Defining the Narrative

Intellectuals abound. Oh yes, they are everywhere. They think of themselves as, perhaps agnostic, atheistic, or secular. The thing about these “intellectuals” that I find so very humorous is these very individuals who perceive themselves as “broadminded” and “tolerant” are the most narrow minded and intolerant creatures when it comes to things they have no real knowledge of, specifically spiritual matters, or more generally “Religion”. Furthermore, what really amazes me, is in spite of their unbelief or even disdain for “religion”, they do not cease from embracing and even defending the most oppressive of all these; Islam.

As I observe the commentary from the “intellectuals” something becomes very clear: It isn’t simply that they defend and embrace Islam, but the fervent hatred with which they address and refer to Christianity and Christians. Never mind that the entirety of Western society has its basis in the Judeo-Christian ethos; if it is Christian it must be evil. If it is anti-Christian it must be good. (It isn’t yet politically correct to slander Jews in America. Jews aren’t Christians and therefore do not yet warrant the same vitriol.) Isaiah 5 speaks of those calling “evil good and good evil.” Romans puts it, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Education does not equal intelligence; nor does knowledge equal wisdom. Education is simply information transfer and knowledge is the retention of that information. Intelligence is the capacity to process that information. But wisdom… Wisdom is spiritual.

Wisdom is that rare quality of discernment which guides the proper dispensation and application of knowledge. You cannot obtain wisdom from instructors; worldly wisdom comes only from objective assessment of world experience. Likewise, godly wisdom comes from experiencing God. Therefore, the “intellectual” has placed himself at an obvious disadvantage when assessing things of a spiritual or religious nature.

Many critics throw out the “Crusades” as proof that Christianity is just as wicked as any other religion. Then also, terms like “Christian terrorist” when referring to people like Scott Roeder, (murderer of the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller) or Timothy McVeigh, convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing. These are used in order to deflect criticism of Islamic terrorism or try and make the point that Islamic terrorists are but an extreme element and Christianity has its own terrorists. (You can hear this on any radio talk show or website which discusses Islam.)

I would never stoop to defend or justify any murderer nor advocate any such actions of these criminals as justified on any political or religious basis. I have previously set forth my argument for evaluating a religion according to its own founding documents or scriptures. (See Fundamentals)

Admittedly, there have been some horrendous things done throughout history in the name of Christianity. Not only to Muslims, but more-so to Jews and to Christians who refused to acquiesce to Papal authority. However, such an act that is done under the banner of “Christianity” by an individual, group, government or even a church, is not found as a directive in Christian scripture. Therefore, the responsibility lies not at the feet of the religion, but squarely upon those who perpetrated the acts. Nowhere will you find a scriptural reference to the man Jesus commanding an earthly army or admonishing his followers to advance Christianity or any religion by the sword.

Islam on the other hand, has instructions given for jihad, holy war, in the Quran. It is very specific in who and how to kill unbelievers and apostates. In fact, it warns against refusing to make war upon the unbelievers, and advises Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims. If you question the definition of ‘jihad’ look no further than Shari’a itself*. The first line (o9.0) reads: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…” There are nearly 8 pages of instruction on how to conduct jihad, its Quranic justification, its obligatory character, the objectives of jihad, the spoils of war, and so on. In all those pages only one line states of the “greater jihad”, the inner struggle, “it is the spiritual warfare against the lower self”. This latter definition is the one given for Western consumption. *[Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law]

Jihad is justified when Islam is insulted. To insult Islam one needs to do no more than reject it. Sharia requires that an invitation to Islam is given to non-Muslims. If rejected, this is seen as an offence to Islam and consequently justifies jihad as a “defensive” action. Medieval Islam had reached the zenith of its empire by jihad. History has shown it will only co-exist long enough to re-arm, regroup, and gain strategic advantage. Once it has the advantage, the battle continues.

There also seems to be some confusion among those “intellectuals” about history, some citing jihad as a response to the Crusades.

For context here is the historical timeline: Judaism founded by the Hebrews circa 1400 BC. Jesus Christ crucified 33 AD and Christianity founded by Jews in 1st Century in Jerusalem. Roman Church established 325 AD by Constantine. Mohammad gets his first vision in 610 AD establishing Islam and dies in AD 632. Islam conquers from Central Asia across North Africa and by 750 AD has advanced into France where it is finally stopped at Tours. (The Crusades to reclaim Jerusalem for Rome would not be declared for another 300 years.)

The establishment of the historical timeline is significant in understanding Islam today. There is a principal, a law established in Quran known as “Abrogation”. This single word and principal is perhaps the most important tenet in Islam.

Quran is very unique among the texts of ‘revealed religion’, in that it invokes this principal known as “abrogation”. That is to say, “the latter annuls the former”. In other words, the earlier peaceful revelations to Mohammad are abrogated by the later, more violent revelations. Mohammad was quite a peaceful and affable individual early in his ministry, but after the Meccans put out a warrant on him he fled to Medina, where he gained strength militarily. Mohammad began raiding Meccan caravans as retribution. Eventually, this violence increased culminating in a war which the ‘Prophet’ was victorious being personally militarily involved.

This law of “abrogation” is discussed in Quran concerning the disclosure of Sura’s to Mohammad as a progression of revelation, bringing Mohammad and his Companions from point A to point B slowly and in stages. This is the model set forth by Islamic scholars for the strategy of covering the entire world with the cloak of Islam. You see, the historical ‘revealed religions’ occur sequentially. First came Judaism, then came Christianity, and finally comes Islam. Islam teaches that each successive religion abrogates the former until Islam reigns supreme, and without opposition. So much for “co-existence”.

To my “intellectual” friends I would simply impart this fair warning: Christians and Jews are known in Al Quran as “People of the Book”. Once conquered, if they do not choose to convert to Islam, these are afforded the status of “Dhimmi” if they agree to submit to the authority of Islam and pay the Jizya (poll tax). Dhimmi must acquiesce to Muslims in everything and have no equity with Muslims. Atheists and pagans are offered no such clemency. There is only conversion or death. There is no tolerance for “intellectual dissention”.

Please do not simply dismiss this information. Do some reading to see if it isn’t so. The current narrative is being written by Islam. It cannot be trusted. Never forget the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation”.

I do not advocate bigotry toward Muslims; only understanding that Islam is antithetical to the American system of government, to the Judeo-Christian ethos, to liberty and choice, and equality before the law. Islam has its own socio-political system which emanates from Shari’a. It is not simply a “religion”.

Prove me wrong.