The Crescent and the Cross… the unitarian Islamic deity (Allah) and our trinitarian Christian deity (Yahweh). In my previous entry I mentioned that there are profound theological differences, and differences historically and in outworking, between the Islamic Allah and the God whom Christians worship. Yet Christianity and Islam are both called Abrahamic faiths. So what is it that they have in common if there is supposedly common ground that they share?

As the late Dr Francis Schaeffer pointed out (and other notable theologians too, of course) our knowledge of God is incomplete, but what we do know of Him can be true. We know Him truly, but not exhaustibly. We can know Him only inasmuch as He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Christians believe His fullest revelation is in His Son, our lord Jesus Christ. However, all mankind has a certain knowledge of Him - internal knowledge (an instinctive awareness of divinity that we are born with, and a conscience) and external knowledge (evidence from His creation, and from history) - and this knowledge is of the only one God, the One who IS. This applies to all mankind, which includes Muslims.

So it would appear that Muslims, along with all others who acknowledge a Creator God and make claims to worship this God, do inasmuch as they have knowledge of Him. I have listened to a number of Muslims speak of God in certain ways that I know to be true of His character. We appear to be referring to the same God as we each know Him, and where there is agreement, there is a degree of commonality.

However, the Muslim knowledge of God is seriously altered from the Christian knowledge of Him by the information that Muhammad provided for them. Their knowledge of God took a turning and headed off down another path. Their knowledge, as provided by much of Muhammad’s elaborations in the Qu’ran, has taken them away from the Christian knowledge of God. In this departure they increasingly lose sight of the Christian triune God, and the one whom they worship (whom they call Allah) takes on more and more the appearance and essence of what is called in Biblical language, an idol.

But isn’t it just that we have different perceptions of the same Supreme Being? Well, here is an analogy for you to consider. Take the situation in which you and I believe that we might know someone in common. I describe this person according to my knowledge and experience of him, and you look somewhat surprised. Yes, many of those characteristic do fit, you say, but didn’t I know that he has a son as well? Nope, I didn’t know that. In fact I am quite sure that he doesn’t because he never married nor had any such relationship with anyone. Oh, and did I know that he also has written a book? Yes, I knew he had written a book and that it was about the warring tribes of the sixth century. You look at me strangely. No it wasn’t anything to do with warring tribes of the sixth century, but to do with his son and many other things as well. Then we begin to realize there are a great many other significant things that don’t quite stack up. You tell me that this person is very keen to befriend and help others, and I think that is most odd because I found him to be totally impersonal and very severe. We are both absolutely certain of our facts and so may start to wonder if we are actually talking about the same person… perhaps we had made a mistake about that, and it is two different people we are talking about. In fact, given two laws of logic, the Law of Non Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle, the most logical and rational conclusion we can come to is that we are speaking of two entirely different persons.

There are so many major differences between the Islamic Allah and the Christian knowledge and experience of God, Yahweh.
~ Allah says he has no son, even in the figurative sense; Yahweh claims that He does.
~ Allah says that Jesus didn’t die, yet Jesus died;
~ Allah says that one of Noah’s sons died in the flood; Yahweh says that Noah’s three sons were saved in the flood;
~ Allah says that Jesus made clay birds that could fly when He was a child; this is not in the New Testament, but in later myth books;
~ Allah says that Jesus spoke as an infant; this is not in the New Testament, but in later myth books;
~ Allah does not seem to know what mainstream Christianity believed as far as the Trinity is concerned. The closest that the Qur’an comes to a Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary. Nowhere can you find the true concept of the Trinity in the Qur’an - Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit.
~ The Qur’an has no concept of the incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus’ human body; the Qur’an says in essence that Jesus could not have been God because He ate and slept. Well, Christians have always believed that Jesus was 100% human and needed sleep and food. Why didn’t Allah understand what Christians believed? Yahweh would have understood.
~ How do we reconcile the fact that Allah allowed Muhammad to have many, many wives when in the Old Testament, Yahweh said not to multiply wives?
~ How do we reconcile the fact that Allah allows divorce after Yahweh said He hates divorce, taking into consideration what Jesus said about divorce in the New Testament?

I could go on and on with this one.

However, many Muslims believe that they are worshipping God, that being the Only God, the Supreme Being, the Creator of all, whose name is Allah - and that it is the Christians who have the distorted view of Him. But would this be good enough for God? We could all probably make up a religion and make it similar to the teachings of the Bible and say that the revelations of this new religion came from God. Would that make it so? How similar to the Bible would I have to be in order to get some believers? How different in the teachings from the Bible would it take for me to be accused of being a fraud? It is very important to note that in the days of Muhammad the Jews accused him of being a fraud - and they knew their Scriptures.

It is noteworthy that Mohammed, when preaching to the Meccans, was not seen as introducing a new god to them, but merely proclaiming that one of their many gods, the one who was already called Allah, was the greatest and only god. The Meccans did not accuse Mohammed of preaching a different god from the one that they knew and so embraced “Allah” without difficulty. Muhammad was very cleverly backing for a win and a place. While reigning in the beliefs of his own pagan polytheistic Arab brothers who already worshipped the god called Allah (who incidentally had three daughters in pre-Islamic times), he was linking the name of Allah (Arabic for “God”, as we know) to the religious histories of Judaism and Christianity as a way to claim them also for Islam and seek the conversion of Jew and Christian as well. Thus he gave his Arab brothers their history by identifying them as the descendents of Ishmael whose father was Abraham, generating Islam as a religion based on corrupted, often Gnostic, versions of Scripture while claiming to have issued from Abraham. Interestingly, the Qur’an does not actually say that Ishmael was offered for sacrifice instead of Isaac, but this is taught to Muslims all the same. The Jews and Christians at the time saw through this deception and would have none of it, spurning Islam as false doctrine. Thus they mocked him, which angered him greatly. This appropriation is a cunning strategy of Islamic apologetics and one to which the naive and unsuspecting will fall victim in their thinking. For this reason there is a very real need not to allow any confusion of the Islamic unitarian Allah with the Christian trinitarian God.

My ultimate concern is that in agreeing that Muslims and Christians worship the same God (in the fullness of their respective and differing knowledge of God) and making allowances for Allah being just the Islamic view of the same God, we then subsequently deny our lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. Islam denies the deity of Jesus. There is no getting away from that single fact. On this point Allah and Yahweh irrevocably part company in terms of everything we know and subsequently experience of them. You may worship one or the other, but not both together as these two understandings of God are an eternity apart.

We all are blessed by His common grace, no matter what we believe, and show forth something of His image in which we are made. Muslims will also show good fruit, the outworking of His common grace which is there in all of us. They know Him in some measure, but not in the fullness of the revelation and relationship that we have of Him in Christ and through the grace of the Holy Spirit. I can see Muslims worshipping something of God, but in their deception (for Muhammad certainly deceived them with the teachings of the Qur’an) they have taken a false path, one that leads to a parody of God, that which is their Islamic Allah. I have talked with some very spiritual Muslimahs, ones who worship Allah as portrayed in the early Mecca surahs, and their knowledge is more like our God, Yahweh. But without Christ they have no experience of an intimate relationship, and their knowledge and worship is stifled as a result. Their worship is not of the One who can give them that relationship, who has revealed Himself in that fullness. They strenuously deny that as it would be utterly blasphemous and apostate to do otherwise. They cannot worship Christ, and yet Jesus said that He and the Father are one (John 10.30) The Apostle John had a very important warning for the followers of Christ. We must not ignore this Scripture.

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
(2 John 1: 9-11)

Check out this paper for more theology: Does Islam really serve the same God as Christians?

The Crescent and the Cross… the unitarian Islamic deity (Allah) and our trinitarian Christian deity (Yahweh). Some will have you believe that these deities are one-and-the-same, while others see the danger in referring to them both as though they are one. Are Muslims and Christians talking about the same Being, or do they each have someone different in mind?

I have already chatted about this subject here and here, but have tripped over more discussion on the subject elsewhere and this seems a good as time as any to highlight a concern that is coming to light.

Back in October 2007 a letter was written, signed by 138 representative Muslim leaders, calling on two “Abrahamic faiths” (Islam and Christianity) to love God and neighbours together. A similarly large number of Christian theologians, ministry leaders, and prominent pastors signed the response letter issued by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.

The Christian signatories said that they “share the sentiments” of the Muslim leaders who pointed out that Muslims and Christians make up over half of the world’s population and therefore true peace cannot occur as long as conflict persists between the two religious communities. And the Christian signatories asked:
1. that Muslims forgive Christians for their past sins – such as the Crusades and excesses of the “war on terrors” – as taught by Jesus Christ who said to “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).
2. that an interfaith dialogue takes place that moves beyond “polite” ecumenical talks between selected leaders, and wrote that leaders of both faiths should hold dialogues to build relations that will “reshape” the two communities to “genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another.”

However, some very important fundamental issues are being ignored. They were picked up by Dr R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one Christian theologian who did not sign the response letter. Source. He was disturbed by the Christians’ request for forgiveness of sins committed against Muslims, including the Crusades and excesses in the war on terror.

“I am sure that all kinds of sin went on with the Crusades on both sides,” he said. “But I am not going to apologize for the Crusades because I am very thankful that the Muslim effort to reach a conquest of Europe was unsuccessful. Otherwise, we would be speaking Arabic on this program right now and we would be talking about the Muslim continent of Europe and potentially even of North America.”

The war on terror, he also noted, is the responsibility of the United States so he was “not sure” why Christians are apologizing for that as a sin against Muslims.
“I don’t think that is the right way to put it,” Mohler said. “I don’t think we associate the United States of America with the Christian church. For whom are we apologizing and for what are we apologizing?”

Dr Mohler explained that Muslims also believe in Jesus but only as a prophet, not as the son of God. Christians must distinguish what kind of God they believe in when responding to the Muslim letter, which emphasized love for a common God.

“We don’t believe that Jesus Christ is our hero. We don’t believe that Jesus Christ is merely our prophet. He is Prophet and Priest and King. He is the incarnate Son of God. He is the second person of the Trinity. He is the Lord over all. Any minimization of that is a huge problem.”

“This is the God who very clearly identifies Himself and says, ‘I am this and I am not anything else.’ If you disagree about the identity of Jesus Christ, then you disagree about the identity of God. The most important issues about the dialogue with Muslims is that Christians are very clear about the Gospel. It is not enough just to say, ‘we renounce violence.’ It is important, but it is not enough.”

“Now, I want to be very clear: we should have nothing against a conversation. But I don’t think this is the way to get into the conversation,” Mohler clarified. “My concern is that when Christians enter the conversation with Muslims we must enter the conversation as Christians,” he said. “I think when you address a letter to Muslims and refer to God in their terminology then there is a big problem…when Christians enter a conversation, we have to show up as Christians.”

I am in absolute agreement with Dr Mohler. This is certainly not being picky. The Muslim perception of God is that which is described in their Qur’an. The Islamic Allah does not love Christians. He loves only Muslims, and he instructs them to slaughter those who will not submit to him and become Muslims (Surah 9). There is no love there for any neighbour who is not Muslim. When Islamic clerics speak of God, it becomes very confusing when Christians suppose they are speaking of God of Judeo-Christian scriptures, Yahweh. We know that the word Allah is the Arabic word for God, meaning the Supreme being and Creator of all. When Arabic Christians speak of Yahweh, they use their word Allah. But when Muslims speak of Allah, they are referring to the one who is portrayed in the Qur’an… and he is nothing like Yahweh, the God whom Christians worship.

At the heart of the Muslim letter was the “common ground” that believers of both faiths share – love for God and love for neighbours. My concern are the unanswered questions… What common ground? How much common ground do we actually have? When speaking of God, who exactly do we actually mean - the unitarian Islamic Allah, or the trinitarian Christian Yahweh? They are most definitely not the same, there being profound differences theologically, historically, and in their outworking. Until this issue is made crystal clear, then both parties are talking past each other and no real dialogue, that to which each side is truly accountable, can ever properly take place.

The catchy pithy title of this post is the same as that of a book I am currently reading by Dr Douglas Groothuis, associate professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. That I am doing so coincides rather remarkably with several recent events that have all served to remind me that we are living in an Age where “truth” is being allowed to have quite different meanings to different people.

It was brought home to me in my own family when my son told me that one is only guilty of having done something if one is found out. He went ahead and tried the same argument on a Judge and discovered His Honour was not particularly impressed, overruling the particular objection being thus defended. But where had he learnt such a thing? It was not from me, someone who sees truth as that which corresponds to objective reality, not a matter of subjective persuasion or angle of perception. Feelings of guilt may be present or not, but if one did something… then one did something, discovered or not. But my son has grown up in a postmodern culture pervaded by moral relativity, and thus his point of view is probably not too suprising. It is certainly the view espoused by an important American philosopher, Dr Richard Rorty, who takes the position of the pragmatist, asserting that truth is what one’s peers lets one get away with. Now I can get myself in a right tangle with the truth, asking the question of whether or not the Judge, peering over his spectacles, was a peer… and if that should matter at all.

Postmodernism raises challenges to those who argue that truth is absolute, objective and universal. Truth decay, Dr Groothuis explains, is a cultural condition in which such a view of truth is considered implausible, held in open contempt or not seriously considered. However, he does go on to reassure us that the truth itself does not decay, but just our human grasp of it has slipped.

