Who Believes in Peace?

If you have not heard Israel has a new government with the Likud Party as the majority partner. This means Benjamin Netanyahu is the Prime Minister and Avigdor Lieberman (prevailing profile and less hostile profile) is the Foreign Minister.

If you haven’t been following Israeli politics you also may not be aware that Lieberman is quite the controversial choice to be Foreign Minister. Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu (English: Israel our Home) Party are openly hostile toward Arab-Muslims as a fifth column dedicated to bring down Israel and terminate Jews.

I know it is extreme but I agree with Lieberman. I agree because Mohammedan Scriptures (or whatever Islam calls their holy writings) are teaming with references to convert or exterminate Jews (Christians are in that category as well).

So I see Lieberman standing for truth even though it is politically incorrect.

Noting Lieberman’s disposition Mahmoud Abbas - aka Abu Mazen (positive profile and terrorist profile) - is utilizing the Palestinian victimhood card saying there is no way the PA can deal with Lieberman on a peaceful solution to create a sovereign Palestinian State.

Abbas is probably correct.

On the other hand Abbas is demonstrating his Islamic Supremacist hubris when he projects that the Palestinians have any intention in living in peace with a Jewish State. That is simply lying hypocrisy by a taqiyya-master schmoozing with the West.

Ben’s Blog puts a supremely credible essay of why or how Abbas is schmoozing.

JRH 4/3/09

Modern Solution for Ancient Lands

Leslie J. Sacks writes an essay that suggests a special canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea will create an energy phenomenon (which includes nuclear energy) that will build a bridge of peace between Arab Muslims (Syria, Jordan and the Arab created Palestine refugees) and Israel. Sacks believes a shared goal of cheap energy and the creation of fresh water (among other things) will be a boon in energy-economy and agricultural economy (i.e. irrigation).

I do not know if I agree with Sacks. I believe that Middle Eastern Muslims have had anti-Jewish propaganda inscribed into their thought processes for so long, that any such project will be exploited in some way in an anti-Israeli design. For example if a nuclear plant were to arise as Sacks suggests, then there is the potential for one of the anti-Israeli existence Muslim-Arab peoples will develop nuclear weapons at worst or commit an act of terrorist at least. In either case the scenario is a nuclear explosion or radiation contamination that would render such a project as fruitless.

I will let our readers decide.

JRH 10/9/08

Allah or God?

Islam Watch is one of those websites a non-Mohammedan can go to receive an understanding of the theo-political teachings of Mohammedanism (better known as Islam).

More and more anti-jihadists and anti-Islamists are beginning to sway to the opinion that Mohammedanism is a religion that is more political and militaristic in ideology than a personal faith in which a human seeks peace with a personal God.

I myself waver back and forth on this opinion because (finally) there are a few Muslims that are eschewing the murderous, lack of rights and intolerance that are indeed inherent in the Mohammedan holy scriptures.

There is a small group of Muslims that have a blog (MuslimsAgainstSharia) with a home site with the same name but a different URL (http://www.reformislam.org/).

Now I am not endorsing a reformed Islam as a faith for I am a devout Charismatic/Pentecostal; however I am also an American. As an American I do believe in freedom of Religion. I wonder how a reformed peaceful Islam would stand against a missionary Christian. I suspect without the threat of violence for becoming an Islamic apostate, the religion of Islam would shrink. Of course that is my Christian opinion. A reformed Mohammedan certainly would have a different opinion.

Nonetheless, without reform Mohammedanism is a deadly theo-political cult bent on intolerant subjection of the globe and the termination of Freedom and Liberty.

Thus you need to read this Islam Watch essay entitled “Why Allah is not God?”

JRH 8/12/08

Let’s See – Mohammed or Jesus?

The duplicity and deception of the pseudo-prophet Mohammed concerning adultery who some Muslims claim is the same or better than Jesus the Prince of Peace is expressed here.

Note Jesus handled adultery differently (rough paraphrase): Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery who the people wanted to stone, “He who with out sin throw the first stone.”

No one did!

Jesus said to the adulteress, “See, no one condemns you and neither do I. Go and sin no more.” (Scholarly dissenting opinion for Believers)

Now that is peace.

Commentary Battles

This is the latest of the comment battle I have been having with Talha, a Mohammedan person who has taken exception to my penchant to reveal the politically incorrect truth about Mohammedanism. The original post was The West Needs to Understand Islamist Paradigm of War.

Talha said:

if u have problem with the very point of people engaging in fighting at all, then WWII, japan, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and iraq again, r gross violations of christianity. then u'll have to abolish the death penalty. then, saddam hussein should have lived, along with the entire hamas leadership. hitler should have lived, too.

Christians have developed a concept of what is a Just War. The theme is self-defense. Contrarily Mohammedans war to convert people to their cult, enslaved to an inferior social and civil right position or death. The death penalty is a point of argument between Christians in America for the very reasons you imply. In Europe, most nations have abolished the death penalty as punishment for heinous murderous crimes.

Yet in Middle Eastern nations and in Western Nations (if a Mohammedan can get away with it) War is still practiced according to the Mohammedan holy writings, also to mention frivolous death penalty executions for honor (whatever a Mohammedan perceives that to be) being violated, adultery, homosexuality and such are death penalty crimes. Most mysteriously to the Westerner who believes in Free Speech and Liberty, Mohammedans will execute individuals who might insult their psycho-prophet Mohammed or insult Islam in general.

To Bible believing Christians (there are actually Christians on the Left that cherry pick Biblical Scripture and morality), practices such as homosexuality and adultery are sins accepted in secularized society. Bible believing Christians believes these sins are something to be repented of or the lifestyle will face judgment in the next life.

Talha said:

but us see, sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to keep / restore peace. islam does not deal in doctrines that r unviable. u cant always turn the other cheek.

so having established the necessity for war, islam seeks to rein it in with proper standing procedures that ensure that cruelty and vengeful measures dont become the norm in war.

So you are saying Mohammedanism has something comparable to a Just War concept. That is good.

On the other hand the Islamist who says they follow the letter of the Mohammedan holy writings is NOT utilizing procedures to prevent cruelty and vengeful acts. Now days Islamists even attack their co-religionists if they fail their interpretation of Mohammedan holy writings.

Talha said:

in simplest terms, as soon as war is necessitated for a christian nation, religions has to be chucked out the window, cuz ur religion doesnt tell u wat to do in such a situation. islam, on the other hand, gives u procedures regarding war and ensures that excesses r not committed even in war.

Again Christians have the Just War concept and again Mohammedan war is brutal and savage even today in the modern world.

Talha said:

as per ur allegation of rape being allowed in islam, let me categorically state that rape is not allowed in Islam, in any circumstance. whether women be in a veil or they walk around threadbare, u cant rape them according to any islamic injunction.

back in the 600s, when women werent considered full citizens in any nation of the world (the US only gave them voting rights in the 1920s).

does rape occur in muslim nations, yes.

is there any country in the world which is completely free of rape? no.
does rape occur in america? yes.
does christianity allow rape? no.

so u see violations occur all around, which is not to say this is right. it is very, very wrong!!! but u also need to see, it is a violation, both of christianity and of islam.

In FACT the rape of kafir women is a part of the practice of humiliating kafir men. (The Kafir is the infidel or unbeliever in Mohammedanism.)

In Western Europe rape is an occurrence perpetrated on kafir women by Mohammedan males are on a scale way beyond the statistics of the rape of women by European males on European women or Mohammedan women. The statistics are so high that (at least at one time) Sweden and Norway refused to publish the statistics of Mohammedans raping European women.

The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” [Emphasis Mine]

Anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer adds: “So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).” [Emphasis Mine]

More from Robert Spencer about words from the lips of Mohammed to the ears of fanatical Islamic soldiers: “After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.” [Emphasis Mine]

Now to some of us who are not up on their Latin, coitus interruptus is defined as: “Coitus interruptus is a Latin term meaning interrupted intercourse. It is the clinical term for the withdrawal method of contraception, which is when a male withdraws his penis from his female partner prior to ejaculating.” [Emphasis Mine]

Talha I have to highly disagree with you that rape is not part of the cultural practice of Mohammedans toward women who are not Mohammedans.

[Source on Mohammedan rape: Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?]

Other Examples of Commentar Battles: Here, Here, Here and Here.

Pope Benedict’s Outrageous Announcement

Lee Grady’s summation of Pope Benedict’s recent announcement:

Only Catholics are true Christians.

Other Christian denominations are “not true churches.”

All non-Catholics lack the “means of salvation.”

(J.) Lee Grady has been the Big Dog Editor of Charisma Magazine since 1999. I am guessing that tags Grady as a Protestant-Charismatic-Evangelical. I guess I would tag myself as a Charismatic-Pentecostal-Word_of_Faith (past roots however modified today)-Christian_Mystic kind of guy these days.

Grady reacted to the Pope’s announcement with clear hostility reminiscent of the Protestant VS Catholic hostility that gained equal ground after Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517. In fact Grady titled his online rebuttal as “Pope Benedict’s Outrageous Announcement.”

Assuredly the Pope’s announcement opens all the old wounds (not just with Protestants but with the Eastern Orthodox Church as well) about Papal infallibility, Heaven and Hell and Purgatory, the true Faith and so on and on. I am guessing Pope Benedict XVI knew full well his proclamation would resound in denunciation from non-Catholic Christians. I got to say this for the old holy fella: Benedict is not exactly Politically Correct in his public pronouncements. The Pope enraged Muslims not too long ago by quoting 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus:

"Show me just what Mohammed 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."

Even before that speech in 2006, Mohammedan elitists had considered Pope Benedict XVI as an Islamophobe that stretches back to his Cardinal days. The Pope has opposed the entry of Turkey into the European Union based primarily that Mohammedan culture is different than European Culture that has its heritage in Christianity.

Thus the Pope’s recent announcement is a jaw dropper (as Grady wrote) to Protestants of a Western Heritage. Protestants were beginning to view Benedict XVI as a huge Christian Leader willing to eschew the popularity of being Politically Correct to telling it like it is about Mohammedanism. I began to view the Pope as the defender of the Faith because of his conservative stand.

Since the papal announcement probably has opened old wounds expect to hear and read an increase from Protestants that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ and the hills of Rome are correspondent to Scripture written Revelation or Daniel and so on. It could get ridiculous (and it could be true as much as any Biblical speculation).

As a person from a Protestant background (I mean I am absolutely clueless to the ritual thing of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant Episcopate Churches), I recommend reacting in a What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) manner. Catholic and Protestant attitudes ebb and flow according to the leadership that is most influential at the time. Even though Pope Benedict XVI is the top dog in the Roman Catholicism, Catholicism is not exactly a paradigm unified agreement. Tradition demands to at least offer lip service to the Pontiffs commands. There is NO top dog in Protestantism. Protestants are an amalgam of various statements of Faith that range along denominational and independent lines. Let’s see off the top of my head: Pentecostal Denominations (Assembly of God, Foursquare, Church of God, Open Bible Standard and more); there are the High Protestant Churches (Lutheran, Anglican/Episcopalian, Baptists, Methodist, Presbyterian and more) and there are the Independents – a combination of dissatisfied High Church attendees and Pentecostal/Charismatic attendees that chose to be independent (many of these have nearly become a domination via association; e.g. RHEMA Churches, Word of Faith Churches; Renewal Churches). Most Independent Protestants tend to be Pentecostal/Charismatic in operation.

I have to mention there are a few Independent Protestant Churches I have a hard time with because their statement of faith is often fringe/racist/anarchist types. Then there are those who consider themselves Christian Churches but deny one point or the other of the one thing that unites Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theology: the Trinity (ONE GOD yet three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ is both human in the incarnated flesh and God – both natures are present and are ONE). Some of the Independents that have a different view of the Godhead I waver from admiration to thinking they are heretics, thus I won’t get into naming Christians.

So what is my point?

There will NEVER be Christian unity under the guidance of humanity, that day of Unity occurs at the Parousia (Second Coming) of Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords.

So do not be hostile to Pope Benedict XVI merely because he says the Catholic way is the only way. The True Way is the Christ Way (John 14: 6-11) which involves the God-Kind of Love for the fellow Believer, Neighbor and enemy alike. Who is our Neighbor and how should we treat them? The Good Samaritan is about the Neighbor (Luke 10: 25-37). Acts of kindness and forgiveness (Matt. 5: 38-48) should be projected on our enemies (God sets in authority those do His Will in protection and discipline [Romans 13: 1-7, Jeremiah 25: 8-11 and 1 Peter 2: 13-16)]. And make every effort to settle differences between those you fellowship with (Offender – Matt. 5: 23-26 and Offended – Matt. 18: 15-17).

Under the Light of Christ is Pope Benedict’s announcement to occupy the Christian mind as outrageous? I tend to think not. Move on to more Heavenly minded things to think on.

One last thought I should like to point out. Benedict’s announcement that the Catholic way is the only will certainly have an affect on Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Church in which the reaction should be to pray for the Pontiff. One thing you will not be seeing in nations of Christian Heritage is the Christians pouring into the streets demanding death to the Pope. You will not see Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians beheading Catholics due to an offensive announcement. You will not see Catholics pouring into the streets burning down Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Church buildings. The Christian world has moved on from that barbaric medieval thinking.

I wonder which religion of peace I can contrast this Christian reaction too?

What is the Definition for Insanity?

What is the definition for insanity? Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again achieving the same result while expecting a different result.

The only way to find sanity is to find an action to get a different result. That means end the cycle of repetition and examine a different action to discover the desired result.

Columnist Joseph Farah writes, “Wake Up, Israel.” Israel has spent a significant amount of its modern existence to make peace and find acceptance with the Jewish nation’s Mohammedan neighbors. Israel has given and given and still receives the same result of Israel’s neighbors desiring the Jewish State’s destruction. This is the same action of giving, the same result of hatred.

Here is something to think about. Since 1948 – the year of Israeli Independence – Mohammedan Arabs repeatedly tried to militarily destroy Israel. There has been war after war and yet the Mohammedans failed miserably each time.

The Mohammedans may have discovered they were insane. The twenty-first century has brought a different action that might result in Israel’s demise. Instead of placing their money in ill trained armies, Arabs have upgraded the discipline. Along with this new discipline Mohammedans have discovered the deadliness of Weapons of Mass Destruction, viz. nuclear and chemical weapons.

If Israel does not awaken from futile repetition to achieve an expected result, the twenty-first century Holocaust will be impending.

Pope urges leaders to renounce violence

Good for Pope Benedict XVI: The Pope has made the statement that all religious leaders should renounce violence as part of their faith:

Pope Benedict XVI urged leaders of all religions Tuesday to "utterly refuse" to support any form of violence in the name of faith, while Turkey's top Muslim cleric complained to the pontiff of growing "Islamophobia" in the world. (Associated Press)

A Muslim cleric is quipping back to the Pope about growing Islamophobia in the world. That what my teenagers used to do when house rules were broken; i.e. try to find fault with something else as if that would exonerate their own misdeed.

Mohammedanism arose in violence: to Jews first, then toward Christians. So Pope Benedict XVI proclaims ALL religions must “utterly refuse” to support any form of violence. Dear friends that is impossible among Mohammedans.

The Pope is walking a nearly impossible fine line of trying to represent Christ and not insult Mohammedans. Good luck with that.