An Envious Rage: The Roots Islamic Jihadism Against the U.S.
To The Point News: An Interview With Jack Wheeler
This is an excellent article meant to be read thoughtfully.
From my previous posts, I have stated that the issue at hand in the misnomer "War on Terror" is not that we are in a battle against terrorists, or terrorism; it is a supreme struggle against a deadly religious ideology that fueled by envy and rage, not only at us, but at their own. I cite Al Zarqawi's dedication to killing of Shiite Muslims, as he in fact IS DOING.
If we are to win this war, we MUST fight it not only with guns and bombs, but with a counter-ideology that is superior substantively; a philosophical realism that is Christian to the core. There is no other way to counter Islam...itself a Christian heresy. Relativism can't fight it; it is toothless and spineless. Hinduism, Taoism, Atheism, etc. have no ideological strength to counter the furiously unreasonable credo of Islam. The rampant envy appeasement on the Left will only allow for the theocratic government they blame Christians for promoting, only it will be Islamic (we know that the left has not been consistant with its condemnation of theocracies)
We, who are Christian, in the spirit of Francis of Assisi, must somehow, from the inside, bring revelation and new life to these tortured souls of the religion of "peace." Read the above article and let me know what you think.
Oh, and did I say to read the article?
posted by Underground Logician @ 12:59 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
from the article: Jihadism, Nazism, and Communism are all totalitarian ideologies masochistically obsessed with destroying what they are envious of.
I loved that point and it is the truth.
Also,
Thus liberals are masochists as well – for the more one fears being envied, the more one is driven to masochistic self-humiliation in attempts at envy appeasement. Liberals have a compulsion to apologize to those that envy them, apologize for being white, for being male, for being successful, for the success of their country, their culture, their civilization. This renders liberals incapable of passionately defending America.
Every liberal in their right mind would argue this isn't true about them...but it makes a lot of sense to me. It's the reason why liberals are so hard to argue or reason with.
Sadie:
Keep your eyes open for the liberal appeals to funds towards those of us who are "hurricane-deprived" geographically. They'll sound entitled as if they have a right to receive funds from us rich who can "afford" to live away from the ravages of nature.
I'm ready for the liberal "blast from the bijou."
"Relativism can't fight it; it is toothless and spineless. Hinduism, Taoism, Atheism, etc. have no ideological strength to counter the furiously unreasonable credo of Islam."
So, let me try to understand this (and give me a minute here since I am just a liberal).
First of all, you are painting Islam with a VERY BROAD BRUSH. Take Sufi Islam for example, a mystical brand of Islam that is very much for love, peace and Islam. "Regular Islam" is also for peace and love and unity. It is for the most part, only the fundamentalist Muslims who are for violence and terrorism.
Second, even though I am JUST a liberal (believe it or not) I have read the Bible (and especially) the teachings of Jesus and I do believe he taught peace and love toward one's fellow man. Now, I do believe in war in some cases (WWII for example) however, I believe that it can be avoided in most cases.
As for other religions not being able to counter the violence of fundamental Islam?? I am a Buddhist and we believe in peace just as Jesus did. Does not peace always counter violence? Does not peace always win over hatred and anger?
Just bringing up some questions from a hard-headed liberal.
James:
Thanks for jumping on board!
Well, so you call yourself a liberal. Hmmm, you don't sound like a leftist to me. And, I must agree with you, not all Muslims are warmongering, airplane crashing terrorists. I'm talking about the Jihadists; they take their religion quite seriously for themselves, and for others non-Jihadist Muslims as well. Case in point, Al Zarqawi has declared his intent to kill Shiite Muslims who support the new Iraqii regime. There is intense hatred between the Shiite and the Sunni, and Saudi Arabian variey, Wahabi, is extremely militant.
I'm still scratching my head why the Bush administration is not taking on the Wahabis when they use Saudi oil revenue to fund terrorists groups around the world. All in all, we have a huge problem that I think guns and bombs will never solve. I don't hold to a complete passivity to violence; we do have a right to protect ourselves and our loved ones, plus, the temporal powers of government have the duty to protect the peace, even if it means resorting to a just and violent response.
Yet, guns and bombs are hardly the answer alone. It will take a lot more strategies than just going after terrorists and killing them. It will take implementing an offensive described by Christ in his teachings.
Yes, Jesus promoted a peace; but one that is based on a "violent" and pervasive love of neighbor. Violent in that in the face of resistance, to love anyway, regardless of the response. And, not just for love's sake, but for the neighbor's soul, AND for love of Christ Himself.
His command before He ascended was that the Church go and make disciples, baptising them, and teaching them all He has commanded. Some may call this "proselytising," but in fact, it is a movement of love and sacrifice with the unique message that Christ is remaking and reconstructing humanity into His image and bringing peace on account of this interior change in men's hearts.
And yet, like proselytising, it much like warfare; the battle between good and evil, love and hate, virtue and vice. Jesus never promoted a passiveness that gives the nod to all religions. He declared himself to be THE Way, THE Truth, The Life; no one comes to the Father but through Himself. He promoted the infiltrating of cultures, and like salt, transform those cultures into the culture of his Kingdom. This is precisely why so many Christian men and women have died in the process...it is entirely unwelcome!
With a militant religion of the Islamist Jihadists, a passive "I'm Okay...Your Okay" religion may be very tolerant towards Islam, but Islamists see this as an opportunity to strike and infiltrate with their religion. They will not respect us for our toleration of them. We are the infidels, whether Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Hindu, Taoist, etc. Allah has "deployed" these people to cut off the infidel or subdue them and kill the Jews. No non-violent toleration will have the impact we would like.
Again, I appeal to St. Francis' action with the Muslim leader Seladin (sp?) in the 13th century. He risked his life to enter the sultan's camp and preach the Gospel of Christ to him, quite certain that he would die like his fellow Franciscans did at the hands of the Moors in Spain. Though the Sultan considered it, it was the nature and spirit of Francis and the love he had for Christ that stayed the Muslim leader's hand.
After Francis' visit, Seladin refused to convert to the Catholic faith, but he did let Francis go, much to the chagrin of Francis who thought for sure he would be martyred. Francis' sacrifice was not without fruit. As the story goes, Seladin, on his death bed, converted to the Catholic Faith and was baptised.
It is action like Francis' that will make the difference in our world today. People need to be approached with the Gospel or "good news" of Christ by those so possessed by the love of Christ and for Christ that they would be willing to die for him. This is the spirit of the "warfare" of Christianity; it is a struggle of love for mankind. This is what will begin to turn the tide. We need SAINTS who will go to the matt for Jesus Christ.
However, Christianity is not "Pollyanna" in its approach to the world. Christ warned us that people would hate us, pressure us, insult us, abuse us, destroy us and seek to annihilate us for the sake of the name we bear...Jesus Christ. There will be no peace as long as there are men and women committed to his gospel. It's when we are faithful to his mission that the trouble really begins.
I'm not sure if this is understandable to you or not. Feel free to ask questions. I hope you are not insulted when I use the term liberal in a general sense. There are always exceptions and I'm glad you spoke up, James.
we see and have seen the same thing under many names and many rationals but what is common to them all is a desire to KILL those that are not seen as being the same. If they were succesful in destroying the infidel it would only be a matter of time before they declared many of their own apostate
Mohammed must be choking on what is being done in his name and Jesus is probably there sympathisizing
Mallory:
Thank you for your comments. No doubt Jesus is saddened. As to Mohommed, if you read history, the "Mo man" was a very ruthless man and showed very little mercy to infidels. I'm not so sure he'd be choking as he would be cheering. You may want to check out of few of my Mohammedanism links to the right of my blogpostings.
UL:
Well, I'm glad that I do not fit into the "leftist mold." I do consider myself a liberal though and in many ways actually a bit of a socialist but I digress.
I agree with your frustration with the Bush administration over the Saudi's and their support for radical Islam. My fear (although I do not have any definitive proof on this) is that it is because the Bush family is very tight with the Saudi Royal family. That and the fact that the Saudi's sit on the world's largest oil deposits.
I too do not believe that passivity is the only way. We do have a right to defend ourselves, however, Bush himself has even said that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Not to mention the fact that we did not find those pesky WMD's.
Although I spent two years of my life in Africa as a Christian missionary, I have a hard time believing that Jesus promoted a violent methodology in conversion to Christianity. To use a tired cliche, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink." You can not force people into believing something "for their own good" without having that seriously back-fire.
I also have a hard time believing that proselytising is much like warfare. When I was a missionary I never forced anyone into the faith nor used violent means as war calls for.
Even St. Francis's experience was not a violent methold of conversion.
I also do not believe that this war in Iraq is a war of faith. Not for Americans anyway. As I'm sure you know, there are many faith's represented in our armed forces. Not just Christianity. It is obvious that it is a war of faith for the terrorists. Are THEIR violent actions making YOU want to be a Muslim?? So why would our violent actions make them want to become Christians?
If you saw in my last comment, I used "violent." My meaning is that we are not to be passive in our love of neighbor. We are to actively engage others for their betterment. You have taken me to mean that I want to force conversions! Mot so!
(Ah, the limitations of blogging in communications are legion!)
To put it bluntly, we are not to be passive twits and think everybody is good and we all need to be nice to each other. Phooey!!
Life is tough, love is active and sacrificial and necessary for the life of Christ to be communicated in an effective manner. Islam is the religion that forces conversion or offers death. We must let the truth of Christ out of the cage and let it do its work.
You see what I mean? Passivity and a mindless niceness has nothing to bring to the fray. You don't fight alligators with feathers.
Two comments: First, the article is accurate to an older person who lived through WWII-Korea, Viet Nam, The Cold War-that addressing ALL the masses and foot-soldiers is misdirected energy. The leaders bear the responsibility for their followers, not those who wage war against them.
Second, St. Francis went to the Sultan with full expectation and desire to be martyred for the Lord and His Church. His motives for internal conversion are not the motives for confrontation with radical Islam but for growth in holiness that leads to personal sacrifice and evangelization. Francis returned saddened because he was neither martyred nor successful in converting the Sultan.
It is worth noting that the Sultan supposedly said that if all Christians were like Francis he would become one. But if all Christians were like Francis we would have a world full of individuals ready for martyrdom for Christ! (Given the current situation, we may have our chance, sooner than later.)
When Francis left the region, the Sultan slaughtered 700 Crusader prisoners. So much for peaceful witness to irrational leaders.
You were right, Francis did not think that he could stop the war as much as he could bring the Gospel to the sultan. You illustrate the intense difficulty of our collision with Islam. It must wake us up to the realities of life that are beyond this world. What are we willing to die for? Is it just for a 60 x 120 foot piece of land with a house, picket fence, a family and Fido? There must be more to life than just this existence on earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home