One intellectual mentor of Dr Groothuis is the late Dr Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) who pointed out that we need to distinguish the content of truth (what statements are true) from the concept of truth (what truth is) because our view of the latter shapes everything about us - or about our beliefs. And the problem with postmodernism, argues Dr Groothuis (and I wholeheartedly agree with him!) is that it accepts a “poisonous” and untrue view of the truth. It is one thing to believe something is true when it isn’t, but quite another to believe that whether or not it is depends entirely on personal choice. For example… whether or not I believe that gravity is true (that it exists and will have a predictable effect on me) is hardly a matter of choice such that I can jump off a cliff and choose whether or not to crash in a broken heap at the bottom.

But objective truth has little to do with spiritual reality if you listen to Ophra. Check out what she is saying here and prepare to be amazed. The truth is anything that you want to believe it to be. Postmodernism, broadly understood, has dispensed with Truth and has replaced it with truths… as many truths that everyone and anyone likes to manufacture and believe in order to suit themselves.

Another concerning thing about truth is that these days it may not be politically correct and thus should be strictly censored. For example… the Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry that teaches doctrine and the differences between Christianity and pseudo-Christian cults be shut down because its reference materials were “critical” of the beliefs of those who are not Christian.

MacGregor Ministries has had to relocate its corporate structure into the United States because it points out that:
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that all their so-called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official ‘Mormon Doctrine’ statements contradict each other…”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the ’spirit world,’ a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.)”
~ “Neale Donald Walsch who wrote the bestseller Conversations with God says, ‘Hitler went to heaven’ (Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 2, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., 1997; p. 35) And the reason according to Walsh ‘There is no hell, so there is no place else for him to go.’”
~ “The Bible states that the ONLY WAY to heaven is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Universalism teaches that there is not just one way of salvation but many different ways. The Christian inclusivists state salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, but they change the meaning to be that His grace extends out to those who do not believe (not needing faith) because he died for them too.”

Now these teachings are objectively verifiable facts. But MacGregor Ministries were given an ultimatum that required them to say that all religions are equal, that Lorri MacGregor was to stop writing their magazine on the cults, that they were to remove their websites and stop selling any products to help teach about the cults, and any future DVDs that they do on the Bible must not be persuasive in favour of Christian truth.

This situation brings to mind the persecution of the Apostles in the first century of the Christian church. They were ordered to stop their preaching. However, as we are told in Acts 5: 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!

Another example of truth being censored where it is not politically acceptable is that which is portrayed in Geert Wilder’s recently released film “Fitna”.

The film really does little more than highlight certain surah written in the Qur’an and show news clips to demonstrate how those surah have been played out in recent time. It does not provide “context” that would suit an Islamic apologist who might prefer to intellectualize away the bald facts, but there is an objectivity to it that simply cannot be denied. If you wish to view the film, it is available in many places on the internet, and one such place is Mark Alexander’s blog, “A New Dark Age is Dawning“, right here.

I rather like the comments on Cranmer’s blog where he writes the following:

There is one religio-political agenda which has no compatibility with British democracy; indeed, it is in the process of destroying it. It may be observed that one may attack Christianity and offend Christians by blaspheming the name of Christ with impunity; there is no sensitivity to the level of this offence, and therefore no censorship. But any such attack on Islam and its prophet not only meets with the full force of the law, there are draconian levels of pre-emptive censorship just in case the Queen’s Peace is disturbed.

The default ‘blasphemy law’ in the UK is now Shari’a, and it is under its absolutes that all religio-political discourse must now be conducted. The Qur’an is now treated with greater respect than the Bible; the name of Allah is more fearful than that of Jehovah; and the life and teachings of Mohammed are more sacred than those of Jesus.

Cranmer presumes the Archbishop of Canterbury is content with the incorporation of this aspect of Shari’a into UK law, albeit by the back door.

Note that reports do not mention ‘the Islamic Prophet’; just ‘the Prophet’. The ‘Son of God’ would undoubtedly be pre-fixed with ‘whom Christians believe to be’ in almost every media narrative.

and concerning Network Solutions’ withdrawal of the film from the internet…

This is an unacceptable pre-emptive censorship, and must be an infringement of constitutional right. Network Solutions has caved in to radical Islam and spat in the face of free speech. It should not be for Network Solutions to determine what is and is not acceptable any more than it should be for Google. If causing offence is deemed to be unacceptable, who knows who might get offended next and which sites will be pulled?

And it is noteworthy that Network Solutions is perfectly content to host radical Islamic websites, some of which belong to (or are closely affiliated with) terrorist groups like Hizbollah.

The postmodern philosophy of today is waging war on the view that truth is absolute, objective and universal by nature, that it is one and undivided, the same for all people everywhere at all times. And where it does appear in its objective and rational form, it must be put away as far too abhorrent and repugnant to consider.

Today is Good Friday. Why is it good? As a child I used to think it was good because we had hot cross buns for breakfast - lovely and spicey, warmed in the oven, butter melting and dripping down our chins. And it was a day off school. Perfect! But apart from that, I thought it was pretty bad that Jesus was crucified - that anyone could be crucified. How was that good? It should really be Bad Friday instead.

On the radio news this morning I heard that the Muslims in Auckland were complaining that all the shops had to stay closed today. It wasn’t fair on them since they were being penalized by having to observe a holy day from a religion which wasn’t their own. Well, tough! They knew before they came here that New Zealand is a country whose traditions are founded on Christianity, not Islam. If they don’t like it, they are free to leave and live in an Islamic country where Easter means nothing. I have no sympathy with such a complaint. Also, I am not asking them to attend Church. But if they can’t go shopping, they might like to pick up a Bible and spend that time reading the true story about the historical Jesus. As I have written about in a previous post, they are thinking He is someone else instead. Not so. The Biblical account of the historical Jesus predates their own version by a good 600 years, and is the actual eye-witness accounts of those who knew Him, lived with Him, listened to Him, and in many cases died for their belief in Him. To read about Him, it is to the Bible that one really must turn.

So on Good Friday our shops remain closed. I know that is an imposition on those who are not believers. They have to give up one day of shopping, a day of consumerism, a day of letting the moths fly their wallets. But to a child’s eyes, that is a small price to pay for those wonderful hot cross buns for breakfast!

It is Easter Sunday, the day we celebrate the real goodness of Easter, that makes sense of the Friday beforehand. Do you believe it was possible, that it could really have happened, that Jesus rose alive from His death? There is some incredibly strong evidence to support that it happened. If you don’t believe that it did, on what basis don’t you believe it? Have you actually investigated the evidence before making a judgement? Or are you simply prejudiced by your own uninformed scepticism? If you have not looked into the evidence, then do be honest about it. And think about this… that if Jesus did indeed rise alive from such a hideous and certain death, then that is something that needs to be taken pretty seriously indeed. There is far more to the story than just a plain simple response. If you have not already done so, then start checking out some of the evidence which can be found from here on. You could be in for surprises!

It needs to be said…

Jesus is not honoured by being called a great prophet.
He was and is the Messiah, the Christ. He is the Son of God.

To think that one honours Him by regarding Him as a great prophet, but not as the Christ, is to belittle and denigrate Him instead.

This is what Islam does to our Saviour.
Not just Islam, but any religion - and any individual - who does not recognize Him for who He is.

And yet I know they are not.

Actors in the Islamic movie, “Jesus, the Spirit of God”.

A director has produced what he says is the first film giving an Islamic view of Jesus Christ, in a bid to show the “common ground” between Muslims and Christians. Nader Talebzadeh sees his movie, “Jesus, the Spirit of God,” as an Islamic answer to Western productions like Mel Gibson’s 2004 blockbuster “The Passion of the Christ,” which he praised as admirable but quite simply “wrong”. “Gibson’s film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong — it was not like that,” he said, referring to two key differences: Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God, and does not believe he was crucified.

These folk are convinced they are right. But wait, the Jesus of the Bible lived seven centuries before the Qur’an was written, and the New Testament gospels were already in existence. Did the Qur’an come up with new evidence about Jesus? No. There isn’t any that was not already known in Christendom. Nothing has been discovered since that favours the Islamic stories over and above the Biblical stories. Where did their version come from then? Islam tells us that the Qur’an was handed down to Mohammad, from Allah, via the Angel Gabriel. The Islamic stories of Jesus - or rather, of the Prophet ‘Isa, as they believe they know of him - come from their god, Allah. When I compare these stories with those of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of the New Testament, I seriously wonder if we are meaning the same person. In fact, I think this has to be a case of mistaken identity. The purported facts are so different in each case. Even Islam is saying exactly that, and that the purpose of this film is supposedly to give the truth. If that is the truth, then it has to be about somebody else - not Jesus of the Bible.

Talebzadeh says it aims to bridge differences between Christianity and Islam, despite the stark divergence from Christian doctrine about Christ’s final hours on earth.

“It is fascinating for Christians to know that Islam gives such devotion to and has so much knowledge about Jesus,” Talebzadeh said.

“By making this film I wanted to make a bridge between Christianity and Islam, to open the door for dialogue since there is much common ground between Islam and Christianity,” he said.

Source

But how does such a film “bridge the differences between Christianity and Islam” ?

I would say it points out the differences between Christianity and Islam, and just makes them so much more obvious. There is no bridge there at all.

There are two main sources for the stories of the Islamic prohet ‘Isa - the Qur’an, and the aHadith. The Qur'an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections, which are recollections of Muhammad's words and deeds, establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future. The Qur’an declares that the true name of Jesus is ‘Isa, and his message was pure Islam - submission to Allah. ‘Isa was born to Mariam, daughter of ‘Imran, under a date palm tree and spoke while still a baby in the cradle. He breathed life into clay birds and foretold the coming of Muhammad. Apparently ‘Isa was given a book, namely the gospel, and the message revealed in that book is Islam. The book in its original form has since been lost, but his teachings are now incorporated in the Qur’an. ‘Isa was “supported” by the Holy Spirit and his disciples were all Muslims. ‘Isa was not crucified but he did ascend to Allah, and on the Day of Judgement he will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. The prophet ‘Isa will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam.

However… The Qur'an, written in the 7th century AD, cannot be regarded as having any authority whatsoever to inform us about Jesus of Nazareth. It offers no evidence for its claims about biblical history. The Qur’an’s numerous historical errors reflect a garbled understanding of the Bible. ‘Isa is not an historical figure. His identity and role as a prophet of Islam is based solely on supposed revelations to Muhammad over half a millennium after the Jesus of history lived and died.

Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu in Greek. It is interesting that Jesus’ name Yehoshua' contains within it the proper Hebrew name for God, the first syllable Yeh- being short for YHWH ‘the LORD'. Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur'an gives to him. Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou' (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.

Jesus did not receive a book. He spoke as He was given to speak from God, the Father.

The claim that Jesus was not executed by crucifixion is without any historical support. One of the things that all the early sources (and that includes historical texts ex-biblical) agree on is Jesus' crucifixion. Check that out here.

Mariam the mother of ‘Isa is called a sister of Aaron, and also the daughter of Aaron's father ‘Imran (Hebr. Amram). Clearly Muhammad has confused Mary (Hebr. Miriam) with Miriam of the Exodus. The two lived more than a thousand years apart! In the Bible Haman is the minister of Ahasuerus in Media and Persia (The Book of Esther 3:1-2). Yet the Qur'an places him over a thousand years earlier, as a minister of Pharoah in Egypt. The claim that Christians believe in three Gods — Father, son Jesus and mother Mary — is mistaken. The Qur'an is also mistaken to claim that Jews say Ezra was a son of God. (At-Taubah 9:30) The charge of polytheism against Christianity and Judaism is ill-informed and false. (Deuteronomy 6:4, James 2:19a)

Jesus' alleged foretelling of Muhammad's coming (As-Saff 61:6) appears to be based on a garbled reading of John 14:26, a passage which in fact refers to the Spirit.

Dr Mark Durie sums up as follows:

‘Isa (Jesus) of the Qur'an is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance. When Muslims venerate this ‘Isa, they have someone different in mind from the Yeshua or Jesus of the Bible and of history. The ‘Isa of the Qur'an is based on no recognized form of historical evidence, but on fables current in seventh century Arabia.

For most faithful Muslims ‘Isa is the only Jesus they know. But if one accepts this Muslim ‘Jesus', then one also accepts the Qur'an: one accepts Islam. Belief in this ‘Isa is won at the cost of the libel that Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures, a charge that is without historical support. Belief in this ‘Isa implies that much of Christian and Jewish history is in fact Islamic history.

The Jesus of the gospels is the base upon which Christianity developed. By Islamicizing him, and making of him a Muslim prophet who preached the Qur'an, Islam destroys Christianity and takes over all its history. It does the same to Judaism.

In the end times as described by Muhammad, ‘Isa becomes a warrior who will return with his sword and lance. He will destroy the Christian religion and make Islam the only religion in all the world. Finally at the last judgement he will condemn Christians to hell for believing in the crucifixion and the incarnation.

This final act of the Muslim ‘Isa reflects Islam's apologetic strategy in relation to Christianity, which is to deny the Yeshua of history, and replace him with a facsimile of Muhammad, so that nothing remains but Islam.

Source

And to cap it all off, our Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. The prophet ‘Isa is not the Son of God, nor the son of Allah, since Allah is not a father and he has no son at all.

It beggars belief that anyone can think that Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus of the Bible, is the same as the Prophet ‘Isa of Islam. Just who do they think they are kidding?

Photo credit: Malene Thyssen

Islamophobia is a seriously misused word these days. To quote the words of Mark Alexander who often comments here…

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of something. People's fears of Islam are neither abnormal nor irrational. It is perfectly normal to fear someone or something which wants to destroy your way of life; and fearing such is not irrational either. Indeed, it would be irrational NOT to fear Islam, given that its stated aim is to take over the world. As for people being persisent in their fears, well that is because Islam is persistent in its objectives of wanting to Islamize the world.

