KILL THE INFIDELS!
…from Cartoons to Conversion
By
Doug Krieger
Abdul Rahman **. . . Christianity’s Symbol of Conversion . . .
“If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too. We must set an example…He must be hanged” (Said Mirhossain Nasri, senior cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite mosques in Kabul, Afghanistan (AP))
“If anyone changes his religion, kill him” – The Prophet Muhammed . . . , baddala deenahu faqtuhu, Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57
There’s been a “change in the force” – in case you didn’t notice – we’ve gone from fighting against terrorists to preemptive, unilateral, wars of national interest; from eliminating weapons of mass destruction to spreading ideological Western democracies (make that “Effective Democracies”); and finally, from cartoons to conversions . . . on the surface you may think you’ve got it right, but this “thing” goes much deeper . . . let us ponder the immensity of what is going on here; then let’s extrapolate its implications.
Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity, a believer in Jesus—was befriended by Christian aid workers some 16-years ago in Afghanistan. He moved to and lived in Europe (Germany) some nine years and then returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban were forcibly removed by a Western Coalition headed by the United States of America (in 2002). Of course, radical Islamicists affirm that Rahman’s fate for converting to Christianity should be announced before the whole world . . . even so-called Moslem moderates, when it comes to Moslems converting to Christianity, are resolute in their vindictive:
“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die” (Cleric Abdul Raoulf, considered a moderate; jailed three times for opposing the Taliban rule in Afghanistan before the regime was ousted in 2001, shortly after 9/11 by US-led forces).
Indeed, if Abdul Raoulf is the voice of Islamic moderation—forbid we listen to the voices of extremism amongst the adherents of the Prophet Mohammed!
“He is crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian . . . the government (Afghan) is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed” (Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque, Kabul, Afganistan).
Hamidullah warned that if the Afghanistan government (Karzai is authorized by Afghanistan’s Constitution to affirm the death penalty in capital cases; Article 129 Ch. 7. Art. 14) releases Rahman that . . .
“ . . . there will be an uprising . . . What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people (i.e., EXECUTE RAHMAN) . . .” (Afghan Clerics Demand Death for Convert, PakTribune)
“Cut off his head! . . . We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.” (Again, Abdul Raoulf, moderate leader in Afghanistan.)
“We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don‘t interfere in this issue . . . We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us” (Said Mirhossain Nasri, top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, Kabul, Afganistan; my emphasis).
Nasri went on to clarify his position as the mainline position of traditionalists throughout Islamic Afganistan:
“He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile. But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country. ‘If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too,’ he said, ‘We must set an example…He must be hanged.’ The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman’s freedom.” (Afghan Clerics Demand Death for Convert, PakTribune, March 25, 2006, Kabul (Online @ http://paktribune.com/newsw/print.php?id=138494)
The intensity of killing the APOSTATE, Abdul Rahman, is widespread among Afghanistan’s 99% Islamic population, where open practice of Christianity is forbidden—and has been for hundreds of years:
“‘Regardless of the court decision [whether or not he is hanged], there is unanimous agreement by all religious scholars from the north to the south, the east to the west of Afghanistan, that Abdul Rahman should be executed,’ engineer Ahmad Shah Ahmad Zai told Asian Times Online on telephone from Kabul . . . ‘There is widespread dissent among the masses against the activities of Christian missionaries. These missions exploit the poverty of Afghan people and they pay them to covert. These activities will only translate into fierce reaction as Afghans do not tolerate anything against their religion.” (Losing faith in Afghanistan, By Syred Saleem Shahzad, Bureau Chief, Pakistan Asian Times Online, March 25, 2006)
THE JEWS ARE BEHIND THIS!
The plot thickens and things get dicey when Abdul Raoulf, the moderate, spoke this past Friday (March 24, 2006) at the Herati Mosque:
“God’s way is the right way, and this man whose name is Abdul Rahman is an apostate!”
Now, another preacher, Ayatullah Asife Muhseni, met with a small gathering of preachers and academics at a hotel in Kabul and informed the group that Karzai, the Afghan president, had no right to overturn the punishment given to an apostate. Muhseni’s observations were recorded by The Associated Press:
“He also demanded that clerics be able to question Rahman in jail to discover why he had converted to Christianity. He suggested it could have been the result of a conspiracy by Western nations or JEWS!” (Pressure Grows to Free Afghan Convert, Amir Shah, AP, March 25, 2006)
Alas! The Jews are involved in getting Moslems converted to Christianity—what insight is this?
WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE-THE SACRED LANDS OF ISLAM ARE ABOUT TO UNDERGO A RADICAL RELIGIOUS CHANGE . . .
The permissive, tolerant, and adamantly democratic West has just collided with the absolutism of Islam—big time! The response from Western leaders—the Aussies, Germans, French, Italians, US; indeed, the entire Western World and the United Nations—has been one of utter disbelief and outrage that Abdul Rahman would be torn to pieces because of his conversion to Christianity. A sampling hardly suffices, starting with Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard:
“This is appalling. When I saw the report about this I felt sick literally . . . The idea that a person could be punished because of their religious belief and the idea they might be executed is just beyond belief” (Pressure Grows to Free Afghan Convert, Amir Shah, APO, 24 March 2006)
Italy, which has 2,000 troops in Afghanistan . . .
“Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini on Tuesday said Italy would raise the case of Abdul Rahman with the Afghan ambassador in Rome, European Union diplomatic representatives in Afghanistan and EU human rights bodies. Fini said he would voice to the ambassador ‘the through disapproval’ of the Italian government if there was (even) a ‘possibility’ of Rahman being sentenced to death. Italy is the de facto EU diplomatic chief in Afghanistan because Austria, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, does not have a mission there.
(Who Will Save Abdul Rahman, Michelle Malkin Blog, March 21, 2006)
Suffice it to say – the Canadians are outraged to the uttermost – all over the Canadian press and blogosphere campaigns are being launched to free Rahman and to declare Canada’s contempt (e.g., CaNN).
And, if you thought the Rahman case is confined to the tribal regions of Afghanistan, think again—this issue goes far and beyond the boundaries of Kabul:
“‘The German bishops' conference solemnly demands that Christians in Afghanistan be able to practice their faith openly and freely and that conversion to Christianity must be possible without any disadvantages,’ German Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the bishops’ conference, said in a statement. ‘German bishops will try to ensure Christians in Islamic countries enjoy the same rights as Muslims have in our country.’” (World Leaders Outraged Over Christian Convert Facing Death Penalty, Catholic On-Line, CatholicNewsService.com, March 22, 2006)
Western nations which are the most outspoken regarding Rahman’s fate are those committed to “democracy” in Afghanistan and have troops on the ground to implement “newfound freedoms.”
The U.S. has around 23,000 troops in Afghanistan, where there also are 2,700 German soldiers, 2,300 Canadian soldiers and 1,775 Italian soldiers, and, by this July 2006 the Aussies will have 500 troops in Afghanistan—indeed, the deployment of Western forces in Afghanistan is accelerating!
MIXED SIGNALS FROM WASHINGTON
Isn’t it interesting—virtually all the West, with utter abandon, condemns the prosecution of Rahman, while threatening to remove their troops from Afghanistan if he is not released—but Washington equivocates!
“Rice spokesman Sean McCormack said she told Karzai it is important for the Afghan people to know that freedom of religion is observed in their country. But in deference to the country’s sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released. ‘This is clearly an Afghan decision,’ McCormack said. ‘They are a sovereign country.’” (Ibid. PakTribune)
“We (Condi Rice speaking) are working with the Afghans and we look to a favorable resolution of this . . . We’ve been very clear: The freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of democracy.” (Outcry rises over Afghan Christian convert, Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters, March 25, 2006)
Pretty tepid, wouldn’t you say? Listen to President Bush’s vehemence:
“Bush, on a visit to Wheeling, W.Va., said yesterday he was ‘deeply troubled’ to learn of Rahman’s possible prosecution. ‘That’s not the universal application of the values that I talked about’ while in Kabul, he said. He stopped short of calling for the case against Rahman to be dropped but said he would work with Karzai’s government ‘to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship.’” (For Afghans, Allies, A Clash of Values . . . Case Against Christian Convert Puts Pressure on Karzai – and on Bush, Pamela Constable, Washington Post Foreign Service, March 23, 2006)
Superficially, it appears Afghanistan’s fragile democracy is at stake—note these remarks by Alex Their:
“This case goes right to the heart of the contradictions in the (Afghan) constitution. Is Afghanistan a democracy that respects human rights and international norms, or is it an Islamic country with an extremely conservative judiciary? The issues being raised will have an important impact on Afghanistan’s ability to become a stable democracy.” (Ibid., Pamela Constable).
