or Syria — where you can experience first-hand the war on women. Then, by all means, come back and let us know how you fared. Assuming you survive to tell the tale.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do the Qur’an and Islamic law forbid terrorism?

By Robert Spencer at http://www.jihadwatch.com

This piece by establishment academic Juan Cole is well over a year old, and as a rule I only post topical material at Jihad Watch. However, with all the condemnations of the Islamic State as un-Islamic lately, coming from both Muslims and non-Muslims, the cognitive dissonance arises again: on the one hand we have armed terrorists (including many more groups besides the Islamic State) quoting the Qur’an to justify their actions and make recruits, and portraying themselves as the embodiment of true Islam. On the other hand we have both Muslims and non-Muslims not only denying this claim, but asserting that these groups not only do not represent a legitimate school of thought in the Islamic tradition, but have nothing to do with Islam at all — which raises the question of how this massive, worldwide misunderstanding of Islam arose.

Juan Cole here purports to show that the Qur’an and Islamic law clearly and unequivocally forbid terrorism. If that is true, then the Islamic State’s critics are correct. So what might happen if a devout and informed supporter of the Islamic State read Cole’s piece? Would his mind be changed, such that he would renounce his support for the jihadis? Or would he immediately think of reasons why Cole’s Qur’anic analysis was incomplete and inadequate?

These are key questions, for working to show that the Qur’an forbids terrorism has two possible purposes: to reassure jittery non-Muslims who are concerned about jihad terrorism and worried about the massive rates of Muslim immigration into Western countries, and to convince Muslims that jihad terror groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are not worth joining or supporting. The first purpose is not only worthless, but counterproductive if the second purpose is not accomplished. This is something I have written about many times: the difference between reform and deception. Many times I’ve been harshly criticized for not warmly endorsing, and even taking issue with, articles purporting to show that Islam forbids what jihad terrorists are doing. My sole issue with such articles is this: Will they convince jihad terrorists that their understanding of Islam is wrong? If not, then their only effect will be to foster complacency among Infidels. Certainly Cole’s piece reassures ignorant Infidels, such as the British Useful Idiot Sarah Brown of the UK dhimmi hate site Harry’s Place, who used it as part of her case against me as the wrong kind of opponent of jihad terror. But would it turn a jihad terrorist away from jihad terror? See below for my comments interspersed.

It is not irrelevant to note also that Juan Cole is on the Board of the National Iranian American Council(NIAC), which has been established in court as a front group lobbying for the Islamic regime in Iran. SaidMichael Rubin: “Jamal Abdi, NIAC’s policy director, now appears to push aside any pretense that NIAC is something other than Iran’s lobby. Speaking at the forthcoming ‘Expose AIPAC’ conference, Abdi is featured on the ‘Training: Constituent Lobbying for Iran’ panel. Oops.” According to Charles C. Johnson in the Daily Caller: “Iranian state-run media have referred to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC)since at least 2006 as ‘Iran’s lobby’ in the U.S.” Iranian freedom activist Hassan Daioleslam “documented over a two-year period that NIAC is a front group lobbying on behalf of the Iranian regime.” NIAC had to pay him nearly $200,000 in legal fees after they sued him for defamation over his accusation that they were a front group for the mullahs, and lost. Yet Juan Cole remains on their Board.

“Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism,” by Juan Cole, April 17, 2013:

Erik Rush and others who hastened to scapegoat Muslims for the Boston Marathon bombing are ignorant of the religion. I can’t understand why people who have never so much as read a book about a subject appoint themselves experts on it. (Try this book, e.g.). We don’t yet know who carried out the attack, but we know they either aren’t Muslims at all or they aren’t real Muslims, in the nature of the case.