Source

The term is seriously misused in that it is often wrongly defined as hatred towards Muslims. The correct term for that would be something more like Misomuslimism (Greek μίσος miso = hate) for hatred of Muslims, or Misoislamism for hatred of Islam.

The term is further misused in its frequent form of an ad hominem attack on those who, without any hatred towards Muslims, seek to share the truth and reality of Islam - the facts as they are revealed in Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an.
See Islam 101.

This past weekend in New Zealand saw this term frequently misused (together with its related one, Islamophobe, used as a denigrator) through the combined efforts of the “Residents Action Movement” and “Voices of Peace” organizations who brought British MP, George Galloway, here for a public meeting in Auckland. My previous Journal entry introduces and discusses their reactionary agenda.

Reactionary? Yes - absolutely.

Baptist Pastor, Dr Stuart Robinson, the Australian author of the book Mosques and Miracles, drew about 200 people to a conference in Auckland this past weekend aimed at revealing what he says are the true dangers of Islam, and to inform, educate and equip Christians about Islam and how to reach out to Muslims. The two-day conference was organised by the missionary groups Open Doors, Middle East Christian Outreach, Asian Outreach and Interserve, with support from the Vision Network of evangelical churches. Glyn Carpenter of “Vision Network of New Zealand”, who helped promote the conference, said that “the conference is essentially a reminder to Christians of the basic teaching to love others. Certainly the speakers are sharing from their considerable experience of Islam, which includes living in Islamic countries, about the diversity within Islam, and issues to be considered”. (Source)

Dr Robinson believes there is a fundamental difference between Christians and Muslims trying to convert others to their religion, and we need to recognize this difference. He explains that most Westerners do not understand that Islam teaches that peace would prevail in the world only when the Muslim religion predominated. This is what Muslims mean when they describe Islam as a peaceful religion - that peace will reign when there exists universal submission to Allah. Dr Robinson also points out…

Their books teach that they [Muslims] are the best of all people, that they want to rule over the whole world.
One can’t object to that. Christians also are on a mission from God to make disciples, but we make disciples of Jesus, who was quite a different entity from the example of Muhammad.
Muslim theology teaches that war has to be prosecuted against the infidel until the day of judgment when Jesus Christ returns.
Unlike Christianity, which offered salvation simply through faith, Islam teaches that the only sure way to paradise was to die as a martyr for the faith. That becomes an enormous recruitment device for a lot of the suicide bombing that we see.

Source

It is these statements that are considered to be the “rantings” of islamophobia. But what if they are the truth? What if these statements are absolutely factual? In fact, there is irrefutable evidence to support that being the case. The Qur’an reveals these irrefutable facts. The aHadith, and the Sunnah, all reveal these irrefutable facts.

But there is tremendous pressure being brought to bear to have us all believe otherwise. One surely has to question the motives of people who promote such an aggressive denial of these facts. Grant Morgan, the co-editor of a Marxist journal for all grassroots activists, wearing his “Voices of Peace” organization hat, uses the emotionally coloured terms “anti-Muslim extremism, racist bigotry” in his reaction to the planned conference, having already swallowed the politically correct version of Islam rather than listen to the truth spoken by Dr Robinson and others like him. Grant Morgan again, this time wearing his “Residents Action Movement” organization hat, in yet another press release here continues the ridicule and ad hominem assault on “the Aussie Islamophobes” (Dr Robinson, Dr Durie, Dr Shayesteh) whose credentials more than likely far outweigh those of his own and George Galloway combined.

“All good people must unite to defend our Muslim sisters and brothers from the race hate lies of the Aussie Islamophobes and their New Zealand cronies,” writes Grant Morgan.

A few more points to note:

1. Muslims do not regard non-Muslims as their brothers and sisters.

2. There is no evidence at all of any racial hatred. Islam is not even a racial grouping.

3. There is no evidence at all of any hatred towards Muslims. No-one is supporting hatred towards Muslims. The conference aims were specifically related to love, and to reaching out in love to Muslims.

4. Teaching the facts of Islam as per the Qur’an is not hatred. It is simply the teaching of facts. Grant Morgan and George Galloway are the ones providing the emotional ingredients.

5. Teaching what is in the Qur’an is teaching the truth of what is there. No lies are being taught. There is substantial evidence from many other sources to verify this as truth.

6. Islamophobes, cronies - name-calling, the use of ad hominem, is well recognized as the cover-up for a weak argument.

7. Grant Morgan’s red herrings and straw man arguments do not constitute a scholarly rebuttal of the truth espoused by Dr Robinson and his colleagues. Same can be said for George Galloway’s rhetoric. In fact, theirs is just an emotional reaction with no knowledge substance to it at all.

8. Glyn Carpenter of “Vision Network of New Zealand” adds an interesting comment here.
“Contrary to statements made by organisers of the “Voices of Peace” conference, the Mosques and Miracles conference speakers and attendees are anything but Islamophobes. It is ironic and concerning that organisers of a conference called “Voices of Peace” would use terms like “NZ Islamophobes“, “Aussie extremists“, and “far-right Islamophobic idealogues” about this conference.”

9. The website of the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ supposedly promotes knowledge of Islam but in its account of the life of the Prophet, portrays him as a man of peace, and provides no account sowhatever of his (anything but peaceful) activities of the Medina period. Of course, we can resort to the history books for all that, but this is a glaring omission that must reasonably caution the reader to the likelihood of other omissions of equal magnitude.

10. The use of the word “Islamophobia” should ring loud alarm bells and have us looking critically at what exactly is being said, and being ready to remove the emotional content to look strictly at facts, at reality, and for substantiated truth. Teaching what is truthfully revealed in the Qur’an is not “hatred for Muslims” - but having a fear of something with a clearly stated intent of destroying one’s lifestyle, and enforcing a religious belief against one’s will, is most certainly rational and sane, not phobic at all.

And a passing note on the “hatred” of Christians for Muslims…

On the other side of town, ten young men all under 20 years old put into place final arrangements for their ultimate act of faith, living out their love for Allah and hatred of infidels who they felt undermined Islam.

The young men got guns, breadknives, ropes and towels ready for their final act of service to Allah. They knew there would be a lot of blood. They arrived in time for the Bible Study, around 10 o'clock.

They arrived, and apparently the Bible Study began. Reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The boys tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman's hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for almost three hours*

[Details of the torture:
* Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur's stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.]

In an act that hit front pages in the largest newspapers in Turkey, Susanne Tilman in a television interview expressed her forgiveness. She did not want revenge, she told reporters. “Oh God, forgive them for they know not what they do,” she said, wholeheartedly agreeing with the words of Christ on Calvary (Luke 23:34).

In a country where blood-for-blood revenge is as normal as breathing, many many reports have come to the attention of the church of how this comment of Susanne Tilman has changed lives. One columnist wrote of her comment, “She said in one sentence what 1000 missionaries in 1000 years could never do.”

Source

For George Galloway and Grant Morgan and a great many others who want to believe that Christians (whom they vilify) are haters of Muslims, Susanne Tilman’s message has yet to reach their ears. She is only one of a great many whose sincere love of Christ means there is no room in her heart to carry hatred for even the torturer and murderer of her husband.
What hatred? Christ teaches us to love our neighbours, love our enemies, and to forgive those who persecute us. What hatred for Muslims? Calling Morgan and Galloway… what planet are you on?

I often resist being called a this or a that, given some label and dumped in with a lot of characteristics that do not define me. Some labels are necessary and unavoidable, but there are others that are very important to resist because they brand their wearers with flawed generalizations and associations that create identity error.

It has been reported in our news that a visiting left-wing British MP, George Galloway, is in the country to speak to the issue of Islamophobia. It is written that Mr Galloway said he flew half way round the world for the weekend to counter talks by “crazed fundamentalists from Australia who are here to whip up hatred against the 45,000 Muslims resident in New Zealand”. One can read this story here. The report lists a number of one and two line statements that sound quite alarming, such that I wonder who is whipping up hatred against whom.

Mr Galloway comes from a country where there is a growing problem from a process of Islamisation, where there are serious threats and acts of Muslim terrorism, and yet he recommends that we follow that country’s political policies to stop “Islamophobia” (which he defines as racism against Muslims) developing here in NZ. I find that something akin to inviting a non-swimmer to teach swimming lessons. It also stands out as a rather bizarre message in the light of another report published today in Germany…

POPE Benedict XVI's private secretary has warned of the ‘Islamisation’ of Europe and demanded that the Continent's Christian roots not to be ignored.

“Attempts to Islamise the west cannot be denied,” Monsignor Georg Gaenswein was quoted as saying in a copy of the weekly Sueddeutsche Magazine published today.


”The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness,” the magazine quoted him as saying.

Gaenswein also defended a speech Pope Benedict gave in Regensburg, Germany, last year linking Islam and violence, saying it was an attempt by the Pontiff to “act against a certain naivety.”


In the interview with the respected German weekly, Gaenswein confirmed that the Pope wrote his own speeches and that the remarks had not been edited.

He said: “I believe that the speech from Regensburg, as it was held, is prophetic.”

Asked if the idea of a serious dialogue with Islam that exists in the real world was naive, given that it was a religion where human rights were trampled under foot, he said: “Attempts to Islamize the West cannot be denied.

“The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness.

Source

Mr Galloway creates a link between Christian fundamentalists and those who promote this supposed Islamophobia, but where in the equation would he dare to place Pope Benedict? After all, that lecture at Regensburg considerably upped the antagonism from the Muslim clerics who objected to Allah being seen as promoting violence. But Pope Benedict, far from preaching Galloway’s “wrongly understood respectfulness” of Islam, was warning against “a certain naivety” that recognizes the reality. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway is denying the facts and stirring up hatred against those (usually Christians) who actually recognize them for what they are - stark reality.

1. Islam is both a political ideology and a religion - some would say a marriage of both, and more correctly the former simply cloaked in the latter. It is not a race, therefore talking in terms of racism only demonstrates a confusion in terms and meanings.

2. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. However, the term is being used to describe a hatred towards Muslims, this creating further confusion due to imprecise meanings.

3. Teaching the truth about Islam is not “Islamophobia” anymore than teaching the truth about Christianity is Christophobia. If that was so, then we should be asking serious questions about Church Sunday School classes as well.

4. The common sense asking and answering of questions, dealing with facts and reality, is not fear-inducing unless there is very good reason that fear arises from such facts. It is not whipping up fear where none needs to exist. Neither is it whipping up hatred towards a race of people or adherents of a particular religion. Those who equate the teaching of facts with such an emotion-laden term are the ones employing psychological means to push an agenda.

5. It is fashionable and trendy to label sane level-headed Christians as “Christian fundamentalists” whether they are or not, vilify them, mock their religious beliefs, and accuse them of deluded and distorted thinking. Apart from this being an ad hominem attack that does not deal with the facts of the issues, it also involves creating straw man arguments into the bargain.

6. In connection with the previous point, it would be more sensible to separate the message from the messenger. It may be that Christians, being those in the firing line for persecution by Islam, have a sharper view of what Islam is about, but the facts need to be considered objectively. The connection with, and vilification of, Christian fundamentalism has prevented an objective appraisal of reality. The baby is being thrown out with the bath water.

The supposed “crazed fundamentalists from Australia who are here to whip up hatred against the 45,000 Muslims resident in New Zealand” include names I recognize as very well-balanced and educated authors who do not hide the truth of Islam.

One is Dr Mark Durie who is vicar of St Mary’s Anglican Church in Caulfield, Melbourne. He is also a senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne, with the honorary title of Associate Professor, and was formerly head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies. He has written several books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, an Islamic people of Indonesia, and was elected to the Australian Academy of Humanities in 1992 for this research work. He served as a member of the Council of the Academy for a term during the 1990's.

Another is Dr. Daniel Shayesteh who was deeply involved in the Iranian Fundamentalist Revolution (1979) as a leading Muslim political leader and teacher of Islam. In addition to English, he speaks three middle-eastern languages (Farsi, Turkish and Azerbaijani) and is an accomplished poet and classical middle-eastern musician. He is an author and studied in one of the universities in Tehran and later in Turkey and Australia. His doctorate is in international business. He is now a Christian, Director of the Exodus from Darkness ministry, and a National Evangelist for the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Australia.

And another is Australian Baptist pastor, Stuart Robinson, author of “Mosques and Miracles”. Dr Stuart Robinson has been the Senior Pastor of Crossway in Melbourne since 1983. Together with his wife Margaret, they worked for fourteen years in South Asia, where Stuart pioneered church planting among Muslims and thus gained the knowledge and experience which enabled him to author his best selling book.

These people have had considerable experience of Islam and know all of its facets. They are concerned for the future of Western civilization, knowing the Islamic mission of bringing about universal submission to Allah. There is nothing “crazed” about their writing and teaching, but it seems that “whipping up hatred” is the term Mr Galloway and his associates prefer for the teaching of facts that we all need to know. As Christians, they are also committed to the teachings of Christ who would have us all love our neighbour as ourselves. There is no teaching that we must hate Muslims.

Now I have a question to ask. Why is it so important to Mr Galloway to come all the way around the world to tell us this message, or to his associates who have brought him out here? Why must we not hear the truth about Islam? Why must the facts be messed up with a lot of ad hominem attacks on Christians and straw man arguments? No one is hating the peace-loving Muslims living in NZ, those getting on with their lives and not causing anyone any upset. But should we not be aware of the dangers that some may bring to our shores, and if numbers increase as they have done so in Britain and Europe, then that we may be subject to similar concerns for ourselves?

A friend of mine recently returned from a quick trip to London and told me how, as she was waiting in the queue at Heathrow to board her flight back home, there were about a dozen young Muslim men lining up as well. Being a friendly person, she spoke to them but got back some awkward looks. One of their number came up to her and, in halting English, explained that none of the group spoke any English except for himself. During the flight they spent most of their time reading from their Qur’ans, and later in the flight the young men were having a problem filling out their immigration cards. The one who could speak a little English approached my friend for assistance. It transpired that the whole group were coming for 3 years. They were all going to attend NZ universities - 3 to Otago, 3 to Canterbury, 3 to Victoria, and 3 to Auckland. But wait… how could they study at a NZ university if they could not speak, read or write the language? Oh my! It really does make one wonder for what exactly 12 young Muslim men are coming all this way here to New Zealand.

I think we should ask common sense questions, and we should be given truthful answers that match all the facts. It is only common sense after all.

I am almost at a loss for words. Of all the saddest things to come out of the Anglican Communion of late, the following story is more than enough to make one weep. When the truth claims of Christianity are disregarded to the extent that sound doctrine is swept right away by whatever silly notion and whim takes the fancy, then I guess anything can be believed. And so the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding, a scholar in New Testament, can tell us that she is both a practising Muslim and an Episcopal priest. The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal The June 2007 issue of the Episcopal Voice carries the story on page 9, and it is now appearing on numerous other Christian blogs such as this one here.

To quote the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding:

“We Christians, in struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus and the pattern of life he offers, describe him as the ‘only begotten son of God.' That's how wonderful he is to us. But that is not literal,” she [Redding] continues. “When we say Jesus is the only begotten one, we are saying he's unique in some way. Islam says the same thing. He's the only human aside from Adam who is directly created by God, and he's different from Adam because he has a human mother. So there's agreement—this person is unique in his relationship to God.” Christianity also says that we are all part of the household of God and in essence brothers and sisters of Jesus. Muslims take the figurative language of “only begotten,” make it concrete and contradict it: God “neither begets nor is begotten.” “I agree with both because I do want to say that Jesus is unique, and for me, Jesus is my spiritual master,” Redding says. “Muslims say Mohammed is the most perfect. Well, it depends on who you fall in love with. I fell in love with Jesus a long time ago and I'm still in love with Jesus but I'd like to think my relationship with Jesus has matured.”

When we say that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, we are saying He is unique but not simply just “in some way”. We actually know in what way. It is in the way that He is of the same substance as the Father, our Creator God. And being of the same substance He is indeed God - God, the Son; second Person of our three-in-one Godhead. (John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”) Not to acknowledge this uniqueness in this way is not to believe the truth claims of Christ.

What is more, it is not we who “struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus” have coined the term “only begotten son of God” in our supposed struggle, but He is called that in Scripture which is God’s holy written word, the revelation of God Himself, because He is indeed that - as God has revealed! (Matthew 16:15-17 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”)

Christianity does not say that we are all in essence brothers and sisters of Jesus, but only those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God are the children of God. (John 1:12,13 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. )

The Qu’ranic description of Allah is something quite different from the Biblical revelation of Yahweh. Pope Benedict found himself in hot water last year as a result of his lecture at Regensburg when he described how Christianity’s view is that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of logos) whereas Islam’s view is that “God is absolutely transcendent.” He appeared to be saying that either the Islamic interpretation of God must be in error when used to justify patently irrational violence as divine, or else the god the Muslims worship is not God. The submission of man's rationality to irrational violent commands, Pope Benedict dared to suggest, is incompatible with who God must be. The Muslims, who insist that their Allah is the God of Abraham, were incensed and turned up the heat in their attempt to cook the Pope like a live lobster in a pot.

Furthermore, Muslims deny the deity of Jesus. To them He is just a prophet, the one they call ‘Isa. And the Qu’ranic accounts of their ‘Isa have significant contradictory differences (such as His crucifixion and resurrection which they deny, that He was begotten and not created - that is, being the Word through whom all Creation came into being) from the Gospel accounts of Christ. Unlike Yahweh, the Islamic Allah is not a father - he has no son.

Dr Redding believes that Jesus led her to Islam. Quoting from the interview with her…

She added that what Islam does is take Jesus out of the way of her relationship with God, “but it doesn't drop Jesus. I was following Jesus and he led me into Islam, and he didn't drop me off at the door. He's there, too.”

Yes, Islam does take Jesus out of the way of her relationship with God, and it does even more besides. Without Jesus and His redemption that restores our relationship to God, we are lost and no longer the children of God. (1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.) This is about the Sonship of Jesus, His unique relationship to the Father (”…of one Being with the Father through whom all things were made…” Nicene Creed) and our acknowledgement of His deity as part of the Godhead.

Jesus made an exclusive claim (John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”) and to suggest that He leads anyone to worship a false god, one that denies His deity and all that He did on the cross for our redemption, is quite staggering to me. I can only surmise that Dr Redding has been well and truly deceived by the Father of Lies, and in losing sight of the real Jesus, has followed Satan, the evil one, instead.

One simply cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian. Each requires incompatible allegiances. Their truth claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Both cannot be right together, and to claim to believe in both requires a dissociative mental state. Dr Redding has sought synergy rather than salvation, and in attempting to be a believer of both, she has become a true believer of neither.

The questions to be asked next: What is this woman doing being allowed to remain a priest in the Episcopal Church? Where is her bishop, and what is he saying about her outright heresy? If there was any reason to be defrocked, this is surely a big one. Oh, wait, the Episcopal Church has veered right off course, creating it’s own liberal revisionist religion. It really is the saddest thing about the Anglican Communion.

Yesterday in New Zealand an international inter-faith forum was opened, attended by 165 religious and cultural leaders from 15 countries. The forum was sponsored by the New Zealand, Australian, Indonesian and Philippines governments as a response to the 2002 Bali bombings, the aim being to prevent religious-inspired terrorism by building links between various faiths in what is potentially the world’s most volatile region. In a sign of the importance they are afforded by member states, the opening was attended by NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, the NZ Foreign Affairs Minister, Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the Australian Foreign Minister. New Zealand has a Statement on Religious Diversity, prepared by the Victoria University Religious Studies Programme, and is the subject of a national process of public consultation coordinated by the Human Rights Commission. It was endorsed by the National Interfaith Forum in Hamilton in February 2007 as a basis for ongoing public discussion. The statement reads as follows:

1. The State and Religion
The State seeks to treat all faith communities and those who profess no religion equally before the law. New Zealand has no official or established religion.

2. The Right to Religion
New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or other belief.

3. The Right to Safety
Faith communities and their members have a right to safety and security.

4. The Right of Freedom of Expression
The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media are vital for democracy but should be exercised with responsibility.

5. Recognition and Accommodation
Reasonable steps should be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate diverse religious beliefs and practices.

6. Education
Schools should teach an understanding of different religious and spiritual traditions in a manner that reflects the diversity of their national and local community.

7. Religious Differences
Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs will occur but must be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence.

8. Cooperation and understanding
Government and faith communities have a responsibility to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and to promote mutual respect and understanding.

Background to this statement is the understanding that New Zealand is a country of many faiths with a significant minority who profess no religion. Increasing religious diversity is a significant feature of public life. At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Governor Hobson affirmed, in response to a question from Catholic Bishop Pompallier, “the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected”. Christianity has played and continues to play a formative role in the development of New Zealand in terms of the nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values.

On the face of it, these eight points that comprise the statement do look fair and reasonable. In our secular society every person receives equal protection under the law - protection from each other when the “right” to freedom of expression and practice of religious beliefs are under threat. The virtue of equality in law is upheld, but with it the less virtuous levelling of our national identity to whatever ingredients just happen to be in the mixing pot.

Less virtuous? The addition of a very small amount of salt may be excessive in flavouring the soup, and so too may the original ingredients forming our nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values be overwhelmed by the influence of a small but forceful component without certain protections for those original ingredients. Just as has happened in the United Kingdom with the over-reaching impact of Islam from a population percentage still in single digits (about 3%) and in Europe from a greater percentage range, so may our Judeo-Christian heritage also require extra protection if we are not to lose it’s influence in several decades from now. Muslim youth in Sweden are wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words based on socio-demographical predictions: “2030 and we take over”.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

At the opening of this inter-faith forum yesterday were 2,000 protesters led by “Bishop” Brian Tamaki of the Destiny Church, a traditionally Bible-based evangelical Christian church that many would describe as fundamentalist. The protest was against the statement of religious diversity which says the country has no “established or official religion”. Bishop Tamaki branded it “treason” for failing to properly recognise New Zealand’s Christian past, and delivered his own statement which demanded the Government formally recognise New Zealand as a Christian nation.

“Our government intends on presenting to primarily what are Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist countries that New Zealand has no established religion. I contend and say that we do have an established religion, it’s Christianity and I think … every New Zealander should be involved in making that officially recognised.” ~ Bishop Brian Tamaki, Destiny Church.

In response, our Prime Minister defended the Statement on Religious Diversity by saying that NZ has never had a state religion. Some further debate on this issue has been reported here. In the 2006 Census, those professing a Christian faith dropped from 60.8% of the population in 2001 to 51.2%, but were still 10 times as numerous as all other religions combined (5.1%). Those professing no religion rose from 29.6% to 32.2%, and 13.3% refused to answer the question.

How does one protect our Judeo-Christian heritage while receiving immigrants from different cultures and religions? I personally would like to see formal recognition of our Christian heritage, and an amendment of that first point which so upsets Brian Tamaki and others. After all, we do indeed have an established religion, that being Christianity - historically and currently. Our national anthem is God Defend New Zealand. It is not Allah, Buddha, or Krishna (etc) Defend New Zealand. In teaching about different faiths, I would like Christianity favoured over the teaching of other religions in schools - and taught realistically, such as within a Biblical Christian world view that explores some of the essential apologia for its tenets of faith, not just a random assortment of Bible stories for children. And the cessation of the current politically correct effort to eradicate Christian influence and practice where that is taking place, such as the over-sensitivity to the meaningful (as opposed to commercial) celebration of Christian festivals in case a practitioner of a different faith might possibly feel offended. The practice of other religions needs be kept reasonable in regard to the existing culture, which doesn’t mean hiding one’s face inside a burqua when that engenders suspicion and fosters segregation rather than assimilation.

Puritan Lad, in his Covenant Theology blog, has posted an entry entitled “Christianity and Immigration” in which he writes that, whereas “the Bible commands us to love the immigrant, it also commands the immigrant to assimilate into a Christian society that welcomes him.” He references the following Scripture:

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:21-24)

“You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.”
(Leviticus 24:22)

“And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native.”
(Numbers 9:14)

This is about assimilation, and assimilation into a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our culture and national identity is based. Our society may be largely secular due to the separation of state from religion, but we are not religion-free and there should be no covert invitation for any other to make the soup too salty to the taste. Yes, of course I am biased towards Christianity. The first of the Ten Commandments just happens to be: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

But now for a somewhat closer look at that parable of the Elephant. Is it such a good analogy after all? I am not so certain.

What each of the blind men describe is only part of the Elephant, and they all are mistaken when they claim their part to be the whole. Their opinions are not equally true. They are equally, and actually, false. If such an analogy of religious pluralism was meant to show that all religions are true and all paths lead to the one God, that is not the case at all. Their opinions are false, not true.

But what is even more important, should a seventh man arrive on the scene of the Elephant and happen to be able to see, then he has a distinct advantage with regards to knowing the truth about the Elephant. This knowledge could provide a revelation to the blind. But humans are frequently stubborn and arrogant, with those who are truly blind more than ready to disregard the revelation of one who can see. Not believing his credentials of sight, they will accuse the seeing man of all manner of things - heresy, madness, an overactive imagination, lies and deceit. Only some will accept his word, that which is Truth and Reality.

Just for the record, Article 841 of the Catholic Catechism states: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Islam acknowledges that it serves the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, in so doing it claims that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were Muslims! A banner recently waved by Muslim protestors to the Pope’s recent visit to Turkey even claimed that “Jesus is not the Son of God. He is a prophet of Islam.” Islam retrospectively makes such claims that preceed it’s own existence and where, unlike the person of Christ, there is no prophetic mention of anything Islam in the Old Testament writings. Islam has appropriated Judaism and Christianity to itself, distorting them for it’s own purposes. Contrary to Article 841 of the Catholic Catechism, Abdullah Al Araby gives many reasons in his paper, God of Christianity vs. Allah of Islam, that clearly show how Yahweh and Allah are not the same as each other. Dallas M. Roark writes in his paper, Is there a true religion?, the following summation:

We cannot conclude that the god of Islam is the same as Yahweh of the Old Testament who becomes Incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth to redeem mankind. This finality in Christ eliminates any other coming prophet such as Muhammad. The epistle of Hebrews speaks with finality about God's last word, his highest word, coming in his Son. Islam cannot therefore be regarded as an extension, culmination, or completion of the Judeo-Christian tradition. While there are prophets mentioned in the New Testament they were in agreement with the Christian Gospel and did not seek to supersede the New Testament revelation or claim a different revelation.
(Mt. 23:34; Acts 11:27-29; 13:2-3; 15:32;21:9-11; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5;4:11, for example)

The followers of Islam are like those blind men who will not believe the revelation of the one who sees. Their Qur’an convinces them so:

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them,” (Quran 5:73, Yusufali).

“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve,” (Quran 5:73, Pickthal).

For further discussion relating to the dissimilarity of Islamic and Christian belief, see Judah’s Journal entry of 14 November, 2005, called Are we being swallowed alive? and ensuing comments.

Pope Benedict’s comments proved to be too hot to handle. They suspiciously appeared to call into question either the Muslim interpretation of God, or the veracity of the god that they claim to be Allah. His comments were insightful, but a little too daring. They were a challenge to look for the Truth. And of course, at the end of the search, the sighted Person whose revelation can be trusted as Truth is none other than the One whom many of us know to be Jesus.

I agree with the following as the most appropriate Biblically Christian relationship we can have with any other religion in terms of inter-faith dialogue. There is no place for inventing and promoting theologic commonality where such does not exist.

Christian Response by Dr Joseph Mizzi

The Christian response to the Muslims is twofold.

Firstly, we must separate ourselves from Islam and clearly state that it is a false religion. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). Christians do not have any ecumenical relationship with Muslims. We cannot participate in their idolatry by saying that we worship the same God. On the contrary, we must warn them that since they do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, they do not have God.

Secondly, we have an evangelistic responsibility towards Muslims. They have been indoctrinated against the Son of God. We must proclaim Him as the Son of God, the Lord from Heaven, the Saviour of the World. We must proclaim that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. This is our message to Muslims, and to the rest of the world, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

On my page Just what is it about Islam? I recently posted a disclaimer concerning a misrepresentation of me made on a forum to which I am not a member nor had previously visited. I discovered it by tracking back on a link that appeared in my Journal statistics. It was probably the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of an otherwise well-meaning person who posted there and I am sure it was not intended to cause any mischief. However, some false claims were made of me that I have never made of myself. It is not particularly pleasant to find oneself criticized for things one has never said nor done, and I wanted to set the record straight on Judah’s Journal so that readers know what is the truth and what is not. It does highlight the need to take care when making statements about others, and being sure that one has understood and can substantiate any claims that are made.

One of the authors I have referenced in my comments on Islam is Robert Spencer. He is committed to exposing the facts about Islam and the prophet of Islam. However, in doing so, he receives considerable flak from Muslims who resent what he writes and accuse him of disseminating lies based on hatred and fear. It is important for the reader to regard critically all such protests that set about trying to discount this kind of information. Many who protest are Muslims who want to present a nicer side to Islam. They themselves may truly and wholeheartedly believe their version of Islam to be the truth, but it is a version that is at variance with the facts highlighted by these authors noted here and on websites beyond this one. Some of these Muslims have adopted a “moderate version” of Islam and claim that the “radicalized” Islam of the Middle East is not true Islam. However, there is much to be said about this position as the “moderate” believers do little (if anything) to defy their own Muslim brotherhood whose beliefs and behaviours are such a cause for concern, and much else is also denied in the face of objective reality. The claim that these authors are spreading lies and have an agenda based on hatred and unrealistic fear is unfounded. Objective reality demonstrates very clearly that reasonable fear of Islam is not unrealistic and that the facts are proven truthful, substantiated both by world events and Muslims themselves. One must really question the agenda of those “moderate” Muslims who deny that it is the case and insist upon a benign interpretation of Islam instead.

In Robert Spencer’s latest book, The Truth about Muhammad, he discusses why the truth about the prophet of Islam really matters. Was Muhammad a figure of compassion and peace, or was he a violent and evil murderer, warmonger and paedophile? Spencer discusses this issue by drawing on information from solely Muslim sources, and he says that it matters greatly because…

- for if he was indeed a man of peace, one may reasonably hope that his example would become the linchpin of reform efforts in the Islamic world that would eventually roll back the influence of jihad terrorists. If he really championed democracy and equality of the sexes, one could profitably invoke his example among Muslims, who revere him as the highest example of human behavior, to work for these ideals in the Islamic world. But if the jihad terrorists are correct in invoking his example to justify their deeds, then Islamic reformers will need to initiate a respectful but searching re-evaluation of the place Muhammad occupies within Islam - a vastly more difficult undertaking.

This post is not intended as a complete review of Robert Spencer’s newly published book, but it is possible that I will publish my review of it here very soon. Meanwhile, it needs to be said that the truthful portrayal of Muhammad is the critical measure of Islam and whether it can be regarded as the religion of peace and tolerance as claimed by “moderate” Muslims who constantly criticize and discount the exposure of Islam by writers such as Spencer, or as the religion of violent hatred and intolerance which is evidenced by world events and what we so often read in the Qur’an and the Hadith.

I did something that I wish I had never done. It made such an unbearable impact on me and has become the substance of nightmares, those all too real for comfort. Just one unwitting mouse click then a distraction that took my eyes away for just a moment. When I looked up I saw in full progress a video clip of an Islamic infidel beheading. A beheading - the neck of a real person being sawn right through with all the writhing and the gore. I wont go on, and nor did the video because I stopped it right away. But not fast enough for the grissly scene to have a deep effect on me as the head came off. This was something that had happened for real. It is something that keeps happening - for real. It is something that simply must be made to stop.

Recently Pope Benedict received a letter, the full text of which can be found here:
Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

I am both troubled by this letter, and heartened by it - two opposed reactions which has me wanting to treat it very cautiously. I will comment on both reactions for others to know what are my concerns.

1. The part that heartens me

An impressive list of significant Muslim intellectual and political figures have put their signatures to this letter - 38 of them in all. These people have now committed themselves to the statements that they have made in the text of the letter. These statements present a less aggressive form of Islam with condemnation for the violence that we are seeing on a daily basis (yes daily - click here and scroll towards the bottom of the page) and by signing their names to this letter they may be held accountable to the statements they make as facts about Islam.

That these people have come together may be the beginning of an authoritative voice of Islam that can moderate the thinking and actions of those who behave outside the claims to the nature of Islam as made in this letter. It may be the beginnings of a movement towards reformation of Islam, something to be greatly encouraged.

2. The part that troubles me

Islam has embedded within it a sanction that permits deception - the principles of al-taqiyya and kitman which allow lying in certain circumstances, one of those being to effect a peace or reconciliation.

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali, one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time, says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

This subject is discussed in detail here by Vernon Richards in his e-book, Islam Undressed.

There are statements in the letter which are not supported consistently within Islam and do not stack up with the reality of current world events, nor with the history of Islam.
~ An example is the issue of abrogation of Surah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”). The signatories to the letter deny its abrogation whereas many other Islamic scholars quoting the Qur’an on the subject do not. Who is right? Even if this surah is not considered abrogated in some quarters, there are a great many other surah which command violence to non-believers unless they recant their own faith and convert to Islam. This surah becomes practically irrelevant in light of all the others.
~ There is the glaring omission of dhimmitude used as a means of “persuading” non-Muslims to convert to Islam through harsh subjugation laws including penalties such as jizya, the extra taxes levied upon them.
~ The one-sided view of jihad plays down the external warring side supported by the Qur’an and well documented here. Historically Islam is well known for its “bloody borders” and offensive wars.

According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet’s death, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west….In the 7th century A.D. Muhammad's Bedouins defeated the Persian and eastern Roman empires, and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. This period, referred to as Islam's ‘golden years', is what many Muslims aspire to be restored. The invaders eventually were stopped in the east in 718 at the city walls of Constantinople, and in the west in 732 some 200 miles from Paris. There followed another thousand years of seesaw wars on sea and land before the last Middle Eastern attack on a major European city, Vienna, which was repulsed in 1683. Those who expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam's founding in the 7th century, expect them to jettison core values of their faith - something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history.
Source

It is not proven that Pope Benedict, a learned and reputable scholar himself, made the errors that this letter proposes that he did. We must await the outcome of further dialogue between His Holiness and the signatories of this letter or their representatives. Another view is presented in M.A. Khan’s essay Was the Pope Wrong? and it is worth considering some of the points made there.

My concerns have not yet been addressed by the signatories to this letter. There is still a great deal of ground to cover, and reformation to occur within Islam - if that is possible at all.

The Islamic Agenda is supported by the strategy of Islamicization of Europe published in 1980 by the Islamic Council of Europe, quoted here from the website of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo (International Director of the Barnabas Fund and the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. Dr Sookhdeo holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon for his work in the field of pluralism.)

Europe is undergoing a rapid process of change as Muslims make their presence felt in politics, economics, law, education and the media. While there is a wide range of attitudes amongst Muslims in Europe, with many who are broadly content with the status quo and just want to live their lives peacefully, others are striving deliberately to drive forward the changes. As a result of the efforts of the latter, Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.

Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam. (M. Ali Kettani “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105)
Source

In light of the statement from the Islamic Council of Europe, consider the reported words of Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In 1998 he addressed a gathering of Muslims in California and urged them not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with non-believers, advising them not to assimilate but to be “open to society without melting (into it)”, keeping mosques open so anyone can learn about Islam. He then went on to say that…”If you choose to live here (in America) … you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Five years later he denied saying this, the truth of the report was re-asserted, and Ahmad did not follow up. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, made the same point more positively in 2003, saying that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.
Source

There are clearly mixed voices in Islam, and we do not know yet which will prove to be the strongest. The reality that we see before our eyes - the increasing encroachment of Islam into Western civilization with its attempts to engulf and dominate, combined with the agression and bloodshed, and demands for appeasement - will need to be stopped if we are to believe anything at all of the voices from the other side of Islam.

My concern is that it may not be another side at all, but just another “more gentlemanly” surge of Islam through the efforts of its intellectuals to give us hope when that hope is only an illusion.

I would dearly love to see a reformation in Islam whereby the aggressive agenda is dropped in every respect. My response to that letter was as I described - conflicted. If these 38 Muslim scholars and political figures can make a difference by bringing in a more moderate version of Islam and (this is the essential part) behavioural changes throughout the Islamic world, that is certainly what I am hoping will happen. That is indeed to be encouraged. I have shared my reasons for concern and believe I have substantiated them well enough with the links I have provided. They are my concerns whether they are those of others or not. I don’t believe I need justify them any further.

My concern is also for revealing the truth, not for hiding it such that we are not wise to what is reality. Reality is truth; truth is reality - they are pretty closely related if we are speaking of objective truth. Given the background of the reality of world events, the reality of Qur’anic doctrine, the reality of Islam as practiced in Middle Eastern countries - ignoring these things is just plain foolish. Yes, they make me feel cautious. So I shall wait cautiously for what transpires next, hoping that if these 38 gentlemen do have power and influence and authority in Islam, then we should see a radical change of behaviour compared to the atrocities currently committed in the name of Allah. I hope they will prove to have more charisma (and thus the “tipping point”) than the Muslims who whip up the majorities to outrage and acts of barbarism and terrorism.

There must be absolutely no more beheadings and mutilations, no more atrocities, no more persecution, no more offensive acts of barbary and terrorism. Whatever it takes - it must be made to stop. I will be holding those 38 signatories accountable to their letter to the Pope.

While giving a history lesson to around 1500 Catholic theology students the Pope, reading from a 14th century document, quotes the words of Emperor Palaeologos: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Two Muslims responding in outrage storm a Catholic hospital in Somalia and shoot a 65 year old nun 3 times in the back, killing her and then her body guard. Others burn Catholic churches, threaten death and violence towards the Pope, and Islamic clerics say he must step down from office. A hardline cleric, Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin, also in Somalia, told worshippers at his mosque to hunt down and kill whoever offended the Prophet Mohammed. The Pope has said in a statement that he was “deeply sorry” for the reaction to his comments, and that the emperor’s words did not reflect how he himself felt. He said the intent of his remarks were to call for a dialogue on the role of religions in modern life.

But Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza’s Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, is now calling for holy war against “this little racist” Pope. He rejects the Pope’s stated apologies. “He did not apologize. He said everything but an apology, which proves these are diplomatic acts and not a feeling of being sorry.” Of the Muslim reaction he continues, “We are deeply sorry for these acts that we condemn. But I am sorry that this little racist did not think of the consequences upon the Christians in the Arab world when he insulted our Prophet. It is an open war - the Muslims against all the others.” (Er, deeply sorry for those violent acts but calling for jihad, more violent acts?)

I personally have tremendous regard for Pope Benedict. I like him a lot. I believe he is a Godly man, and in so many ways a Godsend to us all. This whole terrible debacle has saddened me greatly. Muslims and Christians are forever speaking past each other as they have such different mindsets, entirely different worldviews. To me it is unspeakable, unconscionable, outrageous and outlandish, that anyone could go and kill another human being as retaliation for something read aloud from a history book. The reaction surely only goes to prove the truth of the Emperor’s words if Muhammad is their role model as he is claimed to be. But to a Muslim it is a capital offence to say anything at all, repeat anything at all, that maligns Mohammad - unfortunately the truth included. He is to be considered above all criticism. They will defend and avenge his “honour” with the sacrifice of lives if necessary. That is really hard for us to understand, most especially given our knowledge of Mohammad’s life and teachings. We are simply poles apart on this.

It saddens me that there has been so little overt support for Pope Benedict from other western leaders. The west is cowering before militant Islam, vainly hoping that appeasement will lessen the threat and turn it back from its encroachment. Instead we are to apologize for speaking what we believe to be the truth, and as well as that, to make it our own responsibility when others commit crimes in protest of such truth. Muslims will indeed be our conquerors if this is allowed to continue, and what we know as truth will be overturned, replaced with their ideology alien to our culture. How long before a Pope may no longer preach Christ crucified, nor resurrected, as the Qur’an says that never happened? Our dhimmitude will be the death of us.

Why does Pope Benedict seem to be backing down? Is he losing his honesty and courage? Somehow I don’t think so. He is a very learned man, and one of great integrity as well. As a Christian he will want to work very hard for peace - at least give it his very best shot - but not peace at any price. I discern in him a great strength of character as well as love for truth. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors, nor within a person’s heart. He has a very hard job to do and my prayers are certainly with him.

Postscript:
Yashiko Sagamori has written an especially erudite essay entitled Silence of the Sheep in which she asks “What should have been the appropriate response to Pope Benedict XIV after he recklessly quoted a dead Byzantine emperor?” and discusses the responses from the various different groups to Pope Benedict’s use of the quotation from Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425).

So Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, has been “terminated” and “eliminated”. This Muslim so devoted to his cause committed the most evil deeds during his short life time, and was responsible for the torture and murders of thousands of people. He will be missed alright, and gratefully so by a great many more thousands and thousands who want the wings of Islam severely clipped and their criminals receiving the justice they deserve. My own reaction was a sense of great relief, but tinged with a surprising sadness as well. I heard the cheers of those delighted by the success of the raid, but I could feel no joy in the deed. Yes, it is certainly “good riddance” and the world will be much better off without him. Unfortunately, there are still more of the same to take his place, so the situation continues although this may cripple their cause for a while. I heard how this man will now be enjoying his 72 virgins and houris in Paradise, or else finding out that he really did “back the wrong horse” having been successfully duped through his mind-numbing brain-washing beliefs. And that is the source of my twinges of sadness - that he was someone who backed the wrong horse, followed the wrong leader, worshipped a false god, and was severely deceived. Now he is paying the price, and the price is eternal.

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, in the first chapter of his book titled Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, looks at how we can know that Christianity is true. In discussing faith and reason, he considers the rational and evidential arguments of reason, then regarding faith turns his attention to the work of God through the Holy Spirit. For the believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the inner witness of God’s Spirit provides the assurance of the truths to which are testified. The believer knows the truth by God’s Spirit. Those who do not believe do not have such an experience, and it will not become theirs until such a time that they do (if they choose to) believe. But the work of God’s Spirit is different when it comes to the unbeliever. Jesus describes this work of the Holy Spirit in John 16:7-11.

7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Would someone like al-Zarqawi ever have been subjected to any promptings of God’s Spirit? Would he ever have been convicted of his own sin, of God’s righteousness, and of his own condemnation before God? Did this happen and he chose to ignore it? Is this true of any Muslim at all? After all, they do make claim to know God (whom they call Allah) and to an understanding of what Allah wants them to do, and they lay claim to a sharing of Jesus as a prophet although not the Messiah.

The problem is that very little of what is written in the Qur’an actually gives a view of God as known to Christians, and their prophet ‘Isa (whom they claim to be Jesus) is nothing like the Jesus of the New Testament, the historical Jesus whose life, death, resurrection and teachings are recorded in the Gospels. Their Allah does not have a Holy Spirit - he is not our triune God. Would a man’s conscience alone be enough to tell him that certain things - scheming to murder, torture, beheadings, etc - are the wrong way to act? The Qur’an says it is the right way to treat the infidel and bring about our dhimmitude and eventual submission to Allah, or else death. I wonder if al-Zarqawi, in his prayers to Allah or thoughts about his Islamic faith ever received a niggle of conscience, a thought that something was wrong, that so much death and destruction could ever be right? I don’t know the answer to that.

All I can hope for is God’s justice on his soul. Many are ready to condemn him to rot in hell for all his evil deeds. How vindictive we can all be when someone like him is destroyed. This man was deceived, badly deceived, and he bought into the deception with one huge commitment to his Islamic faith, maybe tempered by whatever worldly rewards were offered as well. That has been devastating for many, and gives us just cause to fight against such evil. Our fight must go on but it is not merely between populations on this planet, but even more importantly, it is a spiritual one also.

Islam stops at the church door

{clip} … Church leaders have decided there is no place for the call to prayer, known as The Adhan, in St Paul’s Church in Paraparaumu.

But though The Adhan cannot be sung, “in a spirit of generosity and reconciliation” a recording of it will be played in the church foyer to cover the choir’s silence.

The 110 members of the combined Kapiti Chorale and Kapiti Chamber Choir are scheduled to perform The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace in the church this weekend.

The composition also includes texts from the Koran and the Hindu Mahabharata, but the church has not asked for them to banned.

Archdeacon Perris said:
“For some people the idea that another faith’s statement of belief be proclaimed inside a consecrated Christian church building is offensive. Other people hold totally opposite views. We could not ignore people coming to us, including choir members, voicing concern that it was contrary to their beliefs that a declaration of Islamic faith should be proclaimed inside our sacred space.”

Mohammad Amir, Wellington Muslim community religious adviser said:
“The nature of The Adhan is that the music does not go with it.”
… but that there was no reason The Adhan could not be performed inside an Anglican church - just that it was inappropriate for it to be accompanied by music.

I don’t feel entirely comfortable about having other religions creep into Church this way. I really do wonder why the Church should be using texts from other religions. There are plenty in Scripture to cover every situation that I can imagine.
But then, what about secular texts such as inspirational poetry? Some of that is very Christian in flavour.
Oh, and some of those hymns that get sung do have rather dubious words: “And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God on England’s pleasant pastures seen? …” (Hymn #578, BCP - “Jerusalem“)
Why allow heterodox hymns and maybe not orthodox poems? It is all just a little tricky, I guess.

I am glad that Archdeacon Perris took a stand. Knowing what I do about Islam, I think I would have taken an even stronger stand. Rather than confuse the Islamic Allah with our triune God, I would prefer to have the Adhan reserved for use in mosques where the call to prayer to Allah is not confused with prayer to Our Father God. Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are definitely not one-and-the-same, their characters being entirely different in too many respects.

Mr Amir can speak only for Islam when he says that the Adhan can be performed inside an Anglican Church - and I am perfectly happy to trust that was all he intended by his words. The Church of England needs to make the ruling on that, and I have no idea if it has or not, or what such a ruling would be. I hope such a ruling would support the decision made by Archdeacon Perris, but knowing the strong liberal voice undermining Christianity in the Church of England at present, I could not be at all confident of that.

Reading the Letters to the Editor of Wellington’s “Dominion Post” daily newspaper I am noticing an interesting phenomenon. On the subject of Islam, those letters signed by an Islamic sounding name are all for promoting the false idea that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, whereas those letters signed by European sounding names are refuting such nonsense and pointing out the reality instead. The latter have generally become better informed than those whom one would hope might know a little more about the religion they supposedly practice. It is hugely disappointing that Muslims do not acknowledge what is written in their Qur’ans and stop treating the rest of us as ignoramuses. It is very obvious to most that all through history Islam has had bloody borders, and that today terrorism is still delivered largely by Muslim hands. If anyone has any doubts about that and would like to make some comparisons, then check out the bald facts presented by the Islam: The Religion of Peace website.

However, it is apparently not obvious to everyone yet, especially our leaders, as the letter I read in yesterday’s newspaper, signed by someone with an Islamic sounding name, quoted none other than Tony Blair from an interview with Newsweek back in December 2001. Back then Mr Blair is quoted as saying “True Islam is immensely tolerant and open. Fundamentalism in Islam is no different from the Protestants who go on the streets of Belfast and shoot a Catholic, any Catholic. We’ve all had our fundamentalists.” Of course some water has flowed under the bridge since then, and the Protestants and Catholics have stopped shooting each other in Belfast, but nothing has changed regarding what is written in the Qur’an about slaughtering infidels to further the agenda of Islamic domination and universal global submission to Allah. We have since been told that Mr Blair has a copy of the Qur’an for bedtime reading, and that he has read it cover-to-cover twice over now. What is not quite so well known is that reading the Qur’an from cover-to-cover can leave you very uninformed about Islam unless you also know the chronological order in which Qur’anic surahs (chapters) were written and therefore which ones will negate contradictory earlier ones. The surahs of the Qur’an are not presented chronologically but in order of their relative lengths instead. Mr Blair has so far given no indication at all that he understands that fact, nor the results of applying that fact (nasikh - the abrogation of earlier surahs by contradictory later ones) in order to correctly understand the message of Islam.

The letter also quoted US President George W. Bush as saying: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” This apparently comes from somewhere on the official White House website. Clearly Mr Bush has not been properly informed either - or else he is engaging in a little taqiyya of his own - either diplomacy, cunning or outright cowardly appeasement.

The letter finishes with it’s final sentence as follows: “Anybody who doubts the integrity of Islam shouldn’t prove their own intolerance by judging something they don’t understand.”

Oh boy, now that is rich! It just so happens that maybe we who “doubt the integrity of Islam” have extremely good reason to do so, and that not only the word “intolerance” is used here according to the postmodern language revisionist’s devious definition of it’s meaning, but that we also understand far more than the writer is prepared to acknowledge. We understand the writer either does not know his own religion, or if he does, that he doesn’t want us to understand it truthfully either.

One of the reasons for the existence of Judah’s Journal is to provide true information on the subject of Islam, helping to dispell some of the many myths that people believe about it, and to highlight the dangers it poses for our western civilization.

You might like to see how you go on answering the following questions.

The correct answers can be found by researching the resources on the page “Just what is it about Islam?” (see left-hand sidebar) or else in the first comment made to this post.

There are no prizes for gaining 100% other than your own inward glow of satisfaction, but you are very welcome to boast of your success (or confess your failings - for kindly commiseration, of course) in the comments section below.

1. What does the word “Islam” mean?

2. What is the name given to the principle of abrogation by which contradictory surahs are correctly interpreted?

3. Is it true that Islam normally separates state and religion?

4. What is the word for “holy hypocrisy” which allows Muslims to deceive and give a false rendition of truth - or simply not tell the truth when it suits their cause not to do so?

5. There is a simple Islamic proverb that says: “If you can't cut your enemies' hand, - - - - it.” What is the missing word?

6. In which century was Muhammad born?

7. What is Muhammad’s full name?

8. Is it true or false that the pre-Islamic Allah was the pantheistic Moon god with three daughters?

9. Is it true or false that Muhammad could neither read nor write?

10. Who became Islam’s Caliph on the death of Muhammad?

11. Islam has divided into numerous sects. What are the three largest ones?

12. What is the name of the unseen beings (not angels) that Muslims believe exist?

13. Name the five pillars of Islam.

14. What are the words of the Shahada?

15. What is Jannah?

16. What is the Ka’aba?

17. What is the Jizya?

18. What is the name given to the legal verdict given based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the recorded sayings and deeds of Muhammad)?

19. Muslims divide the world into two sectors: Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb. What do these two terms translate to in English?

20. Islam may be the fastest growing religion today, but are there more Muslims, Christians or Hindus in the world?

An item in today’s newspaper reads as follows:

An Afghan man is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be charged with converting from Islam to Christianity, a crime under the country’s Islamic sharia laws.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his family accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada said. Rahman was charged with rejecting Islam.

During the one-day trial last week, Rahman allegedly confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker for a Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

This is a very serious charge. The prosecution is going for the death penalty unless Abdul Rahman converts back to Islam.

But wait a moment… aren’t we still being told by the Islamic apologists that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance? That is the story that Mr Javed Khan, the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ, was trying to tell us a couple of weeks ago. He also said that Islam does not preach violence. Killing someone for choosing a different religion is not violence? Refusing to allow someone to choose their own faith is showing tolerance?

Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada clarifies this for us as follows:

“We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law. It is an attack on Islam.”

Outlawing any other religion is not the same as being against any other religion?
Someone converting to Christianity is an attack on Islam?

Yes, it is very much clearer now.
Why didn’t Mr Javed Khan say it like that in the first place?

And a message to all other Christians who are free to choose their own faith…
Please remember Abdul Rahman in your prayers, that he stays faithful to the end, and that the end is not that which his captors have planned for him.
The rest of us may have difficulties thrust upon us by critics of Christianity within our own free cultures, but they do not come anywhere near the kind of persecution that many suffer daily and hourly elsewhere on this planet. The price for some is far greater than many of the rest of us will ever have to pay. Let us never forget the persecuted church, nor forget that we have been told to pray for our enemies also.

This is just sickening!

The only heartening thing was that the folks I spoke with about it today all said it was *that rude word pertaining to excrement* and asked who did they think they were kidding?
The trouble is, they were trying to kid everyone. They… I really mean him; the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Mr Javed Khan.

The Dominion Post newspaper yesterday morning did a large full-page feature “Debunking the Myths” regarding Islam. Now if any Kiwis reading this Journal have also just read this feature, please be warned that most of it is a spin-doctoring account that debunks the truth and perpetuates the dangerous myth that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. The article is peppered with outright lies. To someone who does know the truth about Islam, I was utterly dismayed that this piece of writing was published. Doesn’t our newspaper’s editor know anything - anything? This piece of writing flies right in the face of hard factual evidence quite to the contrary. I will mention some of the lies that it told…

1. “The most negative and damaging stereotype that some people hold is that Muslims are terrorists and a security threat to the countries in which they live… These atrocities have absolutely no sanction in Islam, and there is never a justification in our religion for taking innocent lives.
It is galling that militant extremists have hijacked the name of Islam and used it as a cover for their grotesque actions. They have exploited a twisted notion of religion to recruit those who are victims of oppression, inequality and exploitation.”

Yes, it is a very negative and damaging “stereotype” but it is absolutely true that it is Muslims who have perpetrated terrorist acts in the name of Islam, Allah, and jihad following the instructions that are found very clearly written in the Qur’an. There is no “interpretation” required of the verses in the Qur’an which set out in no uncertain terms how Muslims are to behave towards non-Muslims in the name of Islam, Allah and jihad. This is no “hijacking” of Islam - this is what the real Islam is about, as defined by the Qur’an. The Qur’an absolutely does sanction these atrocities and how one defines “innocent” has to be in accordance with Islam - the infidel are not innocent until they submit to Allah.

2. “Let me be clear about this: Islam does not preach violence.”

There are no less than 149 overt surahs in the Qur’an that unequivocally preach violence toward the infidel. To claim that Islam does not preach violence is an absolute denial of fact. It is an out-and-out lie. Please see my page “Just what is it about Islam?” for references and links to credible supporting evidence of this fact.

3. “Islam is a religion that espouses peace.”

Islam defines “peace” as being that state when universal submission to Allah has been achieved. This is the kind of “peace” that Islam espouses. It is not peace as most of the rest of us understand it. There will be no peace until this Islamic agenda has been achieved. Quoting my friend, Mark Alexander… “Muslims believe that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for all time. They call it ad deen al kamal, the perfect religion. People, in their eyes, who have not yet submitted to the will of Allah, are in a state of pre-Islamic chaos, a state known to them as Jahiliyyah! To Muslims, all Muslims, the whole world is classified in two parts: that part of the world which has submitted, and is therefore in the Islamic state, known as Dar al Islam, and that part of the world which has yet to submit, and is therefore in a pre-Islamic, chaotic, jahiliyyic state, known as Dar al Harb, or the House of War!”
Peace comes about only when the entire world has submitted to Allah.
The Islamic concept of peace.

4. “Another common stereotype is that Muslims don’t integrate into NZ society, and that we are opposed to Western values.”

In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe issued guidelines for Muslims living in predominantly non-Muslim countries and made clear statements of how they were to conduct themselves. To read a copy of this statement please refer to my dedicated page on Islam as mentioned above. The extent to which Muslims in NZ have integrated may be variable, and it is true that they are behaving peaceably and contributing skills and labour in a way that does not set them apart from the rest of the population. However, it cannot be forgotten that Islam proposes a strategy based on the principle of taqiyya - or holy hypocrisy - which keeps agendas well hidden and has it’s people living in such a way that does not arouse suspicion. This entire feature article may well be an example of that! Western values include government by democracy. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that does not separate politics and religion, and it rules as a theocracy - from the word of Allah (the Qur’an) down to the people. This major fundamental difference immediately puts it at variance with Western values that include the freedoms we value so dearly.

The rest of the article gave answers to ten most commonly asked questions about Islam. Again, the answers showed evidence of taqiyya, an effort to make the truth palatable to Westerners.

1. Muslims believe in God - they call Him by the Arabic name “Allah”.

They call him Allah but his resemblance to the Creator Father God of the Jews and Christians is seriously deficient. There is a list of attributes where many are seen to reflect “the God of Abraham” who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, but in terms of character, Allah is a totally different being to God as we know our deity. In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the moon god who had three daughters, a supreme god but one of a pantheistic bunch of them. Muhammad cleverly used “Allah” to convince the Arabs that they were still worshipping one of their own gods, but he spruced him up (removing the three daughters and elevating him to Creator status) as an attempt to convince the Jews and Christians that he was talking about their God, the God of Moses and Abraham, also. The Jews saw through this, as did the Christians, and refused to be taken in by this con. Allah is not a personal god, and he is definitely not (in his Islamic form) a father. To call him such is, to Muslims, nothing short of blasphemy. Therefore many Christians would call him a false god and an idol, some even say the anti-Christ. At very least, Allah is a serious misrepresentation of God, a skewed perception, one distorted by the errant fantasies of Muhammad.

2. Muslims believe in the prophets - Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist, and Jesus.

But what they believe about them is something quite else. There are a number of significant discrepencies between the Qur’anic version of the lives of these people, and that recorded in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. They believe that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham went to sacrifice. They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Allah not being a father), nor that He was crucified on the cross, nor that He was resurrected - the all-important fundamental beliefs of Christianity. They claim that someone who just looked like Jesus was crucified instead. Muslims also believe that the Jews and Christians distorted and rewrote the Scriptures, and that God changed Jews into pigs and apes.

3. Muslims see Muhammad as their role model for how they are to live their own lives.

But the behaviour of Muhammad towards others, as described in the aHadith and as indicated in the Qur’an, is absolutely terrifying to most people - this is nightmare territory.

4. The Qur’an was reported not to condone terrorism - that terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

As mentioned earlier, this could not be further from the truth and besides the 149 overt surahs commanding torture and slaughter of the infidel - submission to Allah by way of the sword - this is not a perversion of Islam but the only possible meaning that can be derived from the words of the Qur’an.

5. Within Islam equal rights are given to all human beings, both male and female.

Completely untrue. Women are considered deficient in intelligence and it takes the witness of two of them to equal the witness of one man. Allah has instructed men to abuse their wives verbally, emotionally and physically if they do not obey them. A female inherits only half of a male's portion. For more examples of how Islam regards women: The Veil of Equality and Justice. Islam regards all non-Muslims as “dhimmies” or second-class citizens and they must pay an extra tax intended to subjugate them, and they are not afforded any rights and privileges that Muslims will have in an Islamic society. This is intended to humiliate them. Muslims are instructed in the Qur’an not to befriend an infidel.

The information that Mr Javed Khan has provided about Islam is either a classic example of taqiyya (holy hypocrisy) or is a “secular Islam” that is not true to form. It is true that secular Muslims may not be particularly literate in their own faith and so do not practice it according to the Qur’an. These Muslims will be called apostates by those who do practice true Islam, and they will not be regarded as true Muslims. They will also be slayed by the sword if they resist the call to practice fully.

When the NZ census figures were collected back in 1901, there was only one Muslim recorded as living in this country. Today there are about 40,000. Our total population is just over 4 million. Muslims are still proportionately a very small number, and therefore it is required that they live peaceably here. Only when the ratio changes in future to a much higher percentage will there be a call to assert more influence on the government towards elements of sharia-facilitating legislation. It is critically important that we know the real threat of Islam - the real Islam - and take all measures possible to minimize the risk of it developing to the situations now presenting in Britain and Europe.

The first day of March is the first day of Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere. We have had no cause to complain about our summer this year - it has been warm, sunny and for the most part, fine. When I have been missing from my computer, I have mostly been out in the garden, encouraging things to grow. So now I have lots of flowers with which to decorate my Journal.

There is something deeply satisfying about digging with one’s hands in the soil, crumbling the earth between the fingers, sifting it to pick out the tiny weeds that would soon grow humongous if left there to do so, and making it ready to nourish the new seedlings about to be planted. It is more natural than sitting at a keyboard, risking Overuse Syndrome, a stiff back and sore shoulders, and reading all the woes of the world. It has been my much-needed respite from the frustration of questioning how it can possibly be that still, yes, even still, so many people have not yet comprehended the agenda of a certain aggressive and imperialistic ideology that slaughters and slanders but insists on appeasement on threat of more persecution and carnage to come. How can people not see it? Are they blind? Are they deaf? Are they scared? Are they cowards?

There are so many voices out there now, telling how it is, pointing to the signs and asking our leaders to stop and to notice, to think and remember. History forgotten is bound to repeat. Appeasement does not bring about peace. Oh where is Churchill just when we need him? Is there a Churchill anywhere out there? Or are all our leaders just modern-day Chamberlain clones instead?

A Roman Catholic Archbishop had something realistic to say. Yes, we could be a little more sensitive and try to avoid treading on the toes of others - but they must stop destroying us! The idea of reciprocity must not be ignored. If the intention is to destroy us, then considering such sensitivities as trodden-on toes has very low priority in the light of a far greater issue, surely that of our very survival. Is a blasphemous bruise as bad as a bomb and brutal beheadings? I guess a touch of perspective tells that it depends on whose toes versus whose headless torso.

But if the reader who came calling from a certain cartoon site is the same one who claimed I know nothing of this subject, and that this ideology is good, then please look to the left-hand sidebar and visit my page on Islam. Hiding one’s head in the sand will not make anything go away. It is simply premature burial, leading to death whatever the order of things. Or look to the words of wisdom below and weigh up the witness of world events. Yes reader, I am sad too - just like you. I am sad that so many have been deceived by this devilish doctrine that pushes domination and death.

I think that one of the most horrifying images that has caught in my mind is that of the mother who dressed the third of her sons to follow his two other brothers on a murder-suicide mission, and jubilant in his death she told how she has five more she is grooming for the same end. I am a mother. I have a son. What a horrendous distortion of maternal instinct to so joyfully commit your own child to such an end.

‘The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state’
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 19/02/2006)

Please take time to read these disturbing results of a recent survey conducted by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo.
Forty percent of Muslims in Britain want Sharia law introduced in predominantly Muslim communities in Britain.

But before I continue, some baseline facts derived from the 2001 census:

Ethnic groupings within the United Kingdom:
white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
Religions within the United Kingdom:
Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)
Total Population:
60,441,457 (July 2005 est.)

Regarding those infamous cartoons…

“They [British Muslims] think they have won the debate,” he [Dr Patrick Sookhdeo] says with a sigh. “They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

“The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that’s a clear victory.

“It’s confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call ‘adverse consequences’ - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.”

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that “in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

“It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.”

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo has a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon for his work in the field of pluralism. He was born and raised a Muslim, but converted to Christianity when at university, and his doctorate was based on his study of Islam, a subject where he has expert knowledge and experience. He has also written and lectured widely in the field of other faiths. Both Patrick and his wife Rosemary hold dual New Zealand and British citizenship.

Here are some other interesting words of his that are worthy of note:

In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe.

When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states.
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam.

(M. Ali Kettani “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States
(London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105

OK, so what would you do?

I have listened to many suggestions, from rounding up all Muslims and deporting them to wherever elsewhere, some Muslim country somewhere, whether they are legal British citizens or not… to working even harder to appease these folk and help them to integrate into society.

I have been told that diversity is beneficial and makes for a better and more interesting society, that the problem is not diversity itself but our reactions to it instead. In line with that view, I have also been reminded that Jesus, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, would have a problem with segregation.

But whoa! Is that a true thing to say of Jesus?

Galations 3:
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

For those who have been baptized in His Name there is no segregation as all of those are one in Christ.
Does that include those who have not been baptized in His Name? It doesn’t say so there.

Dr Sookhdeo believes that the problem is not with the majority of Muslims (I presume he means the 60% who did not answer that they want the introduction into Britain of Sharia law) whom, he claimed, are indeed moderate and accept separation of state and religion, but the problem is with their “self-appointed leaders” and the Islamic clerics. He sees a need to distinguish between these groups as the moderates came to Britain to move away from the theocracy from whence they came.

He saw, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a ‘community leader’, as being in reality someone with some very extreme views. Ramadan attacks liberal Muslims as ‘Muslims without Islam’ and he is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan calls the education in the state schools of the West ‘aggression against the Islamic personality of the child’. Ramadan says that ‘the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle’. Ramadan adds that ‘compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness’. Dr Sookhdeo claims that this man does not speak for the majority of Muslims at all.

Dr Mark Gabriel (not his original Arabic name) also describes a large majority of Muslims as “secular Muslims” - those who believe in the peaceful parts of Islam but reject the call to jihad. He described this large grouping as taking on the cultural trappings of the message but not living it out completely. They may be very dedicated to their system of thought although it does not represent true Islam. Dr Gabriel claims that a great many of Muslims around the world fall into this category. (See Gabriel, Mark A., Islam and Terrorism, 2002) I have mentioned this man’s substantial credentials in another post in Judah’s Journal.

But back to Dr Sookhdeo and this, then, is what he would do…

“First, it [the Government] should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed ‘community leaders’ who don’t actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.

“Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed.

“The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.

“Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here.

“If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome.”

Personally, I have a problem with the idea of “rounding up all Muslims and deporting them” as that introduces legal issues that deny legitimate human rights to those who are not in agreement with the Islamic agenda. But I do believe in deporting illegal immigrants, those who are not British citizens and have no legal right to be in the country. Add to that, there could be a massive tightening of immigration laws to protect the established cultural heritage and law and order. Not at all politically correct, of course, but it is time that notion was recognized for what it is as well - the tyranny of the liberal left’s pluralism and multiculturalism. And there must be effective prosecutions and convictions (with deportations as appropriate) under whatever laws exsist, including new laws as necessary, to protect and strengthen the established cultural heritage. This is imperative - and no soft measures be allowed towards any relenting of objectives.

I also have a problem with those who throw at me religious ideas that are taken out of context. We should all be held accountable under the one established secular law, but to be so inclusive as to say that we are all, Christian and non-Christian alike, “one in Christ” is not what my Bible says.
What my Bible does say is that Jesus gave us two great commandments that summarized all the law and the prophets. They were to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbour as ourselves.
In my view, love includes maintenance of integrity and protection from harm and detrimental destruction as seen from a Christian perspective.

If governments began to take Islam seriously, came to appreciate its real agenda, and took the measures mentioned above and enacted them with absolute firmness, then this “middle road” between deporting all Muslims willy-nilly or cowardly appeasing all Muslims may be our way out. I know this idea will not necessarily be favoured by some of my friends who want all Muslims deported, and I am expecting some to be disappointed with me in this, but I respect Dr Sookhdeo’s views.
I believe in the right kind of firmness that takes control to stop the aggression on both sides. Disrespect for what is sacred is not a good idea, not of any religion - Christianity included. But that does not mean enforced submission to whatever is sacred of any religion - Islam included. I will cover my head with a scarf if I choose to visit a mosque (yes, I have already done that before) but I will not revere their prophet. Islam, nor any other immiscible ideology, must not be allowed to damage the integrity of our Western cultures. Democracy is about majority rule, not minorities conquering outside legitimate processes.
In my experience, freedom of the press actually does involve making discretionary decisions and the editing of some information. This happens routinely on an ordinary daily basis. I would often like to know more about certain issues but they are not in my paper because someone has decided they are not newsworthy, or has not written about them for whatever reason. But editorial discretion should not suffer from intimidation by any one group, or anyone at all.
The ongoing hysteria that has been whipped up lately is, in my humble opinion, both outrageous and ridiculous, serving the political purposes of those responsible for their own excessive reaction. This responsibility needs to be shifted back on to the shoulders of those doing the whipping up and the reacting, and they held accountable. The one who reacts is owner of the reaction.
Such a firmness that takes a fair and just control would then facilitate those of us who are charged to do so, to live according to something I very much believe in - the way that is holy and right in God’s eyes. The following words were written to Christians and actually refer to their interactions among the Christian brotherhood. However, they are to reflect outwardly in their relationship towards others as well:

Colossans 3:
1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

How much freedom do you think we have? And how much responsibility goes with such freedom?

I remember being told very early in the piece that with privilege comes responsibility, that one does not exist without the other - or should not, if one was a decent human being. I think the same can be said for freedom, since freedom is a privilege clearly not shared by all in this world. But what exactly is this responsibility that we have? To what extent must it be for others, and how much for ourselves?

The editors of the two NZ papers which printed the Muhammad cartoons yesterday apologized in a meeting with Muslim leaders and convened by the Race Relations Commissioner. They apologized for the offense caused, but did not resile from the decision to publish. In return, the Muslim leaders recognized freedom-of-the-press issues. The president of the (NZ) Federation of Islamic Associations felt it had been a successful outcome.

But what exactly is responsibility when it comes to personal reactions? If you do something that I find to be offensive, and someone else did not find to be offensive, then does that mean you did two different things? No, of course you didn’t. You did one thing, but there were two reactions. In fact, there can be as many reactions as there are people to react. So who is responsible for the reactions that occur - you, or the people reacting?

Two women are baking cakes in their kitchens, both of them using identical recipes. Coincidentally, both of them leave out the raising agent and the resultant cakes turn out to be a bit of a mess. One of the women, on taking her cake out of the oven, gapes in horror and then worries and starts the negative “self talk” that drags herself down into hopeless despair and self-loathing. Yes, there are many people around whose self esteem rest entirely on their achievements and can brook no failure without it reflecting in a somewhat fragile self image. But the other woman, on seeing her cake, gives a sigh of frustration but matter-of-factly sets about planning how to recover without any harm done. She does not catastrophize nor relate this to her own self esteem. Two quite different reactions to the identical situation, and each the responsibility of the owner of the reaction.

Two men have insults thrown at them, but in a language that they do not understand and so they have no idea what was said. They look at each other and pull one of those faces that says “Did you get that? Neither did I.” They did not feel insulted - not because no insults were thrown at them, but because they did not comprehend. Again they have the same insults thrown at them, this time in their own language which they do understand. The words are heard and a huge network of neurons fire within their brains, both cognitive and affective associations being made. One simply laughs and walks away. The other raises his fists and fights back. Who is responsible for each of their quite different reactions?

Now if I did something that you find to be offensive, I can certainly feel sorry that you have reacted that way, and I am likely to even say that - “I am sorry!” or “I am sorry that you are offended by what I did.” It is quite possible that I might even, out of compassion, say “I am sorry that I offended you” since I know it is not a pleasant experience to feel offended. But that is not to say that I should be blaming myself for your offence taken because, in fact, it was you and not me who is responsible for your own reaction. Would I do it again, knowing that you will be offended? Well… it would very much depend on what exactly it was that I did, and how important in the larger scheme of things it was that I did. I may not wish to offend you, but it may be that there are even more important things to consider. And this is where responsibility comes into the equation. The responsibility to consider all things and to make the decision that I honestly believe to be best.

So our two newspaper editors apologized for the offense caused, and the Muslim leaders recognized the freedom-of-the-press issues. I’m not exactly sure what that means. I would like to think that they took responsibility for their own reactions, but I have not been told that they did. If we are all to enjoy certain freedoms, which in this world are priveleges that all do not have, then we have a matter of responsibility to consider. Is it that we must be responsible for the reactions of others, and if so, to what degree are we responsible?

I think I have been hearing many say that we are indeed responsible for the reaction of others - that the Press is therefore irresponsible to publish information that will have negative social outcomes.

But just a moment… what about those who are doing the reacting? What about their own responsibilty for the attitudes and beliefs that they hold, and to curb their reactions in the interests of preventing negative social outcomes. Is responsibility to be abrogated for them? No, this is a both ways affair. And what about the responsibility we have to protect our freedoms, and to exert them despite the fact that not all will react in the same way? Oh-oh, there is much to consider in this whole big issue, and just right now when I observe the events on the world stage, it is still looking awfully one-sided to me.

With the current furore hotting up against Europe by enraged Muslims worldwide over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in several more newspapers - first in Denmark, and now in France (whose editor has been sacked for doing so), Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland - we have just heard that our capital city’s national daily newspaper plans to do the same in tomorrow morning’s issue. The editor already knows it is a risky move, the small percentage of the population who are Muslim having threatened that there will be consequences and reprisals.

Last month I posted an entry “Here We Go Again” concerning the special treatment that Christianity got in the way of ridicule and misrepresentation, with the pearls of believers being trodden into the mud. Some Christians had protested vehemently about the TV show “The Book of Daniel” created by Jack Kenny, and I asked how it was that political correctness did not work in favour of defending the Christian minority when it would seem to do so all other minorities. Would Jack Kenny dare to create a show doing the same to Islam, or would his head soon depart from his shoulders? The show was withdrawn after only three episodes, there not being enough interest to keep it running.

As a personal comment, I admit that I would not have considered drawing any such cartoons myself, not even now - no more so than I would have encouraged Jack Kenny to portray Christianity as he did either. But neither do I see these two actions as entirely equal to each other for reasons I mention below. Where my reservations occur is that Islam considers images of Muhammad an act of idolatry, and while it can be said that I will write the truth so why not draw the truth, and that it may seem rather precious to show respect where little may be deserved, I do respect the same sentiment in the Amish who will not draw faces on the dolls of their daughters. The bottom line is that I do not seek to give offence although should offence be taken when the action was justified, it may well be that the other has the work of reconciliation to consider. That is something about me, not anything about Islam.

The blogosphere is now spreading these cartoons around like crazy, and the Muslim reaction is incredible. Is there a difference in these situations - the Jack Kenny portrayal of Christianity, and the cartoons of Muhammad? Yes, I think that there is.

Those cartoons that I have seen so far are really nothing but mild in their portrayal of the prophet of Islam - the original ones published in Denmark. They say nothing at all about him that Muslims do not already say about him themselves. It says nothing about Islam that Muslims do not practice that is Islam. In short, they are for the most part objectively true representations. On the other hand, Jack Kenny’s portrayal of Christianity was not a true representation. It was a mockery and seriously lacked any resemblance to truth. Mulims do not like the caricatures, but they will readily worship the same aspects of their prophet as penned in the sketches.

There is another big difference to consider. What kind of reaction resulted in both cases? Compare the small amount of protest by a small number of Christians to the massive and amazingly excessive reaction of Islam where death threats have been issued, flags burned, apologies demanded and punishments requested, ambassadors (Libya and Saudi Arabia) withdrawn from Copenhagon, angry mob beatings, boycotts, a fatwa issued, and numerous diplomatic protests including to the United Nations itself.

Islam will not tolerate crticism, cannot stomach satire, and can laugh off nothing that it perceives as occurring against it. Humour is out. But in the west, this is not just about humour - it is the far more serious matter of holding on to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech surely must allow the freedom to criticize, to annoy, ridicule and even offend. There will always be some who object to something another has said, but except where the laws of libel and slander can be used to moderate such expression, this is considered a right that we need to defend as part of our culture. There are also laws against reactions that are excessive such as death threats and damage to property and person.

The really positive thing about this whole furore, and an outcome that is just what was needed, is that it appears that the west is now finally waking up to just what is involved by the encroachment of Islam. At last we have a situation where it becomes irrational and blind to approve the notion that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and that it has merely been hi-jacked by the likes of OBL, al Qaeda and the Hamas, etc, who make it appear to be something terrible that it is not. The hue and cry comes from ordinary Muslims everywhere. They are forgoing any practise of taqiyya and demonstrating just how intolerant and violent is Islam when a slight is perceived. This is the general reaction of all Muslims, not just a few who might be called radical. The real colours of true Islam are showing for all to see. So do we want to lose our freedoms for which our fathers and grandfathers fought to protect in the two world wars of the last century? Surely we don’t. But if we are not to say a word supposedly against Muhammad or Islam, then we are already losing those freedoms.

Now I am wondering what is going to happen in this country after tomorrow. Our newspaper editor knows very well that he is taking a risk. But he is taking a stand, and what worse things may happen if he doesn’t do that? I congratulate him on taking a stand for our freedom.

4 February:

The Wellington Dominion Post - Cartoons ‘test of Islamic tolerance’

The Wellington Dominion Post - Danish cartoons in NZ media raise concerns over trade risk

The Wellington Dominion Post - Editorial
The editorial expresses my own position well.

No cartoons of Muhammad are shown anywhere on this site, or on the sites linked to above.

With the recent success of the Hamas in Palestine, all Jews and Christians living in the region must be very worried indeed - as should we all. Christians once made up about 10% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but now their share of the population is believed to have fallen to less than 2%. Many are leaving to escape the increasing Islamicization of society and the constant violence. Folks are very scared that Palestine is destined to become a second Iran.

Hassam El-Masalmeh, the leader of the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, has already warned of an impending introduction of al-jeziya, a special tax which would be applied to all of the non-Muslim residents in the Palestinian territories. This tax revives the one applied through all of Islamic history to the dhimmi, the second-class Jewish and Christian citizens. This and other measures to humiliate and subdue non-Muslims are destined to be their lot.

Those who have read the Hamas Charter will know that these people intend to put into practice all that which is found in the Qur’an, and rule according to Shariah law. That can only mean more grief for those who are not Muslims.

Sometimes I wonder where our God is hiding in all of this great mess. Why is He allowing this to happen? Why isn’t He somehow putting a stop to all this violence and bloodshed, extreme irrational hatred and such force against all to whom He gave free will to choose for themselves? How does one believe in the words of the Psalmist where it is written “indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (verse 4) and “the LORD will keep you from all harm — he will watch over your life” (verse 7)? Doesn’t it all make rather a mockery of these words?

The hills in the photo background to the psalm are a part of New Zealand’s beautiful Southern Alps. The hills referred to by the Psalmist are those in the vicinity of Jerusalem, of which Mount Zion is one. As I understand it, the reference to Mount Zion is to the majesty and presence of God for it is on the holy hill of Zion where the ark of the covenant, the oracle, and the altars existed. To me the Southern Alps have that same quality about them - majestic and awesome, speaking of the presence of our majestic and awesome God. And the message is that we are to look to God for all our help when difficulties and dangers are greatest.

But what about the rest of David’s psalm - how am I to make sense of that in the light of what is happening in the Middle East? Well, this is how I understand it best.

Changing tack but still on the same course, remember what happened to Jesus after His baptism in the River Jordan by John the Baptist, and just before He began His ministry? We are told that he spent some time in the desert, fasting for 40 days and nights, and being tempted to use His divine powers in ways that were not the will of God. He was shown that He could have everything here on earth if only He turned from His Father, God.
When facing Pilate just before His crucifixion, Jesus said…

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:36

So what does all this have to do with the words of the Psalmist?

Now some may say that the following is a cop-out, but I don’t believe it to be so.

Being alive here and now, concerned for all I hear of what is happening in this world, horrified and fearful and sickened by the violent bloodshed, pain and grief that humans are able to inflict on each other, I am inclined to lower my eyes from those hills. I see what is in front of me, what is happening in this world, and I wonder where God is hiding. He doesn’t look to be there.
But the apparent foolishness to the worldly of those who are spiritual has me hearing what Jesus said that awful day to Pilate, and knowing which Kingdom that is His and where I, by the grace of God, believe I am heading will have me say that God does not depart from those who love Him. This current world is like a split second of time in all of eternity and the protection of our souls and our closeness to Him matters more than all else.

Oh boy, how can I say such a thing? Is God not in charge in this world too? Is He powerless to stop all this wanton carnage? Of course He is still in charge, and He remains omnipotent regardless. But He did give us free will and to go back on that part of the plan is clearly not consistent with His purposes. Well then, doesn’t it matter that our lives on this planet are battered and shattered and destroyed by the evil around us? Yes, of course it does! It matters a great deal. How could I feel as I do if it didn’t? But I honestly believe that something else matters far more. For a Christian, that is the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke before Pilate, the Kingdom of which He is King.

And for those who still believe that’s a cop-out, it needs to be remembered that those who love God are those who will demonstrate that through obedience to Him, and so be used in whatever way He asks of them. There is no sitting around moping and passing the buck - those bucks are usually passed right back to us. There is nothing here about passivity and denial of the reality of what is happening. We are to fight evil and replace it with His love, and that lovely Psalm of David reminds us to keep lifting our eyes to the hills and relying on the only One who can keep us wholly safe from the harm to our souls.