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist believes that Condi Rice should put the heat on Karzai for Rahman’s immediate release:
“It is fair to say that the United States has not spent the last four plus years liberating, defending, rebuilding and assisting Afghanistan’s democratic development only to see the Afghani people remain subject to laws (i.e., Islamic law, or sharia, such as cutting off thieves’ hands and stoning adulterers, and killing converts from Islam to other religions) reminiscent of the Taliban’s reign.” (Afghan Trial of Christian ‘Appalling,’ Australia’s Howard Says, Bloomberg.com, March 24, 2006).
Jihadwatch.org goes even further in exposing the aforementioned equivocation of Washington, and enunciates the fundamental human right embraced by both Western religionists, as well as secularists:
“It also shows what the Bush Administration should be doing. Instead of saying that all this is up to the Afghans, we should set an example – and say that we will not tolerate anything but full juridical freedom of conscience, and that if that means the Afghan Constitution must be revised to delete the Sharia provision, so be it. But we are not going to waste our arms and blood to prop up a state that institutionalizes the oppression of religious minorities and extinguishes the freedom of conscience.” (Jihadwatch.org)
Tony Perkins in his piece, Religious freedom Afghan-style is no freedom, is perhaps the epitome of outrage and Western articulation:
“We will have gained nothing if we allow another Islamic fundamentalist regime to arise in Kabul. This is not a minor matter. If the government of Hamid Kharzai – which is receiving billions in US aid – cannot stop this travesty of justice, it will be too weak and compromised to resist the terrorists
“Where is the outrage? It’s not just an ‘immature’ democracy that is on exhibit in Afghanistan. The new Afghan Constitution incorporates the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That declaration’s Article 18 specifically recognizes the right of all people to change their religion. ‘Even to prepare a trial for a person who has committed this ‘crime’ is a gross violation of that declaration and of the new Afghan Constitution as well.
“It is fundamental. If the Afghan people do not learn now that they cannot resolve differences of conscience by violence, by judicial murder, then they have no future as a democracy . . . who can claim it is a just war that results in reestablishing a radical Islamic fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan? And what else can you call it if Christian converts are killed, or confined to mental institutions, Soviet-style, as the Afghan authorities are now reportedly considering? For freedom to endure it must first gain a foothold, and that foothold may well depend on the fate of Abdul Rahman.” (Note: Tony Perkins, a former marine who served in the Gulf War, is the president of the Family Research Council; taken from the Christian Science Monitor, March 24, 2006)
HAVING IT BOTH WAYS: DEMOCRACY vs. SHARIA
The incompatibility of imposing Western democracies—all of whom embrace “religious freedom” and/or “freedom of conscience” in no uncertain terms—into archaic societies who have adhered to ancient practices of religious exclusivity, puts the entire proposition of “democracy with an Islamic cultural twist” in jeopardy; in other words, IT IS UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE!
The Constitution of Afghanistan unequivocally states:
“Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.” (Article Two Ch. 1, Art. 2)
Then it turns right around and states:
“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” (Article Three Ch. 1, Art. 3)
I would hasten to add that this same contradiction appears within the Iraqi Constitution. Obviously the two articles in the Afghan Constitution are in conflict—Islam, in sum, makes it a capital offense for any Muslim to switch religions; consequently, the Western concept of “religious freedom” is nonexistent and militates against Sharia.
Likewise, Rahman’s release based upon an insanity plea—a plea that even the Moslem clerics deny—fuels the Western flame and resurrects images of the Soviets who used this psychiatric technique against thousands of “prisoners of conscience”—sending them off to the Gulag. Little is new in this respect . . . the Apostle Paul, before King Agrippa, was confronted by his accuser, Festus, with:
“Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, ‘Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!’ But he (Paul) said, ‘I am not mad (i.e., “out of my mind”), most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:24-25).
NOW LET’S CONFIGURE ITS IMPLICATIONS
First, in deference to Islamic critics who demand that the West consider their own history relative to these matters:
“I saw President Bush’s statement in which he asked to honor the universal principle of freedom. This is not a question of social liberty or social rights or freedom, this is a question for the affirmation of truth and nobody will be allowed to distort the truth. No society can give people the right to distort the truth or play around with it. As far as execution is concerned, I have the same questions for the West.
“Pope Urban II, while standing in a church in 1095, called Islam a satanic religion. He called the followers of Islam wicked and then called that those wicked people should be eliminated. That sermon was the start of the crusade to eliminate Muslim and continued for 200 years in which Muslim territories were attacked and people were massacred. Why was that? Because somebody evolved in his mind a philosophy of truth and then reckoned Islam as false and then thought it a threat to spirituality and the universe, so they decided to eliminate it. On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion.
“Western countries have occupied nations, destroyed their political and social systems and killed thousands of people so that people would conform to their civilization or their pattern of thinking…while doing so, why did they not bother about ‘honoring the universal principle of freedom’?” (Losing faith in Afghanistan, Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asian Times, March 25, 2006—quoting renowned Muslim intellectual Shahnawaz Farooqui)
Agree or disagree with Farooqui’s analysis—one thing is absolutely certain: IMMOVABLE OBJECT MEETS IRRESISTABLE FORCE!
Conversion from Islam to Christianity, or for that matter, to any other religion or non-religion, is anathema to Islam and is punishable by death! There is no wiggle room here—NONE!
It was one thing for President Bush to launch a war based on WMD as a subterfuge to commercial exploitation—it is altogether another matter to alter the cultural balance of the Middle East through aggressive pursuits of effective democracies and universal human rights, including, and in particular, the right of human conscience and freedom of religion (i.e., freedom to change your religion: Converting and/or proselytizing).
FROM CARTOONS TO CONVERSION
Either Islam is a religion of peace, an advocate of tolerance, or an example of charity or it is the jibe of Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard: THIS IS APPALLING…I felt sick literally!
Much to the consternation and frustration of the Bush Administration, the issues of democracy and human freedoms in the War on Terror have now taken front and center. Worse yet, the Bush Administration has inadvertently made this the case!
Framing the War on Terror has, in the past, been President Bush’s fine art of garnering Islam’s support against the “evil doers” – on the one hand he’s managed to, in the main, consolidate the West in the struggle (though the War’s popularity wanes now and again); while, on the other hand, keeping “moderate Islam” in the struggle against evil . . . listen to how the President has attempted to accentuate the West’s transformation of Islam—and “transformation” is precisely what he’s about:
“The United States is a nation dedicated to religious tolerance and freedom, and President Bush has acted to ensure that the world’s Muslims know that America appreciates and celebrates the traditions of Islam . . .” (Backgrounder: The President’s Quotes on Islam, The White House . . . and throughout)
“Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we’ll prevail.” (Nov. 20, 2002 Press Conference by President Bush and President Havel of Czech Republic, Prague Castle, Prague, Czech Republic)
“Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.” (Nov. 13, 2002)
“Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” (October 11, 2002)
“When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes.” (West Point, June 1, 2002)
“We’re taking action against evil people. Because this great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil. This clearly is a case of good versus evil, and make no mistake about it—good will prevail.” (At Ontario, CA, January 5, 2002)
“Through our combined efforts, we can end terrorism and rid our civilization of the damaging effects of hatred and intolerance, ultimately achieving a brighter future for all.” (President’s Message for Eid al-Fitr, December 13, 2001).
Finally . . .
“This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.” (President George w. Bush Addressing the National World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia, November 8, 2001).
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury—if you cannot see what is going on around here regarding religious freedom and its incursions into Islamic societies, then you are (1) Ideologically blind; (2) Stupefied by the debate; or, (3) Sticking your head in the sand!
The entire concept of “freedom of religion” does NOT exist once one converts from Islam to any other religion. Nor does the exercise of religious tolerance and the EXPRESSION of it abide under Shari’a! Furthermore, if given the “upper hand” within the government of any nation, Islamicists under obedience to “divine truth” cannot tolerate any other expression of “religious freedom.” It is altogether obvious, according to the United States concept of the inalienable rights to religious freedom that we, not only in America, but throughout the West, are in direct opposition with Islam’s jurisdiction. Read the entire US State Department’s INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM dictum and then tell me Islam has no fears of “democracy?”
Furthermore, that same annual Sate Department proclamation lists the nations which do not celebrate such religious freedom and proclaims that the United States of America is determined to implement throughout the world the principals of religious freedom, to wit:
“OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
“The United States Government advocates, promotes, monitors, and reports on international religious freedom. The 197 country reports in the 2005 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom survey the religious demographics, status and treatment of all religious groups by governments and in civil sectors of society.
“Appointed by President Bush in 2001, Ambassador at Large John Hanford III spearheads U.S. engagement with other governments on a wide variety of issues related to religious freedom, training on the international norms that protect religious freedom, and assistance to those seeking refuge or asylum because of religious persecution, with a focus on severe violations of religious freedom. Where particularly severe violations continue, the Secretary may designate a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the IRF Act. In 2005, the Secretary re-designated Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam.
“OUR COMMITMENT
“In keeping with U.S. history and international norms, the United States will continue to stand with those seeking the freedom to believe and practice their faith without intimidation and hindrance.