For the TLDR crowd, here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism (some of these points are reworked from previous postings):

1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

Cole says of the Qur’an that “murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted.” So he acknowledges that the Qur’an doesn’t forbid all killing. Terrorists claim to be killing those whom the Qur’an directs them to kill. Among these are people who fight against the Muslims and have driven them out of lands: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter” (2:190-191). That would include Israelis, who according to Islamic supremacist myth drove the Muslims out of their homes and seized their land in 1948. The Qur’an also directs Muslims to kill those who joined the Muslims but then turn against them: “They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them” (4:89). That would include those who are considered apostates from Islam and those who collaborate with perceived enemies of the Muslims — such as Muslims who aid America-backed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslims are also told in the Qur’an to kill idolaters: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (9:5). That would include pretty much everyone who is not a Muslim. And Muslims are to kill in battle (by beheading) those who don’t believe in Islam: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…” (47:4). There again, there is no qualifier — the directive is against non-Muslims in general.

Thus as they kill Israelis, supporters of or collaborators with U.S.-backed regimes, and non-Muslims, terrorists don’t believe they are committing murder, but executing commands of the Qur’an itself.

2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

Contrary to Cole’s claim that 2:256 was never abrogated, according to an early Muslim scholar, Mujahid ibn Jabr, it was actually abrogated by Quran 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, agree with Cole that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

Those who offer 2:256 to claim there is no Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers omit or fail to recognize that the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims. For non-Muslims brought to heel by jihad, the choice (as laid out by Muhammad himself) is conversion, death, or subjugation (dhimmitude). The twentieth-century Muslim Brotherhood theorist and Islamic scholar Sayyid Qutb accordingly denies that 2:256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (8:39; 2:193). “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs,” he says. Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security”—peace and security meaning, for Qutb, subordinate status for non-believers in an “Islamic social order.”

In this light, the Quranic idea that there is “no compulsion in religion” fits together without any trouble with the exhortation to fight until “religion is for Allah.” Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad.

Terrorists know all this, and will laugh derisively at Cole’s invocation of 2:256 against their activities.

3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

The Qur’an also tells Muslims to fight the People of the Book until they “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29); that verse doesn’t mention anything about fighting only those People of the Book who begin hostilities. So how does that verse fit in with 2:190? Is aggressive warfare actually forbidden in Islamic law? Many Islamic authorities say no. In his eighth-century biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur’an by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya. Mainstream Qur’an commentaries by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that the ninth chapter of the Qur’an, which contains this command to fight the People of the Book, abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur’an.

In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Qur’an’s teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed by Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb, Pakistani Islamic scholar and politician Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of The Qur’anic Concept of War), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah), and others. The terrorists know all this, too.

4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.

Here Cole is ignoring the distinction between offensive and defensive jihad, which is not surprising, since he denies the existence of offensive jihad as a concept in Islamic law. In Islamic law, only the caliph can declare offensive jihad, and that jihad is an obligation on the community as a whole (fard kifaya); an individual is released from it if others are taking it up. But all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, defensive jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard ‘ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, and need not be declared by anyone. Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik (“The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,”) says this: “Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.” The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools of Sunni jurisprudence further declare that jihad, once it is fard ‘ayn, is no different from prayer and fasting — in other words, to engage in warfare with non-Muslims in that case is a religious devotion that cannot lawfully be evaded. Hashiyah Ibn `Abidin, an authoritative text of the Hanafi school, says that jihad is “fard ‘ayn if the enemy has attacked part of the Islamic homeland. It thus becomes an obligation like salah [prayer] and fasting which cannot be abandoned.”

Today, in the absence of a caliph (at least until the advent of the Islamic State), jihadis cast all their jihads as defensive, and retail lists of grievances to justify them and bring them into accord with Islamic law, which only allows for defensive jihad without a caliph. Thus the terrorists, as long as they cast their jihads as defensive, need not have a declaration of war from any leader.

5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

Terrorists who believe that it is perfectly acceptable for them to kill innocent non-combatants can point to this hadith: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321) “They are from them” — i.e., the women and children of the polytheists are from the polytheists and can lawfully be killed.

