My last post “officially” identified me as a chickenhawk. The Man of the House, who is currently reading Don’t Waste Your Life
The basis to believing that the war is just – regardless of any reasons given by politicians or pundits – is believing that the enemy means what he says. A few examples are:
Carrying out terrorism…is one of the tenets of our religion and Shari’ah…This war is fundamentally religious…Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For the enmity is based on creed. — Osama Bin Laden
We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity. — Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad
We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you. – Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah
We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwah. – Osama Bin Laden
One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection. According to Allah’s religion, he has only one choice: ‘Repent or be killed.’ — Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi
(Quotes from the Gitmo Cookbook.)
The next question is, is it possible for them to fulfill their goals? Since 1979, we have seen not just terror attacks on a regular basis, but also a growing call for sharia law to be implemented in western countries. Although terror attacks are, well, terrifying, the ongoing encroachment of sharia law in western society is more dangerous. Honor killings are occurring in the west with startling regularity and rapes in countries with high Islamic immigrant populations have increased exponentially. Western women are considered immodest and consequently “fair game.” In America, they want the Quran on the top shelf. They want separate Muslim swim time at a taxpayer funded pool. They want the rest of the world to comply with Muslim religious rules like not displaying a picture of Mohammed. They want to broadcast on loudspeakers, five times a day, “Allah is most great… I testify that there is no God but Allah… There is none worthy of worship except Allah.” They want public school students to be required to learn the pillars of Islam, pray “in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful,” and learn Islamic proverbs in class. Ten years ago, could you have imagined this happening in California? This, in the same country where even “a moment of silence” is condemned by the ACLU, and making mention of Jesus in a public school is anathema. Western countries, thanks to multiculturalism and “tolerance” are voluntarily giving up the freedoms that made us great. Newspapers who gleefully printed photos of “Piss Christ” declined to print the Mohammed cartoons out of “respect.” It’s clear that progress toward the goal of a worldwide caliphate has been made. From a Washington Post article:
As the Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in Copenhagen broke for evening prayers, Muziz Abdullah, an affable native of Lebanon, surveyed a hall still with standing-room only. “Ten years ago, when I started, it was totally unrealistic to think there could be a caliphate,” he said. “But now, people believe it could happen in a few years.”
The goals of the radical Islamists have been clearly stated, their actions can be seen to fit with those goals, and progress is evident.
What will it mean if they are successful?
- You will pay tribute. Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla describes the Jizya, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: “…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”
- You cannot testify against a Muslim in court because you are not “qualified” to be under oath. If you own a company or are in management, you cannot have Muslims as subordinates.
- You can’t wear the cross, put it on your house or your church.
- You can’t broadcast or display your ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or publish any picture of religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
- You may not build new churches. You may not pray aloud or read the bible aloud in public, at home or in church. A Muslim might hear you and be offended.
The American Thinker has ten more reasons. Dan Simmons has a very prescient article about what life under the global caliphate would be like.
How should a Christian respond?
These statements are very compelling:
“The Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian. Hence Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war … fail to show love towards their neighbor as well as towards God.” — Darrell Cole
“My path is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live — this lost world — means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.” — Francis Schaeffer
“Do we have the right to not obey Islamic law?” — Jay Tea, Wizbang Blog, Thanks, but no thanks.
It will not honor God to allow our freedom to be taken away and our worship restricted. It does not honor God to allow our brothers and sisters in Christ to be enslaved. I freely acknowledge that in war, innocents will inevitably be killed no matter how hard we try to “surgically” strike at our enemies. We are engaging and killing radical Islamists. Killing people whose stated goal is to destroy our society, enslave or kill us seems better to me than allowing them to achieve their stated goals.
The ONLY anti-war argument that is persuasive to me is that we are going through all this yet allowing sharia governments to run the countries we liberated. The war is being imperfectly waged, in part because of our desire to be “tolerant” and say that all cultures are equal. The enemy has promised he will not extend that tolerance to us. Where Islam reigns, it is supreme.
Palestinians chose terrorism and sharia. Afghanistan chose sharia. Iraq chose sharia. Sharia is the antithesis of what America is all about. Sharia law means that Christian persecution (as well as any other faith, or lack of faith) is not just allowed, but is government policy.