“OVER THE LAST YEAR, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
“Entered into a binding agreement with Vietnam to improve religious freedom. Successfully negotiated the release of prisoners held in several countries because of their spiritual convictions. Found an Indian state-level official ineligible for a visa on grounds of particularly severe violations of religious freedom. Successfully encouraged Bangladesh not to declare the Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslim, increasing their security.
If anything – the US State Department’s list of nations not allowing freedom of religious expression and, ipso facto, freedom to convert to another religion without persecution, is utterly incomplete (e.g., Afghanistan).
(Source: Fact Sheet Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
Washington, DC November 8, 2005 2005 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom Fact Sheet)
The battle lines have been drawn—and as much as Mr. Bush would attempt to frame the debate and the raison d’être behind the War on Terror, he cannot. But, just as there are “twists and turns” in the War on Terror—even so, perhaps battle plans and the prosecution of this war needs a “religious” angle to surmount growing opposition to its rage?
THE WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST
Think it not strange that Shahnawz’ remarks concerning Pope Urban II’s proclamations do not hold significance to Moslem minds . . . you do well to see the Pope’s exhortations in print:
“Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it’s meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! On this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide.”
(Medieval Sourcebook:, Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech)
Thus were launched 200-years of Crusades!
RELIGION MOUNTS THE BEAST
Once again, let it be resoundingly decreed: There is absolutely nothing as galvanizing and as potent as a war, launched by the West, with religious under girding: Specifically, the Christian Religion’s under girding! The avoidance of this prospect is but a sham in light of Islam’s definition and of the alleged “universal declarations” on human freedom and conscience espoused by the West.
Religious toleration is but a code phrase, as far as Islam is concerned, to the West’s religious intrusion into their sacred soils—akin to the Crusades of yore—and for President Bush to deny such is a fabrication of undeniable reality.
Furthermore, the issue of “religious freedom” can and is an exceedingly useful tool to coalesce the armies of the coalition throughout the West—even secular Europe salutes the President in this respect!
The nexus of the War on Terror has shifted to a grand ideological and spiritual struggle. War against evil doers has now concentrated its focus, not only upon those who would use WMD to wipe Israel and the West off the map, but upon the ancient laws of Shari’a—the very heart and soul of Islam, where Church and State, the Mosque and Government, are one in the same!
Here, the jargon of the Crusaders is couched in the irrefutable, the unassailable rhetoric of religious toleration, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of religious expression, and the unalienable and universal rights of human conscience. Yes, here, there are no consequences, no remnants of divinely-inspired persecution wrought upon those who would convert—NONE!
When word of this hits the bazaars of the Middle East—and incorporates itself into the psyche of both the prosecutors and the opponents of the West’s War on Terror—the dimensions of this conflict will implicate both sides, consolidate all elements of the West in the struggle, and crystallize the parameters of the battle within Islam itself!
Decidedly, what once were superficial lines of battle (terrorism, WMD, guaranteed cheap energy supplies) are now redefined in terms of absolutes—from BOTH sides. This warfare has no end in sight—and simply put: NO RESOLUTION! Western Saints and Secularists vs. Jihadists and Shari’aists. This is precisely what President Bush tried to avoid—but this is exactly what he intends to embrace. To mount a war against the wickedness of National Socialism and Communism was a pure case of totalitarianism vs. liberty—it was the West reinventing itself and shedding off those ideologies which gave gave birth to the Modern West. The rise of the Western Totalitarian State was defeated once and for all as the Soviet Empire disintegrated.
Up to this point the definition of traditional totalitarianism as the enemy in the war on terror has been ill-defined: But that confusing and superficial state of affairs is over! The West has refocused upon its core values—its unalterable principles—the cartoons and the conversion have made this possible!
Now—under girded by the universal principles of the rights of man enshrined in the West and exemplified by the religious pluralism of America (the foremost proponent of such freedoms throughout the world)—the LIBERATION OF ISLAM has begun! There can be no greater casus belli than the liberation of the human spirit!
POPE URBAN II vs. JESUS OF NAZARETH
The Just War of the West has commenced . . . but I leave you to contemplate the source from whence this flows:
“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me? . . . Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight . . . but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:10-11; Matthew 26:51-53; John 18:36).
“Come, I will show you the judgment of the Great Harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication . . . so he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns . . . and the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire” (Revelation 17:1-2, 16).
** Note: Abdul Rahman’s case was dismissed in the Afghanistan courts on Sunday, March 26, 2006.