6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”

Notice that Cole invokes but does not quote 5:33-34. Now why might that be? Could it be because this passage actually mandates harsh penalties reminiscent of the Islamic State and the Taliban for those who “make war upon Allah and His messenger”? “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (5:33-34)

7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.

A Muslim warrior recounted of the Khaybar raid: “We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned’” (Ibn Ishaq 511). The Jews of Khaybar were coming out with their spades and baskets because they were not expecting to do battle; they were going to work on their farms. Muhammad’s appearance was a complete sneak attack. He says that the inhabitants of Khaybar had been warned, but he had not warned them he was coming or given them any notice of the attack; he had just warned them about the impending judgment of Allah.

8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

He also represented in the Hadith as having said this: “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 4294).

Once again, the terrorists know this.

9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]

As far as the terrorists are concerned, carrying out the dictates of the Qur’an, including those mandating the killing of unbelievers, is precisely what justice is.

10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”

In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.

When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:

5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”

So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.

The Qur’an also says: “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings” (98:6). Who are “those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture”? They are the Christians and Jews who do not become Muslims. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains: “Before his [that is, Muhammad's] arrival they had all agreed to believe in him when he would come; then those who disbelieved in him from among them became envious of him.” The passages about Jews and Christians being saved refers to Jews and Christians who become Muslims, while those who remain Jews and Christians are “the worst of created beings.” In his commentary on 5:69, Ibn Kathir makes this clear, telling Jews and Christians that they will have “no real religion until you adhere to and implement the Tawrah [Torah] and the Injil [Gospel]. That is, until you believe in all the Books that you have that Allah revealed to the Prophets. These Books command following Muhammad and believing in his prophecy, all the while adhering to his Law.”

So Juan Cole has failed to make his case that the Qur’an and Islamic law forbid terrorism: no terrorist will be convinced. All that Juan Cole has achieved is making the Sarah Browns of the world go away contented — at least, that is, until the next bomb drops.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ISIS surrounds 18,000 Shi’ite Muslims in Iraqi town of Amerli

Originally posted on The Muslim Issue:

Abdallaah (mujaahid4life) on Twitter 18

‘They’re fighting off death': Fears of another Mount Sinjar grow after ISIS surrounds 18,000 Shi’ite Muslims in Iraqi town of Amerli

  • Senior Iraqi cleric expresses grave concern for Shi’ite Turkmen community
  • Town faces starvation after food, water and medical supplies are cut off
  • Doctor: ‘It’s a disaster. Children are eating only once every three days’
  • Victims plead for West to intervene like it did to save Yazidis on Mt Sinjar
  • One said: ‘How much suffering must we see? We have been forgotten’
  • ISIS suicide bomber kills 46 at mosque 75 miles northeast of Baghdad
  • Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says ‘UK may send support to besieged town’ but added we ‘do not need Assad’s permission for intervention’

By Simon Tomlinson for MailOnline and David Williams for The Daily Mail

Fears are growing for thousands of Muslim Iraqis who have been surrounded by Islamic State militants…

View original 1,215 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

BETH MOORE HERESY TEAMS UP WITH JOYCE MEYER HERESY

source:  http://www.donotbesurprised.com/2014/08/beth-moore-talks-unity-with-word-faith.html?m=1

Beth Moore Talks ‘Unity’ with Word Faith Teacher Joyce Meyer

It was only a matter of time:

Source

Is this what Beth Moore meant when she claimed to have received personal, direct revelation from God to “stop sowing over and over again in the same field“? Is this the unity of which Moore spoke at James Robison’s Awaken Conference? It certainly seems that way:

Source

Unity with Word Faith heretics, of which Joyce Meyer is the foremost among females? Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) offers a summary of some of Joyce Meyer’s false teachings along with a helpful refutation of each. (Disclaimer: I cannot agree with some of the praises that CARM’s article affords to Meyer, but its highlights of Meyer’s false teachings are accurate.) These dangerous teachings include in part:

  • Jesus stopped being the Son of God;
  • Jesus was born again;
  • Jesus paid for our sins and was tormented in hell;
  • Men are little gods; and
  • Joyce Meyer is not a sinner.

