I contemplated back and forth on whether I should address what is currently happening on the news or I should turn the other cheek. I eventually decided for it. I started this blog with a soul purpose in mind, to help show people or who knows maybe one day the whole world the truth. There are a lot of discrepancies occurring in today’s world. It is unfortunate to know that we cannot trust the word of our governments’, media and societies to portray the truth. Alas, the truth is getting more and more difficult to come by. So, I wanted to put in time to research the truth and help my fellowman discern the truth from the lies we are fed.
Well, I guess this is a topic that needs no prolonged introduction, so I think I should just delve into it. Religions in general have always been under attack from those select people that do not see room for them in our society. Through history we can see that Christianity was attacked based on the ideology that some people hold that there is no room for science in religion and so on. However, I am not going to talk about what has happened in the past. I am going to speak of occurrences happening now.
Islam is now portrayed and believed by many to be an extremist religion. Hype words have been manipulated to sound almost dirty, frightening and have been tied strictly to Islam. Words including, terrorism, jihad, oppression…etc. The aim is to explain these three terms.
The legal definition of terrorism (USA): the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
How about domestic terrorism, it includes activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Terrorism according to UK law
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1 or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
Terrorism is a term that seems to be used both objectively and subjectively simultaneously to benefit some situations and to blur the truth in others. Let’s take a look at what is happening around the world today. Is the persecution of the Muslims of Burma validated? The burning of live humans, is that not violence? How about the Muslims in Gaza, is it excused that they have been under blockade for seven years? Is it fair that an oppressive “president” is allowed to attack the citizens of his own country for four years (Syria)? Why aren’t these incidents referred to at terrorist attacks? Is it simply because Muslims are the victims and not the oppressors in the aforementioned examples? Are Muslims not human? Is their blood not worthy enough to count for anything? It doesn’t matter what they believe in they are people like you and me.
Let’s move on. Jihad, jihad is a word that is not exactly simplistic. Yes, Allah does require Muslims to perform jihad, but its not what the international community paints it out to mean. There are forms of jihad, there is self-jihad which means going against sinful desires whether it be against the devil or against oneself. If a person spent his/her leisure gambling and one day decided against it on the days that that person experiences turmoil with the desire to return and the abstaining for the sake of Allah; that is self-jihad. Jihad can come in the form of giving charity to those that are oppressed by their governments. And finally, yes jihad can be used to refer to defending one’s religion. Furthermore, jihad in combat has many limits; from its beginning to the end, legitimacy matters. Jihad in the reference to combat is only performed with the authority to do so, whether from the leader of a nation or a leader of an oppressed majority. Basically meaning that there needs to be an established governance. Nevertheless, why does the world accuse only Islam of that practice.
What about Judaism, what does its scriptures preach?
Deuteronomy 20:16
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
Samuel 15:2-4
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
Numbers 25
17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”
Now Christians might argue that they do not follow Mosaic Law. However, the first coming of Jesus didn’t set grounds for what kind of contact a nation should make with another nation. A nation based on this coming would not have a military strength, a judge following this teaching would have to let people off for offenses under the ideology of forgiveness; this would be unjust, a nation couldn’t defend its people and no people would have justice. The law from Moses should fill in these gaps because Jesus intend to amend what was wrong, not remove and set new law. So, what about the second coming? The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament.
13 He wore a robe dyed[a] with blood, and his name was called the Word of God. 14 Heaven’s armies, wearing fine linen that was white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword that he will use to strike down the nations. He is the one who will rule them with an iron rod. And he is the one who will trample the winepress of the Almighty God’s passionate anger. 16 He has a name written on his robe and on his thigh: King of kings and Lord of lords.
The rider then went on to ask the nearby birds to take part:
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he called out with a loud voice and said to all the birds flying high overhead, “Come and gather for God’s great supper. 18 Come and eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of generals, the flesh of the powerful, and the flesh of horses and their riders. Come and eat the flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.”
The rider (Jesus) will go fight a war in the name of God against the disbelievers; Waring with a weapon that comes from his mouth and a large army to strike down all that oppose, nations upon nations, and with such a strict rule as, ” with an iron rod.” He will win this war so easily that birds will have been invited to eat the dead carcasses of those who will have fought him, from kings to slaves, “both small and great.” Thus, none that opposed him will be left alive, no mercy. This is such a stark contrast to the first coming of Jesus with the preaching of turning the other cheek.
The idea that there are people alive in this world that pick and choose the verses that suit their desires is a disturbing thought in itself. When God sends a book, when we hold faith in the book we follow and believe it is the word of God, how does it make sense that we follow and live by certain verses and not by others. Are we really questioning God Almighty’s knowledge of the world, humanity and the future, that we argue that some verses are too outdated for this day and time? How can they be outdated and be the word of the All-knowing, Creator of the heavens and the earth, how can He not know that certain verses would not be suitable for the 21st century or whatever century humanity continues to exist in? If these scriptures are indeed sent from the Lord above then how can they not stand the test of time? If we argue that they simply don’t suit our day and age then we are claiming that these books were written by a lesser being than God. As using the word God in it of itself commands that this entity has certain attributes that make Him worthy of worship.
-S