A common refrain these days is that of a billion Muslims, only a few have actually attacked us. Therefore, Islam must be a peaceful religion which is being twisted by a few people. Perhaps it’s even true. But when Muslims have had the option of freedom, they have chosen sharia. Does this mean that moderate Muslims are a far smaller group than we have been led to believe? Does it matter? How many Germans really believed Hitler was correct, and how many just quietly chose not to resist? There may be nearly a billion moderate Muslims, but if they don’t rein in the radicals among them whose goal is to enslave us, then we must do it. For example, after the London bombings, a survey revealed that only 5% of UK Muslims thought that more attacks would be justified. The problem is that 5% of Muslims in the UK means 80,000 people would like to see further terror attacks in the country they make their home. There are enough radical Islamists to threaten the west, and to take, or cause us to relinquish through intimidation, our freedom. The cartoon riots were a perfect example of what passivity in the face of threats will bring. We did not stand up for Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, or Hirsi Ali. Now fatwas and isolated attacks have exploded into full scale demonstrations all over the world.
I don’t know all the answers. But I do know that thirty years of passivity has only convinced the enemy that we are weak and can be overcome. They have said so. We must fight radical Islam, both on the battlefield, and even more so politically. This does not mean a hatred, or even a dislike, for all Muslims. Only opposition to those who would enslave us. In the course of that opposition, we must still follow the Christian mission to love those who hate us. Above all else, pray. Having prayed, resist by every means you can, for the sake of continuing to practice your own faith, and for the sake of your persecuted brothers and sisters all over the world. And remember that no matter what chaos we feel we are in here, God is sovereign and He is not surprised by any of these things.
The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases (Prov. 21:1).
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm…. It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another (Psalm 75:3, 7).
Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them…. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’ (Dan. 2:20-21; 4:35)
Preach it, sister! Amen.
Very well written, I appreciate the back up information/sources. I sent your trackback to my local Christian radio stations, but I would love to see some “mainstream” media pick this up and read it for what it is, plain simple Truth.
Bravo!
Thank you very much for your kind words. I’ve been struggling with this for a long time, and this Dan Simmons post, along with the formation of the “101st Fighting Keyboardists” kind of set me off to finally write about it.
Excellent post. I love your writing, and I really appreciate your candor. I will definitely be back to this blog.
That’s a compelling argument for attacking al-Qaeda; with respect to the Iraqi, it’s pretty irrelevant.
A lot of evidence, especially in the past few months, has discredited the idea that Iraq did not support al-Queda. So far as I’ve heard, he was not directly involved with 9/11, but Saddam certainly provided money and training to several terrorist organizations including al Queda. Additionally, Iraq is a good staging area from which to attack Iran, which has openly supported terrorism for 30 years.
These things are true, but those are pretty minimal qualifications for a war to be considered just, aren’t they? Historically, theologians have made the criteria for just war a little tougher to meet, and it seems to me for good reason: war is ugly business. Since innocent people will inevitably be killed in crossfire, war is something to be done only as last resort. (that latter is a hallmark of Catholic just war theology)
(FYI: Saddam gave money to Palestinian terror groups; he thought about working w/ al-Qaeda, but there’s no evidence as of yet that he did so)
I don’t think they’re minimal at all; I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree there. What is the alternative? The enemy has stated plainly what their goals are. Why would you not take them at their word? Talking to them will not work, they have already said they consider our previous actions a sign of weakness. So what is your alternative?
As for Saddam working with al-Queda, and recruiting terrorists to attack us directly, proof has been found in the vastly under-reported documents captured in Iraqi Freedom.
Just one example of many that have been discovered:
“During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.
During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.
In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.”
It’s no longer available on ABC – they downplayed and dropped the subject ASAP, but you can read the gist of it at Captain’s Quarters.
Here’s another example. And another.
The preponderance of evidence has persuaded me that Saddam did have strong ties to al Queda. Obviously you’re free to believe as you wish. As to the innocents caught in the crossfire, our troops go above and beyond to avoid that. This year, 27 Iraqis have been lost in “collateral damage.” Over 2200 have been killed by Islamic terrorists. And both of those added together are far less than Saddam killed when he was in power. No matter whether you agree with the reasons for going in, there are a LOT less dead Iraqis since we liberated Iraq.