Beth Moore may be talking about unity, but it is a worldly form of unity. It is unity at the expense of truth, and it is unity at the expense of the gospel.

Yet, this new alliance does not surprise at all. Aligning with false teachers is to be expected by those who deny the sufficiency of Scripture. With her claims of extra biblical revelation, Moore does exactly that. If the Bible were enough for her, she would not need dreams and nudges and divine playdates.

But without those things, Moore would have to turn to the written, revealed Word of God to validate her ministry decisions, and that would be a difficult task considering such warnings as this:

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (2 John 9–11)

Says Dr. John MacArthur of these verses,

False teachers are not content to remain within the confines of Scripture, but invariably add erroneous interpretations, revelations, visions, words as if from the Lord, or esoteric distortions of the biblical text, while claiming to have advanced knowledge, new truth, or hidden wisdom available only to them and their followers.

But such claims are specious. John plainly states that anyone who alters, adds to, denies, or misrepresents what the Bible says about Jesus Christ does not have God (cf. Matt 11:27; John 5:23; 15:23; 1 John 2:23; Rev 22:18–19). Conversely, the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. This is salvation language; having God and Christ must mean their indwelling presence.

. . . ‘Chairein’ (greeting) means ‘rejoice’. It was a common Christian greeting, conveying the joy believers had in one another’s presence. But it is an affirmation of solidarity that is totally inappropriate for false teachers, who have no part in the truth or genuine Christian fellowship. Such emissaries of Satan must be exposed and shunned, not affirmed and welcomed.

False teachers like to decry such treatment as harsh, intolerant, and unloving. But love forbids allowing dangerous spiritual deception to find a foothold among Christians. . . . The church cannot aid or abet with impunity such spiritual outlaws by doing anything that would acknowledge them as Christians. The one who does so—even by doing something as seemingly innocuous as greeting them—participates in their evil deeds by helping them further their deception.

John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary:1–3 John, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 235–237.

Beth Moore would do well to heed MacArthur’s words and warning.

Yet, if a person claims “God told me,” how can anyone argue with such behavior? And so, Moore, with her personal revelations from “God,” can essentially do as she pleases—even walk alongside Joyce Meyer in her ministry of deception. After all, “God” did tell Beth to start sowing in a different proverbial field.

What, then, does this reveal? Even though Moore’s personal guidance from “God” did not include specific instruction to appear on Meyer’s television program, this recent interaction still may serve as evidence that the “God” that has allegedly been speaking to Beth Moore is not the God of the Bible.

Christian, beware. And—dare I say it?—flee from Beth Moore, her teaching, and her influence.

Further Reading
Beth Moore Prophesies a Coming ‘Outpouring’, Warns of ‘Scoffers’
Beth Moore’s Twelfth Month Redemption
Beth Moore and Joyce Meyer: Bad Company (The End Time blog)

HT: No Compromise Radio

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jericho Road Fundamentalist Church — by Gary W

Originally posted on A Cry For Justice:

~~~Trigger Warning~~~

A student of theology, desiring to justify himself, said to his professor, a wise and Godly man in his 90’s, “And who is my neighbor?” The professor replied:

“At a time when nobody else appeared to be present, a young woman was walking through a remote corner of Jericho Avenue Park with her husband, a publicly charming predatory narcissist who had neither empathy nor conscience, but who was a prominent, highly respected, tithing church member. When the young woman meekly expressed an opinion that differed from her husband’s, he flew into a towering rage, verbally berating her, physically pummeling her, stripping her naked, forcing himself on her, and taking her phone, driver’s license, credit cards, check book, and cash. He then walked nonchalantly away, leaving her half dead.

“Now by chance a deacon had been observing this incident from behind a hedge. As a pretext for gazing on…

View original 853 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment